US Missiles Rockets and Bombs
Contents 1
2
3
MGR-1 Honest John
1
1.1
History and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
1.2
Origin of name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
1.3
Support vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
1.4
Survivors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
1.5
Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
1.6
See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
1.7
Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
1.8
References
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
1.9
External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
MIM-3 Nike Ajax
6
2.1
History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
2.1.1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
2.1.2
Project Nike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
2.1.3
Building the team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
2.1.4
Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
2.1.5
Accelerating development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
2.1.6
Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
2.1.7
Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
2.1.8
After Ajax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
2.1.9
Nike boosters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
2.2
Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
2.3
Survivors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
2.3.1
Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
2.3.2
Missiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
2.4
See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
2.5
Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
2.6
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
2.7
External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
MIM-14 Nike Hercules
16
3.1
16
Development and deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
ii
CONTENTS 3.1.1
Project Nike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
3.1.2
Ajax and Hercules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
3.1.3
Solid fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
3.1.4
Bomarc / Hercules controversy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
3.1.5
Operation SNODGRASS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
3.1.6
Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
3.1.7
Improved Nike Hercules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
3.1.8
Anti-missile upgrades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
3.1.9
Mobile Hercules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
3.1.10 Deactivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
3.2.1
Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
3.2.2
Missile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
3.2.3
Detection and tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
3.2.4
Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
3.2.5
Launch sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
3.2.6
Surface-to-surface mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
3.3
Accidental launches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
3.4
Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
3.5
Gallery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
3.6
See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
3.7
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
3.8
External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
3.2
4
Project Nike
28
4.1
History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
4.1.1
Nike Ajax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
4.1.2
Nike Hercules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
4.1.3
Nike Zeus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
4.1.4
Nike-X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
4.1.5
Decommissioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
4.2
Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
4.3
Support vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
4.4
Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
4.5
Nike as sounding rocket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
4.6
Survivors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
4.6.1
Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
4.6.2
Missiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34
4.7
See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
4.8
Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
4.9
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
4.10 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
CONTENTS
iii
5
MGM-5 Corporal
38
5.1
Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38
5.2
Toys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
5.3
Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
5.4
See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
5.5
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
5.6
External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
6
7
8
9
PGM-11 Redstone
41
6.1
History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41
6.2
Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
6.3
Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
6.4
End of service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
6.4.1
Sparta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
6.4.2
New Hampshire landmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
6.4.3
Popular culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
6.5
Gallery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
6.6
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
6.7
External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43
MGM-18 Lacrosse
44
7.1
History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44
7.1.1
Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44
7.1.2
Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44
7.1.3
Designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44
7.2
See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44
7.3
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45
MGR-3 Little John
46
8.1
Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46
8.2
Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46
8.3
Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46
8.4
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
47
PGM-19 Jupiter
48
9.1
History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
48
9.1.1
Development and testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
48
9.1.2
Biological flights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
48
9.1.3
Military deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
49
9.2
Deployment sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51
9.3
Launch vehicle derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51
9.4
Specifications (Jupiter MRBM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51
9.5
Specifications (Juno II launch vehicle) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
52
iv
CONTENTS 9.6
Jupiter MRBM and Juno II launches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
52
9.7
Former operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
52
9.8
Surviving examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
52
9.9
See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
53
9.10 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
53
9.11 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
53
10 MGM-31 Pershing
54
10.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
54
10.2 Pershing I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
55
10.2.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
55
10.2.2 Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
55
10.2.3 Missile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
55
10.2.4 Ground equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
55
10.2.5 Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
56
10.2.6 Satellite launcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
56
10.2.7 APL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
56
10.2.8 Gallery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
56
10.3 Pershing IA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
56
10.3.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
56
10.3.2 Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
57
10.3.3 Launcher and support equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
57
10.3.4 Further improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
57
10.3.5 Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
58
10.3.6 Gallery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
58
10.4 Pershing II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
58
10.4.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
58
10.4.2 Launcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
58
10.4.3 Motors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
58
10.4.4 Reentry vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
58
10.4.5 Radar area correlator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
59
10.4.6 Flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
59
10.4.7 Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
59
10.4.8 Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60
10.5 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60
10.6 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60
10.7 Elimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
61
10.8 Legacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
61
10.8.1 Veterans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
62
10.9 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
62
10.10Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
62
10.11See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
62
CONTENTS
v
10.12References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 MIM-23 Hawk
62 64
11.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
64
11.2 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
66
11.3 Missiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
67
11.3.1 Basic Hawk: MIM-23A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
67
11.3.2 I-Hawk: MIM-23B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
67
11.3.3 System components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
67
11.3.4 Improved ECCM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
67
11.4 Radars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
68
11.5 Country-specific modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
70
11.6 Combat History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
71
11.7 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
72
11.8 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
74
11.9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
74
11.10External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
74
12 MGM-29 Sergeant
75
12.1 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
75
12.2 References
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
75
12.3 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
76
13 MIM-46 Mauler
77
13.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
77
13.1.1 Duster and Vigilante . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
77
13.1.2 FAAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
77
13.1.3 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
78
13.1.4 Cancellation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
79
13.1.5 Aftermath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
79
13.2 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
80
13.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
80
14 MGM-52 Lance
81
14.1 Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
81
14.2 Payload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
81
14.3 Deactivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
81
[3][4]
14.4 Operators
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
81
14.5 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
82
14.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
82
14.7 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
82
15 MIM-72 Chaparral
83
vi
CONTENTS 15.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
83
15.1.1 Mauler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
83
15.1.2 IFAAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
83
15.2 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
83
15.3 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
84
15.4 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
84
15.5 General characteristics (MIM-72A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
85
15.6 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
85
15.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
85
15.8 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
85
16 MIM-104 Patriot
86
16.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
86
16.1.1 Patriot equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
86
16.2 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
89
16.2.1 MIM-104A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
89
16.2.2 MIM-104B (PAC-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
90
16.2.3 MIM-104C (PAC-2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
90
16.2.4 MIM-104D (PAC-2/GEM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
90
16.2.5 MIM-104F (PAC-3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
91
16.2.6 Patriot Advanced Affordable Capability-4 (PAAC-4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
92
16.2.7 The future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
92
16.3 The Patriot Battalion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
92
16.3.1 Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
92
16.4 Persian Gulf War (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
94
16.4.1 Trial by fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
94
16.4.2 Failure at Dhahran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
94
16.4.3 Success rate vs. accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
94
16.5 Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
96
16.6 Service with Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
96
16.6.1 Operation Protective Edge (2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
96
16.6.2 Syrian civil war (2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
96
16.7 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
96
16.8 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
98
16.9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
98
16.10External links and references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 17 Roland (missile)
101
17.1 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 17.2 Carriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 17.3 Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 17.4 Combat use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
CONTENTS
vii
17.5 Rolandgate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 17.6 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 17.7 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 17.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 17.9 Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 17.10External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 18 Terminal High Altitude Area Defense 18.1 Development
106
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
18.1.1 Demonstration-Validation Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 18.1.2 Engineering and manufacturing phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 18.1.3 THAAD-ER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 18.2 Production and deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 18.2.1 First Units Activated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 18.2.2 Deployments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 18.2.3 International users
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
18.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 18.4 References
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
18.5 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 18.5.1 DEM-VAL Test Program
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
18.5.2 EMD Test Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 19 HIMARS
110
19.1 Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 19.1.1 Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 19.2 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 19.3 Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 19.4 Related developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 19.5 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 19.5.1 Potential and future operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 19.6 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 19.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 19.8 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 20 Medium Extended Air Defense System
113
20.1 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 20.2 Major End Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 20.3 Plug-and-Fight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 20.4 Integration and Test History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 20.5 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 20.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 20.7 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
viii
CONTENTS
21 Bazooka
119
21.1 Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 21.1.1 World War I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 21.2 Shaped charge development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 21.2.1 Rocket-borne shaped charge weapons development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 21.2.2 Field experience induced changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 21.3 Operational use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 21.3.1 World War II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 21.3.2 Korean War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 21.3.3 Vietnam War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 21.3.4 Other conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 21.4 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 21.4.1 Rocket Launcher, M1 “Bazooka” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 21.4.2 Rocket Launcher, M1A1 “Bazooka” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 21.4.3 Rocket Launcher, M9 “Bazooka” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 21.4.4 Rocket Launcher, M9A1 “Bazooka” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 21.4.5 Rocket Launcher, M18 “Bazooka” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 21.4.6 Rocket Launcher, M20 “Super Bazooka” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 21.4.7 Rocket Launcher, M20A1 “Super Bazooka” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 21.4.8 Rocket Launcher, M20B1 “Super Bazooka” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 21.4.9 Rocket Launcher, M20A1B1 “Super Bazooka” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 21.4.10 Rocket Launcher, M25 “Three Shot Bazooka” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 21.4.11 RL-83 Blindicide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 21.4.12 3.5 in HYDROAR M20A1B1 Rocket Launcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 21.4.13 88.9mm Instalaza M65 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 21.5 Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 21.5.1 M1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 21.5.2 M1A1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 21.5.3 M9/M9A1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 21.5.4 M20A1/A1B1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 21.6 Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 21.7 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 21.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 21.9 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 21.10External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 22 M47 Dragon
128
22.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 22.2 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 22.2.1 Dragon II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 22.2.2 Super-Dragon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 22.2.3 Saeghe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
CONTENTS
ix
22.3 Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 22.4 Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 22.5 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 22.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 22.7 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 23 BGM-71 TOW
131
23.1 Design and development
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
23.1.1 Launch platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 23.2 Service history
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
23.2.1 Vietnam: first combat use of TOW anti-armor missile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 23.2.2 1982 Lebanon War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 23.2.3 1985 Iran–Iraq War
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
23.2.4 1991 Gulf War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 23.2.5 1993 Somalia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 23.2.6 Other service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 23.3 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 23.4 International variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 23.5 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 23.6 Gallery
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
23.7 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 23.8 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 23.9 References
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
23.10Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 23.11External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 24 XM70E2
136
24.1 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 24.2 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 25 M72 LAW
138
25.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 25.2 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 25.3 Ammunition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 25.4 Service history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 25.4.1 Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 25.4.2 Republic of China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 25.4.3 Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 25.4.4 Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 25.4.5 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 25.4.6 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 25.4.7 The Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
x
CONTENTS 25.5 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 25.5.1 US variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 25.5.2 International versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 25.5.3 International designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 25.6 Specifications (M72A2 and M72A3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 25.6.1 Launcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 25.6.2 Rocket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 25.6.3 Maximum effective ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 25.7 Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 25.7.1 Former users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 25.8 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 25.8.1 Similar weapons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 25.9 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 25.10References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 25.11External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
26 M55 (rocket)
145
26.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 26.2 Disposal and storage programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 26.2.1 Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 26.2.2 Disposal issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 26.3 Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 26.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 26.5 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 26.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 26.7 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 27 AT4
147
27.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 27.2 Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 27.3 Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 27.4 Projectiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 27.5 Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 27.6 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 27.7 References and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 27.8 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 28 M141 Bunker Defeat Munition
153
28.1 Service History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 28.2 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 28.3 Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 28.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
CONTENTS
xi
28.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 28.6 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 29 M24 mine
155
29.1 Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 29.2 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 29.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 30 FIM-43 Redeye
156
30.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 30.2 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 30.3 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 30.4 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 30.5 Comparison chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 30.6 Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 30.6.1 Non-state users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 30.7 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 30.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 30.9 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 31 AGM-114 Hellfire
159
31.1 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 31.2 Combat history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 31.3 Launch vehicles and systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 31.3.1 Manned helicopters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 31.3.2 Fixed-wing aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 31.3.3 Manned boat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 31.3.4 Experimental platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 31.4 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 31.5 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 31.6 Rocket motor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 31.7 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 31.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 31.9 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 32 M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System
165
32.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 32.2 Service history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 32.3 Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 32.4 MLRS rockets and missiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 32.4.1 Selected rocket specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 32.4.2 Alternative Warhead Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 32.5 M993 Launcher specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
xii
CONTENTS 32.6 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 32.7 Former Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 32.8 Nicknames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 32.9 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 32.10References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 32.11External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
33 Hydra 70
170
33.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 33.1.1 Mk 66 rocket motor variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 33.2 Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 33.2.1 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 33.2.2 Common U.S. Mk 66 compatible launchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 33.3 Warheads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 33.3.1 Fuzing options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 33.3.2 Common warheads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 33.4 Mk 66 rocket motor technical data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 33.5 Precision guided Hydra 70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 33.6 Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 33.7 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 33.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 33.9 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 34 M202 FLASH
173
34.1 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 34.2 Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 34.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 34.4 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 34.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 34.6 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 35 M139 bomblet
175
35.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 35.2 Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 35.3 Tests involving the M139 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 35.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 35.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 36 Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket
177
36.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 36.2 US Mk 40 FFAR Launchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 36.3 Warheads for the Mk 40 Motor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 36.3.1 Fuzing Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
CONTENTS
xiii
36.3.2 US military Warheads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 36.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 36.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 36.6 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 37 T34 Calliope
180
37.1 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 37.2 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 37.3 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 37.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 38 AIR-2 Genie
181
38.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 38.2 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 38.3 Specifications (AIR-2A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 38.4 Survivors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 38.5 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 38.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 39 BOAR
184
39.1 Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 39.2 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 39.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 39.4 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 40 Hopi (missile)
186
40.1 Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 40.2 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 40.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 41 AGM-76 Falcon
187
41.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 41.2 Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 41.3 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 42 ASALM
188
42.1 Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 42.2 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 42.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 42.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 43 Diamondback (missile)
190
43.1 Development history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 43.2 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
xiv
CONTENTS
44 Sky Scorcher
191
44.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 44.2 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 45 Wagtail (missile)
192
45.1 Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 45.2 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 45.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 45.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 46 ADR-8
193
46.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 46.2 Operational use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 46.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 47 AGR-14 ZAP
194
47.1 Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 47.2 Development and cancellation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 47.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 48 MQR-13 BMTS
195
48.1 Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 48.2 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 48.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 48.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 49 MQR-16 Gunrunner
197
49.1 Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 49.2 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 49.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 50 Ram (rocket)
198
50.1 Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 50.2 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 50.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 50.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 51 LOCAT
200
51.1 Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 51.2 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 51.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 52 LTV-N-4
201
52.1 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
CONTENTS 53 Gimlet (rocket)
xv 202
53.1 Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 53.2 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 53.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 54 Zuni (rocket)
204
54.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 54.2 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 54.3 Student use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 54.4 Laser Guided Zuni Rocket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 54.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 54.6 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 55 Shavetail
206
55.1 Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 55.2 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 55.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 56 BGM-109G Ground Launched Cruise Missile
207
56.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 56.2 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 56.2.1 Design & employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 56.2.2 NATO Deployment & protests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 56.2.3 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 56.2.4 USAF BGM-109G GLCM Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 56.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 56.4 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 56.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 56.6 Bilbiography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 56.7 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 57 SM-64 Navaho
211
57.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 57.2 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 57.3 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 57.4 Survivors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 57.5 Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 57.6 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 57.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 57.8 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 58 SM-62 Snark
214
58.1 Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
xvi
CONTENTS 58.1.1 Technical description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 58.2 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 58.3 Survivors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 58.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 58.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 58.5.1 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 58.5.2 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 58.6 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
59 SSM-N-8 Regulus
217
59.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 59.1.1 Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 59.2 Regulus II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 59.2.1 Ships fitted with Regulus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 59.2.2 Replacement and legacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 59.2.3 Surviving examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 59.3 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 59.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 59.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 59.6 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 60 MGM-13 Mace
220
60.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 60.2 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 60.3 Survivors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 60.4 Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 60.5 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 60.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 60.7 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 61 MGM-1 Matador
223
61.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 61.2 Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 61.3 Launch crew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 61.4 Variants and design stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 61.5 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 61.6 Survivors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 61.7 Specifications (MGM-1C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 61.8 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 61.9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 61.10External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 62 Republic-Ford JB-2
228
CONTENTS
xvii
62.1 Wartime development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 62.2 Postwar testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 62.3 JB-2 survivors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 62.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 62.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 62.6 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 63 Alpha Draco
233
63.1 Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 63.2 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 63.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 63.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 63.5 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 64 Crow (missile)
235
64.1 Development and RARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 64.2 Crow I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 64.3 Controlled Crow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 64.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 64.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 65 MGM-51 Shillelagh
237
65.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 65.2 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 65.3 The Sheridan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 65.4 M60A2 “Starship” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 65.5 MBT-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 65.6 References
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
65.7 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 66 PGM-17 Thor
240
66.1 Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 66.2 Initial development as an IRBM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 66.3 First launches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 66.4 Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 66.5 Noteworthy Thor IRBM flights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 66.6 Launch vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 66.7 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 66.8 Specifications (PGM-17A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 66.9 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 66.10References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 66.11External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
xviii
CONTENTS
67 SM-65 Atlas
245
67.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 67.2 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 67.3 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 67.3.1 Convair XSM-16A/X-11/SM-65A Atlas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 67.3.2 Convair X-12/SM-65B Atlas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 67.3.3 SM-65C Atlas
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
67.3.4 SM-65D Atlas
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
67.3.5 SM-65E Atlas
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
67.3.6 SM-65F Atlas
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
67.4 Warhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 67.5 Operational deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 67.5.1 Atlas-D deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 67.5.2 Atlas-E deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 67.5.3 Atlas-F deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 67.6 Service history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 67.7 Launch history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 67.8 Retirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 67.9 NASA use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 67.10Survivors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 67.11Specifications (Atlas ICBM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 68 SM-68 Titan
254
68.1 Titan I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 68.2 Titan II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 68.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 68.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 69 SSM-A-5 Boojum
256
69.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 69.2 Cancellation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 69.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 69.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 70 Supersonic Low Altitude Missile 70.1 Reactor design 70.2 References
258
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
70.3 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 71 AAM-A-1 Firebird
260
71.1 Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 71.2 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 71.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
CONTENTS
xix
71.4 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 72 AAM-N-4 Oriole
262
72.1 Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 72.2 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 73 AAM-N-5 Meteor
264
73.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264 73.2 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264 74 AIM-26 Falcon
265
74.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 74.2 Specifications (GAR-11/AIM-26A)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
74.3 Survivors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 74.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 74.5 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 75 AIM-47 Falcon
267
75.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 75.1.1 Development for XF-108 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 75.1.2 Development for YF-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 75.2 Legacy
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
75.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 75.4 References
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
75.5 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 76 AIM-54 Phoenix
269
76.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 76.1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 76.1.2 AIM-54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 76.2 Usage in comparison to other weapon systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 76.2.1 Active guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 76.3 Service history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 76.3.1 U.S. combat experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 76.3.2 Iranian combat experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 76.4 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 76.5 Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272 76.6 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 76.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 76.8 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 77 AIM-68 Big Q
274
77.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 77.2 Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
xx
CONTENTS 77.3 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
78 AIM-82
275
78.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 78.2 Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 78.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 78.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 79 AIM-4 Falcon
276
79.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276 79.2 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 79.2.1 Vietnam War: U.S. AIM-4 Falcon Air to Air Victories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 79.3 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 79.4 Specifications (GAR-1D/ −2B / AIM-4C/D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 79.5 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 79.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 79.6.1 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 79.6.2 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 80 AIM-7 Sparrow
280
80.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 80.1.1 Sparrow I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 80.1.2 Sparrow II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 80.1.3 Sparrow X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 80.1.4 Sparrow III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 80.1.5 U.S. AIM-7 Sparrow Aerial Combat Victories in the Vietnam War 1965-1973 . . . . . . . 282 80.2 Foreign versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 80.2.1 Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 80.2.2 Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 80.2.3 UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 80.2.4 People’s Republic of China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 80.3 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 80.4 Principle of guidance (semi-active version) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 80.5 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 80.6 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 80.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 80.8 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 81 AIM-9 Sidewinder
284
81.1 Origins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 81.1.1 Name selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 81.2 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 81.3 Operational history & design development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
CONTENTS
xxi
81.3.1 Combat debut: Taiwan Strait, 1958
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
81.3.2 Development during early 1960s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 81.3.3 USAF adoption from 1964 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288 81.3.4 Vietnam War service 1965–1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288 81.3.5 Introduction of all-aspect Sidewinders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 81.3.6 Developments since 1982
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
81.4 Other Sidewinder developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292 81.4.1 TC-1 Republic of China (Taiwan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292 81.4.2 Chaparral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292 81.4.3 AGM-122A Sidearm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292 81.4.4 Anti-tank variant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 81.4.5 Larger rocket motor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 81.5 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 81.5.1 Current operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 81.5.2 Former operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 81.6 Notable pilots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 81.7 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 81.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 81.8.1 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 81.8.2 Citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 81.8.3 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 81.9 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 82 Brazo
297
82.1 Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 82.2 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 82.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 82.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 83 Pye Wacket
299
83.1 Genesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 83.2 Design
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
83.3 Cancellation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 83.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 83.5 References 84 AGM-86 ALCM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 301
84.1 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 84.1.1 AGM-86B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 84.1.2 AGM-86C/D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 84.2 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 84.2.1 AGM-86A/B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
xxii
CONTENTS 84.2.2 AGM-86C/D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
84.3 Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302 84.4 Future of the ALCM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302 84.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 84.6 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 84.7 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 85 AGM-12 Bullpup
304
85.1 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304 85.2 Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304 85.3 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304 85.4 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304 85.5 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 85.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 85.7 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 86 AGM-131 SRAM II
306
86.1 SRAM-T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306 86.2 Cancellation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306 86.3 Specification[1] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306 86.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306 86.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306 87 AGM-28 Hound Dog
307
87.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307 87.2 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307 87.3 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 87.3.1 Missile Tail Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 87.3.2 Numbers in Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 87.4 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310 87.5 Operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310 87.5.1 Units using the Hound Dog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310 87.6 Survivors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311 87.7 Popular culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312 87.8 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312 87.9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312 88 AGM-65 Maverick
314
88.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314 88.2 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 88.3 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 88.4 Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316 88.5 Launch platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316
CONTENTS
xxiii
88.5.1 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316 88.5.2 Export . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317 88.6 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318 88.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318 88.8 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319 89 AGM-69 SRAM
320
89.1 Service history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321 89.2 Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321 89.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321 89.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321 89.5 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321 90 AGM-79 Blue Eye
322
90.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322 90.2 Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322 90.3 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322 91 ASM-N-5 Gorgon V
323
91.1 Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323 91.2 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323 92 Bold Orion
324
92.1 Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 92.2 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 92.2.1 ASAT test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 92.2.2 Legacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 92.3 Launch history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 92.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 92.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 92.6 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326 93 GAM-63 RASCAL
327
93.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 93.2 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 93.3 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 93.4 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 93.5 Operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 93.6 Survivors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 93.7 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330 93.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330 93.9 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330 94 GAM-87 Skybolt
331
xxiv
CONTENTS
94.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 94.1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 94.1.2 ALBMs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 94.1.3 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 94.1.4 Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 94.1.5 Cancellation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 94.2 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 94.3 Survivors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 94.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 94.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 94.5.1 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 94.6 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 94.7 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 95 High Virgo
334
95.1 Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334 95.2 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334 95.2.1 Anti-satellite test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334 95.3 Launch history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335 95.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335 95.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335 96 AGM-123 Skipper II
336
96.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336 96.2 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336 97 Harpoon (missile)
337
97.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 97.1.1 Harpoon Block 1D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338 97.1.2 SLAM ATA (Block 1G) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338 97.1.3 Harpoon Block 1J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338 97.1.4 Harpoon Block II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338 97.1.5 Harpoon Block III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339 97.2 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339 97.3 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339 97.4 General characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342 97.5 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343 97.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343 97.7 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343 98 UGM-89 Perseus
344
98.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344 98.2 Design overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344
CONTENTS
xxv
98.3 Cancellation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344 98.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344 98.5 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344 98.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345 98.7 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345 99 AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER
346
99.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346 99.2 Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346 99.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346 99.4 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347 100Bat (guided bomb)
348
100.1Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348 100.2Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348 100.3Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348 100.4Existing missiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 100.5See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 100.6References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 100.7External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 101GT-1 (missile)
350
101.1Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350 101.2Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350 101.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350 102LBD Gargoyle
352
102.1See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352 102.2Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352 102.3External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352 103Long Range Anti-Ship Missile
353
103.1Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353 103.2History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354 103.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354 103.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354 103.5External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355 104Boeing Ground-to-Air Pilotless Aircraft
356
104.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356 104.1.1 German work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356 104.1.2 US Army program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356 104.1.3 GAPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357 104.1.4 Computer work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
xxvi
CONTENTS 104.1.5 Bomarc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
104.2Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357 104.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358 104.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358 105CIM-10 Bomarc
359
105.1Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359 105.2Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361 105.2.1 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361 105.2.2 Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362 105.3Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362 105.4Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362 105.5Surviving missiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363 105.6See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364 105.7References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364 105.7.1 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366 105.8External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366 106LIM-49 Nike Zeus
367
106.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367 106.1.1 Early ABM studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367 106.1.2 Nike II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368 106.1.3 Army vs. Air Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368 106.1.4 Gaither Report, missile gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369 106.1.5 Zeus B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369 106.1.6 Exchange ratio and other problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370 106.1.7 Project Defender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371 106.1.8 More problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371 106.1.9 Kennedy and Zeus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372 106.1.10Nike-X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373 106.1.11Perfect or nothing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373 106.1.12Cancellation and the ABM gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374 106.2Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374 106.3Anti-satellite use
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376
106.4Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377 106.4.1 Early detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377 106.4.2 Battery layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377 106.4.3 Zeus missiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379 106.5Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379 106.6See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379 106.7Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379 106.8References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380
CONTENTS
xxvii
106.8.1 Citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380 106.8.2 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381 106.9External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382 107LIM-49 Spartan
383
107.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383 107.1.1 Zeus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383 107.1.2 Cancellation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383 107.1.3 Nike X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384 107.1.4 Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384 107.2Survivors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384 107.3Photo gallery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384 107.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384 107.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384 107.6External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385 108Nike-X
386
108.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386 108.1.1 Nike Zeus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386 108.1.2 Zeus problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387 108.1.3 Nike-X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388 108.1.4 System concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388 108.1.5 Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389 108.1.6 Continued pressure to deploy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392 108.1.7 Nike-X becomes Sentinel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393 108.2Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393 108.2.1 MAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393 108.2.2 MSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394 108.2.3 Sprint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395 108.2.4 Zeus EX/Spartan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395 108.2.5 Re-entry testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395 108.3Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396 108.3.1 MAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396 108.3.2 MSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397 108.3.3 Sprint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397 108.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398 108.5Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398 108.6References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398 108.6.1 Citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398 108.6.2 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399 109RIM-2 Terrier
401
xxviii
CONTENTS
109.1History
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401
109.2Terrier versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401 109.3Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401 109.4Gallery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402 109.5See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402 109.6References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402 109.7External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402 110RIM-8 Talos
403
110.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403 110.2Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404 110.3Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404 110.4Fate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404 110.5Gallery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404 110.6See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404 110.7Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404 110.8References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405 110.9External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405 111RIM-24 Tartar
406
111.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406 111.2Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406 111.3Ships carrying Tartar fire control systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406 111.4Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406 111.5External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407 112RIM-66 Standard
408
112.1Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408 112.1.1 Standard missile 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408 112.1.2 Standard missile 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408 112.2Contractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408 112.3Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409 112.4Deployment history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409 112.4.1 SM-1 Medium Range Block I/II/III/IV, RIM-66A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409 112.4.2 SM-1 Medium Range Block V, RIM-66B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409 112.4.3 SM-1 Medium Range Blocks VI/VIA/VIB, RIM-66E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409 112.4.4 SM-2 Medium Range Block I, RIM-66C/D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409 112.4.5 SM-2 Medium Range Block II, RIM-66G/H/J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409 112.4.6 SM-2 Medium Range Block III/IIIA/IIIB, RIM-66K/L/M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410 112.4.7 Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410 112.5Surface to air variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410 112.6Land Attack Standard Missile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410
CONTENTS
xxix
112.7Current operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410 112.8Former operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412 112.9See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412 112.10References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412 112.11External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412 113SAM-N-2 Lark
413
113.1Early guided missile development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413 113.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413 114Sprint (missile)
414
114.1Design predecessors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414 114.2Engines & Propellant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414 114.3Survivors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415 114.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415 114.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415 114.6External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415 115AIM-120 AMRAAM
416
115.1Origins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416 115.1.1 AIM-7 Sparrow MRM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416 115.1.2 AIM-54 Phoenix LRM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416 115.1.3 ACEVAL/AIMVAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416 115.1.4 Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417 115.2Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417 115.3Operational features summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418 115.4Guidance system overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418 115.4.1 Interception course stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418 115.4.2 Terminal stage and impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418 115.4.3 Boresight mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418 115.5Kill probability and tactics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418 115.5.1 General considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418 115.5.2 Lower-capability targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419 115.5.3 Similarly armed targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419 115.6Variants and upgrades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419 115.6.1 Air-to-air missile versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419 115.6.2 Ground-launched systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420 115.7Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421 115.8Foreign sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421 115.9Cold weather malfunctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421 115.10Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422 115.11See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422
xxx
CONTENTS 115.11.1Similar weapons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422 115.12References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422 115.13External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423
116AN/TWQ-1 Avenger
424
116.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424 116.2Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424 116.3Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425 116.3.1 Boeing/Shorts Starstreak Avenger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425 116.3.2 Boeing/Matra Guardian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425 116.3.3 Avengers during the Iraq War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425 116.3.4 Avenger DEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425 116.3.5 Avenger Multi-Role Weapon System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425 116.3.6 Accelerated Improved Interceptor Initiative (AI3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425 116.3.7 Other variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425 116.4Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425 116.4.1 Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426 116.4.2 Sensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426 116.4.3 Weapons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426 116.5Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426 116.6See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426 116.6.1 Comparable systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426 116.7References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426 116.8External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427 117GTR-18 Smokey Sam
428
117.1Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428 117.2Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428 117.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428 118Operation Bumblebee
430
118.1Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430 118.2Field testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430 118.3Program results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431 118.4References
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431
118.5External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431 119RIM-50 Typhon
432
119.1See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432 119.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432 119.3External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432 120RIM-67 Standard
433
CONTENTS
xxxi
120.1RIM-67A SM-1 Extended Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433 120.2RIM-67 and RIM-156 SM-2 Extended Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433 120.3Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 434 120.3.1 Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 434 120.4Surface to air variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 434 120.5Gallery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 434 120.6See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435 120.7References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435 120.8External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435 121RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile
436
121.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436 121.2Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436 121.2.1 US Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436 121.3Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436 121.3.1 Block 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436 121.3.2 Block 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437 121.3.3 Block 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437 121.3.4 HAS Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437 121.3.5 SeaRAM (weapon system) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437 121.4General characteristics (Block 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438 121.5Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438 121.6References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438 121.7External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439 122RIM-161 Standard Missile 3
440
122.1Motivation and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440 122.2Operation and performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440 122.3Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441 122.4Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442 122.4.1 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442 122.4.2 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442 122.4.3 Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443 122.4.4 Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443 122.4.5 Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443 122.5In media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443 122.6Gallery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443 122.7See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443 122.8References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443 122.9External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445 123RIM-174 Standard ERAM
446
xxxii
CONTENTS
123.1Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446 123.2History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446 123.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447 123.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447 123.5External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447 124BGM-75 AICBM
448
124.1Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448 124.2Cancellation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448 124.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448 125Davy Crockett (nuclear device)
450
125.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450 125.2Proposed German military use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451 125.3Museum examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451 125.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452 125.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452 125.6External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452 126LGM-118 Peacekeeper
453
126.1Development and deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453 126.1.1 Minuteman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453 126.1.2 Golden Arrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 454 126.1.3 WS-120A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 454 126.1.4 INS advances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455 126.1.5 Counterforce Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455 126.1.6 MX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455 126.1.7 Basing options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456 126.1.8 SLBMs come of age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456 126.1.9 Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457 126.2Retirement and deactivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457 126.3Operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458 126.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458 126.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458 126.5.1 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458 126.5.2 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458 126.6External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459 127LGM-25C Titan II
460
127.1Titan II missile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 460 127.1.1 LGM-25C Missile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 460 127.1.2 Airframe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461 127.1.3 Stage I airframe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461
CONTENTS
xxxiii
127.1.4 Stage II airframe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461 127.1.5 Missile characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461 127.1.6 Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461 127.1.7 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462 127.1.8 Launch history and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462 127.1.9 Service history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464 127.2Operational units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465 127.3Titan II missile disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466 127.4Titan II launch vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467 127.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467 127.6See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467 127.7References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 468 127.8External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 468 128LGM-30 Minuteman 128.1History
469
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469
128.1.1 Edward Hall and solid fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469 128.1.2 Missile farm concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 470 128.1.3 Guidance system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 470 128.1.4 The Puzzle of Polaris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471 128.1.5 Kennedy and Minuteman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472 128.1.6 Minuteman and counterforce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472 128.1.7 Minuteman-I (LGM-30A/B or SM-80/HSM-80A)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472
128.1.8 Minuteman-II (LGM-30F) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473 128.1.9 Minuteman-III (LGM-30G): the current model
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474
128.2Current and future deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 476 128.3Testing
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 476
128.4Advanced Maneuverable Reentry Vehicle
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 476
128.5Related programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477 128.6Influences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478 128.7Appearances in media 128.8Other roles
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478
128.8.1 Mobile Minuteman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478 128.8.2 Air Launched ICBM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478 128.8.3 Emergency Rocket Communications System (ERCS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478 128.8.4 Satellite launching role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479 128.8.5 Ground and air launch targets 128.9Operator
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479
128.9.1 Operational units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479 128.10See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480 128.11Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480 128.12References
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480
xxxiv
CONTENTS
128.13External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482 129Mark 45 torpedo
483
129.1Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483 129.2History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483 129.3Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483 129.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483 130Medium Atomic Demolition Munition
484
130.1See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 484 130.2External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 484 131B61 Family
485
131.1B61 nuclear bomb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485 131.1.1 Initial development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485 131.1.2 Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485 131.2Warheads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485 131.2.1 W69 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485 131.2.2 W73 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485 131.2.3 W80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485 131.2.4 W81 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486 131.2.5 W84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486 131.2.6 W85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486 131.2.7 W86 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486 131.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486 131.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486 132RACER IV
487
132.1References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 487 133Special Atomic Demolition Munition
488
133.1See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 488 133.2External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 488 134T-4 Atomic Demolition Munition
489
134.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489 134.2Media coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489 134.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489 134.4External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489 135Tactical Atomic Demolition Munition
490
135.1See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 490 135.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 490
CONTENTS 136Titan (rocket family)
xxxv 491
136.1Titan I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491 136.2Titan II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491 136.3Titan III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491 136.4Titan IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492 136.5Rocket fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492 136.6Accidents at Titan II silos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492 136.7Retirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493 136.8Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493 136.9See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493 136.10Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493 136.11References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 494 136.12External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 494 137HGM-25A Titan I
495
137.1Origins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495 137.2Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495 137.3Research and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495 137.4Operational deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496 137.5Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497 137.6Service history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498 137.7Retirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498 137.8Static displays and articles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498 137.9External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499 137.10See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499 138Trident (missile)
502
138.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502 138.1.1 D5 Life Extension Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503 138.2Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503 138.2.1 Trident I (C4) UGM-96A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504 138.2.2 Trident II (D5) UGM-133A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504 138.3Conventional Trident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504 138.4Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504 138.5See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504 138.6References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505 138.7External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505 139UGM-133 Trident II
506
139.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 506 139.2Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507 139.2.1 Sequence of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507
xxxvi
CONTENTS
139.3Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 508 139.4Submarines currently armed with Trident II missiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 508 139.5See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 508 139.6References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 508 140UGM-73 Poseidon
510
140.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510 140.2Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510 140.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510 140.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510 141UGM-96 Trident I
511
141.1See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511 141.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511 142W21
512
142.1References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512 143W41
513
143.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513 143.2Conspiracy theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513 143.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513 144W42
514
144.1References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 514 145W60
515
145.1References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515 146W63
516
146.1References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516 147W64
517
147.1References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517 148W65
518
148.1References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 518 149W69
519
149.1Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 519 149.2See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 519 149.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 519 150MGM-140 ATACMS
520
150.1Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520 150.1.1 MGM-140A – Block I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520
CONTENTS
xxxvii
150.1.2 MGM-140B – Block IA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520 150.1.3 MGM-164 ATacMS – Block II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520 150.1.4 MGM-168 ATacMS – Block IVA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520 150.2Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520 150.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521 150.3.1 Comparable missiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521 150.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521 150.5External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521 151RGM-59 Taurus
522
151.1Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522 151.2Cancellation and follow-ups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522 151.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522 151.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522 151.5External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523 152Ares (missile)
524
153MGM-134 Midgetman
525
153.1Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525 153.1.1 Design
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525
153.1.2 Carrier vehicle: HML 153.1.3 Cancellation
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 526
153.2Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 526 153.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 526 153.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 526 153.5External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 526 154RTV-A-2 Hiroc
527
154.1References and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 527 155ArcLight (missile)
528
155.1See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 528 155.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 528 156Hera (rocket)
529
156.1Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 529 156.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 529 156.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530 157AGM-45 Shrike
531
157.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531 157.2Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531 157.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 532
xxxviii
CONTENTS
157.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 532 157.5External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 532 158AGM-78 Standard ARM
533
158.1Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533 158.2Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533 158.3External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 534 159AGM-88 HARM
535
159.1Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535 159.2History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535 159.2.1 Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535 159.2.2 AGM-88E AARGM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535 159.3Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 536 159.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 536 159.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 536 159.6External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537 160AGM-122 Sidearm
538
160.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538 160.2See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538 160.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538 160.4External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538 161AGM-136 Tacit Rainbow
539
161.1Survivors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539 161.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539 161.3External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539 162ASM-N-8 Corvus
540
162.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 540 162.2Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 540 162.3Gallery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 540 162.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 540 162.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 540 163GAM-67 Crossbow
541
163.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541 163.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541 164ADM-141 TALD
542
164.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 542 164.2Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 542 164.2.1 ADM-141A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 542
CONTENTS
xxxix
164.2.2 ADM-141B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 542 164.2.3 ADM-141C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 542 164.3Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543 164.4Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543 164.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543 164.6See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543 165ADM-144
544
165.1References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 544 165.2See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 544 166ADM-160 MALD
545
166.1Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545 166.1.1 DARPA MALD program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545 166.1.2 New USAF competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545 166.1.3 US Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546 166.1.4 British interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546 166.2Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546 166.2.1 Experimental variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546 166.3Specifications (Northrop Grumman ADM-160A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546 166.4Specifications (Raytheon ADM-160B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 547 166.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 547 166.6See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 547 167ADM-20 Quail
548
167.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 548 167.2Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 548 167.3Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549 167.4Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549 167.5Operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549 167.6Survivors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549 167.7See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550 167.8References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550 168Beechcraft MQM-107 Streaker
552
168.1Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 552 168.2Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 552 168.3Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 552 168.4Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553 168.5Specifications (MQM-107B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553 168.6See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553 168.7References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553
xl
CONTENTS
169Northrop BQM-74 Chukar
554
169.1Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 554 169.2Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 554 169.2.1 MQM-74A Chukar I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 554 169.2.2 XBQM-108 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555 169.2.3 MQM-74C Chukar II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555 169.2.4 BQM-74C Chukar III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555 169.2.5 BQM-74E Chukar III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555 169.2.6 Future versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555 169.3Gulf War combat use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 556 169.4USS Chancellorsville accident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 556 169.5Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 556 169.6Related content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 557 169.7References
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 557
170XGAM-71 Buck Duck
558
170.1Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 558 170.2See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 558 170.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 558 171XSM-73 Goose
560
171.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 560 171.2Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 560 171.3Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561 171.4Operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561 171.5Survivors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561 171.6See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561 171.7References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561 172XSM-74
563
172.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563 172.2Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563 172.3Operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563 172.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563 172.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563 173Cornelius XBG-3
564
173.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 564 173.2See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 564 173.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 564 174Fairchild BQ-3
566
174.1Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566
CONTENTS
xli
174.2Flight testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566 174.3Specifications (XBQ-3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566 174.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566 174.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567 175Fleetwings BQ-1
568
175.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568 175.2Flight testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568 175.3Specifications (XBQ-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568 175.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568 175.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568 176Fleetwings BQ-2
570
176.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570 176.2Flight testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570 176.3Specifications (XBQ-2A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570 176.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570 176.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571 177Gorgon (missile family)
572
177.1Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 572 177.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573 177.3External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573 178Interstate TDR
574
178.1Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574 178.2Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574 178.3Aircraft on display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575 178.4Variants and operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575 178.5Specifications (TDR-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575 178.6See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 576 178.7References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 576 178.8External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 576 179Interstate XBDR
577
179.1Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577 179.2Testing and Cancellation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577 179.3Specifications (XBDR-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577 179.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577 179.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578 179.6External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578 180JB-4
579
180.1Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579
xlii
CONTENTS 180.2Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579 180.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579 180.4External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 580
181KAN Little Joe
581
181.1Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581 181.2Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581 181.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581 181.4External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 582 182Northrop JB-1 Bat
583
182.1References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583 183Piper LBP
584
183.1Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584 183.2Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584 183.3Specifications (LBP-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584 183.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584 183.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585 184Pratt-Read LBE
586
184.1Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586 184.2Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586 184.3Specifications (LBE-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586 184.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586 184.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587 185Taylorcraft LBT
588
185.1Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588 185.2Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588 185.3Specifications (LBT-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588 185.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 589 185.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 589 186ASM-135 ASAT
590
186.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 590 186.2Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 590 186.3Test launches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591 186.4Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592 186.5Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592 186.6Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592 186.7Survivors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592 186.8Popular culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592 186.9See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593
CONTENTS
xliii
186.10References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593 186.11External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593 187MGM-157 EFOGM
594
187.1See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 594 187.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 594 188AGM-153
595
188.1Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595 188.2See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595 189AGM-159 JASSM
596
189.1See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 596 190AGM-169 Joint Common Missile
597
190.1Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597 190.2Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597 190.3Program status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597 190.4Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597 190.5See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597 190.6References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597 190.7External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 598 191AGM-53 Condor
599
191.1Development history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599 191.2Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599 191.3Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599 191.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599 192AGM-63
600
192.1Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600 192.2External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600 193AGM-64 Hornet
601
193.1Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 601 194AGM-80 Viper
602
194.1Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 602 194.2External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 602 195AGM-83 Bulldog
603
195.1Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 603 196AIM-152 AAAM
604
196.1Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 604
xliv
CONTENTS 196.2Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 605 196.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 605 196.4External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 605
197AIM-95 Agile
606
197.1Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 606 197.2AIMVAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 606 197.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 607 197.4External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 607 198AIM-97 Seekbat
608
198.1Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 608 198.2See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 608 199AQM-127 SLAT
609
199.1Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 609 199.2Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 609 199.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 609 199.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 609 200FGR-17 Viper
611
200.1Program history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611 200.1.1 Start of the program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611 200.1.2 Poor requirements statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611 200.1.3 Over-optimistic statements by the prime contractor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611 200.1.4 Safety issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611 200.1.5 Scandal and congressional intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612 200.1.6 End of the program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612 200.2Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612 200.3References and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612 201Have Dash
613
201.1Have Dash I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613 201.2Have Dash II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613 201.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613 202MGM-166 LOSAT
614
202.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 614 202.1.1 HVM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 614 202.1.2 AAWS-H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 614 202.1.3 Cancellation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615 202.2Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615 202.3External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615
CONTENTS
xlv
203NOTS-EV-2 Caleb
616
203.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616 203.2Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616 203.3Launch history
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617
203.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617 203.5References
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617
204RIM-101
618
204.1Development and cancellation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 618 204.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 618 204.3External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 618 205RIM-113
619
205.1Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619 205.2Development and cancellation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619 205.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619 206RIM-85
620
206.1Development and cancellation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620 206.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620 206.3External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620 207SSM-N-2 Triton
621
207.1Development History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621 207.1.1 Possible platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621 207.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 622 207.3Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 622 208UUM-125 Sea Lance
623
208.1Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623 208.2See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623 208.3Suggested Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624 208.4External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624 209Vought HVM
625
209.1References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 625 2103.5-Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket
626
210.1Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 626 210.2Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 626 210.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 626 210.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 626 210.5External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627
xlvi
CONTENTS
211AUM-N-2 Petrel
628
211.1Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 628 211.2See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 628 211.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 628 211.4External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 628 212Mousetrap (weapon)
629
212.1Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 629 212.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 629 212.3External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 629 213RUM-139 VL-ASROC
630
213.1References
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 630
214RUR-5 ASROC
631
214.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 631 214.2Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 632 214.3Specific installations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 632 214.4Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 632 214.5See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633 214.6References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633 214.7External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633 215RUR-4 Weapon Alpha
634
215.1References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 634 215.2Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 634 215.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 634 216UUM-44 SUBROC
635
216.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635 216.2Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635 216.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 636 216.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 636 216.5External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 636 2174.5-Inch Beach Barrage Rocket
637
217.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 637 217.2Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 637 217.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 637 217.3.1 Citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 637 217.3.2 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 637 2187.2-Inch Demolition Rocket
639
218.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 639
CONTENTS
xlvii
218.2Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 639 218.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 639 219Lobber
641
219.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 641 219.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 641 219.3External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642 220M16 (rocket)
643
220.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643 220.2Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643 220.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643 220.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643 221M8 (rocket)
645
221.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645 221.2Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645 221.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645 221.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645 221.5External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 646 222RTV-A-3 NATIV
647
222.1References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 647 223Urban Assault Weapon
648
223.1See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 648 223.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 648 223.3External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 648 224Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon
649
224.1Service history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 649 224.1.1 Follow-On To SMAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 649 224.1.2 SMAW II program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 649 224.1.3 SMAW II Serpent
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 649
224.2Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650 224.2.1 Rockets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650 224.3Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650 224.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 651 224.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 651 225RIM-7 Sea Sparrow
652
225.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 652 225.1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 652 225.1.2 Point defence missile system (PDMS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 652
xlviii
CONTENTS 225.1.3 Basic point defence missile system (BPDMS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 653 225.1.4 Improved basic point defense missile system (IBPDMS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 654 225.1.5 Missile upgrades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 654 225.1.6 Evolved Sea Sparrow missile (ESSM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 655
225.2Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 656 225.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 657 225.3.1 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 657 225.3.2 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 657 225.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 657 226RIM-162 ESSM
658
226.1Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 658 226.2Launchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 658 226.2.1 Mk 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 658 226.2.2 Mk 48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 658 226.2.3 Mk 56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 658 226.3Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 658 226.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659 226.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659 226.6External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659 227AGM-124 Wasp
660
227.1Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 660 228Compact Kinetic Energy Missile
661
228.1Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 661 228.2Program status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 661 228.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 661 228.4External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 661 229FGM-148 Javelin
662
229.1Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662 229.2Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662 229.2.1 Test and evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662 229.2.2 Qualification testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663 229.3Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663 229.3.1 Missile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663 229.3.2 Launch Tube Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 666 229.3.3 Command Launch Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 666 229.4Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 667 229.5Advantages and disadvantages
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 667
229.5.1 Advantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 667 229.5.2 Disadvantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 668
CONTENTS
xlix
229.6Combat history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 668 229.7Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 668 229.7.1 Failed bids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 669 229.8See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 669 229.9References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 669 229.10External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 671 230FGM-172 SRAW
672
230.1Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 672 230.2Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 672 230.2.1 Missile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 672 230.2.2 Weapon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 672 230.3Advantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 672 230.4Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 672 230.5Predator MPV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 672 230.6References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673 230.7External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673 231Joint Air-to-Ground Missile
674
231.1Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 674 231.2Launch platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 674 231.3Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 674 231.4Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 674 231.5See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 675 231.6References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 675 231.7External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 676 232Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System
677
232.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 677 232.2Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 677 232.2.1 Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 677 232.3Program status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 677 232.3.1 Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 678 232.4Export . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 678 232.5Launch platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 678 232.6See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 679 232.7References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 679 232.8External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 679 233AGM-87 Focus
680
233.1Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 680 233.2Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 680 233.3External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 680
l
CONTENTS
234AGM-129 ACM
681
234.1Early development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 681 234.2Design, test and initial production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 681 234.3Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 682 234.3.1 Handling incident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 682 234.4Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 682 234.5Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 682 234.5.1 Former Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 682 234.6Survivors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 682 234.7See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 683 234.8References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 683 234.8.1 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 683 234.8.2 Books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 683 234.9External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 683 235AGM-130
684
235.1Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 684 235.2Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 684 235.3Combat history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 684 235.4Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 684 235.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 685 235.6External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 685 236AGM-137 TSSAM
686
236.1Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 686 236.2Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 686 236.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 686 236.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 686 236.5External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 686 237AGM-158 JASSM
687
237.1Program Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 687 237.1.1 Origins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 687 237.1.2 Problematic development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 687 237.1.3 Foreign sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 687 237.2JASSM-Extended Range (JASSM-ER) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 688 237.3Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 688 237.4Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 689 237.4.1 AGM-158A (JASSM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 689 237.4.2 AGM-158B (JASSM-ER) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 689 237.5See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 689 237.6References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 689
CONTENTS
li
237.7External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 690 238AGM-176 Griffin
691
238.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 691 238.1.1 Naval use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 691 238.2Launch platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 692 238.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 692 239AGM-84E Standoff Land Attack Missile
693
239.1See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 693 239.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 693 239.3External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 693 240Direct Attack Guided Rocket
694
240.1Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 694 240.2Program status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 694 240.3Export . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 695 240.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 695 240.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 695 240.6External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 695 241Guided Advanced Tactical Rocket – Laser
696
241.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 696 241.2Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 696 241.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 696 241.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 696 242Low-Cost Guided Imaging Rocket
697
242.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697 242.2Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697 242.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697 242.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697 242.5External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697 243Precision Attack Air-to-Surface Missile
698
243.1Launch platforms (planned) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 698 243.2Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 698 243.3Program status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 698 243.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 698 244Small Smart Weapon
699
244.1See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 699 244.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 699 244.3External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 699
lii
CONTENTS
2452.25-Inch Sub-Caliber Aircraft Rocket
700
245.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 700 245.2Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 700 245.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 700 2465-Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket
702
246.1Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 702 246.2See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 702 246.3References
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 702
246.4External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 702 247High Velocity Aircraft Rocket
703
247.1Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 703 247.2Operational service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 703 247.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 704 247.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 704 247.5Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 704 247.6External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 704 248Tiny Tim (rocket)
705
248.1Gallery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 705 248.2See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 705 248.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 705 249AGM-62 Walleye
706
249.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 706 249.2First test and production contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 706 249.3Use during Vietnam War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 707 249.4Walleye II, “Fat Albert” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 707 249.5Overall performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 707 249.6See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 707 249.7References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 707 249.8External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 708 250B28 nuclear bomb
709
250.1Production history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 709 250.2Related designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 710 250.3Accidents and incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 710 250.4Survivors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 710 250.5See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 710 250.6References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 710 250.7External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 710 251B41 nuclear bomb
711
CONTENTS
liii
251.1Development
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 711
251.2Composition
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 711
251.3Physical characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 711 251.4Service life
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 711
251.5Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 712 251.6Effects
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 712
251.7See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 712 251.8References 252B43 nuclear bomb
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 712 713
252.1Delivery systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 713 252.2Broken Arrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 713 252.3Withdrawn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 714 252.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 714 252.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 714 252.6External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 714 253B46 nuclear bomb
715
253.1See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715 253.2External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715 254B53 nuclear bomb
716
254.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716 254.2Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716 254.3Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717 254.4W53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717 254.5Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717 254.6Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718 254.7References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718 254.8External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718 255B57 nuclear bomb
719
255.1See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719 255.2External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719 256B77 nuclear bomb
720
256.1See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 720 256.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 720 257B83 nuclear bomb
721
257.1History
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721
257.2Design
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721
257.3Aircraft capable of carrying the B83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722 257.4Novel uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722
liv
CONTENTS 257.5In popular culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722 257.6See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722 257.7References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722 257.8External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722
258B90 nuclear bomb
723
258.1See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 723 258.2External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 723 259Bigeye bomb
724
259.1Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 724 259.2History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 724 259.3Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 724 259.4Problems and issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 724 259.5See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725 259.6Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725 260BLU-14
726
260.1Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 726 260.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 726 261BLU-3 Pineapple
727
261.1Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 727 261.2External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 727 262BLU-82
728
262.1Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 728 262.2Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 728 262.3Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 729 262.4Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 729 262.5See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 729 262.6References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 729 262.7External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 729 263BOLT-117
730
263.1See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 730 263.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 730 263.3External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 730 264CBU-100 Cluster Bomb
731
264.1Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 731 264.2Deployments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 731 264.3References
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 732
264.4External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 732
CONTENTS
lv
265CBU-55
733
265.1Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 733 265.2History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 733 265.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 733 265.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 734 266CBU-72
735
266.1Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 735 266.2History of use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 735 266.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 735 266.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 735 267CBU-75
736
267.1References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 736 268E133 cluster bomb
737
268.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 737 268.2Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 737 268.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 737 268.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 737 269E48 particulate bomb
738
269.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 738 269.2Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 738 269.3Tests involving the E48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 738 269.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 738 270E86 cluster bomb
739
270.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 739 270.2Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 739 270.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 739 270.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 739 271Lazy Dog (bomb)
740
271.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 740 271.2Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 741 271.3References 272Little Boy
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 741 742
272.1Naming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 742 272.2Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 742 272.3Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 743 272.3.1 Assembly details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 744 272.3.2 Counter-intuitive design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 744
lvi
CONTENTS 272.3.3 Fuse system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 744 272.4Rehearsals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 745 272.5Bombing of Hiroshima . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 745 272.5.1 Project Ichiban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 746 272.6Physical effects of the bomb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 746 272.6.1 Blast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 747 272.6.2 Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 747 272.6.3 Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 748 272.6.4 Conventional weapon equivalent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 748 272.7Post-war . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 748 272.8Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 748 272.9References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 750 272.10External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 751
273M-121 (bomb)
752
273.1Vietnam War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 752 273.2Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 752 273.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 752 274M115 bomb
753
274.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 753 274.2Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 753 274.3Tests involving the M115 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 753 274.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 753 274.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 753 275M117 bomb
755
275.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 755 275.2Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 755 275.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 755 275.4External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 756 276M47 bomb
757
276.1Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 757 276.2Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 757 276.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 757 277Mark 4 nuclear bomb
758
277.1W4 missile warhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 758 277.2See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 758 277.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 758 277.4External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 758 278Mark 5 nuclear bomb
759
CONTENTS
lvii
278.1Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 759 278.2History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 759 278.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 759 278.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 760 278.5External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 760 279Mark 6 nuclear bomb
761
279.1Survivors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 761 279.2Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 761 279.2.1 Mark 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 761 279.2.2 Mark 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 761 279.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 761 279.4External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 761 280Mark 7 nuclear bomb
762
280.1Survivors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 762 280.2Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 762 280.3Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 762 280.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 763 280.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 763 280.6External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 763 281Mark 8 nuclear bomb
764
281.1Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 764 281.2Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 764 281.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 764 281.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 765 281.5External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 765 282Mark 10 nuclear bomb
766
282.1See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 766 282.2External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 766 283Mark 11 nuclear bomb
767
283.1Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 767 283.2See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 767 283.3External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 767 284Mark 118 bomb
768
284.1Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 768 284.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 768 285Mark 12 nuclear bomb
769
285.1Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 769
lviii
CONTENTS 285.2Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 769 285.3In popular culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 769 285.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 769 285.5External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 769
286Mark 13 nuclear bomb
770
286.1Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 770 286.2Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 770 286.3Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 770 286.4Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 770 286.4.1 Mark 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 770 286.4.2 Mark 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 770 286.5See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 770 286.6References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 770 287Mark 14 nuclear bomb
771
287.1See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 771 287.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 771 288Mark 15 nuclear bomb
772
288.1Transitional design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 772 288.2Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 772 288.3Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 772 288.3.1 W15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 772 288.4Derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 772 288.5Dropped and Lost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 773 288.6See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 773 288.7References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 773 288.8External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 773 289Mark 16 nuclear bomb
774
289.1Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 774 289.2Manufacture and service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 774 289.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 774 289.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 774 290Mark 17 nuclear bomb
775
290.1Survivors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 776 290.2See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 776 290.3References
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 776
290.4External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 776 291Mark 18 nuclear bomb
777
291.1Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 777
CONTENTS
lix
291.2Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 777 291.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 777 291.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 777 292Mark 21 nuclear bomb
778
292.1References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 778 293Mark 24 nuclear bomb
779
293.1See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 779 293.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 779 294Mark 27 nuclear bomb
780
294.1See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 780 294.2External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 780 295Mark 36 nuclear bomb 295.1History
781
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 781
295.2Survivors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 781 295.3Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 781 295.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 781 295.5References
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 781
296Mark 39 nuclear bomb
782
296.1Survivors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 782 296.2See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 782 296.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 782 296.4External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 782 297Mark 77 bomb
783
297.1Use in Iraq and Afghanistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 783 297.2Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 784 297.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 784 297.4End notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 784 297.5See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 784 297.5.1 Use in Iraq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 785 298Mark 81 bomb
786
298.1Development & deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 786 298.2Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 786 298.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 786 298.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 786 298.5External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 786 299Mark 82 bomb
787
lx
CONTENTS 299.1Development and deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 787 299.2Low-level delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 787 299.3Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 788 299.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 788 299.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 788 299.6External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 788
300Mark 83 bomb
789
300.1Development & deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 789 300.2See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 789 300.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 789 300.4External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 789 301Mark 84 bomb
790
301.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 790 301.2GPS/INS Conversion Kits by Tubitak of Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 790 301.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 791 301.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 791 301.5External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 791 302MC-1 bomb
792
302.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 792 302.2Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 792 302.3Demilitarization operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 792 302.4Test involving the MC-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 792 302.5See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 792 302.6References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 792 303T-12 Cloudmaker
794
303.1Similar US Weapons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 794 303.2See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 795 303.3External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 795 304Weteye bomb
796
304.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 796 304.2Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 796 304.3Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 796 304.4Transfer to Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 797 304.5Disposal and transfer issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 797 304.6See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 797 304.7References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 797 304.8Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 797 305BLU-108
798
CONTENTS
lxi
305.1BLU-108/B specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 798 305.2Skeet specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 798 305.3Weapon systems 305.4References
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 798
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 798
305.5External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 798 306BLU-109 bomb
799
306.1Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799 306.2Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799 306.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799 306.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799 306.5External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799 307BLU-116
800
307.1Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800 307.2Controversy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800 307.3References
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800
307.4External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800 308CBU-24
801
308.1References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801 308.2External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801 309CBU-87 Combined Effects Munition
802
309.1Operational use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802 309.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802 309.3Bibliography
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802
309.4External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803 310CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon
804
310.1Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 804 310.2Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 804 310.3Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805 310.4General characteristics[4] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805 310.5See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805 310.6References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805 310.7External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805 311GATOR mine system
806
311.1Airforce CBU-89/B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806 311.2Navy CBU-78/B
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806
311.3Mines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806 311.3.1 BLU-91/B anti-tank mine
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806
311.3.2 BLU-92/B anti-personnel mine
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807
lxii
CONTENTS 311.4References
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807
311.5See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807 312GBU-53/B
808
312.1Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808 312.1.1 Export . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808 312.2History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808 312.2.1 Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808 312.3Planned deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809 312.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809 312.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809 313M-69 incendiary
810
313.1See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810 313.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810 314PDU-5B dispenser unit
811
314.1External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811 315Perseus (munition)
812
315.1References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812 316Tomahawk (missile)
813
316.1Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 813 316.2Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 813 316.3Upgrades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814 316.4Launch systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814 316.5Navigation and other details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815 316.6Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815 316.6.1 United States Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815 316.6.2 Royal Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 816 316.6.3 United States Air Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 816 316.6.4 Other users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817 316.7Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817 316.8See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817 316.9References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817 316.10External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818 317FIM-92 Stinger
819
317.1Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819 317.2History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819 317.3Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820 317.4Comparison chart to other MANPADS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821 317.5Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821
CONTENTS
lxiii
317.5.1 Falklands War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821 317.5.2 Soviet War in Afghanistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821 317.5.3 Angolan Civil War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822 317.5.4 Libyan invasion of Chad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822 317.5.5 Tajik civil war . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822 317.5.6 Chechen War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822 317.5.7 Sri Lankan Civil War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822 317.5.8 Operation Enduring Freedom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822 317.5.9 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823 317.5.10Syrian civil war . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823 317.6Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823 317.7See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823 317.8References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824 317.9Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825 317.10External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825 318AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon
826
318.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 826 318.1.1 AGM-154A (baseline JSOW) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827 318.1.2 AGM-154B (anti-armor) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827 318.1.3 AGM-154C (unitary variant) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827 318.2Production and upgrades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827 318.2.1 JSOW Block III (JSOW-C1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827 318.2.2 AGM-154A-1 (JSOW-A1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827 318.2.3 Powered JSOW (JSOW-ER) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827 318.3Combat history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827 318.4Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828 318.5General characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828 318.6See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829 318.7References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829 318.8External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829 319ASM-A-1 Tarzon
830
319.1Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830 319.2Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830 319.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831 319.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831 319.5External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832 320Azon
833
320.1Azon operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833 320.2See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833
lxiv
CONTENTS 320.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833 320.4External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
321CBU-107 Passive Attack Weapon
835
321.1Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835 321.2Combat history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835 321.3Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835 321.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835 321.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835 321.6External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835 322GB-4 322.1References
836 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836
322.2Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836 322.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836 322.4External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836 323GB-8
837
323.1Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837 323.2See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837 323.3External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837 324GBU-10 Paveway II
838
324.1References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838 324.2External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838 325GBU-12 Paveway II
839
325.1References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839 325.2External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839 326GBU-15
840
326.1Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840 326.2Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840 326.3Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841 326.4External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841 327GBU-16 Paveway II
842
327.1External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842 328GBU-24 Paveway III
843
328.1References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843 329GBU-27 Paveway III
845
329.1Combat history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845 329.2See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845
CONTENTS
lxv
329.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845 329.4External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845 330GBU-28
846
330.1Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 846 330.2Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 846 330.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847 330.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847 330.5External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847 331GBU-37 GPS-Aided Munition
848
331.1References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848 331.2External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848 332GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast
849
332.1Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849 332.2Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849 332.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849 332.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849 332.5External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850 333GBU-44/B Viper Strike
851
333.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851 333.1.1 Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851 333.1.2 Deployment and Continued Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851 333.2Launch platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851 333.3Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 852 333.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 852 333.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 852 333.6External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 852 334Joint Direct Attack Munition
853
334.1Etymology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853 334.2History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853 334.2.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853 334.2.2 Operational use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 854 334.2.3 Upgrades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855 334.2.4 JDAM Extended Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 856 334.3Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 856 334.3.1 Current . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 856 334.3.2 Past . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857 334.4Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857 334.4.1 Export customers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857
lxvi
CONTENTS 334.5General characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858 334.6Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858 334.7Similar systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858 334.8See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858 334.9References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858 334.10Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860 334.11External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860
335Massive Ordnance Penetrator
861
335.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861 335.1.1 Recent development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861 335.2Next-generation Penetrator Munition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862 335.3Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862 335.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862 335.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862 335.6External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863 336Paveway 336.1History
864 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864
336.2Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866 336.3Trademark
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866
336.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866 336.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866 336.6External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866 337Paveway IV
867
337.1Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 867 337.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 867 337.3External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 867 338Pyros (bomb)
868
338.1References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 868 338.2External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 868 339SCALPEL
869
339.1Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869 339.2Program status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869 339.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869 339.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869 339.5External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869 340Small Diameter Bomb
870
340.1Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870 340.2Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870
CONTENTS
lxvii
340.2.1 Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871 340.3Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871 340.4Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871 340.4.1 SDB Focused Lethality Munition (FLM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871 340.4.2 Ground-launched SDB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871 340.4.3 Laser SDB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871 340.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872 340.6External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872 341VB-6 Felix
873
341.1Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873 341.2See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873 342Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser
874
342.1Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874 342.1.1 WCMD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874 342.1.2 WCMD-ER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874 342.2See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874 342.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874 342.4External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874 342.5Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875 342.5.1 Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875 342.5.2 Images . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904 342.5.3 Content license . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 940
Chapter 1
MGR-1 Honest John “Honest John” redirects here. For the character in Disney’s film, see Pinocchio (1940 film). The MGR-1 Honest John rocket was the first
Honest John test launch
tests exhibited more scatter on target than was acceptable when HJ was conventionally armed. Development of an upgraded Honest John, M-50, was undertaken to improve accuracy and extend range. The size of the fins was greatly reduced to eliminate “weathercocking” (the tendency of crosswinds to turn a rocket to face into the wind). Increased spin was applied to restore the positive stability margin that was lost when fin size was reduced. The improved M-50, with the smaller fins and more “rifling”, had a maximum range of 30+ miles with a scatter on target of only 230 metres (250 yd), demonstrating an accuracy approaching that of tube artillery. Honest John was manufactured by the Douglas Airplane Company of Santa Monica, California.[1]
An “Honest John” rocket on truck
nuclear-capable surface-to-surface missile in the US arsenal.[notes 1] Designated Artillery Rocket XM31, the first such rocket was tested 29 June 1951 and the first production rounds were delivered in January 1953. The designator was changed to M31 in September 1953. The first Army units received their rockets by year’s end and Honest John battalions were deployed in Europe in early 1954. Alternatively, the rocket was designed to be capable of carrying an ordinary high-explosive warhead weighing 680 kilograms (1,500 lb), even though that was not the primary purpose for which it was originally envisioned.
The M31 consisted of a truck-mounted, unguided, solidfueled rocket transported in three separate parts. Before launch they were assembled in the field, mounted on an M289 launcher and aimed and fired in about 5 minutes. The rocket was originally outfitted with a W7 variable yield nuclear warhead with a yield of up to 20 kilotons of TNT (84 TJ) and later a W31 warhead with three variants was deployed with yields of 2, 10 or 30 kt (8.4, 41.8 or 125.5 TJ) in 1959. There was a W31 variant of 20 kt (84 TJ) used in the Nike Hercules antiaircraft system exclusively. M-31 had a range between 5.5 and 24.8 km (3.4 and 15.4 mi).
1.1 History and development
Developed at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, Honest John was a large but simple fin-stabilized, unguided artillery rocket weighing 2,640 kilograms (5,820 lb) in its initial M-31 nuclear-armed version. Mounted on the back of a truck, HJ was aimed in much the same way as a cannon and then fired up an elevated ramp, igniting four small spin rockets as it cleared the end of the ramp. The M31 had a range of 24.8 kilometres (15.4 mi) with a 20 kiloton nuclear warhead and was also capable of carrying a 680 kilograms (1,500 lb) conventional warhead. Early In the 1960s Sarin nerve gas cluster munitions were 1
2
CHAPTER 1. MGR-1 HONEST JOHN life than all other U.S. ballistic missiles except Minuteman. The system was replaced with the MGM-52 Lance missile in 1973, but was deployed with NATO units in Europe until 1985 and National Guard units in the United States as late as 1982. Conventionally armed Honest John remained in the arsenals of Greece, Turkey and South Korea until at least the late 1990s. By the time the last Honest Johns were withdrawn from Europe in 1985, the rocket had served with the military forces of Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark (nonnuclear), France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway (non-nuclear), South Korea, Taiwan (nonnuclear), and Turkey.[4]
Honest John warhead cutaway, showing M139 Sarin bomblets (photo c. 1960)
also available for Honest John launch; designed to be interchangeable for use with the either Honest John or MGM-5 Corporal. Initially the M79 (E19R1) GB cluster warhead, containing 356 M134 (E130R1) bomblets for the M31A1C Honest John. The production model was the M190 (E19R2) GB cluster warhead, containing 356 M139 (E130R2) bomblets when the M31A1C was phased out in favor of the XM50 Honest John. Under nominal conditions it had an MAE of 0.9 square kilometers.[2] The two basic versions of Honest John were: • MGR-1A (M31) was 8.31 metres (27 ft 3 in) long, had an engine diameter of 58.10 centimetres (22.875 in), a warhead diameter of 76 centimetres (30 in), a span of 260 centimetres (104 in), weighed 2,640 kilograms (5,820 lb) (nuclear), and had a maximum range of 24.8 kilometres (15.4 mi). The Hercules Powder Company X-202 rocket motor was 5.015 metres (197.44 in) long, weighed 1,786 kilograms (3,937 lb), and had 401.79 kN (90,325 lbf) average thrust.[3] • MGR-1B (M50) was 7.5827 metres (24 ft 10.53 in) long, had an engine diameter of 58 centimetres (22.8 in), a warhead diameter of 76 centimetres (30 in), a span of 140 centimetres (56 in), weighed 1,965 kilograms (4,332 lb) (nuclear), and had twice the range of the M31. An improved propellant formulation gave the rocket motor 670 kN (150,000 lbf) thrust.
1.2 Origin of name In late 1950, Major General Holger Toftoy was a colonel overseeing the development of the rocket. The project was in danger of cancellation “on the grounds that such a large unguided rocket could not possibly have had the accuracy to justify further funds.”[5] On a trip to White Sands Missile Range, Toftoy met a Texan man who was prone to making unbelievable statements. Whenever anyone expressed doubt about the man’s claims, he would respond, “Why, around these parts, I'm called 'Honest John!'" Because the project was being questioned, Toftoy felt that the nickname was appropriate for the rocket and suggested the name to his superiors.[5]
1.3 Support vehicles
Loading an Honest John
Production of the MGR-1 variants finished in 1965 with a Vehicles used with Honest John total production run of more than 7,000 rockets. Honest John’s bulbous nose and distinctive truck-mounted launch • M33 trailer, launcher, ramp made it an easily recognized symbol of the Cold War at Army bases world-wide and National Guard ar• M46 truck, heating and tie down unit (G744) mories at home. Even though HJ was unguided and the • M289 truck, rocket launcher, (M139 truck) (G744), first U.S. nuclear ballistic missile, it had a longer service
1.5. OPERATORS
3
• M329 trailer, rocket transporter, (G821) • M386 Truck, Rocket, 762mm, short launch rail, 5ton (M139 truck) • M405 handling unit, trailer mounted, • M465 cart assembly, transport, 762mm rocket,
1.4 Survivors Canada • CFB Petawawa Military Museum CFB Petawawa, Honest John at Hillyard, WA Petawawa, Ontario. • The Central Museum of The Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery, Shilo Manitoba Denmark • The Royal Danish Arsenal Museum United Kingdom • Imperial War Museum Duxford • Royal Air Force Museum United States
• Bedford, Indiana, displayed outside a Military surplus store, at the Southwest corner of US-50/IN-37 and IN-450 (Google Maps streetview link ). • Camp Atterbury Military Museum, Camp Atterbury, Indiana • Carolinas Aviation Museum, Charlotte, North Carolina (Two missiles are on display - both came from the Florence Air & Missile Museum) • Combat Air Museum, Topeka, Kansas • Fort Lewis Museum, Fort Lewis, Washington • Fort Sill, Oklahoma • National Atomic Museum, Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque, New Mexico • Rock Island Arsenal, Arsenal Island, between Iowa and Illinois • Texas Military Forces Museum at Camp Mabry, Austin, Texas • Underwood Community Center, Underwood, Minnesota.[6] • United States Space & Rocket Center, Huntsville, Alabama • Yuma Proving Ground, Yuma, Arizona
Restored Honest John on M465 cart at Carolinas Aviation Museum
• Milledgeville High School, Milledgeville Illinois (home of the Milledgeville Missiles)
• 3rd Cavalry Museum, 1st Cav Museum, Fort Hood, Texas
• Outdoor display, Spokane, Washington - southwest corner of Sanson and Market in Hillyard neighborhood
• 45th Infantry Museum, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma • Air Force Space & Missile Museum, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida • American Armoured Foundation, Inc. Tank & Ordnance War Memorial Museum, Danville, Virginia
1.5 Operators Belgium
4
CHAPTER 1. MGR-1 HONEST JOHN
Italy • Italian Army Republic of Korea • Republic of Korea Army Norway German parade in 1969
• Norwegian Army (1961–65) Netherlands • Royal Netherlands Army Taiwan • Republic of China Army Turkey South Korean Armed Forces day in 1973
• Belgian Army
• Turkish Army United Kingdom
Canada
• Canadian Army
• British Army United States
Denmark • United States Army • Royal Danish Army France
1.6 See also • W7
• French Army Germany
• German Army Greece • Hellenic Army
• W31 • M139 bomblet • G-numbers • MGR-3 Little John
1.7 Notes [1] The first nuclear-authorized guided missile was the MGM5 Corporal.
1.9. EXTERNAL LINKS
1.8 References [1] Gibson, Nuclear Weapons of the United States, pp. 177179, 1996 [2] Kirby,Reid, “The CB Battlefield Legacy”, Army Chemical Review July–December 2006, pp. 25 - 29. [3] http://www.astronautix.com/articles/doulants/htm Bedard, Double Base Solid Propellants, “Major Hercules Motors”, p. 3, 2009 [4] General Dynamics, Free World Tactical Missile Systems (Pomona, CA: General Dynamics, June 1973) p.251; Jane’s Weapon Systems 1987-1988 (London: Jane’s, 1987) p.127. [5] McKenney, Janice E. (2007). The organizational history of field artillery 1775-2003. Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History, United States Army. p. 212. ISBN 9780160771149. [6] http://www.prtelweb.com/underwood/sights.html
1.9 External links • http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/r-1. html • http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/hontjohn.htm • Redstone Arsenal (Alabama) (includes declassified military monograph on the Honest John, chronology, pictures, and a movie of an Honest John firing) • Weapons of the Field Artillery - Part 3, U.S. Military Documentary, Film TF6 3646, 1965 • Honest John Missile Base in Germany http://www. herzobase.org • http://www.olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_ m39_missiletrk.php launchers
5
Chapter 2
MIM-3 Nike Ajax 2.1.1 Background
The United States Army's Nike Ajax was the world’s first operational surface-to-air missile (SAM),[1] entering service in 1954. Nike Ajax was designed to attack conventional bomber aircraft flying at high subsonic speeds and altitudes above 50,000 feet (15 km). Nike was initially deployed in the US to provide defence against Soviet bomber attacks, and was later deployed overseas to protect US bases, as well as being sold to various allied forces. Some examples remained in use until the 1970s.
The inherent inaccuracy of anti-aircraft artillery means that when shells reach their targets they are randomly distributed in space. This distribution is much larger than the lethal radius of the shells, so the chance that any one shell will successfully hit the target is very small. Successful anti-aircraft gunnery therefore requires as many rounds to be fired as possible, increasing the chances that one of the rounds will get a “hit”. During The Blitz, UK gunners fired 49,044 shells in January 1941 for 12 kills, almost 4,100 shells per success.[4] German gunners with radar support did better, estimating that an average of 2,800 shells were required to down a single Boeing B17.[5]
Technological development during the 1950s quickly rendered Nike obsolete. It was unable to defend against more capable bombers or multiple targets in formation, and had relatively short range. Even while Nike was being deployed, these concerns led to the contracts for the greatly improved MIM-14 Nike Hercules, which began deployment in 1959. As Hercules developed, the threat moved from bombers to ICBMs, and the LIM-49 Nike Zeus antiballistic missile project started to address these. All of the Nike projects were led by Bell Labs, due to their early work in radar guidance systems during World War II.
Flying faster means that the aircraft passes through the range of a gun more rapidly, reducing the number of rounds a particular gun can fire at that aircraft. Flying at higher altitudes often has a similar effect, as it requires larger shells to reach those altitudes, and this typically results in slower firing rates for a variety of practical reasons. Aircraft using jet engines roughly double the speed and altitude over piston-powered designs, limiting the number of shells so greatly that the chance of hitting the bomber dropped almost to zero. As early as 1942, German flak commanders were keenly aware of the problem, and expecting to face jet bombers, they began a missile development program to supplant their guns.[6]
Originally known simply as Nike, it gained the Ajax as part of a 1956 renaming effort that resulted from the introduction of Hercules. It was initially given the identifier SAM-A-7 (Surface-to-air, Army, design 7) as part of an early tri-service identification system,[2] but later changed to MIM-3 (Mobile Interceptor Missile, design 3) in 1962.[3][N 1] Part of the Nike Ajax development program designed a new solid fuel rocket motor used for the missile’s booster. This had originally been designed for the US Navy's missiles, and was enlarged for the Nike efforts. The rocket was so useful that it found numerous applications outside the military world as the Ajax missiles were decommissioned in the 1960s. Many sounding rockets used the booster as their first or second stage, and many of those used “Nike” in their name.
The western allies maintained air superiority for much of the war and their anti-aircraft systems did not see as much pressure to improve. Nevertheless, by the mid-war period the US Army had reached the same conclusion as their German counterparts; flak was simply no longer useful.[7] Accordingly, in February 1944 the Army Ground Forces sent the Army Service Forces (ASF) a request for information on the possibility of building a “major caliber anti-aircraft rocket torpedo”. The ASF concluded that it was simply too early to tell if this was possible, and suggested concentrating on a program of general rocket development instead.[7] The introduction of German jet-powered bombers late in 1944 led to a re-evaluation of this policy, and on 26 January 1945 the Army Chief of Ordnance issued a requirement for a new guided missile weapon system. The
2.1 History
6
2.1. HISTORY
7
request was passed to Bell Labs, then a world leader in the second radar’s signals,[1] and detonate the warhead on radar, radio control and automated aiming systems (see command (as opposed to a proximity fuse).[11] Hendrik Wade Bode).[1] The Ballistics Research Laboratory was asked to calculate the proper warhead shaping to maximize the chance of a hit. Once determined, Picatinny Arsenal would pro2.1.2 Project Nike duce the warhead, and Frankford Arsenal would provide a fuse. Douglas Aircraft would provide the missile airMain article: Project Nike frame and carry out aerodynamic studies, while Aerojet would supply a solid fuel rocket booster for initial launch, Bell accepted the challenge, and Project Nike was offi- and Bell Aircraft would provide a liquid fuel rocket for cially formed on 8 February 1945.[7] The Bell team was the upper stage sustainer.[1] given the task of attacking bombers flying at 500 mph The initial design used a thin upper stage with eight (800 km/h) or more,[N 2] at altitudes between 20,000 and JATO-derived boosters that were wrapped around its tail. 60,000 feet (6,100 and 18,300 m), and performing a 3G The resulting cluster looked quite boxy at launch time. It turn at 40,000 feet (12,000 m). Bell reported back on 14 was expected that the 93,000 lbf (≈414 kN) of booster May 1945 (and a formal report the next day) that such a power would accelerate the missile to supersonic speeds development was indeed possible.[1] They concluded that: of 1,750 fps (feet per second, ≈1200 mph, 533 m/s) at the end of a booster phase of 1.8 seconds, increasing almost A supersonic rocket missile should be vercontinually to about 2,500 fps (≈1700 mph, 762 m/s) at tically launched under the thrust of a solidthe end of the liquid engine’s firing, then decreasing to fuel booster which was then to be dropped; 1,150 fps (≈780 mph, 350 m/s) at 96,000 feet (≈29000 thence, self-propelled by a liquid-fuel motor, m) during the zooming period.[11] the missile should be guided to a predicted inEarly in the program it was realized that existing radar tercept point in space and detonated by remote systems based on the conical scanning method did not control commands; these commands should be supply the performance needed for a high-speed missile. transmitted by radio signals determined by a In particular, conical scanning radars required some time ground-based computer associated with radar to settle on an accurate track. The decision was made which would track both the target and the misto use a monopulse radar system for Nike. Two systems sile in flight.[7] were considered, one using phased signals, and another using signal timing known as the “amplitude null sysThis was not the only Army missile project at the time; tem,”, with the later being selected. This study resulted the US Army Air Force was involved in studies of the in the development of tunable magnetrons for the 250 Ground-to-Air Pilotless Aircraft (GAPA), a longer-range kilowatt X-band radars for tracking, and 1000 kilowatt system based on what was essentially a drone aircraft. S-band radar for target detection. Experiments demonBell had been invited to take part in GAPA as well, but strated that the radar return from the missile at high altideclined as they wanted to concentrate on Nike.[7] GAPA tudes was limited, and when calls for an extended altitude was opened to tender, and was picked up by other com- of 150,000 feet (≈46000 m) were added to the requirepanies, notably Boeing.[8] This led to a semi-formalized ments, a transponder was added to the missile to boost agreement that the Army Air Force and the Ordnance the return.[11] Corps would split development based on whether or not These changes, and many more, were summarized in a 28 the design “depend[ed] for sustenance primarily on the January 1946 report. The project called for four rounds lift of aerodynamic forces” like GAPA, or “primary on of test launches starting in 1946, with the aim of having [9] the momentum of the missile” like Nike. a production design by 1949.[1] As part of the Key West Agreement, GAPA was handed to the newly formed US Air Force in 1948, when that 2.1.4 Testing force evolved out of the Army Air Force.[10]
2.1.3
Building the team
At the ranges and speeds being considered, even a supersonic rocket will take enough time to reach the target that the missile needs to “lead” the bomber in order to properly intercept it. Bell proposed a system using two radars, one tracking the target, and another tracking the missile. An analog computer would calculate the impact point and send guidance signals to the missile encoded in
The first test firing of a static round was carried out at the White Sands Proving Ground on 17 September 1946, and then returned to Douglas in California for study. The next week an unguided example was launched, and similar tests followed until 28 January 1947, ending the first test series. During one test a missile reached an altitude of 140,000 feet. A second test series followed in September and October 1947, including several improvements in the design in order to address problems with the booster. A further series in 1948, originally planned for 1946, con-
8
CHAPTER 2. MIM-3 NIKE AJAX
The early model Nike had eight JATO bottles in a cluster, demanding large fins for stability.
tinued to demonstrate problems.[1] Eventually the team was forced to give up on the clustered booster concept. Invariably small differences in thrust between the different JATO bottles would lead to significant thrust asymmetries, ones that overwhelmed the stabilizing effect of the fins in spite of them being very large. Instead, the project selected a larger booster being developed by the US Navy's Operation Bumblebee, creating a new version known as the Allegheny JATO T39 2.6DS51,000.[11] The Navy’s similar booster can be seen on the RIM-2 Terrier.
Test launch of the production model Nike Ajax missile with the new booster.
the proposed production model was carried out starting in October, and on 27 November 1951, Nike successfully intercepted a QB-17 target drone. Twenty-two further tests followed that year. In the new year a new test series A new series of test firings started in September 1948, started, including a live-fire attack on a QB-17 in April but were stopped until May 1949 after a number of mod- 1952 that was viewed by visiting brass.[12] ifications were carried out. Funding problems then delayed the program until January 1950. From late January through April another 16 missiles were fired, with much 2.1.6 Production better results.[1]
2.1.5
Accelerating development
Through early development, the Nike project had not been considered very important. A series of events in the late 1940s led to a re-appraisal of the situation, including the Soviet atomic test in 1949, the communist victories in China, and the Berlin Blockade. The June 1950 opening of the Korea War brought all of this to a head and new urgency was given to US defense. In October 1950, US Secretary of Defense Charles E. Wilson appointed Kaufman Keller to newly created position of Director of Guided Weapons to speed their development.[12] Keller examined the various ongoing projects and decided that the Nike was the best developed. He recommended that development of Nike be accelerated, and that an initial production run of 60 launch stations and 1,000 missiles should be completed by 31 December 1952, with continued production of 1,000 a month after that date. In January 1951, Wilson approved the plan, in spite of additional testing being required.[12] A new test series of
The Nike Ajax assembly line.
Production was launched in August 1952. By the end of the year, three complete ground systems and 1,000 missiles had been delivered to White Sands. The complete system was set up by January 1953, and an underground launch site first fired on 5 June 1953. Crew training was
2.1. HISTORY carried out at Fort Bliss with the missiles fired toward White Sands. Service deliveries began that year, and eventually a total of 350 launch systems and 13,714 missiles were produced over the production run.[1] In 1957, the National Guard started taking over the anti-aircraft role, replacing regular army units at Bliss.[1]
9 dental warhead or fuel explosion. Originally this would require about 119 acres of land per site. This presented a serious problem for the planners, and especially the Corps of Engineers Real Estate Offices. As early as 1952 they had asked for a solution, which led to design architect Leon Chatelain, Jr. developing an underground configuration.[13]
As the missile batteries were now protected and accidental explosions would be contained, the safe area was dramatically reduced, and that cut the land requirement Further information: List of Nike missile sites down to 40 acres.[13] This was the system tested at White Deployment of the Nike I was under the direction of the Sands in 1953, and with its success, on 28 October 1953 ARAACOM directed that most deployments would use this option. The system used a basic building block with four aboveground launching stations over an underground battery with additional missiles. Missiles were raised to the surface on an elevator and then pushed, by hand, along rails to their launchers.[14] Stations normally consisted of four to six of these basic building blocks.
2.1.7
Deployment
This Nike Ajax site is on full alert, with missiles ready for launch on all sixteen launch sites. This image appears to be taken from the control area (IFC) which was separated from the launch area to allow its radars to see the missiles as they launched.
The first site to build their Nike I system was Fort Meade, who started receiving their missiles in December 1953, replacing their 120 mm M1 guns.[15] This site reached initial operational status in March 1954, and went on full round-the-clock combat status on 30 May. The Army considers 30 May to be the “birth date” of the Nike system. On 15 November 1956 the missile was officially renamed as the Nike Ajax, as part of DA Circular 70022.[1] Over the next four years, 265 batteries were constructed around the majority of major northern and coastal cities.[16] They replaced 896 radar-guided anti-aircraft guns, leaving only a handful of 75 mm Skysweeper emplacements as the only anti-aircraft artillery remaining in use by the US. All of the Skysweepers were removed from service by 1960.[17] A Nike Ajax missile exploded accidentally at a battery in Leonardo, New Jersey on 22 May 1958, killing 6 soldiers and 4 civilians. A memorial can be found at Fort Hancock in the Sandy Hook Unit of the Gateway National Recreation Area.[18][19]
Nike bases were arranged around major cities and military sites.
2.1.8 After Ajax
As early as April 1952, planners expressed concerns over the Ajax’s ability to pick out targets in a packed formation. The Nike radar would see several nearby targets as a single larger one, unable to resolve the individual aircraft. The warhead’s lethal range was smaller than the resolution, so it might not approach any one of the aircraft closely enough to damage it. This led to suggestions about equipping the Nike with a nuclear warhead, which would be able to attack the entire formation with a single round. Bell was asked to study this in May, and they considered two options; one used the WX-9 warhead on For range safety reasons, launch sites had to have consid- the existing missile, which they called “Nike Ajax”, while erable empty land around them in the event of an acci- a slightly enlarged missile with the XW-7 warhead was Army Anti-Aircraft Command (ARAACOM). ARAACOM initially proposed a series of widespread bases surrounding cities and major military sites. However, while planning the deployment around Chicago, it became clear that Lake Michigan would force sites protecting approach from the east to be located in the city itself. Moreover, various scenarios demonstrated that having a staggered two-layer layout of the sites would offer much greater protection, which argued for some bases to be located closer to the urban centers.[1]
10
CHAPTER 2. MIM-3 NIKE AJAX ranges on the order of 75 miles (121 km). A new longrange search radar was introduced, the HIPAR, but the original AQU radar was retained as well, now known as LOPAR.[N 3] The tracking radars were also upgraded to higher power. But with those exceptions, Hercules was operationally similar to Ajax, and designed to operate at existing Ajax sites, using their launchers and underground facilities.[1] Conversion from Ajax to Hercules began in June 1958. Initially the Hercules was deployed at new bases, providing coverage over existing Ajax areas. But plans had been made to convert existing Ajax sites to Hercules where possible, or close the Ajax base where it was not. As the Hercules had over double the range of the Ajax, fewer sites were needed to provide the same coverage. A total of 134 Hercules bases were commissioned, down from Ajax’s 240. The last US Ajax site, outside Norfolk, Virginia, closed in November 1963.[1] Ajax remained in active service in overseas locations for some time. The Japan Self-Defense Forces operated theirs until they were replaced by the Hercules-based Nike J in the 1970s.
The Nike missile family, with the Zeus B in front of the Hercules and Ajax.
As the original Bell Nike team worked on Hercules, the nature of the strategic threat was changing. By the late 1950s the concern was the ICBM and little interest in the threat of bombers remained. Even before Hercules deployed, Bell was once again asked to consider the new threat. They concluded that the Nike B (Hercules) could be adapted into an anti-ballistic missile with relatively few changes to the missile. The role would require considerably greater upgrades to the radars and computers instead. These efforts gave rise to the Nike II project in 1958,[21] soon known as LIM-49 Nike Zeus.
Unlike the earlier Nike efforts, the Zeus would never reach operational status. Like the Ajax and Hercules, Zeus could only attack a single target at a time, although by deploying multiple radars it was expected that up to six missiles could be guided at once. This was fine when the threat was a few dozen enemy ICBMs, but as it became Nike site D-57/58 was used for both Ajax and Hercules until clear that the Soviets were placing almost all of their ef1974, and is now in an advanced state of decay. fort into ICBMs, Zeus looked increasingly unable to deal with the hundreds of targets that would result. Serious technical problems also arose, including electromagnetic known as “Nike Hercules”. The Army selected the Her- pulse and similar effects that blocked radar, questions cules option, ordering it into development in December about the missile’s ability to damage enemy warheads, 1952.[20] At the time, the missiles were officially known and above all, rapidly rising costs. Development was canas Nike I and Nike B.[2] As part of DA Circular 700-22, celled in January 1963.[22] Nike I officially became Nike Ajax and Nike B became Nike Hercules. The nuclear-armed Nike B was originally going to be a slightly larger Nike I, just wide enough to carry the new warhead. But during early development the decision was made to move to a solid fuel upper stage. This required a larger fuselage, and was heavier as well. In order to get the new missile into the air, the booster engine was replaced with a new design using four of the original boosters strapped together. The new missile offered interception altitudes well above 100,000 feet (30 km) and
2.1.9 Nike boosters As Ajax missiles were removed from service, thousands of unused booster rockets were left over from the program, and more when the Hercules was removed from service years later. These proved perfect for all sorts of roles, notably as the boosters for various sounding rockets. These designs often, but not always, included “Nike” in their name. Examples include the Nike-Cajun,
2.2. DESCRIPTION
11
Nike-Apache, Nike-Smoke and many others. The original booster design from the Navy is also widely used in this role, under the Terrier or Taurus name.
2.2 Description
This Nike Ajax site has only two launch areas, the oval shaped areas in the middle of the image. The rectangular openings are elevators that raise the missiles from their underground storage areas, and the four launchers are the small squares on either side. To the left of the launchers is the refueling area, surrounded by a high berm in case one of the missiles exploded.
The TTR and MTR radars used a fresnel lens made of thin metal plates arranged in a frame. The feed horn is at the bottom of the A-shaped supports.
The ACQ radar was the primary search radar for the Ajax, and was also used for short-range duties with the Hercules as LOPAR.
A complete Nike Ajax system consisted of several radars, computers, missiles and their launchers. Sites were generally arranged in three major sections, the administration area, area A, the magazine and launcher area with the missiles, L, and the Integrated Fire Control area with the radar and operations center, or IFC. Most sites placed the A and IFC on one parcel of land with the L on another, but some sites used three entirely separate areas. The IFC was located between 1,000 yards and a mile from the launchers, but had to be within the line-of-site so the radars could see the missiles as they launched.[14]
on their launchers. When an alert was received, the missiles were transferred to the surface one at a time using an elevator, then pushed along rails on the surface leading to the launchers. The launchers bisected the rails, so the missiles were simply pushed over the launchers, connected to the electrical hookups, and then raised to about 85 degrees by the launchers. The missile launch area also contained a separate fueling area surrounded by a large berm, a required safety precaution given the hypergolic fuels, and a variety of service areas.[14] Long distance surveillance was handled by the ACQ or LOPAR radar, short for “Low-Power Acquisition Radar.” LOPAR included an IFF system and a system for handing off targets to the tracking radars. Two monopulse tracking radars were used, the Target Tracking Radar (TTR) to track the target handed off by the LOPAR, and the Missile Tracking Radar (MTR) to track the missile as it flew toward the target.[23] Launch of the missile was accomplished by lighting the solid fuel booster, which provided 59,000 lbf of thrust for three seconds. The booster pushed the missile through the sound barrier, and it remained supersonic for the rest of its flight. The MTR picked up the missile as the booster fell away, and then tracked it continually after that point. Data from the TTR and MTR were sent to the analog tracking computer, which continually calculated the impact point and sent radio commands to the missile to guide it. In order to maximize range, the missile was normally flown almost vertically to a higher altitude than the target, where the thinner air lowered drag and allowed the missile to descend on its target. At the correct time, the missile’s three warheads were triggered by a signal from the computer.[23] The warheads were surrounded by metal cubes providing a blast-fragmentation effect.
The launch area normally consisted of two or three underground facilities and their aboveground launchers. Sites with four to six launchers were not unknown. A single launcher site normally held twelve missiles, eight in the service area and four in the underground ready area or The Nike Ajax system could attack only one target at a
12
CHAPTER 2. MIM-3 NIKE AJAX
time,[24] a problem it shared with its descendants. As the various Ajax missile sites were overlapped, this led to the possibility that two sites might attack one target while another flew past both. ARADCOM initially set up a coordination system not unlike the Royal Air Force's plotting room from the Battle of Britain, with commands from a central manual plotting room being sent to batteries over telephone lines. This was clearly inadequate, and in the late 1950s the Interim Battery Data Link was introduced to share data between batteries. This allowed command to be devolved to the battery commanders, who could see which targets other batteries were attacking.[1] This system was further improved with the introduction of the Missile Master system, which replaced manual plotting with a computer-run system, and then the simpler and smaller Missile Mentor and BIRDIE systems.[25][26]
and vehicles that would have operated at the site. The site has been preserved in the condition it was in at the time it was decommissioned in 1974. The site began as a Nike Ajax base and was later converted to Nike Hercules.[28] • The second best preserved Nike installation is site NY-56 at Fort Hancock in Sandy Hook, New Jersey. The site has been restored and contains the original missile bunkers, as well as three Nike Ajax and a Nike Hercules on display. The site is on the National Register of Historic Places.[29] • Nike-Ajax Missile Site N-75 in Carrolton, Virginia. The former Nike-Ajax missile base is now home to the Isle of Wight County Parks and Recreation Department. Many buildings still stand including the barracks, mess hall, administration and recreation building and officer/non-commissioned officer family housing. Visitors can also see the fueling area and concrete slabs that mark the location of the underground missile bunkers. The park, over 100 acres in size, offers different recreational activities and features softball and soccer fields, basketball, volleyball, and tennis courts, picnic areas, nature and mountain bike trails, skate park, playgrounds, senior center and a recreation hall. In addition, there are fishing opportunities in Jones Creek..[30]
The Nike batteries were organized in Defense Areas and placed around population centers and strategic locations such as long-range bomber and important military/naval bases, nuclear production facilities and (later) ICBM sites. The Nike sites in a Defense Area formed a circle around these cities and bases. There was no fixed number of Nike batteries in a Defense Area and the actual number of batteries varied from a low of 2 in the Barksdale AFB Defense Area to a high of 22 in the Chicago Defense Area. In the US the sites were numbered from 01 to 99 starting at the north and increasing clockwise. The numbers had no relation to actual compass headings, but generally Nike sites numbered 01 to 25 were to the northeast and east, those numbered 26 to 50 were to the 2.3.2 Missiles southeast and south, those numbered 51 to 75 were to the • A Nike Ajax, Nike Hercules, and Nike Zeus are on southwest and west, and those numbered 76 to 99 were to display at the Redstone Arsenal in Alabama. the northwest and north. The Defense Areas were identified by a one- or two-letter code which were related to the • A Nike Ajax and Nike Hercules are on display at the city name. Thus those Nike sites starting with C were in Royal Museum of the Armed Forces and Military the Chicago Defense Area, those starting with HM were History in Brussels, Belgium. in the Homestead AFB/Miami Defense Area, those starting with NY were in the New York Defense Area, and • A Nike Ajax and Hercules are on display at so forth. As an example Nike Site SF-88L refers to the the Peterson Air and Space Museum in Colorado launcher area (L) of the battery located in the northwestSprings, Colorado. ern part (88) of the San Francisco Defense Area (SF).[16] Studies throughout the Nike project considered mobile launchers, but none were developed for the Ajax system. Missile sites were “relocatable” or “transportable”, and all of the support equipment was built into trailers or otherwise provided road wheels.[27]
2.3 Survivors 2.3.1
Bases
• The best preserved Nike installation is site SF88L located in the Marin Headlands just west of the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, California. The site is a museum, and contains the missile bunkers, and control area, as well as period uniforms
• A Nike Ajax missile is on display at Camp Nathan Hale, in Niantic, Connecticut. • Two Nike Ajax and a Hercules are on display at the Cape Canaveral Space & Missile Museum in Cape Canaveral, Florida. • A Nike Hercules is on display at Nike Missile Site HM-69, now a registered historic site located within Everglades National Park. • A Nike Ajax is on display at the War Museum in Athens, Greece. • A Nike Ajax and Hercules are on display in front of the VFW post in Cedar Lake, Indiana. • A Nike Ajax is on display in Marion, Kentucky.
2.4. SEE ALSO
13
• A Nike Ajax and Hercules are on display at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Aberdeen, Maryland.
• A Nike Ajax is on display in front of the American Legion Post in Waynesboro, Pennsylvania.
• A Nike Ajax is on display in front of the VFW post in Hancock, Maryland.
• A Nike Ajax is on display in front of the Combat Air Museum in Topeka, Kansas.
• Two Nike Ajax and a Hercules are on display at a small Cold War museum in Ft. Meade, Maryland.
• A Nike Ajax is on display at the MUNA Military Museum, Marktbergel, Germany
• A Nike Ajax and Hercules are on display at the Dutch Air Force Museum in Soesterberg Air Base, Netherlands.
• A Nike Ajax and a Nike Hercules are on display on a Military site near a traffic roundabout near Thessaloniki, Greece
• A Nike Ajax is on display at The Space Center in Alamagordo, New Mexico.
• A Nike Ajax is on display at the New England Air Museum in Windsor Locks, Connecticut
• A Nike Ajax is on display near the administrative buildings at the former Nike site in Rustan, about 40 km to the southwest of Oslo, Norway. • Two Nike Ajax and a Nike Hercules are on display near the Bataan Building at Camp Perry, near Port Clinton, Ohio. • A Nike Ajax is on display near the Toledo Rockets Glass Bowl Stadium on the campus of the University of Toledo in Toledo, Ohio. • A Nike Ajax is displayed in front of an Army Surplus store located near the Letterkenny Army Depot in Pennsylvania. • A Nike Ajax and Hercules are on display at the Pennsylvania National Guard Department of Military Arts building at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania. • A Nike Hercules missile is used as a static display by the Rhode Island National Guard. • A Nike Ajax and Hercules are on display at the Air Power Park in Hampton, Virginia. • A Nike Ajax missile cutaway, as well as a complete Nike Ajax missile are on display at the UdvarHazy Center of the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum at Washington Dulles International Airport, in Washington D.C.. • A Nike Ajax and Nike Hercules are on display in the Berryman War Memorial Park in Bridgeport, Washington.
2.4 See also • MIM-14 Nike Hercules and LIM-49 Nike Zeus, Ajax’s children • S-25 Berkut and S-75 Dvina, Soviet counterparts to the Ajax • English Electric Thunderbird and Bristol Bloodhound, UK counterparts
2.5 Notes [1] Nike was initially designated SAM-G-7, and later changed to SAM-A-7. Originally the Air Force used A while the Army used G, but the Air Force abandoned the 1947 triservice designation system in 1951 and the Army took over the A designation. [2] Cagle says 600 mph, but many other sources put it at 500 or more. [3] Although none of the references state the reason for keeping the AQU radar, it appears this was in order to avoid having to upgrade certain displays in the control centres.
2.6 References Citations [1] FAS 1999.
• A Nike Ajax is on display at the Ft. Lewis Military Museum in Tacoma, Washington.
[2] Cagle 1959, VI.
• A Nike Ajax on its launcher is on display outside an American Legion hall in Okauchee Lake, Wisconsin.
[4] Ian White, “The History of Air Intercept Radar & the British Nightfigher”, Pen & Sword, 2007, p. 75.
• A Nike Ajax on its transporter (trailer) is on display outside a public storage (former site MS-20) facility in Roberts, Wisconsin.
[3] Western Electric SAM-A-7/M1/MIM-3 Nike Ajax
[5] Westerman 2001, p. 197. [6] Westerman 2001, p. 11. [7] Cagle 1959, I.
14
[8] Leonard 2011, p. 104. [9] Walker, Bernstein & Lang 2003, p. 39. [10] “GAPA (Ground-to-Air Pilotless Aircraft)", Boeing [11] Cagle 1959, III. [12] Lonnquest & Winkler 1996, p. 56. [13] Cagle 1959, VII. [14] Morgan & Berhow 2002, p. 9. [15] Merle Cole, “Nike Missiles: Army Air Defense Installations In Anne Arundel County: 1950-1973”, Fort George G. Meade Museum [16] Lonnquest & Winkler 1996, pp. 570-572. [17] Stephen Moeller, “Vigilant and Invincible”, ADA Magazine, May/June 1995, Chapter 3, Modernization [18] “Nike Battery NY-53 Middletown, NJ” [19] “Nike Ajax Explosion - Sandy Hook, NJ” [20] Lonnquest & Winkler 1996, p. 57. [21] Leonard 2011, p. 180. [22] Donald Baucom, “The Origins of SDI, 1944-1983”, University Press of Kansas, 1992, p. 19. [23] Morgan & Berhow 2002, p. 10. [24] Morgan & Berhow 2002, p. 17. [25] Morgan & Berhow 2002, p. 15. [26] Considerable detail on the battlefield control systems are available in “Air Defense Artillery Control Systems”, US Army Air Defense Digest, 1966, pp. 34-41. [27] Ed Thelen, “Nike was 'mobile'?", Ed Thelen’s Nike Missile Web Site. [28] Nike Missile Site, SF88L [29] Site NY-56 Sandy Hook, New Jersey, Nike Historical Society [30]
Bibliography • Cagle, Mary (30 June 1959). Nike Ajax Historical Monograph. U.S. Army Ordnance Missile Command. • Federation of American Scientists (29 June 1999). “Nike Ajax (SAM-A-7) (MIM-3, 3A)". • Lonnquest, John; Winkler, David (November 1996). To Defend and Deter: The Legacy of the United States Cold War Missile Program. USACERL Special Report 97/01.
CHAPTER 2. MIM-3 NIKE AJAX • Morgan, Mark; Berhow, Mark (1 June 2002). Rings of Supersonic Steel: Air Defenses of the Uniter States Army 1950-1979. Hole In The Head Press. ISBN 9780615120126. • Westerman, Edward (2001). Flak: German AntiAircraft Defenses, 1914-1945. University Press of Kansas. ISBN 0700614206. • Barry Leonard, “History of Strategic and Ballistic Missile Defense: Volume II: 1956-1972”, DIANE Publishing, 2011 Further reading • “Nike: the U.S. Army’s Guided Missile System”, Western Electric • The Continental Air Defense Collection at the United States Army Center of Military History
2.7 External links • Nike Historical Society • Nike Hercules in Alaska • Nike Ajax Explosion Marker: Gateway National Recreation Area • The short film Big Picture: Pictorial Report Number 20 is available for free download at the Internet Archive • Nike Ajax the first surface-to-air missile
2.7. EXTERNAL LINKS
15
Nike site SF-88L missile status board.
A Nike Ajax missile at the Belgian Royal Museum of the Armed Forces and Military History in Brussels.
Chapter 3
MIM-14 Nike Hercules The Nike Hercules (initially designated SAM-A-25, and later MIM-14), was a solid fuel propelled two-stage surface-to-air missile, used by U.S. and NATO armed forces for medium- and high-altitude long-range air defense. It was normally armed with the W31 nuclear warhead, but could also be fitted with a conventional warhead for export use. Its warhead also allowed it to be used in a surface-to-surface role, and the system also demonstrated its ability to hit other short-range missiles in flight. Hercules was replaced in the long-range anti-aircraft role by the higher performance and considerably more mobile MIM-104 Patriot.
3.1.1 Project Nike
Hercules was developed as the successor to the earlier MIM-3 Nike Ajax, adding the ability to attack high-flying supersonic targets and carrying a small nuclear warhead in order to attack entire formations of aircraft with a single missile. Development went smoothly, and deployment began in 1958 at new bases, but eventually took over many existing Ajax bases as well, reaching a peak of over 130 bases in the US alone. Throughout, Hercules was the subject of a lengthy and acrimonious debate due to complaints from supporters of the US Air Force's competing CIM-10 Bomarc system, which ultimately proved unsuccessful and saw limited deployment. US Hercules sites began wide-scale deactivation during the 1970s as the threat of Soviet bombers subsided with the growth of ICBM forces, but remained a front-line weapon in Europe, with the last units deactivated in 1988.
As early as 1944 the US Army started exploring antiaircraft missiles, examining a variety of concepts. They split development between the Army Air Force or the Ordnance department based on whether or not the design “depend[ed] for sustenance primarily on the lift of aerodynamic forces” or “primary on the momentum of the missile”.[4] That is, whether the missile operated more like an aircraft (Air Force) or a rocket (Ordnance).
During World War II the US Army Air Force (USAAF) concluded that existing anti-aircraft guns, only marginally effective against existing generations of propeller-driven aircraft, would not be effective at all against the emerging jet-powered designs. Like the Germans and British before them, they concluded the only successful defence would be to use guided weapons.[3]
Official requirements were published in 1945; Bell Laboratories won the Ordnance contract for a short-range line-of-sight weapon under Project Nike,[3] while a team of players led by Boeing won the contract for a longrange design known as Ground-to-Air Pilotless Aircraft, or GAPA. GAPA moved to the US Air Force when that branch was formed in 1948. In 1946 the USAAF also started two early research projects into anti-missile sysSeveral modifications of the Hercules system were con- tems in Project Thumper and Project Wizard.[5] sidered but not put into production. Extensive studies into a mobile version were carried out, but never deployed in In 1953, Project Nike delivered the world’s first opfavour of other designs. The vacuum tube-based electron- erational anti-aircraft missile system, known simply as [3] ics, inherited from the early-1950s Ajax, were examined Nike. Nike tracked both the target and the missile using for potential solid state upgrades, but not deployed. Study separate radars, compared the locations in a computer, into an upgraded version of the Hercules for the anti- and sent commands to the missile to fly to a point in the ballistic missile role was carried out, but this later evolved sky to intercept the target. To increase range, the misinto the considerably different LIM-49 Nike Zeus design. sile was normally boosted above the target into thinner Hercules would prove to be the last development of Bell’s air, and then descended on it in a gliding dive. Nike was Nike team; Zeus was never deployed and its follow-ons initially deployed at military bases starting in 1953, especially Strategic Air Command bomber airfields, and genwere developed by different teams. eral deployment then followed at US cities, important industrial sites, and then overseas bases. Similar systems quickly emerged from other nations, including the S-75 3.1 Development and deployment Dvina (SA-2) from the USSR,[6] and the English Electric Thunderbird in the UK.[7] 16
3.1. DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT
3.1.2
Ajax and Hercules
17 range, it was unsurprising that the Army chose the Hercules option. Bell began working on the new design in concert with the Nike partners, Western Electric and Douglas Aircraft Company. Instead of the basic W-7, development of an improved version specifically for Hercules was started under the direction of Sandia Laboratories in Albuquerque and at Los Alamos. The new W31 warhead was given 1A priority by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in March 1953.[9]
Even as the Nike was undergoing testing, planners grew concerned about the missile’s ability to attack formations of aircraft. Given the low resolution of the tracking radars available at the time, a formation of aircraft would appear on the radars as a single larger return. Launched against such a formation, the Nike would fly towards the center of the composite return. Given the Nike warhead’s relatively small lethal radius, if the missile flew into the middle of the formation and exploded, it would be highly unlikely 3.1.3 to destroy any of the aircraft.
Solid fuel
Improving performance against such targets would require either much higher resolution radars, or much larger warheads. Of the two, the warhead seemed like the simplest problem to address. Like almost any thorny military problem of the 1950s, the solution was the application of atomic bombs. In May 1952, Bell was asked to explore such an adaptation to the Nike. They returned two design concepts.[8] “Nike Ajax” used a slightly modified Nike missile, largely a re-arrangement of the internal components, making room for the 15 kT WX-9 “gun-type” warhead also being developed as an artillery round. The WX-9, like all gun-type designs, was long and thin, originally designed to be fired from an 11” artillery piece, and easily fit within This image shows the evolution of the Hercules and its associthe Nike fuselage.[9] However, gun-type weapons are also ated launch systems as it replaced Ajax. Note the growth of the low performance types that require large amount of ex- fuselage as it moved to solid fuel. pensive nuclear fuel. The competing implosion-type design is considerably more efficient and uses much less fuel to reach any given explosive power. Implosion designs are necessarily spherical, and thus less suitable for inclusion in a skinny fuselage like Nike’s. In order to use an implosion warhead, Bell also proposed a much more modified design known as “Nike Hercules”. This featured an enlarged upper fuselage able to carry the XW-7 warhead of up to 40 kT.[9] In spite of the greatly increased explosive power, the WX7 was only slightly heavier than the WX-9, about 950 pounds for common XW-7 versions, as opposed to 850 pounds for the XW-9.[10] At the same time, there were increasing concerns that higher speed aircraft would be able to launch their warheads at the extreme range of the Nike bases. This was a common complaint by the Air Force, who noted the ability for bombers to attack from as much as 50 miles (80 km) while the Nike was only comfortable launching at about 25 miles (40 km).[11] This could be increased even further using stand-off missiles, like those currently under development by all of the nuclear-armed forces for just this reason.[N 1] A larger Nike with greatly improved range would not only help address this problem, but also allow a single base to defend a much larger area, lowering the overall costs of deploying a widespread defensive system.
Soon after design work started, the Army requested that the existing liquid fuel engine be replaced with a solid fuel design, for a variety of reasons. Primary among these was that the Ajax fuels were "hypergolic", igniting on contact. Due to the nature of these fuels, extreme caution had to be used whenever the missiles were moved or unloaded for maintenance. This was carried out in a protected area behind a large berm, in order to protect the rest of the site from an accidental explosion during fuelling. This complexity added enormously to the cost and time required to maintain the missiles. Solid fuel rockets can remain stored for years, and is generally very difficult to ignite without an extended period of applied flame. This means they can be manhandled safely, and maintained with the rocket motor installed. However, the lower specific impulse of these engines, combined with the requirement for longer range, demanded a much larger weapon to store the required fuel. Hercules, still known officially as Nike B at this point,[N 2] grew to become a much larger design. This, in turn, required a much larger booster to loft it, but this was solved by strapping together four of the existing Nike boosters to form a cluster known as the XM-42, with the only modification to the original M5 engine design being the addition of new holes to bolt them together, creating the M5E.[12]
As a new missile was desired anyway to provide longer Some effort was also put into a “frangible booster” for the
18 Ajax, who’s casing would destroy itself in flight. This was a concern because the Ajax boosters were built in steel tubes that fell back to the ground close to the launcher sites and presented a real range safety concern. Martin produced the T48E1 and E2 designs for Ajax used a fibreglass casing that was destroyed by small explosives, but this engine proved overweight and did not boost the Ajax to the required speed. Redstone Arsenal then presented the T48E3 which was somewhat larger and longer to reach reasonable performance, but only at the cost of having to modify all of the Ajax launcher rails. The Army eventually decided not to proceed with any Ajax modifications as Hercules would be arriving shortly anyway. Similar experiments for Hercules boosters led to the XM61 single-chamber booster, but when the XM-42 cluster proved to be even less expensive than expected, this effort was also dropped.[13]
CHAPTER 3. MIM-14 NIKE HERCULES late development as the BOMARC. BOMARC proved extremely expensive, difficult to maintain in operation readiness, had questionable performance and was displaying a continued inability to reach operational status. Instead of de-emphasizing BOMARC in favour of Hercules, inter-service rivalry became rampant, and the Air Force began a policy of denigrating Hercules and the Army using policy by press release.[17]
In a famous event, the Air Force interviewed for an article that appeared in the New York Times entitled “Air Force Calls Army Nike Unfit To Guard Nation”.[18] This was answered most forcibly not by the Army, but the Defense Secretary Charles Erwin Wilson, who wrote in Newsweek that “one hard solid fact remerges above them all: no matter what the Nike is or isn't, it’s the only land-based operational anti-aircraft missile that the U.S. has.”[19] By the time early Hercules deployments were starting in 1958, As part of the upgrade project, the original missile be- BOMARC was still nowhere near operational.[20] came known as Nike I. On 15 November 1956 the new All of this was part of a larger fight going on over the missile was officially renamed as the Nike Hercules, as Army’s Jupiter missile, which the Air Force stated should part of DA Circular 700-22, while the Nike I becoming be their mission. Wilson attempted to address the interNike Ajax.[14] This was also a time of rapidly improving service rivalries by enforcing a strict limit on the range of nuclear weapon design, and in the same year the deci- Army systems. In his 26 November 1956 memorandum, sion was made to replace the XW-7 warhead, by this time he limited the Army to weapons with 200-mile (320 km) widely used as the W7 in the Mark 7 bomb, with a newer range, and those involved in ground-to-air defense to only 20 kT boosted fission design known as W31. Although of 100 miles (160 km).[21] This forced the Army to turn its similar size and weight as the earlier W7, the W31 was Jupiter IRBM systems to the Air Force, and to limit the much more efficient, and thus less expensive to produce. range of their ABM developments.[22] The new design ultimately provided effective ranges on This did not do much to stop the squabbling, nor did it the order of 75 miles (120 km) and altitudes over 100,000 solve the problems that led to the issues in the first place feet (30 km). – the fight over Hercules and BOMARC and related antimissile developments. Nor did it stop the fighting in the press. Army Colonel John Nickerson Jr. publicly de3.1.4 Bomarc / Hercules controversy nounced Wilson, while leaking details of their latest missile design, the Pershing.[21][23] The resulting flap led to Main article: CIM-10 Bomarc calls for Nickerson to be court-martialed and was compared to the Billy Mitchell court-martial in the 1920s.[24] Throughout the Ajax evolution the then-new Air Force It did, however, allow development of Hercules to conhad been encouraged by the deployment of the missile tinue, and the system was soon preparing to deploy. In systems. They saw this as an extension of the Army’s 1958 an article appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times in existing “point defence” role, and as a valuable backup which various Air Force officials complained that the to their own manned interceptors. There were conHercules was ineffective. Chicago was slated to shortly cerns about the possibility of Air Force fighters being atbegin receiving its Hercules upgrades. Similar articles tacked by Army missiles, but the two forces improved cobegan appearing in papers around the country, invariordination between the Army’s ARAACOM and the Air ably just before that city was to begin receiving their misForce’s Air Defense Command (ADC) to the point where siles. This prompted ARAACOM commander Charles these concerns were no longer an issue.[15] Nevertheless, E. Hart to petition the Secretary of Defense to order the when the Army first released information about Ajax to Air Force to stop the well organized campaign against the press in 1953, the Air Force quickly responded by Hercules. The Army then began its own series of press leaking information about Bomarc to Aviation Week,[16] releases under what they called “Project Truth”.[25] and continued to denigrate it in the press over the next Eventually, in November the new Secretary of Defense, few years.[11] Neil H. McElroy announced both systems would be purThings changed dramatically with the development of chased. Both forces, and their congressional supportHercules. By the early 1950s the Air Force was still ers, realized that splitting the budget would mean neither struggling with their own long-range weapon systems, force would be funded to the level required to fulfill the originally started in the 1940s in the GAPA project. defence mission. In 1959 both the House and Senate deThe project had moved several times, and was now in
3.1. DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT bated the systems, with the Senate recommending cutting funding for Hercules and Congress stating the opposite. Congress eventually came to support the Defense Secretary’s position as stated in the Master Air Defense Plan, retaining Hercules while reducing BOMARC and SAGE.[26] Meanwhile the Air Force scrambled to bring BOMARC to operational status, and in 1 September 1959 declared the 46th Air Defense Squadron at McGuire Air Force Base operational. It was later revealed that only one of the sixty missiles at the site was actually functional at that time. Engineers continued work on getting a second missile operational at McGuire, but the Air Force went ahead with plans to open the Suffolk County Missile Annex by 1 January 1960. In January only four missiles were operational at Suffolk, and during House appropriation hearings that month, the DoD proved rather subdued when Congress attacked the design, especially in light of several failed tests of the BOMARC B missile. In February Air Force Chief of Staff Thomas D. White shocked everyone when he requested that BOMARC deployments be reduced to eight US and two Canadian sites, essentially killing the program.[27] In the aftermath of the Hercules/BOMARC debates, retired Army Brigadier General Thomas R. Phillips wrote an article for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that BOMARC and SAGE had been the “most costly waste of funds in the history of the Defense Department.”[27]
3.1.5
19 A similar test on 17 July against a 300-knot Q2A destroyed the target with the T45. A dual-launch followed on 24 July, with the first round destroying its target with the T45, and the second with the instrument package flying one second behind. A similar test on 29 July launched two missiles against three F-80 Shooting Star drones flying in formation, the first missile destroyed the lead aircraft while the second passed within lethal range of a second. Testing was unexpectedly cancelled before the W-7 could be fired.[29]
3.1.6 Deployment Hercules was designed from the start to operate from Ajax bases. However, as it protected a much greater area, not as many sites were needed to provide coverage of potential targets. Early deployments starting in 1958 were on new sites, but Ajax units started converting as well. Conversions were largely complete by 1960, leaving only a few Ajax sites in use. The last active Nike Ajax batteries were relieved of their mission in December 1961, followed by the last Army National Guard unit in May 1964. Nuclear-armed Nike Hercules missiles were deployed in the United States, Greece, Italy, Korea and Turkey, and with Belgian, Dutch, and U.S. forces in West Germany.[30] Conventionally armed Nike Hercules missiles also served in the United States, Germany, Denmark, Japan, Norway, and Taiwan.[31] The first deployments in Europe began in 1959.[32]
Operation SNODGRASS 3.1.7 Improved Nike Hercules
Plans had been made to test the Hercules’ W-7 warhead in a live-fire exercise in 1959 as part of “Operation SNODGRASS”. However, as rumours of a ban on atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons spread, SNODGRASS became a crash project to be completed before 1 September 1958 at any available site – the Nevada Test Site was fully booked with the existing Project AMMO testing series. Part of the rush was due to the newly evolving understanding of the effects of nuclear weapons on radar systems, which led to serious concerns about various weapon’s systems ability to operate after nearby nuclear explosions. Testing of the W-7 was put into AMMO, while the SNODGRASS series was moved to an ArmyAir Force test at Eglin Air Force Base with tests of both the conventional T45 and nuclear W-7 warheads. A variety of problems, including one found in the W-7 warhead, caused delays in the testing programs, so a single launch of the T45-equipped Hercules was also added to The IFC area of an Improved Nike Hercules site mounts its five radars on platforms for a better view. From left to right are the the AMMO project.[28] The AMMO shot took place on 1 July 1958, successfully intercepting a simulated 650 knot target flying at an altitude of 100,000 feet and a slant range of 79 miles.[N 3] The first SNODGRASS round was launched on 14 July with its warhead replaced by an instrument package and launched against a 350-knot Q2A Ryan Firebee I drone.
TTR and TRR, HIPAR (large white dome) LOPAR (small dark rectangle in center foreground) and MTR.
Even before deployment of Hercules began, studies on improvements to the system had been identified. A 23 October 1954 report stated that “Concurrent with the prosecution of the NIKE I and NIKE B programs, studies
20 and research and development must be conducted to insure that the NIKE equipment is modernized to the maximum extent within the limits of current technology and economics of improvement as compared to investment in a new system ...”. Three key elements were identified; the need to attack formations without nuclear warheads, operations against low-altitude targets, and better traffichandling capabilities to handle larger raids.[33] In early 1956 Bell began studies of the INH concept by considering the predicted threat for the 1960-65 period. This was predicted to be aircraft with speeds up to Mach 3, a wide range of radar cross sections, and powerful electronic countermeasures. IRBMs and ICBMs were also a consideration, but these were being addressed by the Nike Zeus concept, leaving only short-range weapons as an issue Hercules might need to address. To address this whole range of issues, Bell proposed a series of changes:[34] 1. improvements to the X-band TTR/MTR radars to increase range 2. the addition of the long-range L-band “High Power Acquisition Radar” (HIPAR) to detect small, highspeed targets 3. the addition of the wide-frequency Ku-band Target Ranging Radar (TRR) to provide ranging in a heavy ECM environment 4. the addition of an active seeker on the missile to improve performance against low-altitude targets The addition of the TRR solved a problem with early pulse radar units. It is relatively easy to jam a conventional radar by sending out additional pulses of radio signal on the same frequency. Unless the transmitter has encoded some additional form of information in the signal, the receiver cannot determine which pulse it sent out and which is from the jammer. Note that this has no effect on the determination of the direction to the target, which is the same for both the original and jammer pulses. However, it makes the determination of range difficult or impossible. The TRR solves this problem by providing a separate ranging system on another frequency. By making the signal wide-frequency, the jammer has to likewise broadcast across a similar bandwidth, limiting the energy in any one frequency and allowing the operator to tune the receiver to find an unjammed band.[34] Combining range from the TRR and direction from the TTR provided complete information on the target.
CHAPTER 3. MIM-14 NIKE HERCULES retroactively became known as LOPAR, and remained in use as the main target selection radar in the missile control van. HIPAR would detect targets separately and “hand off” to the LOPAR and TTR so those systems could remain largely unchanged and able to launch either Hercules or Ajax. These changes were presented on 24 August 1956, and accepted by both CONARC and ARADCOM. The active seeker system was later dropped to lower costs.[34] Engineering was complete in 1958 and entered low-rate production in May 1959. The first HIPAR was tested at White Sands between 14 April 1960 and 13 April 1961, starting with two Ajax launches that passed 14 yards and 18 yards from the drone targets, and a further 17 Hercules launches that were generally successful. Among the various test targets were a Mach 3 Lockheed AQM60, a drone, and a Corporal missile. Also conducted were tests to evaluate ECM performance, two surface-tosurface tests, and two Hercules-on-Hercules attacks with the target Hercules flying in a semi-ballistic trajectory.[35] Deployment of the INH upgrade kits began on 10 June 1961 at the BA-30 site in the Washington-Baltimore defense area, and continued into September 1967.[36] HIPAR was a large system and generally deployed under a dome on top of a concrete platform that raised it above any local obstructions. To provide the same range of view, the tracking radars were also often placed on concrete platforms of their own, although these were much smaller. LOPAR was retained in order to allow the same displays to be used in the launcher control sites adapting HIPAR to use the existing displays would require more work and reduce the effectiveness of that radar. The Hercules missile systems sold to Japan (Nike J) were subsequently fitted with upgraded internal guidance systems, the original vacuum tube systems being replaced with transistorized ones.
3.1.8 Anti-missile upgrades Although Hercules had demonstrated its ability to successfully engage short-range missiles, the capability was not considered very important. During development the Air Force continued its Project Wizard while the Army started their Project Plato studies for dedicated antimissile systems. By 1959 Plato was still very much a paper project, while news of large deployments of shortrange missiles in the Warsaw Bloc became a clear threat. Plato was cancelled in February 1959, replaced in the short term by further upgrades to Hercules, and in the longer term by the FABMDS program.[37] FABMDS would have performance against any credible “theatre” ranged missile or rocket system, as well as offer antiaircraft capabilities, the ability to attack four targets at once, and be relatively mobile.
The changes were designed to be upgradable without major changes to the deployed system – the TTR/MTR could be replaced at any time, the HIPAR used its own displays and therefore required no changes in the missile launch equipment, the TRR was slaved to the TTR and simply updated range readings, and the new seeker could be The Hercules system was compared to threats ranging retrofitted at any time. The original Ajax detection radar from the relatively short-range Little John, Honest John
3.1. DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT
21 able to track it.[38] The first deployment of the EFS/ATBM HIPAR was carried out between February and 20 April 1963, but during this time the Army decided not to deploy these systems in the United States. Further deployments to allied units and US units in Alaska were carried out between November 1963 and the summer of 1965.[38]
3.1.9 Mobile Hercules
A Corporal missile engaged by a Nike Hercules in a test at White Sands, 3 June 1960
and Lacrosse through medium-range systems like Corporal, Sergeant and Lance, and finally the long-range (for battlefield concerns) 200 mi (320 km) Redstone. Of these threats, Redstone was considered just within the Hercules’ capabilities, able to defend against such a target over a relatively limited range. Increasing performance against these longer-range “theatre” weapons would require more extensive upgrades that would have pushed the time-frame out to the range when FABMDS was expected.[38] The primary change to create the resulting “Improved EFS/ATBM Hercules” was a modified version of the HIPAR. The antenna was modified to give it the ability to see higher angles, while the Battery Control Console was upgraded with dual PPI displays for short- and longrange work, and the data link to the missile van was upgraded. Additionally the radar was given the “Electronic Frequency Selection” (EFS) system which allowed operators to quickly switch between a selection of operating frequencies at about 20 microseconds, while the earlier system required manual switching that took about 30 seconds.[38] The first EFS sets arrived at White Sands late in 1962 and started testing in April 1963. In testing the system was successful against all manner of short-range rockets and missiles, and successfully tracked the Redstone on 23 September and 5 October 1963, but failed to achieve a “kill” in either test due to unrelated problems. A test against the much higher performance Pershing was carried out on 16 October 1963, and while the HIPAR was able to detect the missile, the tracking system it was un-
Considerable work on a mobile launcher was carried out using a modified GOER vehicle.
As Hercules had evolved from the fixed-base Ajax system, early deployments offered no mobility. However, both Ajax and Hercules systems in Europe had to be able to move as US forces shifted. This led to the use of semitrailer systems for the fire control systems, which could be easily moved and re-positioned as required. LOPAR was relatively small, and the TTR/MTR were always trailer based, so these systems were also fairly mobile. The problem was the missile launcher itself, and especially the large HIPAR radar, which presented a formidable mobility problem. Starting in April 1960, considerable effort was put into a fully mobile “Cross-Country Hercules” launcher based on the M520 Goer vehicle, an articulated prime mover that saw considerable service during the Vietnam War. This system was successfully tested at White Sands on 1 October 1961.[39][40] In spite of this success, the GOERbased Hercules would not be used operationally. Efforts to mount the HIPAR on the same platform between March and December 1962 were not nearly as successful, and on 18 December 1962 the concept was abandoned in favour of an “airmobile” solution using conventional M52 trucks and modified trailers. The resulting system used six semi-trailers: four to carry HIPAR electronic gear, one to carry the antenna, and one to carry the generators. General Electric demonstrated a prototype on 11 February 1964. The AN/MPQ-43 Mobile HIPAR was made part of Hercules Standard A in August 1966m
22
CHAPTER 3. MIM-14 NIKE HERCULES
and began operational deployment in Europe on 12 April All CONUS Hercules batteries, with the exception of the 1967.[41] ones in Florida and Alaska, were deactivated by April 1974. The remaining units were deactivated during the spring of 1979. Dismantling of the sites in Florida – 3.1.10 Deactivation Alpha Battery in Everglades National Park, Bravo Battery in Key Largo, Charlie Battery in Carol City and Delta Battery, located on Krome Avenue on the outskirts of Miami – started in June 1979 and was completed by early autumn of that year. The buildings that once housed Delta Battery became the original structures used for the Krome Avenue Detention Facility, a federal facility used primarily to hold illegal aliens awaiting immigration hearings. In Anchorage, Alaska, Site Point (A Battery) was converted into a ski chalet for Kincaid Park. Site Summit (B Battery) still sits above Eagle River, its IFC buildings and clamshell towers easily visible when driving towards Anchorage. Site Bay (C Battery), across Cook Inlet from the others, has been mostly demolished, with only burned out shells of the batteries remaining, as well as a few storThe remains of former Nike site D-57/58 in Newport, Michigan. age bunkers. The large airstrip remains, and is often used At the time this picture was taken in 1996, the site was a haz- by locals for flight instruction and practice. ardous waste cleanup site.
Hercules remained a major front-line weapon in Europe into the 1980s. Over the years, the non-solid state guidance system, as well as the complex fire control systems’ radars, suffered from diminishing manufacturing source (DMS) issues. In part because of less parts supportability, Western European (Fourth Allied Tactical Air Force (4 ATAF) and Second Allied Tactical Air Force (2 ATAF) sites essentially became fixed sites and were no longer considered capable of a mobile role. During the last years of their deployment in Europe the issue at hand was more about maintaining security of the nuclear capable missiles, rather than mobility. The DoD invested considerably in upgrading the security of the storage areas of the launcher sections, ultimately installing significant towers that were capable of watching over all three sections within the “exclusion area.” The U.S. Army continued to use Hercules as a front-line air defense weapon in Europe until 1983, when Patriot missile batteries were deployed. NATO units from West Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Norway, Greece and Turkey continued to use the Hercules for high-altitude air defense until the late 1980s. With the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, the units were deactivated in 1988. The last Hercules missile was launched in the Sardinian range of Capo San Lorenzo in Italy on November 24, 2006.[43]
A relic Nike as a monument near the U.S. Route 70 entry to White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico in 2009.
Approximately 25,000 Nike Hercules were manufactured.[44] Early models cost about $55,250 [44] while most recent cost estimate, from Japan, Soviet development of ICBMs and the de-emphasis of each, was US$3 .0 million. their bomber force decreased the value of the Hercules [42] Beginning around 1965, the number of Nike system. batteries was reduced. Thule’s air defense was reduced during 1965, and SAC air base defense during 1966, reducing the number of batteries to 112. Budgetary cuts reduced that number to 87 in 1968, and 82 in 1969. Nike Hercules was included in SALT I discussions as an ABM.
3.2. DESCRIPTION
23
3.2 Description
degrees from the line of the fuselage.[47] These smaller wings also housed the antennae of the transponder.
The Nike Hercules was a command-guided, long-range, high-altitude anti-aircraft missile.[45] It was normally deployed in fixed bases with a central radar and control site (Integrated Fire Control area or IFC) separated from the launcher area (LA). Hercules batteries in the US were generally placed in older Ajax bases, using their underground storage and maintenance buildings. 145 missile batteries were deployed during the cold war.
The booster was formed from four of the earlier Ajax M5E1 boosters held together in a frame. Each of these was a steel tube, and held together in this fashion they presented a considerable range safety issue when they fell back to the ground after launch. The boosters were equipped with four large swept-wing fins at the extreme rear, behind the rocket exhaust, using a diamond crosssection suitable for supersonic lift.[48]
3.2.1
Sites
Each Nike battery consisted of two or three areas; IFC, LA and general. The LA consisted to a maximum of four launching sections, each section consisted of an underground storage area, an elevator to move missiles to and from the surface launchers, and four aboveground firing locations. One of these locations was directly above the elevator, the others were reached by manually pushing the missiles off the elevator to the launcher along rails. The LA also had a control van to control and monitor the LA activities and maintenance facilities.
Hercules could carry either a nuclear warhead or a conventional high explosive warhead (T-45 fragmentation type). Initially the nuclear-armed version carried the W7 Mod 2E nuclear warhead, with yields of 2.5 or 28 kt. Beginning in FY 1961 the older warheads were replaced by W-31 Mod 0 warheads, with yields of 2 kt (Y1) or 30 kt (Y2).[49] The last versions carried the W31 Mod 2 warhead, with yields of 2 or 20 kt.[2] Approximately 25,000 Nike Hercules were manufactured.[44] Three versions were produced, MIM-14A, B and C. The differences between these versions are not known.[50] There are slight differences in dimensions as reported in different sources, it is not known if this is due to different versions.[44]
The IFC contained the search and tracking radars and control center (operators, computer, etc.), and various related offices and communications centres for general op- 3.2.3 erations. To operate the Nike-Hercules system on the IFC the crew consisted of about nine operators under command of the Battery Control Officer (BCO). The crew on the LA, also under command of the BCO, was responsible for preparing and erecting the missile. On both the IFC and the LA maintenance people were available.
Detection and tracking
The battery crew was housed on-site, either at the IFC, or sometimes, together with administrative offices and general services on a separate area. Any single battery could only launch a single missile at a time, due to the limited number of radars, computers and operators. Four Nike batteries were normally organized into a single battalion.[46]
3.2.2
Missile
When mounted on its booster pack, the Hercules missile was 41 feet 6 inches (12.65 m) long with a wingspan of 6 feet 2 inches (1.88 m) (one side only). The upper stage alone was 24 feet 11 inches (7.59 m) long. The fuselage had a bullet-like shape (Sears–Haack body), but this was difficult to make out due to the presence of the four large delta wings running almost the entire length of the fuselage. Each wing ended with a control flap which was separated from the wing by a short distance, leaving a gap. The back of the controls were even with the extreme rear of the missile. Smaller deltas in front of the main wings, and blended into them, provided roll control with very small flaps mounted to pivot along a line roughly 45
Nike Hercules guidance schematic, surface-to-air mode.
Interceptions with the Hercules system would typically start with targets being detected and identified on the HIPAR system, if this was in use. Otherwise the LOPAR was used. In order to simplify the upgrades at Ajax sites, HIPAR did not replace the earlier ACQ radar from Ajax, which was retained and now known as LOPAR. HIPAR used its own displays and operators, and forwarded targeting information to the LOPAR operators who would then pick up those same targets on their own display. Once a target was found on the LOPAR it could be identified with aid of an Identification friend or foe system.[N 4]
24
CHAPTER 3. MIM-14 NIKE HERCULES missile were displayed on the plotting boards.[46] Like the Ajax, the Hercules used a transponder in the missile. To ensure the MTR could see and track the missile during its initial rapid assent as it launched, the IFC was normally located about 1 mile (1.6 km) from the “Launching Area” (LA), and in the case of Hercules, all of these radars were typically mounted on (concrete) elevated platforms to improve their line-of-sight.
IFC radars. Left: acquisition radar (LOPAR), three spherical antennae: tracking radars. Just behind the right two tracking radars the two vans for housing computer and tracking equipment and the operating consoles for the operators (crew of 9).
The LOPAR provided rough range, azimuth and limited altitude or elevation information to the operators of the Target Tracking Radar (TTR), who would manually slew the TTR onto the target. Once locked-on, tracking was automatic.[46] New to the Hercules system was the Target Ranging Radar, or TRR. It is relatively easy to jam range information on monopulse radars like the TTR by sending out false return signals. The radar can continue to locate the target in elevation or azimuth because all of the signals come from the same location, but the receiver cannot easily determine which pulse was sent by the radar and which was sent by the electronic countermeasures (ECM) on the target aircraft. The TRR system combatted this by operating on two selectable very different set of frequencies. The result was fine for ranging but useless for position determination. This signal would be very difficult to jam because the jammer would have to broadcast across a wide set of frequencies in order to ensure they were returning on the frequency the receiver had actually selected. Meanwhile the TTR can continue offering location information, and in the case that is also jammed (difficult but possible), was upgraded to offer a home-on-jam mode that used the ECM system’s own broadcasts as a location source. Skilled operators could also try to track the target in a manual tracking mode.
3.2.4
Guidance
Information from the MTR and TTR continued to be fed to the computer updating the intercept point based on any actual changes in either the missile or the target location, speed or direction. The guidance commands were sent to the missile by modulating the MTR signal. When the missile neared the intercept point a command signal was sent to the missile to explode.[46]
3.2.5 Launch sequence Hercules missiles were normally stored in a “safe” mode, using various keys and pull-to-arm pins. During an alert, the site would go on “blue alert”, at which time the LA crew would arm and erect the missiles and then retreat to safety. As the missiles were brought to readiness, a light board in the LA control van lit up with a series of amber lights for each launcher area, and green lights for each missile.[46] On the IFC the status of the selected missile was given. When the battery was given orders to attack a target, the alert status lamp changed from blue to red. When the TTR and MTR radars were locked, the computer had a firing solution and the missile reported active, the LA lamp changed from amber to green, indicating the ability to fire. At this time the target information and the intercept point were displayed on the plotting boards and the BCO selected the right time to manually fire.[46] The entire sequence of events from decision to launch to actual launch normally took about 36 seconds. This included about 30 seconds to develop a track for a target; 4 seconds for computer to develop a firing solution, and 2 seconds between the initial fire order command and missile launch. There was a 5 second allowance for the missile to launch, if it failed to do so it was marked “rejected” and another missile selected. A new missile could be launched about 11 seconds after detonation or rejecting the previous missile. Based on the 'time to fly' of the missile this limited overall battery rates to about one launch every couple of minutes.[46]
As soon at the TTR was locked on to a target, an analog computer (later digital) continually computed a suitable intercept point in the sky and an expected 'time to fly' 3.2.6 Surface-to-surface mode of the missile based on information from the TTR and basic performance information about the missile. This Hercules also offered the ability to attack pre-located information was displayed on plotting boards.[46] ground targets, after feeding in the coordinates in an opPrior to launch, the Missile Tracking Radar (MTR) eration that took about five minutes. For these missions locked on to the selected missile and tracked it. A short the computer used the MTR to guide the missile to a point period after launch the actual location and height of the above the target, then commanded it to dive vertically
3.5. GALLERY
25
while measuring any changes in trajectory as it fell. The missile would eventually pass out of line-of-sight with the MTR, so final arming information was provided during the dive, and the warhead was triggered by a barometric fuse.
Republic of Korea
Netherlands Norway
3.3 Accidental launches • An accidental launch of a Nike-H missile occurred on April 14, 1955, at the W-25 site at Fort George G. Meade which contains the National Security Agency headquarters [51] • Naha, Okinawa June or July 1959, a similar incident occurred concerning a Hercules anti-aircraft missile on Okinawa which according to some witnesses, was complete with a nuclear warhead, and was accidentally fired from the Nike site 8 battery at Naha Air Base.[52] While the missile was undergoing continuity testing of the firing circuit, known as a squib test, stray voltage caused a short circuit in a faulty cable that was lying in a puddle and allowed the missile’s rocket engines to ignite with the launcher still in a horizontal position.[52] The Nike missile left the launcher and smashed through a fence and down into a beach area skipping the warhead out across the water “like a stone.”[52] The rocket’s exhaust blast killed two Army technicians and injured one.[52] • Inchon, Korea. Reported in The Washington Post of December 5, 1998,[52] the missile inadvertently launched from a Nike missile site near the summit of Mt. Bongnaesan where it exploded above some reclaimed land off Songdo (now Songdo International Business District), showering residential areas with debris, destroying parked cars and breaking windows.[53]
Taiwan Turkey
United States
3.5 Gallery • Nike Hercules after take-off at NAMFI in Greece • 2 Nikes on transport rail • Missile elevator • Dutch Nike site in W-Germany (note the above ground storage shelter).
[53]
• MIM-14 Nike-H missile at Okinawa, June 1967 • Section Panel Operator • Battery Control Officer operating position with the acquisition radar operator on the left and on the right the computer operator. And in front the plotting boards.
• TTR and TRR operator console. The TTR was op-
3.4 Operators
erated by three operators (range, elevation and azimuth). De TRR was operated by the track supervisor.
Belgium
• MTR operator console. De MTR was operated by one
Denmark
• Coder decoder group AN/MSQ-18.
Germany
operator.
3.6 See also
Greece
• List of missiles
Italy
• Project Nike • W31
Japan
• List of Nike missile locations
26
3.7 References Notes [1] Examples include the US’s AGM-28 Hound Dog, the UK’s Blue Steel, and the USSR’s Kh-20. [2] It is not clear in existing sources why the design was named “Nike B” and not “Nike IB”, given that the Nike Zeus was known as “Nike II”. [3] The “simulated target” appears to be purely simulated, not a drone. [4] According to the Popular Science article of 1954, Ajax did not have an IFF system. It is not clear if this was added later, and if so, if it was part of the HIPAR or LOPAR setups.
CHAPTER 3. MIM-14 NIKE HERCULES
[19] Lonnquest & Winkler 1996, pp. 60-61. [20] Lonnquest & Winkler 1996, p. 61. [21] Larsen, Douglas (1 August 1957). “New Battle Looms Over Army’s Newest Missile”. Sarasota Journal. p. 35. Retrieved 18 May 2013. [22] Walker, Bernstein & Lang 2003, pp. 27-30, 37. [23] “Nickerson Accuses Wilson Of 'Grave Errors’ On Missiles”. The News and Courier. 28 June 1957. p. B-14. Retrieved 18 May 2013. [24] “Army Weights Court-Martial Over Missiles”. St. Petersburg Times. 25 February 1957. p. 1. Retrieved 18 May 2013. [25] Lonnquest & Winkler 1996, pp. 61-62. [26] Lonnquest & Winkler 1996, p. 62.
Citations [1] Department of the Army, Army Missiles Handbook January 1960 (formerly SECRET) p. 52 Missiles files, United States Army Center of Military History.
[27] Lonnquest & Winkler 1996, p. 63. [28] Cagle 1973, pp. 98-120. [29] Cagle 1973, pp. 98–120.
[5] Walker, Bernstein & Lang 2003, p. 20.
[30] Thomas B. Cochran, William M. Arkin, and Milton M. Hoenig, Nuclear Weapons Databook Volume I: U.S. Nuclear Forces and Capabilities (Cambridge: Ballinger, 1984) p.287; The New York Times December 23, 1959, p. 50; Irving Heymont, “The NATO Nuclear Bilateral Forces” Orbis 94:4 Winter 1966, pp. 1025–1041; George S. Harris, The Troubled Alliance: Turkish-American Problems in Historical Perspective 1945–1971 (Washington: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1972), p. 153.
[6] Leonard 2011, pp. 3-4, 18.
[31] Cagle 1973, p. 186.
[7] “Thunderbird”. Flight International: 295–299, 302–303. 25 September 1959. ISSN 0015-3710. Retrieved 18 May 2013.
[32] The New York Times April 9, 1959, p. 7 and December 23, 1959, p. 50.
[2] Thomas B. Cochran, William M. Arkin, and Milton Hoenig, Nuclear Weapons Databook Volume I: U.S. Nuclear Forces and Capabilities (Cambridge: Ballinger, 1987) p.45. [3] Zeus 1962, p. 165. [4] Walker, Bernstein & Lang 2003, p. 39.
[8] Lonnquest & Winkler 1996, pp. 56-57. [9] Lonnquest & Winkler 1996, p. 57. [10] “Complete List of All U.S. Nuclear Weapons”, Nuclear Weapon Archive, 14 October 2006 [11] “Will NIKE Protect Us from Red Bombers?", Popular Science, September 1956, pp. 152-155 [12] Cagle 1973, p. 67.
[33] Cagle 1973, pp. 163–164. [34] Cagle 1973, p. 167. [35] Cagle 1973, pp. 169–171. [36] Cagle 1973, p. 171. [37] “Naval Forces’ Capability for Theater Missile Defense”, National Academies Press, 2001 [38] Cagle 1973, pp. 190–196.
[13] Cagle 1973, pp. 67-78.
[39] “Nike-Hercules Anti-Aircraft Missile Launched”, Charleston News and Courier, 2 October 1961, p. 3A.
[14] “Nike Ajax (SAM-A-7) (MIM-3, 3A)", Federation of American Scientists, 29 June 1999
[40] “Missile Fired from Mobile Transport”, Daytona Beach Morning Journal, 2 October 1961, p. 1.
[15] Lonnquest & Winkler 1996, pp. 57-58.
[41] Cagle 1973, pp. 196.
[16] Aviation Week, 6 April 1953, p. 15.
[42] Lonnquest & Winkler 1996.
[17] Lonnquest & Winkler 1996, p. 60.
[43] “The Nike Hercules of the Italian Air Force Museum”, The Aviationist, Retrieved: 2012-11-26.
[18] “Air Force Calls Army Unfit to Guard Nation”. New York Times. 21 May 1956. p. 1.
[44] Carlson & Lyon 1996.
3.8. EXTERNAL LINKS
27
[45] John Lonnquest and David Winkler, “To Defend and Deter: The legacy of the United States cold war missile program”
• Nike Hercules at Encyclopedia Astronautica
[46] Carlson & Lyon 1996, Nike Operations.
• Nike Missile information
[47] “Overall View”, TM-9-1410-250-12/1, US Army [48] Mike Cantrell, “Nike Hercules Booster Motor Assembly Markings and Paint Schemes” [49] Department of the Army, Army Missiles Handbook January 1960 (formerly SECRET) p. 52 Missiles files, United States Army Center of Military History. [50] Stephen Maire, “Nike-Hercules” [51] “Nike History, The One That Got Away”. Retrieved 6 December 2012. [52] “Nike History, Eyewitness accounts of Timothy Ryan, Carl Durling, and Charles Rudicil”. Retrieved 11 November 2012. [53] “Incheon Bridge at Night”. Retrieved 5 December 2012.
Bibliography • Carlson, Christina; Lyon, Robert (1996). Last Line Of Defense: Nike Missile Sites In Illinois (Report). Denver National Park Service. Retrieved 1 January 2014. • Lonnquest, John; Winkler, David (1996). To Defend and Deter: The Legacy of the United States Cold War Missile Program. US Army Construction Engineering Research Lab. Retrieved 26 December 2013. • Kaplan, Lawrence (2006). Nike Zeus: The U.S. Army’s First ABM. Fall’s Church, Virginia: Missile Defense Agency. OCLC 232605150. Retrieved 13 May 2013. • Technical Editor (2 August 1962). “Nike Zeus”. Flight International: 165–170. ISSN 0015-3710. Retrieved 13 May 2013. • Walker, James; Bernstein, Lewis; Lang, Sharon (2003). Seize the High Ground: The U. S. Army in Space and Missile Defense. Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History. ISBN 9780160723087. OCLC 57711369. Retrieved 13 May 2013. • Cagle, Mary (1973). History of the Nike Hercules Weapon System. Redstone Arsenal: U.S. Army Missile Command. Retrieved 1 January 2014.
3.8 External links • Nike Hercules at Designation-Systems.net • Nike Historical Society
• The last operational North American unit
Chapter 4
Project Nike
Nike missile family on display at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. From left, MIM-14 Nike Hercules, MIM-23 Hawk (front), MGM29 Sergeant (back), LIM-49 Spartan, MGM-31 Pershing, MGM18 Lacrosse, MIM-3 Nike Ajax.
Project Nike, (Greek: Νίκη, “Victory”, pronounced [nǐːkɛː]), was a U.S. Army project, proposed in May 1945 by Bell Laboratories, to develop a line-of-sight antiaircraft missile system. The project delivered the United States’ first operational anti-aircraft missile system, the Nike Ajax, in 1953. A great number of the technologies and rocket systems used for developing the Nike Ajax were re-used for a number of functions, many of which were given the “Nike” name (after Nike, the goddess of victory from Greek mythology). The missile’s first-stage solid rocket booster became the basis for many types of rocket including the Nike Hercules missile and NASA's Nike Smoke rocket, used for upper-atmosphere research.
4.1 History
Nike Ajax located in Marion, Kentucky.
livering the BOMARC missile. Bell Labs’ proposal would have to deal with bombers flying at 500 mph (800 km/h) or more at altitudes of up to 60,000 ft (20,000 m). At these speeds, even a supersonic rocket is no longer fast enough to be simply aimed at the target. The missile must “lead” the target to ensure the target is hit before the missile depletes its fuel. This means that the missile and target cannot be tracked by a single radar, increasing the complexity of the system. One part was well developed. By this point, the US had considerable experience with lead-calculating analog computers, starting with the British Kerrison Predictor and a series of increasingly capable U.S. designs.
Project Nike began during 1944 when the War Department demanded a new air defense system to combat the new jet aircraft, as existing gun-based systems proved largely incapable of dealing with the speeds and altitudes at which jet aircraft operated. Two proposals were accepted. Bell Laboratories offered Project Nike. A much For Nike, three radars were used. The acquisition radar longer-ranged collision-course system was developed by searched for a target to be handed over to the TarGeneral Electric, named Project Thumper, eventually de- get Tracking Radar (TTR) for tracking. The Missile 28
4.1. HISTORY Tracking Radar (MTR) tracked the missile by way of a transponder, as the missile’s radar signature alone was not sufficient. The MTR also commanded the missile by way of pulse-position modulation, the pulses were received, decoded and then amplified back for the MTR to track. Once the tracking radars were locked the system was able to work automatically following launch, barring any unexpected occurrences. The computer compared the two radars’ directions, along with information on the speeds and distances, to calculate the intercept point and steer the missile. The entirety of this system was provided by the Bell System’s electronics firm, Western Electric. The Douglas-built missile was a two-stage missile using a solid fuel booster stage and a liquid fueled (IRFNA/UDMH) second stage. The missile could reach a maximum speed of 1,000 mph (1,600 km/h), an altitude of 70,000 ft (21 km) and had a range of 25 miles (40 km). The missile contained an unusual three part payload, with explosive fragmentation charges at three points down the length of the missile to help ensure a lethal hit. The missile’s limited range was seen by critics as a serious flaw, because it often meant that the missile had to be situated very close to the area it was protecting. After disputes between the Army and the Air Force (see the Key West Agreement), all longer-range systems were assigned to the Air Force during 1948. They merged their own long-range research with Project Thumper, while the Army continued to develop Nike. During 1950 the Army formed the Army Anti-Aircraft Command (ARAACOM) to operate batteries of anti-aircraft guns and missiles. ARAACOM was renamed the US Army Air Defense Command (USARADCOM) during 1957. It adopted a simpler acronym, ARADCOM, in 1961.
4.1.1
Nike Ajax
Main article: MIM-3 Nike Ajax The first successful Nike test was during November 1951, intercepting a drone B-17 Flying Fortress. The first type, Nike Ajax (MIM-3), were deployed starting in 1953. The Army initially ordered 1,000 missiles and 60 sets of equipment. They were placed to protect strategic and tactical sites within the US. As a last-line of defense from air attack, they were positioned to protect cities as well as military installations. The missile was deployed first at Fort Meade, Maryland during December 1953. A further 240 launch sites were built up to 1962. They replaced 896 radar-guided anti-aircraft guns, operated by the National Guard or Army to protect certain key sites. This left a handful of 75 mm Skysweeper emplacements as the only anti-aircraft artillery remaining in use by the US. By 1957 the Regular Army AAA units had been replaced by missile battalions. During 1958 the Army National Guard began to replace their guns and adopt the Ajax system.
29 1,000 yards (914 m). One part (designated C) of about six acres (24,000 m²) contained the IFC (Integrated Fire Control) radar systems to detect incoming targets (acquisition and target tracking) and direct the missiles (missile tracking), along with the computer systems to plot and direct the intercept. The second part (designated L), around forty acres (160,000 m²), held 1-3 underground missile magazines each serving a group of four launch assemblies and included a safety zone. The site had a crew of 109 officers and men who ran the site continuously. One launcher would be on 15 minutes alert, two on 30 minutes and one on two hour alert. The third part was the administrative area (designated A), which was usually colocated with the IFC and contained the battery headquarters, barracks, mess, recreation hall, and motor pool. The actual configuration of the Nike sites differed depending on geography. Whenever possible the sites were placed on existing military bases or National Guard armories; otherwise land had to be purchased. The Nike batteries were organized in Defense Areas and placed around population centers and strategic locations such as long-range bomber bases, nuclear plants, and (later) ICBM sites. The Nike sites in a Defense Area formed a circle around these cities and bases. There was no fixed number of Nike batteries in a Defense Area and the actual number of batteries varied from a low of two in the Barksdale AFB Defense Area to a high of 22 in the Chicago Defense Area. In the Continental United States the sites were numbered from 01 to 99 starting at the north and increasing clockwise. The numbers had no relation to actual compass headings, but generally Nike sites numbered 01 to 25 were to the northeast and east, those numbered 26 to 50 were to the southeast and south, those numbered 51 to 75 were to the southwest and west, and those numbered 76 to 99 were to the northwest and north. The Defense Areas in the Continental United States were identified by a one- or two-letter code which were related to the city name. Thus those Nike sites starting with C were in the Chicago Defense Area, those starting with HM were in the Homestead AFB/Miami Defense Area, those starting with NY were in the New York Defense Area, and so forth. As an example Nike Site SF-88L refers to the launcher area (L) of the battery located in the northwestern part (88) of the San Francisco Defense Area (SF). During the early-to-mid-1960s the Nike Ajax batteries were upgraded to the Hercules system. The new missiles had greater range and destructive power, so about half as many batteries provided the same defensive capability. Regular Army batteries were either upgraded to the Hercules system or decommissioned. Army National Guard units continued to use the Ajax system until 1964, when they too upgraded to Hercules. Eventually, the Regular Army units were replaced by the National Guard as a cost-saving measure, since the Guard units could return to their homes when off duty.
Each launch site had three parts, separated by at least A Nike Ajax missile accidentally exploded at a battery in
30 Leonardo, New Jersey on 22 May 1958, killing 6 soldiers and 4 civilians. A memorial can be found at Fort Hancock in the Sandy Hook Unit of Gateway National Recreation Area.
CHAPTER 4. PROJECT NIKE mote air crews. ECM activity also took place between the bombers and the Nike sites. The performance of the NIKE crews improved remarkably with this “live target” practice.
Many Nike Hercules batteries were manned by Army National Guard troops, with a single active Army officer as4.1.2 Nike Hercules signed to each battalion to account for the unit’s nuclear warheads. The National Guard air defense units shared Main article: MIM-14 Nike-Hercules responsibility for defense of their assigned area with active Army units in the area, and reported to the active Even as Nike Ajax was being tested, work started on Army chain of command. This is the only known instance Nike-B, later renamed Nike Hercules (MIM-14). It im- of Army National Guard units being equipped with operproved speed, range and accuracy, and could intercept ational nuclear weapons. ballistic missiles. The Hercules had a range of about 100 miles (160 km), a top speed in excess of 3,000 mph (4,800 km/h) and a maximum altitude of around 100,000 4.1.3 Nike Zeus ft (30 km). It had solid fuel boost and sustainer rocket motors. The boost phase was four of the Nike Ajax Main article: LIM-49 Nike Zeus boosters strapped together. In the electronics, some vacDevelopment continued, producing Improved Nike uum tubes were replaced with more reliable solid-state Hercules and then Nike Zeus A and B. The Zeus was components. aimed at intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). The missile also had an optional nuclear warhead to improve the probability of a kill. The W-31 warhead had four variants offering 2, 10, 20 and 30 kiloton yields. The 20 kt version was used in the Hercules system. At sites in the USA the missile almost exclusively carried a nuclear warhead. Sites in foreign nations typically had a mix of high explosive and nuclear warheads. The fire control of the Nike system was also improved with the Hercules and included a surface-to-surface mode which was successfully tested in Alaska. The mode change was accomplished by changing a single plug on the warhead from the “Safe Plug” to “Surface to Air” or “Surface to Surface”.
Zeus, with a new 400,000 lbf (1.78 MN) thrust solidfuel booster, was first test launched during August 1959 and demonstrated a top speed of 8,000 mph (12,875 km/h). The Nike Zeus system utilized the ground based Zeus Acquisition Radar (ZAR), a significant improvement over the Nike Hercules HIPAR guidance system. Shaped like a pyramid, the ZAR featured a Luneburg lens receiver aerial weighing about 1,000 tons. The first successful intercept of an ICBM by Zeus was in 1962, at Kwajalein in the Marshall Islands. Despite its technological advancements, the Department of Defense terminated Zeus development in 1963. The Zeus system, which cost an estimated $15 billion, still suffered from The Nike Hercules was deployed starting in June 1958. several technical flaws[1]that were believed to be unecoFirst deployed to Chicago, 393 Hercules ground systems nomical to overcome. were manufactured. By 1960 ARADCOM had 88 Her- Still, the Army continued to develop an anti-ICBM cules batteries and 174 Ajax batteries, defending 23 zones weapon system referred to as “Nike-X” - that was largely across 30 states. Peak deployment was in 1963 with 134 based on the technological advances of the Zeus system. Hercules batteries not including the US Army Hercules Nike-X featured phase-array radars, computer advances, batteries deployed in Germany, Greece, Greenland, Italy, and a missile tolerant of skin temperatures three times Korea, Okinawa, Taiwan, and Turkey. those of the Zeus. In September 1967, the Department In 1961, SAC and the U.S. Army began a joint train- of Defense announced the deployment of the LIM-49A ing mission with benefits for both parties. SAC needed Spartan missile system, its major elements drawn from fresh (simulated) targets which the cities ringed by Nike X development. Nike/Hercules sites provided, and the Army needed live targets to acquire and track with their radar. SAC had many Radar Bomb Scoring (RBS) sites across the country which had very similar acquisition and tracking radar, plus similar computerized plotting boards which were used to record the bomber tracks and bomb release points. Airmen from these sites were assigned TDY to Nike sites across the country to train the Nike crews in RBS procedures. The distances from the simulated bomb landing point and the “target” were recorded on paper, measured, encoded, and transmitted to the aircrews. The results of these bomb runs were used to promote or de-
In March 1969. the Army started the anti-ballistic missile Safeguard Program, which was designed to defend Minuteman ICBMs, and which was also based on the Nike-X system. It became operational in 1975, but was shut down after just three months.[2]
4.1.4 Nike-X Main article: Nike-X Nike-X was a proposed US Army anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system designed to protect major cities in the
4.2. SPECIFICATIONS United States from attacks by the Soviet Union's ICBM fleet. The name referred to its experimental basis, it was intended to be replaced by a more appropriate name when the system was put into production. This never came to pass; the original Nike-X concept was replaced by a much thinner defense system known as the Sentinel Program that used some of the same equipment. Nike-X was a response to the failure of the earlier Nike Zeus system. Zeus had been designed to face a few dozen Soviet ICBMs in the 1950s, and its design would mean it was largely useless by mid-1960s when it would be facing hundreds. It was calculated that a salvo of only four ICBMs would have a 90% chance of hitting the Zeus base, who’s radars could only track a few warheads at the same time. Worse, the attacker could use radar reflectors or high-altitude nuclear explosions to obscure the warheads until they were too close to attack, making a single warhead attack highly likely to succeed.
31 til the project was canceled in favor of the Thor based Program 437 system during 1966. In the end, neither development would enter service. However, the Nike Zeus system did demonstrate a hit to kill capability against ballistic missiles during the early 1960s. See National Missile Defense and anti-ballistic missile systems. Nike Hercules was included in SALT I discussions as an ABM. Following the treaty signed during 1972, and further budget reduction, almost all Nike sites in the continental United States were deactivated by April 1974. Some units remained active until the later part of that decade in a coastal air defense role.
4.2 Specifications 4.3 Support vehicles
Nike-X addressed these concerns by basing its defense on a very fast, short-range missile known as Sprint. Large These trucks and trailers were used with the Nike system. numbers would be clustered near potential targets, allowing successful attack right up to the few last seconds of • Trucks the warhead’s re-entry. They would operate below the altitude where decoys or explosions had any effect. Nike-X M254 truck, missile rocket motor, Nike Ajax also used a new radar system that could track hundreds M255 truck, body section, Nike Ajax of objects at once, allowing salvoes of many Sprints. It M256 truck, inert, Nike Ajax would require dozens of missiles to overwhelm the system. Nike-X considered retaining the longer range Zeus M257 truck, inert, Nike Ajax missile, and later developed an extended range version M442 truck, guided missile, rocket motor, known as Zeus EX. It played a secondary role in the NikeNike Hercules X system, intended primarily for use in areas outside the M451 truck, guided missile test set, Nike HerSprint protected regions. cules Nike-X required at least one interceptor missile to atM473 truck, guided missile body section, Nike tack each incoming warhead. As the USSR’s missile fleet Hercules grew, the cost of implementing Nike-X began to grow as well. Looking for lower-cost options, a number of studies M489 truck, missile nose section, Nike Hercarried out between 1965 and 1967 examined a variety of cules scenarios where a limited number of interceptors might still be militarily useful. Among these, the I-67 concept • G789 Trailers suggested building a lightweight defense against very limited attacks. When the Chinese exploded their first Hbomb in 1967, I-67 was promoted as a defense against a Chinese attack, and this system became Sentinel in Oc- 4.4 Deployment tober. Nike-X development, in its original form, ended. See also: List of Nike missile locations By 1958, the Army deployed nearly 200 Nike Ajax batteries at 40 “Defense Areas” within the United States (in4.1.5 Decommissioning cluding Alaska and Hawaii) in which Project Nike misSoviet development of ICBMs decreased the value of siles were deployed. Within each Defense Area, a “Ring the Nike (aircraft) air defense system. Beginning around of Steel” was developed with a series of Nike Integrated 1965, the number of Nike batteries was reduced. Thule Firing and Launch Sites constructed by the Corps of Enair defense was reduced during 1965 and SAC air base gineers. defense during 1966, reducing the number of batteries to The deployment was designed to initially supplement 112. Budgetary cuts reduced that number to 87 in 1968, and then replace gun batteries deployed around the naand 82 in 1969. tion’s major urban areas and vital military installations. Some small-scale work to use Nike Zeus as an anti- The defense areas consisted of major cities and selected satellite weapon (ASAT) was carried out from 1962 un- United States Air Force Strategic Air Command bases
32 which were deemed vital to national defense. The original basing strategy projected a central missile assembly point from which missiles would be taken out to prepared above-ground launch racks ringing the defended area. However, the Army discarded this semimobile concept because the system needed to be ready for instantaneous action to fend off a “surprise attack.” Instead, a fixed-site scheme was devised.
CHAPTER 4. PROJECT NIKE The Nike Hercules was designed to use existing Nike Ajax facilities. With the greater range of the Nike Hercules allowing for wider area coverage, numerous Nike Ajax batteries were permanently deactivated. In addition, sites located further away from target areas were desirable due to the nuclear warheads carried by the missile. Unlike the older Ajax sites, these batteries were placed in locations that optimized the missiles’ range and minimized the warhead damage. Nike Hercules batteries at SAC bases and in Hawaii were installed in an outdoor configuration. In Alaska, a unique above-ground shelter configuration was provided for batteries guarding Anchorage and Fairbanks. Local Corps of Engineer Districts supervised the conversion of Nike Ajax batteries and the construction of new Nike Hercules batteries.
Due to geographical factors, the placement of Nike batteries differed at each location. Initially, the planners chose fixed sites well away from the defended area and the Corps of Engineers Real Estate Offices began seeking tracts of land in rural areas However, Army planners determined that close-in perimeter sites would provide enhanced firepower. Staggering sites between outskirt and close-in locations to urban areas gave defenders a greater Nike missiles remained deployed around strategically imdefense-in-depth capability. portant areas within the continental United States until Each Nike missile battery was divided into two basic 1974. The Alaskan sites were deactivated in 1978 and parcels: the Battery Control Area and the Launch Area. Florida sites stood down during the following year. Although the missile left the U.S. inventory, other nations The Battery Control Area contained the radar and com- maintained the missiles in their inventories into the early puter equipment. Housing and administration buildings, 1990s and sent their soldiers to the United States to conincluding the mess hall, barracks, and recreation facili- duct live-fire exercises at Fort Bliss, Texas. ties, were sometimes located in a third parcel of land. Leftover traces of the approximately 265[3] Nike missile More likely, however, the housing and administration buildings were located at either the Battery Control Area bases can still be seen around cities across the country. As the sites were decommissioned they were first offered to or the Launch Area, depending upon site configuration, federal agencies. Many were already on Army National obstructions, and the availability of land. Guard bases who continued to use the property. Others The Launch Area provided for the maintenance, storage, were offered to state and local governments while others testing, and firing of the Nike missiles. The selection of were sold to school districts. The left-overs were offered this area was primarily influenced by the relatively large to private individuals. Thus, many Nike sites are now amount of land required, its suitability to extensive un- municipal yards, communications and FAA facilities (the derground construction, and the need to maintain a clear IFC areas), probation camps, and even renovated for use line-of-sight between the missiles in the Launch Area and as Airsoft gaming and MilSim training complexes. Sevthe missile-tracking-radar in the Battery Control Area. eral were completely obliterated and turned into parks. The first Nike sites featured above-ground launchers. Some are now private residences. Only a few remain inThis quickly changed as land restrictions forced the Army tact and preserve the history of the Nike project. There to construct space-saving underground magazines. Capa- are also a few sites abroad, notably in Germany, Turkey ble of hosting 12 Nike Ajax missiles, each magazine had and Greece. an elevator that lifted the missile to the surface in a hori- Defense areas within the United States were: zontal position. Once above ground, the missile could be pushed manually along a railing to a launcher placed par• Anchorage Defense Area, AK allel to the elevator. Typically, four launchers sat atop the magazine. Near the launchers, a trailer housed the launch • Barksdale Defense Area, LA control officer and the controls he operated to launch mis• Bergstrom AFB Defense Area, TX siles. In addition to the launch control trailer, the launch area contained a generator building with three diesel gen• Boston Defense Area, MA erators, frequency converters, and missile assembly and maintenance structures. • Bridgeport Defense Area, CT Because of the larger size of the Nike Hercules, an underground magazine’s capacity was reduced to eight missiles. Thus, storage racks, launcher rails, and elevators underwent modification to accept the larger missiles. Two additional features that readily distinguished newly converted sites were the double fence and the kennels housing dogs that patrolled the perimeter between the two fences.
• Chicago-Gary Defense Area, IL-IN • Cincinnati-Dayton Defense Area, OH-IN • Cleveland Defense Area, OH • Dallas-Fort Worth Defense Area, TX • Detroit Defense Area, MI
4.5. NIKE AS SOUNDING ROCKET • Dyess AFB Defense Area, TX • Ellsworth AFB Defense Area, SD • Fairbanks Defense Area, AK • Fairchild AFB Defense Area, WA • Hanford Defense Area, WA
33
4.5 Nike as sounding rocket The Nike was also used as sounding rocket in the following versions: • Nike Apache[4] • Nike Hawk[4] • Nike Hydac
• Hartford Defense Area. CT
• Nike Iroquois
• Homestead-Miami Defense Area, FL
• Nike Javelin
• Kansas City Defense Area, KS-MO • Lincoln AFB Defense Area, NE
• Nike Malemute[4] • Nike Nike • Nike Orion
• Loring AFB Defense Area, ME
• Nike Recruit
• Los Angeles Defense Area, CA
• Nike T40 T55
• Milwaukee Defense Area, WI • Minneapolis-St.Paul Defense Area, MN
• Nike Tomahawk[4] • Nike Viper • Nike-Asp
• New York Defense Area, NY
• Nike-Cajun[4]
• Niagara Falls-Buffalo Defense Area, NY
• Nike-Deacon
• Norfolk Defense Area, VA
4.6 Survivors
• Oahu Defense Area, HI • Offutt AFB Defense Area, NE • Philadelphia Defense Area, PA-NJ • Pittsburgh Defense Area, PA • Providence Defense Area, RI-MA • Robbins AFB Defense Area, GA • St. Louis Defense Area, MO • San Francisco Defense Area, CA • Schilling AFB Defense Area, KS • Seattle Defense Area, WA • Travis AFB Defense Area, CA • Turner AFB Defense Area, GA • Walker AFB Defense Area, NM • Washington-Baltimore Defense Area, MD-VA
4.6.1 Bases • The best preserved Nike installation is site SF88L located in the Marin Headlands just west of the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, California. The site is a museum, and contains the missile bunkers, and control area, as well as period uniforms and vehicles that would have operated at the site. The site has been preserved in the condition it was in at the time it was decommissioned in 1974. The site began as a Nike Ajax base and was later converted to Nike Hercules. Three Nike Hercules are displayed in the original bunkers. The base is open to the public, including demonstrations of the operational missile lift from the bunker to the surface. Tours are conducted by members of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area staff. • The second best preserved Nike installation is site NY-56 at Fort Hancock in Sandy Hook, New Jersey. The site has been restored and contains the original missile bunkers, as well as three Nike Ajax and a Nike Hercules on display. Each fall the base hold a Cold War Day. Tours one weekend a month from April to October. The site is on the National Register of Historic Places.
34
CHAPTER 4. PROJECT NIKE
• As the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis approaches, a group of students attending the George T. Baker Aviation School are restoring a Nike Hercules missile for display at one of the original launch sites in the Everglades. The missile was salvaged from a US Army depot in Alabama. It will be on public display at the HM69 Nike site, which is operated by the National Park Service.[5]
4.6.2
Missiles
• A Nike Zeus is on display at the Space Camp in Huntsville, Alabama. • A Nike Ajax, Nike Hercules, and Nike Zeus are on display at the Redstone Arsenal in Alabama. • A Nike Ajax and Nike Hercules are on display at the Royal Museum of the Army and Military History in Brussels, Belgium.
• Two Nike Ajax and a Nike Hercules are on display near the Bataan Building at Camp Perry, near Port Clinton, Ohio. • A Nike Ajax is on display near the Toledo Rockets Glass Bowl Stadium on the campus of the University of Toledo in Toledo, Ohio. • A Nike Ajax is displayed in front of an Army Surplus store located near the Letterkenny Army Depot in Pennsylvania. • A Nike Ajax and Herclules are on display at the Pennsylvania National Guard Department of Military Arts building at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania. • A Nike Ajax and Hercules are on display at the Air Power Park in Hampton, Virginia.
• A Nike missile is on display at Camp San Luis Obispo near Morro Bay, California.
• A Nike Ajax missile cutaway, as well as a complete Nike Ajax missile are on display at the Udvar-Hazy Center of the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum at Washington Dulles International Airport, in Chantilly, Virginia.
• A Nike Ajax and Hercules are on display at the Peterson Air and Space Museum in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
• A Nike Ajax and Nike Hercules are on display in the Berryman War Memorial Park in Bridgeport, Washington.
• Two Nike Ajax and a Hercules are on display at the Cape Canaveral Space & Missile Museum in Cape Canaveral, Florida.
• A Nike Hercules and transport trailer are on display at the Ft. Lewis Military Museum in Tacoma, Washington.
• A Nike Ajax is on display at the War Museum in Athens, Greece.
• A Nike Ajax on its launcher is on display outside an American Legion hall in Okauchee Lake, Wisconsin.
• A Nike Ajax and Hercules are on display in front of the American Legion post in Cedar Lake, Indiana. • A Nike missile is on display at the Combat Air Museum in Topeka, Kansas. • A Nike Ajax is on display in Marion, Kentucky. • A Nike Ajax and Hercules are on display at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Aberdeen, Maryland. • A Nike Ajax is on display in front of the VFW post in Hancock, Maryland. • Two Nike Ajax and a Hercules are on display at a small Cold War museum in Ft. Meade, Maryland. • A Nike Ajax and Hercules are on display at the Dutch Air Force Museum in Soesterberg Air Base.[6] • A Nike Ajax is on display at The Space Center in Alamagordo, New Mexico. • A Nike Ajax is on display near the administrative buildings at the former Nike site in Rustan, about 40 km to the southwest of Oslo, Norway.
• A Nike Ajax on its transporter (trailer) is on display outside a public storage (former site MS-20) facility in Roberts, Wisconsin. • A Nike Ajax is on display in front of the American Legion Post in Waynesboro, Pennsylvania. • A Nike Hercules is on display outside the Royal Norwegian Air Force's training centre at Kjevik, Norway. • A Nike Hercules and what seems to be the tip of a Nike Ajax is on display at Trøgstad Fort, about 45 km to the southeast of Oslo, Norway. • A Nike Hercules is on display at Stævnsfortet, about 50 km south of Copenhagen. • A Nike Hercules is on display in a park in St. Bonifacius, Minnesota. • A Nike Hercules is on display in Young Patriot’s Park(Formally Nike base D-54) in Riverview, Michigan. • A Nike Ajax missile is on display at Richard Montgomery High School in Rockville, Maryland.[7]
4.10. EXTERNAL LINKS
4.7 See also • Wasserfall was a World War II German project for a surface-to-air missile. • Missile guidance • Sprint • LIM-49 Spartan
35
4.10 External links • Nike Missile Manual Collection • The Continental Air Defense Collection at the United States Army Center of Military History • Video Documentary of History of Nike-Hercules Project in U.S.
• Safeguard Program
• Community für ehemaliges Nike-Hercules-Personal (In German)
• S-25 Berkut
• Nike missile site at alpha.fdu.edu
• Soviet Air Defence Forces
• Nike Historical Society
• ABM-1 Galosh
• Nike Hercules in Alaska
• List of U.S. military vehicles by supply catalog designation (G-789)
• Nike Zeus info
• Cold War Museum • List of U.S. Army Rocket Launchers By Model Number
4.8 Sources • Morgan, Mark L., & Berhow, Mark A., Rings of Supersonic Steel, Second Edition, Hole in the Head Press, 2002, ISBN 0-615-12012-1. • John C. Lonnquest, David F. Winkler (November 1996). To Defend and Deter: The Legacy of the United States Cold War Missile Program (USACerl Special Report, N-97/01,). Afhra. ISBN 9789996175718.
4.9 References [1] “NIKE ZEUS - Seventeen years of growth” Flight International 2 August 1962 pp.166-170 [2] “Missile defences have a long history”. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (Educational Foundation for Nuclear Science, Inc.) 53: 69. Jan 1997. ISSN 0096-3402. Retrieved 9 February 2011. [3] http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/nikesite/sites/ summary.pdf [4] Origins of NASA Names. NASA. 1976. p. 133. [5] Missile gets makeover on 50th anniversary of Cuban crisis, Yahoo! News, 13 October 2012 [6] https://www.nmm.nl/zoeken-in-de-collectie/detail/ 471422/ [7] http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/schools/rmhs/ aboutus/rocket.aspx
• Pictures of a demilitarized Nike site in Germany • Nike Sites of the Los Angeles Defense Area • The Nike Missile Program, Doug Crompton Area Hoejerup and Stevns Fort. Denmark. English/danish • Nike Ajax Explosion Marker: Gateway National Recreation Area • The short film Big Picture: Pictorial Report Number 20 is available for free download at the Internet Archive • The short film Big Picture: Army Digest Number Nine: Nike Zeus-Pershing is available for free download at the Internet Archive
36
CHAPTER 4. PROJECT NIKE
Nike site SF-88L missile control.
A Nike Hercules missile. A Nike Ajax missile.
4.10. EXTERNAL LINKS
37
The remains of former Nike site D-57/58 in Newport, Michigan, USA. At the time this picture was taken in 1996, the site was a hazardous waste cleanup site.
Launch of a Nike Zeus missile
NIKE missile site radar dome with a flock of ravens near Eielson AFB, Alaska.
The Sprint missile was the main weapon in the Nike-X system, intercepting enemy ICBM warheads only seconds before they exploded.
Locations of US Army Nike Missile Sites in the Contiguous United States
NIKE Missile Site near Anchorage, AK
Chapter 5
MGM-5 Corporal For what was the front line of nuclear defense, the Corporal missile was notoriously unreliable and inaccurate.* It used a liquid-fueled rocket burning red fuming nitric acid and hydrazine; this required elaborate and timeconsuming preparation immediately before launch, making its tactical responsiveness questionable. For guidance, it employed commands sent through a reworked World War II-era radar system. Until 1955, its in-flight accuracy was less than 50 percent, with only modest improvements thereafter. The first year of British test firings in 1959 yielded a success rate of only 46 percent, a dismal record which raised questions among military planners of its operational effectiveness in Germany. Corporal field artillery missile at Cape Canaveral, Florida, the Air Force Space & Missile Museum
• While this may have been true of the first deployed Corporal missiles, the later generation Corporal Type IIB were surprisingly accurate for their time.
The MGM-5 Corporal missile was the first guided weapon authorized by the United States to carry a nuclear warhead.[notes 1] A guided tactical ballistic missile, the Corporal could deliver either a nuclear fission or high- Guidance consisted of a complex system of internal and explosive warhead up to a range of 75 nautical miles (139 ground guidance. During the initial launch phase, inertial guidance (internal accelerometers) kept the missile km). in a vertical position and pre-set guidance steered it durDeveloped by the United States Army in partnership with ing its launch. The ground guidance system was a modFirestone Tire and Rubber Company, Gilfillan Brothers ified SCR584 pulse tracking radar which measured the Inc., Douglas Aircraft Company and Caltech’s pioneering missile’s azimuth and elevation, as well as its slant range. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the Corporal was designed as This information was sent to an analog computer which a tactical nuclear missile for use in the event of Cold War calculated the trajectory and any necessary correction to hostilities in Eastern Europe. The first U.S. Army Cor- hit the target. A Doppler radar was used to accurately poral battalion was deployed in Europe in 1955. Six U.S. measure the velocity and this information was also used battalions were deployed and remained in the field until in the trajectory calculation. The Doppler radar was also 1964, when the system was replaced by the solid-fueled used to send the final range correction and warhead armMGM-29 Sergeant missile system. ing command after the missile re-entered the atmosphere. Transponder beacons were used in the missile to provide a return signal.
5.1 Design and development
The Corporal was first developed in White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. It came out of the project ORDCIT series of rockets developed by the Army and the forerunner to Caltech’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. After being sold to Britain in 1954, it became the first U.S. guided missile destined for service in a foreign country to be used by a foreign power.
Corporal Missile Battalions in Europe were highly mobile, considering the large number of support vehicles and personnel required to support the transportation, checkout, and launch of this liquid-fueled nuclear-tipped (or conventional HE) missile. In Germany, frequent unannounced “Alerts” were performed—necessitating assembling all personnel and moving vehicles and missiles to a pre-assigned assembly point. From there the battalion would move to a launch site—usually somewhere in
38
5.4. SEE ALSO a remote forest—set up the missile on its launcher and go through a detailed checkout of the various systems. This was not a trivial operation as these electronic systems were all vacuum tubes. A mock firing would be performed and the entire battalion would be gone as soon as possible in order to not be a target of counter-battery fire. The deployment in the field during an Alert was amazingly swift due to the highly trained crews. Live-fire training for Germany- based US Forces took place at Fort Bliss but later the British Royal Artillery Guided Weapons Range on the Scottish island of Benbecula in the Outer Hebrides. Missiles were fired toward designated target coordinates in the Atlantic Ocean. Radar on St. Kilda scored successful (on-target) firings. Frequently, Soviet “fishing trawlers” would intrude into the target area. One outstanding Corporal Missile unit, the 1st Missile Battalion of the 38th Artillery (1/38th) was stationed in Babenhausen Kaserne. Its fire mission was to protect the Fulda Gap from an armored invasion by the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact nations. Eventually the Corporal IIB was overtaken by advances in technology and in 1963 they began to be deactivated—replaced by the Sergeant missile system.
5.2 Toys A version of the Corporal was made as a die-cast toy by manufacturers such as Corgi and Dinky. The Corgi Corporal—marketed to children as 'the rocket you can launch'—was timed to coincide with the British test firing in 1959. A 1/40 scale plastic model kit of the Corporal missile with its mobile transporter was produced in the late 1950s and was reissued by Revell-Monogram in 2009.
39 • 259th Missile Battalion reflag as 1st Bn, 40th Art (Fort Bliss) • 523rd Missile Battalion reflag as 1st Bn, 81st Art (Fort Carson) • 526th Missile Battalion reflag as 1st Bn, 84th Art (Fort Sill) • 530th Missile Battalion reflag as 1st Bn, 39th Arty (Germany) • 531st Missile Battalion reflag as 1st Bn, 38th Arty (Germany) • 543rd Missile Battalion reflag as 1st Bn, 82nd Arty (Italy) • 557th Missile Battalion reflag as 2nd Bn, 81st Arty (Germany) • 558th Missile Battalion reflag as 2nd Bn, 82nd Arty (Germany) • 559th Missile Battalion reflag as 2nd Bn, 84th Arty (Germany) • 570th Missile Battalion reflag as 1st Bn, 80th Arty (Italy) • 601st Missile Battalion reflag as 2nd Bn, 40th Arty (Germany)
5.4 See also • List of U.S. Army weapons by supply catalog designation (SNL Y-3) • Frank Malina • Private (missile) • Wac Corporal • MGM-29 Sergeant • List of U.S. Army Rocket Launchers by model number
5.3 Operators United Kingdom[1] • British Army, Royal Artillery • 27th Guided Weapons Regiment RA 19571966 • 47th Guided Weapons Regiment RA 19571965 United States • United States Army[2] • 246th Missile Battalion reflag as 2nd Bn, 80th Art (Fort Sill)
5.5 References [1] The first nuclear-authorized unguided rocket was the MGR-1 Honest John. [1] USAREUR Units & Kasernes, 1945 - 1989 [2] USAREUR Units & Kasernes, 1945 - 1989
• Army Ballistic Missile Agency (1961) Development of the Corporal: the embryo of the army missile program Vol 1. ABMA unclassified report, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. • MacDonald, F (2006) 'Geopolitics and 'the Vision Thing': regarding Britain and America’s first nuclear missile', Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 31, 53-71. available for download ,
40
5.6 External links • “Development of the Corporal: the embryo of the army missile program, vol. 1”. Army Ballistic Missile Agency. Archived from the original on 26 March 2009. • “Development of the Corporal: the embryo of the army missile program, vol. 2”. Army Ballistic Missile Agency.
CHAPTER 5. MGM-5 CORPORAL
Chapter 6
PGM-11 Redstone See also: Redstone (rocket family) The PGM-11 Redstone was the first large American ballistic missile. A short-range surface-to-surface rocket, it was in active service with the U.S. Army in West Germany from June 1958 to June 1964 as part of NATO's Cold War defense of Western Europe. It was the first missile to carry a live nuclear warhead, in the 1958 Pacific Ocean weapons test, Hardtack Teak. A direct descendant of the German V-2 rocket, the missile was the foundation for the Redstone rocket family, It was developed by a team of predominantly German rocket engineers relocated to the United States after World War II as part of Operation Paperclip. Redstone’s prime contractor was the Chrysler Corporation.[1] For its role as a field artillery theater ballistic missile, Redstone earned the moniker “the Army’s Workhorse”. It was retired by the U.S. in 1964, though in 1967 a surplus Redstone helped launch Australia’s first satellite.
US Army field group erecting Redstone missile
6.1 History A product of the Army Ballistic Missile Agency (ABMA) at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama under the leadership of Wernher von Braun, Redstone was designed as a surface-to-surface missile for the U.S. Army. It was named for the arsenal on April 8, 1952, which traced its name to the region’s red rocks and soil.[2] Chrysler was awarded the prime production contract and began missile and support equipment production in 1952 at the newly renamed Michigan Ordnance Missile Plant in Warren, Michigan. The navy-owned facility was previously known as the Naval Industrial Reserve Aircraft Plant used for jet engine production. Following the cancellation of a planned jet engine program, the facility was made available to the Chrysler Corporation for missile production. Rocketdyne Division of North American Aviation Company provided the rocket engines; Ford Instrument Company, division of Sperry Rand Corporation, produced the guidance and control systems; and Reynolds Metals Company fabricated fuselage assemblies as subcontractors to Chrysler. The first Redstone lifted off from LC-4A at
Cape Canaveral on August 20, 1953. It flew for one minute and 20 seconds before suffering an engine failure and falling into the sea. Following this partial success, the second test was conducted on January 27, 1954, this time without a hitch as the missile flew 55 miles. The third Redstone flight on May 5 was a total loss as the engine cut off one second after launch, causing the rocket to fall back on the pad and explode. Subsequent tests were completely or partially successful and the Redstone was declared operational in 1955. The Mercury-Redstone Launch Vehicle was a derivation of the Redstone with a fuel tank increased in length by 6 feet (1.8 m) and was used on May 5, 1961 to launch Alan Shepard on his sub-orbital flight to become the second person and first American in space.[3]
41
42
CHAPTER 6. PGM-11 REDSTONE
6.2 Description
research program aimed at understanding re-entry phenomena. These Redstones had two solid fuel upper stages Redstone was capable of flights from 57.5 miles (92.5 added. The U.S. donated a spare Sparta for Australia’s km) to 201 miles (323 km). It consisted of a thrust unit first satellite launch, WRESAT, in November 1967. for powered flight and a missile body for overall missile control and payload delivery on target. During pow6.4.2 New Hampshire landmark ered flight, Redstone burned a fuel mixture of 25 percent water–75 percent ethyl alcohol with liquid oxygen (LOX) A Redstone serves as a landmark in Warren, New Hampused as the oxidizer. The missile body consisted of an shire in the center of the village green. It was donated by aft unit containing the instrument compartment, and the Henry T. Asselin, who transported the missile from Redwarhead unit containing the payload compartment and stone Arsenal in 1971, then placed in honor of long-time the radar altimeter fuze. The missile body was separated U.S. Senator Norris Cotton, a Warren native. A Redstone from the thrust unit 20 to 30 seconds after the terminaalso launched another Granite Stater into suborbital flight: tion of powered flight, as determined by the preset range Alan Shepard of Derry.[7] to target. The body continued on a controlled ballistic trajectory to the target impact point. The thrust unit continued on its own uncontrolled ballistic trajectory, impact- 6.4.3 Popular culture ing short of the designated target. • Rocket Girl, a stage play by George D. Morgan, deals The nuclear-armed Redstone carried the W39 [4] with the invention of hydyne, a special fuel designed warhead. to boost Explorer I, America’s first satellite, into orbit utilizing the Redstone/Jupiter C.
6.3 Operators United States United States Army • 40th Field Artillery Group 1958-1961 – West Germany[5] • 1st Battalion, 333rd Artillery Regiment • 46th Field Artillery Group 1959-1961 – West Germany[6] • 2nd Battalion, 333rd Artillery Regiment • 209th Field Artillery Group – Fort Sill, Oklahoma • 4th Bn, 333rd Artillery Regiment
6.5 Gallery • Redstone early production (1953) • Preparations on May 16, 1958 for the first Redstone launch on May 17 conducted by US Army troops. Battery A, 217th Field Artillery Missile Battalion, 40th Artillery Group (Redstone); Cape Canaveral, Florida; Launch Complex 5 • Redstone trainer missile practice firing exercise by US Army troops of Battery A, 1st Missile Battalion, 333rd Artillery, 40th Artillery Group (Redstone); Bad Kreuznach, West Germany; August 1960 • Redstone on display
6.4 End of service
• Warren, N.H. Redstone display
• Redstone missile on display in Grand Central TerRedstone production by the Chrysler Corporation was minal In New York July 7, 1957 halted in 1961. The 40th Artillery Group was deactivated in February 1964 and 46th Artillery Group was deactivated in June 1964, as Redstone missiles were replaced by 6.6 References the Pershing missile in the U.S. Army arsenal. All Redstone missiles and equipment deployed to Europe were returned to the United States by the third quarter of 1964. Notes In October 1964 the Redstone missile was ceremonially [1] Redgap, Curtis The Chrysler Corporation Missile Division retired from active service at Redstone Arsenal. and the Redstone missiles © 2008 Orlando, Florida. Retrieved Oct 8 2010
6.4.1
Sparta
From 1966–67, a series of surplus modified Redstones called Spartas were launched from Woomera, South Australia as part of a joint U.S.–United Kingdom–Australian
[2] Cagle, Mary T. (1955). “The Origin of Redstone’s Name”. US Army, Redstone Arsenal. Retrieved 9 October 2010. [3] Turnill 1972, pp. 81–82, 147–8
6.7. EXTERNAL LINKS
43
[4] “Redstone Missile (PGM-11)". US: Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and Engineering Center. Retrieved January 9, 2015.
• Appendix A: The Redstone Missile in Detail
[5] http://www.usarmygermany.com/Sont.htm?http& &&www.usarmygermany.com/Units/FieldArtillery/ USAREUR_40th%20Arty%20Group.htm
• 40th Artillery Group (Redstone)
[6] http://www.usarmygermany.com/Sont.htm?http& &&www.usarmygermany.com/Units/FieldArtillery/ USAREUR_46th%20Arty%20Group.htm
• From the Stars & Stripes Archives: “Redstone Rocketeers”
[7] Asselin, Ted (1996). The Redstone Missile - Warren, NH. Warren: Bryan Flagg.
Bibliography • Bullard, John W (October 15, 1965). History Of The Redstone Missile System (Historical Monograph Project Number: AMC 23 M). Historical Division, Administrative Office, Army Missile Command. • The Redstone Missile System. Fort Sill, Oklahoma: United States Army. August 1960. Publication L 619. • Standing Operating Procedure For Conduct Of Redstone Annual Service Practice At White Sands Missile Range New Mexico. Fort Sill, Oklahoma: Headquarters, United States Army Artillery And Missile Center. March 31, 1962. • Operator, Organizational, And Field Maintenance Manual - Ballistic Guided Missile M8, Ballistic Shell (Field Artillery Guided Missile System Redstone). September 1960. TM 9-1410-350-14/2. • Field Artillery Missile Redstone. Department Of The Army. February 1962. FM 6-35. • Turnill, Reginald (May 1972). The Observer’s Book of Manned Spaceflight. London: Frederick Warne & Co. ISBN 0-7232-1510-3. 48. • von Braun, Wernher. The Redstone, Jupiter and Juno. Technology and Culture, Vol. 4, No. 4, The History of Rocket Technology (Autumn 1963), pp. 452–465.
6.7 External links • Redstone Army Command site • NASA Documents relating to Redstone and Mercury Projects • Redstone from Encyclopedia Astronautica • Redstone timeline • Boeing: History– Products - North American Aviation Rocketdyne Redstone Rocket Engine
• Redstone at the White Sands Missile Range
• 46th Artillery Group (Redstone)
• Jupiter A • The Chrysler Corporation Missile Division and the Redstone missiles
Chapter 7
MGM-18 Lacrosse The MGM-18 Lacrosse was a short-ranged tactical ballistic weapon intended for close support of ground troops.[4] Its first flight test was in 1954 and was deployed by the United States Army beginning in 1959, despite being still in the development stage. The program’s many technical hurdles proved too difficult to overcome and the missile was withdrawn from field service by 1964.
7.1 History 7.1.1
Development
were available the next year. The difficulties encountered by the project are illustrated by the protracted design and testing periods, with the missile not entering into service until July 1959. Problems included reliability concerns and difficulties with guidance, particularly susceptibility to ECM jamming of the guidance signals. In 1956, the Federal Telecommunications Laboratory began work on a different guidance system, known as MOD 1, which would have improved Lacrosse’s performance with regards to electronic countermeasures. MOD 1, however, was terminated in 1959, causing the United States Marine Corps to withdraw their participation in the project. The first units received Lacrosse in 1959, though the system would continue to be in need of development and refinement.
The Lacrosse project began with a United States Marine Corps requirement for a short-range guided missile to supplement conventional field artillery. The navy's Nearly 1,200 Lacrosse missiles were produced and deBureau of Ordnance issued contracts to both the Johns ployed at a cost of more than US$2 billion in 1996 dollars [1] Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory and the (excluding the cost of the nuclear warheads). Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory in September 1947, for the study of design aspects pertaining to this mission. The missile system was named the Lacrosse because it employed a forward observation station which had a direct view of the target. The forward observation station was mounted on a jeep and after the missile was launched control was passed to the forward station for final guidance to the target. Hence the name Lacrosse which is how the game of lacrosse is played with the ball being passed to players closer to the goal. In 1950, the project was transferred from the navy to the army’s Ordnance Corps and Redstone Arsenal, pursuant to a policy giving the Department of the Army responsibility over all land-based short ranged weapons. Cornell and Johns Hopkins continued with the project, with the former having primary responsibility for guidance systems design.
7.1.2 Service
The first unit to be equipped with Lacrosse was 5th Battalion, 41st Artillery, based at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. In total, eight battalions would be equipped with Lacrosse, with most going to Europe, except one to Korea and one retained by the Strategic Army Corps.
7.1.3 Designations
The original navy project was assigned the designator SSM-N-9. When transferred to the army, the program became SSM-G-12, which changed to SSM-A-12 after minor changes in the army’s designation scheme. When adopted into service, the weapon system was referred to as M-4 and only gained its MGM-18A designation In 1955, the Glenn L. Martin Company was awarded months before being declared obsolete.[2] contracts to participate in research and development and production. Martin would take over much responsibility for the project, as Cornell moved to work on expanding 7.2 See also the missile’s capabilities beyond the original requirements (particularly in the area of airborne control, funding for Related lists which was discontinued in 1959). Early testing began in 1954 and production prototypes 44
• List of military aircraft of the United States
7.3. REFERENCES
MGM-18 Lacrosse model displayed at the White Sands Missile Range Museum Missile Park
• List of missiles • List of United States M- sequence missiles
7.3 References [1] “Lacrosse Missile (MGM-18)". U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. August 1998. Retrieved October 11, 2011. [2] Parsch, Andreas (26 January 2002). “Martin SSM-A12/M4/MGM-18 Lacrosse”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. Retrieved October 11, 2011. [3] “List of All U.S. Nuclear Weapons” [4] Knight, Clayton (1969). Blackwood, Dr. Paul E., ed. The How and Why Wonder Book of Rockets and Missiles. How and Why Wonder Books 5005 (4 ed.). New York: Grosset & Dunlap. p. 6. ASIN B0007FD82K. LCCN 71124649.
45
Chapter 8
MGR-3 Little John The MGR-3 Little John was a free flight artillery rocket rocket by spin rockets after the round leaves the launcher. system designed and put into service by the U.S. Army The Little John rocket flight is stabilized by applying spin during the 1950s and 1960s. to the rocket while on the launcher, just before firing. This manual method of stabilization was called “spin-onstraight-rail” (SOSR).[1] The system was mamufactured by the Douglas Aircraft Company. 8.1 Description The missile and launcher system were light enough to be easily transported by helicopters and other aircraft or towed by a vehicle. The Phase II Little John weapon system was initially deployed with the 1st Missile Battalion, 157th Field Artillery in Okinawa, Japan. The missile was retired beginning in July, 1967, with the final missile removed from inventory in 1970. Five hundred missiles were produced during the life of the weapon program.[3]
8.2 Operators United States United States Army The XM51 was only an interim rocket, essentially a rocket test vehicle, and was used for training and testing purposes only.
8.3 Specifications
Carried on the XM34 rocket launcher, it could carry either nuclear or conventional warheads. It was primarily intended for use in airborne assault operations and to complement the heavier, self-propelled Honest John rocket systems. Development of the missile was started at Army’s Rocket and Guided Missile Agency laboratory at Huntsville, Alabama, the Redstone Arsenal, in June 1955. In June 1956, the first launch of the XM47 Little John occurred. The Little John was delivered to the field in November 1961 and remained in the Army weapons inventory until August 1969.[1][2] It was a fin-stabilized field artillery rocket that followed a ballistic trajectory to ground targets. The rocket XM51 consisted of a warhead, a rocket motor assembly, and an igniter assembly. The components were shipped in sepaInternal components of the Medium Atomic Demolition Munition. rate containers and assembled by the user.[1] The Little John differs from the Honest John in not only its size but how it is stabilized in flight. The flight of the Honest John is stabilized by a spin that is imparted to the
W45 warhead is to the right of the casing.
46
• Length: 4.4 metres (14.5 ft)[4]
8.4. REFERENCES • Diameter: 320 millimetres (12.5 in)[4] • Missile weight: 350 kilograms (780 lb)[4] • Combined weight of missile and launcher: 910 kilograms (2,000 lb) • Warhead: W45 with a yield of 1–10 kilotons of TNT (4.2–41.8 TJ). • Propellant: solid rocket fuel • Maximum range: 19 kilometres (10 nmi)[4]
8.4 References [1] “Little John -- The MightyMite”. Retrieved 2009-02-16. [2] Parsch, Andreas. “Emerson Electric M47/M51/MGR-3 Little John”. Retrieved 2009-02-17. [3] “Complete List of All U.S. Nuclear Weapons”. October 14, 2006. Retrieved 2009-02-17. [4] John R. Taylor (November 9, 1967). “Missiles 1967: Table 2: Tactical Missiles”. Flight International. Retrieved 2009-02-17.
47
Chapter 9
PGM-19 Jupiter The PGM-19 Jupiter was the first medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) of the United States Air Force (USAF). It was a liquid-propellant rocket using RP-1 fuel and LOX oxidizer, with a single Rocketdyne LR70-NA (model S-3D) rocket engine producing 667 kN of thrust. The prime contractor was the Chrysler Corporation. The missiles, armed with nuclear warheads, were deployed in Italy and Turkey in 1961 as part of NATO’s Cold War deterrent against the Soviet Union. They were all removed by the United States as part of a secret agreement with the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
9.1 History 9.1.1
Development and testing
In September 1955, Wernher von Braun, briefing the U.S. secretary of defense on long range missiles, pointed out that a 1,500 mi (2,400 km) missile was a logical extension of the PGM-11 Redstone. Accordingly, in December 1955, the secretaries of the Army and Navy announced a dual Army–Navy program to create a land- and sea-based MRBM.
LC-5. The vehicle performed well until past 50 seconds into launch when control started to fail, leading to breakup at T+73 seconds. It was deduced that overheating in the boattail had burned through the wiring, thus extra insulation was added there on future flights. On April 26, Missile 1B was launched, but broke apart at T+93 seconds from propellant slosh, leading to the addition of baffles to the fuel tanks. The third test on May 31 succeeded, as did launches on August 28 and October 23. Test number six on November 27 failed due to a turbopump malfunction at T+202 seconds and so did the next launch on December 19, causing the missile to lose thrust at T+116 seconds and fall into the Atlantic Ocean. On January 15, 1958, Jupiter was declared operational. The turbopump problems on Missiles AM-3A and AM-4 were due to an inadequate design that resulted in a string of failures in the Jupiter, Thor, and Atlas programs, all of which used a variant of the same Rocketdyne engine. Rocketdyne came up with a number of fixes and the Army retrofitted all its Jupiters with the redesigned pumps, thus there were no more Jupiter failures caused by turbopumps afterward. The Air Force by comparison was reluctant to fix their Thor and Atlas missiles if it meant delaying the program and so had several more turbopump-related launch failures during 1958.
The first three tests of 1958 were all successful and concentrated on detaching and recovering dummy reentry vehicles. Missile AM-19 (October 10) went out of control and was destroyed at T+49 seconds due to a fire in the boattail section. Afterwards, there was only one more failure in the Jupiter program, AM-23 on September 15, 1959, which developed a leak in a helium pressurization bottle that led to loss of control within seconds of liftoff. The missile pitched over and broke in half, dumping the contents of its RP-1 tank before the Range Safety officer In November 1956, the Department of Defense assigned issued the destruct command.[1] all land-based long-range missiles to the Air Force, with the army retaining control of battlefield missiles with a range of 200 miles (320 km) or less. The Jupiter MRBM 9.1.2 Biological flights program was transferred to the Air Force, which had developed the PGM-17 Thor MRBM independently, and Jupiter missiles were used in a series of suborbital biologwas not altogether happy with the Jupiter program. ical test fights. On December 13, 1958, Jupiter AM-13 The requirement for shipboard storage and launching dictated the size and shape of the Jupiter, which emerged as a short squat missile with a large girth. Although the Navy disliked the Jupiter’s cryogenic propellants and dropped it in November 1966 in favor of the solid-fueled UGM-27 Polaris submarine-launched ballistic missile, Jupiter retained its shape, making it too big for carriage in contemporary cargo aircraft such as the Douglas C-124 Globemaster II.
Jupiter test flights officially commenced with the launch was launched from Cape Canaveral, Florida with a Navyof Missile 1A on March 1, 1957 from Cape Canaveral’s trained South American squirrel monkey named Gordo 48
9.1. HISTORY
49
Baker, a squirrel monkey, with a model of the Jupiter that launched her on a suborbital flight in 1959
on board. The nose cone recovery parachute failed to operate and Gordo did not survive the flight. Telemetry data sent back during the flight showed that the monkey 864th SMS insignia survived the 10 g (100 m/s²) of launch, eight minutes of weightlessness and 40 g (390 m/s²) of reentry at 10,000 mph (4.5 km/s). The nose cone sank 1,302 nautical miles (2,411 km) downrange from Cape Canaveral and was not recovered. Another biological flight was launched on May 28, 1959. Aboard Jupiter AM-18 were a seven-pound (3.2 kg) American-born rhesus monkey, Able, and an 11-ounce (310 g) South American squirrel monkey, Baker. The monkeys rode in the nose cone of the missile to an altitude of 59 miles (95 km) and a distance of 1,500 miles (2,400 km) down the Atlantic Missile Range from Cape Canaveral. They withstood accelerations 38 times the normal pull of gravity and were weightless for about nine minutes. A top speed of 10,000 mph (4.5 km/s) was Deployment locations for Jupiter missiles in Italy from 1961 to reached during their 16-minute flight. After splashdown 1963 the Jupiter nosecone carrying Able and Baker was recovered by the seagoing tug USS Kiowa (ATF-72). The failed AM-23 launch in September 1959 also carried 1958. Charles De Gaulle, the new French president, rea biological payload, including several mice (which did fused to accept basing any Jupiter missiles in France. This prompted U.S. to explore the possibility of deploynot survive). ing the missiles in Italy and Turkey. The Air Force was The monkeys survived the flight in good condition. Able already implementing plans to base four squadrons (60 died four days after the flight from a reaction to anaesmissiles)—subsequently redefined as 20 Royal Air Force thesia while undergoing surgery to remove an infected squadrons each with three missiles—of PGM-17 Thor medical electrode. Baker lived for many years after the IRBMs in Britain on airfields stretching from Yorkshire flight, finally succumbing to kidney failure on November to East Anglia. 29, 1984 at the United States Space and Rocket Center In 1958, the United States Air Force activated the in Huntsville, Alabama. 864th Strategic Missile Squadron at ABMA. Although the USAF briefly considered training its Jupiter crews at Vandenberg AFB, California, it later decided to con9.1.3 Military deployment duct all of its training at Huntsville. In June and SeptemIn April 1958, the U.S. Department of Defense notified ber of the same year the Air Force activated two more the Air Force it had tentatively planned to deploy the first squadrons, the 865th and 866th. three Jupiter squadrons (45 missiles) in France. Negoti- In April 1959, the secretary of the Air Force issued imations between France and the U.S. fell through in June plementing instructions to USAF to deploy two Jupiter
50
CHAPTER 9. PGM-19 JUPITER in all weather conditions. Stored empty, on 15-minute combat status in an upright position on the launch pad, the firing sequence included filling the fuel and oxidizer tanks with 68,000 lb (31,000 kg) of LOX and 30,000 lb (14,000 kg) of RP-1, while the guidance system was aligned and targeting information loaded. Once the fuel and oxidizer tanks were full, the launch controlling officer and two crewmen in a mobile launch control trailer could launch the missiles. Each squadron was supported by a receipt, inspection and maintenance (RIM) area to the rear of the emplacements. RIM teams inspected new missiles and provided maintenance and repair to missiles in the field. Each RIM area also housed 25 tons of liquid oxygen and nitrogen generating plants. Several times a week, tanker trucks carried the fuel from the plant to the individual emplacements. The actual locations of the launch sites (built in a triangular configuration) were in the direct vicinities of the villages Acquaviva delle Fonti, Altamura (two sites), Gioia del Colle, Gravina in Puglia, Laterza, Mottola, Spinazzola, Irsina and Matera.
Jupiter on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force, Ohio
In October 1959, the location of the third and final Jupiter MRBM squadron was settled when a government-togovernment agreement was signed with Turkey. The U.S. and Turkey concluded an agreement to deploy one Jupiter squadron on NATO’s southern flank. One squadron totaling 15 missiles was deployed at five sites near İzmir, Turkey from 1961 to 1963, operated by USAF personnel, with the first flight of three Jupiter missiles turned over to the Türk Hava Kuvvetleri (Turkish Air Force) in late October 1962, but USAF personnel retaining control of nuclear warhead arming.
squadrons to Italy. The two squadrons, totaling 30 missiles, were deployed at 10 sites in Italy from 1961 to 1963. They were operated by Italian Air Force crews, but USAF personnel controlled arming the nuclear warheads. The deployed missiles were under command of 36ª Aerobrigata Interdizione Strategica (36th Strategic Interdiction On four occasions between mid-October 1961 and AuAir Squadron, Italian Air Force) at Gioia del Colle Air gust 1962, Jupiter mobile missiles carrying 1.4 megaton of TNT (5.9 PJ) nuclear warheads were struck by Base, Italy. lightning at their bases in Italy. In each case, thermal Jupiter squadrons consisted of 15 missiles and approxibatteries were activated, and on two occasions, tritiummately 500 military personnel with five “flights” of three deuterium “boost” gas was injected into the warhead pits, missiles each, manned by five officers and 10 NCOs. partially arming them. After the fourth lightning strike To reduce vulnerability, the flights were located approxion a Jupiter MRBM, the USAF placed protective lightmately 30 miles apart, with the triple launcher emplacening strike-diversion tower arrays at all of the Italian and ments separated by a distance of several hundred miles. Turkish Jupiter MRBM missiles sites. The ground equipment for each emplacement was housed In 1962, a Bulgarian MiG-17 reconnaissance airplane in approximately 20 vehicles; including two generator was reported to have crashed into an olive grove near one trucks, a power distribution truck, short- and long-range of the U.S. Jupiter missile launch sites in Italy, after overtheodolites, a hydraulic and pneumatic truck and a liqflying the site.[2] uid oxygen truck. Another trailer carried 6000 gallons of fuel and three liquid oxygen trailers each carried 4,000 By the time the Turkish Jupiters had been installed, the missiles were already largely obsolete and increasingly US gallons (15,000 l; 3,300 imp gal). vulnerable to Soviet attacks. All Jupiter MRBMs were The missiles arrived at the emplacement on large trailremoved from service by April 1963, as a backdoor trade ers; while still on the trailer, the crew attached the hinged with the Soviets in exchange for their earlier removal of launch pedestal to the base of the missile which was MRBMs from Cuba. hauled to an upright position using a winch. Once the missile was vertical, fuel and oxidizer lines were connected and the bottom third of the missile was encased in a “flower petal shelter”, consisting of wedge-shaped metal panels, allowing crew members to service the missiles
9.3. LAUNCH VEHICLE DERIVATIVES
51
9.2 Deployment sites United States Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, Alabama 34°37′58.11″N 86°39′56.40″W / 34.6328083°N 86.6656667°W White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico 32°52′47.45″N 106°20′43.64″W / 32.8798472°N 106.3454556°W Republic of Italy Headquarters: Gioia del Colle Air Base Training Pad 40°47′6.74″N 40.7852056°N 16.925972°E
16°55′33.5″E
/
Squadron 1 Site 1 40°44′24.59″N 16°55′58.83″E 40.7401639°N 16.9330083°E Site 3 40°35′42.00″N 16°51′33.00″E 40.5950000°N 16.8591667°E Site 4 40°48′47.05″N 16°22′53.08″E 40.8130694°N 16.3814111°E Site 5 40°45′32.75″N 16°22′53.08″E 40.7590972°N 16.3814111°E Site 7 40°57′43.98″N 16°10′54.66″E 40.9622167°N 16.1818500°E
/
Illustration showing differences among Redstone, Jupiter-C, Mercury-Redstone, and Jupiter IRBM.
/ /
9.3 Launch vehicle derivatives
/
The Saturn I and Saturn IB rockets were manufactured by using a single Jupiter propellant tank, in combination with eight Redstone rocket propellant tanks clustered around it, to form a powerful first stage launch vehicle.
/
The Jupiter MRBM was also modified by adding upper stages, in the form of clustered Sergeant-derived rockets, to create a space launch vehicle called Juno II, not to be confused with the Juno I which was a RedstoneJupiter-C missile development. There is also some confusion with another U.S. Army rocket called the JupiterC, which were Redstone missiles modified by lengthening the fuel tanks and adding small solid-fueled upper stages.
Squadron 2 Site 2 40°40′42.00″N 17°6′12.03″E / 40.6783333°N 17.1033417°E Site 6 40°58′6.10″N 16°30′22.73″E / 40.9683611°N 16.5063139°E Site 8 40°42′14.98″N 16°8′28.42″E / 40.7041611°N 16.1412278°E Site 9 40°55′23.40″N 16°48′28.54″E / 40.9231667°N 16.8079278°E Site 10 40°34′59.77″N 16°35′43.26″E / 40.5832694°N 16.5953500°E
9.4 Specifications MRBM) • Length: 60 ft (18.3 m)
Turkish Republic Headquarters: Cigli Air Base Training Pad 38°31′17.32″N 38.5214778°N 27.0177472°E
27°1′3.89″E
Site 1 38°42′26.68″N 26°53′4.13″E 38.7074111°N 26.8844806°E Site 2 38°42′23.76″N 27°53′57.66″E 38.7066000°N 27.8993500°E Site 3 38°50′37.66″N 27°02′55.58″E 38.8437944°N 27.0487722°E Site 4 38°44′15.13″N 27°24′51.46″E 38.7375361°N 27.4142944°E Site 5 38°47′30.73″N 27°42′28.94″E 38.7918694°N 27.7080389°E
(Jupiter
/ /
/
• Diameter: 8 ft 9 in (2.67 m) • Total Fueled Weight: 108,804 lb (49,353 kg) • Empty Weight: 13,715 lb (6,221 kg) • Oxygen (LOX) Weight: 68,760 lb (31,189 kg) • RP-1 (kerosene) Weight: 30,415 lb (13,796 kg)
/
• Thrust: 150,000 lbf (667 kN)
/
• Engine: Rocketdyne LR70-NA (Model S-3D)
/
• ISP: 247.5 s (2.43 kN·s/kg) • Burning time: 2 min. 37 sec.
52
CHAPTER 9. PGM-19 JUPITER
• Propellant consumption rate: 627.7 lb/s (284.7 kg/s) • Range: 1,500 mi (2,400 km) • Flight time: 16 min 56.9 sec • Cutoff velocity: 8,984 mph (14,458 km/h) – Mach 13.04 • Reentry velocity: 10,645 mph (17,131 km/h) – Mach 15.45 • Acceleration: 13.69 g (134 m/s²) • Peak deceleration: 44.0 g (431 m/s²) • Peak altitude: 390 mi (630 km) • CEP 4,925 ft (1,500 m) • Warhead: 1.45 Mt Thermonuclear W49 – 1,650 lb (750 kg) • Fusing: Proximity and Impact • Guidance: Inertial
9.5 Specifications (Juno II launch vehicle) Main article: Juno II The Juno II was a four-stage rocket derived from the Jupiter IRBM. It was used for 10 satellite launches, six of which failed. It launched Pioneer 3, Pioneer 4, Explorer 7, Explorer 8, and Explorer 11. • Juno II total length: 24.0 m
Juno II launch vehicle derived from Jupiter IRBM mobile missile.
9.7 Former operators United States United States Air Force • 864th Strategic Missile Squadron • 865th Strategic Missile Squadron • 866th Strategic Missile Squadron
• Orbit payload to 200 km: 41 kg • Escape velocity payload: 6 kg • First launch date: December 6, 1958 • Last launch date: May 24, 1961
9.6 Jupiter MRBM and Juno II launches
Italy Aeronautica Militare (Italian Air Force) • 36ª Brigata Aerea Interdizione Strategica (36th Strategic Air Interdiction Brigade) Turkey Türk Hava Kuvvetleri (Turkish Air Force)
9.8 Surviving examples
There were 46 test launches, all launched from Cape The Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama Canaveral Missile Annex, Florida.[3] displays a Jupiter missile in its Rocket Garden. This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.
The U.S. Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama displays two Jupiters, including one in Juno II configuration, in its Rocket Park.
9.11. EXTERNAL LINKS An SM-78/PMG-19 is on display at the Air Force Space & Missile Museum at Cape Canaveral, Florida. The missile had been present in the rocket garden for many years until 2009 when it was taken down and given a complete restoration.[4] This pristine artifact is now in sequestered storage in Hangar R on Cape Canaveral AFS and cannot be viewed by the general public. A Jupiter (in Juno II configuration) is displayed in the Rocket Garden at Kennedy Space Center, Florida. It was damaged by Hurricane Frances in 2004,[5] but was repaired and subsequently placed back on display. A PGM-19 is on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio. The missile was obtained from the Chrysler Corporation in 1963. For decades it was displayed outside the museum, before being removed in 1998. The missile was restored by the museum’s staff and was returned to display in the museum’s new Missile Silo Gallery in 2007.[6] A PGM-19 is on display at the South Carolina State Fairgrounds in Columbia, South Carolina. The missile, named Columbia, was presented to the city in the early 1960s by the US Air Force. It was installed at the fairgrounds in 1969 at a cost of $10,000.[7] Air Power Park in Hampton, Virginia displays an SM-78. The Virginia Museum of Transportation in downtown Roanoke, Virginia displays a Jupiter PGM-19.
9.9 See also • List of United States Air Force missile squadrons • List of missiles • M-numbers • Strategic Air Command • Theatre ballistic missiles
9.10 References [1] Parsch, Andreas. “Jupiter”. Encyclopedia Astronautica. Retrieved 26 April 2014. [2] Lednicer, David (9 December 2010). “Intrusions, Overflights, Shootdowns and Defections During the Cold War and Thereafter”. Aviation History Pages. Retrieved 16 January 2011. [3] Wade, Mark. “Juno II”. Encyclopedia Astronautica. Retrieved 16 January 2011. [4] “Jupiter”. Cape Canaveral, Florida: Air Force Space and Missile Museum. Retrieved 26 April 2014. [5] “Hurricane Frances damage to Kennedy Space Center”. collect SPACE. Retrieved 24 February 2012.
53
[6] “Factsheets : Chrysler SM-78/PGM-19A Jupiter”. National Museum of the United States Air Force. Retrieved 26 April 2014. [7] Rantin, Bertram (6 October 2010). “The 2010 SC State Fair is just a week away”. The State (South Carolina). Archived from the original on 7 October 2010. Retrieved 26 April 2014.
9.11 External links • Jupiter IRBM History, U.S. Army – Redstone Arsenal • Jupiter IRBM, Encyclopedia Astronautica • The Jupiter Missiles of Turkey, G. L. Smith • Detailed spherical panoramas inside the aft (engine) compartment
Chapter 10
MGM-31 Pershing
Three single-stage Pershing II missiles prepared for launch at McGregor Range (December 1, 1987)
Pershing was a family of solid-fueled two-stage ballistic missiles designed and built by Martin Marietta to replace the PGM-11 Redstone missile as the United States Army's primary nuclear-capable theater-level weapon. Pershing later replaced the U.S. Air Force’s MGM-13 Mace cruise missile. The Pershing systems were developed and fielded over 30 years from the first test version in 1960 through final elimination in 1991. The systems were managed by the U.S. Army Missile Command (MICOM) and deployed by the Field Artillery Branch.
10.1 Development In 1956, George Bunker, the president of the Martin Company, paid a courtesy call on General John Medaris, USA, of the Army Ballistic Missile Agency (ABMA) at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. Medaris noted that it would be advantageous to the Army if there was a missile plant in the vicinity of the Air Force Missile Test Center (present day Cape Canaveral Air Force Station) in Florida. The Martin Company subsequently began construction of their Sand Lake facility in Orlando, Florida, and this was opened in late 1957. Edward Uhl, the coinventor of the bazooka, was the vice-president and general manager of the new factory.
Pershing missile (460 mile range) and Redstone missile (201 mile range)
The U.S. Army began studies in 1956 for a ballistic missile with a range of about 500–750 nautical miles (930– 1,390 km; 580–860 mi). Later that year, Secretary of Defense Charles Erwin Wilson issued the “Wilson Memorandum” that removed from the U.S. Army all missiles with a range of 200 miles (320 km) or more.[1] When this memorandum was rescinded by the United States Department of Defense (DoD) in 1958, the ABMA began development of the class of ballistic missile. Initially called the Redstone-S, where the S meant solid propellant, the name was changed to Pershing in honor of General of the Armies John J. Pershing. Seven companies were selected to develop engineering proposals: Chrysler, the Lockheed Corporation, the Douglas Aircraft Company, the Convair Division of General Dynamics, the Firestone Corp., the Sperry-Rand Company, and the Martin Company.[2] The Secretary of the Army, Wilber M. Brucker, the for-
54
10.2. PERSHING I
55
mer governor of Michigan — was apparently under pressure from his home state to award the contract to a company in Michigan. Chrysler was the only contractor from Michigan, but Medaris persuaded Brucker to leave the decision entirely in the hands of the ABMA. After a selection process by General Medaris and Dr. Arthur Rudolph, the Martin Company (later Martin Marietta after a merger in 1961) was awarded a CPFF (cost-plusfixed-fee) contract for research, development, and initial production of the Pershing system under the technical supervision and concept control of the government. Martin’s quality control manager for the Pershing, Phil Crosby developed the concept of Zero Defects that enhanced the production and reliability of the system.
In 1964, the Secretary of Defense assigned the Pershing weapon system to a Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) role after a DoD study showed that the Pershing would be superior to tactical aircraft for the QRA mission. The German Air Force began training at Fort Sill. Each missile battalion was then authorized six launchers.[7] In 1965 this was increased to eight launchers, two per firing battery. By 1965, three U.S. Army battalions and two German Air Force wings were operational in Germany. The 579th Ordnance Company was later moved to Nelson Barracks in Neu-Ulm and tasked with maintenance and logistical general support for the Pershing artillery units.
10.2 Pershing I
10.2.3 Missile
10.2.1
The Pershing I missile was powered by two Thiokol solidpropellant engines. Since a solid-propellant engine cannot be turned off, selective range was achieved by thrust reversal and case venting. The rocket stages were attached with splice bands and explosive bolts. As directed by the onboard guidance computer, the bolts would explode and eject the splice band. Another squib would open the thrust reversal ports in the forward end of the stage and ignite the propellant in the forward end, causing the engine to reverse direction. During testing, it was found that the second stage would draft behind the warhead and cause it to drift off course, so an explosive charge was added to the side of the engine that would open the case and vent the propellant. The range could be graduated but the maximum was 740 kilometres (400 nmi). The missile was steered by jet vanes in the rocket nozzles and air vanes on the engine case. Guidance was provided by an onboard analog guidance computer and an Eclipse-Pioneer ST-120 (Stable Table-120) inertial navigation system. The warhead could be conventional explosive or a W50 nuclear weapon with three yield options— the Y1 with 60 kiloton yield, Y2 with 200 kiloton yield and Y3 with 400 kiloton yield.
Development
The first XM14 R&D Pershing I[lower-alpha 1] test missile, was launched on February 25, 1960. The first twostage launch from the tactical transporter erector launcher (TEL) was in January 1962. The first test flights used only the first stage, but by the end of 1962, full range two stage flights had been successful. For training there was an inert Pershing I missile designated XM19. In June 1963, the XM14 and XM19 Pershing missiles were redesignated as XMGM-31A and XMTM-31B, respectively. The production version of the tactical missile was subsequently designated as MGM-31A.
10.2.2
Deployment
The Pershing made its first public appearance at Fort Benning in May 1960 as part of a display for President Eisenhower.[4] The Pershing later performed as part of the inaugural parade of President Kennedy in 1961. President Kennedy and other dignitaries visited White Sands Missile Range in 1963 to observe test firings of various weapons systems– the Pershing was demonstrated, but not fired.[5] Initial plans were for ten missile battalions with one at Fort Sill, one in Korea and eight in West Germany; this was eventually reduced to one battalion at Fort Sill and three in West Germany.[6] The 2nd Missile Battalion, 44th Artillery Regiment was activated at Fort Sill as the first tactical Pershing unit. The 56th Artillery Group was activated in Schwäbisch Gmünd, West Germany to become the parent unit for three missile battalions. The 4th Missile Battalion, 41st Artillery was formed in 1963 and deployed to Schwäbisch Gmünd. This was followed by the deployment of the 1st Battalion, 81st Field Artillery to McCully Barracks in Wackernheim. Each missile battalion had four launchers, one per battery.
deployment to South Korea, but was deactivated before equipment was issued.
10.2.4 Ground equipment The Pershing I firing platoon consisted of four M474 tracked-vehicles manufactured by FMC Corporation– by comparison, Redstone needed twenty vehicles. The transporter erector launcher (TEL) transported the two stages and the guidance section as an assembly and provided the launch platform after the warhead was mated. It utilized a removable erector launcher manufactured by Unidynamics. The warhead carrier transported the warhead, the missile fins and the azimuth laying set used to position the missile. The programmer test station (PTS) and power station (PS) were mounted on one carrier. The four vehicles were known as the land train.
The 2nd Missile Battalion, 79th Artillery was formed for The PTS featured rapid missile checkout and count-
56
CHAPTER 10. MGM-31 PERSHING
downs, with complete computer control, and automatic self test and malfunction isolation. Additionally, the PTS would perform tests that simulated airborne missile operation, programed the trajectory of the missile and controlled the firing sequence. Plug-in micromodules increased maintainability and allowed the PTS operator to perform 80% of all repairs at the firing position. A turbine driven Power Station, mounted behind the PTS, provided the primary electrical and pneumatic power and conditioned air for the missile and ground support equipment at the firing position. The AN/TRC-80 Radio Terminal Set was produced by Collins Radio Company specifically for the Pershing system. The “Track 80” used an inflatable dish antenna to provide line-of-sight or tropospheric-scatter voice and teleprinter communications between missile firing units and higher headquarters. The erector-launcher, PTS, PS and RTS could be removed from the carriers and airtransported in fourteen CH-47 Chinook loads.[8]
10.2.7 APL In 1965, the Army contracted with the Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) of Johns Hopkins University to develop and implement a test and evaluation program.[10] APL provided technical support to the Pershing Operational Test Unit (POTU), identified problem areas and improved the performance and survivability of the Pershing systems.[11]
10.2.8 Gallery • Missile carrier • Warhead carrier • Programmer Test Station and Power station • AN/TRC-80 Radio Terminal Set
10.3 Pershing IA 10.2.5
Orientation 10.3.1 Development
The missile had to be positioned or laid in on a presurveyed site with a system of two theodolites and a target card. Directional control was passed from one theodolite to the one next to the missile. The missile was then oriented to north by an operator using a horizontal laying theodolite aimed at a window in the guidance section of the missile. Using a control box, the ST-120 Inertial navigation system in the guidance section was rotated until it was aligned; at this point the missile “knew” which direction was north.
10.2.6
Satellite launcher
Model of the Pegasus satellite launcher system
In 1961, Martin proposed a satellite launch system based on the Pershing. Named Pegasus, it would have had a lighter, simplified guidance section and a short third stage booster.[9] A 60-pound (27 kg) payload could be boosted to a 210 miles (340 km) circular orbit, or to an elliptical orbit with a 700 miles (1,130 km) apogee. Pegasus would have used the Pershing erector-launcher and could be emplaced in any open area. Martin seems to have been targeting the nascent European space program, but this program was never developed.
In 1964, a series of operational tests and follow-on tests were performed to determine the reliability of the Pershing I. The Secretary of Defense then requested that the Army define the modifications required to make Pershing suitable for the quick reaction alert (QRA) role. The Pershing IA development program was approved in 1965, and the original Pershing was renamed to Pershing I. Martin Marietta received the Pershing IA production contract in mid-1967. Project SWAP replaced all the Pershing equipment in Germany by mid-1970 and the first units quickly achieved QRA status. In 1965, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara directed that the U.S. Air Force’s MGM-13 Mace missile would be replaced by the Pershing 1A.[12] Pershing IA was a quick reaction alert system and so had faster vehicles, launch times and newer electronics.[13] The total number of launchers was increased from eight to 36 per battalion. It was deployed from May 1969 and by 1970 almost all the Pershing I systems had been upgraded to Pershing IA under Project SWAP. Production of the Pershing IA missile ended in 1975 and reopened in 1977 to replace missiles expended in training. Pershing IA was further improved in 1971 with the Pershing Missile and Power Station Development Program. The analog guidance computer and the control computer in the missile were replaced by a single digital guidance and control computer. The main distributor in the missile that routed power and signals was replaced with a new version. The missile used a rotary inverter to convert DC to AC that was replaced by a solid-state static inverter. The power station was improved for accessibility and maintenance.[14] Further improvements in 1976 allowed
10.3. PERSHING IA the firing of a platoon’s three missiles in quick succession and from any site without the need for surveying.[15] The Automatic Reference System (ARS) used an optical laser link and a north-seeking gyro with encode to eliminate the need for pre-selected and surveyed points. The Sequential Launch Adapter connected the PTS to three missiles, eliminating the need to cable and uncable each launcher.
57 impact on operational requirements. During periods of increased tension, the firing batteries of each battalion were deployed to previously unused field tactical sites. At these sites, they assumed responsibility for coverage of all assigned targets. During transition from the peacetime to full combat status, coverage was maintained on the highest priority targets that were assigned to the peacetime CAS batteries.
A total of 754 Pershing I and Pershing IA missiles were Once all firing batteries were at their field sites, the firbuilt with 180 deployed in Europe.[3] ing elements of the battalions were deployed by platoons, which were then separated from each other geographically to reduce vulnerability. The platoons then moved 10.3.2 Deployment to new firing positions on a random schedule to increase survivability. The battalions in Europe were reorganized under a new table of organization and equipment (TOE); an infantry battalion was authorized and formed to provide additional security for the system; and the 56th Artillery Group 10.3.3 Launcher and support equipment was reorganized and redesignated the 56th Field Artillery Brigade. Due to the nature of the weapon system, offi- The M790 erector launcher (EL) was a modified low-boy [17] cer positions were increased by one grade: batteries were flat-bed trailer towed by a Ford M757 5-ton tractor. commanded by a major instead of a captain; battalions The erection booms used a 3,000 psi pneumatic over hywere commanded by a colonel; and the brigade was com- draulic system that could erect the 5 ton missile from horizontal to vertical in nine seconds. Due to the overall mismanded by a brigadier general.[16]:2-4 sile length and for security, the warhead was not mated Pershing lA was deployed with three U.S. battalions in during travel. It was stored in a carrier and mated using Europe and two German Air Force wings. Each battal- a hand-pumped davit after the launcher was emplaced. ion or wing had 36 mobile launchers. Due to legal issues The EL was pulled by a Ford M757 tractor for U.S. Army of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany units and by a Magirus-Deutz Jupiter 6x6 for German Air prohibiting (West) Germany to own (or directly control) Force units. nuclear weapons the direct command and control of the nuclear warheads remained in the hands of the U.S. army. The PTS and PS were mounted on a Ford M656 truck for units and a Magirus-Deutz for German Air During peacetime operations, a portion of the Pershing U.S. Army [18] Force units. Launch activation was performed from a IA assets was deployed on the QRA mission. The remainremote fire box that could be deployed locally or mounted der would be conducting field training or were maintained in the battery control central (BCC). One PTS controlled in kasernes awaiting alert. The system was designed to three launchers— when one launch count was complete, be highly mobile, permitting its dispersal to clandestine ten large cables were unplugged from the PTS and the sites in times of alert or war and was deployed at disPTS was moved up and connected to the next launcher. tances greater than 100 km behind the forward edge of battle area or political border. Owing to its mobility and setback, Pershing was considered one of the most surviv10.3.4 Further improvements able theater nuclear weapons ever deployed in Europe. The primary mission in the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe scheduled plan took one of two forms: peacetime or an increased state of readiness called period of tension. Different levels or techniques of tasking were used for these mission forms. The peacetime quick reaction alert role required that for each battalion or wing, one firing battery or a portion thereof would be combat alert status (CAS) on a permanent hard site, covering assigned targets. In peacetime the four batteries of each battalion rotated through four states or conditions of alert readiness, the highest being that of the CAS battery. The purpose of this rotation was to assume the CAS status, to share the burden of CAS responsibility, to provide time for field tactical training and equipment maintenance, and to give ample leave and pass time to personnel without adverse
A repackaging effort of the missile and power station was completed in 1974 to provide easier access to missile components, reduce maintenance, and improve reliability. A new digital guidance and control computer combined the functions of the analog control computer and the analog guidance computer into one package. The mean corrective maintenance time was decreased from 8.7 hours to a requirement of 3.8 hours. The reliability increased from 32 hours mean time between failures to a requirement of 65 hours. In 1976, the sequential launch adapter (SLA) and the automatic reference system (ARS) were introduced. The SLA was an automatic switching device mounted in a 10 ton trailer that allowed the PTS to remain connected to all three launchers allowing all three to remain hot and greatly decreasing the time between launches. The ARS eliminated the theodolites
58
CHAPTER 10. MGM-31 PERSHING
previously used to lay and orient the missile. It included missiles carried the W85.[22] A concept warhead using a north seeking gyro and a laser link to the ST-120 in the kinetic energy penetrators for counter-airfield operations missile that allowed the missile to be orientated in a much never materialized.[24][25] shorter time.
10.4.2 Launcher 10.3.5
Women
DoD policies of the time restricted females from many positions, including Field Artillery. The first female mechanical repairer (MOS 46N, Ordnance Branch) graduated from the Pershing course at Redstone Arsenal in 1974.[19] The first female enlisted Pershing missile crewmembers (MOS 15E, Field Artillery) graduated in 1978,[20] as did the first female Field Artillery officer.[21]
10.3.6
Gallery
• Pershing 1A missile system • Programmer Test Station and Power station • Battery Control Central • Azimuth Reference System
10.4 Pershing II 10.4.1
Development
In 1973, a task force was established to begin development of a follow-on system. The 400 kt warhead was greatly over-powered for the QRA mission, and a smaller warhead required greater accuracy. The contract went to Martin Marietta in 1975 and the first development launches began in 1977. Pershing II was to use the new W85 warhead with a five to 50 kt variable yield or an earth-penetrator W86 warhead.[lower-alpha 2] The warhead was to be packaged in a maneuverable reentry vehicle (MARV) with active radar guidance, and it would be launched with the Pershing I rocket engines. In 1975 the U.S.A. turned down a request from Israel to purchase the new Pershing II.[23] The Soviet Union began deployment of the RSD-10 Pioneer (SS-20) in 1976. Since the initial version of the SS-20 had a range of 2,700 miles (4,300 km) and two warheads, the Pershing II requirement was changed to increase the range to 900 miles (1,400 km). It would have had the range to reach into the eastern Ukraine, Belarussia, or Lithuania, thus the NATO Double-Track Decision was made to deploy both the medium range Pershing and the longer range, but slower BGM-109G Ground Launched Cruise Missile (GLCM) in order to strike potential targets farther to the east.
Because of SALT II agreements, no new launchers could be built, therefore the new missile had to fit onto upgraded Pershing IA launchers. The functions of the vehicle mounted PTS needed for the older systems were consolidated into the Ground Integrated Electronics Unit (GIEU) on the side of the launcher. The warhead and radar sections were carried as an assembly on a pallet that rotated to mate with the main missile. The prime mover for the launcher was the M983 HEMTT tractor for units in the U.S. and the M1001 MAN tractor for units in Germany. The tractors had an Atlas crane used for missile assembly and a generator to provide power for the launcher and missile. Since the new guidance system was self-orienting, the launcher could be emplaced on any surveyed site and launched within minutes.
10.4.3 Motors The new rocket motors were built by Hercules. To minimize airframe weight, the rocket cases were spun from Kevlar with aluminum attachment rings.[26]
10.4.4 Reentry vehicle The reentry vehicle (RV) was structurally and functionally divided into three sections: the radar section (RS), the warhead section (WHS), and the guidance and control/adapter (G&C/A) section. The G&C/A section consisted of two separate portions, the G&C and the adapter, which were connected by a manufactured splice. At the forward end of the G&C there was a quick access splice for attachment to the warhead section. At the aft end, the adapter was grooved to accept the V-band that spliced the propulsion section to the G&C section. The RV separation system consisted of a linear shaped charge ring assembly bolted to the G&C section so that separation occurred just forward of the G&C manufactured splice. A protective collar on the outer surface of the adapter, mounted over the location of the linear shaped charge, provided personnel protection during G&C/A handling operations.
The G&C portion contained two guidance systems. The primary guidance system was a Goodyear Aerospace active radar guidance system. Using radar maps of the target area, the Pershing II had an accuracy of 30 metres (100 ft) circular error probable.[27] The backup sysBoth the hard target capability and W86 nuclear warhead tem was a Singer-Kearfott inertial navigation system that were canceled in 1980, and all production Pershing II could guide the missile on-target in a purely ballistic mode
10.4. PERSHING II
59
as a back-up. The G&C also contained the G&C com- panel to program the missile with targeting data. puter, the digital correlator unit (DCU) and actuators to drive the air fins.
10.4.6 Flight
The warhead section contained the W85 warhead. Provisions were made within the warhead section for mounting Prior to launch, the missile was referenced in azimuth by the warhead cables, the rate gyro unit, and the cables that its gyrocompass inertial platform. After launch, the mispassed from the G&C section to the RS. sile followed an inertially guided trajectory until RV sepThe radar section consisted of the Goodyear radar unit aration. Attitude and guidance commands during powwith the antenna enclosed in an ablative radome. The ered flight (except for roll attitude) were executed via the radar unit transmitted radio waves to the target area dur- swivel nozzles in the two propulsion sections. Roll coning the terminal phase, received altitude and video infor- trol was provided by two movable air vanes on the first mation and sent the detected video and altitude data to stage during first stage flight and by the RV air vanes durthe DCU in the G&C section. ing second stage flight. The first stage also had two fixed air vanes for stability during first stage powered flight. The midcourse phase of the trajectory was initiated at RV separation and continued until the terminal phase began. At the beginning of the midcourse phase, the RV See also: DSMAC, Automatic target recognition, Radar was pitched down to orient it for reentry and to reduce imaging and Topographic map its radar cross section. Midcourse attitude was then controlled by the RV vane control system during atmospheric The highly accurate terminal guidance technique used by exit and reentry, and by a reaction control system during the Pershing II RV was radar area correlation, using a exoatmospheric flight. Goodyear Aerospace active radar homing system.[28] This At a predetermined altitude above the target, the termitechnique compared live radar video return to prestored nal phase would begin. A velocity control maneuver (pull reference scenes of the target area and determined RV up, pull down) was executed under inertial guidance conposition errors with respect to its trajectory and target lotrol to slow down the RV and achieve the proper impact cation. These position errors were used to update the invelocity. The radar correlator system was activated and ertial guidance system, which in turn sent commands to the radar scanned the target area. Radar return data was the vane control system to guide the RV to the target. compared to prestored reference data and the resulting At a predetermined altitude, the radar unit was activated position fix information was used to update the inertial to provide altitude update data and begin scanning the guidance system and generate RV steering commands. target area. The analog radar video return was digitized The RV was then maneuvered to the target by the RV into two-bit pixels by the correlator unit and was format- vane control system. ted into a 128 by 128 array. The target reference scene data, loaded prior to launch via the ground and missile data links, were also encoded as two-bit pixels and placed 10.4.7 Deployment in reference memory formatted in a 256 by 256 array. The reference scene resolution necessary to correspond to By 1975, NATO had lost its strategic nuclear lead over the the decreasing altitude of the RV was effected by placing Soviet Union, and with the introduction of the SS-20, had four reference data arrays in memory, each representing even fallen behind. NATO’s answer was not long in coma given altitude band. This correlation process was per- ing and on December 12, 1979, the military commanformed several times during each of four altitude bands der of NATO decided to deploy 572 new nuclear misand continued to update the inertial guidance system until siles in Western Europe: 108 Pershing II Missiles and just before the impact.[29] 464 Ground Launched Cruise Missiles. Of the cruise If for some reason the correlator system failed to operate missiles, 160 were to be placed in England, 96 in West or if the correlation data quality was determined to be Germany, 112 in Italy (on Sicily), 48 in the Netherlands, faulty, the inertial guidance system continued to operate and 48 in Belgium. All 108 Pershing II missiles were to and guided the RV to the target area with inertial accuracy be emplaced in West Germany replacing the current Pershing 1A missiles. only.
10.4.5
Radar area correlator
Goodyear also developed the Reference Scene Generation Facility— a truck mounted shelter containing the equipment required to program the missile targeting controlled by a DEC PDP-11/70.[30] Radar maps of target areas were stored on disk, then specific targeting data was transferred to a tape cartridge. During countdown operations, the cartridge was plugged into the launcher control
The second significant aspect of the NATO decision was the readiness to trade with the Soviet Union for the reduction or total elimination of these missiles against similar reductions or elimination of the Soviet SS-20 ballistic missiles. NATO’s condition for not carrying out its plans for missile deployment would be the willingness of the U.S.S.R.
60
CHAPTER 10. MGM-31 PERSHING
to halt the deployment of the mobile SS-20 missiles that as 55th Support Battalion and E Company, 55th Maincould be aimed at Western Europe and to remove the SS- tenance Battalion was deactivated and reformed as the 20s that had already been deployed. In 1979, when the 193rd Aviation Company. decision to deploy new NATO nuclear missiles was made, the Warsaw Pact had 14 SS-20 launch sites selected, with one operational. According to estimates by NATO, at the 10.5 Variants beginning of 1986 the Warsaw Pact had deployed 279 SS20 mobile missile launchers with a total of 837 nuclear warheads based in the eastern U.S.S.R. The first of these were deployed in West Germany beginning in late November 1983. The deployment in was completed in late 1985 with a total of 108 launchers. Initial Operational Status (IOS) was achieved on December 15, 1983 when A Battery, 1st Battalion, 41st Field Artillery Regiment rotated on to operational status with the Pershing IIs at its site in Mutlangen. By 1986 all three missile battalions were deployed with 108 Martin Marietta Pershing II missiles, stationed in West Germany at Neu-Ulm, Mutlangen and Neckarsulm. On January 11, 1985, three soldiers of C Battery, 3rd Battalion, 84th Field Artillery were killed in an explosion at Camp Redleg, the CAS site near Heilbronn. The explosion occurred while removing a missile stage from the storage container during an assembly operation. An investigation revealed that the Kevlar rocket bottle had accumulated a triboelectric charge in the cold dry weather; as the motor was removed from the container the electrical charge began to flow and created a hot spot that ignited the propellant.[31][32][33] A moratorium on missile movement was enacted through late 1986 when new grounding and handling procedures were put into place.
Pershing 1B during an Engineering Development shoot, January 1986
Pershing IB was a single stage, reduced range version of Pershing II with the same range as the Pershing IA. The Pershing II launcher was designed so that the cradle could be easily repositioned to handle the shorter missile airframe. The intent was to replace the German Air Force’s Pershing IA systems with Pershing IB, since SALT II limThe deployment of Pershing missiles was a cause of sig- ited the range of German-owned missiles. The German government agreed to destroy its Pershing IA systems nificant protests in Europe.[34] when the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. signed the INF Treaty, hence the Pershing IB was never deployed.
10.4.8
Organization
Pershing II Reduced Range (RR) was a follow-on concept that would have modified the launchers to hold two singleIn 1982, the 55th Maintenance Battalion was activated as stage missiles.[36] part of the 56th Field Artillery Brigade. The 579th OrdPershing III was a proposal for a four-stage 25,000 nance Company was deactivated and reformed as Headpounds (11,000 kg) version that would have replaced the quarters Company and D Company. The three service LGM-118 Peacekeeper.[37] batteries in the field artillery battalions were deactivated and reformed as forward service companies under the 55th.[35] In January 1986, there was a major reorganization; the 56th Field Artillery Brigade was redesignated as the 56th Field Artillery Command and was authorized a major general as a commander. 1st Battalion, 81st Field Artillery was inactivated and reformed as 1st Battalion, 9th Field Artillery in Neu-Ulm, 1st Battalion, 41st Field Artillery was inactivated and reformed as 2nd Battalion, 9th Field Artillery in Schwäbisch-Gmünd and 3rd Battalion, 84th Field Artillery was inactivated and reformed as 4th Battalion, 9th Field Artillery in Heilbronn. With 3rd Battalion, 9th Field Artillery at Fort Sill, all the firing units were then under the 9th Field Artillery Regiment. The 55th Maintenance Battalion was redesignated
10.6 Operators
United States: United States Army • 56th Artillery Group, (later 56th Artillery Brigade, 56th Field Artillery Brigade, 56th Field Artillery Command (1963–1991) • 9th Field Artillery Regiment • 1st Battalion, 9th Field Artillery Regiment (1986–1991) • 2d Battalion, 9th Field Artillery Regiment (1986–1991)
10.8. LEGACY
61
• 4th Battalion, 9th Field Artillery Regiment (1986–1991) • 81st Artillery Regiment, later 81st Field Artillery Regiment • 1st Missile Battalion, 81st Artillery Regiment (1963–1972) • 1st Battalion, 81st Field Artillery Regiment (1972–1986) • 84th Field Artillery, later 84th Field Artillery Regiment • 3d Missile Battalion, 84th Artillery Regiment (1963–1968) • 3d Battalion, 84th Field Artillery Regiment (1968–1986) Pershing rocket motor being destroyed by static burn, September • 41st Artillery, later 41st Field Artillery Regi- 1988. ment • 1st Missile Battalion, 41st Artillery Regiment (1971–1972) • 1st Battalion, 41st Field Artillery Regiment (1972–1986) • 4th Missile Battalion, 41st Artillery Regiment (1963–1971)
static burn of their rockets and subsequently crushed in May 1991 at the Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant near Caddo Lake, Texas. Although not covered by the treaty, West Germany agreed unilaterally to the removal of the Pershing IA missiles from its inventory in 1991, and the missiles were destroyed in the United States.
• 214th Field Artillery Brigade (1979–1991) • 2d Missile Battalion, 44th Artillery (?–1971)
10.8 Legacy
• 3d Battalion, 9th Field Artillery Regiment The INF treaty only covered the destruction of launchers (1971–1990) and rocket motors. The W-85 warheads used in the Per• 2d Missile Battalion, 79th Artillery (?–?) shing II missiles were removed, modified, and reused in B61 gravity bombs. West Germany: German Air Force
The Orbital Sciences Storm I target missile used air vanes from the Pershing 1A.[39] The Pershing II guidance sec• Flugkörpergeschwader 1 (1st Surface-to-Surface tion was re-used in the Coleman Aerospace Hera and the Orbital Sciences Storm II target missiles. Missile Wing) Surface-to- The INF Treaty allowed for inert Pershing II missiles to be retained for display purposes. One is now on display in the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum in • Flugkörpergruppe 13 (13th Surface-to- Washington, D.C., alongside a Soviet SS-20 missile. AnSurface Missile Group) other is at the Central Armed Forces Museum in Moscow, [38][lower-alpha 3] A number of • Flugkörpergeschwader 2 (2nd Surface-to-Surface Russia, also with an SS-20. inert Pershing I and Pershing IA missiles are displayed in Missile Wing) the U.S. and Germany. • Flugkörpergruppe 21 (21st Surface-to-Surface Scrap material from the Pershing II and SS-20 missiles Missile Group) has been used in several projects. Zurab Tsereteli created • Flugkörpergruppe 12 Surface Missile Group)
(12th
• Flugkörpergruppe 22 Surface Missile Group)
(22nd
Surface-to- a sculpture called Good Defeats Evil, a 39-foot (12 m), 40-short-ton (36,000 kg) monumental bronze statue of Saint George fighting the dragon of nuclear war, with the dragon being made from sections of the Pershing II and SS-20 missiles. The sculpture was donated to the United 10.7 Elimination Nations by the Soviet Union in 1990, and it is located on The Pershing systems were scrapped following the ratifi- the grounds of the United Nations Headquarters in New cation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty York City. on May 27, 1988.[38] The missiles were withdrawn in Oc- In 1991, Leonard Cheshire's World Memorial Fund for tober 1988; the last of the missiles were destroyed by the Disaster Relief sold badges of the group logo made of
62
CHAPTER 10. MGM-31 PERSHING
scrap material. Parker created a series of pens with a Memorial Fund badge made of scrap missile material, with half the proceeds going to the fund.[40] On November 4, 1991 the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library opened in Simi Valley, California. The then five living presidents, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George Bush, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan were present at the opening. Parker presented them each with a black ballpoint Duofold Centennial with the Presidential seal on the crown formed from scrap Pershing and SS-20 material, and engraved signatures of the presidents. The pen was also offered in a walnut box also with the names of all five presidents and the Presidential seal.[41]
10.8.1
Veterans
In 2000, a number of U.S. Army Pershing missile veterans decided to seek out their fellow veterans and to start acquiring information and artifacts on the Pershing systems. In 2004, the Pershing Professionals Association was incorporated to meet the long-term goals — to preserve, interpret and encourage interest in the history of the Pershing missile systems and the soldiers who served, and to make such information accessible to present and future generations to foster a deeper appreciation of the role that Pershing played in world history.[42] Veterans of the 2nd Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, who had carried out the security for the Pershing systems formed a subchapter known as the Pershing Tower Rats. The two German Air Force missile wings in Germany also formed veterans groups.[43][44]
10.9 See also • Pershing missile launches • Pershing missile bibliography
10.10 Notes [1] The original system was simply named Pershing, but was renamed Pershing I in 1965 when the Pershing Ia was introduced. Military and other documentation is inconsistent in the use of Arabic and Roman numerals and in capitalization, resulting in the use of I, 1, 1a, 1A, 2, II and the like. [2] No official military documentation uses the MGM-31 series designation for the Pershing II. [3] The treaty allowed for a total of fifteen Pershing II and GLCM missiles for display. Seven Pershing IIs were retained; last known locations are: • U.S. Army Artillery Museum, Fort Sill, Oklahoma
• White Sands Missile Range Museum, White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico • Air Force Space & Missile Museum, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida • U.S. Space & Rocket Center, Huntsville, Alabama (no longer on display as of 2008) • Virginia Air and Space Center, Hampton, Virginia • National Air and Space Museum, Washington, DC • Central Armed Forces Museum, Moscow, Russia
10.11 See also • Pershing missile launches • Pershing missile bibliography
10.12 References [1] “Charlie’s Hurricane”. Armed Forces. Time. June 6, 1956. (subscription required (help)). [2] Harwood, William B. (1993). Raise Heaven and Earth. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-67-174998-6. [3] Pershing Ia System Description (PDF). Martin Marietta. June 1974. OR 13,149. [4] Pershing: The Man, the Missile, the Mission (PDF). The Martin Company. 1960. WSS 009. [5] “JFK’s Visit to White Sands” (PDF). White Sands Missile Range. United States Army. [6] Lemmer, George F. (January 1966). Strengthening USAF General Purpose Forces, 1961-1964 (PDF). USAF Historical Division Liaison Office. [7] McKenney, Janice E. (2007). “Pershing Missile”. Organizational History of Field Artillery 1775 - 2003. 230–234 (PDF). Washington D.C.: U.S. Army Center of Military History. [8] Tupper, Fred A.; Hausburg, E. E. (January 1963). “Field Artillery’s Newest Missile” (PDF). Artillery Trends: 36– 40. [9] Pershing Rockets for Europe (PDF). Interavia. July 1961. [10] Mentzer, Jr., William R. (1998). “Test and Evaluation of Land-Mobile Missile Systems” (PDF). Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest (Johns Hopkins University). [11] Lyman, Donald R. (May 1977). “POTU” (PDF). Field Artillery Journal: 15–17. [12] Parsch, Andreas (November 17, 2002). “Martin TM76/MGM-13/CGM-13 Mace”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. [13] Moore, Jr., Alan L. (April 1969). “A New Look of Pershing” (PDF). The Field Artilleryman: 49–57.
10.12. REFERENCES
[14] “Instructional Department Notes: Pershing” (PDF). The Field Artilleryman: 76–78. August 1971. [15] “Pershing System Modular Improvement” (PDF). Field Artillery Journal: 30. May 1976. [16] Pershing II Firing Battery (PDF). United States Army. March 1985. FM 6-11. [17] Equipment Data Sheets for TACOM Combat & Tactical Equipment (PDF). United States Army. June 1985. pp. 4–286 – 4–287. TM 43-0001-31. [18] Equipment Data Sheets for TACOM Combat & Tactical Equipment (PDF). United States Army. June 1985. pp. 4–202 – 4–203. TM 43-0001-31.
63
[34] “Hundreds of Thousands Protest Missiles in Europe: Urge U.S. to Match Soviet Halt”. Los Angeles Times. April 8, 1985. [35] “55th Maintenance Battalion”. Donau (U.S. Army). July 16, 1982. [36] “Pershing II RR” (PDF). United States Army. [37] Arkin, William M. (June 1983). “Pershing II and U.S. Nuclear Strategy”. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: 12. [38] “The Pershing Weapon System and Its Elimination”. United States Army.
[19] “The Women of Redstone Arsenal”. United States Army. Archived from the original on July 11, 2010.
[39] Thongchua, Nat; Kaczmarek, Michael (November 7, 1994). “Theater Missile Defense Targets for Interceptor Test and Evaluation” (PDF). 1944 AIAA Missile Sciences Conference.
[20] Busse, Charlane (July 1978). “First Women Join Pershing Training” (PDF). Field Artillery Journal: 40.
[40] “Charity: Writing Off The Weapons”. Time. August 28, 1991. (subscription required (help)).
[21] “The Journal interviews: 1LT Elizabeth A. Tourville” (PDF). Field Artillery Journal: 40–43. November 1978.
[41] Fischier, Tony. “Five Presidents”. Parker Pens Penography: Parker Special Edition, Special Purpose Edition and Limited Edition.
[22] Pershing II Weapon System (System Description) (PDF). United States Army. June 1986. TM 9-1425-386-10-1.
[42] “Pershing Professionals Association”.
[23] “Missiles for Peace” (PDF). Time. September 29, 1975. Archived from the original on February 2, 2008.
[43] “Traditionsgemeinschaft Flugkörpergeschwader 1” [Community Tradition of Missile Wing 1] (in German).
[24] Eskow, Dennis, ed. (January 1984). “Raining Fire” (PDF). Popular Mechanics (Hearst).
[44] “Traditionsgemeinschaft Flugkörpergeschwader 2” [Community Tradition of Missile Wing 2] (in German).
[25] Harsch, Joseph. (June 22, 1983). “U.S. Has Other Defense Options” (PDF). Beaver County Times. [26] Jones III, Lauris T. (Winter 1986). “The Pershing Rocket Motor” (PDF). The Ordnance Magazine (United States Army Ordnance Corps Association). [27] Parsch, Andreas (2002). “Martin Marietta M14/MGM31 Pershing”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. [28] “Nuclear Files: Library: Media Gallery: Still Images: At Work in the Fields of the Bomb by Robert Del Tredici”. NuclearFiles.org. [29] Paine, Christopher (October 1980). “Pershing II: The Army’s Strategic Weapon”. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: 25–31. [30] “Target Reference for Pershing II” (PDF). Field Artillery Journal: 36. January 1984. [31] Green, Gary A. (July 1985). “The Accident in Heilbronn” (PDF). Field Artillery Journal: 33. [32] Knaur, James A. (August 1986). “Technical Investigation of ll January 1985: Pershing II Motor Fire” (PDF). U.S. Army Missile Command (Defense Technical Information Center). [33] Davenas, Alain; Rat, Roger (July–August 2002). “Sensitivity of Solid Rocket Motors to Electrostatic Discharge: History and Futures” (PDF). Journal of Propulsion and Power 18 (4).
Chapter 11
MIM-23 Hawk for the missile. The first test launch of the missile then designated the XSAM-A-18 happened in June 1956. By July 1957 development was completed, by which time the designation had changed to XM3 and XM3E1. Very early missiles used the Aerojet M22E7 which was not reliable; the problems were resolved with the adoption of the M22E8 engine. The missile was initially deployed by the U.S. Army in 1959, and by the US Marine Corps in 1960. The high complexity of the system, and the quality of tube-based electronics, gave the radars in the early Hawk systems a Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) of only 43 hours. The improved Hawk system increased this to 130 to 170 hours. Later Hawk versions improved this further to between 300 and 400 hours.
A Hawk system in service with the German Luftwaffe before it was phased out
The Raytheon MIM-23 Hawk (Homing All the Way Killer)[2] is a U.S. medium-range surface-to-air missile. The Hawk was initially designed to destroy aircraft and was later adapted to destroy other missiles in flight. The missile entered service in 1960, and a program of extensive upgrades has kept it from becoming obsolete. It was superseded by the MIM-104 Patriot in United States Army service by 1994. It was finally phased out of U.S. service in 2002, the last U.S. users, the U.S. Marine Corps replacing it with the man-portable infraredguided visual range FIM-92 Stinger. The missile was also produced outside the US in Western Europe, Japan and Iran.[3]
Improved Hawk or I-Hawk The original Hawk system had problems engaging targets at low altitude—the missile would have problems picking the target out against ground clutter. The U.S. Army began a program to address these issues in 1964 via the Hawk Improvement Program (Hawk/HIP). This involved numerous upgrades to the Hawk system: • A digital data processing central information coordinator for target processing, threat ordering, and intercept evaluation. • An improved missile (MIM-23B) with a larger warhead, smaller and more powerful M112 motor, and improved guidance section.
Although the U.S. never used the Hawk in combat, it has been employed numerous times by other nations. Approximately 40,000 of the missiles were produced. Jane’s reported that the original system’s single shot kill probability was 0.56; I-Hawk improved this to 0.85.[4]
• The PAR, CWAR, HPIR, and ROR were replaced by upgraded variants (see #Radars). The system entered service during 1972, the first unit reaching operational status by October. All US units were upgraded to I-Hawk standard by 1978.
11.1 Development Development of the Hawk missile system began in 1952, when the United States Army began studies into a medium range semi-active radar homing surface-toair missile. In July 1954 development contracts where awarded to Northrop for the launcher, radars and fire control systems, while Raytheon was awarded the contract
Product Improvement Plan In 1973 the U.S. Army started an extensive multi-phase Hawk PIP (Product Improvement Plan), mainly intended to improve and upgrade the numerous items of ground equipment.
64
• Phase I
11.1. DEVELOPMENT Phase I involved replacement of the CWAR with the AN/MPQ-55 Improved CWAR (ICWAR), and the upgrade of the AN/MPQ-50 PAR to Improved PAR (IPAR) configuration by the addition of a digital MTI (Moving Target Indicator). The first PIP Phase I systems were fielded between 1979 and 1981. • Phase II Developed from 1978 and fielded between 1983 and 1986. upgraded the AN/MPQ-46 HPI to AN/MPQ-57 standard by replacing some of the vacuum tube based electronics with modern solid-state circuits, and added an optical TAS (Tracking Adjunct System). The TAS, designated OD-179/TVY, is an electro-optical (TV) tracking system that increases Hawk operability and survivability in a high-ECM environment. • Phase III The PIP Phase III development was started in 1983, and was first fielded by U. S. forces in 1989. Phase III was a major upgrade which significantly enhanced the computer hardware and software for most components of the system, a new CWAR the AN/MPQ-62, added single-scan target detection capability, and upgraded the HPI to AN/MPQ61 standard by addition of a LowAltitude Simultaneous Hawk Engagement (LASHE) system. LASHE allows the Hawk system to counter saturation attacks by simultaneously intercepting multiple low-level targets. The ROR was phased out in Phase III Hawk units. Hawk Missile Restore Reliability (MRR) This was a program that ran between 1982 and 1984 intended to improve missile reliability. Hawk ECCM
65 Upgrades to the missile that takes it up to MIM-23G that enable the missile to deal with low flying targets in a high clutter environment. These were first deployed in 1990. Hawk missile ILM (Improved lethality modification) To improve the lethality of the warhead of the missile against ballistic missiles, the warhead was redesigned to produce fewer larger fragments, typically 35 grams each comparable to a 12.7 mm projectile in mass. Hawk mobility and TMD upgrades A Hawk mobility survivability enhancement programme has been developed following experience in the 1990 Gulf War. The aim of this programme was to reduce the number of support vehicles per battery and to increase survivability. Upgrades to the launcher allow missiles to be transported on the launcher itself, as well as replacing vacuum tubes with a single laptop computer. A north finding system speeds orientation and launcher alignment. A field wire replaces heavy cables and allows for greater dispersion amongst battery vehicles from 110 m to 2 km. The upgrades where deployed by the US Marine Corps between early 1995 and September 1996. Phase IV With both the Army and Marines abandoning the Hawk, phase IV was never completed. However it was planned to include: • High mobility continuous wave acquisition radar to improve detection of small UAVs. • A new CW engagement radar. • Anti-radiation missile decoys. • An improved missile motor. • An upgraded electro-optical tracker. • Improved command and control. • ATBM upgrades.
Running alongside the MMR program, this produced ECCM to specific threats, probably contemporary Soviet ECM pods such as the SPS-141 fitted to the Su-22, which proved moderately effective during the Iran–Iraq War. The MIM-23C and E missiles contain these fixes. Low clutter enhancements
Hawk XXI (Hawk 21) The Hawk XXI or Hawk-21 is a more advanced, and more compact version of Hawk PIP-3 upgrade. Hawk-XXI basically eliminates the PAR and CWAR radars with the introduction of 3D MPQ-64 Sentinel radars. Norway's Kongsberg Company provides an
66
CHAPTER 11. MIM-23 HAWK FDC (Fire Distribution Center) as it is used in NASAMS system in Norway. The missiles are upgraded MIM-23K standard with an improved blast-fragmentation warhead that creates a larger lethal zone. The system is also effective against short range tactical ballistic missiles. A MPQ-61 HIPIR radar provides low altitude and local area radar coverage as well as continuous wave radar illumination for the MIM-23K Hawk missiles.
11.2 Description
clutter in addition to an inverted receiver developed in the late 1960s to give the missile enhanced ECCM ability and to increase the Doppler frequency resolution. A typical Basic Hawk battery consists of: • 1 × PAR: Pulse Acquisition Radar—a search radar with a 20 rpm rotation, for high/medium altitude target detection. • 1 × CWAR: Continuous Wave Acquisition Radar— a search doppler radar with a 20 rpm rotation, for low altitude target detection. • 2 × HPIR: High Power Illuminator doppler Radar— target tracking, illumination and missile guidance. • 1 × ROR: Range Only Radar—K-band pulse radar which provides range information when the other systems are jammed or unavailable. • 1 × ICC: Information Coordination Central • 1 × BCC: Battery Control Central • 1 × AFCC: Assault Fire Command Console— miniature battery control central for remote control of one firing section of the battery. The AFCC controls one CWAR, one HPI, and three launchers with a total of nine missiles. • 1 × PCP: Platoon Command Post • 2 × LCS: Launcher Section Controls
Launch of a Hawk missile
The Hawk system consists of a large number of component elements. These elements were typically fitted on wheeled trailers making the system semi-mobile. During the system’s 40-year life span, these components were continually upgraded.
• 6 × M-192: Launchers with 18 missiles. • 6 × SEA: Generators 56 kVA (400 Hz) each. • 12 × M-390: Missile transport pallets with 36 missiles • 3 × M-501: Missile loading tractors.
The Hawk missile is transported and launched from the • 1 × [bucket loader] M192 towed triple-missile launcher. A self-propelled • 1 × Missile test shop AN/MSM-43. Hawk launcher, the SP-Hawk, was fielded in 1969, which simply mounted the launcher on a tracked M727 (modified M548), however the project was dropped and all ac- A typical Phase-III Hawk battery consists of: tivity terminated in August 1971. The missile is propelled by a dual thrust motor, with a boost phase and a sustain phase. The MIM-23A missiles were fitted with an M22E8 motor which burns for 25 to 32 seconds. The MIM-23B and later missiles are fitted with an M112 motor with a 5 second boost phase and a sustain phase of around 21 seconds. The M112 motor has greater thrust, thus increasing the engagement envelope.
• 1 × PAR: Pulse Acquisition Radar—a search radar with a 20 (+/−2) rpm rotation, for high/medium altitude target detection.
The original MIM-23A missiles used a parabolic reflector, but the antenna directional focus was insufficient, when engaging low flying targets the missile would dive on them, only to lose them in the ground clutter. The MIM-23B I-Hawk missiles and later uses a low side lobe, high-gain plane antenna to reduce sensitivity to ground
• 2 × HIPIR: HIgh Power Illuminator doppler Radar—target tracking, illumination and missile guidance.
• 1 × CWAR: Continuous Wave Acquisition Radar— a search doppler radar with a 20 (+/−2) rpm rotation, for low altitude target detection.
• 1 × FDC: Fire Distributuon Center • 1 × IFF: Identification Friend or Foe Transceiver
11.3. MISSILES • 6 × DLN: Digital Launchers with 18 missiles.
67
11.3.2 I-Hawk: MIM-23B
• 6 × MEP-816: Generators 60KW (400 Hz) each.
The MIM-23B has a larger 74 kg (163 lb) blastfragmentation warhead, a smaller and improved guidance • 12 × M-390: Missile transport pallets with 36 mis- package, and a new M112 rocket motor. The new warsiles head produces approximately 14,000 2-gram (0.071 oz) fragments that cover a much larger 70 degree arc. The • 3 × M-501: Missile loading tractors. missiles M112 rocket motor has a boost phase of 5 seconds and a sustain phase of 21 seconds. The motors to• 1 × [bucket loader] tal weight is 395 kg (871 lb) including 295 kg (650 lb) of propellant. This new motor improves the engagement envelope to 1.5 to 40 km (0.93 to 24.85 mi) in range at high altitude, and 2.5 to 20 km (1.6 to 12.4 mi) at low 11.3 Missiles altitude, the minimum engagement altitude is 60 meters (200 ft). The missile was operational in 1971. All US The Hawk missile has a slender cylindrical body and four units had converted to this standard by 1978. long chord clipped delta-wings, extending from mid-body to the slightly tapered boat-tail. Each wing has a trailing• MTM-23B training missile. edge control surface. • The MIM-23A is 5.08 metres (16.7 ft) long, has a body diameter of 0.37 metres (1 ft 3 in), a wing span of 1.21 metres (4 ft 0 in) and weighs 584 kilograms (1,287 lb) at launch with a 54 kilograms (119 lb) HE blast/fragmentation warhead. It has a minimum engagement range of 2 kilometres (1.2 mi), a maximum range of 25 kilometres (16 mi), a minimum engagement altitude of 60 metres (200 ft) and a maximum engagement altitude of 11,000 metres (36,000 ft).
• XMEM-23B Full telemetry version for testing and evaluation purposes.
11.3.3 System components The Hawk and Improved Hawk structure was integrated into one system—AN/TSQ-73 air defense missile control and coordination system, called Missile Minder or Hawk-MM. It consists of the following components: MPQ-50 Pulse Acquisition Radar, MPQ-48 Improved Continuous Wave Acquisition Radar, TSW-8 Battery Control Central, ICC Information Coordination Central, MSW-11 Platoon Command Post, MPQ-46 High Power Illuminator, MPQ-51 Range Only Radar and the M192 Launcher.[6]
• The MIM-23B to M versions are 5.03 m (16.5 ft) long, have a body diameter of 0.37 m (1 ft 3 in) and, with a larger warhead of 75 kg (165 lb), weighing 638 kg (1,407 lb) at launch. An improved motor, with a total weight of 395 kg (871 lb) including 295 kg (650 lb) of propellant, increases the maximum range of the MIM-23B to M versions to 35 11.3.4 Improved ECCM km (22 mi) and maximum engagement altitude to • MIM-23C 18,000 m (59,000 ft). The minimum range is reduced to 1.5 km (0.93 mi). The MIM-23B has a peak velocity of around 500 m/s (1,600 ft/s). The Introduced around 1982 with improved ECCM capabilimissile is fitted with both radio frequency proximity ties. and impact fuses. The guidance system uses an Xband CW monopulse semi-active radar seeker. The • MIM-23D missile can maneuver at 15 g. Unknown upgrade to the MIM-23C. The C and D missile In the 1970s, NASA used surplus Hawk missiles to create families remained separate until the missiles’ exit from the Nike Hawk sounding rocket.[5] service. It is not clear exactly what the difference between the two missiles - however it seems likely that the D family missiles represent an alternative guidance sys11.3.1 Basic Hawk: MIM-23A tem, possibly home on jam developed in response to Soviet ECM techniques that were used by Iraq during the The original missile used with the system. The 54- Iran-Iraq War. kilogram (119 lb) warhead produces approximately 4,000 8-gram (0.28 oz) fragments that move at approximately Low level/multi jamming 2,000 meters per second (6,600 ft/s) in an 18 degree arc. • MIM-23E/F
68
CHAPTER 11. MIM-23 HAWK
An upgraded to the MIM-23C/D missiles improved guid• AN/MPQ-35 (Basic Hawk) ance for low level engagements in a high clutter/multijamming environment. Introduced in 1990. The search radar used with the basic Hawk system, with a radar pulse power of 450 kW and a pulse length of 3 µs, New body section a Pulse Repetition Frequency of 800 and 667 Hz alternately. The radar operates in the 1.25 to 1.35 GHz range. • MIM-23G/H The antenna is a 6.7 m × 1.4 m (22.0 ft × 4.6 ft) elliptical A 1995 upgrade consisting of a new body section assem- reflector of open lattice construction, mounted on a small two-wheeled trailer. Rotation rate is 20 rpm, the BCC bly for the MIM-23E/F missiles. Battery Control Central and the CWAR are synchronized New warhead + fuzing (anti-TBM) by the PAR revolutions and the PAR system trigger. • MIM-23K/J Introduced around 1994. Enhanced lethality configuration warhead with 35 gram (540 grain) fragments instead of the I-Hawks 2 gram (30 grain) fragments. MIM-23K Hawk missiles are effective up to 20,000 m altitude and up to 45 km in range. The missile also includes a new fuse to make it effective against ballistic missiles. New fuzing + old warhead • MIM-23L/M Retains the I-Hawks 30 grain warhead, but with the new fuse.
11.4 Radars
• AN/MPQ-50 (Improved Hawk to Phase III) Introduced with the I-Hawk system, the improved-PAR. The system introduces a digital MTI (Moving Target Indicator) that helps separate targets from ground clutter. It operates in the 500 to 1,000 MHz (C-band) frequency range with a peak operating power of 1,000 watts. • Range (source Janes): • 104 km (65 mi) (high PRF) to 96 km (60 mi) (low PRF) versus 3 m2 (32 sq ft) target. • 98 km (61 mi)(high PRF) to 90 km (56 mi) (low PRF) versus 2.4 m2 (26 sq ft) target. • 79 km (49 mi) (high PRF) to 72 km (45 mi) (low PRF) versus 1 m2 (11 sq ft) target.
The original Hawk system used 4 radars: to detect (PAR and CWAR), to track (CWAR and HPIR) and to engage (HPIR and ROR) targets. As the system was upgraded the functionality of some of the radars was merged. The final iteration of the system consists of only 2 radars, an enhanced phased array search radar and an engagement radar (HPIR).
A Hawk PAR radar
PAR Pulse Acquisition Radar The pulse acquisition radar is a long range, high altitude search radar.
A Sentinel radar
• AN/MPQ-64 Sentinel (Hawk XXI)
11.4. RADARS
69 Hawk Improved Continuous Wave Acquisition Radar or ICWAR. The output power is doubled to 400 W, this increases the detection range to around 70 km (43 mi). The radar operates in the 10–20 GHz (J-band). Other features include FM ranging and BITE (Built in test equipment). Frequency modulation is applied to the broadcast on alternate scans of the ICWAR to obtain range information. • AN/MPQ-62 (Phase III) Some changes to the signal processing allow the radar to determine the targets’ range and speed in a single scan. A digital DSP system is added which allows a lot of the processing work to be done on the radar directly and forwarded directly via a serial digital link to the PCP/BCP.
A Hawk CWAR radar.
A X-Band 3D range-gated doppler radar system used with the Hawk XXI system. It replaces both the CWAR and PAR components of the Hawk system. MPQ-64 Sentinel provides coverage out to a range of 75 km (47 mi), rotating at 30 rpm. The system has a mean time between failure of around 600 hours, and can track at least 60 targets at once. It can elevate up to +55 degrees and depress to −10 degrees.[7] CWAR Continuous Wave Acquisition Radar This X Band Continuous wave system is used to detect targets. The unit comes mounted on its own mobile trailer. The unit acquires targets through 360 degrees of azimuth while providing target radial speed and raw range data. • AN/MPQ-34 (Basic Hawk) MPQ-34 Hawk CW Acquisition radar with a power rating of 200 W and a frequency of 10 GHz (X-Band) Built by Raytheon. Replaced by MPQ-48. • AN/MPQ-48 (Improved Hawk) The Improved Hawk version of the CW acquisition radar doubled the output power and improved the detection ranges: • Range (source Janes): • 69 km (43 mi) (CW) to 63 km (39 mi) (FM) versus 3 m2 (32 sq ft) target. • 65 km (40 mi) (CW) to 60 km (37 mi) (FM) versus 2.4 m2 (26 sq ft) target. • 52 km (32 mi) (CW) to 48 km (30 mi) (FM) versus 1 m2 (11 sq ft) target. • AN/MPQ-55 (Phase I - Phase II)
A Hawk HPI radar
HPIR High Power Illuminating Radar The early AN/MPQ-46 High Power Illuminator (HPIR) radars had only the two large dish-type antennas side by side, one to transmit and one to receive. The HPIR automatically acquires and tracks designated targets in azimuth, elevation and range. It also serves as an interface unit supplying azimuth and elevation launch angles computed by the Automatic Data Processor (ADP) in the Information Coordination Centre (ICC) to the IBCC or the Improved Platoon Command Post (IPCP) for up to three launchers. The HPIR J-band energy reflected from the target is also received by the Hawk missile. These returns are compared with the missile reference signal being transmitted directly to the missile by the HPIR. Target tracking is continued throughout the missile’s flight. After the missile intercepts the target the HPIR Doppler data is used for kill evaluation. The HPIR receives target designations from one or both surveillance radars via the Battery Control Centre (BCC) and automatically searches a given sector for a rapid target lock on. The HPIR incorporates ECCM and BITE. • AN/MPQ-33/39 (Basic Hawk) This X Band CW System is used to illuminate targets in the Hawk Missile Battery. The unit comes mounted on its own mobile trailer. Unit automatically acquires and
70
CHAPTER 11. MIM-23 HAWK
tracks designated targets in azimuth elevation and range rate. The system has an output power of around 125 W operating in the 10-10.25 GHz band. MPQ-39 was an upgraded version of the MPQ-33. • AN/MPQ-46 (Improved Hawk – Phase I)
the HPIR radar cannot determine the range, typically because of jamming. The ROR is difficult to jam because it operates only briefly during the engagement, and only in the presence of jamming. • AN/MPQ-37 (Basic Hawk)
• AN/MPQ-51 (Improved Hawk – Phase II) The radar operates in the 10–20 GHz (J-band) region. Many of the electron tube components in earlier radars are replaced with solid-state technology. A Ku Band (Freq: 15.5-17.5 GHz) pulse radar, the power output was 120 kW. Pulse length 0.6 µs at a pulse repetition frequency of 1600 Hz. Antenna: 4-foot (1.2 m) • Range (source Janes): dish. • 99 km (62 mi) (high PRF) to 93 km (58 mi) (low PRF) versus 3 m2 (32 sq ft) target. • Range • 93 km (58 mi) (high PRF) to 89 km (55 mi) (low PRF) versus 2.4 m2 (26 sq ft) target. • 83 km (52 mi) versus 3 m2 (32 sq ft) target. • 75 km (47 mi) (high PRF) to 72 km (45 mi) • 78 km (48 mi) versus 2.4 m2 (26 sq ft) target. (low PRF) versus 1 m2 (11 sq ft) target. • 63 km (39 mi) versus 1 m2 (11 sq ft) target. • AN/MPQ-57 (Phase II) The majority of the remaining tube electronics are upgraded to solid state. Also, an electro-optical tracking system, the daytime only OD-179/TVY TAS (Tracking Adjunct System) is added for operation in a high ECM environement. The TAS was developed from the US Air Forces TISEO (Target Identification System, ElectroOptical) by Northrop. It consists of a video camera with a x10 zoom lens. The I-TAS which was field tested in 1992 added an Infra Red capability for night operation as well as automatic target detection and tracking. • HEOS Germany, Netherlands and Norway modified their Hawk systems with an alternative IR acquisition and tracking system known as the Hawk ElectroOptical Sensor (HEOS) in place of the TAS. HEOS operates in the 8 to 11 µm band and is used to supplement the HPI to acquire and track targets before missile launch.
FDC (Hawk Phase III and Hawk XXI) - Fire Distribution Center. C4I unit, enabling modern command, control, communications and Force Operation. Color displays with 3D map overlays enhance the situation awareness. Instriduces the real-time exchange of air picture and commands between the Hawk units. Make-ready capability for SL-AMRAAM and SHORAD/vSHORAD systems.
11.5 Country-specific tions
• AN/MPQ-61 (Phase III) Upgraded with the addition of the LASHE (Low-Altitude Simultaneous Hawk Engagement) system, which allows the Hawk to engage multiple low level targets by employing a fan beam antenna to provide a wide-angle, lowaltitude illumination pattern to allow multiple engagements against saturation raids. This antenna is rectangular. This allows up to 12 targets to be engaged at once. There is also TV/IR optic system for passive missile guid- An Israeli M727 mobile Hawk launcher. ance. ROR Range Only Radar Pulse radar that automatically comes into operation if
• Israel
modifica-
11.6. COMBAT HISTORY
71
The Israelis have upgraded the Phase 2 standard with the addition of a Super Eye electro-optical TV system for detection of aircraft at 30 to 40 km and identification at 17 to 25 km. They have also modified their system for engagements at altitudes up to 24,000 m. • Sparrow Hawk A composite system firing AIM-7 Sparrow missiles from a modified 8 round launcher. The system was demonstrated at the China Lake weapons test site in 1985. There are currently no users of the system. • Hawk AMRAAM At “Safe Air 95” AMRAAM missiles were demonstrated being fired from a modified M192 missile launcher. The normal battery radar is used for the engagement, with the missile’s own radar used for terminal homing. Raytheon and Kongsberg are offering this system as an upgrade to the existing Hawk system. This proposal is aimed particularly at Hawk operating countries that also have AIM120 AMRAAM in their inventory. Norway is currently operating this type of system as NASAMS. • Iran
Iran Air Force Grumman F-14A Tomcat fighters armed with multiple missiles. The missile carried on the right ouboard plyon of the tomcat in the left seems to be an MIM-23 Hawk missile.
• Norway Norway has developed its own Hawk upgrade scheme known as the Norwegian Adapted Hawk (NOAH) which involves the lease of I-Hawk launchers, HPI radars and missile loaders from the USA and their integration with Hughes (now Raytheon) Kongsberg Acquisition Radar and Control Systems. The NOAH system became operational in 1988. It was replaced by NASAMS in the period 1995-1998. • ACWAR
Future developments were expected to include the introduction of an Agile CW Acquisition Radar (ACWAR), which is an evolution of the Hawk CW radar technology. It would perform full 3-D target acquisition over a 360° azimuth sector and large elevation angles. The ACWAR programme was initiated to meet increasingly severe tactical air defence requirements and the equipment is being designed for operation of Hawk in the late 1990s and Iranian mobile Hawk launcher beyond. However, the ACWAR programme was termiAs part of what became known as the Iran-Contra affair, nated in 1993. Hawk missiles were some of the weaponry sold to Iran, in violation of an arms embargo, to fund the Contras. The Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force is reported to have experimented with a number of MIM-23 Hawk missiles for carriage on F-14 Tomcat fighters in the air-to-air role under a program known as SKY Hawk. Iran has also modified its ground-based Hawk systems for carriage on a convoy of 8x8 wheeled vehicles and adapted the launchers to carry Standard RIM-66 or AGM-78 missiles with two Standard missiles per launcher. The Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force had recently revealed its own version of the MIM-23 Hawk the Shahin which it claims to be under production. In 2010 Iran announced that it will be mass-producing its next generation of air defense system called Mersad which would integrate with the Shahin missile.[8]
11.6 Combat History • August 1962 agreement in principle was reached between the US and Israeli governments for the sale of Hawk missiles to Israel. • October - November 1962 the Cuban Missile Crisis necessitates a request for a total of 304 missiles to be delivered at an average turnaround of 3 days per missile. • February - March 1965 the United States Marine Corps gets interested in the Hawk, placing them at Da Nang and Hill 327, which was west of Da Nang airbase. This was both the first USMC deployment
72
CHAPTER 11. MIM-23 HAWK of the Hawk, and also the first deployment of the Hawk in Vietnam.
Chadian territory proper and left the French with only a very small window of opportunity to shoot the intruder. The interception took place almost at the vertical of the battery. Debris and unexploded bombs from the Tu-22 rained over the position and injured no one.
• March 1965 the first Hawk battalion was deployed to Israel. • June 5, 1967 In an unusual incident an Israeli MIM23A shot down a damaged Israeli Dassault MD.450 Ouragan that was in danger of crashing into the Negev Nuclear Research Center near Dimona, being the first combat firing of the Hawk and the first combat kill attributed to the Hawk system . • March 21, 1969 Before noon, a new Hawk battery, which was deployed at Baluza, north of the town of Kantara in the Sinai region detected an Egyptian MiG-21 aircraft which took off from Port-said airport. The controller, Yair Tamir, tracked the aircraft on the radar, in its flight from north to south along the Suez canal, and when the MiG-21 broke to a course heading towards the Hawk battery, a missile was launched at it, which successfully destroyed the aircraft while it was flying at an altitude of 6,700 m. . During the War of Attrition, Hawk batteries had shot down between 8 and 12 aircraft ; Janes reports 12 kills as 1 Il-28, 4 Su-7, 4 MiG-17 and 3 MiG-21. • May 1972, Improved Hawk support equipment was first deployed to Germany. • October 1973 Yom Kippur war 75 Israeli missiles were fired downing between 12 and 24 aircraft and one oil well on fire in Abu-Rodes oil field. • 1977 Conversion of Basic Hawk to Improved Hawk was completed by all US Army units in Europe and Korea by the end of the year. • 1980s • Kuwait, 1 kill of an Iranian F-5 during the Iran–Iraq War. • Iran, at least 40 Iraqi aircraft destroyed during the Iran–Iraq War. On February 12, 1986, 9 Iraqi aircraft downed by a Hawk site near alFaw in southern Iraq during Operation Dawn 8. Among the aircraft, are Su-22 and MiG23s.[9] In addition, Iranian HAWK sites shot down 3 friendly F-14 Tomcats and 1 F-5 Tiger II.[10][11] • March 1985 DA and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) approved the development of an anti-tactical missile (ATM) mission for Hawk. • September 7, 1987, French Army, 403nd Air Defence Regiment, in Chad, shot down a Libyan Tu22B on a bombing mission with an MIM-23B during the Chadian-Libyan war. The particularity of this event is with its geographical situation, a few miles from a border. The attack began outside the
• August 2, 1990, Hawk missiles defending Kuwait against the Iraqi invasion in August 1990 are claimed to have shot down up to 14 Iraqi aircraft. Only two kills have been verified a MiG-23BN and a Su-22. In responde, an Iraqi Su-22 from the No.109 Squadron fired a single Kh-25MP anti-radar missile against a Bubiyan Island battery. This forced a radar shutdown on the HAWK. It was later captured by Iraqi special forces and found out to be in automatic mode of operation, after the American contractors that operated it fled.[12] Iraqi forces captured four or five Kuwaiti Hawk batteries. • November 1990, Task Force Scorpion, a U.S. Army Hawk-Patriot electronic task force, becomes operational and assumes the air defense mission for Desert Shield units forming up in Saudi Arabia.[13] • February 1991, Bravo Battery, 2-1 ADA moves into Iraq and establishes Hawk missile sites near asSalman.[14] • A SAFE AIR demonstration was conducted at WSMR to display the effectiveness and versatility of several existing and new United States Army weapon systems in providing air and surface defense. Emphasis was placed on defeating cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The Hawk system successfully engaged two surrogate cruise missiles, one UAV, and one fixed wing drone. • The United States Marine Corps successfully tested its Hawk Mobility and theater missile defense (TMD) software upgrades at White Sands Missile Range. Hawk acquired the three LANCE targets, two of which were successfully engaged and destroyed. This was the first time the entire USMC ATBM system had been tested.
11.7 Operators •
Bahrain
•
Belgium
•
Denmark [15]
•
Egypt
•
France
•
Germany – (phased out in 2005)
11.7. OPERATORS
73
•
Italy
•
Netherlands
•
USA – (phased out)
Phase III •
Hawk-SAM being towed by a truck on the Romanian National Day parade on December 1, 2008 at the Triumph Arch in Bucharest.
Egypt – on 25 February 2014, Egypt ordered a new 186 rocket motors.[18]
•
France
•
Greece
•
Israel – To be replaced by David’s Sling[16] Italy
•
Greece
•
Iran
•
•
Israel – To be replaced by David’s Sling[16]
•
•
Italy
•
Japan
Jordan – It might be upgraded to become the most Advanced & Accurate HAWK system in the world or phased out and replaced with modern air defence system and on 25 February 2014, Jordan ordered a new 114 rocket motors.[18]
•
Kuwait
•
•
Netherlands
Netherlands – (Phased out and sold to Romania)
•
Norway – (phased out in 1998)
•
Saudi Arabia
•
Saudi Arabia
•
Singapore
•
Singapore
•
•
Spain
Spain
•
Sweden
•
Sweden
•
Taiwan (Republic of China) – To be replaced by Tien Kung 3[17]
•
•
Turkey
•
•
UAE
•
•
USA – (phased out)
Taiwan (Republic of China) – To be replaced by Tien Kung 3[17] UAE US Marine Corps – (phased out of US service in 2002)
Phase II These countries have implemented Phase 1 and Hawk XXI Phase 2 improvements. • Royal Moroccan Army •
Belgium – (phased out)
•
Denmark – (Phased out)
•
France
• •
•
Romanian Air Force[19]
•
Republic of Korea[20] – 24 batteries
Germany – (phased out in 2005)
•
Turkey
Greece
•
Iraq
74
11.8 See also • Surface-to-air missile
CHAPTER 11. MIM-23 HAWK
[17] Taiwan Retires Hawk Missiles - Defensenews.com, 15 September 2014
• SA-3 Goa Soviet low-altitude missile system
[18] Binnie, Jeremy (26 February 2014). “Egypt, Jordan to extend the life of HAWK missiles”. IHS Jane’s 360. Retrieved 3 September 2014.
• SA-6 Gainful advanced Soviet mobile low-altitude missile system
[19] Surface to air missiles inventory on the Romanian Air Force Official Site, accessed 18th June 2007.
• Mersad Iranian air defense system based on MIM23 Hawk
[20] http://www.koreadefence.net/wys2/file_attach/2009/10/ 11/1255272637-60.jpg
• The Iran-Contra affair, in which MIM-23 missiles were offered to Iran.
11.9 References [1] As given in Jane’s Land-Based Air Defence 1996–97. Site designation-systems.net gives the initial operational capability as August 1959 with the U.S. Army. [2] http://books.google.com/books?id=NVEtqShrgvkC& pg=PA598&lpg=PA598&dq=homing+all+the+ way+killer&source=bl&ots=H-xhrpPGjh&sig= YPievni4i4oq6phAAnJRza8olfo&hl=en&sa= X&ei=XMl_Uf_jL63QywGSsYDQDA&ved= 0CFMQ6AEwCDgU#v=onepage&q=homing%20all% 20the%20way%20killer&f=false [3] http://www.payvand.com/news/09/jun/1059.html [4] Tony Cullen and Christopher F. Foss (Eds), Jane’s LandBased Air Defence Ninth Edition 1996–97, p. 296, Coulsdon: Jane’s Information Group, 1996. [5] Origins of NASA Names. NASA. 1976. p. 131. [6] MIM-23A Hawk/MIM-23B Improved Hawk - Archived 2/2003 [7] [8] http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=123003& sectionid=351020101 [9] http://s188567700.online.de/CMS/index.php?option= com_content&task=view&id=67&Itemid=47 [10] Iranian Air-to-Air Victories 1976-1981 [11] Iranian Air-to-Air Victories, 1982-Today [12] http://www.acig.info/CMS/index.php?option=com_ content&task=view&id=68&Itemid=47 [13] Arabian Knights: Air Defense Artillery in the Gulf War, Lisa B. Henry Ed., ADA Magazine 1991. Page 3 [14] Arabian Knights. Page 3 [15] Schrøder, Hans (1991). “Royal Danish Airforce”. Ed. Kay S. Nielsen. Tøjhusmuseet, 1991, p. 1–64. ISBN 8789022-24-6. [16] Israeli Patriot Replacement - Strategypage.com, December 13, 2012
• Jane’s Land-Based Air Defence 2005–2006, ISBN 0-7106-2697-5
11.10 External links • Official website • MIM-23 Hawk at Designation-Systems.net • FAS.org page on the Hawk system. • Israeli use of the Hawk system.
Chapter 12
MGM-29 Sergeant The MGM-29 Sergeant was an American short-range, solid fuel, surface-to-surface missile developed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The missiles were built by Sperry Utah Company.
12.1 Operators West Germany[4]
Activated by the US Army in 1962 to replace the MGM-5 Corporal it was deployed overseas by 1963, carrying the German Army W52 (M65) nuclear warhead or alternatively one of high explosives. A biological warhead, the M210, was stan• 150th Rocket Artillery Battalion 1964-1976 dardized but not procured, and there was also a chemical variant, the M212 which had not attained standardization. • 250th Rocket Artillery Battalion 1964-1976 It was replaced by the MGM-52 Lance and the last US • 350th Rocket Artillery Battalion 1964-1976 Army battalion was deactivated in 1977. Sergeant Missile Systems were usually assigned to the Field Army with • 650th Rocket Artillery Battalion 1965-1976 the mission of “General support to a Corps"[1] Operation of the Sergeant was recognized to be an inUnited States[5] terim stage in the development of battlefield missiles. It avoided the Corporal’s liquid-fuel-handling drawbacks, but still requiring extensive setup and checkout before launch, together with a train of semi-trailer support United States Army vehicles.[2] More advanced missiles, such as the contem• 2nd Bn, 30th Field Artillery Regiment 1963-1975 porary Blue Water and later Lance, would reduce setup Vicenza, Italy time. The Sergeant had a takeoff thrust of 200 kilonewtons (45,000 lb ), a takeoff weight of 4,530 kilograms (9,990 lb), a diameter of 790 millimetres (31 in), a length of 10.52 metres (34.5 ft) and a fin span of 1.80 metres (5 ft 11 in). The Sergeant missile had a minimum range of 40 kilometres (25 mi), and a maximum range of 135 kilometres (84 mi).
• 3rd Bn, 38th Field Artillery Regiment 1962-? - Fort Sill • 1st Bn, 68th Field Artillery Regiment 1964-1970 West Germany • 5th Bn, 73rd Field Artillery Regiment 1963-1975 West Germany
The Sergeant was used as the second stage of the Scout satellite launcher, and clusters of Sergeant-derived rockets were used in the second and third stages of the JupiterC sounding rocket and used in the second, third, and fourth stages of the Juno I and Juno II launch vehicles.
• 5th Bn, 77th Field Artillery Regiment 1963-1975 West Germany • 3rd Bn, 80th Field Artillery Regiment 1964-1970 West Germany
Thiokol developed the Sergeant rocket motors—and the Castor rocket stages derived from them—at the Redstone Arsenal near Huntsville, Alabama.[3]
• 3rd Bn, 81st Field Artillery Regiment 1963-1976[6] - South Korea
12.2 References [1] “Weapons of the Filed Artillery (1965)". US Army. Retrieved 11 May 2013.
75
76
[2] “Sergeant electrodynamics”. Flight: 643–644. 23 April 1964. [3] “Thiokol”. Box Elder County, Utah. [4] http://www.usarmygermany.com/Units/FieldArtillery/ Org%20Charts_Sergeant%201.htm [5] http://www.usarmygermany.com/Units/FieldArtillery/ Org%20Charts_Sergeant.htm [6] http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/ frus1969-76ve12/d289
12.3 External links • http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/sergeant.htm • http://history.redstone.army.mil/miss-sergeant. html
CHAPTER 12. MGM-29 SERGEANT
Chapter 13
MIM-46 Mauler 13.1.1 Duster and Vigilante The US Army’s first custom-designed anti-aircraft weapon was the M42 Duster, mounting two Bofors 40 mm guns in an optically aimed turret on a M41 Walker Bulldog light tank chassis. First entering production in 1952, the Duster quickly became outdated as aircraft performance increased.
MIM-46 Mauler prototype.
To replace the Duster, the Army started work on the Sperry Vigilante, which mounted a powerful 37 mm Gatling gun on top of a modified M113 Armored Personnel Carrier chassis. Although the Vigilante was, like the Duster, optically aimed and guided, its 3,000 rpm firing rate gave it much better performance against high-speed aircraft. As the Vigilante program continued, the Army decided that any gun-based system was hopeless as speeds increased and engagement times dropped. The Vigilante had a maximum effective range of about 3,000 yards (2,700 m), and its shells took about 5 seconds to cross this distance. A jet aircraft flying at 500 mph (800 km/h) would cover over a kilometer during those 5 seconds. By the time a radar-assisted sighting system could develop a firing solution, the target would be out of range.
The General Dynamics MIM-46 Mauler was a selfpropelled anti-aircraft missile system designed to a late 1950s US Army requirement for a system to combat lowflying high-performance tactical fighters and short-range ballistic missiles. Based on the M113 chassis, Mauler carried search and attack radars, fire control computers and nine missiles in a highly mobile platform. An ambitious design for its era, the Mauler ran into intractable problems during development, and was eventually canceled in Given their doubts in the new system, the Army decided to cancel the Vigilante and keep the Duster in service until November 1965. a much more capable all-missile system arrived to replace Mauler’s cancellation left the US Army with no modern it. anti-aircraft weapon, and they rushed development of the much simpler MIM-72 Chaparral and M163 VADS to fill this niche. These weapons were much less capable 13.1.2 FAAD than Mauler, and were intended solely as a stop-gap solution until more capable vehicles were developed. In Under the “Forward Area Air Defense” (FAAD) project, spite of this, no real replacement entered service until the Army began collecting theoretical data on the requirethe late 1990s. Both the US Navy and British Army ments for a missile-based system in 1959. were also expecting Mauler to fulfil their own short-range needs and its cancellation left them with the same prob- Guidance was a major area of concern. Most anti-aircraft lem. They used RIM-7 Sea Sparrow and Rapier missile, missiles of the era use semi-active radar homing (SARH), with an “illumination radar” on the ground that reflected respectively, to fill these needs. signals off the target that were picked up by a small receiver in the missile’s nose. This system had the advantage that the radar signal continued to grow in strength as the missile approached the target, making it increasingly 13.1 Background easy to track. More importantly, the reflected signal was a cone shape centered on the target, so guidance became 77
78
CHAPTER 13. MIM-46 MAULER
increasingly accurate as the missile approached. On the downside, the SARH concept also meant that any other reflections could confuse the missile’s seeker. Since SARH relied on making the seeker in the missile as simple as possible in order to fit into the missile body, it was common for seekers of the era to be easily confused by reflections from trees, buildings or the ground. It was difficult for the missile to distinguish the target in a cluttered environment. For FAAD, they decided to use a beam riding guidance system. This had been used in early missiles like the RIM-2 Terrier, but had been abandoned in favor of semiactive systems for all of the reasons above. In particular, Test launch of Mauler in the case of beam-riding the signal is shaped like a cone centered on the broadcaster, which means it becomes increasingly inaccurate as the missile flies towards the target. Some sort of secondary terminal guidance system was almost always needed with beam-riding weapons. In spite of these disadvantages, beam-riding offered FAAD the ability to guide the missiles in close proximity to the ground. Since the guidance signal is received at the rear of the missile body, the signal would remain clear as long as there were no obstructions between the missile and launcher. It was only the launch platform that had to have the ability to distinguish targets from ground clutter, not the missile. FAAD used a continuous wave radar, which uses the Doppler shift of the moving targets to locate them against any sort of background. For terminal guidance, FAAD used an advanced infrared homing system. Given the quick engagement times, on the order of seconds, the Army decided that FAAD had to have semiautomatic actions. In combat, the operators would select targets on a long-range search radar and then simply say “go” to attack them. The system’s fire control computer would slew the weapons and fire automatically as soon as they came in range.
The Army was not the only potential user of the Mauler system; both the British Army and US Navy planned on using Mauler for their own needs. The British Army’s intended role was essentially identical to the US’s, but the Navy was looking for a solution to the problem of air attack against their capital ships both by high-speed aircraft as well as early (non-skimming) anti-shipping missiles. Starting in 1960 they had developed a program for a “Basic Point Defense Missile System” (BPDMS), and intended to use a modified version of the Mauler, the “RIM-46A Sea Mauler”, to fill this role. Mauler’s beam riding system made it preferable to other missile systems because it would have fewer problems with clutter from the sea. Additionally, its fast-acting semi-automatic fire control was highly desired for a weapon that was expected to counter targets with engagement times under a minute. Expecting its arrival, the Navy’s latest destroyer escorts, the Knox class frigate, were built with space reserved for the Sea Mauler launchers when they arrived.[4]
After running Monte Carlo simulations on an IBM 650, they decided to use a blast-fragmentation warhead, de- Development of the missile airframe and engine prociding that the continuous-rod warhead would be less gressed rapidly. Unguided examples, known as “Launch effective.[1] Test Vehicles”, started firing tests in September 1961. For mobility, the system would be based on the M113, the These were quickly followed by the “Control Test VehiArmy’s latest APC and one of the more advanced vehicles cle” (CTV) guided examples in 1961, which flew simple in the inventory. The modifications needed to support a paths to test the aerodynamic controls. Both test series of missile system were relatively simple, and the crew area demonstrated a variety of problems, including failures [3] the rocket casings, and excessive drag and wing flutter. inside the chassis offered room for the needed equipment. The resulting vehicle was known as the XM-546.[2]
The first “Guidance Test Vehicle” (GTV), essentially the service prototypes, started firing in June 1963. These also demonstrated an array of problems, most worrying was the continued tendency to lose guidance instructions 13.1.3 Development immediately after launch. Additionally, when mounted in the 3 by 3 box launcher, the missiles would break Several companies responded to the FAAD contract ten- their containers and damage the missiles in adjacent der, which General Dynamics (Convair Pomona Divi- containers.[3] Eventually no less than 22 different consion) won in 1959.[3] In 1960 the project was given the tainer materials would be used in an attempt to find a official name “Mauler”. suitable solution.[5]
13.1. BACKGROUND
13.1.4
Cancellation
By this point there were serious doubts that the system would be entering service any time soon. On 16 September 1963 the Army Materiel Command asked the Aviation and Missile Command to study adapting the Navy’s AIM-9 Sidewinder missile as the basis of a shortrange anti-aircraft system. They suggested that the conversion would be simple, but the missile’s long lock-on time and optical guidance would make it ineffective in close combat. Based on this potential solution to the air defense problem, the Army Staff, supported by the Army Air Defense Artillery School at Fort Bliss, started a new study under the direction of Lieutenant Colonel Edward Hirsch. Known as the “Interim Field Army Air Defense Study” (IFAADS), it called for a multi-layer system consisting of an adapted Sidewinder as a missile component known as the MIM-72 Chaparral, a short-range gun component using the M61 Vulcan known as the M163 VADS, and the separate AN/MPQ-49 Forward Area Alerting Radar that would support both by sending digital information to displays in those platforms. All of these would be further supported by the FIM-43 Redeye man-portable missile. Although the resulting composite system would not be nearly as capable as Mauler, it could be in service much sooner and provide some cover while a more capable system developed. In November 1963 Mauler was re-directed as a pure technology demonstration program. Several modified versions using simpler systems were proposed, but even these would not have entered service before 1969. Tests with the GTV’s continued until the entire program was cancelled outright in November 1965.[3] Chaparral adapted the Mauler’s IR seeker, which was greatly improved over the versions in the original AIM-9C.
13.1.5
Aftermath
79 pable than Mauler, however, with ranges up to 10 km and higher speeds. However, the ending of the Cold War led the Army to cancel their ADATS purchase, leaving Chaparral/Vulcan in service even longer. The anti-aircraft role was eventually filled by the Bradley Linebacker, based on the short-range FIM-92 Stinger. The cancellation also left the British Army without a defense system, but they had prepared for this eventuality, having had several US missile systems cancelled out from under them in the past. Before selecting the Mauler, the British Aircraft Corporation had been working on a private project known as “Sightline”, and continued its development as a low priority while the Mauler program progressed. On its cancellation, Sightline was given full development funds, and entered service in 1971 as Rapier. The US Navy was in a somewhat more troubling position. In addition to their need to replace guns and existing missile systems like the RIM-24 Tartar, they were also looking to replace short-range gun systems on their older ships. Mauler was “built-in” not only to their latest ship designs, like the Knox, but formed the basis for their entire anti-aircraft concept for the 1970s. It was believed that Mauler would greatly improve the capabilities of smaller ships, allowing them to take on some of the roles that would normally require a much larger platform, like a full destroyer. With Mauler’s cancellation, the Navy had to start a crash program to develop a suitable system. As the infraredguided Sidewinder would be of limited use against aircraft or missiles approaching head-on, they were forced to use the AIM-7 Sparrow instead. Although the Sparrow was a capable missile, it was intended for launch from high-speed aircraft and thus had relatively low acceleration, trading this for longer cruising time and range. An entirely new motor was developed for the new “Sea Sparrow”. To guide it, a new manually controlled radar illuminator was developed, guided by an aimer standing between two large radar dishes that looked somewhat like searchlights. The ship’s search radars would send target information via voice channels to the operator, who would slew the illuminators onto the target and launch the missiles. The missiles were held in a large eight-cell rotating launcher than was slaved to the illuminator in order to allow the seeker to see the reflected signal. The system, as a whole, was much larger than Mauler, had shorter range, and much longer reaction times.
The Chaparral/Vulcan combination was always intended to be a stop-gap solution while a more powerful system evolved. However, in the 1970s the threat was perceived to change from tactical aircraft to missile-firing helicopters that would “pop-up” from behind cover. This suggested the use of a fast-acting gun system, albeit one with much longer range than the Vulcan’s 1,200 m. Out of these studies came the “Division Air Defense” concept In spite of the Sea Sparrow’s relative simplicity, it was that was eventually filled by the M247 Sergeant York. quickly upgraded. The use of folding mid-mounted wings This program ran into serious technical problems of its allowed the launcher cells to be greatly reduced in size, own, and was eventually cancelled in 1985. and an automatic tracking system was soon added to the After the Sergeant York was cancelled, the Army joined radar illuminator system. This was again upgraded to forces with the Canadian Forces to develop a new system. allow the phased-array radars of modern ships to guide The result was the Oerlikon Contraves-designed built-in- the Sparrow directly, removing the need for the relatively Canada ADATS, which is extremely similar to the orig- large illuminators. The evolution continued with the latinal Mauler in form, function and even the launch plat- est models, which can be vertically launched from fourform, an adapted M113. ADATS is somewhat more ca-
80 cell containers, greatly expanding the number that can be carried on most ships. What started as a quick-and-dirty solution to the hole left by the Mauler evolved into a system of even greater capability.
13.2 Description The General Dynamics Mauler system used a large Aframe mounted on the top of the vehicle that contained a phased array continuous wave search radar at the top, the smaller tracking/illumination radar on one side, and a large box containing nine missiles between the “legs”. The entire system was mounted at the back of the XM546 “Tracked Fire Unit” on a rotating platform that allowed the missiles to be pointed toward the target. Before launch the protective cover over the missile’s canister was popped off to allow the infrared seeker to see the target, and then it was launched into the illuminating radar’s beam.[3] Raytheon provided both the search and illumination radars, while Burroughs provided the fire control system.[6] The missile itself was 6 feet (1.8 m) long, 5 inches (130 mm) in diameter, had a 13 inches (330 mm) fin span, and weighed 120 pounds (54 kg). It had a maximum range of 5 miles (8.0 km) and ceiling of 20,000 feet (6,100 m), powered by a Lockheed solid-fuel motor of 8,350 pounds-force (37,100 N).
13.3 References [1] Margolin, M, J, et all. “Warheads for Mauler Weapon System”, US Army, Pictinny Arsenal, report PATM-137B46(A57)-Vol-2, 1 November 1958 [2] “Missiles 1962”, FLIGHT International, 8 November 1962, pg. 758 [3] Andreas Parsch, “General Dynamics MIM-46 Mauler”, Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles, 2002 [4] Norman Friedman, “U.S. Destroyers: An illustrated design history”, Naval Institute Press, 2004, pg. 360 [5] Wade Jr, Jack R., Lyons, Charles E., “Finish and Coating Development for Mauler Weapon Pod”, US Army Missile Command, report RL-TM-65-6, 1 Jul 1965 [6] “Series of Experimental Missiles: Mauler”
CHAPTER 13. MIM-46 MAULER
Chapter 14
MGM-52 Lance The MGM-52 Lance was a mobile field artillery tactical were in storage awaiting destruction. Following its deactisurface-to-surface missile (tactical ballistic missile) sys- vation, surplus rockets were retained to be used as targets tem used to provide both nuclear and conventional fire for anti-missile systems. support to the United States Army. The missile’s warhead was developed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. It was replaced by MGM-140 ATACMS. 14.4 Operators[3][4] United States
14.1 Deployment The first Lance missiles were deployed in 1972, replacing (together with the US-Navy’s nuclear-tipped RIM2D & RIM-8E/B/D) the earlier Honest John rocket and Sergeant SRBM ballistic missile, greatly reducing the weight and bulk of the system, while improving both accuracy and mobility.[2] A Lance battery (two fire units) consisted of two M752 launchers (one missile each) and two M688 auxiliary vehicle (two missiles each),[2] for a total six missiles. The firing rate per unit was approximately three missiles per hour.
14.2 Payload The payload consisted either of a W70 nuclear warhead with a yield of 1-100 kt or a variety of conventional munitions. The W70-3 nuclear warhead version was one of the first warheads to be battlefield-ready with an “enhanced radiation” (neutron bomb) capability. Conventional munitions included cluster bombs for use against SAM-Sites, heat seeking Anti-Tank Cluster munitions or a single unitary conventional shape-charged warhead for penetrating hard targets and for bunker busting. The original design considered a chemical weapon warhead option, but this development was cancelled in 1970.
14.3 Deactivation
• US Army • 1st Bn, 12th Field Artillery Regiment 19731992 Fort Sill[2] • 1st Bn, 32nd Field Artillery Regiment 19751991 Hanau, Germany • 6th Bn, 33rd Field Artillery Regiment 19751987 Reflag as 6th Bn, 32nd Field Artillery Regiment 1987-91 Fort Sill[5] (One Btry was Forward Deployed to South Korea)[6] • 2nd Bn, 42nd Field Artillery Regiment 19741987 Reflag as 4th Bn, 12th Field Artillery Regiment 1987-1991 Crailsheim, Germany • 3rd Bn, 79th Field Artillery Regiment 19741986 Reflag as 2nd Bn, 32nd Field Artillery Regiment 1986-? Giessen, Germany • 1st Bn, 80th Field Artillery Regiment19741987 Reflag as 3rd Bn, 12th Field Artillery Regiment 1987-1991 Aschaffenburg, Germany • 1st Bn, 333rd Field Artillery Regiment 19731986 Reflag as 3rd Bn, 32nd Field Artillery Regiment 1986-? Wiesbaden, Germany • 2nd Bn, 377th Field Artillery Regiment 19741987 Reflag as 2nd Bn, 12th Field Artillery Regiment 1987-1992 Herzogenaurach, Germany United Kingdom
With the signing of the INF Treaty in 1987, the United States Army began withdrawing Lance missiles from Europe. By 1992, all United States Army Lance warheads 81
• British Army • 50th Missile Regiment Royal Artillery
82
CHAPTER 14. MGM-52 LANCE
14.7 External links
Israel • Israeli Defence Force Netherlands • Netherlands Army • 129th Artillery Battalion 1979-1992 Belgium • Belgium Army • 3rd Artillery Battalion Italy • Italian Army • 3rd Missile Brigade “Aquileia” (up to 1991, then from 1992 to 2001, 3rd Missile Rgt) Germany • German Army • • • •
150th Rocket Artillery Battalion 250th Rocket Artillery Battalion 350th Rocket Artillery Battalion 650th Rocket Artillery Battalion
14.5 See also • Sea Lance, a similarly named, but unrelated submarine-launched missile. • List of military aircraft of the United States • List of missiles • M-numbers
14.6 References [1] “Lance Missile (MGM-52C)". U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. August 1998. Retrieved October 11, 2011. [2] Ripley, Tim. The new illustrated guide to the modern US Army. Salamander Books Ltd. pp. 92–93. ISBN 086101-671-8. [3] http://www.usarmygermany.com/Units/FieldArtillery/ Org%20Charts_Lance1.htm [4] http://www.usarmygermany.com/Units/FieldArtillery/ Org%20Charts_Lance.htm [5] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/ 6-32fa.htm [6] http://wiley2-5fa.com/favorite.htm#lance
• Video of Lance missiles being launched by British Army in 1992 - #1 • Video of British Army Lance launches in 1992 - #2 • Video of British Army Lance launches in 1992 - #3 • Redstone Arsenal History - Lance • Herzobase.org - Lance Missile base in Germany • Designation Systems Article • Brookings Institution photos and data
Chapter 15
MIM-72 Chaparral This article is about the missile system. For other uses, 15.1.2 IFAAD see Chaparral (disambiguation). MICOM was directed to study whether or not the Navy’s The MIM-72A/M48 Chaparral was an American AIM-9D Sidewinder missile could be adapted for the self-propelled surface-to-air missile system based on ground-to-air role. Since the Sidewinder was guided by the AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missile system. The an infrared seeker, it would not be confused by ground launcher is based on the M113 family of vehicles. It en- clutter like the radar-guided Mauler. On the downside, tered service with the United States Army in 1969 and the missile required some time to “lock on”, and the curwas phased out between 1990 and 1998. It was intended rent generation seekers were only able to lock onto the to be used along with the M163 Vulcan Air Defense Sys- tail of an aircraft. MICOM’s report was cautiously optitem, the Vulcan covering short-range short-time engage- mistic, concluding that the Sidewinder could be adapted very quickly, although it would have limited capability. ments, and the Chaparral for longer range use. A new concept, the “Interim Forward Area Air Defense” (IFAAD) evolved around the Sidewinder. The main concern was that at shorter distances the missile would not have time to lock onto the target before it flew out of range, so to serve this need a second vehicle based around 15.1 Development the M61 Vulcan cannon was specified. Both would be aimed manually, eliminating the delay needed for a fire 15.1.1 Mauler control system to develop a “solution”. Neither vehicle concept had room for a search radar, so a separate radar Starting in 1959 the U.S. Army MICOM (Missile Com- system using datalink was developed for this role. mand) began development of an ambitious anti-aircraft The studies were completed in 1965 and the Chaparral missile system under their “Forward Area Air De- program was begun. The first XMIM-72A missiles were fense” (FAAD) program, known as the MIM-46 Mauler. delivered to the US Army in 1967. Ford developed the Mauler was based on a modified M113 chassis carrying a M730 vehicle, adapted from the M548, itself one of the large rotating A-frame rack on top with nine missiles and many versions of the widely used M113. The first Chaboth long-range search and shorter-range tracking radars. parral battalion was deployed in May 1969. Operation was to be almost entirely automatic, with the A small target-acquisition area radar, the AN/MPQ-49 operators simply selecting targets from the search radar’s Forward Area Alerting Radar (FAAR), was developed in display and then pressing “fire”. The entire engagement 1966 to support the Chaparral/Vulcan system, although would be handled by the fire control computer. the FAAR is transported by the Gama Goat and thus not In testing the Mauler proved to have numerous problems. suitable for use in the FEBA. Many of these were relatively minor, including problems with the rocket motors or fins on the airframe, but others, like problems with the fire control and guidance systems, appeared to be more difficult to solve. Army strat- 15.2 Description egy from the mid-1950s PENTANA study was based on having embedded mobile anti-aircraft capability, and The MIM-72A missile was based on the AIM-9D Mauler’s delays put this entire program in question. More Sidewinder. The main difference is that to reduce drag worrying, a new generation of Soviet attack aircraft was only two of the fins on the MIM-72A have rollerons, the coming into service. For both of these reasons the Mauler other two having been replaced by fixed thin fins. The program was scaled back in 1963 and alternatives were MIM-72’s MK 50 solid-fuel rocket motor was essentially identical to the MK 36 MOD 5 used in the AIM-9D studied. 83
84
CHAPTER 15. MIM-72 CHAPARRAL
Sidewinder. The MIM-72 missile is launched from the The missile cost approximately $80,000 and M48 fire M48 fire unit, consisting of a M730 tracked vehicle fit- units $1.5 million. ted with an M54 missile launcher capable of holding four missiles ready to fire. The M48 carries an additional eight missiles stowed. 15.3 Variants The MIM-72A like the FIM-43 Redeye uses a first generation infra-red seeker, and can be fooled by flares and “hot brick” jammers, such as the L166 IRCM unit fitted to the Mi-24. Also the missile needs to be able to see the hot exhaust of an aircraft, making it a tail chase only missile. A similar B model for training was identical to the A model with the exception of a different warhead fuze. The C version of the missile, from 1974, has an improved guidance section that gives the missile an all-aspect capability, as well as a new doppler radar fuze and an improved warhead. The fuze and warhead were adapted from the earlier Mauler program. C models were deployed between 1976 and 1981, reaching operational status in 1978. An experimental D model used the warhead from the C version with the seeker from the A model, but was not deployed. A naval version of the missile was also developed, based on the C version of the missile – the RIM-72C Sea Chaparral. This was not adopted by the U.S. Navy, however it was exported to Taiwan. The Chaparral system is manually fired by visually tracking the targets, slewing the missile carrier into the general direction, and waiting for the missile seekers to “lock on” to the target. It is not suitable for engaging helicopters “popping up” behind cover, for instance. In 1977 Ford and Texas Instruments started a project to give the Chaparral a limited all-weather capability through the addition of a FLIR camera. The test firings in 1978 also used a new smokeless motor, which greatly improved visibility after firing and made it much easier to fire follow-up rounds. The testing proved successful, and the FLIR upgrades were carried out in September 1984. Existing missiles were upgraded with the new motor to become the MIM-72E, while new-build versions (otherwise identical) were known as the MIM-72F.
• MIM-72A Chaparral Original production missile. • MIM-72B Training missile. • MIM-72C Improved Chaparral. Featuring an improved AN/DAW-1 guidance section, M817 directional doppler fuze and a M250 blast-fragmentation warhead. These enhancements gave the missile an all-aspect capability. Produced between 1976 and 1981. It entered service in November 1978. Range improved to 9000 m. • RIM-72C Sea Chaparral. Naval version - Evaluated but not deployed by the US Navy. Adopted by Taiwan. • MIM-72D Experimental missile that was cancelled before production. • MIM-72E MIM-72C missiles retrofitted with a new M121 smokeless motor. • MIM-72F New built missiles with upgraded M121 smokeless motor. • MIM-72G Fitted with a new AN/DAW-2 based on the seeker in the FIM-92 Stinger giving improved resistance to countermeasures. This was retrofitted to all Chaparral missiles during the late 1980s. New missiles were produced between 1990 and 1991. • MIM-72H Export version of the MIM-72F. • MIM-72J Downgraded export version of the MIM72G. • M30 Inert training missile.
A final upgrade adapted the greatly improved seeker from 15.4 Operators the FIM-92 Stinger to the MIM-72, starting in 1980. The Stinger’s seeker is considerably more capable in terms of Chile – 28 units purchased in the 1980s. Being off-axis “sighting,” as well as being able to reject most phased out.[1] common forms of jamming. Ford was contracted to deliver the resulting MIM-72G starting in 1982, and all existing missiles had been updated by the late 1980s. NewEgypt build G models followed between 1990 and 1991. By this point in time the system was already being removed Israel from regular Army service, and being handed over to the National Guard. Two export-only versions of the MIM-72 were also built, the MIM-72H which is an export version of the MIM72F, and the MIM-72J, a MIM-72G with a downgraded guidance and control section.
Morocco Portugal
15.6. SEE ALSO
85
15.6 See also • AIM-9 Sidewinder • FIM-92 Stinger • FIM-43 Redeye
15.7 References [1] http://www.harpoondatabases.com/encyclopedia/ Entry3130.aspx
15.8 External links
MIM-72 operated by Israel.
Taiwan (Republic of China)
• Republic of China Marine Corps – built on M113 Chassis • Republic of China Navy – installed on La Fayette class frigate, Newport class Tunisia United States
• United States Army – All units removed from service by 1997.[1]
15.5 General (MIM-72A)
characteristics
• Length: 2.90 metres (9 ft 6 in) • Wingspan: 63.0 centimetres (24.8 in) • Diameter: 127 millimetres (5.0 in) • Launch weight: 86 kilograms (190 lb) • Speed: Mach 1.5 • Range: 500 to 9,000 metres (1,600 to 29,500 ft) • Altitude: 25 to 4,000 metres (82 to 13,123 ft) • Guidance: Passive infra-red tail chase only. • Motor : MK 50 solid-fuel rocket motor (12.2 kN) for 4.7 s • Warhead: 12.2 kilograms (27 lb) MK 48 Continuous-rod warhead
• http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-72. html • http://history.redstone.army.mil/miss-chaparral. html • http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ ground/chaparral.htm
Chapter 16
MIM-104 Patriot The MIM-104 Patriot is a surface-to-air missile (SAM) system, the primary of its kind used by the United States Army and several allied nations. It is manufactured by the U.S. defense contractor Raytheon and derives its name from the radar component of the weapon system. The AN/MPQ-53 at the heart of the system is known as the "Phased Array Tracking Radar to Intercept On Target” or the bacronym PATRIOT. The Patriot System replaced the Nike Hercules system as the U.S. Army’s primary High to Medium Air Defense (HIMAD) system, and replaced the MIM-23 Hawk system as the U.S. Army’s medium tactical air defense system. In addition to these roles, Patriot has been given the function of the U.S. Army’s anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system, which is now Patriot’s primary mission. Patriot uses an advanced aerial interceptor missile and high-performance radar systems. Patriot was developed at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama, which had previously developed the Safeguard ABM system and its component Spartan and hypersonic speed Sprint missiles. The symbol for Patriot is a drawing of a Revolutionary War-era Minuteman.
technologies, including the MPQ-53 passive electronically scanned array radar and track-via-missile guidance. Full-scale development of the system began in 1976 and it was deployed in 1984. Patriot was used initially as an anti-aircraft system, but during 1988 it was upgraded to provide limited capability against tactical ballistic missiles (TBM) as PAC-1 (Patriot Advanced Capability-1). The most recent upgrade, called PAC-3, is a nearly total system redesign, intended from the outset to engage and destroy tactical ballistic missiles.
16.1.1 Patriot equipment The Patriot system has four major operational functions: communications, command and control, radar surveillance, and missile guidance. The four functions combine to provide a coordinated, secure, integrated, mobile air defense system.
The Patriot system is modular and highly mobile. A battery-sized element can be emplaced in less than 1 hour. All components, consisting of the fire control secPatriot systems have been sold to Taiwan, Egypt, tion (radar set, engagement control station, antenna mast Germany, Greece, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, the group, electric power plant) and launchers, are truckNetherlands, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates,[3] or trailer-mounted. The radar set and launchers (with Jordan and Spain. Poland hosts training rotations of a missiles) are mounted on M860 semi-trailers, which are battery of U.S. Patriot launchers. It was first deployed towed by M983 HEMTTs. in Morąg in 24 May 2010 but has since been moved to Missile reload is accomplished using a M985 GMT Toruń and Ustka.[4] South Korea also purchased several HEMTT truck with a Hiab crane on the back. This crane second-hand Patriot systems from Germany after North is larger than the standard Grove cranes found on regKorea test-launched ballistic missiles to the Sea of Japan ular M977 and M985 HEMTT cargo body trucks. This and proceeded with underground nuclear testing in truck/ crane, called a Guided Missile Transporter (GMT), 2006.[5] On 4 December 2012, NATO authorized the removes spent missile canisters from the launcher and deployment of Patriot missile launchers in Turkey to then replaces them with fresh missiles. Because the protect the country from missiles fired in the civil war in crane nearly doubles the height of the HEMTT when not neighboring Syria.[6] stowed, crews informally refer to it as the “scorpion tail.”
16.1 Introduction
A standard M977 HEMTT with a regular-sized crane is sometimes referred to as the Large Repair Parts Transporter (LRPT).
In 1975 the SAM-D missile successfully engaged a drone at the White Sands Missile Range. During 1976, it was renamed the PATRIOT Air Defense Missile System. The MIM-104 Patriot would combine several new
The heart of the Patriot battery is the fire control section, consisting of the AN/MPQ-53 or −65 Radar Set, the AN/MSQ-104 Engagement Control Station (ECS), the OE-349 Antenna Mast Group (AMG), and the EPPIII Electric Power Plant. The system’s missiles are trans-
86
16.1. INTRODUCTION
87
German Patriot system with camouflage A detailed view of an AN/MPQ-53 radar set. The circular pattern on the front of the vertical component is the system’s main phased array, consisting of over 5,000 individual elements, each about 39 millimeters (1.535 in) diameter.
ported on and launched from the M901 Launching Station, which can carry up to four PAC-2 missiles or up to sixteen PAC-3 missiles. A Patriot battalion is also equipped with the Information Coordination Cenjamming. tral (ICC), a command station designed to coordinate the launches of a battalion and uplink Patriot to the JTIDS or MIDS network. The AN/MPQ-53 and AN/MPQ-65 Radar Set The AN/MPQ-53/65 Radar Set is a passive electronically scanned array radar equipped with IFF, electronic counter-countermeasure (ECCM), and track-via-missile (TVM) guidance subsystems.
The AN/MPQ-53 Radar Set equips PAC-2 units, while the AN/MPQ-65 Radar Set equips PAC-3 units. The main difference between these two radars is the addition of a second traveling wave tube (TWT), which gives the −65 radar increased search, detection, and tracking capability. The radar’s antenna array consists of over 5,000 elements that “flash” the radar’s beam many times per second. Additionally, the radar’s antenna array contains an IFF interrogator subsystem, a TVM array, and at least one “sidelobe canceller” (SLC), which is a small array designed to decrease interference that might affect the radar. Patriot’s radar is somewhat unique in that it is a “detection-to-kill” system, meaning that a single unit performs all search, identification, track, and engagement functions. This is in contrast to most SAM systems, AN/MSQ-104 vehicle of a Dutch Patriot unit where several different radars are necessary to perform all functions necessary to detect and engage targets. The AN/MSQ-104 Engagement Control Station (ECS) is The beam created by the Patriot’s flat phased array radar the nerve center of the Patriot firing battery, costing apis comparatively narrow and highly agile compared to a proximately $6 million US dollars per unit.[7] The ECS moving dish. This characteristic gives the radar the abil- consists of a shelter mounted on the bed of an M927 ity to detect small, fast targets like ballistic missiles, or 5-Ton Cargo Truck or on the bed of a Light Medium low radar cross section targets such as stealth aircraft or Tactical Vehicle (LMTV) cargo truck. The main subcruise missiles. Additionally, the power and agility of Pa- components of the ECS are the Weapons Control Comtriot’s radar is highly resistant to countermeasures, includ- puter (WCC), the Data Link Terminal (DLT), the UHF ing electronic countermeasures (ECM) radar jamming communications array, the Routing Logic Radio Interand radar warning receiver (RWR) equipment. Patriot is face Unit (RLRIU), and the two manstations that serve as capable of quickly jumping between frequencies to resist the system’s man-to-machine interface. The ECS is air
88
CHAPTER 16. MIM-104 PATRIOT
conditioned, pressurized (to resist chemical/biological attack), and shielded against electromagnetic pulse (EMP) or other such electromagnetic interference. The ECS also contains several SINCGARS radios to facilitate voice communications. The WCC is the main computer within the Patriot system. It is a 24-bit parallel militarized computer with fixed and floating point capability. It is organized in a multiprocessor configuration that operates at a maximum clock rate of 6 megahertz. This computer controls the operator interface, calculates missile intercept algorithms, and provides limited fault diagnostics. Compared to modern personal computers, it has somewhat limited processing Antenna Mast Group power, although it has been upgraded several times during Patriot’s service life. Mounted at the base of each pair of antennas are two The DLT connects the ECS to Patriot’s Launching Stahigh-power amplifiers associated with the antennas and tions. It uses either a SINCGARS radio or fiber optic the radios in the collocated shelter. It is through these ancables to transmit encrypted data between the ECS and tennas that the ECS and ICC send their respective UHF the launchers. Through the DLT, the system operators “shots” to create the PADIL network. The polarity of can remotely emplace, slew or stow launchers, perform each shot can be changed by adjusting the “feedhorn” to diagnostics on launchers or missiles, and fire missiles. a vertical or horizontal position. This enables a greater The UHF communications array consists of three UHF chance of communication shots reaching their intended radio “stacks” and their associated patching and encrypt- target when terrain obstacles may otherwise obscure the ing equipment. These radios are connected to the an- signal. tennas of the OE-349 Antenna Mast Group, which are used to create UHF “shots” between sister Patriot batteries and their associated ICC. This creates a secure, real- The EPP-III Electric Power Plant time data network (known as PADIL, Patriot Data Information Link) that allows the ICC to centralize control of The EPP-III Diesel- Electric Power Plant (EPP) is the power source for the ECS and Radar. The EPP consists of its subordinate firing batteries. two 150 kilowatt diesel engines with 400 hertz, 3-phase The RLRIU functions as the primary router for all data generators that are interconnected through the power discoming into the ECS. The RLRIU gives a firing battery an tribution unit. The generators are mounted on a modiaddress on the battalion data network, and sends/receives fied M977 HEMTT. Each EPP has two 75-gallon (280 L) data from across the battalion. It also “translates” data fuel tanks and a fuel distribution assembly with groundcoming from the WCC to the DLT, facilitating commu- ing equipment. Each diesel engine can operate for more nication with the launchers. than eight hours with a full fuel tank. The EPP delivers Patriot’s crew stations are referred to as Manstation 1 and its power to the Radar and ECS through cables stored in 3 (MS1 and MS3). These are the stations where Pa- reels alongside the generators. Additionally it powers the triot operators interface with the system. The manstations AMG via a cable routed through the ECS. consist of a monochrome (green and black) screen surrounded by various Switch Indicators. Each manstation also has a traditional QWERTY keyboard and isometric The M901 Launching Station stick, a tiny joystick that functions much like a PC mouse. It is through these switch indicators and the Patriot user The M901 Launching Stations are remotely operated, self-contained units. The ECS controls operation of the interface software that the system is operated. launchers through each launcher’s DLT, via fiber optic or VHF (SINCGARS) data link. The OE-349 Antenna Mast Group
Integral leveling equipment permits emplacement on slopes of up to 10 degrees. Each launcher is trainable in azimuth and elevates to a fixed, elevated launch position. Precise aiming of the launcher before launch is not necessary; thus, no extra lags are introduced into system reaction time. Each launcher is also capable of providing detailed diagnostics to the ECS via the data link.
The OE-349 Antenna Mast Group (AMG) is mounted on an M927 5-Ton Cargo Truck. It includes four 4 kW antennas in two pairs on remotely controlled masts. Emplacement of the AMG can have no greater than a 0.5 degree roll, and a 10-degree crossroll. The antennas can be controlled in azimuth, and the masts can be elevated The launching station contains four major equipment subup to 100 feet 11 inches (30.76 m) above ground level. systems: the launcher generator set, the launcher elec-
16.2. VARIANTS tronics module (LEM), the launcher mechanics assembly (LMA), and the launcher interconnection group (LIG). The generator set consists of a 15 kW, 400 Hz generator that powers the launcher. The LEM is used for the realtime implementation of launcher operations requested via data link from the ECS. The LMA physically erects and rotates the launcher’s platform and its missiles. The LIG connects the missiles themselves to the launcher via the Launcher Missile Round Distributor (LMRD). Patriot Guided Missile
89 rubber ring. The radome provides an aerodynamic shape for the missile and microwave window and thermal protection for the RF seeker and electronic components. The Patriot guidance section consists primarily of the modular digital airborne guidance system (MDAGS). The MDAGS consists of a modular midcourse package that performs all of the required guidance functions from launch through midcourse and a terminal guidance section. The TVM seeker is mounted on the guidance section, extending into the radome. The seeker consists of an antenna mounted on an inertial platform, antenna control electronics, a receiver, and a transmitter. The Modular Midcourse Package (MMP), which is located in the forward portion of the warhead section, consists of the navigational electronics and a missile-borne computer that computes the guidance and autopilot algorithms and provides steering commands according to a resident computer program.
The first fielded variant was the round MIM-104A, “Standard”. It was optimized solely for engagements against aircraft and had very limited capability against ballistic missiles. It had a range of 70 km (43 mi), and a speed in excess of Mach 2. The MIM-104B “anti-standoff jammer” (ASOJ) is a missile designed to seek out and destroy The warhead section, just aft of the guidance section, ECM emitters. contains the proximity fused warhead, safety-and-arming The MIM-104C PAC-2 missile was the first Patriot misdevice, fuzing circuits and antennas, link antenna switchsile that was optimized for ballistic missile engagements. ing circuits, auxiliary electronics, inertial sensor assemThe GEM series of missiles (MIM-104D/E) are further bly, and signal data converter. refinements of the PAC-2 missile. The PAC-3 missile is a new interceptor, featuring a Ka band active radar seeker, The propulsion section consists of the rocket motor, exemploying “hit-to-kill” interception (in contrast to previ- ternal heat shield, and two external conduits. The rocket ous interceptors’ method of exploding in the vicinity of motor includes the case, nozzle assembly, propellant, the target, destroying it with shrapnel), and several other liner and insulation, pyrogen igniter, and propulsion armenhancements which dramatically increase its lethality ing and firing unit. The casing of the motor is an integral against ballistic missiles. It has a substantially lower range structural element of the missile airframe. It contains a of 15 km.[14] The specific information for these different conventional, casebonded solid rocket propellant. kinds of missiles are discussed in the "Variants" section. The Control Actuator Section (CAS) is at the aft end of The first seven of these are in the larger PAC-2 configuration of a single missile per canister, of which four can be placed on a launcher. PAC-3 missile canisters contain four missiles, so that sixteen rounds can be placed on a launcher. The missile canister serves as both the shipping and storage container and the launch tube. Patriot missiles are referred to as “certified rounds” as they leave the factory, and additional maintenance is not necessary on the missile prior to it being launched.
the missile. It receives commands from the missile autopilot and positions the fins. The missile fins steer and stabilize the missile in flight. A fin servo system positions the fins. The fin servo system consists of hydraulic actuators and valves and an electrohydraulic power supply. The electrohydraulic power consists of battery, motor pump, oil reservoir, gas pressure bottle, and accumulator.
The PAC-2 missile is 5.8 metres (19 ft 0 in) long, weighs about 900 kilograms (2,000 lb), and is propelled by a solid-fueled rocket motor.
16.2 Variants
Patriot missile design
16.2.1 MIM-104A
The PAC-2 family of missiles all have a fairly standard design, the only differences between the variants being certain internal components. They consist of (from front to rear) the radome, guidance section, warhead section, propulsion section, and control actuator section.
Patriot was first introduced with a single missile type: the MIM-104A. This was the initial “Standard” missile (still known as “Standard” today). In Patriot’s early days, the system was used exclusively as an anti-aircraft weapon, with no capability against ballistic missiles. This was remedied during the late 1980s when Patriot received its first major system overhaul with the introduction of the Patriot Advanced Capability missile and concurrent system upgrades.
The radome is made of slip-cast fused silica approximately 16.5 millimetres (0.65 in) thick, with nickel alloy tip, and a composite base attachment ring bonded to the slip cast fused silica and protected by a molded silicone
90
16.2.2
CHAPTER 16. MIM-104 PATRIOT
MIM-104B (PAC-1)
Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-1), known today as the PAC-1 upgrade, was a software-only upgrade. The most significant aspects of this upgrade was changing the way the radar searched and the way the system defended its assets. Instead of searching low to the horizon, the top of the radar’s search angle was lifted to near vertical (89 degrees) from the previous angle of 25 degrees. This was done as a counter to the steep parabolic trajectory of inbound ballistic missiles. The search beams of the radar were tightened, and while in “TBM search mode” the “flash”, or the speed at which these beams were shot out, was increased significantly. While this increased the radar’s detection capability against the ballistic missile threat set, it decreased the system’s effectiveness against traditional atmospheric targets, as it reduced the detection range of the radar as well as the number of “flashes” at the horizon. Because of this, it was necessary to retain the search functions for traditional atmospheric threats in a separate search program, which could be easily toggled by the operator based on the expected threat. Additionally, the ballistic missile defense capability changed the way Patriot defended targets. Instead of being used as a system to defend a significant area against enemy air attack, it was now used to defend much smaller “point” targets, which needed to lie within the system’s TBM “footprint”. The footprint is the area on the ground that Patriot can defend against inbound ballistic missiles.
was further modified. PAC-2 also saw Patriot’s first major missile upgrade, with the introduction of the MIM104C, or PAC-2 missile. This missile was optimized for ballistic missile engagements. Major changes to the PAC-2 missile were the size of the projectiles in its blastfragmentation warhead (changed from around 2 grams to around 45 grams), and the timing of the pulse-Doppler radar fuse, which was optimized for high-speed engagements (though it retained its old algorithm for aircraft engagements if necessary). Engagement procedures were also optimized, changing the method of fire the system used to engage ballistic missiles. Instead of launching two missiles in an almost simultaneous salvo, a brief delay (between 3 and 4 second) was added in order to allow the second missile launched to discriminate a ballistic missile warhead in the aftermath of the explosion of the first. PAC-2 was first tested in 1987 and reached Army units in 1990, just in time for deployment to the Middle East for the Persian Gulf War. It was there that Patriot was first regarded as a successful ABM system and proof that ballistic missile defense was indeed possible. The complete study on its effectiveness remains classified.
16.2.4 MIM-104D (PAC-2/GEM)
There were many more upgrades to PAC-2 systems throughout the 1990s and into the 21st century, again mostly centering on software. However, the PAC-2 misDuring the 1980s, Patriot was upgraded in relatively mi- siles were modified significantly—four separate variants nor ways, mostly to its software. Most significant of these became known collectively as guidance enhanced miswas a special upgrade to discriminate and intercept ar- siles (GEM). tillery rockets in the vein of the Multiple rocket launcher, which was seen as a significant threat from North Korea. The main upgrade to the original GEM missile was a new, This feature has not been used in combat and has since faster proximity fused warhead. Tests had indicated that been deleted from U.S. Army Patriot systems, though it the fuse on the original PAC-2 missiles were detonating remains in South Korean systems. Another upgrade the their warheads too late when engaging ballistic missiles system saw was the introduction of another missile type, with an extremely steep ingress, and as such it was necesdesignated MIM-104B and called “anti stand-off jam- sary to shorten this fuse delay. The GEM missile was also mer” (ASOJ) by the Army. This variant is designed to given a new “low noise" seeker head designed to reduce help Patriot engage and destroy ECM aircraft at standoff interference in front of the missiles radar seeker, and a ranges. It works similar to an anti-radiation missile in that higher performance seeker designed to better detect low [15] it flies a highly lofted trajectory and then locates, homes radar cross-section targets. The GEM was used extenin on, and destroys the most significant emitter in an area sively in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), during which air defense was highly successful.[16][17] designated by the operator. Just prior to OIF, it was decided to further upgrade the GEM and PAC-2 missiles. This upgrade program pro16.2.3 MIM-104C (PAC-2) duced missiles known as the GEM/T and the GEM/C, the “T” designator referring to “TBM”, and the “C” desDuring the late 1980s, tests began to indicate that, al- ignator referring to cruise missiles. These missiles were though Patriot was certainly capable of intercepting in- both given a totally new nose section, which was debound ballistic missiles, it was questionable whether or signed specifically to be more effective against low alnot the MIM-104A/B missile was capable of destroying titude, low RCS targets like cruise missiles. Additionthem reliably. This necessitated the introduction of the ally, the GEM/T was given a new fuse which was further PAC-2 missile and system upgrade. optimized against ballistic missiles. The GEM/C is the For the system, the PAC-2 upgrade was similar to the upgraded version of the GEM, and the GEM/T is the upPAC-1 upgrade. Radar search algorithms were further graded version of the PAC-2. The GEM+ entered service optimized, and the beam protocol while in “TBM search” in 2002, and the US Army is currently upgrading its PAC-
16.2. VARIANTS
91
2 and GEM missiles to the GEM/C or GEM/T standard.
motors mounted in the forebody of the missile (called Attitude Control Motors, or ACMs) which serve to fine align the missile trajectory with its target to achieve hitto-kill capability. However, the most significant upgrade 16.2.5 MIM-104F (PAC-3) to the PAC-3 missile is the addition of a Kₐ band active radar seeker. This allows the missile to drop its uplink See also: Medium Extended Air Defense System The PAC-3 upgrade is a significant upgrade to nearly ev- to the system and acquire its target itself in the terminal phase of its intercept, which improves the reaction time of the missile against a fast-moving ballistic missile target. The PAC-3 missile is accurate enough to select, target, and home in on the warhead portion of an inbound ballistic missile. The active radar also gives the warhead a “hit-to-kill” (kinetic kill vehicle) capability that completely eliminates the need for a traditional proximityfused warhead. However, the missile still has a small explosive warhead, called Lethality Enhancer, a warhead which launches 24 low-speed tungsten fragments in radial direction to make the missile cross-section greater and enhance the kill probability. This greatly increases the lethality against ballistic missiles of all types.
PAC-3 missile launcher, note four missiles in each canister
ery aspect of the system. It took place in three stages, and units were designated Configuration 1, 2, or 3. The system itself saw another upgrade of its WCC and its software, and the communication setup was given a complete overhaul. Due to this upgrade, PAC-3 operators can now see, transmit, and receive tracks on the Link 16 Command and Control (C2) network using a Class 2M Terminal or MIDS LVT Radio. This capability greatly increases the situational awareness of Patriot crews and other participants on the Link 16 network than are able to receive the Patriot local air picture. The software can now conduct a tailored TBM search, optimizing radar resources for search in a particular sector known to have ballistic missile activity, and can also support a “keepout altitude” to ensure ballistic missiles with chemical warheads or early release submunitions (ERS) are destroyed at a certain altitude. For Configuration 3 units, the Patriot radar was completely redesigned, adding another travelling wave tube (TWT) that increased the radar’s search, detection, tracking, and discrimination abilities. The PAC-3 radar is capable, among other things, of discriminating whether or not an aircraft is manned and which of multiple reentering ballistic objects are carrying ordnance. The PAC-3 upgrade carried with it a new missile design, nominally known as MIM-104F and called PAC-3 by the Army.[18] The PAC-3 missile evolved from the Strategic Defense Initiative's ERINT missile, and so it is dedicated almost entirely to the anti-ballistic missile mission. Due to miniaturization, a single canister can hold four PAC-3 missiles (as opposed to one PAC-2 missile per canister). The PAC-3 missile is also more maneuverable than previous variants, due to 180 tiny pulse solid propellant rocket
The PAC-3 upgrade has effectively quintupled the “footprint” that a Patriot unit can defend against ballistic missiles of all types, and has considerably increased the system’s lethality and effectiveness against ballistic missiles. It has also increased the scope of ballistic missiles that Patriot can engage, which now includes several intermediate range. However, despite its increases in ballistic missile defense capabilities, the PAC-3 missile is a less capable interceptor of atmospheric aircraft and air-tosurface missiles. It is slower, has a shorter range, and has a smaller explosive warhead compared to older Patriot missiles. Patriot’s PAC-3 interceptor was to be the primary interceptor for the new MEADS system, which was scheduled to enter service alongside Patriot in 2014. 29 November 2012 – The Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) detected, tracked, intercepted and destroyed an air-breathing target in its first-ever intercept flight test at White Sands Missile Range, N.M.[19] Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control is the prime contractor on the PAC-3 Missile Segment upgrade to the Patriot air defense system which will make the missile more agile and extend its range by up to 50%.[20] The PAC-3 Missile Segment upgrade consists of the PAC3 missile, a very agile hit-to-kill interceptor, the PAC-3 missile canisters (in four packs), a fire solution computer, and an Enhanced Launcher Electronics System (ELES). The PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) interceptor increases altitude and range through a more powerful dual-pulse motor for added thrust, larger fins that collapse inside current launchers, and other structural modifications for more agility.[21]
92
16.2.6
CHAPTER 16. MIM-104 PATRIOT
Patriot Advanced Affordable In April 2013, Raytheon received U.S. Army approval for a second recertification, extending the operational life of Capability-4 (PAAC-4)
See also: David’s Sling In August 2013, Raytheon and Rafael Advanced Defense Systems began to seek funding for a fourth-generation Patriot intercepting system, called the Patriot Advanced Affordable Capability-4 (PAAC-4). The system aims to integrate the Stunner interceptor from the jointly-funded David’s Sling program with Patriot PAC-3 radars, launchers, and engagement control stations. The two-stage, multimode seeking Stunner would replace single-stage, radar-guided PAC-3 missiles produced by Lockheed Martin. Government and industry sources claim the Stunner-based PAAC-4 interceptors will offer improved operational performance at 20 percent of the $2 million unit cost of the Lockheed-built PAC-3 missiles. The companies are seeking $20 million in U.S. government funding to demonstrate cost and performance claims through a prototype PAAC-4 system. Israeli program officials have said that a previous teaming agreement between Raytheon and Rafael would allow the U.S. company to assume prime contractor status, and produce at least 60 percent of the Stunner missile in the United States. The Missile Defense Agency has said that the U.S. Army is considering use of the Stunner as a potential solution to future U.S. military requirements.[22]
16.2.7
The future
Patriot upgrades continue, with the most recent being new software known as PDB-7.x (PDB standing for “Post Deployment Build”). This software will allow Configuration 3 units to discriminate targets of all types, to include antiradiation missile carriers, helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles, and cruise missiles.
the worldwide inventory of Patriot missiles from 30 to 45 years.[26]
16.3 The Patriot Battalion In the U.S. Army, the Patriot System is designed around the battalion echelon. A Patriot battalion consists of a headquarters battery (which includes the Patriot ICC and its operators), a maintenance company, and between four and six “line batteries", which are the actual launching batteries that employ the Patriot systems. Each line battery consists of three or four platoons: Fire Control platoon, Launcher platoon, and Headquarters/Maintenance platoon (either a single platoon or separated into two separate units, at the battery commander’s discretion). The Fire Control platoon is responsible for operating and maintaining the “big 4”. Launcher platoon operates and maintains the launchers, and Headquarters/Maintenance platoon(s) provides the battery with maintenance support and a headquarters section. The Patriot line battery is commanded by a captain and usually consists of between 70 and 90 soldiers. The Patriot battalion is commanded by a lieutenant colonel and can include as many as 600 soldiers. Once deployed, the system requires a crew of only three individuals to operate. The Tactical Control Officer (TCO), usually a lieutenant, is responsible for the operation of the system. The TCO is assisted by the Tactical Control Assistant (TCA). Communications are handled by the third crewmember, the communications system specialist. A “hot-crew” composed of an NCOIC (usually a Sergeant) and one or more additional launcher crew members is on-hand to repair or refuel launching stations, and a reload crew is on standby to replace spent canisters after missiles are launched. The ICC crew is similar to the ECS crew at the battery level, except its operators are designated as the Tactical Director (TD) and the Tactical Director Assistant (TDA).
The PAC-3 missile is currently being tested for a significant new upgrade, currently referred to as Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE). The MSE upgrade includes a new fin design and a more powerful rocket engine. Patriot battalions prefer to operate in a centralized fashLockheed Martin has proposed an air-launched variant ion, with the ICC controlling the launches of all of its of the PAC-3 missile for use on the F-15C Eagle. Other subordinate launching batteries through the secure UHF aircraft, such as the F-22 Raptor and the P-8A Poseidon, PADIL communications network. have also been proposed.[23] In the long term, it is expected that existing Pa- 16.3.1 Operation triot batteries will be gradually upgraded with MEADS technology.[24] Because of economic conditions, the U.S. Following is the process a PAC-2 firing battery uses to chose to upgrade its Patriot missiles instead of buying the engage a single target (an aircraft) with a single missile: MEADS system.[25] Raytheon has developed the Patriot guidance enhanced missile (GEM-T), an upgrade to the PAC-2 missile. The upgrade involves a new fuse and the insertion of a new low noise oscillator which increases the seeker’s sensitivity to low radar cross-section targets.
1. A hostile aircraft is detected by the AN/MPQ-65 Radar. The radar examines the track’s size, speed, altitude, and heading, and decides whether or not it is a legitimate track or “clutter” created by RF interference.
16.3. THE PATRIOT BATTALION
93 10. The AN/MPQ-65 Radar, which has been continuously tracking the hostile aircraft, “acquires” the just-fired missile and begins feeding it interception data. The Radar also “illuminates” the target for the missile’s semi-active radar seeker.
U.S. Soldiers familiarize members of the Polish military with preventive maintenance for Patriot missile systems in Morąg, Poland (1 June 2010)
11. The monopulse receiver in the missile’s nose receives the reflection of illumination energy from the target. The track-via-missile uplink sends this data through an antenna in the missile’s tail back to the AN/MPQ-65 set. In the ECS, computers calculate the maneuvers that the missile should perform in order to maintain a trajectory to the target and the TVM uplink sends these to the missile. 12. Once in the vicinity of the target, the missile detonates its proximity fused warhead.
2. If the track is classified by the radar as an aircraft, Following is the process a PAC-3 firing battery uses to in the AN/MSQ-104 Engagement Control Station, engage a single tactical ballistic missile with two PAC-3 an unidentified track appears on the screen of the missiles: Patriot operators. The operators examine the speed, altitude and heading of the track. Additionally, the 1. A missile is detected by the AN/MPQ-65 radar. IFF subsystem “pings” the track to determine if it The radar reviews the speed, altitude, behavior, and has any IFF response. radar cross section of the target. If this data lines up with the discrimination parameters set into the 3. Based on many factors, including the track’s speed, system, the missile is presented on the screen of the altitude, heading, IFF response, or its presence in operator as a ballistic missile target. “safe passage corridors” or “missile engagement zones”, the ECS operator, the TCO (tactical control 2. In the AN/MSQ-104 Engagement Control Station, officer), makes an ID recommendation to the ICC the TCO reviews the speed, altitude, and trajectory operator, the TD (tactical director). of the track and then authorizes engagement. Upon authorizing engagement, the TCO instructs his TCA 4. The TD examines the track and decides to certify to bring the system’s launchers into “operate” mode that it is hostile. Typically, the engagement authorfrom “standby” mode. The engagement will take ity for Patriot units rests with the Regional or Secplace automatically at the moment the computer detor Air Defense Commander (RADC/SADC), who fines the parameters that ensure the highest probawill be located either on a U.S. Navy guided missile bility of kill. cruiser or on a USAF AWACS aircraft. A Patriot 3. The system computer determines which of the batoperator (called the “ADAFCO” or Air Defense Artery’s launchers have the highest probability of kill tillery Fire Control Officer) is colocated with the and selects them to fire. Two missiles are launched RADC/SADC to facilitate communication to the 4.2 seconds apart in a “ripple”. Patriot battalions. 5. The TD contacts the ADAFCO and correlates the track, ensuring that it is not a friendly aircraft. 6. The ADAFCO obtains the engagement command from RADC/SADC, and delegates the engagement back down to the Patriot battalion.
4. The AN/MPQ-65 radar continues tracking the target and uploads intercept information to the PAC-3 missiles which are now outbound to intercept.
7. Once the engagement command is received, the TD selects a firing battery to take the shot and orders them to engage.
5. Upon reaching its terminal homing phase, the Ka band active radar seeker in the nose of the PAC-3 missile acquires the inbound ballistic missile. This radar selects the radar return most likely to be the warhead of the incoming missile and directs the interceptor towards it.
8. The TCO instructs the TCA to engage the track. The TCA brings the system’s launchers from “standby” into “operate”.
6. The ACMs (attitude control motors) of the PAC3 missile fire to precisely align the missile on the interception trajectory.
9. The TCA presses the “engage” switch indicator. This sends a signal to the selected launcher and fires a missile selected automatically by the system.
7. The interceptor flies straight through the warhead of the inbound ballistic missile, detonating it and destroying the missile.
94
CHAPTER 16. MIM-104 PATRIOT
8. The second missile locates any debris which may be a warhead and attacks in a similar manner.
16.4 Persian Gulf War (1991) 16.4.1
Trial by fire
in the system’s handling of timestamps.[32][33] The Patriot missile battery at Dhahran had been in operation for 100 hours, by which time the system’s internal clock had drifted by one-third of a second. Due to the missile’s speed this was equivalent to a miss distance of 600 meters. The radar system had successfully detected the Scud and predicted where to look for it next. However, the timestamps of the two radar pulses being compared were converted to floating point differently: one correctly, the other introducing an error proportionate to the operation time so far (100 hours). The difference between the two was consequently wrong, so the system looked in the wrong part of the sky and found no missile. With no missile, the initial detection was assumed to be a spurious track and the missile was removed from the system. No interception was attempted, and the missile impacted on a makeshift barracks in an Al Khobar warehouse, killing 28 soldiers.
Two weeks earlier, on 11 February 1991, the Israelis had identified the problem and informed the U.S. Army and the PATRIOT Project Office, the software The AN/MPQ-53 radar system used by the Patriot for target de- manufacturer.[32] As a stopgap measure, the Israelis had tection, tracking and missile guidance recommended rebooting the system’s computers regularly. The manufacturer supplied updated software to the Prior to the First Gulf War, ballistic missile defense was Army on 26 February. an unproven concept in war. During Operation Desert Storm, in addition to its anti-aircraft mission, Patriot was There had previously been failures in the MIM-104 sysassigned to shoot down incoming Iraqi Scud or Al Hus- tem at the Joint Defense Facility Nurrungar in Australia, sein short range ballistic missiles launched at Israel and which was charged with processing signals from satellite[34] Saudi Arabia. The first combat use of Patriot occurred based early launch detection systems. 18 January 1991 when it engaged what was later found to be a computer glitch.[27] There were actually no Scuds fired at Saudi Arabia on 18 January.[28] This incident was 16.4.3 Success rate vs. accuracy widely misreported as the first successful interception of an enemy ballistic missile in history. On 15 February 1991, President George H. W. Bush Throughout the war, Patriot missiles attempted engage- traveled to Raytheon’s Patriot manufacturing plant in ment of over 40 hostile ballistic missiles. The success Andover, Massachusetts, during the Gulf War, he deof these engagements, and in particular how many of clared, the “Patriot is 41 for 42: 42 Scuds engaged, 41 [35] them were real targets, is still controversial. Postwar intercepted!" The President’s claimed success rate was video analysis of presumed interceptions by MIT pro- thus over 97% to that point in the war. The U.S. Army fessor Theodore Postol suggests that no Scud was actu- claimed an initial success rate of 80% in Saudi Arabia ally hit;[29][30] this analysis is contested by Peter D. Zim- and 50% in Israel. Those claims were eventually scaled merman, who claimed that photographs of the fuselage back to 70% and 40%. of downed SCUD missiles in Saudi Arabia demonstrated On 7 April 1992 Theodore Postol of the Massachusetts that the SCUD missiles were fired into Saudi Arabia and Institute of Technology, and Reuven Pedatzur of Tel Aviv were riddled with fragments from the lethality enhancer University testified before a House Committee stating of Patriot Missiles.[31] that, according to their independent analysis of video tapes, the Patriot system had a success rate of below 10%, and perhaps even a zero success rate.[36][37]
16.4.2
Failure at Dhahran
Also on 7 April 1992 Charles A. Zraket of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and Peter D. ZimmerOn 25 February 1991, an Iraqi Scud hit the barracks in man of the Center for Strategic and International StudDhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 28 soldiers from the U.S. ies testified about the calculation of success rates and Army’s 14th Quartermaster Detachment. accuracy in Israel and Saudi Arabia and discounted A government investigation revealed that the failed in- many of the statements and methodologies in Postol’s tercept at Dhahran had been caused by a software error report.[38][39]
16.4. PERSIAN GULF WAR (1991)
95
According to Zimmerman, it is important to note the dif- If the warhead falls into the desert because a PATRIOT ference in terms when analyzing the performance of the hit its Scud, is it a success? What if it hits a populated system during the war: suburb? What if all four of the engaging PATRIOT missiles hit, but the warhead falls anyway because the Scud • Success Rate – the percentage of Scuds destroyed or broke up? deflected to unpopulated areas According to the Zraket testimony there was a lack of high quality photographic equipment necessary to record • Accuracy – the percentage of hits out of all the Pathe interceptions of targets. Therefore, PATRIOT crews triots fired recorded each launch on standard definition videotape, which was insufficient for detailed analysis. Damage In accordance with the standard firing doctrine on average assessment teams videotaped the Scud debris that was four Patriots were launched at each incoming Scud – in found on the ground, and crater analysis was then used Saudi Arabia an average of three Patriots were fired. If to determine if the warhead was destroyed before the deevery Scud were deflected or destroyed the success rate bris crashed or not. Furthermore, part of the reason for would be 100% but the Accuracy would only be 25% and the 30% improvement in success rate in Saudi Arabia 33% respectively. compared to Israel is that the PATRIOT merely had to push the incoming Scud missiles away from military targets in the desert or disable the Scud’s warhead in order to avoid casualties, while in Israel the Scuds were aimed directly at cities and civilian populations. The Saudi Government also censored any reporting of Scud damage by the Saudi press. The Israeli Government did not institute the same type of censorship. Furthermore, PATRIOT’s success rate in Israel was examined by the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) who did not have a political reason to play up PATRIOT’s success rate. The IDF counted any Scud that exploded on the ground (regardless of whether or not it was diverted) as a failure for the Patriot. Meanwhile, the U.S. Army who had many reasons to support a high success rate for PATRIOT, examined the performance of PATRIOT in Saudi Arabia.
Patriot Antenna Mast Group (AMG), a 4 kW UHF communications array
The Iraqi redesign of the Scuds also played a role. Iraq had redesigned its Scuds by removing weight from the warhead to increase speed and range, but the changes weakened the missile and made it unstable during flight, creating a tendency for the SCUD to break up during its descent from Near space. This presented a larger number of targets as it was unclear which piece contained the warhead. What all these factors mean, according to Zimmerman, is that the calculation of “Kills” becomes more difficult. Is a kill the hitting of a warhead or the hitting of a missile?
Both testimonies state that part of the problems stem from its original design as an anti-aircraft system. PATRIOT was designed with proximity fused warheads, which are designed to explode immediately prior to hitting a target spraying shrapnel out in a fan in front of the missile, either destroying or disabling the target. These missiles were fired at the target’s center of mass. With aircraft this was fine, but considering the much higher speeds of TBMs, as well as the location of the warhead (usually in the nose), PATRIOT would most often hit closer to the tail of the Scud due to the delay present in the proximity fused warhead, thus not destroying the TBM’s warhead and allowing it to fall to earth. In response to the testimonies and other evidence, the staff of the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security reported, “The Patriot missile system was not the spectacular success in the Persian Gulf War that the American public was led to believe. There is little evidence to prove that the Patriot hit more than a few Scud missiles launched by Iraq during the Gulf War, and there are some doubts about even these engagements. The public and the United States Congress were misled by definitive statements of success issued by administration and Raytheon representatives during and after the war.”[40]
96
CHAPTER 16. MIM-104 PATRIOT
A Fifth Estate documentary quotes the former Israeli Defense Minister as saying the Israeli government was so dissatisfied with the performance of the missile defense, they were preparing their own military retaliation on Iraq regardless of U.S. objections.[41] That response was canceled only with the ceasefire with Iraq.
16.5 Operation (2003)
Iraqi
Freedom
Patriot was deployed to Iraq a second time in 2003, this time to provide air and missile defense for the forces conducting Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). Patriot PAC-3, GEM, and GEM+ missiles both had a very high success rate, intercepting Al-Samoud 2 and Ababil-100 tactical ballistic missiles.[24] However, no longer-range ballistic missiles were fired during that conflict. The systems were stationed in Kuwait and successfully destroyed a number of hostile surface-to-surface missiles using the new PAC3 and guidance enhanced missiles. Patriot missile batteries were involved in three friendly fire incidents, resulting in the downing of a Royal Air Force Tornado and the death of both crew members, Flight Lieutenant David Rhys Williams and Flight Lieutenant Kevin Barry Main, on 23 March 2003. On 24 March 2003, a USAF F-16CJ Fighting Falcon fired a HARM anti-radiation missile at a Patriot missile battery after the Patriot’s radar had locked onto and prepared to fire at the aircraft, causing the pilot to mistake it for an Iraqi surface-to-air missile system. The HARM missed its target and no one was injured and the Patriot Radar was examined and continued to operate but was replaced due to a chance that a fragment may have penetrated it and gone undetected.[42] On 2 April 2003, 2 PAC-3 missiles shot down a USN F/A-18 Hornet killing U.S. Navy Lieutenant Nathan D. White of VFA195, Carrier Air Wing Five.[43][44]
16.6 Service with Israel Today the Israeli Air Defense Command operates MIM104D Patriot (PAC-2/GEM+) batteries with Israeli upgrades. The Israel Defense Forces' designation for the Patriot weapon system is "Yahalom" (יהלום, "diamond" in Hebrew).
Israeli Patriot battery (together with Iron Dome battery, left) in display for United States Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, 2014.
16.6.2 Syrian civil war (2014) On 31 August 2014, a Syrian unmanned aerial vehicle was shot down by an Israeli Air Defense Command MIM104D Patriot missile near Quneitra, after it had penetrated Israeli airspace over the Golan Heights.[48] Nearly a month later, on September 23, a Syrian Air Force Sukhoi Su-24 was shot down on similar circumstances.[48][49]
16.7 Operators
MIM-104 Patriot Operators
Operators[50] Bahrain
• Royal Bahraini Air Force
16.6.1
Operation Protective Edge (2014)
During Operation Protective Edge, Patriot batteries of the Israeli Air Defense Command intercepted and destroyed two unmanned aerial vehicles launched by Hamas.[45][46] The interception of a Hamas drone on 14 July 2014 was the first time in the history of the Patriot system’s use that it successfully intercepted an enemy aircraft.[47]
Egypt
• Egyptian Air Defense Command Germany
16.7. OPERATORS • Luftwaffe
97
Saudi Arabia
• Flugabwehrraketengeschwader 1 Greece
• Royal Saudi Air Defense South Korea
• Hellenic Armed Forces • 350 Guided Missiles Wing Jordan
• Republic of Korea Air Force (PAC-2, 2016 PAC-3 Change) • 1st Air Defense Artillery Brigade • 2nd Air Defense Artillery Brigade
• Jordanian Armed Forces
Spain
Israel • Spanish Army • Israeli Air Force • Israeli Air Defense Command (GEM+ “Yahalom”)[51] – To be replaced by David’s Sling[52] Japan
• Regimiento de Artillería antiaérea 74 Taiwan (Republic of China) • Republic of China Army United Arab Emirates
• Japan Air Self-Defense Force • Air Defense Missile Training Unit (PAC-3) • 1st Air Defence Missile Group (PAC-3) • 2nd Air Defence Missile Group (PAC-3) • 3rd Air Defence Missile Group (PAC-2) • 4th Air Defence Missile Group (PAC-3) • 5th Air Defence Missile Group (PAC-2) • 6th Air Defence Missile Group (PAC-3) Kuwait
• Kuwait Air Force
• Union Defence Force The United Arab Emirates closed a deal (nearly $4 billion) with Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and the US Government to buy and operate the latest development of the PAC-3 system, as well as 288 of Lockheed’s PAC-3 missiles, and 216 GEM-T missiles. The deal is part of the development of a national defense system to protect the Emirates from air threats.[55] United States
• United States Army[56]
In August 2010, the US Defense Security Cooperation The US Army operates a total of 1,106 Patriot launchers. Agency announced that Kuwait had formally requested to buy 209 MIM-104E PAC-2 missiles.[53] In August 2012, • • 11th Air Defense Artillery Brigade Kuwait purchased 60 MIM-104F PAC-3 missiles, along • 1st Battalion, 43d Air Defense Artillery with four radars and 20 launchers.[54] Regiment • 2d Battalion, 43d Air Defense Artillery Netherlands Regiment • 3d Battalion, 43d Air Defense Artillery Regiment • Royal Netherlands Army • 5th Battalion, 52d Air Defense Artillery • 802 Squadron (PAC-2 & PAC-3) Regiment
98
CHAPTER 16. MIM-104 PATRIOT • 31st Air Defense Artillery Brigade • 3d Battalion, 2d Air Defense Artillery Regiment • 4th Battalion, 3d Air Defense Artillery Regiment • 69th Air Defense Artillery Brigade • 4th Battalion, 5th Air Defense Artillery Regiment • 1st Battalion, 44th Air Defense Artillery Regiment • 1st Battalion, 62nd Air Defense Artillery Regiment (United States) • 108th Air Defense Artillery Brigade
• Akash missile • KS-1 • HQ-9 • NASAMS • S-300 • S-400 • Sayyad-2
16.9 References
• 1st Battalion, 7th Air Defense Artillery Notes Regiment • 3d Battalion, 4th Air Defense Artillery [1] Brain, Marshall. “How Patriot Missiles Work”. howstuffRegiment works.com. Retrieved 27 September 2014. • 35th Air Defense Artillery Brigade, Eighth Army • 2d Battalion, 1st Air Defense Artillery Regiment • 1st Battalion, 1st Air Defense Artillery Regiment • 6th Battalion, 52d Air Defense Artillery Regiment • 5th Battalion 7th Air Defense Artillery Regiment • 3d Battalion, 6th Air Defense Artillery Regiment
16.8 See also • List of missiles • MEADS • U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command • Anti-ballistic missile • National Missile Defense • U.S. Army Air Defense Units • M-numbers • ADATS Comparable SAMs: • Aster (missile family) • Standard Missile – family of medium-to-long range anti-air missiles developed by the US Navy. • Type 3 Chū-SAM
[2] “MIM-104 Patriot”. Jane’s Information Group. 12 August 2008. Retrieved 26 August 2008. [3] “Raytheon Awarded Contract for UAE Patriot.”. spacewar.com. 11 February 2009. Retrieved 27 September 2014. [4] “Building the Shield”. Defense News. 21 March 2011. Retrieved 27 September 2014. [5] “South Korea Eyes Independent Missile Defense System”. spacewar.com. 20 December 2006. Retrieved 27 September 2014. [6] Lekic, Slobodan (4 December 2012). “NATO backs Patriot anti-missile system for Turkey”. Boston.com. Retrieved 4 December 2012. [7] “Harpoon database encyclopedia”. Retrieved 5 October 2012. (a database for the computer game Harpoon) [8] “US Army Budget FY2011”. Retrieved 6 April 2010. [9] Unspecified. “PATRIOT Advanced Capability-2 (PAC2)". U.S. Department of Defence/U.S. Missile Defense Agency. Retrieved 28 March 2015. [10] Parsch, Andreas. “Lockheed Martin Patriot PAC-3”. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 27 September 2014. [11] “Air Defense: Patriot Gains A Longer Reach Against Missiles”. strategypage.com. 18 June 2013. Retrieved 27 September 2014. [12] Encyclopedia Astronautica. “Encyclopedia Astronautica: MIM-104A”. Encyclopedia Astronautica. Retrieved 28 March 2015. [13] NATO Graphics and Painting. “Patriot Fact Sheet”. NATO. Retrieved 28 March 2015. [14] “Patriot TMD”. Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved 27 September 2014. [15] “Raytheon MIM-104 Patriot”. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 27 September 2014.
16.9. REFERENCES
[16] 9 of 9 vs TBM with no loss of life or equipment [17] “Operation Iraqi Freedom Presentation”. US Army 32nd AAMDC. September 2003. Retrieved 27 September 2014. [18] “PATRIOT MIM-104F Advanced Capability - 3 (PAC-3) Missile”. Weapon Systems Book. PEO Missiles and Space. 2012. p. 97. Retrieved 27 September 2014. [19] “MEADS Successfully Intercepts Air-Breathing Target At White Sands Missile Range”. MEADS International. 29 November 2012. Retrieved 27 September 2014.
99
[33] Robert Skeel. “Roundoff Error and the Patriot Missile”. SIAM News, volume 25, nr 4. Retrieved 8 May 2013. [34] Stewart, Cameron (18 February 1999). “Nurrungar played fateful role in Desert Storm tragedy”. The Australian (hartford-hwp.com). Retrieved 27 September 2014. [35] Bush, George H. W. (15 February 1991). “Remarks to Raytheon Missile Systems Plant Employees in Andover, Massachusetts”. George H. W. Bush Presidential Library. Retrieved 27 September 2014.
[20] “PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement”. Lockheed Martin. Archived from the original on 19 October 2007. Retrieved 27 September 2014.
[36] Postol, Theodore A. (7 April 1992). “Optical Evidence Indicating Patriot High Miss Rates During the Gulf War”. Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved 29 January 2008.
[21] “Lockheed Martin to supply first PAC-3 MSE missiles”. Shephardmedia.com. 29 April 2014. Retrieved 27 September 2014.
[37] Pedatzur, Reuven (7 April 1992). “The Israeli Experience Operating Patriot in the Gulf War”. Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved 13 June 2009.
[22] “Raytheon-Rafael Pitch 4th-Gen Patriot System”. Defensenews.com. 31 August 2013. Retrieved 27 September 2014.
[38] Zraket, Charles A. (7 April 1992). “Testimony of Charles A. Zraket”. Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved 13 June 2009.
[23] Trimble, Stephen (7 April 2009). “Lockheed proposes funding plan for air-launched Patriot missile”. Washington DC. Retrieved 27 September 2014.
[39] Zimmerman, Peter D. (7 April 1992). “Testimony of Peter D. Zimmerman”. Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved 13 June 2009.
[24] “Patriot Report Summary” (PDF). Office of the Under Secretary of Defense For Acquisition. January 2005. Archived from the original on 26 February 2006.
[40] “Star Wars - Operations”. Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved 27 September 2014.
[25] Butler, Amy (15 May 2013). “Italy Looks To Poland As Meads Production Partner”. Aviationweek.com. Retrieved 27 September 2014. [26] Raytheon (1 April 2013). “US Army to Extend Patriot Missiles Service Life to 45 Years”. Deagel.com. [27] “Casualties and Damage from Scud Attacks in the 1991 Gulf War”. Retrieved 11 May 2010. [28] “A Review of the Suggested Exposure of UK Forces to Chemical Warfare Agents in Al Jubayl During the Gulf Conflict”. Retrieved 11 May 2010. [29] “House Government Operations Committee - The Performance of the Patriot Missile in the Gulf”. Federation of American Scientists. 7 April 1992. Retrieved 13 June 2009. [30] Postol, Theodore; Lewis, George (8 September 1992). “Postol/Lewis Review of Army’s Study on Patriot Effectiveness”. Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved 13 June 2009. [31] Zimmerman, Peter D. (16 November 1992). “A Review of the Postol and Lewis Evaluation of the White Sands Missile Range Evaluation of the Suitability of TV Video Tapes to Evaluate Patriot Performance During the Gulf War”. Federation of American Scientists. INSIDE THE ARMY. pp. 7–9. Retrieved 13 June 2009. [32] “Patriot missile defense, Software problem led to system failure at Dharhan, Saudi Arabia; GAO report IMTEC 9226”. US Government Accounting Office.
[41] The Fifth Estate. Toronto, Ontario. 5 February 2003. CBC. [42] Dewitte, Lieven (25 March 2003). “U.S. F-16 fires on Patriot missile battery in friendly fire incident”. Retrieved 27 September 2014. [43] Piller, Charles (21 April 2003). “Vaunted Patriot Missile Has a 'Friendly Fire' Failing”. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 27 September 2014. [44] Gittler, Juliana (19 April 2003). “Atsugi memorial service honors pilot killed in Iraq”. Stars and Stripes. Retrieved 27 September 2014. [45] “Gaza drone enters Israel, is shot down over Ashdod by IAF”. The Jerusalem Post. 14 July 2014. [46] “Gaza drone downed by IAF”. The Jerusalem Post. 17 July 2014. [47] Israel Air Force Hones Patriot Batteries for UAV Defense - Defensenews.com, 16 November 2014 [48] Raved, Ahiya (23 September 2014). “IDF: Syrian fighter jet shot down over Golan”. ynetnews.com. Retrieved 27 September 2014. [49] Egozi, Arie (23 September 2014). “Israeli Patriot downs Syrian Su-24”. FlightGlobal. Retrieved 27 September 2014. [50] Sanger, David E.; Schmitt, Eric (30 January 2010). “U.S. Speeding Up Missile Defenses in Persian Gulf”. New York Times. Retrieved 30 January 2010.
100
CHAPTER 16. MIM-104 PATRIOT
[51] “Israel completes upgrade of PAC missile defense”. World Tribune. 12 May 2010. Retrieved 27 September 2014. [52] “Israeli Patriot Replacement”. Strategypage.com. 13 December 2012. [53] “Gulf States Requesting ABM-Capable Systems”. Retrieved 17 August 2010. [54] “Kuwait buys PAC-3”. Strategypage.com. 2012. Retrieved 27 September 2014.
6 August
[55] “UAE seals deal for Patriot missiles”. The National (United Arab Emirates). 25 December 2008. Retrieved 27 September 2014. [56] “Air Defense Artillary Unit Locations”. airdefenseartillery.com. 2010. Archived from the original on 17 September 2010.
16.10 External links and references • Patriot MIM-104 surface-to-air defense missile system - Army Recognition • Official Army PATRIOT web site • Official Raytheon (missile contractor) PATRIOT web site • Patriot Missile Air Defence System - Army Technology • Raytheon MIM-104 Patriot • MIM-104 Patriot - Armed Forces International • Lockheed Martin Patriot MIM-104E PAC III - Photos, H.A.F
Chapter 17
Roland (missile) The Roland is a Franco-German mobile short-range surface-to-air missile (SAM) system. The Roland was also purchased by the U.S. Army as one of very few foreign SAM systems. Roland was designed to a joint French and German requirement for a low-level mobile missile system to protect mobile field formations and fixed, high-value targets such as airfields. Development began in 1963 as a study by Nord Aviation of France and Bölkow of Germany with the system then called SABA in France and P-250 in Germany.[1] The two companies formed a joint development project in 1964 and later (as Aérospatiale of France and MBB of Germany) founded the Euromissile company for this and other missile programs. Aerospatiale took primary responsibility for the Roland 1 day/clearweather system while MBB took primary responsibility for the Roland 2 all-weather system. Aerospatiale was also responsible for the rear and propulsion system of the missile while MBB developed the front end of the missile with warhead and guidance systems. The first guided launch of a Roland prototype took place in June 1968, destroying a CT-20 target drone and fielding of production systems was expected from January 1970. The test and evaluation phase took much longer than originally anticipated with the clear-weather Roland I finally entering operational service with the French Army in April 1977, while the all-weather Roland II was first fielded by the German Army in 1978 followed by the French Army in 1981.[2] The long delays and ever-increasing costs combined with inflation meant Roland was never procured in the numbers originally anticipated.
would normally be employed only in daylight against very low-level targets or in a heavy jamming environment.[3] The Roland missile is a two-stage solid propellant unit 2.4 meters long with a weight of 66.5 kg including the 6.5 kg multiple hollow-charge fragmentation warhead which contains 3.5 kg of explosive detonated by impact or proximity fuses. The 65 projectile charges have a lethal radius of 6 meters. Cruising speed is Mach 1.6. The missile is delivered in a sealed container which is also the launch tube. Each launcher carries two launch tubes with 8 more inside the vehicle or shelter with automatic reloading in 10 seconds. For defense of fixed sites such as airfields the shelter Roland can be integrated in the CORAD (Co-ordinated Roland Air Defense) system which can include a surveillance radar, a Roland Co-ordination Center, 8 Roland fire units and up to 8 guns.[4]
17.1 Variants The Roland SAM system was designed to engage enemy air targets flying at speeds of up to Mach 1.3 at altitudes between 20 meters and 5,500 meters with a minimum effective range of 500 meters and a maximum of 6,300 meters. The system can operate in optical or radar mode and can switch between these modes during an engagement. A pulse-doppler search radar with a range of 15–18 km detects the target which can then be tracked either by the tracking radar or an optical tracker. The optical channel 101
• Roland 1 – This is the fair-weather daylight-only, version used by the French and Spanish armies on the AMX-30R chassis. • Roland 2 – This is the all-weather version employed on the AMX-30R and Marder chassis and also as a shelter mount in either a static location or mounted on a 6×6 or 8×8 all-terrain truck. Euromissile, MaK, IBH and Blohm and Voss of Germany in 1983 proposed the Leopard 1 tank chassis as a carrier for the Roland system to appeal to those countries who already used the Leopard I tank.[5] • American Roland – Selected in 1975 as the forward air defense system for U.S. Army divisions the first missiles were delivered in 1977 with the first firing from the XM975 launcher vehicle (a modified M109 howitzer chassis) taking place in September 1978. American Roland was essentially Roland 2 with a longer-ranged American-made search radar. The palletized fire unit could be installed and rapidly removed from the XM975 chassis, installed on a truck or used as a static emplacement. Problems with technology transfer and rising costs killed the program and only 27 fire units and 600 missiles were built for one battalion in the Army National Guard, mounted on M812 flatbed trucks. With the failue
102
CHAPTER 17. ROLAND (MISSILE)
of the M247 Sergeant York the U.S. Army leased 5 Current systems are capable of launching Roland 2, 3 German Roland systems for evaluation as a possible or VT1 missiles. Roland’s latest upgraded versions have replacement.[6] limited ability to counter incoming low RCS munitions (large-caliber heavyweight rockets). • Roland 3 – This system was an upgrade of existing Roland 1/2 systems for the French and Ger• From 1969 Euromissile studied Roland as a possible man systems to maintain them in service through naval weapon for shipboard installation. Originally 2010. It included replacing the existing optical sight known as Roland MX and later as Jason the stanwith a GLAIVE integrated thermal sighting system dard twin launcher (without search radar) with two with laser rangefinder that allows for night and poor below-decks 8-round reloading drums could be inweather operation without the radar.[7] stalled on a standard sized module that was featured • Roland M3S – The prototype for this nextin several proposed Blohm & Voss MEKO frigate generation Roland system was completed in 1992 proposals of the 1970s. No prototype or production and was offered to meet the air defense requirements systems were built with attention turning early on to of Turkey and Thailand. The prototype was a shelan abortive vertically launched missile.[11] ter installed on the chassis of the American M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System and featured a then Dassault Electronique Rodeo 4 or a Thomson CSF 17.2 Carriers (now Thales) search radar. Roland M3S can be operated by one man although 2 are necessary for susThe Roland system has been installed on a variety of plattained operation and the operator can select radar, forms, amongst them: TV or optronic (FLIR) tracking. Roland M3S has 4 instead of 2 missile containers in the ready-tofire position but only the 2 lower positions can be Tracked automatically reloaded. In addition to the existing • AMX 30 Roland missile Roland M3S could use the Roland 3 missile, the RM5 missile, or the VT-1 missile of • Marder the Crotale missile system. Additionally the upper launch containers could be replaced by 2 pairs Wheeled of launchers for the Mistral missile or the standard Roland missile container could be adapted to carry • ACMAT 6×6 four FIM-92 Stinger missiles to increase the systems ability to rapidly engage multiple targets in a satura• MAN 6×6, 8×8 tion attack. • Roland 3 upgraded system – This uses either the existing Roland missile or a new Roland 3 missile with speed increased from 550 m/s to 620 m/s and range increased from 6.3 to 8.5 km with maximum effective altitude increased to 6,000 m. Warhead size is also increased to 9.1 kg with 84 projectile charges. Response time for the first target is quoted as 6–8 seconds with 2–6 seconds for subsequent targets. The Roland 3 missile can be used by all Roland systems.[8]
Roland 2 was proposed in the early 1980s for installation on the Leopard 1 tank chassis, probably to meet an expected Dutch army requirement but was never built. In configuration it would have been very similar to the AMX-30R. American Roland on the M109 chassis was built in prototype form but production systems were rather hastily installed on 6×6 flatbed trucks.
An airliftable shelter named Roland CAROL has also been developed, which is a 7.8t container that can be de• Roland RM5 missile – This was a joint project be- ployed on the ground to protect fixed assets like airfields tween the then Matra and Aerospatiale of France or depots or fitted on an ACMAT truck. and MBB of Germany begun in 1987 for a missile with increased speed and range. RM5 was designed to achieve speeds of 1,600 m/s (Mach 5.0) with the 17.3 Users range increased to 10 km. Without a launch customer development of this company-funded weapon • Initial French requirements were for 144 Roland 1 ceased in 1991.[9] and 70 Roland 2 systems with 10,800 missiles for • Roland VT-1 missile – In September 1991 Euromisthe French Army, all installed on the AMX-30 tank sile and the then Thomson CSF (now Thales) agreed chassis known as the AMX-30R. 181 systems (83 to integrage the VT-1 missile of the Crotale NG sysRoland 1 and 98 Roland 2) were eventually protem into the Roland 3 system with retrofitting of cured. The French Army has subsequently conFrench and German Roland fire units from 1996.[10] verted 20 of its Roland 2 all-weather systems to the
17.3. USERS Carole air-mobile shelter mounted system. These are used by the 54th Roland Regiment of the French Reaction Force for rapid deployment on short notice anywhere in the world.[12] Three of the four Artillery Regiments which operated Roland have been disbanded and the 4th (54 Regiment) has been converted to the Mistral (missile). Thus it is likely Roland has been withdrawn from French service.
103 600 missiles installed on 6×6 flatbed trucks instead of tracked carriers. The XMIM-115 was never typeclassified and served for less than a decade, being retired in 1988. • Argentina purchased 4 Roland shelter-mounted systems for static defense of fixed installations and one of these was deployed to defend Stanley airfield during the Falklands War with Britain in 1982. This system fired 8 out of the 10 missiles it was deployed with and is credited with shooting down one Harrier Jump Jet and two 1000lb General-purpose bombs. This system was captured intact by the British.[12]
• Germany was to buy 12,200 missiles 340 Roland 2 fire units installed on the Marder (IFV) chassis to fully replace the towed Bofors 40 mm guns systems and Contraves Super Fledermaus fire control systems in service with the Bundeswehr Corps-level air • Brazil purchased 4 Roland 2 systems on the German defense regiments. Each regiment would have 36 Marder chassis along with 50 missiles, all of which fire units in 3 batteries of 12. Eventually 140 fire were retired from service in 2001. units were procured and equipped 3 regiments with one assigned to each army corps. The Luftwaffe had a requirement for 200 Roland 2 shelter systems mounted on MAN 8×8 trucks for the close-in defense of airfields and as mobile gap-fillers for the MIM-23 HAWK SAM systems. 95 systems were eventually procured from the mid-1980s with 27 of those used to defend American air bases in Germany. In 1998–99 10 Roland LVB systems were installed on MAN 6×6 trucks to be air-transportable in the Transall C-160 for the German rapid reaction forces. The German Navy also procured 20 truck-mounted shelter systems for defense of naval bases. In February 2003 the Bundeswehr cancelled a planned upgrade of Roland and announced it would phase-out all of its Roland systems. This was completed by the end of 2005. The Luftwaffe and Navy The Marder-Roland units bought by the Brazilian Army in the have also withdrawn Roland and it is no longer em- late '70s were retired in 2001 and are now on display at Museu ployed by Germany. The German Army will replace Militar Conde de Linhares in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Roland with the new and much more capable development: LFK NG). A battery of German systems • Venezuela purchased 6 Roland 2 shelter mounted have been passed on to Slovenia.[13] systems although some sources at the time indicated • On January 9, 1975 the United States Army selected 8 systems. Roland 2 as the winner of its SHORADS (Short• Nigeria acquired 16 Roland 2 systems on the AMXRange Air Defense System) competition to replace 30R chassis. An option for a further 16 was not the MIM-72 Chaparral and M163 VADS divisional taken up.[12] air defense systems with a requirement for more than 500 fire units to be designated the MIM-115. • Spain acquired 9 Roland 1 and 9 Roland 2 systems Hughes Aircraft and Boeing Aerospace were conon the AMX-30R chassis and 414 missiles for detracted to develop American Roland which would fense of its armored field formations equipping the have been installed in a removable module on the 71st Air Defense Regiment. Each battery has 2 M109 howitzer chassis. The American system used Roland 1 and 2 Roland 2 systems with one system the European fire control system with an American of each type held for tests and training.[12] search radar of greater range and enhanced ECCM capability. Initial production of fire units to equip 4 • Iraq is believed to have received 100 shelterbattalions and 1,000 missiles (against an anticipated mounted Roland 2 on MAN 8×8 trucks and 13 selfrequirement for 14,000) was approved in October propelled systems on the AMX-30R chassis during 1978 but subsequently reduced to just 1 battalion. the 1980–88 Iran–Iraq war and they first went into action in 1982 claiming a F-4E Phantom and F-5E Difficulties in technology transfer, integration and Tiger that year. Roland is believed to have shot commonality difficulties and rising costs meant only down 2 Panavia Tornado aircraft during Operation a single Army National Guard battalion was ever Desert Storm and an A10 Thunderbolt during the equipped with the type with the 27 launchers and
104
CHAPTER 17. ROLAND (MISSILE) Iraq war.[14] As a result of Operation Desert Storm in 1991 and Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 these systems may no longer be in service.[12]
• In 1986 Qatar ordered 3 self-propelled Roland 2 systems on the AMX-30R chassis and 6 sheltermounted systems with deliveries completed in 1989.[12]
17.4 Combat use On 1 June 1982, during the Falklands War, Sea Harrier nº XZ456 was shot down south of Stanley by members of the GADA 601, an Argentine antiaircraft unit deployed in the area.[15] The launcher, one of four examples delivered to Argentina, was captured in fairly intact condition by the British around Port Stanley after the surrender. It was taken back to Britain as a valuable prize and studied in detail. It is believed that an Iraqi Roland missile succeeded in shooting down an American A-10 Thunderbolt II at the beginning of the Iraq War, during the battle of Baghdad.[16]
17.5 Rolandgate
•
Germany (phased out, will be replaced by LFK NG)
•
Iraq (no longer in use)
•
Nigeria
•
Qatar
•
Slovenia
•
Spain
• •
United States – formerly used by the U.S. Army National Guard Venezuela
17.7 See also • LFK NG, the new short-range surface-to-air missile of the German Army
17.8 References
In October 2003, controversy erupted between Poland [1] Gunston and France when Polish forces from the Multinational force in Iraq found French Roland surface-to-air missiles. [2] Gunston Polish and international press reported that Polish officers claimed these missiles had been manufactured in 2003. [3] Jane’s Armour and Artillery France pointed out that the latest Roland missiles were [4] Jane’s Armour and Artillery manufactured in the early 1990s and thus the manufacturing date was necessarily an error (it turned out it was [5] Jane’s Armour and Artillery probably the expiry date that was indicated), and affirmed that it had never sold weapons to Iraq in violation of the [6] Gunston embargo. Investigations by the Polish authorities came to the conclusion that the persons responsible for the scan- [7] Jane’s Land Based Air Defense dal were low level commanders. Wojskowe Służby In[8] Jane’s Land Based Air Defense formacyjne, the Polish Army’s intelligence unit, had not verified their claims before they were leaked to the press. [9] Jane’s Land Based Air Defense Poland apologized to France for the scandal, but these allegations against France worsened the already somewhat [10] Jane’s Land Based Air Defense strained relationships between the two countries. The entire incident was sarcastically called “Rolandgate” by the [11] Gunston Polish media, using the unofficial naming conventions of [12] Jane’s Land Based Air Defense US political scandals after Watergate. [13] Army Technology
17.6 Operators
[14] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/sep/08/ 20040908-123000-1796r/
•
Argentina
•
Brazil (no longer in use)
[15] Smith, Gordon: Battle Atlas of the Falklands War 1982. Lulu.com, 2006, page 97. ISBN 1-84753-950-5. (Spanish)
•
France
[16] Washington Times - French connection armed Saddam
17.10. EXTERNAL LINKS
17.9 Sources • Jane’s Armour and Artillery 1986–87, pp. 556–558 • Jane’s Land Based Air Defense 1993–94, 1999– 2000 & 2002–03 editions • Bill Gunston, The Illustrated Encyclopedia of the World’s Rockets and Missiles, Salamander Books 1979, pp. 156–158 • http://www.army-technology.com
17.10 External links • Army Technology • • •
105
Chapter 18
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), forShroud Flare Booster Kill Vehicle merly Theater High Altitude Area Defense, is a United States Army anti-ballistic missile system designed to 766 mm shoot down short, medium, and intermediate ballistic 370 mm ⌀ Interstage 340 mm ⌀ missiles in their terminal phase using a hit-to-kill ap2325 mm 6170 mm proach. The missile carries no warhead but relies on the kinetic energy of the impact to destroy the incoming missile. A kinetic energy hit minimizes the risk of exploding conventional warhead ballistic missiles, and nuclear tipped ballistic missiles won't explode upon a kinetic energy hit, although chemical or biological warheads may disintegrate or explode and pose a risk of contaminating the environment. THAAD was designed to hit Scuds THAAD missile diagram and similar weapons, but has a limited capability against ICBMs. The THAAD system is being designed, built, and in- occurring at White Sands Missile Range. The first six integrated by Lockheed Martin Space Systems acting as tercept attempts missed the target (Flights 4-9). The first prime contractor. Key subcontractors include Raytheon, successful intercepts were conducted on June 20, 1999, Boeing, Aerojet, Rocketdyne, Honeywell, BAE Systems, and August 2, 1999, against Hera missiles. Oshkosh Defense, MiltonCAT, and the Oliver Capital Consortium. One THAAD system costs US$800 18.1.1 Demonstration-Validation Phase million.[2] Petal
Semi-integrated Avionics
Window And Seeker
Gas Bag
Strut
Divert and Attitude Control System
Nozzle Actuator
370 mm ⌀
Flight Termination System (FTS) Batteries
Movable Nozzle
Avionics Battery
FTS
1945 mm
Although originally a U.S. Army program, THAAD has come under the umbrella of the Missile Defense Agency. The Navy has a similar program, the sea-based Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System, which now has a land component as well (“Aegis ashore”). THAAD was originally scheduled for deployment in 2012, but initial deployment took place May 2008.[3][4]
Rate Gyros
18.1.2 Engineering and manufacturing phase In June 2000, Lockheed won the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) contract to turn the design into a mobile tactical army fire unit. Flight tests of this system resumed with missile characterization and full-up system tests in 2006 at White Sands Missile Range, then moved to the Pacific Missile Range Facility.
18.1 Development 18.1.3 THAAD-ER The THAAD missile defense concept was proposed in 1987, with a formal request for proposals submitted to industry in 1990. In September 1992, the U.S. Army selected Lockheed Martin as prime contractor for THAAD development. Prior to development of a physical prototype, the Aero-Optical Effect (AOE) software code was developed to validate the intended operational profile of Lockheed’s proposed design. The first THAAD flight test occurred in April 1995, with all flight tests in the Demonstration-Validation (DEM-VAL) program phase
Lockheed is pushing for funding for the development of an ER version of the THAAD to counter maturing threats posed by hypersonic glide vehicles adversaries may employ, namely the Chinese WU-14, to penetrate the gap between low and high-altitude missile defenses. The company performed static fire trials of a prototype modified THAAD second booster in 2006 and continued to self-fund the project until 2008. The current 14.5 in (37 cm)-diameter single-stage booster design would be
106
18.2. PRODUCTION AND DEPLOYMENT expanded to a 21 in (53 cm) first stage for greater range with a second “kick stage” to close the distance to the target and provide improved velocity at burnout and more lateral movement during an engagement. Although the kill vehicle would not need a redesign, the ground-based launcher would have to be modified with a decreased interceptor capacity from eight to five. Currently, THAADER is an industry concept and not a program of record, but Lockheed believes the Missile Defense Agency will show interest because of the threats under development by potential adversaries.[18] If funding for the THAADER began in 2018, a fielded product could be produced in 2022. Although the system could provide some capability against a rudimentary hypersonic threat, the Pentagon is researching other technologies like directed energy weapons and railguns to be optimal solutions. Therefore, the THAAD-ER would be an interim measure to counter the emerging threat until laser and railgun systems capable of performing missile defense come online, expected in the mid to late-2020s.[19]
18.2 Production and deployment
107 missiles have an estimated range of 125 miles (200 km), and can reach an altitude of 93 miles (150 km). The THAAD missile is manufactured at the Lockheed Martin Pike County Operations facility near Troy, Alabama. The facility performs final integration, assembly and testing of the THAAD missile.
The AN/TPY-2 radar
The THAAD Radar is an X-Band active electronically scanned array Radar developed and built by Raytheon at its Andover, Massachusetts Integrated Air Defense Facility. It is the world’s largest ground/air-transportable X-Band radar. The THAAD Radar and a variant developed as a forward sensor for ICBM missile defense, the “Forward-Based X-Band - Transportable (FBX-T)" radar were assigned a common designator, AN/TPY-2, in late 2006/early 2007. A THAAD battery consists of nine launcher vehicles, each equipped with eight missiles, with two mobile tactical operations centers (TOCs) and the ground-based radar (GBR);[20] the Army plans to field at least six THAAD batteries.[18]
18.2.1 First Units Activated On 28 May 2008, the U.S. Army activated Alpha Battery, 4th Air Defense Artillery Regiment, 11th Air Defense Artillery Brigade at Fort Bliss, Texas. The Unit is part of the 32nd Army Air & Missile Defense Command. It has 24 THAAD interceptors, three THAAD launchers based on the M1120 HEMTT Load Handling System, a THAAD Fire Control and a THAAD radar. Full fielding began in 2009.[21][22]
THAAD Energy Management Steering maneuver, used to burn excess propellant.
Sometimes called Kinetic Kill technology, the THAAD missile destroys missiles by colliding with them, using hitto-kill technology, like the MIM-104 Patriot PAC-3 (although the PAC-3 also contains a small explosive warhead). This is unlike the Patriot PAC-2 which carried only an explosive warhead detonated using a proximity fuse. Although the actual figures are classified, THAAD
On October 16, 2009, the U.S. Army and the Missile Defense Agency activated the second Terminal High Altitude Area Defense Battery, Alpha Battery, 2nd Air Defense Artillery Regiment, at Fort Bliss.[23] On August 15, 2012, Lockheed received a $150 million contract from the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to produce THAAD Weapon System launchers and fire control and communications equipment for the U.S. Army. The contract includes 12 launchers, two fire control and communications units, and support equipment. The contract will provide six launchers for THAAD Battery 5 and
108
CHAPTER 18. TERMINAL HIGH ALTITUDE AREA DEFENSE
an additional three launchers each to Batteries 1 and 2. These deliveries will bring all Batteries to the standard six launcher configuration.[24]
• M1120 HEMTT Load Handling System (launcher) • Indian Ballistic Missile Defence Programme • S-300VM
18.2.2
Deployments
In June 2009, the United States deployed a THAAD unit to Hawaii, along with the SBX sea-based radar, to defend against a possible North Korean launch targeted at the archipelago.[25] In April 2013, the United States declared that Alpha Battery, 4th Air Defense Artillery Regiment, would be deployed to Guam to defend against a possible North Korean IRBM attack targeting the island.[26][27] The American AN/TPY-2 early missile warning radar station on Mt. Keren in the Negev desert is only active foreign military installation in Israel.[28] According to U.S. officials the AN/TPY-2 radar was deployed at Turkey’s Kürecik Air Force base.[29] The radar was activated at January 2012.[30]
18.2.3
International users
The United Arab Emirates signed a deal to purchase the missile defense system on December 25, 2011.[31] On May 27, 2013, Oman announced a deal for the acquisition of the THAAD air defense system.[32] On 17 October 2013, the South Korean military asked the Pentagon to provide information on the THAAD system. Information of the system concerned prices and capabilities as part of efforts to strengthen defenses against North Korean ballistic missiles.[33] In May 2014, the Pentagon revealed it was studying sites to base American THAAD batteries in South Korea.[34] However, South Korea decided it will develop its own indigenous long-range surface-to-air missile instead of buying the THAAD.[35] South Korean Defense Ministry officials previously requested information on the THAAD, as well as other missile interceptors like the Israeli Arrow 3, with the intention of researching systems for domestic technology development rather than for purchase. Officials did however claim that American deployment of the THAAD system would help in countering North Korean missile threats.[36] However, China announced that deployment of this system in South Korea is a threat to China’s security and can lead to a serious economical and politic consequence for chinese-korean relations [37] Daniel Russel replied that “Beijing doesn't have any relation to this matter and should not interfere with the defense policy of other countries”[38]
18.3 See also • Arrow (Israeli missile)
• S-400 (SAM)
18.4 References [1] “THAAD”. Webcache.googleusercontent.com. trieved 2011-01-24.
Re-
[2] “With an Eye on Pyongyang, U.S. Sending Missile Defenses to Guam”. The Wall Street Journal, April 3, 2013. [3] “Pentagon To Accelerate THAAD Deployment”, Jeremy Singer, Space News, September 4, 2006 [4] “Lockheed Martin completes delivery of all components of 1st THAAD battery to U.S. Army”,Yourdefencenews.com,March 8,2012 [5] “MDA’s new THAAD success”, Martin Sieff, UPI, April 6, 2007 [6] “Army, Navy and Air Force shoot down test missile”, Tom Finnegan, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Friday, April 6, 2007 [7] “Press Release by Lockheed Martin on Newswires”. Texas: Prnewswire.com. 2007-10-26. Retrieved 201101-24. [8] “31st successful 'hit to kill' intercept in 39 tests”. Frontierindia.net. 2007-10-27. Retrieved 2011-01-24. [9] “THAAD shoots down missile from C-17”. The Associated Press, June 27, 2008 [10] Defense Test Conducted MDA September 27, 2008 [11] “Terminal High Altitude Area Defense”. MDA. March 17, 2009. Archived from the original on March 26, 2009. [12] “Officials investigating cause of missile failure”. The Garden Island. December 12, 2009. [13] “THAAD System Intercepts Target in Successful Missile Defense Flight Test”. MDA. June 29, 2010. [14] “THAAD Weapon System Achieves Intercept of Two Targets at Pacific Missile Range Facility”. Lockheed Martin. October 5, 2011. Archived from the original on December 9, 2011. [15] “FTI-01 Mission Data Sheet”. Missile Defense Agency. 15 October 2012. [16] “Ballistic Missile Defense System Engages Five Targets Simultaneously During Largest Missile Defense Flight Test in History”. Missile Defense Agency. 25 October 2012. [17] Butler, Amy (5 November 2012). “Pentagon Begins To Tackle Air Defense ‘Raid’ Threat”. Aviation Week & Space Technology.
18.5. EXTERNAL LINKS
[18] China’s Hypersonic Ambitions Prompt Thaad-ER Push Aviationweek.com, 8 January 2015 [19] Thaad-ER In Search Of A Mission - Aviationweek.com, 20 January 2015
109
18.5 External links • Lockheed Martin THAAD web page • Details of the project
[20] U.S. Army has received the latest upgrade for THAAD air defense missile system - Armyrecognition.com, 2 January 2015
• MDA THAAD page
[21] “First Battery of THAAD Weapon System Activated at Fort Bliss”. Lockheed Martin via newsblaze, May 28, 2008
• Program History
[22] “First Battery of THAAD Weapon System Activated at Fort Bliss”, Press Release, Lockheed Martin Official Website, May 28, 2008
•
[23] “Second Battery of Lockheed Martin’s THAAD Weapon System Activated at Fort Bliss”, Reuters (10-16-2009). Retrieved 10-20-2009. [24] Lockheed Martin Receives $150 Million Contract To Produce THAAD Weapon System Equipment For The U.S. Army - Lockheed press release, Aug. 15, 2012 [25] Gienger, Viola (2009-06-18). “Gates Orders Measures Against North Korea Missile (Update2)". Bloomberg. Retrieved 2011-01-24. [26] “US to move missiles to Guam after North Korea threats”. BBC. 2013-04-03. Retrieved 2013-04-03. [27] Burge, David (2013-04-09). “100 bound for Guam: Fort Bliss THAAD unit readies for historic mission”. El Paso Times. Retrieved 2013-04-12. [28] “How a U.S. Radar Station in the Negev Affects a Potential Israel-Iran Clash.” Time Magazine, 30 May 2012. [29] “U.S. Maintains Full Control of Turkish-Based Radar” Defense Update, 30 January 2012 [30] “NATO Activates Radar in Turkey Next Week” Turkish Weekly Journal, 24 December 2011 [31] “U.S., UAE reach deal for missile-defense system”, CNN Wire Staff, CNN, Dec 30, 2011 [32] Oman to buy the air defense missile system THAAD Armyrecognition.com, May 27, 2013 [33] Army of South Korea shows interest for the U.S. THAAD - Armyrecognition.com, 18 October 2013 [34] United States Army has a plan to deploy THAAD air defense missile systems in South Korea - Armyrecognition.com, 29 May 2014 [35] S. Korea to develop indigenous missile defense system instead of adopting THAAD - Sina.com, 3 June 2014 [36] 'S.Korea Requested Information on THAAD to Develop L-SAM' - KBS.co.kr, 5 June 2014 [37] China calls USA to cancel THAAD deployment in South Korea [38] http://politobzor.net/ show-12855-balans-politiki-ssha-v-azii-smeschaetsya. html
• THAAD page on army-technology.com
• http://www.airdefenseartillery.com/online/
18.5.1 DEM-VAL Test Program • THAAD First Successful Intercept, 10 June 1999 • THAAD Second Successful Intercept, 2 August 1999
18.5.2 EMD Test Program • Successful THAAD Interceptor Launch Achieved, 22 November 2005 • Successful THAAD Integrated System Flight Test, 11 May 2006 • Successful THAAD Intercept Flight, 12 July 2006 • THAAD Equipment Arrives in Hawaii, October 18, 2006 • Successful THAAD “High Endo-Atmospheric” Intercept Test, January 27, 2007 • Successful THAAD Radar Target Tracking Test, March 8, 2007 • Successful THAAD “Mid Endo-Atmopsheric” Intercept, April 6, 2007 • THAAD Radar Supports Successful Aegis BMD Intercept, June 22, 2007 • Successful THAAD Interceptor Low-Altitude “FlyOut” Test, June 27, 2007
Chapter 19
HIMARS The M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System AMRAAM anti-aircraft missile.[2] (HIMARS) is a U.S. light multiple rocket launcher mounted on a standard Army Medium Tactical Vehicle (MTV) truck frame. The HIMARS carries six rockets or one MGM-140 ATACMS missile on the U.S. Army's new Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) five-ton truck, and can launch the entire Multiple Launch Rocket System Family of Munitions (MFOM). HIMARS is interchangeable with the MLRS M270A1, carrying half the rocket load. The launcher is C-130 transportable. The chassis is produced by BAE Systems Mobility & Protection Systems (formerly Armor Holdings Aerospace and Defense Group Tactical Vehicle Systems Division), the OEM of the FMTV. The rocket launching system is produced by Lockheed Martin Missiles & Fire Control.
19.1 Deployment The M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) is the light, wheeled version of the M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS). The HIMARS utilizes the same pod as the M270 MLRS uses. A pod can hold six rockets or a single missile. The windows are made of glass and layers of sapphire.[1]
19.1.1 Singapore As of September 2007, the Singapore Army proposed to acquire HIMARS systems. The package includes 18 HIMARS launchers, 9 FMTV 5-Ton Trucks and XM31 unitary HE GMLRS pods, plus associated support and communications equipment and services. This proposed package is notable for not involving the M-26 unguided MLRS rockets. In late 2009, Singapore took delivery of the first HIMARS firing unit and achieved Full Operational Capability. The 23rd Battalion, Singapore artillery commissioned its HIMARS battery on 5 September 2011. It marks the first fully GPS-guided HIMARS unit.
19.2 Operational history
On February 14, 2010, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) for Afghanistan indicated in a press release that it was thought that two rockets fired from a HIMARS unit fell 300 metres short of their intended target and killed 12 civilians during Operation Moshtarak. ISAF suspended the use of the HIMARS until a full review of the incident was completed.[3] A British officer later said that the rockets were on target, that the target was in use by the Taliban, and use of the system has been reinstated.[4] Reports indicate that the civilian deaths were due to the Taliban’s use of an occupied dwelling, the presence of civilians at that location was not known to the ISAF forces.[5] An October 21, 2010 report in the New York Times credited HIMARS with aiding the NATO offensive in Kandahar by targeting Taliban comHIMARS was also tested as a common launcher for both manders’ hideouts, forcing many to flee to Pakistan, at artillery rockets and the surface-launched variant of the least temporarily.[6] 18th Field Artillery Brigade (Airborne) at Fort Bragg, North Carolina was the initial army test bed unit for the M142 HIMARS. C Battery, 3rd Battalion, 27th Field Artillery Regiment began field testing 3 HIMARS prototypes in all types of training events and environments in 1998 as a residual of the Rapid Force Projection Initiative (RFPI) Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD). In 2002, the United States Marine Corps arranged with the United States Army to acquire 40 of the systems. Fielding began in 2005. In July 2007, Marines from Fox Battery 2nd Battalion 14 Marine Regiment were deployed to the Al Anbar province of Iraq. This is the first Marine unit to use the HIMARS in combat.
110
19.5. OPERATORS
An MFOR rocket is launched from a HIMARS
19.3 Specifications 19.4 Related developments Lockheed Martin UK and INSYS had jointly developed a demonstrator rocket artillery system similar to HIMARS for the British Army’s 'Lightweight Mobile Artillery Weapon System/Rocket' (LIMAWS(R)) program. The system consisted of a single MLRS pod, mounted on a Supacat SPV600 chassis.[7] The LIMAWS(R) programs was cancelled in September 2007.[8]
19.5 Operators United States
• United States Army • Active Duty
111 • 138th Field Artillery Brigade (KY ARNG) • 3rd Battalion 116th Field Artillery Regiment (FL ARNG) • 142nd Field Artillery Brigade (AR ARNG) • 1st Battalion 181st Field Artillery Regiment (TN ARNG) • 130th Field Artillery Brigade (KS ARNG) • 2nd Battalion 130th Field Artillery Regiment(KS ARNG) • 197th Field Artillery Brigade (NH ARNG) • 3rd Battalion 197th Field Artillery Regiment • 1st Battalion 182nd Field Artillery Regiment (MI ARNG) • 115th Field Artillery Brigade (WY ARNG) • 1st Battalion 121st Field Artillery Regiment (WI ARNG) • United States Marine Corps • 11th Marine Regiment • 5th Battalion 11th Marines • 14th Marine Regiment • 2nd Battalion 14th Marines Singapore • Singapore Army (18) • 23rd Battalion, Singapore Artillery (23 SA)[9]
United Arab Emirates • 17th Field Artillery Brigade • 5th Battalion 3rd Field Artillery Reg• United Arab Emirates Army (20) iment • 1st Battalion 94th Field Artillery Jordan Regiment • 18th Field Artillery Brigade • Jordanian Army (12) • 3rd Battalion 27th Field Artillery Regiment • 3rd Battalion 321st Field Artillery 19.5.1 Potential and future operators Regiment • 214th Field Artillery Brigade Canada • 1st Battalion, 14th Field Artillery Regiment The Department of National Defence is considering the • Army National Guard purchase of HIMARS. The former Chief of the Land • 65th Field Artillery Brigade (UT ARNG) Staff, Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie, said the plan • 5th Battalion 113th Field Artillery to acquire rocket launchers was something that “would Regiment (NC ARNG) be considered much further down the road—possibly in • 45th Field Artillery Brigade (OK ARNG) the 2012 time frame.[10][11][12][13]
112
CHAPTER 19. HIMARS
Qatar
[6] Coalition Forces Routing Taliban in Key Afghan Region [7] Missiles and Fire Support at DSEi 2007
In December 2012, Qatar notified the U.S. of a possible Foreign Military Sale of 7 M142 HIMARS systems, as well as 60 M57 MGM-140 ATACMS Block 1A T2K unitary rockets and 30 M31A1 Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) unitary rockets. The deal would cost an estimated $406 million.[14] Poland
[8] UK cancels LIMAWS Gun to pay for operations, Janes.com, 04 September 2007 [9] “Integration at its best”. Ministry of Defence (Singapore). 2010-01-04. Retrieved 1 May 2011. Men from 23 SA had commenced training with the US Army’s HIMARS in March 2009. [10] “CASR Background — Artillery — Long-Range Precision Rocket System”. Canadian American Strategic Review. Retrieved 2009-11-11.
New Multiple Launch Rocket System. Program “Homar” [11] “Canadian army shopping for rocket launchers”. CTV. 2009-01-08. Retrieved 2009-11-11. Poland. Multiple Launch Rocket System Cooperation between Huta Stalowa Wola, ZM Mesko and Lockheed [12] “Canada Seeks MLRS Rocket Systems”. Defense IndusMartin. try Daily. 2009-01-07. Retrieved 2009-11-11.
19.6 See also • List of U.S. Army Rocket Launchers by model number
[13] “Long Range Precision Rocket System (LRPRS) – A Multiple- Launch Rocket System – MERX LOI Letter of Interest Notice”. Canadian American Strategic Review. Retrieved 2009-11-11. [14] Qatar Requests Sale of HIMARS, ATACMS and GMLRS - Deagel.com, December 24, 2012
• Astros II Multiple Launch Rocket System • BM-27 Multiple Launch Rocket System
19.8 External links
• BM-30 Multiple Launch Rocket System • M-26 artillery rocket • M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System • SR5 • A-100 • A-200 • TOS-1 Multiple Launch Rocket System • 9A52-4 Tornado
19.7 References [1] "Saint-Gobain delivers sapphire-engineered transparent armor" UPI / press release, 5 November 2013. Accessed: 19 June 2014. [2] HIMARS Launcher Successfully Fires Air Defense Missile [3] ISAF Weapon Fails to Hit Intended Target, 12 Civilians Killed [4] “Operation Moshtarak: missiles that killed civilians 'hit correct target'". Telegraph. 2010-02-16. Retrieved 201007-07. [5] “Artillery: It Wasn't Me”. Strategypage.com. 2010-0218. Retrieved 2010-07-07.
• M142 HIMARS Lockheed Martin High Mobility Artillery Rocket System(Army recognition) • https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/himars.htm • Army-Technology.com: HIMARS • Lockheed-Martin: HIMARS • DoD Press Release on Proposed HIMARS Sale to Singapore • Information about M26/M30/M31 MLRS rockets on designation-systems.net • MERX Release on Proposed HIMARS to the Canadian Forces in 2010 • Use of HIMARS system suspended in Afghanistan after 12 civilians killed by 300m targeting error
Chapter 20
Medium Extended Air Defense System The Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) is a ground-mobile air and missile defense system intended to replace the Patriot missile system through a NATO-managed development.[1] The program is a tri-national development of the USA, Germany, and Italy.
20.1 Description Under development by Germany, Italy, and the United States, MEADS is a ground-mobile air and missile defense (AMD) system intended to replace Patriot systems in the United States and Germany, and Nike Hercules systems in Italy. MEADS is designed to address the shortcomings of fielded systems and to permit full interoperability between the U.S. and allied forces. It is the only medium-range AMD system to provide full 360-degree coverage against tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiless, unmanned aerial vehicles, aircraft, and large-caliber rockets. MEADS provides ground-mobile air and missile defense with expanded coverage. The system provides enhanced force protection against a broad array of third-dimension threats. Improved interoperability, mobility, and full 360-degree defense capability against the evolving threat represent are key aspects. MEADS is the first air and missile defense (AMD) system that provides continuous onthe-move protection for maneuver forces. MEADS also provides area defense, homeland defense, and weighted asset protection.[2]
MEADS Over-the-Shoulder Launch at White Sands (MEADS International)
C-130 and A400M transport aircraft so they can quickly deploy to a theater of operations. Because MEADS uses fewer system assets, it permits a substantial reduction in deployed personnel and equipment. MEADS reduces deMEADS incorporates the Lockheed Martin hit-to-kill mand for airlift, so it can deploy to theater faster. PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) missile in The minimum MEADS engagement capability requires a system including 360-degree surveillance and fire con- only one launcher, one battle manager, and one fire control sensors, netted-distributed tactical operations cen- trol radar to provide 360-degree defense of troops or critters, and lightweight launchers.[3] A single MEADS bat- ical assets. As more system elements arrive, they autotery is able to defend up to 8 times the area of a Pa- matically and seamlessly join the MEADS network and triot battery through use of advanced 360-degree sen- build out capability. sors, near-vertical launch capability, and the longer-range The prime contractor, MEADS International, is a multiPAC-3 MSE missile. The MEADS radars – using active national joint venture headquartered in Orlando, Florida. phased arrays and digital beam forming – make full use Its participating companies are MBDA Italia, MBDA of the PAC-3 MSE missile’s extended range. Deutschland GmbH, and Lockheed Martin. The comTruck-mounted MEADS elements drive or roll on and off pany initially won a competitive downselect to develop 113
114
CHAPTER 20. MEDIUM EXTENDED AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM
the MEADS system in 1999,[4] but the program could not be started because the losing competitor filed two successive protests. In 2001, a $216 million Risk Reduction Effort contract was awarded to incorporate a new interceptor approach.[5] In May 2005, MEADS International signed a definitized contract valued at $2 billion plus €1.4 billion for MEADS design and development. This contract is expected to be completed in 2014.[6] The United States funds 58 percent of the MEADS Design and Development program, and European partners Germany and Italy provide 25 percent and 17 percent respectively.
fire control capabilities until a surveillance radar joins the network. The MFCR uses its main beam for uplink and downlink missile communications. An advanced Mode 5 identify friend-or-foe subsystem supports improved threat identification and typing.[12]
The German Bundeswehr completed an analysis of air defense alternatives in 2010 and strongly recommended MEADS as the basis for improving Germany’s missile defense shield and as Germany’s contribution to the European Phased Adaptive Approach.[7] In February 2011, the U.S. Department of Defense announced that it intended to fulfill its commitment to complete the design and development effort, but that it would not procure the MEADS system for budgetary reasons.[8] In October 2011, the National Armaments Directors of Germany, Italy, and the United States approved a contract amendment to fund two flight intercept tests, a launcher/missile characterization test, and a sensor characterization test before the MEADS Design and Development through 2014.[9]
MEADS Surveillance Radar (MEADS International)
Surveillance Radar (SR) – the UHF MEADS Surveillance Radar is a 360-degree active electronically steered array radar that provides extended range coverage. It provides threat detection capability against highly maneuverable low-signature threats, including short- and medium-range In September 2013, MEADS received operating certifi- ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and other air-breathing cation for its Mode 5 Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) threats. system. Mode 5 is more secure and provides positive lineof-sight identification of friendly platforms equipped with an IFF transponder to better protect allied forces.[10] MEADS is a candidate for the German Taktisches Luftverteidigungssystem (TLVS), a new generation of air and missile defense that requires flexible architecture based on strong networking capabilities. MEADS was a candidate for Poland’s Wisła medium range air defense system procurement, but was eliminated in June 2014 when competition was downselected to the US Patriot system and the French/Italian SAMP/T system.
20.2 Major End Items The MEADS air and missile defense system is composed of six major equipment items.[11] The MEADS radars, battle manager, and launchers are designed for high reliability so that the system will be able to maintain sustained operations much longer than legacy systems resulting in overall lower operation and support costs. Multifunction Fire Control Radar (MFCR) – an X-band, solid-state, phased array radar using element-level transmit/receive modules developed in Germany. The active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar provides precision tracking and wideband discrimination and classification capabilities. For extremely rapid deployments, the MEADS MFCR can provide both surveillance and
MEADS TOC (MEADS International)
Battle Management, Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence (BMC4I) Tactical Operations Center (TOC) – the MEADS TOC controls an advanced network-centric open architecture that allows any combination of sensors and launchers to be organized into a single air and missile defense battle element. The system is netted and distributed. Every MEADS battle manager, radar, and launcher is a wireless node on the network. By virtue of multiple communications paths, the network can be expanded or contracted as the situation dictates and precludes single point failure if one node becomes inoperable. It also has a plug-and-fight capability that allows MEADS launchers and radars to
20.3. PLUG-AND-FIGHT seamlessly enter and leave the network without shutting it down and interrupting ongoing operations. MEADS uses open, non-proprietary standardized interfaces to extend plug-and-fight to non-MEADS elements. This flexibility is new for ground-based AMD systems.[13]
115 In Germany, the PAC-3 missile is expected to be supplemented by IRIS-T SL as secondary missile for groundbased medium range air defense. It is based on the IRIST air-to-air missile. The shorter range IRIS-T SLS system uses unmodified IRIS-T air-to-air missiles launched from standard LAU-7 aircraft launchers four of which are mounted onto an all-terrain launch vehicle while the medium-range IRIS-T SL missile is equipped with an enlarged rocket motor, datalink, and jettisonable dragreducing nose cone.
20.3 Plug-and-Fight In the BMC4I TOC, plug-and-fight flexibility lets MEADS exchange data with non-MEADS sensors and shooters. The same capability lets MEADS move with ground forces and interoperate with allied forces. Through interoperability features designed into the sysGerman configuration MEADS launcher (MEADS International) tem, MEADS will dramatically improve combat effectiveness and situational awareness, reducing the potential Launcher and Reloader – the lightweight MEADS for fratricide. MEADS system elements can seamlessly launcher is easily transportable, tactically mobile, and ca- integrate into each nation’s, or NATO’s, combat architecpable of rapid reload. It carries up to eight PAC-3 Mis- ture as required. sile Segment Enhancement (MSE) Missiles and achieves launch readiness in minimum time.[14] A MEADS Units can be dispersed over a wide area. Command and reloader is similar but lacks launcher electronic systems. control of launchers and missiles can be handed over to a neighboring battle management unit while the initial sysCertified Missile Round (PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhance- tems are moved, maintaining maneuver force protection. ment and canister) – The PAC-3 Missile Segment En- Plug-and-fight connectivity lets MEADS elements attach hancement (MSE) missile is the baseline interceptor for to and detach from the network at will, with no requireMEADS. The interceptor increases the system’s range ment to shut the system down. and lethality over the baseline PAC-3 missile, which was selected as the primary missile for MEADS when the de- The MEADS plug-and-fight capability enables command sign and development program began in 2004. The MSE and control over other air and missile defense system elemissile increases the engagement envelope and defended ments through open, non-proprietary standardized interarea by using more responsive control surfaces and a more faces. MEADS implements a unique ability to work with secondary missile systems if selected, and to evolve as powerful rocket motor.[15] other capabilities are developed.[16]
20.4 Integration and Test History In July 2010, the MEADS BMC4I demonstrated its interoperability with the NATO Air Command and Control System (ACCS) during tests using the Active Layer Theatre Ballistic Missile Defense (ALTBMD) Integration Test Bed being developed by NATO. The test was an early maturity demonstration for the MEADS BMC4I capability.[17]
IRIS-T SL based on the IRIS-T air-to-air missile
In August 2010, the MEADS program completed an extensive series of Critical Design Review (CDR) events with a Summary CDR at MEADS International. Reviewers from Germany, Italy, the United States, and the NATO Medium Extended Air Defense System Management Agency (NAMEADSMA) evaluated the MEADS design criteria in a comprehensive series of 47 reviews.[18]
116
CHAPTER 20. MEDIUM EXTENDED AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM
In December 2010, the first MEADS launcher and Tactical Operations Center were displayed in ceremonies in Germany and Italy before initiating system integration tests at Pratica di Mare Air Force Base in Italy.[19]
listic missile trajectory, attacked from the north. The Surveillance Radar acquired both targets and provided target cues to the MEADS battle manager, which generated cue commands for the MFCR. The MFCR tracked In November 2011, it was announced that the MEADS both targets successfully and guided missiles from launchand German configuration to successful Multifunction Fire Control Radar had been integrated ers in the Italian [25] intercepts. with a MEADS TOC and launcher at Pratica di Mare Air Force Base. The objectives of the integration test series At White Sands Missile Range, Lockheed Martin and were to demonstrate that the MEADS TOC could control Northrop Grumman also demonstrated plug-and-fight the MEADS MFCR in coordination with the MEADS connectivity between MEADS and the U.S. Army’s InLauncher as initial operational proof of the plug-and-fight tegrated Battle Command System (IBCS). IBCS demoncapability. The MFCR demonstrated key functionali- strated ability to plug-and-fight a 360-degree MEADS ties including 360-degree target acquisition and track us- Surveillance Radar and Multifunction Fire Control ing both dedicated flights and other air traffic.[20] Then, Radar.[26] at White Sands Missile Range, MEADS demonstrated In July 2014, MEADS completed a comprehensive sysa first-ever over-the-shoulder launch of the PAC-3 MSE tem demonstration at Pratica di Mare Air Base, Italy. missile against a simulated target attacking from behind. The tests, including operational demonstrations run by It required a unique sideways maneuver, demonstrating German and Italian military personnel, were designed to a 360-degree capability. The missile executed a planned seamlessly add and subtract system elements under repreself-destruct sequence at the end of the mission after suc- sentative combat conditions, and to blend MEADS with cessfully engaging the simulated threat.[21] other systems in a larger system architecture. All criteria In November 2012 at White Sands Missile Range, MEADS detected, tracked, intercepted, and destroyed an air-breathing target in an intercept flight test. The test configuration included a networked MEADS Tactical Operations Center, lightweight launcher firing a PAC3 MSE, and a 360-degree MEADS Multifunction Fire Control Radar, which tracked the MQM-107 target and guided the missile to a successful intercept.[22]
for success were achieved.
In June 2013, during six days of testing, MEADS demonstrated network interoperability with NATO systems during Joint Project Optic Windmill (JPOW) exercises. MEADS demonstrated battle management capability to transmit, receive, and process Link 16 messages and to conduct threat engagements.[24]
further demonstrated capability to perform engagement coordination with other systems, which fielded system are unable to do.[27]
During the test, plug-and-fight capability to rapidly attach and control an external Italian deployable air defense radar was demonstrated. Also demonstrated was engage-on-remote flexibility, which allows operators to target threats at greater distances despite being masked by terrain. Through reassigning workload, MEADS demonstrated ability to maintain defense capabilities if any sysSeveral progress milestones were demonstrated during tem element is lost or fails. 2013, culminating in a 360-degree dual-intercept test that Interoperability with German and Italian air defense aswent beyond initial contract objectives. In April, the sets was demonstrated through exchange of standardized MEADS Surveillance Radar acquired and tracked a small NATO messages. Italian air-defense assets were intetest aircraft and relayed its location to a MEADS TOC, grated into a test bed at an Italian national facility, while which generated cue search commands. The MFCR, in the Surface to Air Missile Operations Centre and Patriot full 360-degree rotating mode, searched the cued area, assets were integrated into a test bed at the German Air acquired the target, and established a dedicated track.[23] Force Air Defense Center in Fort Bliss, Texas. MEADS
In November 2013, MEADS intercepted and destroyed two simultaneous targets attacking from opposite directions during a stressing demonstration of its 360-degree AMD capabilities at White Sands Missile Range, N.M. All elements of the MEADS system were tested, including the 360-degree MEADS Surveillance Radar, a networked MEADS battle manager, two lightweight launchers firing PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) Missiles and a 360-degree MEADS Multifunction Fire Control Radar (MFCR). The flight test achieved all criteria for success. The first target, a QF-4 air-breathing target, approached from the south as a Lance missile, flying a tactical bal-
In September 2014, MEADS MFCRs completed a sixweek performance test at Pratica di Mare Air Base, Italy, and MBDA Deutschland’s air defense center in Freinhausen. During the tests, the MEADS MFCR successfully demonstrated several advanced capabilities, many of which are critical for ground-mobile radar systems. Capabilities tested include tracking and canceling of jamming signals; searching, cueing and tracking in ground clutter; and successfully classifying target data using kinematic information.[28]
20.5 See also • S-500 (missile) - Next-generation Russian surfaceto-air missile.
20.7. EXTERNAL LINKS • Active electronically scanned array – an active electronically scanned array radar is a type of phased array radar whose transmitter and receiver functions are composed of numerous small solid-state transmit/receive modules (TRMs). • Plug-and-Fight – ability of system elements to attach to and detach from the network at will, with no requirement to shut the system down. • LFK NG – the new air defence missile of the German Army • MANTIS – the very short-range protection system of the German Army within the “SysFla” program. • NASAMS – air defence system using the AIM-120 AMRAAM, developed by Norway.
20.6 References [1] http://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jframe.html#http: //www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2003/ 32aamdc_oif-patriot_sep03.ppt|||
117
[14] Lightweight Meads launcher (press release), Lockheed Martin, Oct 2011. [15] Meads receives 66 million contract (press release), Lockheed Martin, Jan 2008. [16] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/ news/press-releases/2007/august/ MEADSUnveilsAdvancedBattl.html [17] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/ news/press-releases/2010/september/ MEADSDemonstratesInterope.html [18] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/ news/press-releases/2010/september/ MEADSCompletesCDRReadyFor.html [19] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/ news/press-releases/2010/december/ FirstMEADSBattleManagerRe.html [20] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/ news/press-releases/2011/november/ MEADSDemonstratesAdvanced.html
[2] http://meads-amd.com/fact-sheets/
[21] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/ news/press-releases/2011/november/ MEADSConductsSuccessfulFi.html
[3] http://www.meads-amd.com/index.php/about-meads/
[22] http://meads-amd.com/meads-ft-1/
[4] http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/ nato-agency-turns-down-meads-protest-55117/
[23] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/ us/news/press-releases/2013/april/ meads-low-frequency-sensor-successfully-cues-multifunction-fire-. html
[5] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/ us/news/press-releases/2001/july/ MEADSINTERNATIONALSIGNS216MILLIONRI. html [6] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/ news/press-releases/2011/november/ NationalArmamentsDirector.html [7] “Germany backs MEADS defence system over Patriot”. Reuters. 9 July 2010. [8] http://www.acq.osd.mil/docs/U.S._MEADS_Decision_ Fact_Sheet_Feb_11_2011.pdf [9] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/ news/press-releases/2011/november/ NationalArmamentsDirector.html [10] MEADS air defense system IFF Identification Friend or Foe system has been certified for operation - Armyrecognition.com, 4 September 2013 [11] Fires bulletin (US: Army), Jul–Sep 2008: 42–3 http://sill-www.army.mil/firesbulletin/2008/jul_sep_ 2008/Jul_Sep_2008_pages_42_43.pdf Missing or empty |title= (help). [12] Meads multifunction (press release), Lockheed Martin, August 2012. [13] Third Meads battle manager arrives in Huntsville (press release), Lockheed Martin, Feb 2012.
[24] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/ us/news/press-releases/2013/june/ mfc-0619213-meads-tactical-BMC4I.html [25] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/ news/press-releases/2013/november/ mfc-110613-Unprecedented-Dual-Intercept-Success-For-MEADS. html [26] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/ us/news/press-releases/2014/july/ mfc-072314-comprehensive-meads-network-tests-demonstrate-unmatchedhtml [27] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/ us/news/press-releases/2014/july/ mfc-072314-comprehensive-meads-network-tests-demonstrate-unmatchedhtml
[28] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/ news/press-releases/2014/september/ mfc-meads-multifunction-fire-control-radar-proves-capabilities-performanc html
20.7 External links • MEADS International website – MEADS program website
118
CHAPTER 20. MEDIUM EXTENDED AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM
• MBDA product page – German and Italian contractors • Lockheed Martin product page – U.S. contractor • IRIS-T SL/SLS – Further information on the IRIST SL/SLS missile by German manufacturer Diehl BGT.
Chapter 21
Bazooka For other uses, see Bazooka (disambiguation). Bazooka is the common name for a man-portable recoilless antitank rocket launcher weapon, widely fielded by the United States Army. Also referred to as the “Stovepipe”, the innovative bazooka was among the first generation of rocket-propelled anti-tank weapons used in infantry combat. Featuring a solid rocket motor for propulsion, it allowed for high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warheads to be delivered against armored vehicles, machine gun nests, and fortified bunkers at ranges beyond that of a standard thrown grenade or mine. The Bazooka also fired a HESH round, effective against buildings and tank armor. The universally applied nickname arose from the M1 variant’s vague resemblance to the musical instrument called a "bazooka" invented and popularized by 1930s U.S. comedian Bob Burns. During World War II, German armed forces captured several bazookas in early North African[2] and Eastern Front encounters and soon reverse engineered their own version,[2] increasing the warhead diameter to 8.8 cm (among other minor changes) and widely issuing it as the Raketenpanzerbüchse “Panzerschreck” (“Tank terror”).[2]
lab and Mount Wilson Observatory (for security reasons), designed a tube-fired rocket for military use during World War I. He and his co-worker, Dr. Clarence N. Hickman, successfully demonstrated his rocket to the US Army Signal Corps at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, on November 6, 1918, but as the Compiègne Armistice was signed only five days later, further development was discontinued. The delay in the development of the bazooka was as a result of Goddard’s serious bout with tuberculosis. Goddard continued to be a part-time consultant to the US government at Indian Head, Maryland, until 1923, but soon turned his focus to other projects involving rocket propulsion. Hickman later became head of the National Defense Research Committee in the 1940s where he guided rocket development for the war effort, including completing the development of the bazooka.[3]
21.2 Shaped charge development
The term “bazooka” continues to be used informally as Shaped charge technology was developed in the US into a a genericized term to refer to any shoulder-fired missile shaped charge hand grenade for use by infantry, effective at defeating up to 60 mm (2.4 in) of vehicle armor. The weapon (mainly rocket propelled grenades). grenade was standardized as the M10. However, the M10 grenade weighed 3.5 lb (1.6 kg), was difficult to throw by hand, and too heavy to be launched as a rifle grenade. The 21.1 Design and development only practical way to use the weapon was for an infantryman to place it directly on the tank, an unlikely means The development of the bazooka involved the developof delivery in most combat situations. A smaller, less ment of two specific lines of technology: the rocketpowerful version of the M10, the M9, was then develpowered (recoilless) weapon, and the shaped-charge waroped, which could be fired from a rifle. This resulted in head. It was also designed for easy maneuverability and the creation of a series of rifle grenade launchers, the M1 access. (Springfield M1903), the M2 (Enfield M1917), the M7 (M1 Garand), and the M8 (M1 Carbine). However, a truly capable anti-tank weapon had yet to be found, and 21.1.1 World War I following the lead of other countries at the time, the U.S. for a more The Rocket-Powered Recoilless Weapon was the brain- Army prepared to evaluate competing designs [4][5] effective man portable anti-tank weapon. child of Dr. Robert H. Goddard as a side project (under Army contract) of his work on rocket propulsion. God- The combination of rocket motor and shaped charge wardard, during his tenure at Clark University, and while head would lead to Army development of light antitank working at Worcester Polytechnic Institute's magnetics weapons.[6] 119
120
CHAPTER 21. BAZOOKA
21.2.1
Rocket-borne shaped weapons development
charge and used a launch tube without reinforcements. During
In 1942, U.S. Army Colonel Leslie Skinner received the M10 shaped-charge grenade which was capable of stopping German tanks. He tasked Lieutenant Edward Uhl with creating a delivery system for the grenade. Uhl created a small rocket, but needed to protect the firer from the rocket exhaust and aim the weapon. According to Uhl, I was walking by this scrap pile, and there was a tube that... happened to be the same size as the grenade that we were turning into a rocket. I said, That’s the answer! Put the tube on a soldier’s shoulder with the rocket inside, and away it goes.”[1]
the war, the M1A1 received a number of running modifications. The battery specification was changed to a larger, standard battery cell size, resulting in complaints of batteries getting stuck in the wood shoulder rest (the compartment was later reamed out to accommodate the larger cells).[8] This was followed by a new aperture rear sight and a front rectangular “frame” sight positioned at the muzzle. The vertical sides of the frame sight were inscribed with graduations of 100, 200, and 300 yards. On the M9, the iron sights were at first replaced by a plastic optical ring sight, which proved unsatisfactory in service, frequently turning opaque after a few days’ exposure to sunlight.[9] Later iron sights were hinged to fold against the tube when not in use, and were protected by a cover. The launcher also had an adjustable range scale that provided graduations from 50 to 700 yards (46 to 640 meters) in 50-yard (46 m) increments. An additional strap iron shoulder brace was fitted to the launcher, along with various types of blast deflectors. The bazooka required special care when used in tropical or arctic climates or in severe dust or sand conditions. Rockets were not to be fired at temperatures below 0º F or above 120º F (−18° C to +49° C).[10]
21.2.2 Field experience induced changes In 1943, field reports of rockets sticking and prematurely detonating in M1A1 launch tubes were received by Army Ordnance at Ogden Arsenal and other production faciliThe M1 Bazooka ties. At the US Army’s Aberdeen Proving Grounds, varBy late 1942, the improved Rocket Launcher, M1A1 ious metal collars and wire wrapping were used on the was introduced. The forward hand grip was deleted, and sheet metal launch tube in an effort to reinforce it. Howthe design simplified. The production M1A1 was 54 ever, reports of premature detonation continued until the inches (1.37 m) long and weighed only 12.75 pounds (5.8 development of bore slug test gauges to ensure that the kg). rocket did not catch inside the launch tube.[11] The ammunition for the original M1 launcher was the M6, which was notoriously unreliable. The M6 was improved and designated M6A1, and the new ammunition was issued with the improved M1A1 launcher. After the M6, several alternative warheads were introduced. The 2.36-inch Smoke Rocket M10 and its improved subvariants (M10A1, M10A2, M10A4) used the rocket motor and fin assembly of the M6A1, but replaced the anti-tank warhead with a white phosphorus (WP) smoke head. WP smoke not only acts as a visible screen, but its burning particles can cause burns on human skin. The M10 was therefore used to mark targets, to blind enemy gunners or vehicle drivers, or to drive troops out of bunkers and dugouts.[7] The 2.36-Inch Incendiary Rocket T31 was an M10 variant with an incendiary warhead designed to ignite fires in enemy-held structures and unarmored vehicles, or to destroy combustible supplies, ammunition, and materiel; it was not often utilized.
The original M6 and M6A1 rockets used in the M1 and M1A1 launchers had a pointed nose, which was found to cause deflection from the target at low impact angles. In late 1943, another 2.36-in rocket type was adopted, the M6A3, for use with the newly standardized M9 rocket launcher.[4] The M6A3 was 19.4 inches (493 mm) long, and weighed 3.38 lb (1.53 kg). It had a blunted, more round nose to improve target effect at low angles, and a new circular fin assembly to improve flight stability. The M6A3 was capable of penetrating 3.5 to 4 inches (89 to 102mm) of armor plate.
Battery problems in the early bazookas eventually resulted in replacement of the battery-powered ignition system with a magneto sparker system operated through the trigger. A trigger safety was incorporated into the design that isolated the magneto, preventing misfires that could occur when the trigger was released and the stored charge prematurely fired the rocket. The final major change The original M1 and M1A1 rocket launchers were was the division of the launch tube into two discrete secequipped with a simple rear sight and fixed front sight, tions, with bayonet-joint attachments. This was done to
21.3. OPERATIONAL USE
121
make the weapon more convenient to carry, particularly for use by airborne forces. The final two-piece launcher was standardized as the M9A1. However, the long list of incorporated modifications increased the launcher’s tube length to 61 inches (1.55 m), with an overall empty weight of 14.3 lb (6.5 kg). From its original conception as a relatively light, handy, and disposable weapon, the final M9A1 launcher had become a heavy, clumsy, and relatively complex piece of equipment.[9] In October 1944, after receiving reports of inadequate combat effect of the M1A1 and M9 launchers and their M6A1 rockets, and after examining captured examples of the German 8.8 cm RPzB 43 and RPzB 54 Panzerschreck, the US Ordnance Corps began development on a new, more powerful anti-tank rocket launcher, A U.S. soldier fires an M9 bazooka at a German machine gun the 3.5-inch M20. However, the weapon’s design was not nest, Lucca 1944. completed until after the war and saw no action against an enemy until Korea.[12] In 1945, the U.S. Army’s Chemical Warfare Service standardized improved chemical warfare rockets intended for the new M9 and M9A1 launchers, adopting the M26 Gas Rocket, a cyanogen chloride (CK)-filled warhead for the 2.36-in rocket launcher.[13] CK, a deadly blood agent, was capable of penetrating the protective filter barriers in some gas masks,[14] and was seen as an effective agent against Japanese forces (particularly those hiding in caves or bunkers), whose gas masks lacked the impregnants that would provide protection against the chemical reaction of CK.[13][15][16] While stockpiled in US inventory, the CK rocket was never deployed or issued to combat personnel.[13]
M1A1 bazooka (using an improved rocket, the M6A1) were used in combat by US forces. The M1A1 accounted for four medium German tanks and a heavy Tiger I, with the latter being knocked out by a freak hit through the driver’s vision slot.[12] A major disadvantage to the bazooka was the large backblast and smoke trail (in colder weather), which gave away the position of the shooter, mandating quick relocation of the squad. Moreover, the bazooka fire team often had to expose their bodies in order to obtain a clear field of fire against an armored target. Casualties among bazooka team members were extremely high during the war , and assignment to such duty in the face of German counterfire was typically regarded by other platoon members as not only highly dangerous, but nearly suicidal .
21.3 Operational use
When the existence of the bazooka was revealed to the American public official press releases for the first two years stated that it “packed the wallop of a 155mm cannon”—a great exaggeration, but widely accepted by the American public at the time.[18]
21.3.1
World War II
Secretly introduced via the Russian front and in November 1942 during Operation Torch, early production versions of the M1 launcher and M6 rocket were hastily supplied to some of the U.S. invasion forces during the landings in North Africa. On the night before the landings, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower was shocked to discover from a subordinate that none of his troops had received any instruction in the use of the bazooka.[17] Initially supplied with the highly unreliable M6 rocket and without training, the M1 did not play a significant armed role in combat in the North African fighting,[12] but did provide a German intelligence coup[2] when some were captured by the Germans in early encounters with inexperienced US troops. A US general visiting the Tunisian front in 1943 after the close of combat operations could not find any soldiers who could report that the weapon had actually stopped an enemy tank.[12] Further issue of the bazooka was suspended in May 1943. During the Allied invasion of Sicily, small numbers of the
In late 1942, numbers of early-production American M1 bazookas were captured by German troops from Russian forces who had been given quantities of the bazooka under Lend-Lease as well as during the Operation Torch invasions in the North African Campaign.[2] The Germans promptly developed their own version of the weapon, increasing the diameter of the warhead from 60 mm to 88 mm (2.4 to 3.5 in). In German service, the bazooka was popularly known as the Panzerschreck. The German weapon, with its larger, more powerful warhead, had significantly greater armor penetration; ironically, calls for a larger-diameter warhead had also been raised by some ordnance officers during U.S. trials of the M1, but were rejected. After participating in an armor penetration test involving a German Panther tank using both the Raketenpanzerbüchse, or RPzB 54 Panzerschreck and the U.S. M9 bazooka, Corporal Donald E. Lewis of the U.S. Army informed his superiors that the Panzerschreck was “far superior to the American bazooka": ‘I was so favorably im-
122
CHAPTER 21. BAZOOKA
pressed [by the Panzerschreck] I was ready to take after the thin armor plate used by the Japanese and destroyed the Krauts with their own weapon.[19] ’ the vehicle.[26] Overall, the M1A1, M9, and M9A1 rocket The M1 bazooka fared much better on the rare occasions launchers were viewed as useful and effective weapons when it could be used against the much thinner armor during World War II, though they had been primarily and fixed fortitypically fitted to the lower sides, underside, and top of employed against enemy emplacements [19] fications, not as anti-tank weapons. General Dwight enemy tanks. To hit the bottom panel of an enemy tank, Eisenhower later described it as one of the four “Tools the bazooka operator had to wait until the tank was surof Victory” which won World War II for the Allies (tomounting a steep hill or other obstruction, while hitting gether with the atom bomb, Jeep and the C-47 Skytrain the top armor usually necessitated firing the rocket from [27][28] the upper story of a building or similar elevated position. transport aircraft). During the 1944 Allied offensive in France, when some examples of liaison aircraft with the U.S. Army began to be experimentally field-armed, and were already flying with pairs or quartets of the American ordnance[20] — and most notably used during the Battle of Arracourt — Major Charles “Bazooka Charlie” Carpenter mounted a battery of three M9 bazookas on the wing-to-fuselage struts on each side of his L-4 Grasshopper aircraft in order to attack enemy armor, and was credited with destroying six enemy tanks, including two Tiger I heavy tanks.[21][22] Despite the introduction of the M9 bazooka with its more powerful rocket—the M6A3—in late 1943, reports of the weapon’s effectiveness against enemy armor decreased alarmingly in the latter stages of World War II, as new German tanks with thicker and better-designed cast armor plate and armor skirts/spaced armor were introduced. This development forced bazooka operators to target less well-protected areas of the vehicle, such as the tracks, drive sprockets, bogey wheels, or rear engine compartment. In a letter dated May 20, 1944, Gen. George S. Patton stated to a colleague that “the purpose of the bazooka is not to hunt tanks offensively, but to be used as a last resort in keeping tanks from overrunning infantry. To insure this, the range should be held to around 30 yards.”[12] The extreme difficulty of closing to grenadethrowing distances unnoticed before hitting small spot targets on an enemy tank helps explain the high mortality rate of men assigned to anti-tank rocket launcher duty. In the Pacific campaign, as in North Africa, the original bazookas sent to combat often had reliability issues. The battery-operated firing circuit was easily damaged during rough handling, and the rocket motors often failed because of high temperatures and exposure to moisture, salt air, or humidity. With the introduction of the M1A1 and its more reliable rocket ammunition, the bazooka was effective against some fixed Japanese infantry emplacements such as small concrete bunkers and pill boxes.[23][24] Against coconut and sand emplacements, the weapon was not always effective, as these softer structures often reduced the force of the warhead’s impact enough to prevent detonation of the explosive charge.[25] Later in the Pacific war, most infantry and marine units often used the M2 flamethrower to attack such emplacements.[25] In the few instances in the Pacific where the bazooka was used against tanks and armored vehicles, the rocket’s warhead easily penetrated
21.3.2 Korean War The success of the more powerful German Panzerschreck caused the bazooka to be completely redesigned at the close of World War II. A larger, 3.5 in (90 mm) model was adopted, the M20 “Super Bazooka”. Though bearing a superficial resemblance to the Panzerschreck, the M20 had greater effective range, penetrating capability and was nearly 20% lighter than its German counterpart. The M20 weighed 14.3 pounds (6.5 kg) and fired a hollow shaped-charge 9 lb (4 kg) M28A2 HEAT rocket when used in an anti-tank role. It was also operated by a twoman team and had a claimed rate of fire of six shots per minute. As with its predecessor, the M20 could also fire rockets with either practice (M29A2) or WP smoke (T127E3/M30) warheads. Having learned from experience of the sensitivity of the bazooka and its ammunition to moisture and harsh environments, the ammunition for the new weapon was packaged in moisture-resistant packaging, and the M20’s field manual contained extensive instructions on launcher lubrication and maintenance, as well as storage of rocket ammunition.[29][30] When prepared for shipment from the arsenal, the weapon was protected by antifungal coatings over all electrical contacts, in addition to a cosmoline coating in the hand-operated magneto that ignited the rocket. Upon issue, these coatings were removed with solvent to ready the M20 for actual firing.
A 3.5 inch bazooka rocket — loader training projectile.
Budget cutbacks initiated by Secretary of Defense Louis A. Johnson in the years following World War II effectively canceled the intended widespread issue of the M20, and initial US forces deploying to Korea were armed solely with the M9/M9A1 2.36-in. launcher and old stockpiled World War II inventories of M6A3 rocket ammunition. During the initial stages of the Korean War, complaints resurfaced over the ineffectiveness of the 2.36-inch M9 and M9A1 against Soviet-supplied enemy armor. In one notable incident, infantry blocking forces of the US Army’s Task Force Smith were over-
21.4. VARIANTS
123
run by 33 North Korean T-34/85 tanks despite repeat- 21.4.2 Rocket Launcher, M1A1 edly firing 2.36 inch rockets into the rear engine com“Bazooka” partments of the vehicles.[31][32] Additionally, Ordnance authorities received numerous combat reports regarding • Improved electrical system the failure of the M6A3 warhead to properly detonate • Simplified design upon impact, eventually traced to inventories of rocket ammunition that had deteriorated from numerous years • Used the M6A1 rocket of storage in humid or salt air environments. Supplies of 3.5- in M20 launchers with M28A2 HEAT rocket ammu• Forward hand grip deleted. nition were hurriedly airlifted from the United States to • Contact box removed. South Korea, where they proved very effective against the [33] T-34 and other Soviet tanks. Large numbers of 2.36inch Bazooka that were captured during the Chinese Civil 21.4.3 Rocket Launcher, M9 “Bazooka” War were also employed by the Chinese forces against the American Sherman and Patton tanks,[34] and the Chinese • Optical reflector sight — the M9 and M9A1 featured later reverse engineered and produced a copy of the M20 the D7161556 folding “Reflecting Sight Assembly”. designated the Type 51.[35] • Reinforced launch tube
21.3.3
Vietnam War
• Metal Furniture
• Used the improved M6A3 rocket The M20 “Super Bazooka” was used in the early stages • Could penetrate up to 4 inches (102 mm) of armor of the war in Vietnam by the US Marines before gradually being phased out of in favor of the M67 recoilless • Supplanted M1A1 in 1944 rifle and later, the M72 LAW rocket.[36] While occasions to destroy enemy armored vehicles proved exceedingly • Could be disassembled into two halves for easier rare, it was employed against enemy fortifications and carrying.[39] emplacements with success. The M20 remained in service with South Vietnamese and indigenous forces until 21.4.4 Rocket Launcher, M9A1 the late 1960s. The Vietnam People’s Army also developed their own bazooka under the management of Tran Dai Nghia. It was successfully test-fired in 1947.[37][38]
21.3.4
Other conflicts
“Bazooka” • Battery ignition replaced by trigger magneto.
21.4.5 Rocket Launcher, M18 “Bazooka” • Experimental
Portuguese defense forces used quantities of M9A1 and M20 rocket launchers in their overseas departments in Africa against Marxist guerrilla forces during the Portuguese Colonial Wars. The French Army also used the M1A1, M9A1, and M20 launchers in various campaigns in Indochina and Algeria.
21.4 Variants 21.4.1
Rocket Launcher, M1 “Bazooka”
• First issued June 14, 1942 by Capt. L.A. Skinner • Used the M6 rocket • Could penetrate up to 3 inches (76 mm) of armor. • Velocity of 265fps (80.77 m/s, 180 mph)
• Aluminum alloy • Weight of 10.5 lbs • Ordered late summer 1945, canceled at war end.
21.4.6 Rocket Launcher, Bazooka”
M20 “Super
• Larger 3.5 in (88.9 mm) calibre warhead (Panzerschreck was 88mm calibre) • Could penetrate up to 11 inches (280 mm) of armor • Extended range by about 150 m • Originally a larger version of the M9A1, designated M20 in late 1944. • Entered active service just before the start of the Korean War.
124
CHAPTER 21. BAZOOKA
21.4.13 88.9mm Instalaza M65
Super Bazooka (mislabeled “SAM-7 shoulder-launched antiaircraft missile”) in Batey ha-Osef Museum, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
21.4.7
21.5 Specifications
Rocket Launcher, M20A1 “Super Bazooka” 21.5.1 M1
• Product improved variant with improved connector latch assembly, entering production in 1952[40] • Improved version of the M20
21.4.8
Rocket Launcher, M20B1 “Super Bazooka”
• Lightweight version with barrels made of cast aluminum, other components simplified • Used as a supplement to the M20
21.4.9
• Developed by Instalaza for use by the Spanish Army, the M65 was an improved version of the M20 “Super Bazooka”. It used an improved ignition method and new ammunition types.[43] The available ammunition used were the CHM65 (High-Explosive AntiTank), MB66 (Dual-Purpose), and FIM66 (Smoke) shells.
Rocket Launcher, M20A1B1 “Super Bazooka”
• M20B1 upgraded with M20A1 improvements
• Length: 54 in (137 cm) • Caliber: 2.36 in (57 mm) • Weight: 13 lb (5.9 kg) • Warhead: M6 shaped charge (3.5 lb, 1.59 kg) • Range • Maximum: 400 yards (370 m) • Effective: (claimed) 150 yards (140 m) • Crew: 2, operator and loader
21.5.2 M1A1 • Length: 54 in (137 cm) • Caliber: 2.36 in (57 mm) • Weight: 12.75 lb (5.8 kg)
21.4.10
Rocket Launcher, M25 “Three Shot Bazooka”
• Experimental tripod mounted rocket launcher with overhead magazine circa 1955.[41]
• Warhead: M6A1 shaped charge (3.5 lb, 1.59 kg) • Range • Maximum: 400 yards (370 m) • Effective: (claimed) 150 yards (140 m) • Crew: 2, operator and loader
21.4.11
RL-83 Blindicide
• RL-83 Blindicide an improved “Bazooka” design of Belgian origin. Used by Belgian forces during the Congo Crisis and by the Swiss Army, Mexican Army and Israeli Army and various other armed forces.
21.4.12
3.5 in HYDROAR M20A1B1 Rocket Launcher
• Brazil, manufactured by Hydroar SA — improved 3.5 M20A1B1 with US designed hand grip magneto trigger replaced with one with solid state firing circuit powered by two AA batteries.[42]
21.5.3 M9/M9A1 • Length: 61 in (155 cm) • Caliber: 2.36 in (57 mm) • Weight: 14.3 lb (6.5 kg) • Warhead: M6A3/C shaped charge (3.5 lb, 1.59 kg) • Range • Maximum: 400–500 yards (370–460 m) • Effective: (claimed) 120 yards (110 m) • Crew: 2, operator and loader (M9) or 1, operator+loader (M9A1)
21.7. SEE ALSO
21.5.4
M20A1/A1B1
• Length (when assembled for firing): 60 in (1,524 mm) • Caliber: 3.5 in (90 mm) • Weight (unloaded): M20A1: 14.3 lb (6.5 kg); M20A1B1: 13 lb (5.9 kg) • Warhead: M28A2 HEAT (9 lb) or T127E3/M30 WP (8.96 lb) • Range • Maximum: 1000 yd (913 m) • Effective (stationary target/moving target): 300 yd (270 m) / 200 yd (180 m) • Crew: 2, operator and loader
21.6 Users •
Argentina: Super Bazooka, replaced by AT4
•
Austria: replaced by Carl Gustav recoilless rifle
•
Brazil[42]
•
Bolivia HEAT and HE versions.
•
Cambodia
•
Canada
•
People’s Republic of China: large numbers of 2.36-inch bazookas were captured by the Chinese Communists during the Chinese Civil War,[34] and China also copied the 3.5-inch as the Type 51 — with a projectile 90mm in diameter. The Type 51 can fire captured 3.5-inch projectiles (i.e. 90 mm), but 3.5-inch Super Bazookas cannot load projectiles made for the Type 51.
125 •
Luxembourg
•
Malaysia
•
Mexico: replaced by M72 LAW
•
Myanmar
•
Netherlands
•
Pakistan
•
Paraguay
•
Philippines
•
Portugal
•
Rhodesia
•
South Africa
•
Soviet Union
•
Spain M65 - improved Spanish design.
•
Sweden: as Raketgevär 46, replaced by the Carl Gustav recoilless rifle
•
Thailand: as คจตถ. 3.5 นิ้ว in Royal Thai Army, replaced by Type 69 RPG
•
Tunisia
•
Turkey
•
United Kingdom
•
United States
21.7 See also
•
Republic of China
•
Cyprus
• List of U.S. Army weapons by supply catalog designation (Group B)
•
France
• M72 LAW
•
West Germany
• Rocket-propelled grenade
•
Greece
• PIAT
•
Indonesia
• Panzerfaust
•
India
• •
Japan: JGSDF used Super Bazooka, replaced by the Carl Gustav recoilless rifle Republic of Korea
• Panzerschreck • Lieutenant Colonel Charles Carpenter, who used them from a liaison aircraft to knock out Wehrmacht tanks in 1944–45
126
21.8 References [1] Scales, Robert (May 31, 2010), “Edward Uhl”, Time.
CHAPTER 21. BAZOOKA
[24] Harclerode, Peter (2005), Wings of War–Airborne Warfare 1918–1945, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, pp. 332–33, ISBN 0-304-36730-3.
[2] MC 2008; with cheap cost per use and which any 'farm peasant can be trained to fire’, the AT4 CS is the modernday descendant of the Bazooka (paraphrased conclusion).
[25] Kleber & Birdsell 2001, pp. 549–54.
[3] Mike Gruntman (30 July 2004). Blazing the Trail: The Early History of Spacecraft and Rocketry. American Institute of Aeronautics & Ast. p. 178. ISBN 9781563477058.
[27] “The US Forces included Navy, Army, Army Air Force and Marine Corps”. Digger history. Archived from the original on 12 December 2008. Retrieved 2008-11-19.
[4] BS 2010. [5] Green & Green 2000, pp. 36–37. [6] Zaloga, Steven J (2005), US Anti-tank Artillery 1941–45, Oxford: Osprey, p. 8. [7] Smith, Carl (2000), US Paratrooper, 1941–45, Osprey, p. 63, ISBN 978-1-85532-842-6. [8] Dunlap 1948, pp. 304–5. [9] Dunlap 1948, pp. 304.
[26] Green, Michael (2004), Weapons of the Modern Marines, Zenith Imprint Press, p. 45, ISBN 978-0-7603-1697-9.
[28] “Douglas VC-47A Skytrain DC-3”. Aircraft. March field. Archived from the original on 3 December 2008. Retrieved 2008-11-19. [29] TM 9-297, 3.5-inch Rocket Launchers M20 and M20B1 (technical manual), Department of the Army, 10 August 1950, pp. 31–35, 86–88. [30] TM 9-1055-201-12, Launcher, Rocket, 3.5-in M20A1 and M20A1 B1 (technical manual), Washington, DC: Department of the Army, August 1968, p. 39. [31] Fukumitsu, Keith K, “No More Task Force Smiths”, Professional bulletin (US: Army).
[10] TM 9-294: 2.36-inch A.T. Rocket Launcher M1A1, US War Department, Sep 1943.
[32] former members of Task Force Smith (1985), To President Reagan on failure of 2.36 inch bazooka (letter).
[11] Keith, Elmer (1979), Hell, I Was There, Petersen Publishing, pp. 184–91, ISBN 978-0-8227-3014-9.
[33] Blair, Clay (2003), The Forgotten War: America in Korea, 1950–1953, Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, ISBN 1-59114-075-7.
[12] Green & Green 2000, pp. 38–39. [13] Smart, Jeffrey (1997), “2”, History of Chemical and Biological Warfare: An American Perspective, Aberdeen, MD, USA: Army Chemical and Biological Defense Command, p. 32. [14] http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ershdb/ EmergencyResponseCard_29750039.html [15] “Characteristics and Employment of Ground Chemical Munitions”, Field Manual 3-5, Washington, DC: War Department, 1946, pp. 108–19. [16] Skates, John R (2000), The Invasion of Japan: Alternative to the Bomb, University of South Carolina Press, pp. 93– 96, ISBN 978-1-57003-354-4 [17] Green & Green 2000, p. 38. [18] Popular Mechanics, January 1944. [19] Green & Green 2000, p. 39. [20] Francis, Devon E., Mr. Piper and His Cubs, Iowa State University Press, ISBN 0-8138-1250-X, 9780813812502 (1973), p. 117 [21] “What’s New in Aviation”, Popular Science 146 (2), February 1945: 84 |chapter= ignored (help). [22] Carpenter, Leland F, “Piper L-4J Grasshopper”, Aviation Enthusiast Corner, Aero Web, retrieved 21 October 2011. [23] Rottman, Gordon L (2007), US Airborne Units in the Pacific Theater 1942–45, Osprey, p. 43, ISBN 978-184603-128-1.
[34] Appleman, Roy (1989). Disaster in Korea: The Chinese Confront MacArthur. Military History 11. College Station, Texas: Texas A and M University. pp. 17–18, 118, 188, 120, 190. ISBN 978-1-60344-128-5. [35] Archer, Denis HR (1976), Infantry Weapons, Jane, p. 572, ISBN 0-531-03255-8. [36] The U.S. Army had transitioned to the M67 recoilless rifle prior to deploying units to Vietnam [37] “Kỷ niệm 100 năm ngày sinh của cố GS. VS Trần Đại Nghĩa (100th birth anniversary of the late Professor. VS Tran Dai Nghia)" (in Vietnamese). Báo điện tử Quân đội nhân dân (People’s Army Newspaper Online). 13 September 2013. [38] “Chuyện chưa kể về Giáo sư Viện sĩ Trần Đại Nghĩa (The Untold Story of Academician Prof. Tran Dai Nghia)". Phunutoday (in Vietnamese). 24 January 2012. [39] Guzmán, Julio S (April 1953), Las Armas Modernas de Infantería (in Spanish). [40] “Contactor latch assembly standardized” (JPEG), Preventative Maintenance Monthly (William ‘Bill’ Ricca), Nov 1952. [41] Military Review (Jane), Fourth, 4/1/1985: 81, ISBN 07106-0334-7 Check date values in: |date= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help). [42] J 1996, p. 300. [43] “Spain - M65 Anti-Tank Rocket Launcher”. Tanks.Net. Retrieved 23 June 2013.
21.10. EXTERNAL LINKS
21.9 Bibliography • “Infantry Anti-Tank Weapons”, Bayonet strength, 150m. • Dunlap, Roy F (1948), Ordnance Went Up Front, Samworth Press. • Green, Michael; Green, Gladys (2000), Weapons of Patton’s Armies, Zenith Imprint Press, ISBN 978-07603-0821-9. • Infantry Weapons, Jane, 1995–96. • Kleber, Brooks E; Birdsell, Dale (2001-12-12) [1966], “XIV. The Flame Thrower In The Pacific: Guadalcanal to the Marshall Islands”, The Chemical Warfare Service: Chemicals in Combat (online ed.), Washington, DC, USA: Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of the Army. • "Grenades through RPGs", Weaponology (programme), Military Channel, 2008-11-18.
21.10 External links • “How the Bazooka Team Stops Them” , December 1943, Popular Science article on the early M1 Bazooka with rare photos • 3.5 inch Super Bazooka instructions - 1965 Marine Guide Book Manual • Anti-Tank Rocket M6 Bazooka • 90th Infantry Division Preservation Group page on Bazookas and Equipment • New GI Weapons, October 1950, Popular Science see pages 98 and 99
127
Chapter 22
M47 Dragon The M47 Dragon, known as the FGM-77 during development, is an American shoulder-fired, man-portable anti-tank missile system. It was phased out of U.S. military service in 2001, in favor of the newer FGM-148 Javelin system.[4] The M47 Dragon uses a wire-guidance system in concert with a high explosive anti-tank warhead and was capable of defeating armored vehicles, fortified bunkers, main battle tanks, and other hardened targets. While it was primarily created to defeat the Soviet Union's T-55, T-62, and T-72 tanks, it saw use well into the 1990s, seeing action in the Persian Gulf War. The U.S. military officially retired the weapon in 2001, although stocks of the weapon remain in U.S. arsenals.
22.1 History
U.S. Army soldiers in October 1983, armed with the M47 Dragon during the Invasion of Grenada.
The principles of flight and guidance were interesting. The first oddity was the delay between snapping the trigger and the ignition of the launch motor. This was due to a chemical battery charging the initiator circuit (the operator could hear a rising whine similar to the whine made by early integrated flash cameras when charging the flash circuit). This usually led to the operator tensing up in anticipation of the sudden explosion from the launcher that he knew was coming. The missile was discharged from the launcher tube by a “launch motor”, which was a rocket motor that completely expended itself within the tube so as not to injure the operator with exhaust gas. The missile coasted away from the operator and a burning infrared flare was ignited at the rear of the missile. After the missile was about 30–50 meters from the gunner, the missile was propelled forward and guided towards the target by 3 rows of rocket propellants aligned longitudinally along the missile body. The rocket spiraled as it moved forward, and the rocket propellants were fired in pairs to move the missile forward as well as keep the missile on target. These were activated by the sight controller which sent signals from the sight mechanism to the missile along the wire which spooled out behind the missile and remained connected to the sight. The operator kept the sight crosshairs on the target; the sight tracked the infrared flare and sent corrections to the missile service motor to bring the flight of the missile to the aim point. The service charges were fired as needed both to keep the missile correcting toward the aim point and to keep it up and moving forward. A missile moving towards a stationary target and tracked by a steady gunner would fire the rockets about every .5 to 1 second, resulting in its signature 'popping' sound as it moved downrange. If the operator over-corrected his aim point beyond the service motor’s capability to keep up, the missile grounded itself. Conversely, if the guidance wire broke, the missile would fire its rockets rapidly, sending the missile into a rapid ascent. This was a recoilless weapon—the launcher did not “kick” per se when fired—but the sudden loss of the 30 lb missile weight from the shoulder caused many soldiers to flinch badly enough to lose track of the target, resulting in a missile grounding.
Used by the U.S. Army, the U.S. Marine Corps, as well as many foreign militaries, the M47 Dragon was first fielded in January 1975 to U.S. Army soldiers stationed in mainland Europe.[5] The effective range of the Dragon was about 1000 meters, with the missile traveling 100 meters per second, guided by an infrared sight. The operator The M47 Dragon was not particularly popular with U.S. had to continue to track the missile to its target, which soldiers. Because of the missile’s relatively short range exposed him to enemy fire. 128
22.4. USERS
129
22.4 Users
A U.S. Army soldier firing M47 Dragon.
and signature 'popping' sound as the missile was propelled towards the target, M47 Dragon crews were expected to take heavy casualties in the event of hostilities between A Swiss Army M47 Dragon on display in October 2006. the United States and the Soviet Union.
22.2 Variants 22.2.1
Dragon II
Designed and upgraded from Dragon in 1985 when its penetration effectiveness was increased.
22.2.2
Super-Dragon
Upgraded from Dragon II in 1990, it was capable of penetrating 18 inches (450 mm) of armor at a maximum effective range of 1,500 meters.
22.2.3 Saeghe Iran has reverse-engineered a version of the Dragon, the Saeghe. They displayed it in 2002 at the Defendory exhibition in Athens, when it was in mass production.[3] Hezbollah has acquired Saeghes for anti-tank and antiarmor uses.[6]
• •
Iran[7] Iraq: Acquired M47 Dragons captured from Iran.[2]
•
Israel[7]
•
Jordan[7]
•
Morocco[7]
• • •
Netherlands:[7] Was replaced by the Spike in August 2001.[8] Saudi Arabia Spain:[7] Phased out of service, being replaced by the Spike.[8]
•
Switzerland[7]
•
Thailand[7]
•
United States:[7] Since replaced by the FGM148 Javelin.
22.5 See also
Known versions include Saeghe-1 and Saeghe-2.[3] • FGM-148 Javelin
22.3 Components The launcher system of the M47 Dragon consists of a smoothbore fiberglass tube, breech/gas generator, tracker, bipod, battery, sling, and forward and aft shock absorbers. In order to fire the weapon, non-integrated day or night sights must be attached. While the launcher itself is expendable, the sights can be removed and reused.
• BGM-71 TOW • Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon (SMAW) • SRAW • ERYX • List of U.S. Army Rocket Launchers By Model Number
130
CHAPTER 22. M47 DRAGON
22.6 References [1] “M47 Dragon”. 2008-01-19. Retrieved 2009-01-11. [2] “M-47 DRAGON Anti-Tank Guided Missile”. Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved 2009-0111. [3] Archived May 8, 2003 at the Wayback Machine [4] Figueroa, Jose (November 21, 2000). “School of Infantry students shoot the works, herald new antitank era”. Marines. Retrieved December 30, 2012. [5] “Anti-Tank Missiles: M47 Dragon”. Olive-Drab. Retrieved 2009-01-11. [6] Riad Kahwaji (2006-08-20). “Arab States Eye Better Spec Ops, Missiles”. Ocus.net. Retrieved 2009-01-10. [7] Jones, Richard D. Jane’s Infantry Weapons 2009/2010. Jane’s Information Group; 35 edition (January 27, 2009). ISBN 978-0-7106-2869-5. [8] “Spike Anti-Armour Missile Systems, Israel”. Technology. Retrieved 2009-01-20.
Army
22.7 External links • McDonnell-Douglas FGM-77 Dragon – Designation Systems • Comal citizen finds M47 Dragon missile launcher in the wood • Iranian Copies of the TOW and DRAGON
Chapter 23
BGM-71 TOW The BGM-71 TOW ("Tube-launched, Optically tracked, Wire-guided”)[1] is an anti-tank missile. First produced in 1970, the TOW is one of the most widely used antitank guided missiles.[2]
23.1 Design and development
A U.S. Army soldier in 1964, with the first concept mock-up of Redstone Arsenal’s purposed future HAW system (Heavy Antitank Weapon). The HAW ultimately resulted in the modern-day TOW.
Initially developed by Hughes Aircraft between 1963 and 1968, the XBGM-71A was designed for both ground and heli-borne applications. In 1997, Raytheon Co. purchased Hughes Electronics from General Motors Corporation, so development and production of TOW systems now comes under the Raytheon brand.[3] The BGM71 TOW wire-guided heavy anti-tank missile is produced by Raytheon Systems Company. The weapon is used in anti-armor, anti-bunker, anti-fortification and anti-amphibious landing roles. The TOW is in service with over 45 militaries and is integrated on over 15,000 ground, vehicle and helicopter platforms worldwide. In its basic infantry form, the system comprises a missile in a sealed tube which is clipped to a launch tube prior to use. When required, the missile tube is attached to the rear of the launch tube, the target sighted and the missile fired. The launch motor (booster) fires through lateral
nozzles amidships and propels the missile from the tube, at which point four wings indexed at 45 degrees just forward of the booster nozzles spring open forwards, four tail control surfaces flip open rearwards, and sustained propulsion is subsequently provided by the flight motor. An optical sensor on the sight continuously monitors the position of a light source on the missile relative to the line-of-sight, and then corrects the trajectory of the missile by generating electrical signals that are passed down two wires to command the control surface actuators.[4]
A TOW missile on display at the White Sands Missile Range Museum.
The TOW missile was continually upgraded, with an improved TOW missile (ITOW) appearing in 1978 that had a new warhead triggered by a long probe, which was extended after launch, that gave a stand-off distance of 15 in (380 mm) for improved armor penetration. The 1983 TOW 2 featured a larger 5.9 kg (13 lb) warhead with a 21.25 in (540 mm) extensible probe, improved guidance and a motor that provided around 30% more thrust.[5] This was followed by the TOW 2A/B which appeared in 1987. Hughes developed a TOW missile with a wireless data link in 1989, referred to as TOW-2N, but this weapon was not adopted for use by the U.S. military. Raytheon continued to develop improvements to the TOW line, but its FOTT (Follow-On To TOW) program was canceled in 1998, and its TOW-FF (TOW-Fire and Forget) program was cut short on 30 November 2001 because of funding
131
132
CHAPTER 23. BGM-71 TOW
limitations.[6] In 2001 and 2002, Raytheon and the U.S. Army worked together on an extended range TOW 2B variant, initially referred to as TOW-2B (ER), but now called TOW-2B Aero which has a special nose cap that increases range to 10,000 meters. Although this missile has been in production since 2004, no U.S. Army designation has yet been assigned. Also, a wireless version of the TOW-2B Aero was developed that uses stealth one way radio link, called TOW-2B Aero RF. The TOW missile in its current variations is not a fireand-forget weapon, and like most second generation wireguided missiles has Semi-Automatic Command Line of Sight guidance. This means that the guidance system is A U.S. Army M1134 Stryker ATGM carrier at the Yakima Traindirectly linked to the platform, and requires that the tar- ing Center fires a TOW missile in May 2011. get be kept in the shooter’s line of sight until the missile impacts. This has been the major impetus to develop either a fire-and-forget version of the system or to develop quite bulky. The updated M151 launcher was upgraded a successor with this ability. to include thermal optics to allow night time usage, and In October 2012, Raytheon received a contract to pro- had been simplified to reduce weight. The M220 was duce 6,676 TOW (wireless-guided) missiles for the U.S. specifically developed to handle the TOW-2 series. military. Missiles that will be produced include the TOW systems have also been developed for vehicle speBGM-71E TOW 2A, the BGM-71F TOW 2B, the TOW cific applications on the M2/M3 Bradley IFV/CFV, the [7] 2B Aero, and the BGM-71H TOW Bunker Buster. By LAV-AT, the M1134 Stryker ATGM carrier, and the now 2013, the U.S. Marine Corps had retired the air-launched obsolete M901 ITV (Improved TOW Vehicle); they are [8] TOW missile. generally referred to as TOW Under Armor (TUA).
23.1.1
Launch platforms
A TOW missile being fired from an M151 MUTT.
In helicopter applications, the M65 system used by the AH-1 series is the primary system deployed, but the XM26 system was developed for the UH-1, and a system was put into development for the later canceled AH56 helicopter. The TOW has also been used with AH.1 (TOW) and AH.7 variants of Westland Lynx helicopters, with the attachment of 2 pylons, each carrying four missiles. The M41 TOW improved target acquisition system (ITAS) is a block upgrade to the M220 ground/highmobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV)mounted TOW 2 missile system. The TOW ITAS is currently being fielded to airborne, air assault, and light infantry forces throughout the active and reserve components of the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps where it is called the SABER. The ITAS, in addition to providing better anti-armor capabilities to antitank units, also has capabilities that make it an integral part of the combined arms team. Even when organized in heavy—light task forces, where the preponderance of antiarmor capabilities traditionally has resided in the heavy elements, TOW ITAS-equipped antitank units can not only destroy threat targets but also provide superior reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition (RSTA), rear area protection, and urban operations capabilities.
The TOW is designated as a BGM by the U.S. military: a multiple launch environment (B) surface attack (G) guided missile (M). The B launch environment prefix is used only when the system can be used essentially unmodified when launched from a variety of launch platforms. The TOW ITAS consists of three new line replaceable The M151 and M220 launchers are used by infantry, but units: the target acquisition subsystem (TAS), the fire can also be mounted on a number of vehicles, including control subsystem (FCS), and the lithium battery box the M151 jeep, the M113 APC, the M966 HMMWV (LBB); a modified TOW 2 traversing unit; the existing and the M1045 HMMWV (which replaced the M966). TOW launch tube and tripod; and a TOW Humvee modThese launchers are theoretically man-portable, but are ification kit. The TAS integrates into a single housing the
23.2. SERVICE HISTORY direct view optics, a second-generation forward looking infrared (FLIR) night vision sight (NVS), missile trackers, and a laser rangefinder. TAS electronics provide automatic boresighting for these components, eliminating both tactical collimation and 180-day verification requirements.
23.2 Service history In 1968, a contract for full scale production was awarded to Hughes, and by 1970 the system was being fielded by the U.S. Army. When adopted, the BGM-71 series replaced the M40 106 mm recoilless rifle and the MGM-32 ENTAC missile system then in service. The missile also replaced the AGM-22B then in service as a heli-borne anti-tank weapon.
23.2.1
133
23.2.2 1982 Lebanon War The Israel Defense Forces used TOW missiles during the 1982 Lebanon War. On 11 July Israeli anti-tank teams armed with the TOW ambushed Syrian armored forces and destroyed 11 Syrian Soviet-made T-72 tanks. This was probably the first encounter of the American antitank missile with the newer Soviet tank.[14]
23.2.3 1985 Iran–Iraq War In the Iran–Iraq War, the Islamic Republic of Iran Army used TOW Missiles purchased before the Iranian Revolution, as well as those purchased during the Iran–Contra affair. Of the 202 AH-1J Internationals (export version of SeaCobra) purchased from US, 62 were TOW-capable. Iranian helicopters managed to slow down advances of Iraqi tanks into Iran. During the "dogfights" between Iranian SeaCobras and Iraqi Mil-24s, Iranians had several “kills”, usually using TOW missiles.[15]
Vietnam: first combat use of TOW anti-armor missile 23.2.4 1991 Gulf War
On 24 April 1972, the U.S. 1st Combat Aerial TOW Team arrived in South Vietnam; the team’s mission was to test the new anti-armor missile under combat conditions.[9] The team consisted of three crews, technical representatives from Bell Helicopter and Hughes Aircraft, members of the United States Army Aviation and Missile Command, and two UH-1B helicopters; each mounting the XM26 TOW weapons system, which had been taken from storage. After displacing to the Central Highlands for aerial gunnery, the unit commenced daily searches for enemy armor.[9] On 2 May 1972, U.S. Army UH-1 Huey helicopters firing TOWs destroyed North Vietnamese tanks near An Loc. This was heralded as the first time a U.S. unit neutralized enemy armor using Americandesigned and built guided missiles (in this case against an American-made M-41[10] ). On 9 May, elements of the North Vietnamese Army's 203rd Armored Regiment assaulted Ben Het Camp held by Army of the Republic of Vietnam Rangers . The Rangers destroyed the first three PT-76 amphibious light tanks of the 203rd, thereby breaking up the attack.[11][12] During the battle for the city of Kontum, the TOW missile had proven to be a significant weapon in disrupting enemy tank attacks within the region. By the end of May, BGM-71 TOW missiles had accumulated 24 confirmed kills of both PT-76 light and T-54 main battle tanks.[11][12] On 19 August, the South Vietnamese 5th Infantry Regiment abandoned Firebase Ross in the Que Son Valley, 30 miles southwest of Da Nang, to the North Vietnamese 711th Division. A dozen TOW missiles were left with abandoned equipment and fell into Communist hands.[13]
In the Gulf War, both the M2 Bradley Infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) and the M3 Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicle (CFV) carried TOW missiles. The M2 can also carry an additional 7 rounds, while the M3 can carry an additional 12 rounds.[16] Both M2 and M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicles destroyed more Iraqi tanks during the war, than M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tanks.[17] The British Army also deployed TOW-armed, Westland Lynx helicopters to the conflict, where they were used to attack Iraqi armoured vehicles.
23.2.5 1993 Somalia On 12 July, three months prior to the Battle of Mogadishu, the United Nations and United States decided to put pressure on Mohamed Farrah Aidid by attacking a meeting of his native Habr Gidr clan under Operation Michigan. The Washington Post described the event as a “slaughter” in which a “half-dozen” AH-1 Cobra attack helicopters fired 16 TOW missiles and 2,000 rounds from their 20 mm cannons into the meeting of the Elders, intellectuals, poets and religious leaders. The first TOW missile destroyed the stairs, preventing escape. In the aftermath, it was revealed that Aidid was not in the meeting. Admiral Jonathan T. Howe claimed that only 20 people had been killed, as against the Red Cross, which said 54 had died, and Aidid’s SNA, which produced a list of 73 people whom they claimed had been killed.[18]
134
23.2.6
CHAPTER 23. BGM-71 TOW
Other service
The TOW was used effectively in multiple engagements during Operation Desert Storm in the 1991 Gulf War. Several TOW missiles were used by U.S. forces in Iraq, in the 22 July 2003 assault that killed Uday and Qusay Hussein.[19] The weapon has been spotted in April 2014 in at least two videos that surfaced showing rebels in the Syrian conflict using BGM-71 TOW, wire-guided, anti-tank missiles, a weapon previously not seen in use by the opposition.[20] Such a video, showing a BGM-71E-3B with serial number removed, can be seen in this episode of the PBS series Frontline, at 8:07.
23.3 Variants
• A BGM-71 TOW-armed Wiesel AWC of the German Army. • Loading, Iraq 2007. • An AH-1W SuperCobra of the Republic of China Army armed with an XM65 launcher and four TOW missiles. • A Lynx AH.7 of the Royal Navy fitted with TOW missile launchers.
23.7 See also • MAPATS • Swingfire • Euromissile HOT
Raytheon has taken over for Hughes in recent years, and now handles production of all current variants, as well as TOW development.
• AT-5 Spandrel
Original armor penetration estimates were 600 mm for BGM-71A/B and 700–800 mm for BGM-71C. However, according to a now declassified CIA study, the true penetration values against a vertical target are much lower— just 430 mm for basic TOW and 630 mm for Improved TOW.[23]
• AT-14 Kornet
Time to target at maximum range is 20 seconds therefore giving an average speed of 187.5 m/s.[24]
• AT4
23.4 International variants • Iran has reverse engineered and currently manufactures duplicate TOW missiles. These carry the Iranian designation of Toophan[25]
23.5 Operators
• AT-4 Spigot
• Shershen • M47 Dragon • M72 LAW
• HJ-8 • Joint Air to Ground Missile • History of UAVs decoys • List of U.S. Army Rocket Launchers By Model Number
23.8 Notes [1] 4,200m for TOW-2B Aero, 3,750 m for TOW-2B.
23.6 Gallery • Launch, trailing wire is clearly noticeable.
23.9 References
• M220 Tripod.
[1] Official US Army history of TOW (9th paragraph)
• Humvee.
[2] “M-220 Tube-launched, Optically tracked, Wire-guided missile (TOW)". fas.org. Retrieved 2 November 2013.
• M901 ITV. • Greek TOW on the ground. • Greek soldiers manning a TOW unit. • The sight on an Hellenic Army BGM-71 TOW. • A ground-mounted TOW system.
[3] Augusta Chronicle http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/ 1997/01/17/biz_202677.shtml [4] Gunston, p. 156. [5] Gunston, p. 157. [6] globalsecurity.org 2001 fiscal year military budget. Retrieved on 3 August 2009.
23.10. SOURCES
[7] Raytheon awarded $349 million U.S. Army contract for TOW missiles – PRNewswire.com, 8 October 2012 [8] TOW Fades – Strategypage.com, 25 September 2013 [9] Starry p. 215 [10] Kontum: The Battle to Save South Vietnam / Thomas P. McKenna [11] Starry p. 215–217 [12] Dunstan [13] U.S. confirms enemy captured secret missiles. Washington Post News Service 22 August 1972 [14] האמת על מלחמת, "שבויים בלבנון,עפר שלח ויואב לימור , הוצאת ידיעות ספרים,"לבנון השנייה2007 עמוד,327 (Hebrew) Ofer Shelah and Yoav Limor, “Captives in Lebanon – The Truth about the Second Lebanon War”, 2007 – page 327.
135
23.10 Sources • The TOW Family • TOW Improved Target Acquisition System (ITAS) • The TOW Anti-Tank Missile in Vietnam • Dunstan, Simon (1982). Vietnam Tracks-Armor in Battle. Osprey Publications. ISBN 0-89141-171-2. • Gunston, Bill (1983). An Illustrated Guide to Modern Airborne Missiles. London: Salamander Books Ltd. ISBN 0-86101-160-0. • Starry, Donn A. General. Mounted Combat in Vietnam. Vietnam Studies; Department of the Army. First printed 1978-CMH Pub 90-17.
23.11 External links
[15] http://www.airvectors.net/avcobra_2.html
• TOW project history at Redstone Arsenal
[16] The M2 Bradley family line remains an important cog in the American War Machine. Retrieved on 6 June 2014.
• www.fas.org
[17] The American M2 & M3 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle. Retrieved on 6 June 2014.
• The Early TOW Missile Story & Photos
[18] U.S. War Crimes in Somalia. Retrieved on 18 April 2014. [19] bbc.co.uk News on the Middle East. Retrieved on 3 August 2009. [20] Stratfor Intelligence. Retrieved on 9 April 2014. [21] http://www.americanordnance.com/pdf/Tow.pdf [22] TOW-2B Aero ITAS vs T-72 tank (test). Retrieved on 7 March 2011. [23] http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_ conversions/89801/DOC_0001066239.pdf [24] “U.S. INTELLIGENCE AND SOVIET ARMOR” Paul F. Gorman, page 18. [25] Mikhail Barabanov (2006-08-23). “Hezbollah’s Examination”. Kommersant. Retrieved 2014-01-08. [26] http://www.forecastinternational.com/samples/656_ 2005.pdf [27] www.mil.fi The Finnish Defence Forces: Presentation of equipment. Retrieved on 3 August 2009. [28] Military army ground forces equipment Morocco Army Moroccan Equipements militaires armée forces terrestres Maroc marocaine [29] http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Foreign_Military_ Sale_Pakistan___TOW_2A_Anti_Armor_Guided_ Missiles_999.html
• More information at Designation Systems.net
• Tank vs Missile – 1974 article • Iranian Copies of the TOW and DRAGON • Information relating to Raytheon produced BGM71 TOW Missile • Discovery Channel program on “Modern Missiles” with best video information on TOW today. TOW part starts at two minutes • Raytheon TOW 2A PDF • Raytheon TOW 2B/2B Aero PDF • TOW Weapon System
Chapter 24
XM70E2 The XM70 was a rocket launcher developed for the U.S. Marine Corps from 1959 to 1963 at Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois Research and Development Division. Seven prototypes were built and tested at Rock Island Arsenal and Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. The Army intended to develop a self-propelled variant designated the XM71 as the core weapon system matured.
The rear view of the XM70E2 shows characteristics in common with towed howitzers
Front view of an XM70E2 towed rocket launcher
The XM70 has an unusual layout for a rocket launcher, borrowing most of its characteristics from towed howitzers. It used a closed breach and a hydraulic recoil mechanism rather than allowing rocket exhaust to exit the rear of the device, which allowed the crew to remain nearby to individually aim each rocket and to rapidly reload. It also had long trail arms and a base plate to pivot the system in common with conventional towed artillery. XM70E2 revolver magazine feeds rockets into the main launch tube
The XM70 employed a unique revolver-like rotary magazine to fire rockets through a single launch tube in succession, rather than individual tubes for each rocket with explanation for Pacific Car and Foundry improvements. the intent of improving accuracy while maintaining low overall weight and mobility. Most multiple launch rocket systems use individual smoothbore tubes roughly the same length of each finstabilized rocket bundled in parallel for firing in rapid barrages. The XM70’s single shared long barrel has grooves indicative of rifling to spin the rocket to gyro stabilize it in flight to provide additional accuracy.
24.1 Variants
United States Patent US4353285 gives detailed technical 136
• XM70 • XM70E1 - prototypes #2 & #3 • XM70E2 - prototypes #4 & #5 (on display at the Rock Island Arsenal museum
24.2. SEE ALSO • XM70E2 - prototype #6, produced by Pacific Car & Foundry with split trail • XM70E2 - prototype #7, produced by Pacific Car & Foundry with box trail
24.2 See also • List of artillery • List of rocket artillery • List of howitzers • List of artillery of the United States
137
Chapter 25
M72 LAW The M72 LAW (Light Anti-Tank Weapon, also referred to as the Light Anti-Armor Weapon or LAW as well as LAWS Light Anti-Armor Weapons System) is a portable one-shot 66 mm unguided anti-tank weapon. The solid rocket propulsion unit was developed in the newly formed Rohm and Haas research laboratory at Redstone Arsenal in 1959,[1] then the full system was designed by Paul V. Choate, Charles B. Weeks, Frank A. Spinale, et al. at the Hesse-Eastern Division of Norris Thermadore. American production of the weapon began by Hesse-Eastern in 1963, and was terminated by 1983; currently it is produced by Nammo Raufoss AS in Norway and their subsidiary Nammo Talley, Inc. in Arizona.[2]
which proved an effective novel weapon against enemy armor. Despite early problems, it was such a success that many of the nations involved in World War II soon copied it or developed similar weapon systems.
However, the bazooka had its drawbacks. Being large, cumbersome and rather fragile, it needed a dedicated and trained two-man team to be used efficiently. Hardpressed on all fronts, Germany developed a one man alternative to the bazooka type weapons: the Panzerfaust family of weapons. These one-shot launchers were relatively cheap to manufacture and needed no specialized training; they were so simple to use that they were regularly issued to Volkssturm regiments. They proved remarkably In early 1963, the M72 LAW was adopted by the U.S. efficient against any tanks they were used against during Army and U.S. Marine Corps as their primary individual World War II. Noticeably, they were not rocket launchers infantry anti-tank weapon, replacing the M31 HEAT ri- but recoilless rifles. fle grenade and the M20A1 “Super Bazooka” in the U.S. The M72 LAW is a descendant and combination of the Army. It was subsequently adopted by the U.S. Air Force two World War 2 weapons; the basic principle is that of to serve in an anti-emplacement/anti-armor role in Air a miniaturized bazooka, while its low weight and cheap Base Defense duties.[3][note 1] build allows for general issue and disposability akin to the It had been intended that, in the early 1980s, the M72 Panzerfaust. would be replaced by the FGR-17 Viper; but this program was canceled by Congress and the M136 AT4 was introduced in its place. In that time period, its nearest comparison was the Swedish Pskott m/68 (Miniman) and 25.2 Description the French SARPAC.[note 2]
25.1 History During World War II, the sudden prominence of tanks and other armored vehicles on the battlefield led to the creation of man-portable weapons that would enable the humble infantryman to successfully deal with the new threat. The first such weapons to be used (with limited success) were Molotov cocktails, flamethrowers, satchel charges, jury-rigged landmines and specially designed magnetic hollow charges; but, all these weapons needed to get within a couple of meters from the target to be effective, which severely limited said effectiveness and greatly endangered the user.
The weapon consists of a rocket packed inside of a launcher made up of two tubes, one inside the other. While closed, the outer assembly acts as a watertight container for the rocket and the percussion cap-type firing mechanism that activates the rocket. The outer tube contains the trigger, the arming handle, front and rear sights, and the rear cover. The inner tube contains the channel assembly, which houses the firing pin assembly, including the detent lever. When extended, the inner tube telescopes outward toward the rear, guided by the channel assembly, which rides in an alignment slot in the outer tube’s trigger housing assembly. This causes the detent lever to move under the trigger assembly in the outer tube, both locking the inner tube in the extended position and cocking the weapon. Once armed, the weapon is no longer watertight, even if the launcher is collapsed into its original configuration.
The U.S. Army then introduced the bazooka on the battlefield, the first true rocket-propelled grenade launcher, When fired, the striker in the rear tube impacts a primer, 138
25.3. AMMUNITION
139
25.3 Ammunition
M72 LAW’s rocket
1961 LAW prototype, showing the rejected front sight that also served as the front cover
which ignites a small amount of powder that “flashes” down a tube to the rear of the rocket igniting the propellant in the rocket motor. The rocket motor burns completely before leaving the mouth of the launcher, producing gases around 1,400 °F (760 °C). The rocket propels the 66 mm warhead forward without significant recoil. As the warhead emerges from the launcher, six fins spring out from the base of the rocket tube, stabilizing the warhead’s flight.[note 3] The early LAW warhead, developed from the M31 HEAT rifle grenade warhead, uses a simple, but extremely safe and reliable, piezoelectric fuze system. On impact with the target, the front of the nose section is crushed causing a micro-second electric current to be generated, which detonates the warhead. The fuse then detonates a booster charge located in the base of the warhead, which sets off the main warhead charge. The force of the main charge forces the copper liner into a directional particle jet that, in relation to the size of the warhead, is capable of a massive amount of penetration.
M72 demonstration at Fort Benning, Georgia in the 1960s. Note the M1 rifle slung over the soldier’s back.
The M72A2 LAW was issued as a prepackaged round of ammunition. Improvements to the launcher and differences in the ammunition were differentiated by a single designation. The most common M72A2 LAWs came prepacked with a rocket containing a 66 mm HEAT warhead which is attached to the inside of the launcher by the igniter. The standard M72A2 anti-armor HEAT warA unique mechanical set-back safety on the base of the head has an official stated penetration in 1977 of up to 20 of reinforced detonator grounds the circuit until the missile has accel- cm/8 inches of steel plate, 600 mm (2.0 ft) [4][note 4] concrete, or 1.8 meters (5.9 feet) of soil. erated out of the tube. The acceleration causes the three disks in the safety mechanism to rotate 90 degrees in suc- A training variant of the M72 LAW, designated the cession, ungrounding the circuit; the circuit from the nose M190, also exists. This weapon is reloadable and uses to the base of the detonator is then completed when the the 35 mm M73 training rocket. A subcaliber training device that uses a special tracer cartridge also exists for piezo-electric crystal is crushed on impact.
140
CHAPTER 25. M72 LAW
the M72. A training variant used by the Finnish armed forces fires 7.62 mm tracer rounds. The US Army tested other 66 mm rockets based on the M54 rocket motor used for the M72. The M74 TPA (Thickened Pyrophoric Agent) had an Incendiary warhead filled with TEA (triethylaluminium); this was used in the M202A1 FLASH (FLame Assault SHoulder weapon) 4tube launcher. The XM96 RCR (Riot Control Rocket) had a CS gas-filled warhead for crowd control and was used with the XM191 quadruple-tube launcher. Once fired in combat, the launcher is required to be destroyed to prevent its use by the enemy as a booby-trap; the enemy could collapse the launcher to its original configuration, fill it with explosives and shrapnel, and rig it to explode if moved by a soldier believing it to be unused. Due to the single use nature of the weapon, it was issued as what is called a “wooden-round”[5] of ammunition by the Canadian Army and the United States Army, requiring no checks or maintenance, just as small arms ammunition can be stored in the same manner for years without any problems.
25.4 Service history 25.4.1
Australia
The M72 rocket has been in Australian service since the Vietnam War.[6][7] Currently, the Australian Defence Force uses the M72A6 variant[8] as an anti-structure and secondary anti-armor weapon. The weapon is used by ordinary troops at the section (squad) level and complements the heavier 84 mm Carl Gustav recoilless rifle and Javelin missile; which are generally utilized by specialized fire support and anti-armor troops.[9]
Packing crates are used to demonstrate the danger of the M72 back blast
used against light armored targets. The M72 is the most common AT weapon in the Finnish Army. Finland has recently upgraded its stocks to the M72 EC LAW Mk.I version. It is designated 66 KES 12.[10] It also fields the bunker buster version, named M72 ASM RC, and locally designated 66 KES 12 RAK. The oldest version 66 KES 75 is now retired.
25.4.4 Turkey The Turkish Army uses a locally-built version by Makina ve Kimya Endustrisi Kurumu, called HAR-66 (Hafif Antitank Roketi, Light Antitank Rocket), which has the performance and characteristics of a mix of M72A2 and A3. Turkey also indigenously developed an anti-personnel warhead version of HAR-66 AP and called it “Eşek Arısı" (Wasp).[11]
25.4.5 United Kingdom 25.4.2
Republic of China
The Republic of China Army (Taiwan) uses the M72 as a secondary anti-armor weapon. It is used primarily as a backup to the Javelin and M136 (AT4) anti-tank weapons. The weapon is known in Taiwan as Type 66 rocket launcher due to its caliber.
25.4.3
Finland
The M72 LAW is used in the Finnish Army (some 70,000 pieces), where it is known under the designations 66 KES 75 (M72A2, no longer in service) and 66 KES 88 (M72A5). In accordance with the weapon’s known limitations, a pair of “tank buster” troops crawl to a firing position some 50 to 150 meters away from the target, bringing with them four to six LAWs, which are then used in rapid succession until the target is destroyed or incapacitated. Due to its low penetration capability, it’s mostly
The British Army had previously used the NAMMO M72 under the designation “Rocket 66 mm HEAT L1A1” but was replaced by the LAW 80 during the 1980s.[12] The M72 rocket was reintroduced into British service under the Urgent Operational Requirement program, with the M72A9 variant being designated the Light Anti-Structure Munition (LASM).[13][14][15]
25.4.6 United States During the Vietnam and post-Vietnam periods, all issued LAWs were recalled due to instances of the warhead exploding in flight, sometimes injuring the operator. After safety improvements, part of the training and firing drills included the requirement to ensure the words “w/coupler” were included in the text description stenciled on the launcher, which indicated the launcher had the required safety modification(s).[note 5]
25.5. VARIANTS
141
With the failure of the M72 replacement the Viper, Congress in late 1982 ordered the US Army to test offthe-shelf light antitank weapons and report back by the end of 1983. In partnership with Raufoss AS, Talley Defense offered the M72E5, which offered increased range, penetration and better sights, which was tested along with five other light anti-armor weapons in 1983. Despite the improvements the M72E5 offered, the AT4 was chosen to replace the M72.[16][note 6] Although generally thought of as a Vietnam War era weapon which has been superseded by more powerful AT4, the M72 LAW found a new lease of life in the operations by the U.S. Army, the U.S. Marine Corps, and Exposed M72A6 rockets (lower right) alongside M72A6 tubes Canadian Army in Iraq and Afghanistan. The lower cost and ammunition for 84 mm Carl Gustav recoilless rifles; awaiting and lighter weight of the LAW, combined with a lack of destruction. modern heavy armored targets and the need for an individual assault vs an individual antiarmor weapon, made it ideal for the type of urban combat seen in Iraq and mountain warfare seen in Afghanistan. In addition, a soldier can only carry one AT4 on a mission, but with the LAW he can carry two.[17] The U.S. Marine Corps Systems Command at Quantico, Virginia placed a 15.5 million dollar fixed contract order with Talley Defense for 7,750 M72A7s, with delivery to be completed in April 2011.[18][19] The M72A7 LAW is an improvement on its previous versions. It includes an improved rocket motor for a higher velocity to accurately engage targets past 200 meters, an insensitive munitions warhead to reduce the chance of an accidental explosion, and a picatinny rail to mount laser pointers and night sights. The LAW is useful in Afghanistan as a small and light rocket system against short and medium-range targets by foot patrols on the difficult terrain and high elevations of the country.[20] The U.S. military is still purchasing LAW rockets as of January 2015.[21]
Firing the M72 LAW.
25.5 Variants 25.5.1 US variants 25.5.2 International versions 25.5.3 International designations
25.6 Specifications (M72A2 and M72A3) 25.6.1 Launcher • Length: • Extended: less than 1 m (39 in). • Closed: 0.67 m (26 in). • Weight: • Complete M72A2: 2.3 kg (5.1 lb). • Complete M72A3: 2.5 kg (5.5 lb).
25.4.7
The Philippines
• Firing mechanism: Percussion. • Front sight: reticle graduated in 25 m range increments.
The Philippine Army uses an unknown number of M72 LAWs.
• Rear sight: peep sight adjusts automatically to temperature change.
142
25.6.2
CHAPTER 25. M72 LAW
Rocket
•
Norway[22]
•
Philippines[28]
•
Portugal
•
Romania[29]
• Minimum range (combat): 10 m (33 ft)
•
South Korea[22]
• Minimum arming range: 10 m (33 ft)
•
Spain: M72A3 variant.[22]
• Maximum range: 1,000 m (3,300 ft)
•
Taiwan[22]
•
Thailand[22]
•
Turkey[22]
• Caliber: 66 mm (2.6 in) • Length: 508 mm (20.0 in) • Weight: 1.8 kg (4.0 lb) • Muzzle velocity: 145 m/s (475 ft/s)
• Penetration: 250 mm (9.8 in)[4]
25.6.3
Maximum effective ranges
• Stationary target: 200 m (220 yd)
•
• Moving target: 165 m (180 yd) • Beyond these ranges there is less than a 50% chance of hitting the target.
25.7 Users
United Kingdom: Used by the British Army from the 1970s to the early 1990s.[30] The M72A9 variant was reintroduced into service for the Afghanistan War.[31]
•
United States[22]
•
Yemen[22]
25.7.1 Former users
•
Australia: M72A6 variant.[22]
•
Austria[22]
•
Cambodia
•
Belgium[22]
•
FNLA[32]
•
Canada[22]
•
Chile: M72A3 variant.[22]
•
Egypt: Purchased 5,000.
•
El Salvador[23]
• Rocket-propelled grenade
•
Indonesia
• Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon
•
Israel[24][25]
•
Malaysia
• List of U.S. Army Rocket Launchers By Model Number
•
Finland[22]
•
Georgia[26]
•
Greece[27]
•
Luxembourg[22]
•
Lebanon: Lebanese Armed Forces
•
Morocco[22]
• RPG-76
•
Netherlands[22]
• M80 Rocket Launcher
•
New Zealand[22]
• Miniman
25.8 See also
25.8.1 Similar weapons • AT4 • Panzerfaust 3 • RPG-18 / RPG-22
25.10. REFERENCES
25.9 Notes [1] The U.S. Army partially replaced the Super Bazooka not only with the M72 LAW, but also M67 recoilless rifle and U.S. Marines kept the Super Bazooka in service till the late 1960s [2] SARPAC was never adopted by the French Army – export only [3] note – no matter what you see in the movies, training films show that there is no “Whoosh!" on launch – ie more of a loud “BANG!!" or a “BLOOP!" for the training versions – and there is no smoke trail behind the rocket as it heads towards the target [4] Note – before the publication of FM-7 September 1977, various penetration specifications were given for the M72A2 and the M31 HEAT. Anywhere from 250 mm to 305 mm. In the mid-1970s, the US Army decided to determine the armor penetration under battlefield conditions again Soviet-made tanks captured in 1973. The result was 20 cm/8 inches; the proceeding penetration specification is stated as it appears in FM-7 1977. [5] Some reports state it was over water in the flash tube causing dangerous misfires and unproven rumors of possible sabotage at the manufacturing plant during the Vietnam War [6] Various reports in 1983 stated that during the Congressional mandated tests the first M72E5 tested had an accuracy problem, because of its larger-diameter rocket motor, interfered with the deployment of all the stabilizing fins after leaving the launcher. The manufactures have since made modifications that have worked that problem out.
25.10 References [1] E. T. DeRieux et al “Final Report – Development of LAW Propulsion Unit,” R&H RARD, Technical Report No. S12, December 1959 [2] “M72 products”. Nammo Talley, Inc. Retrieved September 25, 2014.
143
[9] [10] Ruotuväki 5/2013 [11] “MKEK Makina ve Kimya Endüstrisi Kurumu / Mechanical and Chemical Industry Corporation”. Mkek.gov.tr. Retrieved 2013-01-01. [12] “Jane’s Infantry Weapons 1995–1996” page 686 [13] “LASM – British Army Website”. Army.mod.uk. Retrieved 2013-01-01. [14] Oh, the Horror, the Horror at the Wayback Machine (archived March 26, 2008) [15] “M72 Light Anti-tank (sic) Weapon System (LAW)". Gary’s U.S. Infantry Weapons Reference Guide. [16] D. Kyle, Armed Forces Journal International/November 1983 “Viper Dead, Army Picks AT-4 Antitank Missile” page 21 [17] “Marines Fought the LAW, and the LAW Won”. Defenseindustrydaily.com. 2005-03-10. Retrieved 2013-0101. [18] John Antal “Packing a Punch: America’s Man-Portable Antitank Weapons” page 88 Military Technology 3/2010 ISSN 0722-3226 [19] “Light Assault Weapon (LAW)". FBO.gov. [20] Modernizing and equipping the force (Part 1) – Army.mil, 30 December 2010 [21] Nammo awarded contract to supply M72 Lightweight Assault Weapon variants to the U.S. DoD - Armyrecognition.com, 6 January 2015 [22] Jones, Richard D. Jane’s Infantry Weapons 2009/2010. Jane’s Information Group; 35 edition (January 27, 2009). ISBN 978-0-7106-2869-5. [23] “El Salvador”. Military Technology World Defence Almanac (Bonn : Wehr & Wissen): 60. 2005. ISSN 07223226. [24]
[3] Mary T. Cagle “History of the TOW Missile System” page 10, U.S. Army 1977 Redstone Arsenal Pdf file of official TOW history that discussed the new family of antitank weapons, the M72 LAW, the Dragon and the TOW
[25] http://www.idf.il/1283-17900-EN/Dover.aspx
[4] US Army publication September 30, 1977 “FM-7 The Mechanized Infantry Platoon/Squad Section B-21”
[27]
[26] “Armament of the Georgian Army”. Geo-army.ge. Retrieved 2013-01-01.
[28]
[5] “Space and Electronic Warfare Lexicon”. Retrieved 30 October 2010.
[29] “M72 LAW”.
[6] REL22751 – M72 (L1A2F1) Rocket Launcher – Australian War Memorial. Accessed December 2010.
[30] Owen, William F. (2007). “Light Anti-Armour Weapons: Anti-Everything?". http://asianmilitaryreview.com – Asian Military Review. Retrieved 2010-05-12.
[7] Weapons Used by Infantry Rifle Sections – diggerhistory.info. Accessed December 2010.
[31] “Same Difference – The 66 is Back”.
[8] “Air Force technology: Equipment – Defence Jobs Australia”. Defencejobs.gov.au. Retrieved 2013-01-01.
[32] “David Thompkins Interview”. GWU. 14 February 1999. Retrieved 17 October 2011.
144
25.11 External links • FAS • Gary’s U.S. Infantry Weapons Reference Guide • Article on the reintroduction of the LAW in Iraq by the USMC • Canadian Military Page On the M72 • Patent for sights of M 72 Patented by Paul V. Choate of Milton, MA. • Patented by Paul V. Choate of Milton, MA. • 1960s US Army M72 Training film
CHAPTER 25. M72 LAW
Chapter 26
M55 (rocket) 26.2.1 Storage
An M55 rocket being disassembled at Umatilla Chemical Depot
The M55 rocket was a chemical weapon developed by the United States in the 1950s. The United States Army A Sarin-filled M55 rocket being destroyed at Johnston Atoll in produced both Sarin and VX unitary warheads for the 1990. M55. During the 1960s the Army stored many M55s at Black Hills Army Depot.[2] The M55 was also stored at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal and in Okinawa, Japan.[2] The rockets in Japan were moved to Johnston Atoll during 26.1 History Operation Red Hat where they were destroyed during the 1990s. In 1951 the US Army Chemical Corps and Ordnance Corps initiated a joint program to develop a 115mm chemical rocket. The US Army Ordnance Corps de- 26.2.2 Disposal issues signed the 115mm T238 and launcher in 1957 to provide the army a means to attack large area targets with Disposal operations for the M55 are made more diffichemical agents. Artillery and mortars are for small cult because of the rocket’s design.[1] The rocket propelarea targets; and due to different spin stabilities weapons lant was a double base composition nitroglycerin (NG) intended for explosives are not ideal for chemical de- and nitrocellulose (NC) propellant.[2] Besides the NG and livery. The 115mm rocket was subsequently accepted NC, M28 contains 2-nitrodiphenylamine (NDPA) as a as the M55 rocket with M91 launcher. Produced from stabilizer.[4] The rocket propellant cannot be removed 1959–1965,[1] the M55s were manufactured at Newport from the warhead without cutting open the rocket.[5] Army Ammunition Plant and tested at Aberdeen Proving Ground.[2] The Army produced unitary warheads filled The propellant itself presents a hazard, because it becomes unstable as it ages.[6] Specifically, the danger with Sarin (GB) and VX nerve agents for the M55.[3] of autoignition is present as the stabilizer ages and becomes depleted.[7] The U.S. National Research Council and other sources called the M55 the most dangerous 26.2 Disposal and storage pro- weapon in the American chemical arsenal because of this and other hazards.[6][7] grams Another danger is agent leakage. Army reports have in145
146 dicated that nerve agent GB can corrode the metal casings of the munitions over time.[1] As Sarin decomposes it forms acids which can corrode the aluminum casings found around the agent in the M55.[6][8] M55 rockets containing GB have accounted for the majority of leaking American chemical weapons.[6] In mid-2002, over 4,000 munitions in the U.S. chemical stockpile were found to be leaking agent; of that number 2,102 were Sarin containing M55s.[8]
26.3 Specifications The M55 is 78 inches long and 4.44 inches in diameter. The 57 pound weapons can hold warheads filled with about 10 pounds of GB or VX.[2] The warhead comprises about 15 pounds total, and consists of several components. The M34 and M36 Burster utilize composition B or tetrytol and total about 3 pounds of the total weapon weight. The agent, as stated, comprises about ten pounds of the weight with the rest lying in the casing and M417 fuze.[2]
26.4 See also • Binary chemical weapons • Anniston Chemical Activity • Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System • List of U.S. Army Rocket Launchers By Model Number (M91)
26.5 Notes [1] Noyes, Robert. Chemical Weapons Destruction and Explosive Waste: Unexploded Ordnance Remediation, (Google Books), William Andrew Inc., 1996, p. 32, (ISBN 0815514069). [2] "M55 rocket", Federation of American Scientists, updated June 15, 2000, accessed November 8, 2008. [3] Croddy, Eric and Wirtz, James J. Weapons of Mass Destruction: An Encyclopedia of Worldwide Policy, Technology, and History, (Google Books), ABC-CLIO, 2005, p. 42, (ISBN 1851094903), accessed November 8, 2008. [4] The propellant is known by the military nomenclature M28 propellant. See: Effects of Degraded Agent and Munitions Anomalies on Chemical Stockpile Disposal Operations. [5] Committee on Review and Evaluation of the Army Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program, U.S. National Research Council. Review of Systematization of the Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility, (Google Books), National Academies Press, 1996, p. 86, (ISBN 0309054869).
CHAPTER 26. M55 (ROCKET)
[6] Langford, Roland E. Introduction to Weapons of Mass Destruction, (Google Books), Wiley-IEEE, 2004, p. 282, (ISBN 0471465607). [7] Peterson, Carl R., U.S. National Research Council, et al. Recommendations for the Disposal of Chemical Agents and Munitions, National Academies Press, 1994, (Google Books), p. 46-48, (ISBN 0309050464). [8] Committee on Review of Army Planning for the Disposal of M55 Rockets at the Anniston Chemical Agent Disposal Facility, U.S. National Research Council, Assessment of Processing Gelled GB M55 Rockets at Anniston, (Google Books), National Academies Press, 2003, p. 11, (ISBN 0309089972).
26.6 References • Committee on Review and Evaluation of the Army Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program, Committee on Review and Evaluation of the Army Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program, U.S. National Research Council. Effects of Degraded Agent and Munitions Anomalies on Chemical Stockpile Disposal Operations, (Google Books), National Academies Press, 2004, p. 55, (ISBN 0309089182)
26.7 Further reading • Puro, Toivo E. Nerve Gas, (Google Books), Trafford Publishing, 2006, p. 112, (ISBN 1412072964).
Chapter 27
AT4 This article is about the unguided anti-tank weapon. For the Russian guided anti-tank missile, see AT-4 Spigot. “M136” redirects here. For other uses, see M136 (disambiguation). The AT4 (also variously AT-4, AT4 CS, AT4-CS, or AT-4CS)[6] is an 84-mm unguided, portable, single-shot recoilless smoothbore weapon built in Sweden by Saab Bofors Dynamics (previously Bofors Anti-Armour Systems). Saab has had considerable sales success with the AT4, making it one of the most common light anti-tank weapons in the world. The designation “CS” represents “confined space”, referring to the propellant charge being designed to operate effectively within buildings in an urban environment.[7] It is intended to give infantry units a means to destroy or disable armoured vehicles and fortifications, although it is not generally sufficient to defeat a modern main battle tank (MBT). The launcher and projectile are manufactured prepacked and issued as a single unit of ammunition with the launcher discarded after a single use.
the Swedish Army began the first evaluation firings of the prototype AT4s in the spring of 1981 with 100 tested by early 1982.[9] Even before the AT4 had been adopted by Sweden, it was entered into a US Army competition for a new anti-tank weapon mandated by Congress in 1982 when the FGR17 Viper failed as a replacement for the M72 LAW. Six weapons were tested in 1983 by the US Army: the British LAW 80, the German Armbrust, the French APILAS, the Norwegian M72E4 (an upgraded M72 LAW), the US Viper (for baseline comparison purposes) and the Swedish AT4. The US Army reported to Congress in November 1983 that the FFV AT4 came the closest to meeting all the major requirements established to replace the M72 LAW,[10] with the Armbrust coming in second.[11]
Though very impressed with the simplicity and durability of the tested version of the AT4, the US Army saw some room for improvement, specifically the addition of rear and front bumpers on the launch tube and changes to the sights and slings. After these changes, the AT4 was adopted by the US Army as the Lightweight Multipurpose Weapon M136.[12] The Swedish Army also recognised these improvements and subsequently adopted the 27.1 Development Americanized version of the AT4 as the Pansarskott m/86 (Pskott m/86), with the addition of a forward folding hand The AT4 is a development of the 74-mm Pansarskott grip to help steady the AT4 when being aimed and fired. m/68[8] (Miniman), adopted by the Swedish Army in the The forward folding grip is the only difference between late 1960s. Like the m/68, the AT4 was designed by the AT4 adopted by Sweden and the US Army version. Försvarets Fabriksverk (FFV) and manufactured at their Due to the urban combat conditions that US military facility at Zakrisdal, Karlstad, Sweden. FFV began reforces have been facing regularly in the last several years, search in a replacement for the m/68 in 1976, delibthe US Army Close Combat Systems manager in charge erately designing an individual anti-armor weapon that of purchases of the AT4 suspended orders for the stanwould not be able to defeat the heavy armour protection dard version of the AT4 and US military forces are now of MBTs (main battle tanks) in frontal engagements, beonly ordering the AT4 CS version.[13] lieving that to be counterproductive. The AT4 was designed as a weapon to engage medium to light armoured vehicles from any direction, MBTs from the sides or rear, and as an assault weapon against buildings and fortifica27.2 Operation tions. FFV also had the design goal of a weapon that was simple to use, rugged, and far more accurate than previous individual antiarmor weapons against moving The AT4 may be considered a disposable, low-cost altargets. Another key requirement was that the AT4 not ternative to a Carl Gustav recoilless rifle. The AT4 took only be able to penetrate armour, but also have a devas- many of its design features from the Carl Gustav, which tating beyond-armour effect after penetration. FFV and operates on the principle of a recoilless weapon, where 147
148
CHAPTER 27. AT4
Seconds after firing an AT4 in combat in Iraq US Army soldiers fire the M136 AT4 in April 2007.
the forward inertia of the projectile is balanced by the inertia of propellant gases ejecting from the rear of the barrel. But unlike the Carl Gustav, which uses a heavier and more expensive steel tube with rifling,[14] the disposable AT4 design greatly reduces manufacturing costs by using a reinforced smoothbore fiberglass outer tube. In a recoilless weapon, the barrel does not need to contend with the extreme pressures found in traditional guns and can thus be made very lightweight. This fact, combined with the almost complete lack of recoil, means that relatively large projectiles (comparable to those found in mortars and artillery systems) can be utilised, which would otherwise be impossible in a man-portable weapon. In the system originally developed by FFV for the Carl Gustav, a plastic blowout plug is placed at the center rear of the shell casing containing the projectile and propellant, which itself is enclosed in the AT4 outer tube. When the gases build up to the correct pressure level, the blowout plug disintegrates, allowing the proper amount of gases to be vented to the rear, balancing the propellant gases pushing the projectile forward.
the pressure wave, allowing troops to fire from enclosed areas. It should be noted that the AT4-CS version also reduced its muzzle velocity from the original 290 m/s to 220 m/s as part of its effort to be user safe in a confined space, making the AT4-CS version less effective. To fire, the gunner first removes the safety pin located at the rear of the tube, which unblocks the firing rod. He then takes a firing position ensuring that no one is present in the back blast area. If firing from the prone position, he must also place his legs well to the side to avoid burning himself. Then the gunner moves back the front and rear sight covers, allowing the sights to pop up into their firing positions. The AT4 has iron sights that were originally developed for the cancelled Viper, and are similar in concept and use to those on assault rifles.[15] He then removes the first of two safeties by moving the firing rod cocking lever (located on the left side) forward and then over the top to the right side. The gunner takes aim, while at the same time holding down the red safety lever located in front of the cocking lever, and then fires by pressing forward the red firing button with his right thumb. Both the red safety lever and firing button must be pressed down at the same time to fire the AT4. The red firing button has resistance similar to the trigger pull of an assault rifle, so the gunner does not have to jab at the firing button which could throw his aim off.
The AT4 uses a unique method developed earlier by FFV and adopted for the AT4: the spring-loaded firing rod is located down the side of the outer tube, with the firing pin at the rear side of the tube. When released, the firing pin strikes a primer located in the side of the casing’s rim. Additionally, as the shell casing absorbs the majority of the firing stresses, the launch tube can be designed to be After firing, the AT4 is discarded. Unlike the heavier Carl very lightweight as it does not have to contend with the Gustav, the AT4 outer tube is built only to take the stress of one firing; it is not reusable and cannot be reloaded like extreme pressures found in traditional cannons. The disadvantage of the recoilless design is that it cre- the Carl Gustav. ates a large back blast area behind the weapon, which can cause severe burns and overpressure injuries both to friendly personnel in the vicinity of the user and sometimes to the users themselves, especially in confined spaces. The back blast may also reveal the user’s position to the enemy. The problem of back blast has been recently solved with the AT4-CS (Confined Space) version, specially designed for urban warfare. This version uses a saltwater countermass in the rear of the launcher to absorb the back blast; the resulting spray captures and dramatically slows down
The AT4 can mount an optical night sight on a removable fixture. In US military use, the launcher can be fitted with the AN/PAQ-4C, AN/PEQ-2, or the AN/PAS-13 night sights. The AT4 requires little training and is quite simple to use, making it suitable for general issue. However, as the cost of each launcher makes regular live-fire training very expensive, practice versions exist that are identical in operation but fire reloadable 9mm or 20mm tracer ammunition. Both practice cartridges are unique to their respective weapons, with their trajectory matched to that
27.4. PROJECTILES
149
27.4 Projectiles There are several different projectiles for the AT4. Note that because the AT4 is a one-shot weapon, projectiles are preloaded into the launcher tubes.
AT4 launcher and projectile. The AT4 is man-portable
of the live round. The 20mm version also has a recoilless weapon effect with the same high noise and back blast as the AT4 firing and is favoured by the Swedish army because of the added realism of the back blast as compared to the “plonk” sound of the 9mm round (similar to the sound of a finger tapping on an empty can).
27.3 Specifications • Length: 101.6 cm (40 in.)
HEDP 502 (High Explosive Dual Purpose)[16] For use against bunkers, buildings, enemy personnel in the open and light armour. The projectile can be set to detonate on impact or with a slight delayed detonation. The heavier nose cap allows for the HEDP projectile to either penetrate light walls or windows and then explode, or be “skipped” off the ground for an airburst. For use against light armour, there is a smaller cone HEAT warhead with 150 mm (5.9 inches) of penetration against RHA. HP (High Penetration) Extra high penetration ability (up to 500 mm (19.7 inches) to 600 mm (23.6 inches) of RHA.)
• Weight: 6.7 kg (14.77 pounds)
AST (Anti Structure Tandem-warheads) Designed for urban warfare where a projectile heavier than • Bore diameter: 84 mm the HEDP AT4 is needed. Two warheads, first one a HEAT with a shallow cone resulting in less • Maximum effective range: 300 metres (328 yards), penetration but a wider hole, and a second follow although it has been used in excess of 500 meters through high-blast warhead. It has two settings: one (547 yards) for area fire. for destroying bunkers and one for mouse holing a building wall for combat entry.[17] • Penetration: 400 mm (15.7 inches) of rolled homogeneous armour (RHA; also see below) • Time of flight (to 250 metres, or 273 yards): less than 1 second • Muzzle velocity: 285 metres (950 ft) per second • Operating temperature: −40 to +60 °C (−40 to +140 °F) • Ammunition: fin-stabilized projectile with HEAT warhead Complete AT4 HEAT antitank round (which is preloaded
150
CHAPTER 27. AT4
in AT4) and AT8 bunker-busting warhead.
HEDP 502 projectile for the LMAW.
HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) The HEAT projectile can penetrate up to 420 mm (16.5 inches) of RHA with beyond-armour effect.[18]
•
Latvia[26]
•
Lebanon: Roughly 1,000 pieces purchased.[27]
•
Lithuania: Lithuanian Armed Forces.[28]
•
Netherlands[29] (Replaced by Pzf-3)
•
Philippines[30]
•
Poland[31]
•
Sweden: Designated Pansarskott m86.[21]
•
United Kingdom: Small quantities of AT4 and HP projectiles purchased.[3]
•
United States: Designated M136 AT4 in USMC and United States Army service, beginning in early 1987.[32] The AT4 was used in the US invasion of Panama, the War in Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf War, and the Iraq War.[1] Over 300,000 have been built locally, under license by ATK.[3]
•
Venezuela: The AT4 has been in the Venezuelan arsenal since the 1980s.[21][33] In 2009, it was reported that AT4s sold to Venezuela had been captured from FARC insurgents in Colombia, leading Colombia to accuse Venezuela of selling the weapons to the insurgents, thus heightening tensions between the two countries.[33][34]
AT8 (Bunker-Busting) A version of the AT4 where the standard HEAT projectile is replaced with the bunker-busting warhead developed for the SMAW. No orders were ever placed.[19] AT12-T In the early 1990s, there were tests of a tandem charge 120-mm version (Bofors AT 12-T) that would be able to penetrate the front armour of any modern main battle tank. However, the project was cancelled due to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and cuts in Western defence budgets.
27.6 See also
27.5 Users
• B-300
•
Argentina: Argentine Marines.[20]
•
Brazil[21]
•
Chile: Chilean Marine Corps, Chilean Army
•
Croatia[21]
• • •
Denmark: Designated PVV (Panserværnsvåben Model 1995).[22]:93
France: Designated ABL (Anti Blindé Léger) by the French Army.[24] Georgia[21]
•
Greece:Used by Hellenic Navy Seals
•
Indonesia
•
M/95
Estonia [23]
•
•
• Panzerfaust 3
Iraq: American forces supplied the Iraqi military with AT4 weapons.[25] Ireland: Called the SRAAW (Short Range Anti Armour Weapon) by the Irish Defence Forces.[22]:139
• ALAC (Arma Leve Anticarro) • Urban Assault Weapon • LAW 80 • APILAS • M141 Bunker Defeat Munition • RPG-76 Komar • MARA (anti-tank weapon)
27.7 References and notes [1] Vapenexport (PDF), SE: Svenskafreds. [2] M136 AT4, FAS. [3] Kemp, Ian (April–May 2006), “The law gets tougher: the shoulder-launched light anti-armour weapon has evolved to become a multipurpose assault weapon much in demand for asymmetric warfare”, Armada International, ISSN 0252-9793.
27.7. REFERENCES AND NOTES
[4] McManners, Hugh (2003). Ultimate Special Forces. DK Publishing. ISBN 0-7894-9973-8. [5] Owen, William F. (2007). “Light Anti-Armour Weapons: Anti-Everything?" (PDF). Asian Military Review. Retrieved 12 May 2010. [6] The designation AT-4 is an alpha-phonetic word play on the weapon’s role (AT = “Anti-Tank”) and calibre of 84 mm. Hewish, Mark, “FFV’s Lightweight AT4, first of a new family of Swedish anti-armour weapons” International Defense Review, May 1980, p. 70. [7] Military Channel, "Weaponology" program, "Grenades through RPGs"|note=(exact title unknown, didn't look in time)|, rebroadcast: 18 November 2008; Note: Documentary Program concluded that this weapon was the best recent technology in a long line of grenades, anti-armor and RPG weapons, part of “best” being cost per shot and ease of use. More sophisticated “missile” based systems have severe cost and “need-of-training” negative factors by comparison with this Bazooka-like system, “which any 'farm peasant can be trained to fire.'" (paraphrased conclusion) [8] Pansarskott is a Swedish term that roughly translates to “Armour Shot.” [9] International Defense Review, May 1980, p. 71. [10] The French APILAS was the only tested weapon that had the maximum penetration to defeat the frontal armor of the new Russian T-72 MBT, but it was rejected due to its weight and size. [11] The Armbrust, while an impressive weapon, with its almost total lack of launch signature, which enabled it to be fired from enclosed spaces, was rejected due to higher cost and lack of effective range against moving targets. [12] the U.S. Army had so much grief in the early 1980s from various committee members of the U.S. Congress over the M72 LAW being officially referred to in manuals as a Light ANTITANK Weapon that they named the AT4 to made sure no member of Congress could question that again [13] John Antal “Packing a Punch: America’s Man-Portable Antitank Weapons” page 90 Military Technology 3/2010 ISSN 0722-3226 [14] Until the 1980s the Carl Gustav was constructed of highalloy steel, but later versions used a thin steel liner containing the rifling, strengthened by a carbon fiber outer sleeve.
151
[17] “2008 SAAB video on AT4 versions including new multipurpose warhead for urban combat”. YouTube. Retrieved 11 October 2014. [18] History Channel, Lock N' Load With R. Lee Ermey, Rockets episode, aired 23 October 2009. [19] Jane’s Infantry Weapons 1995–96-page 220. The reference refers to Allaint Techsystems as the manufacture, but they soon after were acquired by Honeywell. The SMAWD offered by Talley was chosen for the U.S. Army program that the AT4 entered. See external images at the SMAW-D link for an arms brochure on the FFV AT8 [20] La Infantería de Marina adquirió armamento antitanque descartable [21] Jones, Richard D (27 January 2009), Infantry Weapons 2009/2010 (35 ed.), Jane’s Information, ISBN 978-07106-2869-5. [22] The World Defence Almanac, 2000–01, ISSN 0722-3226 Check date values in: |date= (help). [23] Mil, EE. [24] Replaced the APILAS: AT 4 CS – L'arme anti blindé lourd AT 4 CS – The Armoured Heavy anti gun, France: Ministry of Defense, retrieved 29 June 2013. [25] Sverigesradio, SE. [26] The World Defence Almanac, 2010, p. 172, ISSN 07223226. [27] Kahwaji, Riad (13 November 2007). “Lebanon: Foreign Arms Vital to Hizbollah Fight” (JPEG). Defense News. Check date values in: |year= / |date= mismatch (help) [28] “Lietuvos kariuomenė :: Ginkluotė ir karinė technika » Granatsvaidžiai ir prieštankiniai ginklai » Prieštankinis granatsvaidis AT-4”. Retrieved 11 October 2014. [29] The World Defence Almanac, 2005, p. 105, ISSN 07223226. [30] http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6119/6314516917_ 4dfa5d3eb7_z.jpg [31] “Polish Army Photogallery” (26). Polish Ministry of Defence. Retrieved 26 April 2010.
[15] FFV and the Swedish Army were so impressed by these sights that they adopted them for their AT4s; while adequate during the day, the original plastic sights were difficult to see at night or under low light conditions.
[32] “Modernizing and Equiping the Army”. Department of the Army Historical Summary, FY. United States Army Center of Military History. 1995. p. 43. CMH Pub 10119.
[16] the complete disposable launcher and HEDP projectile is referred to by the manufacture in brochures as the LMAW – i.e., light multipurpose-assault weapon – see external links for link on early photos and press releases for further information on brochure
[33] “Global Security - News and Defence Headlines - IHS Jane’s 360”. Retrieved 11 October 2014. [34] “Colombia and Venezuela face off”. GlobalPost. Retrieved 11 October 2014.
152
27.8 External links • AT4 – Saab Bofors Dynamics video of various AT-4 versions • AT4 Information Page – Modern Firearms • Swedish article on AT4 translated to English • M136 AT4 – Global Security • AT4 article with early photos and press releases and ads • U.S. Army field manual 3–23.25 • Brazilian newspaper recorded a AT-4 at Rocinha slum (translated to English) • Official site for the AT4, covering the different versions of AT-4
CHAPTER 27. AT4
Chapter 28
M141 Bunker Defeat Munition The M141 Bunker Defeat Munition (BDM), or SMAW-D (“Disposable”), is a single-shot, shoulderlaunched weapon designed to defeat hardened structures. The weapon was designed as a modification of the United States Marine Corps Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon (SMAW) to fill the void in the United States Army inventory of a “bunker buster” weapon.
28.1 Service History Two candidates were evaluated for the US Army’s BDM program. One candidate from McDonnell-Douglas (later Talley Defense Systems) which used the same warhead as the Marine Corps SMAW, but with a rocket motor with a shorter burn time, and another developed by Sweden’s FFV for Alliant Techsystems (later Honeywell), which replaced the standard HEAT warhead of the AT4/M136 with the same warhead dual purpose warhead as used by the USMC SMAW. FFV designated the bunker buster version of the AT4 the FFV AT8. In 1996 the McDonnell-Douglas candidate was chosen. In a unique move, the US Army ordered one batch of 1,500 then a second batch of 4,500 which were placed in contingency storage for expedited issue to units in combat.[1] The SMAW-D was delivered to the Army in 1999.[2] The conferees of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 agreed that the Army’s BDM and the Marine Corps’ SRAW were too similar justify separate long-term projects, and that the Army should pursue an interim BDM program. Congress limited BDM procurement to 6,000 units. CNN news footage showed US Army Rangers firing M141s at various fortified caves during the Tora Bora operations against the Afghan Taliban and al Qaeda, being mistaken by the CNN reporters for AT4/M136 projectiles.[3]
is counteracted by a “backblast” of gases fired from the rear of the weapon. This makes the SMAW-D inherently dangerous, especially in confined, urban areas, as is with all weapons of this design. The M141 has two configurations: A carry mode in which the launcher is 32 inches long, and a ready to fire mode in which the launcher is extended to its full length of 55 inches. The warhead is the same High Explosive, Dual Purpose (HEDP) as the USMC SMAW. It is effective against masonry and concrete bunkers as well as lightly armored vehicles. The projectile is capable of penetrating up to 8 inches of concrete, 12 inches of brick, or 6.9 feet of sandbags. The warhead is activated by a crush switch in its nose that is able to distinguish between hard and soft targets. On soft targets, such as sandbags, the detonation is delayed until the projectile is buried in the target, producing a devastating effect. The warhead detonates immediately on contact with hard targets.
28.3 Users •
Lebanon (Lebanese Army).[4]
•
USA
28.4 See also • SMAW • AT4
28.5 References [1] Jane’s Infantry Weapon’s 1995–96 page 221 [2] designation-systems.net
28.2 Design The SMAW-D operates on the principle of a recoilless rifle, in that the recoil created by launching the projectile 153
[3] After being fired, the projectile can be seen arching towards it target, by the exhaust nozzle in the rear which is still glowing from the heat of the burn-all-the-way in the launcher. Looks like the M141 projectile has a ruby tracer in the rear of the projectile.
154
[4] “Lebanon: Foreign Arms Vital to Hizbollah Fight - Defense News”.
28.6 External links • SMAW-D - FAS • designation-systems.net
CHAPTER 28. M141 BUNKER DEFEAT MUNITION
Chapter 29
M24 mine For other uses, see M24 (disambiguation). The M24 mine was a United States off-route land mine based on the M28A2 HEAT rocket normally fired by the M20 3.5 inch rocket launcher. The rocket was launched from an M143 plastic launch tube.
29.1 Operation A trigger cable was laid across a road, when enough pressure was applied to the trigger cable two conductors inside the cable were forced together closing a circuit. The trigger cable consisted of two segments, requiring simultaneous pressure on both segments to trigger the mine. For wheeled vehicles, the cable was laid directly across the road so that wheels on both sides of the vehicle would touch the cable at the same instance, while for tracked vehicles the cable was laid at an angle of fifteen degrees to prevent the cable slipping between the treads on the tracks. The rocket had a maximum effective range of about 30 meters beyond which it became too inaccurate to reliably strike the target. The mine is long out of production and no longer in US service. The mine has possibly been used in Angola.
29.2 See also • List of U.S. Army Rocket Launchers By Model Number
29.3 References • FM 20-32, Landmine Warfare, Department of the Army • Jane’s Mines and Mine Clearance 2005-2006 • M24 mine at ORDATA
155
Chapter 30
FIM-43 Redeye The General Dynamics FIM-43 Redeye was a manportable surface-to-air missile system. It used infrared homing to track its target. Production was terminated in September 1969 after about 85,000 rounds had been built - in anticipation of the Redeye II, which later became the FIM-92 Stinger. The Redeye was withdrawn gradually between 1982 and 1995 as the Stinger was deployed.
30.1 Development In 1948 the United States Army began seeking new infantry air-defense weapons, as machine guns were ineffective against new fast jets. Several gun/rocket systems were investigated but none were promising. In the mid1950s Convair began studies of a man portable infrared guided missile. In November 1956 the results of these studies were shown to the US Army and USMC. In 1957 official requirements were formulated, and in 1958 Convair was awarded a contract to start development of the system. In July 1959 the development project began, in March 1960, the first test rounds were fired. Launches from a launch tube followed in May 1961, with a shoulder launch occurring in 1961. Technical problems prevented the missile entering full production: the missile did not live up to its specifications - being slower, less maneuverable and less accurate. During the testing, substantial use was made of the Atlantic Research MQR-16 Gunrunner expendable target missile. Limited production began as XM41 Redeye Block I. The missile was designated XMIM-43A in June 1963. Block I systems were then evaluated between 1965 and 1966. Block II systems designated XM41E1 began development in 1964, the missile being designated XMIM-43B. The missiles were delivered in April 1966, and included a new gas-cooled detector cell, a slightly redesigned launcher and an improved warhead. In 1965 to 1966 General Dynamics developed the final Redeye Block III configuration, designated at first XM41E2 with XFIM-43C missiles. The missiles retained the seeker from the Block II missile, but included a new rocket motor, warhead and fuze. The launcher now
The block I/II launcher above, the block III launcher below.
had an XM-62 open sight and upgraded electronics. The new missile could turn at up to 3g. The missile achieved a kill probability against F9F tactical drones travelling at 430 knots at an altitude of 100 meters of 0.51. From this it was calculated that the kill probability versus a Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 at similar altitude would be 0.403, and 0.53 against helicopters (specifically the Mi-6 and US H-13 and H-21). Kill probability against larger propeller driven aircraft like the AN-12 was estimated at 0.43.[1] Production of the Block III systems began in May 1967. In 1968 Block III was declared operational.
30.2 History 50 Redeye systems were delivered to the mujahideen by the US during the Soviet war in Afghanistan in 1984,[2] where they were used to shoot down a number of aircraft including several Su-25 jets as well as Mi-24 and
156
30.5. COMPARISON CHART
157
Mi-8 helicopters.[3] By November 1986 it had largely been replaced by the dramatically more successful FIM92 Stinger missiles. The Redeye was known as Hamlet in Danish service and as RBS 69 in Swedish service. The Redeye was also used by the Nicaraguan "Contras" to shoot down at least four Soviet Mi-8 helicopters during the Nicaraguan Revolution. These were provided to the FDN by the U.S.
30.3 Description The missile is fired from the M171 missile launcher. First A FIM-43C Redeye missile just after launch before the sustainer the seeker is cooled to operating temperature and then the motor ignites. operator begins to visually track the target using the sight unit on the launcher. Once the target is locked onto by the • FIM-43D Upgraded missile, with unknown capamissile a buzzer in the launcher hand grip begins vibratbilities. ing, alerting the operator. The operator then presses the trigger, which fires the initial booster stage and launches the missile out of the tube at a speed of around 80 feet per second (25 m/s). As the missile leaves the tube spring- 30.5 Comparison chart loaded fins pop out, four stabilizing tail fins at the back of the missile, and two control surfaces at the front of the missile. Once the missile has travelled six meters, 30.6 Users the sustainer motor ignites. The sustainer motor takes the • Croatia[5] missile to its peak velocity of Mach 1.7 in 5.8 seconds. 1.25 seconds after the sustainer is ignited, the warhead is • El Salvador[6] armed.[1] • Sweden[7] The missile’s seeker is only capable of tracking the hot exhausts of aircraft, which limits the engagements to tail• Thailand[8] chase only. The missile’s blast fragmentation warhead is triggered by an impact fuze requiring a direct hit. As a first generation missile it is susceptible to a variety of 30.6.1 Non-state users countermeasures including flares and hot brick jammers. • Bosniak army and the Bosnian mujahideen[5] In addition, its inability to turn at a rate greater than 3 G means that it can be outmaneuvered if detected.
30.7 See also 30.4 Variants • Block I FIM-43/XFIM-43A/XMIM-43A • Block II FIM-43B/XFIM-43B/XMIM-43B - Fitted with a gas cooled seeker and improved warhead and fuse and modified launcher. • XFEM-43B Experimental test missile, with data logging capability • Block III FIM-43C/XFIM-43C Production version - Improved warhead and fuse section, and a new launcher. • XFEM-43C Experimental test missile, with data logging capability
• List of U.S. Army Rocket Launchers By Model Number • SA-7
30.8 References [1] History of the Redeye Weapon System. Historical Division Army Missile Command. 1974. [2] SIPRI Arms Transfers Database [3] Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot: Described / SU-25 In Afghanistan airtoaircombat.com [4] The small secondary charge ignites any remaining propellent
158
[5] http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.asp? smallarms_id=30 [6] El Salvador Inventory Jane’s Land-Based Air Defense [7] http://www.robotmuseum.se/Mappar/Robothistorik/09_ Luftvarn/ARM_rb_69.htm [8] http://www.cmchant.com/the-redeye-battlefield-missile
30.9 External links • General Dynamics FIM-43 Redeye - Designation Systems
CHAPTER 30. FIM-43 REDEYE
Chapter 31
AGM-114 Hellfire The AGM-114 Hellfire is an air-to-surface missile (ASM) first developed for anti-armor use , but later models were developed for precision strikes against other target types, such as, in the case of a Predator drone, individuals or groups of individuals. It was originally developed under the name Helicopter Launched, Fire and Forget Missile, which led to the acronym 'Hellfire' that became the missile’s formal name.[2] It has multimission, multi-target precision-strike capability, and can be launched from multiple air, sea, and ground platforms. The Hellfire missile is the primary 100-pound (45 kg) class air-to-ground precision weapon for the armed forces of the United States and many other nations. Cockpit video showing the missile being used in Afghanistan against two people on a road.
31.1 Description
The Hellfire can be deployed from rotary- and fixed- aimed at the target. Predator and Reaper UCAVs carry wing aircraft, waterborne vessels and land-based systems the Hellfire II, but the most common platform is the AHagainst a variety of targets. 64 Apache helicopter gunship, which can carry up to 16 The development of the Hellfire Missile System began in of the missiles at once. The AGM-114L, or Longbow 1974 with the U.S. Army requirement for a "tank-buster", Hellfire, is a fire-and-forget weapon: equipped with a launched from helicopters to defeat armored fighting millimeter wave (MMW) radar seeker, it requires no furvehicles.[3][4] Production of the AGM-114A started in ther guidance after launch—even being able to lock-on 1982. The Development Test and Evaluation (DT&E) to its target after launch[8] —and can hit its target without launch phase of the AGM-114B took place in 1984. the launcher or other friendly unit being in line of sight of The DT&E on the AGM-114K was completed in Fis- the target. It also provides capability in adverse weather cal Year (FY)93 and FY94. AGM-114M did not re- and battlefield obscurants (obscurants such as smoke and quire a DT&E because it is the same as the AGM-114K fog being able to mask the position of the target or to except for the warhead. Most variants are laser guided prevent the designating laser from producing a detectable with one, AGM-114L “Longbow Hellfire”, being radar reflection). Each Hellfire weighs 47 kg / 106 pounds, inguided.[5][6] Laser guidance can be provided either from cluding the 9 kg / 20 pound warhead, and has a range of the launcher, such as the nose-mounted opto-electronics 8,000 meters. The AGM-114R “Romeo” Hellfire II enof the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter, other airborne tered service in late 2012. It uses a semi-active laser homtarget designators or from ground-based observers, the ing guidance system and an integrated blast fragmentation latter two options allowing the launcher to break line of sleeve warhead to engage targets that previously needed sight with the target and seek cover.[7] multiple Hellfire variants. It will replace AGM-114K, M, [9] The Hellfire II, developed in the early 1990s is a mod- N, and P variants in U.S. service. In October 2012, the for both the U.S. ular missile system with several variants. Hellfire II’s U.S. ordered 24,000 Hellfire II missiles, [10] armed forces and foreign customers. semi-active laser variants—AGM-114K high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT), AGM-114KII with external blast fragmentation sleeve, AGM-114M (blast fragmentation), and AGM-114N metal augmented charge (MAC)—achieve pinpoint accuracy by homing in on a reflected laser beam
The Joint Common Missile (JCM) was to replace Hellfire II (along with the AGM-65 Maverick) by around 2011. The JCM was developed with a tri-mode seeker and a multi-purpose warhead that would combine the ca-
159
160
CHAPTER 31. AGM-114 HELLFIRE
pabilities of the several Hellfire variants. In the budget for FY2006, the U.S. Department of Defense canceled a number of projects that they felt no longer warranted continuation based on their cost effectiveness, including the JCM. A possible new JCM successor called the Joint Air to Ground Missile (JAGM) is under consideration. Due to budget reductions, JAGM development was separated into increments, with Increment 1 focusing on adding a millimeter wave radar to the Hellfire-R to give it a dualmode seeker, enabling it to track moving targets in bad weather.[11][12]
31.2 Combat history Since being fielded, Hellfire missiles have been used in combat in Operation Just Cause in Panama, Operation Desert Storm in Persian Gulf, Operation Allied Force in Yugoslavia, Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, where they have been fired from Apache and Super Cobra attack helicopters, Kiowa scout helicopters, and Predator unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs). The only known operational air-to-air kill with a Hellfire took place on 24 May 2001. A civilian Cessna 152 aircraft entered Israeli airspace from Lebanon, with unknown intentions and refusing to answer or comply with ATC repeated warnings to turn back. An Israeli Air Force AH-64A helicopter fired upon the Cessna, resulting in its complete disintegration,[13] and the death of Estephan Nicolian, a student pilot.[14]
Hellfire loaded onto the rails of a United States Marine Corps AH-1W Super Cobra at Balad Air Base in Iraq in 2005.
• AH-64 Apache • Agusta A129 Mangusta • Eurocopter Tiger • SH-60 / MH-60R / MH-60S Seahawk • OH-58D Kiowa Warrior • RAH-66 Comanche • AH-6 Little Bird • UH-60 Blackhawk • Westland WAH-64 Apache
In 2008, the usage of the AGM-114N variant caused controversy in the United Kingdom when it was reported that 31.3.2 Fixed-wing aircraft these thermobaric munitions were added to the British • Beechcraft Super King Air[20] Army arsenal. Thermobaric weapons have been condemned by human rights groups.[15] The UK Ministry of • AC-208 Combat Caravan[21] Defence refers to the AGM-114N as an “enhanced blast weapon”.[15] • KC-130J Harvest HAWK[22] The AGM-114 has been the munition of choice for air• A-29 Super Tucano borne targeted killings that have included high-profile fig• Air Tractor AT-802U ures such as Ahmed Yassin (Hamas leader) in 2004 by the Israeli Air Force,[16][17] Anwar al-Awlaki (American• AC-130W[23] born Islamic cleric and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula leader) in Yemen in 2011,[18] Abu Yahya al-Libi in Pakistan in 2012 by the United States, and Moktar Ali Unmanned aircraft Zubeyr (also known as Ahmad Abdi Godane, leader of al-Shabaab) in Somalia in September 2014.[19] • MQ-1B Predator • MQ-9 Reaper
31.3 Launch vehicles and systems 31.3.1
Manned helicopters
• AH-1W SuperCobra • AH-1Z Viper
• Predator C • MQ-1C Gray Eagle
31.3.3 Manned boat • Combat Boat 90
31.5. VARIANTS
Predator launching a Hellfire missile
31.3.4
Experimental platforms
The system has been tested for use on the Humvee and the Improved TOW Vehicle (ITV). Test shots have also been fired from a C-130 Hercules. Sweden and Norway use the Hellfire for coastal defense, and Norway has conducted tests with Hellfire launchers on Protector (RWS) remotely controlled weapon systems mounted on the Stridsbåt 90 coastal assault boat.[24] The US Navy is evaluating the missile for use on the littoral combat ship.[25] The missile will be tested on the LCS in 2014.[26]
161
•
Pakistan
•
Qatar
•
Saudi Arabia
•
Singapore
•
Spain
•
Sweden
•
Taiwan (Republic of China)
•
Tunisia[29]
•
Turkey
•
United Arab Emirates
•
United Kingdom
•
United States
31.5 Variants AGM-114A Basic Hellfire
31.4 Operators The following nations use the Hellfire:[27]
• Target: Tanks, armored vehicles. • Range: 8,000 m (8,750 yd) • Guidance: Semi-active laser homing (SALH).
•
Australia
• Warhead: 8 kg (18 lb) shaped charge HEAT.
•
Egypt
• Length: 163 cm (64 in)
•
France
• Weight: 45 kg (99 lb)
•
Greece
•
Republic of Korea
•
India
•
Indonesia
• AGM-114B has electronic SAD (Safe/Arming Device) for safe shipboard use.
•
Iraq
• Unit cost: $25,000
•
Israel
•
Italy
•
Jordan
•
Japan
•
Kuwait
•
Lebanon[28]
• Target: Tanks, armored vehicles.
•
Netherlands
• Range: 7,000 m (7,650 yd)
•
Norway
• Guidance: Semi-active laser homing.
AGM-114B/C Basic Hellfire • M120E1 low smoke motor.
AGM-114D/E Basic Hellfire • Proposed upgrade of AGM-114B/C with digital autopilot—not built. AGM-114F Interim Hellfire
162
CHAPTER 31. AGM-114 HELLFIRE
• Warhead: 9 kg (20 lb) tandem shaped charge AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire HEAT. • Target: All armored threats • Length: 180 cm (71 in) • Range: 8,000 m (8,749 yd) • Weight: 48.5 kg (107 lb) • Guidance: AGM-114G Interim Hellfire • Fire and forget millimeter wave radar seeker coupled with inertial guidance • Proposed version of AGM-114F with SAD—not • Homing capability in adverse weather and the built. presence of battlefield obscurants AGM-114H Interim Hellfire • Proposed upgrade of AGM-114F with digital autopilot—not built.
• Warhead: 9 kg (20 lb) tandem shaped charge high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) • Length: 176 cm (69.2 in) • Weight: 49 kg (108 lb)
AGM-114J Hellfire II AGM-114M Hellfire II • Proposed version of AGM-114F with lighter components, shorter airframe, and increased range—not built. AGM-114K Hellfire II
• Target: Bunkers, light vehicles, urban (soft) targets and caves • Range: 8,000 m (8,749 yd) • Guidance: • Semi-active laser homing • Warhead: Blast fragmentation/incendiary • Weight: 48.2 kg (106 lb) • Length: 163 cm (64 in) AGM-114N Hellfire II
A Hellfire II exposed through transparent casing.
• Target: All armored threats • Range: 8,000 m (8,749 yd) • Guidance: • Semi-active laser homing with electro-optical countermeasures hardening • Digital autopilot improvements allow target reacquisition after lost laser lock • New electronic SAD • Warhead: 9 kg (20 lb) tandem shaped charge HEAT • Length: 163 cm (64 in)
• Target: Enclosures, ships, urban targets, air defense units • Range: 8,000 m (8,749 yd) • Guidance: • Semi-active laser homing • Warhead: Metal augmented charge (MAC) (Thermobaric) • Weight: 48 kg (105 lb) • Length: 163 cm (64 in) AGM-114P Hellfire II • Version of AGM-114K optimized for use from UCAVs flying at high altitude.
• Weight: 45.4 kg (100 lb) • Unit cost: $65,000 • Essentially the proposed AGM-114J w/ SAD
ATM-114Q Hellfire II • Practice version of AGM-114N with inert warhead.
31.7. SEE ALSO AGM-114R Hellfire II • Target: Bunkers, light vehicles, urban (soft) targets and caves
163 • Performance: • Operating temperature: −43 °C to 63 °C (−45 °F to 145 °F)
• Range: 8,000 m (8,749 yd)
• Storage temperature: −43 °C to 71 °C (−45 °F to 160 °F)
• Guidance:
• Service life: 20+ years (estimated)
• Semi-active laser homing
• Technical data:
• Warhead: Integrated Blast Frag Sleeve (IBFS) (combine blast fragmentation and fragment dispersion).
• Weight: 14.2 kg (31.3 lb)
• Weight: 50 kg (110 lb)
• Case: 7075-T73 aluminum
• Speed : Mach 1.3
• Insulator: R-181 aramid fiber-filled EPDM
AGM-114S Hellfire II • Practice version of AGM-114K with a spotting charge instead of a warhead.
• Length: 59.3 cm (23.35 in) • Diameter: 18 cm (7.0 in)
• Nozzle: Cellulose phenolic • Propellant: Minimum smoke cross linked double based (XLDB)
31.7 See also
AGM-114T Hellfire II • Brimstone missile • AGM-114R with insensitive munition rocket motor and electromagnetic control actuators.
• Mokopa • AGM-169 Joint Common Missile
31.6 Rocket motor
• Euromissile HOT • Spike (missile) • PARS 3 LR • HJ-10 • List of missiles • U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command • AN/PAQ-1 • Direct Attack Guided Rocket
Cross section diagram of Hellfire rocket motor, showing the rod and tube grain design.
• Contractor: Alliant Techsystems • Designation: • M120E3 (Army) • M120E4 (Navy) • Main features: • Qualified minimum smoke propellant • Rod and tube grain design • Neoprene bondline system
• UMTAS • Griffin (missile) • Targeted killing
31.8 References [1] AGM-114 Hellfire Variants. GlobalSecurity.org, 25 November 2005. Retrieved 14 August 2009. [2] “AGM-114 Hellfire missile.” Boeing, Retrieved 3 July 2013. [3] John Pike. “AGM-114 Hellfire Modular Missile System (HMMS)". Retrieved 6 February 2015.
164
CHAPTER 31. AGM-114 HELLFIRE
[4] Introduction of the Hellfire – A Revolutionary Weapon to defeat the Soviet Armor Threat – Official US Army video at Real Military Flix
[24] Norwegian article about the experimental deployment of Hellfire missiles on coastal patrol boats (from the official web site of the Norwegian Armed Forces)
[5] “Longbow Hellfire”. Retrieved 27 September 2011. [6] “AGM-114L Longbow Missile”. (shows that the L variant is called Longbow). Retrieved 27 September 2011.
[25] Muñoz, Carlo (14 January 2014). “SNA 2014: Navy Won’t Rule Out Army Longbow Hellfire for LCS”. news.usni.org. U.S. NAVAL INSTITUTE. Retrieved 14 January 2014.
[7] “AGM-114 Hellfire Modular Missile System (HMMS)". Retrieved 27 September 2011.
[26] Osborn, Kris (9 April 2014). “Navy Adds Hellfire Missiles to LCS”. Monster. Retrieved 9 April 2014.
[8] “AGM-114L Longbow Missile”. Retrieved 27 September 2011.
[27] “AGM-114 Hellfire and Longbow Hellfire”, Jane’s Weapon Systems, Vol. 1: Air-Launched, March 19, 2013.
[9] Army and Lockheed Martin prepare for production of advanced laser-guided Hellfire missile - Militaryaerospace.com, 10 April 2012
[28] “Heavy U.S. Military Aid to Lebanon Arrives ahead of Elections”. Naharnet Newsdesk. 9 April 2009. Retrieved 9 April 2009.
[10] Hella Lotta Hellfires - Strategypage.com, October 19, 2012
[29] “Proposed Foreign Military Sale to Tunisia”.
[11] Army Reduces Scope Of Tri-Mode JAGM - Aviationweek.com, 27 August 2012
31.9 External links
[12] Hellfire Replacement Step Closer With Draft JAGM RFP, Aviationweek.com, 10 June 2014
• AGM-114 Hellfire—Federation of American Scientists (FAS)
[13] “ynet חדשות- "מטוס ססנה לבנוני הופל מעל מכמורת. ynet. Retrieved 6 February 2015.
• HELLFIRE II Missile—Lockheed Martin
[14] “Israel shoots down Lebanese civilian plane”. CNN. May 2001.
• LONGBOW FCR and LONGBOW HELLFIRE Missile—Lockheed Martin
[15] Smith, Michael (22 June 2008). “Army 'vacuum' missile hits Taliban”. London: Times Online. Retrieved 22 June 2008. [16] Whitaker, Brian (23 March 2004). “Assassination method: surveillance drone and a Hellfire missile”. The Guardian (London). Retrieved 4 December 2010. [17] “Al Jazeera English – The Life And Death Of Shaikh Yasin”. Web.archive.org. Archived from the original on 16 August 2007. Retrieved 20 October 2010. [18] Kasinoff, Laura; Mazzetti, Mark; Cowell, Alan (30 September 2011), “U.S.-Born Qaeda Leader Killed in Yemen”, The New York Times [19] Martinez, Michael (5 September 2014). “Top Somali militant killed in U.S. operation, Pentagon says”. CNN. Retrieved 5 September 2014. [20] “US sends Hellfire missiles to Iraq”. Belfast Telegraph (Independent News & Media). 27 December 2013. Retrieved 27 December 2013. [21] “New Iraqi Airborne Strike Capability Spotted”. Aviation Week & Space Technology. 14 October 2008. Retrieved 20 May 2010. [22] KC-130J Harvest Hawk takes on new role in Afghanistan - DVIDS [23] “The U.S. Air Force’s New AC-130 Gunships Are Really Bomb Trucks”. FoxTrot Alpha. 1 June 2014. Retrieved 5 September 2014.
• Designation Systems • Global Security • Archived copy of Navy Fact File • Janes.com • Hellfire Detailed Description and Images
Chapter 32
M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System The M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System (M270 cal MLRS cluster salvo consisted of three M270 vehicles MLRS) is an armored, self-propelled, multiple rocket each firing all 12 rockets. With each rocket containing launcher; a type of rocket artillery. 644 M77 grenades, the entire salvo would drop 23,184 grenades in the target area. However, with a two perSince the first M270s were delivered to the U.S. Army in 1983, the MLRS has been adopted by several cent dud rate, that would leave approximately 400 undetonated bombs scattered over the area that would endanger NATO countries. Some 1,300 M270 systems have been [4] manufactured in the United States and in Europe, along friendly troops and civilians. with more than 700,000 rockets. The production of the In 2006, MLRS was upgraded to fire guided rounds. M270 ended in 2003, when a last batch was delivered to Phase I testing of a guided unitary round (XM31) was the Egyptian Army. completed on an accelerated schedule in March 2006. Due to an Urgent Need Statement, the guided unitary round was quickly fielded and used in action in Iraq.[5] Lockheed Martin also received a contract to convert ex32.1 Overview isting M30 DPICM GMLRS rockets to the XM31 unitary variant.[6] The weapon can fire guided and unguided projectiles up A German developmental artillery system, called the to 42 km (26 mi). Firing ballistic missiles, such as the Artillery Gun Module, has used the MLRS chassis on its U.S. Army Tactical Missile System—ATACMS, it can developmental vehicles.[7] hit targets 300 km (190 mi) away; the warhead in such shots reaches an altitude of about 50 km (164,000 ft). In 2012, a contract was issued to improve the armor of The M270 can be used in shoot-and-scoot tactics, firing the M270s and improve the fire control to the standards [8] its rockets rapidly, then moving away to avoid counter- of the HIMARS. battery fire. MLRS was developed jointly by the United Kingdom, United States, Germany, and France. It was developed from the older General Support Rocket System (GSRS). The M270 MLRS weapons system is collectively known as the M270 MLRS Self-propelled Loader/Launcher (SPLL). The SPLL is composed of 3 primary subsystems: the M269 Loader Launcher Module (LLM), which also houses the electronic Fire Control System, is mated to the M993 Carrier Vehicle. The M993 is a derivative of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle chassis.[1][2] The rockets and ATACMS missiles are contained in interchangeable pods. Each pod contains six standard rockets or one guided ATACMS missile; the two types cannot be mixed. The LLM can hold two pods at a time, which are hand-loaded using an integrated winch system. All twelve rockets or two ATACMS missiles can be fired in under a minute. One launcher firing twelve rockets can completely blanket one square kilometer with submunitions. For this reason, the MLRS is sometimes referred to as the “Grid Square Removal System” (metric maps are usually divided up into 1 km grids).[3] A typi-
32.2 Service history When first deployed with the U.S. Army, the MLRS was used in a composite battalion consisting of two batteries of traditional artillery (howitzers) and one battery of MLRS SPLLs (self-propelled loader/launchers). The first operational organic or “all MLRS” unit was 6th Battalion, 27th Field Artillery.[9] The 6th Battalion, 27th Field Artillery was reactivated as the Army’s first Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) battalion on 1 October 1984, and became known as the “Proud Rockets,”. In March 1990, the unit deployed to White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico to conduct the Initial Operational Test and Evaluation of the Army Tactical Missile System. The success of the test provided the Army with a highly accurate, long range fire support asset. On 2 September 1990, the 6th Battalion, 27th Field Artillery deployed to Saudi Arabia in support of Operation
165
166
CHAPTER 32. M270 MULTIPLE LAUNCH ROCKET SYSTEM
MLRS-System with launch vehicle, loader and a command center inside an M113-APC
In April 2011, the first modernized MLRS II and M31 GMLRS rocket were handed over to the German Army’s Artillery School in Idar Oberstein. The German Army operates the M31 rocket up to a range of 90 km.[11] The M270 MLRS conducts a rocket launch.
32.3 Versions Desert Shield. Assigned to the XVIII Airborne Corps Artillery, the unit played a critical role in the early defense of Saudi Arabia. As Desert Shield turned into Desert Storm, the Battalion was the first U.S. Field Artillery unit to fire into Kuwait. Over the course of the war, the 6th Battalion, 27th Field Artillery provided timely and accurate rocket and missile fires for both U.S. corps in the theater, the 82nd Airborne Division, the 6th French Light Armored Division, the 1st Armored, 1st Infantry Division, the 101st Airborne Division, and the 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized). A Btry 92nd Field Artillery (MLRS) was deployed to the Gulf War in 1990 from Ft.Hood Texas. 3/27th FA Two British M270 MLRS in 2008 in Camp Bastion, Afghanistan (MLRS) out of Ft. Bragg deployed in support of Operation Desert Shield in August 1990. A/21st Field Artillery • M270 is the original version, which carries a weapon (MLRS) – 1st Cavalry Division Artillery deployed in supload of 12 rockets in two six-pack launch pod conport of Operation Desert Shield in September 1990. In tainers. This armored, tracked mobile launcher uses December 1990, A-40th Field Artillery (MLRS) – 3rd a stretched Bradley chassis and gives the vehicle high Armored Division Artillery (Hanau), 1/27th FA (MLRS) cross-country capability. part of the 41st Field Artillery Brigade (Babenhausen) and 4/27th FA (MLRS) (Wertheim) deployed in support • M270 IPDS was an interim upgrade applied to a of Operation Desert Shield from their bases in Germany select number of launchers to provide the ability to and 1/158th Field Artillery from the Oklahoma Army fire the longer-range GPS-aided ATACMS Block National Guard deployed in January 1991. IA, quick-reaction unitary and Block II missiles unIn early Feb 91 1/27th FA launched the biggest MLRS til sufficient M270A1 launchers were fielded. night fire mission in history.[10] It has since been used in numerous military engagements including the 2003 in• M270A1 was the result of an 2005 upgrade provasion of Iraq. In March 2007, the British Ministry of gram for the U.S. Army, and later on for sevDefence decided to send a troop of MLRS to support oneral other states. The launcher appears identical going operations in Afghanistan’s southern province of to M270, but incorporates an improved fire control Helmand; they will use newly developed guided munisystem (IFCS) and an improved launcher mechantions. ical system (ILMS). This allows for significantly
32.4. MLRS ROCKETS AND MISSILES faster launch procedures and the firing of new types of munitions, including GPS guided rockets. • M270B1 is a British Army upgrade, similar to the A1, but it also includes an enhanced armor package, which gives the crew better protection against IED attacks.
32.4 MLRS rockets and missiles
167 • M30 (United States): Guided MLRS (GMLRS). A precision guided rocket, range over 60 km with a standard load of 404 M85 submunitions. • M31 (United States): Guided Unitary MLRS. Variant of the M30 with a unitary highexplosive warhead for use in urban and mountainous terrain.[12] • M39 (MGM-140) (United States): Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS). A large guided missile using the M270 launcher, with a variety of warheads. Main article: MGM-140 ATACMS • XM135 (United States): Rocket with binary chemical warhead (VX (nerve agent)). Not standardized. • AT2 (Germany, UK, France): SCATMIN Rocket with 28 anti-tank mines and range of 38 km. • PARS SAGE-227 F (Turkey): Experimental Guided MLRS (GMLRS) developed by TUBITAKSAGE to replace the M26 rockets.
“Steel Rain” - M77 DPICM submunition of type used by MLRS M26 rocket. 644 M77s per rocket. The M77 was developed from the M483A1 that was developed for artillery shells.
The M270 system can fire MLRS Family Of Munition (MFOM) rockets and artillery missiles, which are manufactured and used by a number of platforms and countries. These include:
32.4.1 Selected rocket specifications • Caliber: 227 mm (8.94 in) • Length: 3.94 m (12.93 ft) • Motor: Solid-fuel rocket
• M26 (United States): Rocket with 644 M77 32.4.2 Alternative Warhead Program Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions In April 2012, Lockheed Martin received a $79.4 mil(DPICM) submunitions, range of 32 km. lion contract to develop a GMLRS incorporating an • M26A1 (United States): Extended Range Alliant Techsystems-designed alternative warhead to reRocket (ERR), with range of 45 km and 518 place DPICM cluster warheads. The AW version is M85 submunitions (an improved version of designed as a drop-in replacement with little modificathe M77 DPICM submunition). tion needed to existing rockets. An Engineering and • M26A2 (United States): As M26A1, but us- Manufacturing Development (EMD) program will last ing M77 submunitions. Interim use until M85 36 months, with the alternative warhead GMLRS expected to enter service in late 2016.[14] The AW warsubmunition entered service. head is a large airburst fragmentation warhead that ex• M27 (United States): Completely inert training plodes 30 ft (9.1 m) over a target area to disperse penLaunch Pod/Container to allow full loading cycle etrating projectiles. Considerable damage is caused to training. a large area while leaving behind only solid metal pene[15] • M28 (United States): Training rocket. M26 with trators and inert rocket fragments from a 200 lb warthree ballast containers and three smoke marking head containing approximately 160,000 preformed tungsten fragments.[16] containers in place of submunition payload. • M28A1 (United States): Reduced Range Prac- On 22 May 2013, Lockheed and ATK test fired a tice Rocket (RRPR) with blunt nose. Range GMLRS rocket with a new cluster munition warhead developed under the Alternative Warhead Program (AWP), reduced to 9 km. aimed at producing a drop-in replacement for DPICM • XM29 (United States): Rocket with Sense and De- bomblets in M30 guided rockets. It was fired by an M142 stroy Armor (SADARM) submunitions. Not stan- HIMARS and traveled 35 km (22 mi) before detonatdardized. ing. The AWP warhead will have equal or greater effect
168
CHAPTER 32. M270 MULTIPLE LAUNCH ROCKET SYSTEM
against materiel and personnel targets, while leaving no unexploded ordnance behind.[17] On 23 October 2013, Lockheed conducted the third and final engineering development test flight of the GMLRS alternative warhead. Three rockets were fired from 17 kilometres (11 mi) away and destroyed their ground targets. The Alternative Warhead Program then moved to production qualification testing.[18] The fifth and final Production Qualification Test (PQT) for the AW GMLRS was conducted in April 2014, firing four rockets from a HIMARS at targets 65 kilometres (40 mi) away.[19] On 28 July 2014, Lockheed successfully completed all Developmental Test/Operational Test (DT/OT) flight tests for the AW GMLRS. They were the first tests conducted with soldiers operating the fire control system, firing rockets at mid and long-range from a HIMARS. The Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) exercise will be conducted in fall 2014.[20]
32.5 M993 Launcher specifications • Entered service: 1982 (U.S. Army)
•
• • • •
Finland: Finnish Army (33 + 1 burned, called 298 RsRakH (Raskas RaketinHeitin) 06, literally “heavy rocket launcher”) France: French Army (44) Germany: German Army (called MARS Mittleres Artillerie Raketen System) (50+202) Greece: Hellenic Army (36) Israel: Israel Defense Forces (48) (Called “Menatetz” מנתץ, “Smasher”)
•
Italy: Italian Army (22)
•
Japan: Japan Ground Self-Defense Force (99)
•
South Korea: Republic of Korea Army (58)
•
Turkey: Turkish Army (12)
•
United Kingdom: Royal Artillery (42)
•
United States: United States Army (840+151)
• First used in action: 1991 (First Gulf War) • Crew: 3
32.7 Former Operators
• Weight loaded: 24,756 kg • Length: 6.86 metres (22 ft 6 in)
•
Denmark: Royal Danish Army (no longer in service; sold to Finnish Army) (12)
•
Netherlands: Royal Netherlands Army (out of service since 2004; sold to Finnish Army)
•
Norway: Norwegian Army (12) (no longer in active service)
• Width: 2.97 metres (9 ft 9 in) [21] • Height (stowed): 2.57 m (8 ft 5 in)[22] • Height (max elevation): not available • Max road speed: 64 km/h • Cruise range: 480 km • Reload time: 4 min (M270) 3 min (M270A1)
32.8 Nicknames
• Engine: Turbo-charged V8 Cummins VTA903 US military operators refer to the M270 as “the commandiesel 500 hp ver2. der’s personal shotgun” or as “battlefield buckshot.” It is • Crossdrive turbo transmission fully electronically also commonly referred to as the “Gypsy Wagon”, because crews store additional equipment, such as camoucontrolled flage netting, cots, coolers, and personal items, on top of [23] the vehicle as the launcher itself lacks adequate storage • Average unit cost: $2.3 million space for the crew. Within the British military, a common nickname is “Grid Square Removal System”, a play on the initialism GSRS (from the older General Support 32.6 Operators Rocket System). With the adoption of the new M30 GPS guided rocket, it is now being referred to as the “70 kilometer sniper rifle.”[24] During the 1991 Gulf War, the • Egypt: Egyptian Army (48) Iraqis referred to the small M77 submunitions rockets as • Bahrain: Royal Bahraini Army (9) the “Steel Rain.”
32.11. EXTERNAL LINKS
32.9 See also • Multiple rocket launcher • HIMARS • M-numbers • Astros II MLRS
169
[18] Alternative GMLRS Warhead Completes Third Successful Fight Test - Deagel.com, 23 October 2013 [19] Lockheed Martin GMLRS Alternative Warhead Logs Successful Flight-Test Series, Shifts To Next Testing Phase - Lockheed news release, 16 April 2014 [20] Lockheed Martin Completes Successful Operational Flight Tests of GMLRS Alternative Warhead Deagel.com, 28 July 2014 [21]
32.10 References
[22]
[1] John Pike. “M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System MLRS”. Globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 2013-10-23.
[23] John Pike. “M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System MLRS”. Globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 2013-10-23.
[2] “M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System - MLRS”. Fas.org. Retrieved 2013-10-23.
[24]
[3] Ben Rooney, “Tank-busting helicopters ready for action”, Daily Telegraph, April 21, 1999.
32.11 External links
[4] After Cluster Bombs: Raining Nails - Wired.com, 30 May 2008 [5] “Guided MLRS Unitary Rocket Successfully Tested”, Microwave Journal, Vol. 49, No. 3 (March 2006), page 39. [6] “Lockheed Gets $16.6M to Convert MLRS Rockets, Asked to Speed Up GMLRS Production (updated)". Defense Industry Daily. August 2, 2006. Retrieved 201310-23. [7] “Defense & Security Intelligence & Analysis: IHS Jane’s | IHS”. Janes.com. Retrieved 2013-10-23. [8] “USA Moves to Update Its M270 Rocket Launchers”. Defenseindustrydaily.com. 2012-07-01. Retrieved 201310-23. [9] “History for 6th Battalion, 27th Field Artillery (1960s to Present)". Military.com. Retrieved 2013-10-23. [10] “C-1/27th FA MLRS”. YouTube. 2009-11-26. Retrieved 2013-10-23. [11] “Rollout MARS II und GMLRS Unitary” (in German). Bwb.org. 2012-07-26. Retrieved 2012-08-06. [12] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/ GuidedUnitaryMLRSRocket.html [13] Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS)Unitary [14] GMLRS to Get a New Warhead - Defense-Update.com, 24 April 2012 [15] Army tests safer warhead - Armytechnology.Armylive.DoDlive.mil, 2 September 2014 [16] Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) Alternative Warhead (GMLRS-AW) XM30A1 - Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation. 2014 [17] “US Army searches for cluster munitions alternatives”. Dmilt.com. Retrieved 2013-10-23.
• Lockheed US MLRS at Army-Technology.com • British MLRS • Designation Systems • Diehl BGT—German developer and manufacturer of GMLRS (site in English) • Danish M270 MLRS
Chapter 33
Hydra 70 The Hydra 70 rocket is a weapon derived from the 2.75 inch Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket developed by the United States Navy for use as a free-flight aerial rocket in the late 1940s.
33.1 Overview The Hydra 70 family of WAFAR (Wrap-Around Fin Aerial Rocket), based on the Mk 66 universal motor, was developed from the previous 2.75 inch Mk 40 motorbased folding fin aerial rocket. The propellant grain is longer and of a different formulation than that of the MK40/MK4, however, the stabilizing rod and igniter are essentially the same design. The MK66 motors have a substantially higher thrust, 1,335 pounds-force (5,940 N) (Mod 2/3) 1,415 pounds-force (6,290 N) (Mod 4), and a longer range than the older motors. To provide additional stability the four rocket nozzles are scarfed at an angle to impart a slight spin to the rocket during flight. The Mk 40 was used during the Korean and Vietnam wars, being used to provide close air support to ground forces from about 20 different firing platforms, both fixed-wing and armed helicopters. Today, the OH-58D(R) Kiowa Warrior and AH-64D Apache Longbow, as well as the Marine Corp’s AH-1 Cobra, carry the Hydra rocket launcher standard on its weapon pylons.[3][4]
Hydra 70 rockets on an AH-1 Cobra helicopter
33.2.1 United States
In the U.S. Army, Hydra 70 rockets are fired from the AH-64A Apache and AH-64D Apache Longbow helicopters using M261 19-tube rocket launchers, and the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior using seven-tube M260 rocket launchers. In the U.S. Marine Corps, either the M260 or M261 launchers are employed on the AH-1 Cobra and future AH-1Z Viper, depending upon the mission. The 33.1.1 Mk 66 rocket motor variants M260 and M261 are used with the Mk 66 series of rocket motor, which replaced the Mk 40 series. The Mk 66 has a 33.2 Service reduced system weight and provides a remote fuze setting interface. Hydra 70s have also been fired from UH-60 The family of Hydra 70 (70 mm) 2.75 inch rockets and AH-6 series aircraft in US Army service. perform a variety of functions. The war reserve uni- The AH-1G Cobra and the UH-1B “Huey” used a variety tary and cargo warheads are used for anti-materiel, anti- of launchers including the M158 seven-tube and M200 personnel, and suppression missions. The Hydra 70 19-tube rocket launchers designed for the Mk 40 rocket family of folding-fin aerial rockets also includes smoke motor; however, these models have been replaced by upscreening, illumination, and training warheads. Hydra 70 graded variants in the U.S. Marine Corps because they rockets are known mainly by either their warhead type or were not compatible with the Mk 66 rocket motor. The by the rocket motor designation, Mk 66 in US military Hydra 70 rocket system is also used by the U.S. Navy, service. and the U.S. Air Force. 170
33.5. PRECISION GUIDED HYDRA 70
171 • 1,335 lb (Mod 2/3) • 1,415 lb (Mod 4) Motor burnout range: 1,300 feet (400 m) Motor burnout velocity: 2,425 ft/s (739 m/s) Launch spin rate: 10 rps, 35 rps after exiting launcher Velocity at launcher exit: 148 ft/s (45 m/s) Acceleration: • 60–70 g (initial)
Hydra 70s in an M261 launcher on a Dutch AH-64 Apache. The tips of some of the rockets are white (and the rockets are shorter in length) because they have a different type of fuze/warhead.
33.2.2
• 95–100 g (final) Effective Range: 547 to 8,749 yards (500 to 8,000 m) depending on warhead and launch platform Maximum Range: 11,483 yards (10,500 m) under opti-
Common U.S. Mk 66 compatible mum conditions launchers
33.3 Warheads
33.5 Precision guided Hydra 70
The Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) II is a program to provide a laser guidance to the existing Hydra 70 systems in service. It was cancelled by the US • Unitary warheads with impact-detonating fuzes or Army in February 2007,[5] but was restarted by the US remote-set multi-option fuzes. Navy in 2008. Similar programs are the US Navy LowCost Guided Imaging Rocket, Lockheed Martin Direct • Cargo warheads with air burst-range, with setable Attack Guided Rocket and the ATK/Elbit Guided Adfuzes using the “wall-in-space” concept or fixed vanced Tactical Rocket – Laser. APKWS has been fired standoff fuzes. successfully from the AH-64 Apache by BAE Systems in trials at Yuma Proving Grounds in early September, • Training warheads. 2013; US Navy trials of the APKWS with the A-10 Thunderbolt II, the AV-8B Harrier and the F-16 Fighting Falcon led to US Central Command's approval of a modi33.3.1 Fuzing options fied version of APKWS to be fired from fast-moving jet aircraft.[6] Hydra 70 warheads fall into three categories:
33.3.2
Common warheads
NOTE: Though some of the warheads described were designed for the older Mk 40 rocket motor, but most likely could work with the Mk 66 motor if upgraded or modernized models were not available. However, this would not be necessary, as vast quantities of upgraded models exist today.
33.4 Mk 66 rocket motor technical data
33.6 Users •
Australia
•
Colombia
•
Japan
•
Kuwait
•
Netherlands
•
Weight: 13.6 pounds (6.2 kg)
Philippines,[7] The launchers are mounted on AS-211 “Warrior” trainers with secondary combat capability and 520MG Defender helicopters.[7]
Length: 41.7 inches (1,060 mm) Burn time: 1.05–1.10 sec
•
Singapore
Average thrust (77 F):
•
Thailand
172
CHAPTER 33. HYDRA 70
•
United Arab Emirates
•
United Kingdom
•
United States
•
South Korea
•
Egypt
33.7 See also • U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command • CRV-7 • FFAR rocket 2.75 in (70 mm) • SNEB rocket (68mm) • Zuni 5 in (127 mm)
33.8 References [1] Rockets galore [2] Hydra-70 2.75-inch (70mm) family of rockets (PDF), General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products, 2012, p. 2. [3] “Hydra 70”, Munitions, Military, Global Security. [4] Hydra 70 (PDF), GDATP. [5] R&D Budget Request (PDF), US Army, 2008, p. 4. [6] http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id= /article-xml/asd_10_23_2013_p02-01-629353.xml [7] http://kalasagnglahi.angelfire.com/main.html
33.9 External links • “Hydra 70”. GlobalSecurity. Retrieved 2005-0901. • Hydra-70 Rockets: From Cutbacks to the Future of Warfare, Defense Industry Daily, April 2006. • Air-Launched 2.75-Inch Rockets, Designation Systems. • “Hydra-70”, Warheads energetics, Weapon Systems, General Dynamics. • 2012 Army Weapon Systems Handbook
Chapter 34
M202 FLASH The M202 FLASH (FLame Assault SHoulder Weapon) is an American rocket launcher, designed to replace the World War II–vintage flamethrowers (such as the M1 and the M2) that remained the military’s standard incendiary devices well into the 1960s. The M202 is based on the prototype XM191 napalm rocket launcher that saw extensive testing in the Vietnam War.
34.1 Description The M202A1 features four tubes that can load 66 mm incendiary rockets. The M74 rockets are equipped with • Weapons position or stationary vehicle: 200 meters M235 warheads, containing approximately 1.34 pounds • Squad-sized troop formation: 500 meters (0.61 kg) of an incendiary agent. The substance, often mistaken for napalm, is in fact TPA (thickened pyThe M202A1 was issued as needed, generally one per rophoric agent). rifle platoon, although the headquarters of rifle companies TPA is triethylaluminum (TEA) thickened with were authorized nine M202A1s. As with most RPGs, no polyisobutylene. TEA, an organometallic compound, dedicated gunners were trained, the weapon instead beis pyrophoric and burns spontaneously at temperatures ing carried in addition to the rifleman's standard weapon. of 1200 °C (2192 °F) when exposed to air. It burns While vastly more lightweight than the M2 flamethrower “white hot” because of the aluminum, much hotter it replaced, the weapon was still bulky to use and the amthan gasoline or napalm. The light and heat emission munition suffered from reliability problems. As a result, is very intense and can produce skin burns from some the weapon had mostly been relegated to storage by the (close) distance without direct contact with the flame, by mid-1980s, even though it nominally remains a part of thermal radiation alone. the U.S. Army arsenal. As the caliber is shared with the contemporary M72 In recent conflicts, U.S. forces have used thermobaric LAW antitank rocket launcher, it would have been theo- munitions[2] as well as pyrophoric weapons. The retically possible to fire HEAT anti-tank rockets in lieu of M202A1 has been among weapons listed on the inventhe incendiary payload; the XM191 prototype was capa- tory of U.S. units in the War in Afghanistan.[3] ble of this. No such round was developed for the M202. The weapon is meant to be fired from the right shoulder, and can be fired from either a standing, crouching, or prone position. It has a trigger mode to facilitate firing all four rockets at once, not just one at a time. After firing, it can be reloaded with a clip housing four rockets. The M202A1 was rated as having a 50% chance of hit against the following targets at the noted ranges, assuming all four rockets were fired at the same time:
34.2 Users •
Republic of Korea Army[4]
•
United States Army
34.3 See also
• Bunker aperture: 50 meters
• FHJ 84
• Window: 125 meters
• RPO-A Shmel (Bumblebee) 173
174
34.4 Notes [1] TC 23-2 66 mm Rocket Launcher M202A1. US Army Manual, April 1978 (via Scribd) [2] XM1060 40mm Thermobaric Grenade. GlobalSecurity.org, 25 November 2005. Accessed 27 May 2010. [3] Hambling, David (May 15, 2009). “U.S. Denies Incendiary Weapon Use in Afghanistan”. Wired.com. Accessed 27 May 2010. [4] http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/3318/ km202a1rok02jz6.jpg[]
34.5 References • TC 23-2 66 mm Rocket Launcher M202A1 US Army Manual, April 1978 (via Scribd) • TM 3-1055-456-12 M202A1 Operator’s Manual. • U.S. Patent 4,230,509: Pyrophoric flame composition
34.6 External links • Image of the XM191 in testing at Footnote Viewer (footnote.com) • M202A1 Flame Assault Shoulder Weapon (Flash) at Gary’s U.S. Infantry Weapons Reference Guide] • 66 mm Incendiary Rocket M74 at Designation Systems • TC 23-2 66 mm Rocket Launcher M202A1—US Army Manual, April 1978 (via Scribd) • M202 FLASH grenade launcher / flamethrower at Modern Firearms • M202 FLASH on Youtube
CHAPTER 34. M202 FLASH
Chapter 35
M139 bomblet For other uses, see M139. the outside of the device were “vanes"; the vanes creThe M139 bomblet was a U.S. sub-munition designed ated a spin which armed the impact fuze.[1] This “spinto-arm” type fuze required between 1,000 and 2,000 rotations per minute to arm, which made handling the bomblets simpler because they were insensitive to normal movements.[2] The bomblet’s interior contained a central explosive burster charge, containing 73 grams (0.16 lb) of composition B,[2] and two outer compartments which contained the sarin.[1]
35.3 Tests involving the M139 The M139 bomblet was used by the U.S. Army in at least two instances of chemical weapons testing. In 1967 there were two series of tests which sought to learn the effects of Sarin dropped in the bomblets over two different types of forest environment. The first series of tests, known as Green Mist, took place March 25–April 24, 1967.[3] Conducted in Hawaii, the purpose of the tests was to ascertain the effect of Sarin-filled M139s being A view of the interior of an M139 bomblet. dropped and disseminated over a canopy rain forest.[3] The Hawaii tests used both sarin nerve agent and the simfor use in warheads as a chemical cluster bomb. Each ulant methylacetoacetate.[3] bomblet held 590 grams (1.3 lb) of sarin nerve agent. Another test using the M139 took place at the Gerstle River test site, near Fort Greely, Alaska, from June to July 1967.[4] The purpose of these tests was to determine 35.1 History the effectiveness of Sarin-filled M139 and BLU-19/B23 bomblets when dropped from a SADEYE dispenser in In 1964, a new warhead size was standardized for the 318 a summer forest environment.[4] The tests were collecmm Honest John rocket. The warhead held 52 M139 tively known as “Dew Point”.[4] Both 1967 testing operabomblets.[1] When the MGM-29 Sergeant was deployed tions were overseen by the U.S. Army’s Deseret Test Cenin the 1960s, it had the capacity to deliver a warhead ter.[3][4] Both M139 tests were part of Project 112.[5] carrying 330 M139 bomblets.[1] Subsequent missile systems, including the Pershing missile, had the capability to carry warheads with the M139 inside.[1] In total, about 35.4 See also 60,000 M139s were produced and stored; almost all were destroyed between April and November 1976.[2] • M143 bomblet
35.2 Specifications
35.5 References
The M139 was a 11-centimetre (4.5 in) spherical bomblet that was filled with 590 grams (1.3 lb) of sarin (GB). On 175
[1] Smart, Jeffery K. Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological Warfare: Chapter 2 - History of Chemical and Bio-
176
CHAPTER 35. M139 BOMBLET
logical Warfare: An American Perspective, (PDF: p. 59), Borden Institute, Textbooks of Military Medicine, PDF via Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base, accessed November 12, 2008. [2] Mauroni, Albert J. Chemical Demilitarization: Public Policy Aspects, (Google Books), Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003, p. 20, (ISBN 027597796X). [3] "Fact Sheet — Green Mist", Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs), Deployment Health Support Directorate, accessed November 12, 2008. [4] "Fact Sheet — Dew Point", Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs), Deployment Health Support Directorate, accessed November 12, 2008. [5] "Project 112/SHAD Fact Sheets", Force Health Protection & Readiness Policy & Programs, The ChemicalBiological Warfare Exposures Site, accessed November 13, 2008.
Chapter 36
Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket For earlier rockets with the same acronym, see 3.5-Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket and 5-Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket. The Mk 4 Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket (FFAR), also
destroyer duties against the USAAF's Eighth Air Force heavy bombers. The FFAR was developed in the late 1940s by the US Navy Naval Ordnance Test Center and North American Aviation. The original Mk 4 FFAR was about 4 ft (1.2 m) long and weighed 18.5 lb (8.4 kg), with a high-explosive warhead of about 6 lb (2.7 kg). Like the Third Reich Luftwaffe’s R4M projectile of World War II, it had folding fins that flipped out on launch to spin-stabilize the rocket, with the FFAR using half the number (four) of fins in comparison to the R4M’s set of eight folding fins. Its maximum effective range was about 3,700 yards (3,400 m). Because of its low intrinsic accuracy, it was generally fired in large volleys, some aircraft carrying as many as 104 rockets.
Mk 4 mod 10 rocket on display at Volkel Air Base.
known as Mighty Mouse, was an unguided rocket used by United States military aircraft. 2.75 inches (70 mm) in diameter, it was designed as an air-to-air weapon for interceptor aircraft to shoot down enemy bombers, but primarily saw service as an air-to-surface weapon.
FFARs were the primary armament of many NATO interceptor aircraft in the early 1950s, including the F86D, F-89, F-94C, and the CF-100. They were also carried by the F-102 Delta Dagger to supplement its guided missile armament.
36.1 History The advent of jet engines for both fighters and bombers posed new problems for interceptors. With closing speeds of 1,500 ft/s (457 m/s) or more for a head-on interception, the amount of time available for a fighter pilot to successfully target an enemy aircraft and inflict sufficient damage to bring it down was vanishingly small. Wartime experience had shown that .50 caliber (12.7 mm) machine guns were not powerful enough to reliably down a bomber, certainly not in a single volley, and heavy cannon did not have the range or rate of fire to ensure a hit. Unguided rocket weapons had been proven effective in ground-attack work during the war, and the Luftwaffe had shown that volleys of their Werfer-Granate 21 rockets, first used by elements of the Luftwaffe’s JG 1 and JG 11 fighter wings on July 29, 1943 against USAAF bombers attacking Kiel and Warnemünde, could be a potent air-to-air weapon as well. The introduction in the summer and autumn of 1944 saw the adoption of the folding-fin R4M unguided rocket for use underneath the wings of the Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter for bomber
Rocket pod on the wing of a F-94C without its protective fiberglass nose cone
The Mk 4 was dubbed “Mighty Mouse” in service, after the popular cartoon character. The Mighty Mouse was to prove a poor aerial weapon. Although it was powerful enough to destroy a bomber with a single hit, its accuracy was abysmal. Its spin rate was not high enough to compensate for the effects of wind and gravity drop, and the rockets dispersed widely on launch: a volley of 24 rockets would cover an area the size of a football field. As a result, by the late 1950s it had been largely abandoned as an aircraft weapon in favor of the guided airto-air missiles then becoming available. The Mk 4 found other uses, however, as an air-to-ground weapon, particularly for the new breed of armed helicopter. A volley
177
178
CHAPTER 36. FOLDING-FIN AERIAL ROCKET
of FFARs was as devastating as a heavy cannon with far less weight and recoil, and in the ground-attack role its marginal long-range accuracy was less important. It was fitted with a more powerful motor to become the Mk 40. The Mk 40 was a universal motor developed from the Mk 4 2.75 FFAR, and could be fitted with different warheads depending on the mission. Pods (typically carrying seven or 19 rockets) were created for various applications, and a wide variety of specialized warheads were developed for anti-personnel, anti-tank, and target-marking use. The FFAR has been developed into the modern Hydra 70 series, which is still in service.
36.2 US Mk 40 FFAR Launchers The United States was the primary user of this type of weapon and developed a number of different launching pods for it. Initially pods were intended to be disposed of by launching aircraft, either in flight or on the ground following a mission. With the advent of the armed helicopter, the need for launching pods that were reusable became apparent. Though the rocket was initially developed by the US Navy, the US Air Force and later US Army were most responsible for the development of rocket pods for all services. These pods are described as follows:
XM158 Rocket Pod
craft were normally used by Air Cavalry units, not the Aerial Rocket Artillery (ARA) units. Also various ground launchers using discarded aircraft pods were used for fire base defence. A towed configuration consisting of six 19-round pods called a Slammer was tested for airborne infantry support. The range was approximately 7000 meters using Hydra 70 family rockets.
36.3 Warheads for the Mk 40 Motor
• Launchers designated under the US Air Force sys- With the development of the Mk 40 Mod 0 universal motem: tor came the development of a considerable number of different warheads, as well as, a number of different fuzing options. A list of those warheads believed to be de• Launchers designated under the US Army system: veloped before the replacement of the Mk 40 motor with the Mk 66 motor is as follows:
36.3.1 Fuzing Options 36.3.2 US military Warheads
36.4 See also • List of rockets XM157 Rocket Pod
Early UH-1B/UH-1C Gunships had the XM-3 Subsystem using paired 24 round rectangular launchers mounted near the back edge of the sliding side doors. These pods were ground reloadable and were semi-permanent aircraft parts. The mounting point had been used to mount booms for 3 SS-11 Launchers on each side for anti-tank missions. The co-pilot had a roof mounted sight and control box to fire these. Later UH-1C and D aircraft had a mount on each side to carry a 7 round pod coupled with paired M-60D machine guns. Some carried M-134 Miniguns with 3000 rounds per gun instead, though these air-
• SNEB • Hydra 70 • CRV-7 • Aerial Rocket Artillery • List of U.S. Army Rocket Launchers By Model Number • LOCAT - used three FFAR rockets • The Battle of Palmdale
36.6. EXTERNAL LINKS
36.5 References 36.6 External links • Fighter Fires Rocket Missiles Like Machine Gun Bullets 1951 article about recently introduced 2.75 inch Mighty Mouse rocket
179
Chapter 37
T34 Calliope This article is about the tank-mounted rocket launcher. For other uses, see T34 (disambiguation).
• Panzerwerfer German 15 cm Nebelwerfer barrage rocket system, on an armored half-track or its likely replacement
The Rocket Launcher T34 (Calliope) was a tankmounted multiple rocket launcher used by the United States Army during World War II. The launcher was placed atop the Medium Tank M4, and fired a barrage of 4.5 in (114 mm) M8 rockets from 60 launch tubes. It was developed in 1943; small numbers were produced and were used by various US armor units in 1944-45. It adopts its name from the musical instrument "Calliope", also known as the steam organ, which had similarly lined pipes.
• List of U.S. Army Rocket Launchers By Model Number
37.3 External links • Short video of T34 Calliope being loaded and firing
37.4 References
37.1 Variants • Rocket Launcher T34 (Calliope) - Version carrying 60 4.5 in (114 mm) rockets in arrangement of a group of 36 tubes on the top, and a pair jettisonable groups of 12 tubes (24 tubes of jettisonable groups) on the bottom (Not jettisonable from M4A1 Sherman variant). • Rocket Launcher T34E1 (Calliope) - Same as T34 but groups of 12 jettisonable tubes replaced by groups of 14 tubes. • Rocket Launcher T34E2 (Calliope) - Caliber of rockets increased from 4.5 in (114 mm) to 7.2 in (183 mm), number of tubes remains at 60. Saw combat in 1944-1945.
37.2 See also • Matilda “Hedgehog” - Australian armoured fighting vehicle using spigot mortars. • Sherman Tulip - British Sherman with two “60 lb” 3-inch rockets mounted on turret. • Mattress - British multiple 3-inch rocket launcher used by Canadian troops • Katyusha, Soviet truck-mounted rocket launcher 180
• Hunting, David. The New Weapons of the World Encyclopedia. New York, New York: Diagram Visual Information Ltd., 2007. ISBN 0-312-36832-1
Chapter 38
AIR-2 Genie The Douglas AIR-2 Genie (previous designation MB1) was an unguided air-to-air rocket with a 1.5 kt W25 nuclear warhead.[1] It was deployed by the United States Air Force (USAF 1957–1985) and Canada (Royal Canadian Air Force 1965–68, Air Command 1968–84)[2] during the Cold War. Production ended in 1962 after over 3000 were made, with some related training and test derivatives being produced later.
38.1 Development
A Convair F-106 of the California Air National Guard fires an inert version of the Genie
The interception of Soviet strategic bombers was a major military preoccupation of the late 1940s and 1950s. The revelation in 1947 that the Soviet Union had produced a reverse-engineered copy of the Boeing B-29 Superfortress, the Tupolev Tu-4 (NATO reporting name “Bull”), which could reach the continental United States in a one-way attack, followed by the Soviets developing their own atomic bomb in 1949, produced considerable anxiety.
Plumbbob John nuclear test, the only live test ever of a Genie rocket, on 19 July 1957. Fired from a US Air Force F-89J over Yucca Flats, Nevada Test Site at an altitude of ~15,000 ft (4.5 km).
weapon. To ensure simplicity and reliability, the weapon would be unguided since the large blast radius made precise accuracy unnecessary. The resultant weapon carried a 1.5-kiloton W25 nuclear warhead and was powered by a Thiokol SR49-TC-1 solidfuel rocket engine of 162 kN (36,500 lbf) thrust. It had a range of slightly under 10 km (6.2 mi). Targeting, arming, and firing of the weapon were coordinated by the launch aircraft’s fire-control system. Detonation was by time-delay fuze, although the fuzing mechanism would not arm the warhead until engine burn-out, to give the launch aircraft sufficient time to turn and escape. Lethal radius of the blast was estimated to be about 300 meters (1,000 ft).
The World War II-vintage fighter armament of machine guns and cannon were inadequate to stop attacks by massed formations of high-speed bombers. Firing large volleys of unguided rockets into bomber formations was not much better, and true air-to-air missiles were in their infancy. In 1954 Douglas Aircraft began a program to The first test firings of inert rounds took place in 1956, investigate the possibility of a nuclear-armed air-to-air and the weapon entered service with the designation MB181
182
CHAPTER 38. AIR-2 GENIE
1 in 1957. The popular name was Genie, but it was often nicknamed “Ding-Dong”. About 3,150 rounds were produced before production ended in 1963. In 1962 the weapon was redesignated AIR-2A Genie. Many rounds were upgraded with improved, longer-duration rocket motors, the upgraded weapons sometimes known (apparently only semi-officially) as AIR-2B. An inert training round, originally MB-1-T and later ATR-2A, was also produced in small numbers.
The Montana Air National Guard F-89J that launched the live Genie.
Safety features included final arming by detecting the acceleration and deceleration of a fast aircraft at high altitude. The weapon was built too early to use a permissive action link security device.[2] The F-89J that was used to launch the only live test is on static display at the Montana Air National Guard in Great Falls, Montana. An F-89 Scorpion firing the live Genie used in the Plumbbob John test
A live Genie was detonated only once, in Operation Plumbbob on 19 July 1957. It was fired by AF Captain Eric William Hutchison (pilot) and AF Captain Alfred C. Barbee (radar operator) flying an F-89J over Yucca Flats. Sources vary as to the height of the blast, but it was between 18,500 and 20,000 ft above mean sea level.[3] A group of five USAF officers volunteered to stand hatless in their light summer uniforms underneath the blast to prove that the weapon was safe for use over populated areas. They were photographed by Department of Defense photographer George Yoshitake who stood there with them.[4] Gamma and neutron doses received by observers on the ground were negligible. Doses received by aircrew were highest for the fliers assigned to penetrate the airburst cloud ten minutes after explosion.[5][6]
38.2 Operators Canada
• Royal Canadian Air Force /Canadian Forces Air Command (Discontinued) United States • United States Air Force
38.3 Specifications (AIR-2A)
The Genie was cleared to be carried on the F-89 Scorpion, F-101B Voodoo, F-106 Delta Dart, and F-104 Starfighter in U.S. service. A trapeze launcher was fitted beneath a Starfighter, but it was never carried in operational service. Convair offered an upgrade of the F-102 Delta Dagger that would have been Genie-capable, but it was not adopted. Operational use of the Genie was discontinued in 1988 with the retirement of the F-106 interceptor. The only other user was Canada, whose CF-101 Voodoos carried Genies until 1984 via a dual-key arrangement where the missiles were kept under United States custody, and released to Canada under circumstances requiring their use.[2] The RAF briefly considered the missile CF-101B of the Canadian Forces firing Genie in 1982 for use on the English Electric Lightning.
38.5. SEE ALSO • Length: 2.95 m (9 ft 8 in) • Diameter: 0.44 m (17.5 in) • Wingspan: 1.02 m (3 ft 4 in) • Launch weight: 373 kg (c lb) • Speed: Mach 3.3 • Range: 9.6 km (6 mi) • Guidance: Inertial (None) • Warhead: W25 nuclear fission, 1.5 kiloton yield • Date deployed: 1957 • Date retired: 1985
183 • Comox Air Force Museum, CFB Comox, 19 Wing, Comox, British Columbia, British Columbia, Canada • Vermont National Guard Library and Museum, Camp Johnson, Colchester, Vermont • Jimmy Doolittle Air & Space Museum, Travis Air Force Base, California • Malmstrom Air Force Base Museum, Great Falls, Montana
38.5 See also • How to Photograph an Atomic Bomb • List of nuclear weapons
Used with MF-9 Transport Trailer
38.6 References 38.4 Survivors [1] http://www.boeing.com/history/mdc/genie.html
Below is a list of museums which have a Genie rocket in their collection: • Air Force Armament Museum, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida • Atlantic Canada Aviation Museum, Halifax, Nova Scotia • Hill Aerospace Museum, Ogden, Utah • MAPS Air Museum, Akron-Canton Regional Airport, Ohio ATR-2 with MF-9 trailer • Museum of Aviation at Robins Air Force Base, Georgia ATR-2N with MF-9 trailer [7] • National Museum of the United States Air Force, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio • Oregon Military Museum at Camp Withycombe, Clackamas, Oregon • Pima Air & Space Museum, Tucson, Arizona Inert round with trailer • Selfridge Air National Guard Base Museum, Harrison Township, Michigan • Western Canada Aviation Museum, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada • Ellsworth Air and Space Museum at Ellsworth Air Force Base, Rapid City, South Dakota • Air Defence Museum, CFB Bagotville, 3rd Wing, Saguenay, Quebec, Canada
[2] John Clearwater (1998), Canadian Nuclear Weapons: The Untold Story of Canada’s Cold War Arsenal, Dundurn Press Ltd, ISBN 1-55002-299-7, retrieved 2008-11-10 [3] SHOTS DIABLO TO FRANKLIN PRIME The MidSeries Tests of the PLUMBBOB Series 15 JULY - 30 AUGUST 1957 [4] “Five at Ground Zero”. CTBTO. 19 July 1957. Retrieved 17 February 2014. [5] Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Public Affairs. Factsheet. Operation Plumbbob. [6] Attachment 12. Preliminary report. Operation Plumbbob. Nevada Test Site, May-September 1957. Project 2.9 NUCLEAR RADIATION RECEIVED BY AIRCREWS FIRING THE MB-1 ROCKET. [7] Museum of Aviation Website
Chapter 39
BOAR This article is about the nuclear rocket. For other uses, see Boar (disambiguation). The Bombardment Aircraft Rocket, also known as BOAR, the Bureau of Ordnance Aircraft Rocket, and officially as the 30.5-Inch Rocket, Mark 1, Mod 0, was an unguided air-to-surface rocket developed by the United States Navy’s Naval Ordnance Test Station during the 1950s. Intended to provide a standoff nuclear capability for carrier-based aircraft, the rocket entered operational service in 1956, remaining in service until 1963.
39.1 Design and development
BOAR being loaded on AD-7 Skyraider
Following a specification developed during 1951,[1] the development of the BOAR rocket was started in 1952 at the Naval Ordnance Test Station (NOTS), located at China Lake, California.[2] The project was intended to provide a simple means of extending the stand-off range of nuclear weapons delivered using the toss bombing technique, as some slower aircraft still faced marginal escape conditions when delivering ordinary gravity bombs even with the use of this technique.[2]
BOAR was intended to be an interim weapon;[2] a more advanced development, Hopi, entered flight testing during 1958.[4] Hopi, however, failed to enter production, and BOAR remained the only standoff nuclear air-to-surface missile fielded by the Navy.[2]
225 examples of the BOAR rocket were produced by NOTS.[2] In service, the rocket proved unpopular with the pilots of the aircraft assigned to carry it: the loftbombing maneuver, called an “idiot loop”, was considThe rocket that emerged from the development process ered dangerous.[5] By 1963, maintenance issues with the used a single, solid-fueled rocket motor mated to the W7 solid rocket motor were proving acute, and the rocket was nuclear weapon, which had a yield of 20 kilotons of TNT removed from the inventory during that year.[2] (84 TJ).[3] This provided a stand-off range of 7.5 miles (12.1 km) when released in a steep climb, the aircraft then completing the toss-bombing pullout to escape the blast; 39.3 References the rocket, lacking guidance, would follow a ballistic tra[1] jectory to impact following rocket burnout.
39.2 Operational history Entering flight trials in 1953, BOAR proved satisfactory.[2] Twenty test firings during the course of 1955 were conducted without a single failure,[1] and in 1956 the rocket entered operational service.[1] A BOAR on handling trolley variety of aircraft carried BOAR operationally but it was primarily used by the AD Skyraider, the slowest nuclear-armed aircraft in the Navy’s inventory.[2] Notes 184
39.4. EXTERNAL LINKS
[1] Babcock 2008, p.321-324 [2] Parsch 2003 [3] Polmar 2001, p.527. [4] Parsch 2003b [5] Michel 2003, p.27.
Bibliography • Babcock, Elizabeth (2008). Magnificent Mavericks: transition of the Naval Ordnance Test Station from rocket station to research, development, test and evaluation center, 1948–58. History of the Navy at China Lake, California 3. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. ISBN 978-0-945274-568. Retrieved 2011-01-07. • Michel, Marshall (May 2003). “Exit Strategy”. Air & Space Smitsonian. Retrieved 2011-01-07. • Parsch, Andreas (2003). “NOTS BOAR (30.5” Rocket MK1)". Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-01-07. • Parsch, Andreas (2003). “NOTS Hopi”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designationsystems.net. Retrieved 2010-12-29. • Polmar, Norman (2001). The Naval Institute Guide to the Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet (17th ed.). Annapolis, MD: U.S. Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-55750-656-6. Retrieved 2011-01-07.
39.4 External links • BOAR at China Lake Museum • AIAA: China Lake Test Station
185
Chapter 40
Hopi (missile) 40.3 References
For the sounding rocket, see Hopi Dart.
The Hopi was an air-to-surface missile developed by the Notes United States Navy’s Naval Ordnance Test Station. Intended to provide a medium-range nuclear capability for [1] Parsch 2003 carrier aircraft, the missile reached the flight test stage [2] Babcock 2008, p.323. during 1958, but the project was cancelled following testing and no production was undertaken. [3] Jacobs and Whitney 1962, p.80. [4] 1958 Photo Gallery, Photographic History of NAF & VX-5 at NOTS China Lake. Accessed 2010-12-29.
40.1 Design and development Bibliography Developed by the Naval Ordnance Test Station (NOTS) at China Lake, California during the mid-to-late 1950s,[1] the Hopi missile was an improved development of the earlier BOAR (Bombardment Aircraft Rocket). BOAR had been developed at China Lake as an unguided, nuclear-armed rocket for use by carrier-based aircraft, seeing limited service in the fleet between 1957 and 1963.[2] In its essentials simply an enlarged version of BOAR,[2] which it was intended to replace in service, Hopi was designed as a medium-range weapon capable of being carried by a wide variety of carrier-based fighter and attack aircraft.[3] The rocket-powered missile was capable of being fitted with a W50 nuclear warhead capable of producing a yield between 60 and 400 kilotons; however, no details of the planned guidance system for the missile, or if there even was intended to be guidance at all, have survived.[1]
40.2 Operational history Following its development, the Hopi missile was flighttested on the China Lake weapons range during 1958.[1] The missile was test-fired from a variety of aircraft, including the North American FJ-4 Fury, Douglas AD Skyraider,[1] Douglas A3D Skywarrior and Douglas A4D Skyhawk.[4] However, no details of the tests are known to have survived,[1] and the Hopi project was cancelled shortly thereafter.[2] 186
• Babcock, Elizabeth (2008). Magnificent Mavericks: transition of the Naval Ordnance Test Station from rocket station to research, development, test and evaluation center, 1948-58. History of the Navy at China Lake, California 3. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. ISBN 978-0945274568. • Jacons, Horace; Eunice Engelke Whitney (1962). Missile and Space Projects Guide: 1962. New York: Plenum Press. ASIN B0007E2BBK. • Parsch, Andreas (2003). “NOTS Hopi”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designationsystems.net. Retrieved 2010-12-29.
Chapter 41
AGM-76 Falcon 41.2 Specifications • Length : 3.20 m (10 ft 6 in) • Wingspan : 0.838 m (2 ft 9.0 in) • Diameter : 0.335 m (1-foot 1.2 in) • Speed : Mach 4+ (4,240 km/h or 2,630 mph) • Range : > 160 kilometres (99 miles)
Aerodynamic test model of the AGM-76A on display at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center
The AGM-76 Falcon is an air-to-surface missile developed by the United States of America.
• Warhead : 250 kt thermonuclear
41.3 Operators •
41.1 Overview The AGM-76 was developed as a ground attack version of the AIM-47 Falcon air-to-air missile, in much the same way that the AGM-87 Focus was developed from the AIM-9 Sidewinder. It was planned to use the AGM76 to equip the Mach 3 capable North American F-108 fighter. Although the F-108 was ultimately cancelled the AN/ASG-18 fire-control system was transferred to the Lockheed YF-12, allowing that aircraft to handle the AIM-47 and AGM-76. Twenty-two XAGM-76A prototype missiles were built; ten of these were test fired from YF-12A prototypes. Guidance for the missile was provided by the AN/ASG18 Fire-Control System, which was modified to allow it to operate in the air to ground role. The AGM-76 had a range in excess of 160 kilometres (99 mi). The 250 kiloton thermonuclear warhead would normally be detonated in an air burst above the target. The test firings were generally successful, and the USAF planned to acquire the production missiles for the F-12B in order to allow it to perform in the high speed nuclear strike mission. When the F-12B was cancelled, the AGM-76 program was also halted. 187
United States: The United States Air Force cancelled the AGM-76 prior to service entry.
Chapter 42
ASALM The Advanced Strategic Air-Launched Missile (ASALM) was a medium-range strategic missile program, developed in the late 1970s for the United States Air Force. Intended for use in both the air-to-surface and anti-AWACS roles, the missile’s development reached the stage of propulsion-system tests before being cancelled in 1980.
42.2 Operational history
42.1 Design and development
ASALM Propulsion Test Vehicle on an A-7
Development of the Advanced Strategic Air-Launched Missile was initiated in 1976.[1] The ASALM was intended to replace the AGM-69 SRAM in United States Air Force service, providing improved speed and range over the earlier missile,[1] as well as improved performance against hardened targets.[2] In addition, the requirement specified that the ASALM should be capable of operating in a secondary air-to-air mode against AWACS radar-warning aircraft.[1] Martin Marietta and McDonnell Douglas submitted proposals for the contract, the former’s design using a Marquardt propulsion system; the latter’s, one developed by United Technologies Corporation; the Martin Marietta design was favored by the Air Force[1] The size of ASALM was limited by the requirement that it use the same launchers as the earlier SRAM.[1] The missile would be steered by small fins at the tail, but lacked wings; the shape of the body combined with the high flight speed were to provide sufficient lift.[3]
Starting in October 1979, a series of flight tests of Propulsion Technology Validation missiles, using a Marquardt rocket-ramjet, were conducted.[1] Over the course of seven test firings, a maximum speed of Mach 5.5 at an altitude of 40,000 feet (12,000 m) was achieved.[1] Despite the successful testing, the ASALM program was suspended following the seventh PTV test flight in May 1980;[1] reductions in the defense budget, combined with the development of the subsonic AGM-86 ALCM,[1] led to the cancellation of the program later that year.[3] The Martin Marietta ASALM concept was later developed into the AQM-127 SLAT target drone.[1]
42.3 See also • Air-Launched Cruise Missile • BrahMos
• Creative Research On Weapons Guidance was planned to be provided during mid-course flight by an inertial navigation system, while terminal guidance would use a dual-mode seeker.[1] Propulsion would be provided by an integrated rocket-ramjet, which 42.4 References would act as a solid-fuel rocket during boost, with the rocket’s casing, following exhaustion of its propellant and Notes the ejection of the rocket nozzle and a fairing covering an air inlet, becoming a combustion chamber for an airbreathing ramjet,[4] which was planned to use Shelldyne- [1] Parsch 2003 H fuel.[3] The missile was expected to be carried by the [2] Gunston 1983, p.88. B-1 bomber, or alternatively by a developed version of the FB-111.[4] [3] Aldridge 1983, pp.150-151. 188
42.4. REFERENCES
[4] Dornan 1978, p.222.
Bibliography • Parsch, Andreas (2003). “Martin Marietta ASALM”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Archived from the original on 15 December 2010. Retrieved 2010-12-31. • Aldridge, Robert C. (1999). First Strike! The Pentagon’s Strategy for Nuclear War. Boston: South End Press. ISBN 0-89608-154-0. • Dornan, Dr. James E., Jr., ed. (1978). The US War Machine. London: Salamander Books. ISBN 0-517-53543-2. • Gunston, Bill (1983). An Illustrated Guide to Modern Airborme Missiles. London: Salamander Books. ISBN 978-0-86101-160-5.
189
Chapter 43
Diamondback (missile) The Diamondback was a proposed nuclear-armed airto-air missile studied by the United States Navy's Naval Ordnance Test Station during the 1950s. Intended as an enlarged, nuclear-armed version of the successful Sidewinder missile, Diamondback did not progress beyond the study stage.
[1] Babcock 2008, pp.324-325. [2] Bowman 1957, p.103. [3] Jacobs and Whitney 1962, p.47. [4] Besserer and Besserer 1959, p.72. [5] Parsch 2007 [6] Babcock 2008, p.328.
43.1 Development history
[7] Babcock 2008, pp.387-390
In 1956, studies began at the Naval Ordnance Test Station [8] Babcock 2008, p.537. (NOTS) at China Lake, California involving an advanced development of the AAM-N-7 (later AIM-9) Sidewinder Bibliography air-to-air missile, which was then entering service with the United States Navy. Originally known as “Super • Babcock, Elizabeth (2008). Magnificent Mavericks: Sidewinder”, the program soon gained the name “Diatransition of the Naval Ordnance Test Station from mondback”, continuing China Lake’s theme of naming rocket station to research, development, test and eval[1][2] heat-seeking missiles after pit vipers. uation center, 1948–58. History of the Navy at Diamondback was intended to provide increased speed, China Lake, California 3. Washington, DC: Govrange and accuracy over that achieved by Sidewinder.[3][4] ernment Printing Office. ISBN 978-0-945274-56The missile’s design called for it to be armed with either a 8. Retrieved 2011-01-13. powerful continuous-rod warhead or a low-yield nuclear • Besserer, C.W.; Hazel C. Besserer (1959). Guide to warhead,[5] the latter developed by China Lake’s Special the Space Age. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall. Weapons Division, and which would have a yield of less ASIN B004BIGGO6. than 1 kiloton of TNT (4.2 TJ)).[6] The propulsion system was intended to be a liquidfueled, dual-thrust rocket,[5] using hypergolic, storable propellants.[7] The rocket motor planned for use in the Diamondback missile was based on that developed by NOTS for the Liquid Propellant Aircraft Rocket (LAR) project.[8] Although the design studies were promising, the Navy did not have a requirement for a missile of this sort. As a result, the Diamondback project was dropped; studies came to a halt around 1958,[1] while by the early 1960s the project was considered “inactive” and was allowed to fade into history.[3][5]
43.2 References Notes 190
• Bowman, Norman John (1957). The Handbook of Rockets and Guided Missiles. Chicago: Perastadion Press. ASIN B002C3SPN2. Retrieved 2011-01-13. • Jacobs, Horace; Eunice Engelke Whitney (1962). Missile and Space Projects Guide: 1962. New York: Plenum Press. ASIN B0007E2BBK. • Parsch, Andreas (2007). "(Other): “Missile Scrapbook"". Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-0113.
Chapter 44
Sky Scorcher The Sky Scorcher was a nuclear-armed air-to-air mis- Bibliography sile proposed to the United States Air Force in the 1950s. Intended for use as a weapon for the disruption of en• Hansen, Chuck (1995). Swords of Armageddon: emy bomber formations, it failed to find favor among Air History of the U.S. Development of Nuclear Weapons Force planners and did not undergo development. (CD and microfische). Sunnyvale, CA: Chukelea Publications.
44.1 Development The Sky Scorcher project was proposed by the Convair Division of General Dynamics to the United States Air Force in 1956.[1] The missile was intended to be carried by an advanced, enlarged version of Convair’s F-106 Delta Dart interceptor,[2] which had, at the time, not yet entered flight testing even in its baseline form.[3] Sky Scorcher was a very large missile, which was projected to be capable of carrying a thermonuclear warhead with a yield of two megatons.[2] The oversized warhead would be used against attacking formations of supersonic bombers; it was anticipated that fourteen such initiations, at a distance of approximately 460 miles (740 km) from the bombers’ target, would be sufficient to disrupt an attack. A force of eighty of the advanced fighters were proposed for carrying the weapon.[2] Despite Convair’s sales pitch and the anticipated effectiveness of the weapon, the Air Force was unenthusiastic about the concept; aside from the expense of developing the aircraft and weapon, the Sky Scorcher missile also suffered from the fact that there would be significant effects on the ground below the location of an airburst of a multi-megaton nuclear warhead.[2] As a result, the project was abandoned before any significant work was undertaken.[2]
44.2 References Notes [1] Hansen 1995 [2] Parsch 2007 [3] Peacock 1986, p.200.
191
• Parsch, Andreas (2007). "(Other): Missile Scrapbook”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-0111. • Peacock, Lindsay. “Delta Dart...Last of the Century Fighters”. Air International, Vol. 31, No 4, October 1986, pp. 198–206, 217. Stamford, UK: Fine Scroll.
Chapter 45
Wagtail (missile) The Wagtail missile, also known as “Wag Tail”, was a • Pye Wacket short-range nuclear missile developed in the late 1950s by Minneapolis-Honeywell under a contract awarded by the United States Air Force. Intended for use as an auxiliary 45.4 References weapon by bomber aircraft, the missile was successfully test fired in 1958, but the program was cancelled in the Notes early 1960s. [1] American Aviation Publications, 1958. Rockets, Volume 5. p. 26.
45.1 Design and development
Missiles and
[2] Parsch 2003
The Wagtail project was initiated in 1956, with [3] Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft 1960, p.463. Minneapolis-Honeywell being contracted to develop a short-range, solid-rocket-powered missile.[1] The missile [4] Huisken 1981, p.61. would be armed with a low-yield nuclear warhead, and was intended for use as a tactical support missile by su- Bibliography personic aircraft engaged in low-level attacks.[2][3] • Huisken, Ronald (1981). The Origin of the Strategic The Wagtail missile was intended to be fitted with a Cruise Missile. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. guidance system that utilised an inertial navigation sysISBN 978-0-03-059378-9. tem and a terrain-following radar, which allowed the missile to be fired from and navigate at extremely low altitudes.[2] The missile was equipped with small retrorockets that retarded the missile following release, allowing the launching aircraft the opportunity to escape the blast wave from the missile’s warhead.[2]
45.2 Operational history By 1958, the Wagtail project had progressed to the point of live-fire flight testing; the missile was planned to be fitted to the B-58 Hustler bomber in operational service, while an alternative configuration was proposed as a bomber defense missile, which would be fired rearwards from the carrier aircraft.[2] However, in the early 1960s (prior to fiscal year 1962), despite the missiles’ flight testing having proved successful,[4] the Wagtail project was canceled.[2]
45.3 See also • AGM-69 SRAM 192
• Parsch, Andreas (2003). “Minneapolis-Honeywell Wagtail”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 201012-30.
Chapter 46
ADR-8 The ADR-8 was an unguided electronic countermeasures rocket developed by Tracor for use by the United States Air Force. It was used to dispense chaff from Boeing B52 Stratofortress bombers.
46.1 Development Originally given the designation RCU-2, the ADR-8 was developed for use by the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress strategic bomber, to give the aircraft a means of dispensing chaff to disrupt enemy radar.[1] Developed by Tracor under a Quick Reaction Contract, the ADR-8 was a folding fin rocket of 2.75 in (70 mm) diameter. Following successful testing, production of the rocket was undertaken by Revere Copper and Brass.[1]
46.2 Operational use The rockets were fired from 20-shot AN/ALE-25 rocket pods mounted on pylons under the wings of the B-52s. The pods were 13 feet (4.0 m) long and weighed 1,100 pounds (500 kg); the rockets could be fired manually or automatically upon detection of a threat. They were installed on the final 18 B-52H aircraft constructed; earlier B-52Gs and B-52Hs were retrofitted with the system.[2] The ADR-8 and AN/ALE-25 were retired in September 1970,[1] replaced by the “Phase VI” electronic warfare suite.[2]
46.3 References Citations [1] Parsch 2005 [2] Dorr and Peacock 2000, p.52.
Bibliography • Dorr, Robert F.; Peacock, Lindsay T. (2000). B52 Stratofortress: Boeing’s Cold War Warrior. Ox193
ford, England, UK: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 9781841760971. • Parsch, Andreas (2005). “Revere (Tracor) RCU2/ADR-8”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 201405-11.
Chapter 47
AGR-14 ZAP The AGR-14 ZAP was an air-to-surface unguided rocket 47.3 References developed by the United States Navy in the late 1960s. Intended for use in the suppression of enemy air defenses Notes role, the rocket reached the flight-testing stage before being cancelled. [1] Parsch 2002 [2] Goebel 2010 [3] Morison and Rowe 1975, p.218.
47.1 Design and development A requirement for a new type of unguided rocket, to be used to suppress enemy anti-aircraft artillery batteries, was identified by the United States Navy in 1966. Given the name HART, (which stands for Hypervelocity Aircraft Rocket, Tactical), the new rocket was intended to replace the FFAR and Zuni rockets that were then in service.[1]
Bibliography
HART was intended to be a high-acceleration, highvelocity rocket for launch from aircraft. The increased speed of the rocket as opposed to those then in service – intended to reach or exceed Mach 3[2] – was intended to remove the possibility that a high-speed aircraft might overtake its own weapons after launch, as well as improving the rocket’s accuracy through providing a flatter trajectory, and reduction in its flight time.[1] Six inches (152 mm) in diameter,[3] HART would be powered by a solidfueled rocket, and would use flechette anti-personnel warheads to provide the greatest possible effect against the intended targets.[1]
47.2 Development and cancellation In 1967, a contract for the development of HART was given to the Martin Marietta corporation, based in Orlando, Florida; the rocket received the official designation of AGR-14 ZAP, for “Zero Anti-Aircraft Potential”,[3] at this time.[1] Initial test firings of the XAGR-14A prototypes were conducted in late 1969, with the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk being used as a launch aircraft.[1] Despite the rocket being tested successfully, the project was cancelled shortly thereafter, and ZAP failed to reach operational service.[1] 194
• Goebel, Greg (2010). “Unguided Rockets”. Dumb Bombs & Smart Munitions. VectorSite. Retrieved 2011-01-29. • Morison, Samuel L.; John S. Rowe (1975). The Ships & Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet (10th ed.). Annapolis, MD: United States Naval Institute. ISBN 0-87021-639-2. • Parsch, Andreas (2002). “Martin Marietta AGR-14 ZAP”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Archived from the original on 15 December 2010. Retrieved 2011-0129.
Chapter 48
MQR-13 BMTS The XMQR-13A Ballistic Missile Target System (BMTS) was an unguided target rocket developed by the United States Army during the 1960s, intended for use in the development of missile defense systems. Utilising off-the-shelf parts in four different configurations, the BMTS was utitised in a series of launches in the late 1960s supporting tests of several missile systems.
48.3 See also • Nike-Apache • Nike-Cajun
48.4 References Notes
48.1 Design and development
[1] Parsch 2002
Developed by the U.S. Army Missile Command (USAMICOM), the Ballistic Missile Target System, or BMTS, was intended as a ballistic target rocket, utilising as many parts from existing missiles as possible, to be used in the development and evaluation of defense systems against ballistic missile attack.[1]
[2] AIAA 1969, p.159. [3] Goebel 2010 [4] DMS 1978, p. 50. [5] United States Congress House Committee on Armed Services Hearings, 1968, p.9226.
Given the designation XMQR-13A in 1967, the BMTS [6] Parsch 2004 could be launched in four different configurations. Configuration 1 used the booster from a Nike Ajax surface- [7] Parsch 2002b to-air missile, with either an Apache (Version 1), Cajun (version 2), or inert Cajun (version 3) upper stage. Con- Bibliography figuration 2 omitted the upper stage. All four variations fitted a radar enhancer in the nose cone to assist in target • Goebel, Greg (2010). “Modern US Target Drones”. acquisition by the targeting missile.[1] Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. vectorsite.net. Retrieved 2011-01-05. • Parsch, Andreas (2002). “USAMICOM MQR-13 BMTS”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-0106.
48.2 Operational history The XMQR-13A was used in a series of test firings between 1966 and 1968, primarily from the White Sands Missile Range,[1] and using a modified Terrier portable launcher.[2] The test launches supported a variety of antimissile development programs,[3] including that of the HAWK,[4] and was intended for use in the development of SAM-D.[5]
• Parsch, Andreas (2002b). “PWN-3”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designationsystems.net. Retrieved 2011-01-06.
The Nike-Apache and Nike-Cajun rocket configurations were also use extensively as sounding rockets for experimental missions conducted by NASA.[6][7]
• The Aerospace Year Book. Arlington, VA: Aerospace Industries Association of America. 1969. ASIN B000E39S6K.
195
• Parsch, Andreas (2004). “Nike-Apache”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designationsystems.net. Retrieved 2011-01-06.
196 • Code Name Handbook: Aerospace, Defense, Technology (Seventh Edition). Defense Marketing Services. 1978.
CHAPTER 48. MQR-13 BMTS
Chapter 49
MQR-16 Gunrunner The MQR-16A Gunrunner was an unguided rocket developed by Atlantic Research during the 1960s. Designed with low cost as a priority, the MQR-16A was intended to act as a target drone for use in the development of manportable surface-to-air missiles, and as a training target for the missile operators. Proving successful, the rocket served in the United States military until the 1980s.
[1] Morison 1975, p. 218. [2] Parsch 2002 [3] Parsch 2009 [4] Goebel 2010
Bibliography
49.1 Design and development Developed in the late 1960s, the Gunrunner was designed as an inexpensive aerial target, unguided and flying on a ballistic path, for use by the United States Army and United States Navy during the development and testing of the FIM-43 Redeye man-portable surface-to-air missile.[1] The design and construction of the Gunrunner was kept as simple as possible, with the rocket’s stabilizing fins using plywood in their construction, and the solid-fueled powerplant being that of the reliable and widely used High Velocity Aerial Rocket (HVAR).[2] The nose of the rocket was equipped with an infrared enhancer to allow for all-aspect target acquisition by the missile that was engaging the target.[2]
49.2 Operational history Entering operational service in 1969, the Gunrunner was given the official designation of MQR-16A in 1971, and proved to be a success in service.[2] Used for training soldiers in the operation of both the Redeye and the MIM72 Chaparral SAMs,[3] the missile was launched from a frame-type launcher that carried three missiles.[2] Remaining in service until the mid-1980s,[2] the Gunrunner was replaced in U.S. Army service by the MTR-15 BATS.[4]
49.3 References Notes 197
• Goebel, Greg (2010). “Modern US Target Drones”. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. vectorsite.net. Retrieved 2011-01-05. • Morison, Samuel L. (1975). The Ships & Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-0-87021-639-8. • Parsch, Andreas (2002). “Atlantic Research MQR16 Gunrunner”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-01-05. • Parsch, Andreas (2009). “Current Designations of U.S. Unmanned Military Aerospace Vehicles”. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-01-05.
Chapter 50
Ram (rocket) For the RAM missile, see RIM-116 Rolling Airframe being used in combat for the first time on August 16, Missile. 1950.[3] Despite the haste with which the weapon had been developed, the very first shipment included a full and firing tables for the use of The RAM, also known as the 6.5-Inch Anti-Tank Air- set of documentation [7] the rocket. The first 600 rockets were constructed by craft Rocket or ATAR, was an air-to-ground rocket used [2] hand, but a production line was rapidly set up.[3] by the United States Navy during the Korean War. Developed rapidly, the rocket proved successful but was phased In operational service, the RAM was fitted to the F-51 out shortly after the end of the conflict. Mustang, F-80 Shooting Star and F4U Corsair aircraft,[8] and it proved to be moderately effective,[1] with the first 150 rockets fired scoring “at least” eight confirmed kills of North Korean tanks.[8] However, the rocket proved to 50.1 Design and development be unpopular with pilots, due to the close approach to the target required for accurate firing; the HVAR offered a In 1950, the outbreak of the Korean War resulted in longer range, while napalm was considered more effecthe United States Navy urgently requiring an aircrafttive if the range had to be closed.[9] With the end of the launched rocket that would be effective against enemy war in 1953, the ATAR was withdrawn from service,[9] tanks,[1] as the existing "Holy Moses" high-velocity airimproved versions of the HVAR having become available craft rocket was expected to be ineffective against the aras an alternative.[1] [2] mor of JS-3 heavy tanks. The development of an improved rocket was undertaken with remarkable speed; a directive to start work on the project was issued on July 6, 1950, and the first rockets were delivered to the war zone on July 29.[3] Over the course of those 23 days, the Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, located in China Lake, California, developed an improved version of the HVAR, with a new, 6.5 inches (165 mm) shaped-charge warhead replacing the earlier weapon’s 5 inches (127 mm) charge.[1] The fuse for the shaped charge, developed with the same haste as the rocket itself, was considered dangerous, but proved to be safe enough in service; it was described as being "[not] as dangerous as the Russian tanks” it was designed to destroy.[4]
50.3 See also • FFAR • Holy Moses (rocket) • Tiny Tim (rocket) • BOAR (rocket)
50.4 References
The RAM was described as being superior in armour pen- Notes etration to the conventional bazooka's warhead,[3] being capable of penetrating 15 inches (381 mm) to 18 inches [1] Parsch 2004 (457 mm) of armor plate.[5][6] [2] Babcock 1998, p.177 [3] "Navy Rockets Hit Reds" U.S. Navy: Naval History and Heritage Command. Accessed 2011-01-08
50.2 Operational history Officially designated the 6.5-Inch Anti-Tank Aircraft Rocket (ATAR), and commonly known in service as “RAM”, the new rocket was rushed to the Korean front,[1] 198
[4] Babcock 1998, p.179 [5] C. C. Lauritsen, Pre-NOTS Caltech Rocket Programs, The China Laker, Winter 2010, p. 3
50.4. REFERENCES
Ram rockets on a F8F Bearcat [6] Babcock 1998, p.181 [7] Babcock 1998, p.183 [8] Babcock 1998, p.184 [9] Babcock 1998, p.189
Bibliography • Babcock, Elizabeth (2008). Magnificent Mavericks: transition of the Naval Ordnance Test Station from rocket station to research, development, test and evaluation center, 1948–58. History of the Navy at China Lake, California 3. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. ISBN 978-0-945274-568. Retrieved 2011-01-08. • Parsch, Andreas (2004). “NOTS Ram”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designationsystems.net. Retrieved 2011-01-08.
199
Chapter 51
LOCAT The Low-Cost Aerial Target, or LOCAT, was designed as an inexpensive target rocket for use by the United States Army during the late 1960s. The missile was tested by the U.S. Army, but failed to win a production contract.
51.1 Design and development
[2] Popular Science, Volume 193, p.108. 1968 [3] The Aerospace Year Book, Volume 48, p.155. [4] Industrial Research, Volume 10, p.236. Dun-Donnelley Publishing, 1968.
Bibliography
Developed by Philco-Ford in the late 1960s, the LOCAT rocket was intended to be a high-speed, low-cost expendable target rocket for use in the air defense training role, being used in training exercises for anti-aircraft gunners and missile operators by the U.S. Army.[1] Intended to be extremely simple and inexpensive in its construction, the fuselage tube of LOCAT was constructed from rolled paper tubing,[2] while the rocket’s stabilising fins were made of molded plastic. An aluminum coating was applied as a surfacing to enhance the rocket’s radar signature, and three solid-fuel rockets of the type used by Folding-Fin Aerial Rockets were used for propulsion.[1]
51.2 Operational history Forty examples of the LOCAT rocket were ordered by the United States Army during 1969, for operational evalulation to determine if they were suitable in the targetdrone role. The contract included an option for ordering production quantities if the rocket was considered acceptable for service.[3] Although LOCAT proved to be reasonably satisfactory in the Army’s testing, and it was estimated that, even when compared to reusable drones, LOCAT offered a 50% savings in cost over other methods of target training,[4] no production contract was placed, the MTR-15 BATS being judged superior for the Army’s purposes.[1]
51.3 References Notes [1] Parsch 2002
200
• Parsch, Andreas (2002). “Philco-Ford LOCAT”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-01-07.
Chapter 52
LTV-N-4 The LTV-N-4 was an American experimental rocket, developed by the Naval Ordnance Test Station for the development and testing of large solid-fueled rocket boosters for ramjet-powered missiles. Described as “more powerful than the V-2", a number of test flights were conducted during 1949.[1][2]
52.1 References Citations [1] Parsch 2003 [2] Bowman 1957, p.149.
Bibliography • Bowman, Norman John (1957). The Handbook of Rockets and Guided Missiles. Chicago: Perastadion Press. ASIN B0007EC5N4. • Parsch, Andreas (2003). “NOTS LTV-N-4”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles Appendix 1: Early Missiles and Drones. designationsystems.net. Retrieved 2013-01-21.
201
Chapter 53
Gimlet (rocket) get aircraft, instead of upon contact.[5] The rocket used a thin-walled aluminum body, also based on FFAR work;[2] The Gimlet was an unguided air-to-air and air-to-surface the motor used[6]an eight-point star configuration to ensure rocket developed by the United States Navy during the even burning. early 1950s. Although it proved successful in testing and was ordered into large-scale production, the arrival of the guided missile as a practical and reliable weapon resulted 53.2 Operational history in the cancellation of the Gimlet rocket in 1957. For the missile code-named 'Gimlet', see 9K38 Igla.
53.1 Design and development The development of the Gimlet rocket began in 1951, with the initiation of development of a 1.5-inch (38 mm) rocket for air-to-air use.[1] Work on the rocket was conducted at the Naval Ordnance Test Station (NOTS) at China Lake, California, and the project was begun at the behest of North American Aviation.[1] in addition, the 1.5-inch rocket was felt as the ideal caliber to 'fill in a gap' in the U.S. Navy’s rocket inventory;[1] studies indicated that aircraft could carry six times the number of 1.5-inch rockets as opposed to the then-in-service 2.75inch (70 mm) Folding Fin Aerial Rocket.[2] A FJ-2 Fury launches a Gimlet rocket against a F6F target drone In 1952, however, the Bureau of Ordnance decided that neither the 1.5-inch or 2.75-inch rocket was required; an earlier directive to develop a 2-inch (51 mm) rocket was still outstanding, and it was felt that standardizing on a single caliber of rocket would be in the Navy’s best interest.[2] NOTS had initiated development of a rocket of the 2-inch caliber prior to the outbreak of the Korean War; the concept had been shelved with the war effort requiring higher-priority projects such as the Ram antitank rocket to be prioritized; now, however, the project was dusted off and development resumed under the name “Gimlet”[2] – a name that, it was said, meant the rocket was to be a “small anti-MiG” weapon; “Gim” being “MiG” backwards, with an added diminutive.[3]
Testing of the Gimlet began in 1954.[7] In the initial test, a FJ-2 Fury shot down a F6F Hellcat target drone, proving the rocket’s effectiveness in the air-to-air role.[6] Early launchers carried four rockets, while seven- and 19-round models were developed as well.[8] A six-round clip capable of fitting the internal rocket bays of the F4D Skyray interceptor was also developed.[8]
Following a flyoff against the T-214 rocket, which indicated the necessity to modify the rocket motor to reduce the Gimlet’s visual signature,[9] the Navy directed the development of a modified, 'hybrid' rocket, using the T214’s tail; this became known as “T-Gimlet”.[9] The modified rocket was considered to be suitable for the Navy’s Gimlet was primarily intended for use in the air-to-air purposes; both the original Gimlet and the T-Gimlet were role.[4] The rocket would use a modified version of the ordered for production, a 5 million dollar USD contract FFAR’s fuse, reduced in size to fit the smaller rocket;[2] being allotted to start production[9]at the Shumaker Naval the warhead used for Gimlet took advantage of the latest Ammunition Depot in Arkansas. advancements in explosives technology, and, combined Despite the seeming success, however, the Gimlet was with the advanced fuse, would detonate inside the tar- already becoming obsolete; guided missiles were now 202
53.3. REFERENCES considered to be the wave of the future. Production of Gimlet was cancelled in early 1957, after production of 15,000 rockets; that October, the T-Gimlet version was cancelled as well.[9] Although the missile age meant that Gimlet did not enter operational service, the production processes developed for the rocket would be modified and used in the production of the AIM-9 Sidewinder air-toair missile.[9]
53.3 References Notes [1] Babcock 2008, p. 210. [2] Babcock 2008, p. 211. [3] Babcock 2008, p. 536. [4] Carelone 1993, p. 39. [5] Babcock 2008, p. 212. [6] Babcock 2008, p.213. [7] Parsch 2007 [8] Babcock 2008, p.214. [9] Babcock 2008, pp.386–387.
Bibliography • Babcock, Elizabeth (2008). Magnificent Mavericks: transition of the Naval Ordnance Test Station from rocket station to research, development, test and evaluation center, 1948–58. History of the Navy at China Lake, California 3. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. ISBN 978-0-945274-568. Retrieved 2011-01-08. • Carelone, Joseph (1993). Tactical Missile Warheads. Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. ISBN 978-1-56347-067-7. Retrieved 2010-01-11. • Parsch, Andreas (2007). "(Other): Missile Scrapbook”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-0111.
203
Chapter 54
Zuni (rocket) The Zuni is a 5.0 in (127.0 mm) unguided rocket deployed by the United States armed forces.[1] The rocket was developed for both air-to-air and air-to-ground operations. It can be used to carry various types of warheads, including chaff for countermeasures. It is usually fired from the LAU-10 rocket pod holding four rockets.
54.2 Operational history
54.1 Development In the early 1950s, U.S. Navy engineers Naval Ordnance Test Station China Lake began to develop a new 12.7 cm unguided rocket to replace the High Velocity Aircraft Rocket. Sailors aboard Forrestal battle a massive ordnance fire triggered by a Zuni rocket.
The Zuni was widely used in the ground-attack role during the Vietnam War. However, on 1 May 1967 during a sortie against Kép Air Base, North Vietnam, LCDR Theodore R. Swartz of Squadron VA-76, flying from USS Bon Homme Richard, shot down a MiG-17 with Zuni rockets. This was the only MiG aircraft to be downed by a Douglas A-4 Skyhawk during the Vietnam War.[3] Lieutenant Commander Swartz received the Silver Star for his action. In 1967, a Mk 32 Zuni rocket was responsible for a serious fire aboard the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal (CV59), which led to the loss of 134 lives. A Mk32 was also responsible for a 1969 fire on the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN-65), leading to the loss of 27 lives and saw The Zuni 5-inch Folding-Fin Aircraft Rocket 314 more injured. Fifteen aircraft were destroyed. (FFAR), was designed as a modular system, to allow the use of different types of warheads and fuzes. One type of warhead was a proximity fuze, as the rocket was originally intended to be used as an air-to-air rocket. The 54.3 Student use Zuni was approved for production in 1957. A number of different launchers were tested for the Zuni, e.g. single The Australian Government has donated its Zuni rocklaunchers fitted to the AIM-9 Sidewinder launching ets to the Australian Space Research Institute (ASRI) and rails of the Vought F-8 Crusader. However, four-tube they are used for student experiments which are launched LAU-10/A series pods became the most commonly used from the Woomera launching range. Every year a few launcher.[2] Zunis are launched there. An VA-113 A-4F launching Zunis during the Battle of Khe Sanh, 1968.
204
54.6. EXTERNAL LINKS
205
ASRI has also designed and constructed custom [9] MBDA Incorporated. World Class Missile Solutions nosecones and payload recovery mechanisms for the Zuni. With a payload of 20 kg, the Zuni has an ap- Bibliography proximate range of 5.9 km, which it attains in about 40 seconds, experiencing 55 g and 491 m/s (Mach 1.4) • Grossnick, R. and Armstrong W.J. (1997). United during the flight. States Naval Aviation, 1910–1995. Naval Historical Center. ISBN 0-16-049124-X.
54.4 Laser Guided Zuni Rocket The 5” Laser Guided Zuni Rocket is a precision weapon and an upgrade to the unguided 5” Zuni rocket. The North American division of MBDA is the only manufacturer of the Laser Guided Zuni Rocket [4] similar to the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System upgrade to the Hydra 70 system.[5] The Laser Guided Zuni Rocket is composed of the new WGU-58/B Guidance and Control Section that is attached to the front end of an unguided Zuni rocket and warhead. The weapon requires semiactive laser energy to guide to a precise target.[6] The Laser Guided Zuni Rocket is on the U.S. Marine Corps Aviation Weapons Roadmap and Plan[5] and is compatible with any aircraft that is cleared to carry unguided Zunis in a 4-place LAU-10 Launcher, including AV-8B Harriers, F/A-18 Hornets, AH-1 Cobra Helicopters and P-3 Orion aircraft.[4] The precision weapon fits in the same launcher as unguided Zunis and requires only a 28V firing pulse and a semi active laser designator. The weapon was developed under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with the Weapons Division of the U.S. Navy’s Air Warfare Center in China Lake, California (NAWC WD).[7] In 2009, the Laser Guided Zuni Rocket was successfully tested against both a stationary[6] and moving targets.[7][8] The weapon successfully underwent a live fire warhead test flight in September 2010.[9]
54.5 References Notes [1] Federation of American Scientists - Zuni rocket [2] http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/ 5in-rockets.html [3] Grossnick and Armstrong 1997 [4] WGU-58/B Laser Guided Zuni Rocket Data Sheet [5] “2007 Marine Aviation Plan2007 Marine Aviation Plan”. [6] Video of Laser Guided Zuni Rocket hitting a stationary target [7] Video of WGu-58/B equipped Zuni target striking a moving target in August, 2009 [8]
54.6 External links
Chapter 55
Shavetail For the rank “Shavetail” is used as slang for, see Second Lieutenant. Shavetail was an experimental American rocket developed during the 1950s. Used to evaluate the rapidly developing technology of rocketry, eleven Shavetail rockets were fired during 1959.
55.1 Design and development Intended to assist in the development of rocket and missile technologies, Shavetail was a small, inexpensive, unguided solid-fueled rocket that was capable of being modified to be tested in various configurations.[1] Among the systems tested was one to ensure precise payload separation at motor burnout.[2]
55.2 Operational history A series of eleven launches of the Shavetail rocket were conducted in late 1959, starting in August and ending in October.[3] The maximum range of Shavetail was 6 miles (9.7 km).[1]
55.3 References Notes [1] “Shavetail”. White Sands Missile Range Missile Park. White Sands Missile Range Museum. Retrieved 201101-19. [2] Baker 1978, p.142. [3] Parsch 2007
Bibliography • Baker, David (1978). The Rocket: The History and Development of Rocket & Missile Technology. New york: Crown. ISBN 978-0517534045. 206
• Parsch, Andreas (2007). "(Other): “Missile Scrapbook"". Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-0119.
Chapter 56
BGM-109G Ground Launched Cruise Missile “GLCM” redirects here. For the image processing the Tomahawk missile in use by the U.S. Navy (along algorithm, see Co-occurrence matrix. with an undeveloped air-launched version, the Medium Range Air to Surface Missile [MRASM].) Unlike other The Ground Launched Cruise Missile, or GLCM, (of- variants of the Tomahawk, the GLCM carried only a ficially designated BGM-109G Gryphon) was a ground- W84 thermonuclear warhead ; no conventional capabillaunched cruise missile developed by the United States ity was provided. The[2]W84 warhead was a 0.2-150kt variable-yield weapon. This yield contrasts with the Air Force in the last decade of the Cold War. yield of the W80 warhead found on other versions of the Tomahawk and on the ALCM from which the W84 was derived, which had a selectable yield of 5 or 150 kt.[3] 56.1 Overview The Pentagon credited the GLCM with a range of 2000– 2500 kilometers. Like other US cruise missiles of this The BGM-109G was developed as a counter to the mo- period, accuracy after more than 2000 km of flight was bile medium- and intermediate- range ballistic nuclear within half the width of an American football field or 100 missiles (SS-20 Saber) deployed by the Soviet Union in ft (approximately 30 meters). The missile was entirely Eastern Bloc European countries. The GLCM and the subsonic, powered by a turbofan engine with a rocket U.S. Army's Pershing II may have been the incentives booster assisting at launch.[1] that fostered Soviet willingness to sign the IntermediateMilitarily, the GLCM was targeted against fixed targets— Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF treaty), and thus at the outer edge of its range, the missile’s flight time with possibly reduced the threat of nuclear wars in Europe. its subsonic turbofan was more than 2½ hours. The misGLCM is also a generic term for any ground-launched siles were launched from an elevated launcher, with the cruise missile. Since the US deployed only one modern missile ejected from its canister for about 13 seconds of cruise missile in the tactical role, the GLCM name stuck. solid rocket booster flight. The fins extended at 4 seconds, The GLCM was built by General Dynamics. the air inlet and wings deployed at 10 seconds and the jet engine started at the end of the boost phase. Flying at low level, the missile was guided by TERCOM (terrain 56.2 History contour matching) to the target. 3
56.2.1
Design & employment
A conventionally configured cruise missile, the BGM-109 was essentially a small, pilotless flying machine, powered by a turbofan engine. Unlike ballistic missiles, whose aimpoint is usually determined by gravitic trajectories, a cruise missile is capable of complicated aerial manoeuvres, and can fly a range of predetermined flight plans. Also, it flies at much lower altitudes than a ballistic missile, typically with a terrain-hugging flight plan. The trade-off for this low-observability flight is strike time; cruise missiles travel far more slowly than a ballistic weapon, and the GLCM was typical in this regard.
This contrasted sharply with Pershing II, which had a flight time of 10–15 minutes. However, the range of the GLCM gave it the ability to strike deep within thenSoviet territory, and the missile guidance, and low radar cross-section would have made it far more difficult to intercept a GLCM even if the launch were detected in time.[lower-alpha 1] BGM-109G personnel were trained at Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona, by the 868th Tactical Missile Training Squadron from 1 July 1981 to 1 October 1985, when it became the 868th Tactical Missile Training Group. The group was inactivated on 31 May 1990. An area near Fort Huachuca, Arizona was used for field training for GLCM flights. GLCM testing was conducted at the Dugway
GLCM was developed as a ground-launched variant of 207
208
CHAPTER 56. BGM-109G GROUND LAUNCHED CRUISE MISSILE
Proving Ground in Utah, with many of the people involved in the testing going to operational wings as they were activated.
56.2.2
NATO Deployment & protests
A dispersed launch site for a BGM-109G Gryphon missile TEL
Ground Launched Cruise Missile GAMA (GLCM Alert and Maintenance Area)
A Soviet inspector examines a BGM-109G ground-launched cruise missile in 1988 prior to its destruction.
GAMAs at RAF Molesworth, England. 4 GAMAs, 1 per flight, each holding 16 missiles, total 64 missiles. Molesworth was completely reconstructed between 1981 and 1985, being transformed from a largely abandoned World War II Eighth Air Force B-17 base to a modern NATO facility. Note the large World War II “J” type hangar in the upper left. It was retained as a memorial to the WW II 303d Bombardment Group. Both Bob Hope and Glenn Miller performed USO shows in that hangar during the war years.
(TMS) which was responsible for operation and deployment of the missiles, and a Tactical Missile Maintenance Squadron (TMMS) which was responsible for the support of the system. Each TMS consisted of several flights, made up of 69 people and 22 vehicles.[4] The missile was designed to operate in a flight with sixteen missiles. The flight would be normally on base, with the missiles and vehicles secured in the hardened storage area called the GAMA (GLCM Alert and Maintenance Area).
Four transporter erector launchers (TEL) each carried four BGM-109G missiles in their containers and ready for launch. Two launch control centers (LCC), each with two launch officers, were connected to the TELs and interconnected for launch. Each TEL and LCC was towed by a large MAN KAT1 8x8 tractor and was capable of traversing rough terrain. There were 16 support vehicles BGM-109G missiles would be based at six locations for the flight commander, normally a captain, 19 maintethroughout Europe; in the United Kingdom (at RAF nance technicians, a medical technician and 44 security Greenham Common and RAF Molesworth), Belgium, personnel.[4] Netherlands, Germany, and Comiso Air Station in Italy. During periods of increased tension, the flights would be Each location had its own unique problems, but all re- deployed to pre-surveyed, classified locations in the counquired extensive construction by the USAF. Initial oper- tryside away from the base. The members of the flight ating capability (or IOC) occurred in 1983.[4] would dig in, erect camouflage netting to hide the vehiNormal basing was in blast shelters at military instal- cles and prepare for launch. Flight commanders were lations. Each BGM-109G station was controlled by tasked to survey and select more than one possible dea Wing, that consisted of a Tactical Missile Squadron ployment site, with all details closely held, and the com-
56.2. HISTORY
209
mander selected the location preferred when the flight deployed from the base. When deployed, the flight was selfsustaining, and secured with special intrusion detection radar. The launchers (sans warheads) were sent out on a number of simulated scrambles.[4]
SS-20 Saber, SS-22 Scaleboard B, and SS-23 Spider MRBM/IRBM/LRBM ballistic missiles, in addition to the GLCM’s most direct counterpart: the SSC-4 or RK55 (dubbed the Tomahawksi in the Western press) and its supersonic follow-on, the SSC-X-5 cruise missiles.[7]
Although deployed in the face of a range of Soviet IRBMs, including the brand-new and extremely capable SS-20 Saber, the GLCM (sometimes referred to by its phonetic nickname, Glick-em) faced widespread public protest in Europe. Many anti-nuclear Europeans felt that the United States was deploying weapons meant to win a tactical nuclear war, without adequate consideration of the effects that even a 'victory' would bring. Critics also argued that the Reagan Administration was unduly escalating tensions in Central Europe. Between them, GLCM and Pershing II made a lethal combination. GLCM missiles could be launched, undetected, followed 2 hours later by a Pershing strike, which would fly so quickly that it was possible no response could be made before the Pershings struck. Aside from presenting a course of action to NATO commanders in the event of war, it put the Kremlin leaders (in range of the GLCM and possibly the Pershing, even in Moscow) in a position of fearing a decapitating NATO first strike, which could have moved them toward a launch on warning policy as the only way to maintain mutually assured destruction.Grier, Peter. “The Short, Happy Life of the Glick-Em”. Air Force Magazine 85 (July 2002): 70–74. However, the USSR did have submarine-launched missiles (i.e. Golf and Hotel class SSBNs armed with R-27 Zyb and SS-N-5s) available during this time, so any fears of a decapitating first strike were not necessarily justified.[5]
GLCM was removed from Europe beginning in 1988, and over the next three and a half years all units were transported to Davis Monthan AFB and destroyed or converted into displays by 1991. Eight missiles survive for inert static display only. No follow-on design has been authorized.[4]
56.2.3
Intermediate-Range Forces Treaty
Nuclear
56.2.4 USAF BGM-109G GLCM Units • 38th Tactical Missile Wing - Pydna Missile Base) at Wüschheim AB, West Germany (1985–1990) 89th TMS (80 missiles) 50°02′37″N 007°25′32″E / 50.04361°N 7.42556°E • 303d Tactical Missile Wing - RAF Molesworth, United Kingdom (1986–1989) 87th TMS (64 missiles) 52°22′55″N 000°25′41″W / 52.38194°N 0.42806°W • 485th Tactical Missile Wing - Florennes Air Base, Belgium (1984–1989) 71st TMS (48 missiles) 50°13′34″N 004°39′01″E / 50.22611°N 4.65028°E • 486th Tactical Missile Wing - Woensdrecht Air Base, Netherlands (1987–1988)
Main article: Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty Despite initial fears of greater instability, the deployment of GLCM ultimately caused Soviet leaders to enter into negotiations for, and finally signature of, the INF treaty. The recognition by Soviet leaders of the threat posed by the GLCM and Pershing II missiles made them far more inclined to agree to negotiate their own intermediaterange weapons, especially the SS-20, out of service, in exchange for the elimination of the threat posed by the GLCM and the Pershing II.[6] Unlike SALT II or START I, which set limits to maximum nuclear arsenals, the INF Treaty banned whole categories of intermediate-range tactical nuclear weapons outright. All ground-launched cruise missiles and ballistic missiles with ranges greater than 500 but less than 5500 kilometers were barred to the U.S. and USSR under this treaty. This meant the withdrawal of GLCM and Pershing II on the American side; the Soviets withdrew the SS-4 Sandal, SS-5 Skean, SS-12 Scaleboard,
No Tactical Missile Squadron assigned (48 missiles assigned/0 Deployed)51°26′21″N 004°21′09″E / 51.43917°N 4.35250°E • 487th Tactical Missile Wing - Comiso Air Base, Italy (1983–1991) 302d TMS (112 missiles) 36°59′42″N 014°36′48″E / 36.99500°N 14.61333°E • 501st Tactical Missile Wing - RAF Greenham Common, United Kingdom (1982–1991) 11th TMS (96 missiles) 51°22′42″N 001°18′07″W / 51.37833°N 1.30194°W • 868th Tactical Missile Training Squadron, Activated 1 July 1981
210
CHAPTER 56. BGM-109G GROUND LAUNCHED CRUISE MISSILE Re-designated: 868th Tactical Missile Training Group, 1 October 1985 Consisted of: 868th TM Training Squadron, 868th TM Maintenance Squadron, 868th Student Squadron Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona, inactivated on 31 May 1990 An area near Fort Huachuca was used for field training for GLCM operations
56.5 References [1] Cochran, Arkin & Hoenig 1984, pp. 179–184. [2] Raytheon (General Dynamics) AGM/BGM/RGM/UGM109 Tomahawk [3] http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/W80. html The W80 Warhead [4] General Dynamics/McDonnell Douglas BGM-109G “Gryphon” Ground-launched Cruise Missile
[8]
[5] ICBMs
Note: Each GLCM squadron was further subdivided into several flights. Each flight included 2 Launch Control Vehicles (LCC) and 4 Transporter Erector Launchers (TEL), totalling 16 missiles per flight. Each TEL could carry 4 missiles. [9][10]
[6] Werrell, Kenneth P. (1989). “The Weapon the Military Did Not Want: The Modern Strategic Cruise Missile”. The Journal of Military History 53 (October 1989): 419– 438. doi:10.2307/1986108.
• 38th Tactical Missile Wing • 303d Tactical Missile Wing • 485th Tactical Missile Wing • 486th Tactical Missile Wing • 487th Tactical Missile Wing • 501st Tactical Missile Wing • 868th Tactical Missile Training Group • 11th Tactical Missile Squadron
[7] INF Theater / Operational Missiles - Russian / Soviet Nuclear Forces [8] The Short, Happy Life of the Glick-Em [9] AAFM Newsletter, Volume 12, Number 4, dated December 2004, article “GLCM Part I” by Col (Ret) Charlie Simpson. [10] Association of Air Force Missileers
This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the Air Force Historical Research Agency.
56.6 Bilbiography
• 71st Tactical Missile Squadron • 87th Tactical Missile Squadron • 89th Tactical Missile Squadron
• Cochran, Thomas; Arkin, William M.; Hoenig, Milton M. (1984). Nuclear Weapons Databook Volume I: U.S. Nuclear Forces and Capabilities. Natural Resources Defense Council. ISBN 0-88410-173-8.
• 302d Tactical Missile Squadron • 868th Tactical Missile Training Squadron
56.3 See also • Tomahawk SLCM • SSC-X-4/RK-55 • List of nuclear weapons (incomplete)
56.4 Notes [1] The Mikoyan MiG-31's Zaslon radar has lookdown/shoot-down function, and was specifically designed to intercept low-flying bombers and cruise missiles. Same radar function on the Beriev A-50.
56.7 External links • GLCM (Ground-Launched Cruise Missile): BGM109G Gryphon - Designation Systems • 485th Tactical Missile Wing • 38 TMW Wueschheim Germany
Chapter 57
SM-64 Navaho tic missiles. The missile is named after the Navajo Nation and is in keeping with North American Aviation’s habit of naming projects with code names starting with the letters “NA”.
57.1 Development The Navaho program began as part of a series of guided missile research efforts started in 1946. Designated MX770, the original intent of the program was the development of a winged cruise missile that could deliver a nuclear (fission) warhead over a distance of 500 miles (800 km). This was more than double the range of the German V-1 flying bomb as well as having a larger payload.[1] Design studies showed the promise of still greater ranges and by 1950 the vehicle had evolved from a 500-mile (800 km) ground-launched winged missile, to a 1,000-mile (1,600 km) range ramjet powered missile, to a 1,500mile (2,400 km) air-launched, ramjet-powered missile (actually designated XSSM-A-2), to finally a 3,000-mile (4,800 km) plus rocket boosted ramjet powered cruise missile. The design evolution finally ended in July 1950 with the issuing by the Air Force of Weapon System 104A. Under this new requirement the purpose of the program was the development of a 5,500-mile (8,900 km) range nuclear missile.[2]
Navaho missile on launch pad
Under the new requirements of WS-104A, the Navaho program was broken up into three guided missile efforts. The first of these missiles was the North American X-10, a flying subrange vehicle to prove the general aerodynamics, guidance, and control technologies for vehicles two and three. The X-10 was essentially an unmanned high performance jet, powered by two afterburning J-40 turbojets and equipped with retractable landing gear for take off and landing. It was capable of speeds up to Mach 2 and could fly almost 500 miles (800 km). Its success at Edwards AFB and then at Cape Canaveral set the stage for the development of the second vehicle: XSSM-A-4, Navaho II, or G-26.[3]
Navaho on display at CCAFS, Florida
The North American SM-64 Navaho was a supersonic intercontinental cruise missile project built by North American Aviation. The program ran from 1946 to 1958 when it was cancelled in favor of intercontinental ballis-
Step two, the G-26, was a nearly full-size Navaho nuclear vehicle. Launched vertically by a liquid-fuel rocket booster, the G-26 would rocket upward until it had reached a speed of approximately Mach 3 and an alti-
211
212
CHAPTER 57. SM-64 NAVAHO
tude of 50,000 ft (15,000 m). At this point the booster would be expended and the vehicle’s ramjets ignited to power the vehicle to its target. The G-26 made a total of 10 launches from Launch Complex 9 (LC-9) at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) between 1956 and 1957. Launch Complex 10 (LC-10) was also assigned to the Navaho program, but no G-26s were ever launched from it (it was only used for ground tests of the planned portable launcher).
las ICBM began flight tests in June and the Jupiter and Thor IRBMs were showing great promise. These ballistic missiles however would not have been possible without the liquid fuel rocket engine developments accomplished in the Navaho program. The launch of the Soviet Satellite Sputnik in October 1957 only finished Navaho as the Air Force shifted its research money into ICBMs. But the technologies developed for the Navaho were reused in 1957 for the development of the AGM-28 Hound Dog, The final operational version, the G-38 or XSM-64A, was a nuclear cruise missile which entered in production in 1959. the same basic design as the G-26 only larger. It incorporated numerous new technologies: Titanium, gimballed The Soviet Union had been working on parallel projects, rocket engines, Kerosene/Lox propellant combination, The Myasishchev "Buran" and Lavochkin "Burya" and a full solid-state, etc. None were ever flown, the program little later, the Tupolev Tu-123. The first two types were being cancelled before the first example was completed. also large rocket-boosted ramjets while the third was a The advanced rocket booster technology went on to be turbojet-powered machine. With the cancellation of the used in other missiles including the Atlas intercontinental Navaho and the promise of ICBMs in the strategic misballistic missile and the inertial guidance system was later sile role, the first two were canceled as well, though the used as the guidance system on the first U.S. nuclear- Lavochkin project, which had some successful test flights, powered submarines. was carried on for R&D purposes and the Tupolev was Development of the first-stage rocket engine for the reworked as a big, fast reconnaissance drone. Navaho began with two refurbished V-2 engines in 1947. That same year, the phase II engine was designed, the XLR-41-NA-1, a simplified version of the V-2 engine made from American parts. The phase III engine, XLR-43-NA-1 (also called 75K), adopted a cylindrical combustion chamber with the experimental German impinging-stream injector plate. Engineers at North American were able to solve the combustion stability problem, which had prevented it being used in the V-2, and the engine was successfully tested at full power in 1951. The Phase IV engine, XLR-43-NA-3 (120K), replaced the poorly cooled heavy German engine wall with a brazed tubular (“spaghetti”) construction, which was becoming the new standard method for regenerative cooling in American engines. A dual-engine version of this, XLR-71-NA-1 (240K), was used in the G-26 Navaho. With improved cooling, a more powerful kerosene-burning version was developed for the tripleengine XLR-83-NA-1 (405K), used in the G-38 Navaho. With all the elements of a modern engine (except a bellshaped nozzle), this led to designs for the Atlas, Thor and Titan engines.
57.2 Operational history The first launch attempt, in November 1956, failed after 26 seconds of flight. Ten failed launches followed, before another got off successfully, on 22 March 1957, for 4 minutes, 39 seconds of flight. A 25 April attempt exploded seconds after liftoff, while a 26 June flight lasted only 4 minutes, 29 seconds.[4] Officially, the program was canceled on 13 July 1957, after the first four launches ended in failure. In reality the program was obsolete by mid-1957 as the first At-
57.3 Operators •
United States: The United States Air Force canceled the program before accepting the Navaho into service.
57.4 Survivors One Navaho missile in existence is currently displayed outside the south entrance gate of Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida. A second Navaho missile is on display at the United States Air Force Museum Annex at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH.
57.5 Specifications General characteristics • Length: 67 ft 11 in (20.7 m) • Wingspan: 28 ft 7 in (8.71 m) • Height: () • Loaded weight: 64,850 lb (29,420 kg) • Powerplant: • 2 × XRJ47-W-5 ramjets, 15,000 lbf (67 kN) each • 2 × XLR83-NA-1 rocket boosters, 200,000 lbf (890 kN) each
57.8. EXTERNAL LINKS Performance • Maximum speed: Mach 3 (2,000 kn, 3,700 km/h) • Range: 3,500 nmi, (6,500 km) • Service ceiling: 77,000 ft (23,000 m) • Thrust/weight (jet): 0.46:1 Armament
• 1 × W41 nuclear warhead
57.6 See also Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era • SM-62 Snark • North American X-10 Related lists • List of missiles • List of military aircraft of the United States
57.7 References Notes [1] Gibson 1996, p. 6. [2] Gibson 1996, p. 15. [3] Gibson 1996, pp. 18, 24. [4] Werrell 1998, p. 98.
Bibliography • Gibson, James N. The Navaho Missile Project: The Story of the Know-How missile of American Rocketry. Altglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer Publishing, 1996. ISBN 0-7643-0048-2 • Werrell, Kenneth P. The Evolution of the Cruise Missile. Montgomery, Alabama: Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base. 1998, First edition 1995. ISBN 978-1-58566-005-6. Also available in electronic format.
213
57.8 External links • The Evolution of the Cruise Missile by Werrell, Kenneth P. • Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles: North American SM-64 Navaho, by Andreas Parsch • http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/navhog26.htm • https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/n19980710_ 981014.html
Chapter 58
SM-62 Snark The Northrop SM-62 Snark was an early-model intercontinental range ground-launched cruise missile that could carry a W39 thermonuclear warhead. The Snark was deployed by the United States Air Force's Strategic Air Command from 1958 through 1961. The Snark took its name from the author Lewis Carroll's character the “snark”.[1]
Carl Spaatz and the industrialist Jack Northrop saved the project. Despite this, its funding by Congress was low, and this program was dogged by changes in specifications. The earliest planned due date in 1953 passed with the design still in development, and the Strategic Air Command was gradually becoming less supportive of it. In 1955, President Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered that top priority be assigned to ICBMs and their associated guided missile The Snark missile was developed to present a nuclear deterrent to the Soviet Union and other potential ene- programs. mies at a time when Intercontinental ballistic missiles Despite considerable difficulties with the development of (ICBMs) were still in development. The Snark was the the Snark, and reservations from the Department of Deonly surface-to-surface cruise missile with such a long fense towards it, the engineering work continued.[3] range that was ever deployed by the U.S. Air Force. Fol- In 1957, tests of the Snark showed an estimated circular lowing the deployment of ICBMs, the Snark was ren- error probable (CEP) of just 17 nautical miles (31.5 kilodered obsolete, and it was removed from deployment in meters). By 1958, the celestial navigation system used 1961. by the Snark allowed its most accurate test, which ap-
58.1 Design and development
peared to fall four nautical miles (7.4 km) short of the target. However, this apparent failure was at least partially caused by the British Navigation Charts used to determine the position of Ascension Island being based on position determinations less accurate than those used by the Snark. The missile landed where Ascension Island would be found if more accurate navigation methods had been used when developing the chart.[4] However, even with the decreased CEP, the design was notoriously unreliable, with the majority of tests suffering mechanical failure thousands of miles before reaching the target. Other factors, such as the reduction in operating altitude from 150,000 to 55,000 feet (46,000 to 17,000 meters), and the inability of the Snark to detect countermeasures and perform evasive maneuvers also made it a questionable strategic deterrent.
58.1.1 Technical description Display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force
The jet propelled 20.5 meter-long Snark missile had a top speed of about 650 m.p.h. (1,046 kilometer/hour) and a maximum range of about 5,500 nautical miles (10,200 kilometers). Its complicated celestial navigation system gave it a claimed CEP of about 8,000 feet (2.4 kilometers).
Work on the project began in 1946. Initially there were two missiles designed—a subsonic design (the MX775A Snark) and a supersonic design (the MX775B Boojum).(From the same poem: “The snark was a boojum, you see.”[2] ) Budget reductions threatened the project in The Snark was an air-breathing missile, intended to be its first year, but the intervention of Air Force General launched from a truck-mounted platform by two solid214
58.3. SURVIVORS
215
fueled rocket booster engines. The Snark next switched to an internal turbojet engine for the rest of its flight. The engine was a Pratt and Whitney J57, which was the first jet engine featuring a thrust of 10,000 pounds (44 kilonewtons) or more. Since the Snark lacked a horizontal tail surface, it used elevons as its primary flight control surfaces, and it flew with an unusual nose-high angle during level flight. During the final phase of its flight, its nuclear warhead would have separated from its fuselage and then followed a ballistic trajectory towards its target. Due to the abrupt shift in its center of gravity caused by separation, the fuselage would have performed an abrupt pitch-up maneuver in order to avoid a collision with the warhead. One unusual capability of the Snark missile was its ability to fly away from its launch point for up to 11 hours, and then return for a landing. If its warhead did not detach from its body, then the Snark could be flown repeatedly. Lacking any landing gear, it would have been necessary for the Snark to skid to a stop on a flat, level surface. A runway at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station is still known as the “Skid Strip”.
58.2 Operational history In January 1958, the Strategic Air Command began accepting delivery of Snark missiles at Patrick Air Force Base for training, and in 1959, the 702d Strategic Missile Wing was formed. Multiple launch failures led to the Atlantic Ocean off Cape Canaveral's being described as “Snark infested waters.” On 27 May 1959, Presque Isle Air Force Base, Maine, the only Snark missile base, received its first missile. Ten months later, on 18 March 1960, a Snark missile went on alert status. A total of 30 Snarks are known to have been deployed.”[5] The 702nd Wing was not declared to be fully operational until February 1961. In March 1961, President John F. Kennedy declared the Snark to be “obsolete and of marginal military value”, and on 25 June 1961, the 702nd Wing was inactivated.[6] Many in the U.S. Military were surprised the Snark, due to its dubious guidance system, was ever operational. In flight tests many were lost. A missile launched in 1956 went so far off course that it landed in North-Eastern Brazil,[7] where it was found in 1983.[8] Many of those connected with the program commented in jest “That the Caribbean was full of 'Snark infested waters’.”[9]
A photo sequence showing the warhead’s separation sequence
Cape Canaveral AFS and cannot be viewed by the general public. • National Museum of the United States Air Force, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio • Strategic Air & Space Museum, adjacent to Offutt AFB, Ashland, Nebraska
58.3 Survivors • Air Force Space & Missile Museum, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida. This pristine artifact is in sequestered storage in Hangar R on
• Hill Air Force Base, Ogden, Utah • National Museum of Nuclear Science & History, adjacent to Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque, New Mexico
216
CHAPTER 58. SM-62 SNARK
[7] “Snark ignores Air Force 'orders’.” Pittsburgh PostGazette, 8 Dececember 1956. Retrieved: 6 January 2013. [8] “Long-lost missile found.” The Leader-Post, 15 January 1983. Retrieved: 6 January 2013. [9] Zaloga 1993, p. 193.
58.5.2 Bibliography • Carroll, Lewis and Martin Gardner. Lewis Carroll’s The Hunting of the Snark: The Annotated Snark. London: William Kaufmann, 1982. ISBN 978-0913232-36-1. Aerial photo showing the Snark’s nose-up attitude in flight
• City of Presque Isle, Maine static display
58.4 See also • Strategic Air Command • Mutual Assured Destruction Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era • North American SM-64 Navaho • Vought SSM-N-9 Regulus II Related lists • List of missiles • List of military aircraft of the United States
58.5 References 58.5.1
Notes
[1] Carroll and Gardner 1982, p. 97. [2] Carroll and Gardner 1982, pp. 14, 53. [3] “Video: Arctic Sentinels. Building Rushed on Radar Defense, 1956/04/09.” Universal Newsreel, 1956. Retrieved: 20 February 2012. [4] “Personal interview with George F. Douglas, Chief Project Engineer, c. 1967” [5] Gibson 1996, p. 151. [6] “U.S. Air Force Fact Sheet: Development of the 45SW Eastern Rqnge.” United States Air Force. Retrieved: 12 April 2012.
• Gibson, James N. Nuclear Weapons of the United States: An Illustrated History. Atglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer Publishing Ltd., 1996. ISBN 0-7643-00636. • Zaloga, Steven J. “Chapter 5.” Target America: The Soviet Union and the Strategic Arms Race, 1945– 1964. New York: Presido Press, 1993. ISBN O89141-400-2.
58.6 External links • The Evolution of the Cruise Missile by Kenneth P. Werrell • The Day They Lost The Snark by J.P. Anderson, Air Force Magazine article about a Snark that was testfired and rumored to have been found in Brazil • Excellent article on the Snark on FAS.org • “Our First Guided Missileaires”, Popular Mechanics, July 1954, detailed article on Snark and the USAF school to train personnel for it
Chapter 59
SSM-N-8 Regulus The SSM-N-8A Regulus was a ship- and submarinelaunched, nuclear-armed turbojet-powered cruise missile deployed by the United States Navy from 1955 to 1964. Its barrel-shaped fuselage resembled that of numerous fighter aircraft designs of the era, but without a cockpit. When the missile was ready for launch, it was fitted with two large booster rockets on the aft end of the fuselage.
59.1 History 59.1.1
its extreme range the missile had to hit within 2.5 nautical miles (4.6 km) of its target 50% of the time. Regulus development was preceded by Navy experiments with the JB-2 Loon missile, a close derivative of the German V-1 flying bomb, beginning in the last year of World War II. Submarine testing was performed 194753, with USS Cusk (SS-348) and USS Carbonero (SS337) converted as test platforms, initially carrying the missile unprotected, thus unable to submerge until after launch. Regulus was designed to be 30 feet (9.1 m) long, 10 feet (3.0 m) in wingspan, 4 feet (1.2 m) in diameter, and would weigh between 10,000 and 12,000 pounds (4,500 and 5,400 kg). After launch, it would be guided toward its target by two control stations, usually submarines with guidance equipment. (Later, with the “Trounce” system (Tactical Radar Omnidirectional Underwater Navigational Control Equipment), one submarine could guide it).[2] Army-Navy competition complicated both the Matador’s and the Regulus’ developments. The missiles looked alike and used the same engine. They had nearly identical performances, schedules, and costs. Under pressure to reduce defense spending, the United States Department of Defense ordered the Navy to determine if Matador could be adapted for their use. The Navy concluded that the Navy’s Regulus could perform the Navy mission better.[3]
Design and development
A Regulus I missile.
In October 1943, Chance Vought Aircraft Company signed a study contract for a 300-mile (480 km) range missile to carry a 4,000-pound (1,800 kg) warhead. The project stalled for four years, however, until May 1947, when the United States Army Air Forces awarded Martin Aircraft Company a contract for a turbojet powered subsonic missile, the Matador. The Navy saw Matador as a threat to its role in guided missiles and, within days, started a Navy development program for a missile that could be launched from a submarine and use the same J33 engine as the Matador.[1] In August 1947, the specifications for the project, now named “Regulus,” were issued: Carry a 3,000-pound (1,400 kg) warhead, to a range of 500 nautical miles (930 km), at Mach 0.85, with a circular error probable (CEP) of 0.5% of the range. At
Regulus had some advantages over Matador. It required only two guidance stations while Matador required three.[4] It could also be launched quicker, as Matador’s boosters had to be fitted while the missile was on the launcher while Regulus was stowed with its boosters attached. Finally, Chance Vought built a recoverable version of the missile, so that even though a Regulus test vehicle was more expensive to build, Regulus was cheaper to use over a series of tests. The Navy program continued, and the first Regulus flew in March 1951. Due to its size and regulations concerning oversize loads on highways, Chance Vought collaborated with a firm that specialized in trucking oversize loads to develop a special tractor trailer combination which could move a Regulus I missile.[5]
217
218
CHAPTER 59. SSM-N-8 REGULUS
USS Tunny launching a Regulus I in 1958.
two purpose-built Regulus submarines, USS Grayback,[6] USS Growler,[7] and, later, by the nuclear-powered USS Halibut.[8] So that no target would be left uncovered, four Regulus missiles had to be at sea at any given time. Thus, A Regulus I fired from USS Los Angeles, 1957. Barbero and Tunny, each of which carried two Regulus missiles, patrolled simultaneously. Growler and Grayback, with four missiles, or Halibut, with five, could patrol 59.2 Regulus II alone. These five submarines made 40 Regulus strategic deterrent patrols between October 1959 and July 1964, Main article: SSM-N-9 Regulus II when they were relieved by the George Washington-class submarines carrying the Polaris missile system.[9] BarA second generation supersonic Vought SSM-N-9 Regu- bero also earned the distinction of launching the only delus II cruise missile with a range of 1,200 nautical miles livery of missile mail. (2,200 km) and a speed of Mach 2 was developed and Regulus was deployed by the US Navy in 1955 in the successfully tested, but the program was canceled in fa- Pacific on board the cruiser USS Los Angeles. In 1956, vor of the UGM-27 Polaris nuclear ballistic missile. three more followed: USS Macon, USS Toledo, and USS The Regulus II missile was a completely new design with Helena. These four Baltimore-class cruisers each carried improved guidance and double the range, and was in- three Regulus missiles on operational patrols in the Westtended to replace the Regulus I missile. Regulus II- ern Pacific. Macon’s last Regulus patrol was in 1958, equipped subs and ships would have been fitted with the Toledo’s in 1959, Helena’s in 1960, and Los Angeles’s in Ships Inertial Navigation System (SINS), allowing the 1961. missiles to be aligned accurately before take-off.
Due to the high cost of the Regulus II (approx one million dollars each), budgetary pressure, and the emergence of the UGM-27 Polaris SLBM (submarine-launched ballistic missile), the Regulus II program was canceled on 18 December 1958. At the time of cancellation Vought had completed twenty Regulus II missiles with 27 more on the production line. Production of Regulus I missiles continued until January 1959 with delivery of the 514th missile, and it was withdrawn from service in August 1964.
Ten aircraft carriers were configured to operate Regulus missiles (though only six ever actually launched one). USS Princeton did not deploy with the missile but conducted the first launch of a Regulus from a warship. USS Saratoga also did not deploy but was involved in two demonstration launches. USS Franklin D. Roosevelt and USS Lexington each conducted one test launch. USS Randolph deployed to the Mediterranean carrying three Regulus missiles. USS Hancock deployed once to the Western Pacific with four missiles in 1955. Lexington, Hancock, USS Shangri-La, and USS Ticonderoga were involved in the development of the Regulus Assault Mission (RAM) concept. RAM converted the Regulus cruise missiles into an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV): Regulus missiles would be launched from cruisers or submarines, and once in flight, guided to their targets by carrier-based pilots with remote control equipment.
59.2.1
59.2.2 Replacement and legacy
Forty-eight test-flights of Regulus II prototypes were carried out, 30 of which were successful, 14 partially successful and only four failures. A production contract was signed in January 1958 and the only submarine launch was carried out from the USS Grayback in September 1958.
Ships fitted with Regulus
The first launch from a submarine occurred in July 1953 from the deck of USS Tunny, a World War II fleet boat modified to carry Regulus. Tunny and her sister boat USS Barbero were the United States's first nuclear deterrent patrol submarines. They were joined in 1958 by
Production of Regulus was phased out in January 1959 with delivery of the 514th missile, and it was removed from service in August 1964. A number of the obsolete missiles were expended as targets at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. Regulus not only provided the first nuclear
59.3. OPERATORS
219
strategic deterrence force for the United States Navy dur- US Navy Pacific Missile Range Facility, Barking ing the first years of the Cold War and especially during Sands, island of Kauai, Hawaii Regulus I restored in 2011 on static display inside the Cuban Missile Crisis, preceding the Polaris missiles, the North Gate Poseidon missiles, and Trident missiles that followed, but it also was the forerunner of the Tomahawk cruise missile.
59.3 Operators
59.2.3
Surviving examples
•
United States United States Navy (from 1955 to 1964)
59.4 See also • List of missiles • SSBN Deterrent Patrol insignia
59.5 References
Regulus I in launch position on USS Growler.
The following museums in the United States have Regulus missiles on display as part of their collections:
[1] Marshall William Mcmurran, Achieving Accuracy: A Legacy of Computers and Missiles, Xlibris Corporation, 2008. pp 216 [2] Friedman, p. 178
[3] David K. Stumpf, Regulus: America’s First Nuclear Submarine Missile,Turner Publishing Company, 1996. pp 2122 Carolinas Aviation Museum, Charlotte, North Carolina
1956 Chance-Vought SSM-N-9a Regulus II cruise missile in launch position at the Carolinas Aviation Museum in Charlotte, North Carolina. It is mounted on a catapult launching stand used for aircraft carrier launches and was restored late 2006 after having been on outdoor display for a number of years.
[4] Friedman, p. 263 [5] Build Special Trailer To Move Bulky Missile.” Popular Mechanics, June 1954, p. 128. [6] Stumpf, pp 134 [7] Stumpf, pp 142
Frontiers of Flight Museum, Dallas Love Field, Texas [8] Stumpf, pp 151 Regulus II missile
[9] Friedman, pp. 177-191
Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum, New York City, New York Regulus I cruise missile can be seen ready for sim• Friedman, Norman (1994). U.S. Submarines Since ulated launch on board USS Growler at the Intrepid 1945: An Illustrated Design History. Annapolis, Sea-Air-Space Museum in New York City. Maryland: United States Naval Institute. ISBN 1Point Mugu Missile Park, Naval Air Station Point Mugu, California The museum’s collection includes both a Regulus and a Regulus II missile USS Bowfin Museum, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii Veterans Memorial Museum, Huntsville, Alabama Regulus II missile
55750-260-9.
59.6 External links • USS Halibut Webpage
• US Navy Photos & Documentary film produced by Nick T. Spark, “Regulus: The First Nuclear MisSmithsonian Institution, National Air and Space Museum sile Submarines” which aired initially on the History Regulus I on display at Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center Channel in Europe. New Jersey Naval Museum, Hackensack, NJ Regulus with intact engine
• Carolinas Aviation Museum
Chapter 60
MGM-13 Mace The Martin Mace (designated as TM-76 tactical missile until 1963, then as MGM-13 for mobile-launched and CGM-13 for container-launched versions) is a tactical cruise missile developed from the MGM-1 Matador.
60.1 History Development began in 1954 as an improved version of the MGM-1 Matador. Like the Matador, the Mace was a tactical surface-launched missile designed to destroy ground targets. It was first designed as the TM-76 and later the MGM-13. Mace was launched from a transporter erector launcher or a hardened bunker using a solid rocket booster for initial acceleration and an Allison J33-A-41 turbojet for flight. The Goodyear Aircraft Corporation developed ATRAN (Automatic Terrain Recognition And Navigation, a radar map-matching system) in which the return from a radar scanning antenna was matched with a series of “maps” carried on board the missile which corrected the flight path if it deviated from the film map. In August 1952, Air Materiel Command initiated the mating of the Goodyear ATRAN with the MGM-1 Matador. This mating resulted in a production contract in June 1954. ATRAN was difficult to jam and was not range-limited by line-of sight, but its range was restricted by the availability of radar maps. In time, it became possible to construct radar maps from topographic maps.
Europe (38th Tactical Missile Wing) with just under 200 TM-61s and TM-76s. In South Korea, the 58th Tactical Missile Group became combat ready with 60 TM-61s in January 1959. It ceased operations in March 1962, only a few months after the 498th Tactical Missile Group in December 1961 took up positions in semi-hardened sites on Okinawa. Development of the “B” missiles began in 1964 and remained operational in Europe and the Pacific. The two squadrons of TM-76B/MGM- 13C continued on active duty in USAFE until December 1969. After being taken offline, some missiles were used as target drones because their size and performance resembled manned aircraft.
60.2 Variants • Mace A - equipped with ATRAN (Automatic Terrain Recognition And Navigation) terrain-matching radar navigation. • Mace B - inertial navigation system, increased range.
60.3 Survivors
The Mace was first launched in 1956 and the missile could reach Mach 0.7 to 0.85 over a 540-mile range at low level (as low as 750 feet), and 1,285 miles at high altitude. Development of Mace “B” missiles began in 1964, with the “B” having a longer fuselage, shorter wings, and more weight than the “A”. In addition, the “B” included a jam-proof inertial guidance system (designated TM76B), with range exceeding 1,300 miles. To enhance mobility, Martin designed the Mace’s wings to fold for transport (the Matador’s wings were transported separately and then bolted on for flight). The USAF deployed the Mace in West Germany in 1959, and it served alongside the MGM-1 Matador before the TM-76 Mace missile at the Belleview Park in Englewood, Collatter phased out in 1962. Six missile squadrons served in orado 220
60.5. SEE ALSO
221
Below is a list of museums which have a Mace missile in Technical information their collection: • Air Force Space & Missile Museum, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, TM-76B / CGM-13B, AF Ser. No. 60-0715, but restored and marked as AF Ser. No. 59-4871. Originally assigned to the U.S. Air Force Tactical Missile School, 4504th Missile Training Wing, Orlando Air Force Base, Florida.[1] • Air Force Armament Museum, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, CGM-13, AF Ser. No. 59-4860 • Museum of Aviation, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia MGM-13A, AF Ser. No. 58-1465[2]
• Launch platform: • MM1: transporter erector launcher • CGM-13B: coffin Performance • Cruise speed: 650 mph (570 kn, 1,000 km/h) • Operating altitude: up to 40,000 ft (12,000 m)
• National Museum of the United States Air Force, • Range: 1,400 mi (1,200 nmi, 2,300 km) Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio. This Mace “B” was based on Okinawa prior to its Warhead delivery to the museum in 1971.[3] • Indiana Military Museum, Vincennes, Indiana CGM-13B, AF Ser. No. 59-4871. This Mace B was assigned to the 4504th Missile Training Wing, Orlando AFB, Florida.[4]
• Warhead: Conventional or nuclear
• Belleview Park, Englewood, Colorado. Elevated 60.5 See also outdoor display. AF Serial Number is unknown. Donated to the city by the Martin Company in the Related development 1960s for use as playground equipment. • White Sands Missile Range Museum, Mexico[5]
New
• MGM-1 Matador
• Public display in Memorial Park, Flagler, Colorado, Related lists AF Ser. No. 58-1463. • McDermott Post 452, American Legion, Mildred, Pennsylvania
• List of military aircraft of the United States • List of missiles
60.4 Specifications General characteristics • Length: 44 ft 6 in (13.6 m) • Diameter: 4 ft 6 in (1.4 m) • Launch mass: 18,000 lb (8,200 kg) Engine
60.6 References • Mindling, George, and Bolton, Robert, 'U.S. Air Force Tactical Missiles 1949–1969 The Pioneers’, 2008, Lulu Press [1] http://afspacemuseum.org/displays/MaceB/ [2] “MGM‐13”, Aircraft collection, Museum of Aviation.
• First stage: 1× Thiokol solid rocket booster • Thrust: 100,000 lbf (445 kN) • Second stage: 1× Allison J33-A-41 turbojet • Thrust: 5,200 lbf (23 kN)
[3] US Air Force Museum Foundation. US Air Force Museum. p. 94. [4] Indiana Military Museum. [5] “Matador, Mace”, WSMR History.
222
60.7 External links • Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles • Part One - The Development of the Matador and Mace Missiles • Part Two - History of the Matador and Mace Missiles • Part Three - Matador and Mace Missile Guidance and Flight Controls • The FWD MM-1 Teracruzer • Sembach Missileers - 38th TAC Missile Wing Missileers stationed at Sembach AB, Germany, 19591966 • TAC Missileers - Tactical Missile Warriors of the Cold War
CHAPTER 60. MGM-13 MACE
Chapter 61
MGM-1 Matador “Matador (missile)" redirects here. For the anti-tank Lowry AFB, both in Denver Colorado, while the Launch rocket, see MATADOR (weapon). Training was at Orlando AFB, Florida (later transferred to the US Navy and renamed NTC Orlando) and Cape Canaveral AFS, Florida. When the Tainan squadrons The Martin MGM-1 Matador was the first operational surface-to-surface cruise missile built by the United were inactivated, the airframes were made non-flyable by chopping out the attachment points in the bulkheads States. It was similar in concept to the German V-1, but the Matador included a radio command that allowed in- of the fuselage sections with axes, and were sold locally as scrap after having the warheads removed. Most of flight course corrections. This allowed accuracy to be maintained over greatly extended ranges of just under the support vehicles, consisting mainly of 2½ and 5-ton trucks, were disposed of on the local market. Presum1000 km. To allow these ranges, the Matador was powered by a small turbojet engine in place of the V-1’s much ably, the other sites similarly disposed of their missiles and equipment. less efficient pulsejet. When originally introduced, the Air Force referred to them as bombers, and assigned them the B-61 designation. It was later re-designated “TM-61”, for “tactical 61.2 Guidance missile”, and finally "'MGM-1” when the US Department of Defense introduced the Joint Designation System in The missile was piloted via radio link and tracked via a network of ground-based AN/MSQ-1 radar stations. 1963. This guidance system, with its line-of-sight communications, limited the guided range to about 400 km (250 mi). As with all radio communications it was also prone to en61.1 History emy radio jamming. While in theory the missile could be “handed off” in flight from one guidance station to the next, in practice that was rarely successful, and deployed The first flight of Matador, model XSSM-A-1, occurred at the White Sands Missile Range on 20 January 1949. missiles did not attempt it. The first two production B-61 Matador missiles arrived at Eglin AFB, Florida, in September 1953, under the control of the 6555th Guided Missile Squadron, for climatic testing, although instrumentation and pre-test check-outs kept the actual cold-weather tests from beginning until November.[1] At the end of 1953 the first squadron was operational, but not deployed until 1954, as the 1st Pilotless Bomber Squadron, Bitburg Air Base, Germany with the B-61A armed with the W5 nuclear warhead. The missile was capable of carrying a 2000 pound conventional warhead, but it is unknown if any of these were actually deployed. By the late 1950s at least, all Matadors carried the nuclear warhead.
In 1954, the USAF started to develop the YTM-61C version which was equipped with the new Shanicle (Short Range Navigation Vehicle) guidance system. It became operational in 1957 and used ground-based microwave emitters to generate hyperbolic grids for range and azimuth, which were used by the missile guidance system to navigate. Now the guided range could be extended to the maximum flight range of the missile, about 620 miles (1,000 km). Anecdotal evidence indicated that the Shanicle system was very accurate, with stories of one missile flying into the ground in the same crater left by a previous missile during an early exercise in North Africa. These may or may not be true, but in any case the Shanicle system was soon discontinued on operational missiles. By the late 1950s, all were using the MSQ-1 (called “MisCue-1” by the crews) ground-based guidance system.
The last Matadors were removed from active service in 1962, with a total of 1200 missiles produced. At that time, they were deployed in squadrons at Bitburg AB, West Germany, in Tainan, Taiwan, and in various locations in South Korea. The specific maintenance train- A unique identifying feature of the TM-61C variant was ing schools were in at the Glenn L. Martin factory and the raised rear section of the fuselage above the jet ex223
224 haust, called the “doghouse” by those who were assigned to the missile squadrons. This had originally housed the Shanicle electronics, but was retained when those systems were removed. The “doghouse” had no access panels or doors and was an aerodynamic structural component added to TM-61C and TM-76A to prevent missile “shudder” and breakup during terminal dive. It contained no functional components. The operational Matadors were zinc chromate green in their final versions, but this doghouse was quite often left natural aluminum, as were the wings and tail group.
61.3 Launch crew
A Matador missile on its launcher near Hahn Air Base, West Germany.
CHAPTER 61. MGM-1 MATADOR bled as drivers. All enlisted members other than the Crew Chief were usually Airman Second Class (E-3) or Airman (E-2) on their first enlistment, though there were sometimes Staff Sergeants (E-5) or even Technical Sergeants (E-6) who had already served multiple enlistments. In addition, there were similarly-sized Guidance crews on remote sites, and a maintenance staff for the missiles, the guidance equipment, and the vehicles. Because of the number of people required to support the missile, a “mobile” Matador squadron with five launch crews could grow quite cumbersome. As a result, the squadrons were soon deployed at fixed sites and the idea of a mobile missile was abandoned. An individual Matador missile was shipped from the Martin plant to its unit in seven wooden crates.[2] A single Matador missile required many vehicles to move it and its associated support equipment. There was a Transport Vehicle, which was a short wheelbase semi-trailer which carried the missile with the wings removed and attached alongside the fuselage, a Launcher, which was a semi-trailer more than 40 feet (12 m) long weighing more than 30,000 pounds. There was a Target Selection Van, a Warhead Van, a 60 kW diesel generator, a tug, a hydraulic unit, a mobile Blockhouse, and a truck-mounted hydraulic crane. There were several 2½ and 5 ton trucks (tractor type) to attach to and tow the launchers, Transport Vehicle, and generator. In some squadrons, each launch team had a large trailer in which it stored weapons, ammunition and supplies.
A typical missile launch site had an active, or “hot” pad on which was kept the missile most ready to launch. This pad was manned by the on-duty launch crew. According to the book, this required 15 minutes to do, but some crews could accomplish it in slightly more than 6 minutes. The site usually had a backup pad, on which was a missile which would require somewhat more effort to get it launched. This pad was manned by the standby crew, and if they were on site, could usually be ready to launch in 20–30 minutes. If there was a third pad, it may not have a missile on it at all. If one of the off-duty crews could make it to the launch site in time, they would try to get a missile onto the launcher there, and get it ready to go. Since all launch sites were within just a few minutes flying time of the potential enemy, it was unlikely that the third missile would actually launch, but all crews A Matador missile at Gatow, Germany. had multiple practice drills during their periods as duty and standby crews, trying to reduce the time needed to The Matador launch crew consisted of eleven members. get the missiles away. One Launch Officer, who was usually a 1st Lieutenant (O-2) or a junior Captain (O-3), one Crew Chief, usu- Often, these drills were accompanied by a flyover of a ally a Technical Sergeant (E-6), two Warhead techs, two T-33 aircraft on which was mounted the MSQ-1 guidFlight Control Systems techs, two Guidance techs, two ance system. (F-100 Super Sabres from the 36th and Airframe and Engine techs—one of whom doubled as the 50th TFWs were normally used for launch simulation excrane operator and the other as the launcher tech, and one ercises in Europe). This aircraft would fly over the launch Booster Rocket tech. Since the missile was at least the- pad at very low altitude and then simulate the flight profile oretically “mobile”, all launch equipment was mounted of the missile under the control of the Guidance crews. on trucks and trailers. As a result, in addition to their pri- This gave the Guidance crews needed practice controlmary duties, most crew members were trained as and dou- ling a missile in flight, as well as giving squadron officers
61.5. OPERATORS some flight time. The Matador flight profile was very simple and predictable, which no doubt contributed to its demise. When the Launch Officer pressed the two launch switches, the JATO bottle fired, accelerating the missile to 250 miles per hour in the space of two and a half seconds, at which point it had flown about a quarter mile. At this point the JATO bottle fell away and the missile continued on a preset heading and rate of climb until it was acquired up by the guidance crews and their equipment. The missile had no altitude or speed control, continuing to fly as fast as possible, climbing as the fuel load was burned off, until it reached its maximum altitude. At a point about six miles (10 km) from the intended target, the guidance crews sent the “dump” signal, which caused the missile to nose over into what was called the “terminal dive”. This dive was near vertical, continuing until the missile reached the preset detonation altitude as determined by the radio altimeter, at which point the weapon exploded. Should the radio altimeter fail, a backup barometric detonator was used. Should that fail, there was an impact detonator. As with all missiles and bombers of the day, accuracy was not good in today’s terms. Anything within a mile was considered a hit. Even though the missile was classified as a “tactical” weapon, in fact it was not technically capable of hitting individual targets, so it was likely targeted at cities near which a military installation such as an airfield existed. Actual targets were classified, and kept from everyone except the actual guidance officer.
225 • TM-61B: Significant redesign of the TM-61A, ultimately being redesignated as its own system, the TM-76 Mace. • TM-61C: Improved TM-61A developed as a stopgap as the TM-61B was under development. • MGM-1C: Redesignation of the TM-61C in 1963 to meet new aircraft and missile designation standards adopted by the USAF. Only the TM-61C required redesignation as the TM-61A had been fully withdrawn from service and the TM-61B had been redesignated the TM-76 Mace, and ultimately received the MGM-13 designation.
61.5 Operators United States: The United States Air Force • 38th Tactical Missile Wing • 1st Pilotless Bomber Squadron - Bitburg AB, Germany • 2d Pilotless Bomber Squadron - Hahn AB, Germany • 69th Tactical Missile Squadron • 58th Tactical Missile Group • 11th Tactical Missile Squadron
61.4 Variants and design stages • MX-771: Original U.S. Air Force project number. • SSM-A-1: Early proposed designation for operational missile. This designation was dropped before the first operational missiles were completed. • XSSM-A-1: First designation applied to first prototypes for development of the missile airframe. • YSSM-A-1: First designation applied to prototypes for development of the guidance system.
• 71st Tactical Missile Squadron • 310th Tactical Missile Squadron - Osan, Korea • 868th Tactical Missile Squadron - Tainan, Taiwan Germany: Bundeswehr • Flugkörpergruppe 11
61.6 Survivors
• B-61: Operational designation proposed to supersede SSM-A-1 designation. This designation was Below is a list of museums with a Matador missile in their designed to classify the missile as a pilotless bomber. collection: • XB-61: Redesignation of the XSSM-A-1 • YB-61: Redesignation of the YSSM-A-1 • B-61A: First production version of the Matador. Principal difference from the XB-61 and YB-61 was redesign of the airframe with high wings in place of the previous mid-mounted wings. • TM-61A: Redesignation of the B-61A as the USAF decided to classify the Matador as a tactical missile instead of a pilotless bomber.
• Air Force Space & Missile Museum, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida. This pristine artifact is in sequestered storage in Hangar R on Cape Canaveral AFS and cannot be viewed by the general public. • Carolinas Aviation Museum, Charlotte, North Carolina. This Matador was formerly on display at the Florence Air & Missile Museum in Florence, South Carolina.
226
Unrestored Matador Missile from Florence Air & Missile Museum at Carolinas Aviation Museum in Charlotte, North Carolina (KCLT)
CHAPTER 61. MGM-1 MATADOR
Cruise missile at Pydna
• “XTM-61” Serial #52-1872 is on static display at Hawkinsville-Pulaski County Airport, Hawkinsville, Georgia.
61.7 Specifications (MGM-1C) General characteristics • Length: 39 ft 7 in (12.1 m) • Diameter: 4 ft 6 in (1.2 m) “XTM-61” on static display at Hawkinsville-Pulaski County Airport in Hawkinsville, Georgia
• Wingspan: 28 ft 7 in (8.7 m) • Launch mass: 12,000 lb (5,400 kg)
• Museum of Aviation, Robins Air Force Base, Engine Georgia TM-61A Serial #52-1891[3] • National Air and Space Museum, Dulles International Airport • National Museum of the United States Air Force, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio • A “Bitburg"-Matador survives as a Missile Monument at the former 38th Combat Support Wing GLCM station "Pydna" at Wüschheim, Germany • Luftwaffenmuseum der Bundeswehr, Berlin, Germany • National Museum of Nuclear Science & History, adjacent to Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico[4] • A TM-61C Matador, Serial # 56-1955 is on display near Pikeville, North Carolina, in the parking lot of a church.
• Booster: Aerojet General solid-fuel rocket • Thrust: 52,000 lbf (240,000 kN) • Cruise: 1× Allison J33-A-37 turbojet • Thrust: 4,300lbf (20 kN) Performance • Cruise speed: Mach 0.9 (646 mph, 1,040 km/h) • Operating altitude: 43,000 ft (11,000 m) Warhead • Warhead: 20 kiloton W5 fission bomb
61.10. EXTERNAL LINKS
61.8 See also Related development • MGM-13 Mace Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era • UB.109T Related lists • List of military aircraft of the United States • List of missiles
61.9 References [1] Connors, S.Sgt. J. J., "Guided Missiles: Eglin Tests Matadors In Hangar", Playground News, Fort Walton Beach, Florida, 12 November 1953, Volume 8, Number 42, page 1. [2] “Pilotless Bomber Shipped in Crates.” Popular Mechanics, August 1954, p. 90. [3] Museum of Aviation Web site [4] “MGM-1”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles.
61.10 External links • Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles • TAC Missileers - Tactical Missile Warriors of the Cold War • “Pilotless Bomber Can Carry A-Bomb At 700 m.p.h.” detailed 1951 article on the Matador which had recently been declassified • Media related to MGM-1 Matador at Wikimedia Commons
227
Chapter 62
Republic-Ford JB-2
A JB-2 being inspected by USAAF personnel at Wendover AAF, 1944.
Ground preparation prior to air launch, 1944
JB-2 being air launched for flight test by a Boeing B-17 during testing of the weapon at Eglin Field, 1944
A JB-2 being prepared for a test launch at Holloman AFB about 1948.
V-1 flying bomb. Developed in 1944, and planned to be used in the United States invasion of Japan (Operation In flight after air launch, 1944 Downfall), the JB-2 was never used in combat. It was the most successful of the United States Army Air Forces Jet The Republic-Ford JB-2, also known as the KGW and Bomb (JB) projects (JB-1 through JB-10) during World LTV-N-2 Loon, was a United States copy of the German War II. Postwar, the JB-2 played a significant role in the 228
62.1. WARTIME DEVELOPMENT
229 2.[2]
A Loon being fired from USS Cusk in 1951
development of more advanced surface-to-surface tactical missile systems such as the MGM-1 Matador and later MGM-13 Mace.
62.1 Wartime development The United States had known of the existence of a new German secret weapon since 22 August 1942 when a Danish Naval Officer discovered an early test version of the V-1 that had crashed on the island of Bornholm, in the Baltic Sea between Germany and Sweden. A photograph and a detailed sketch of the V-1 test unit, the Fieseler Fi 103 V83 was sent to Britain. This led to months of intelligence-gathering and intelligence-sifting which traced the weapon to Peenemünde, on Germany’s Baltic Coast, the top-secret German missile test and development site.[1] As more intelligence data was obtained through aerial photography and sources inside Germany, it was decided in 1943 for the United States to develop a jet-powered bomb as well. The United States Army Air Forces gave Northrop Aircraft a contract in July 1944 to develop the JB-1 (Jet Bomb 1) turbojet-powered flying bomb under project MX-543. Northrop designed a flying-wing aircraft with two General Electric B1 turbojets in the center section, and two 900 kg (2000 lb) general purpose bombs in enclosed “bomb containers” in the wing roots. To test the aerodynamics of the design, one JB-1 was completed as a manned unpowered glider, which was first flown in August 1944.[1]
By 8 September, the first of thirteen complete JB-2s, reverse engineered from the material received at Wright Field in July was assembled at Republic Aviation. The United States JB-2 was different from the German V-1 in only the smallest of dimensions. The wing span was only 2½ inches wider and the length was extended less than 2 feet (0.61 m). The difference gave the JB-2 60.7 square feet of wing area versus 55 for the V-1.[1] One of the few visible differences between the JB-2 and the V-1 was the shape of the forward pulsejet support pylon — the original V-1 had its support pylon slightly swept back at nearly the same angle on both its leading and trailing edges, while the JB-2’s pylon had a vertical leading edge and sharply swept-forward trailing edge. This was the first unmanned guided missile in America’s arsenal. The first launch of a JB-2 took place at Eglin Army Air Field in Florida by the 1st Proving Ground Group on 12 October 1944. In addition to the Eglin group, a detachment of the Special Weapons Branch, Wright Field, Ohio, arrived at Wendover Field, Utah, in 1944 with the mission of evaluating captured & experimental systems, including the JB-2. Testing was from a launch structure just south of Wendover’s technical site. The launch area is visible in aerial imagery (40°41′53″N 114°02′29″W / 40.69806°N 114.04139°W). Parts of crashed JB-2s are occasionally found by Wendover Airport personnel.[1] In December 1944, the first JB-1 was ready for launch. The missile was launched by a rocket-propelled sled along a 150 m (500 ft) long track, but seconds after release the JB-1 pitched up into a stall and crashed. This was caused by an incorrectly calculated elevon setting for take-off, but the JB-1 program was subsequently stopped, mainly because the performance and reliability of the GE B1 turbojet engines were far below expectations. In addition, the cost to produce the Ford copy of the Argus pulse-jet engine of the JB-2 was much less than the GE turbojets. Subsequently work proceeded on the JB-2 for final development and production.[1][3] An initial production order was 1,000 units, with subsequent production of 1,000 per month. That figure was not anticipated to be attainable until April 1945. Republic had its production lines at capacity for producing P-47 Thunderbolts, so it sub-contracted airframe manufacturing to Willys-Overland. Ford Motor Co built the engine, initially designated IJ-15-1, which was a copy of the V-1’s 900-lb. thrust Argus-Schmidt pulse-jet, later designated the PJ31. Guidance and flight controls were manufactured by Jack and Heintz Company of Cleveland, Ohio, and Monsanto took on the task of designing a better launching system, with Northrop supplying the launch sleds. Production delivery began in January 1945.[1]
However, in July 1944, three weeks after German V1 “Buzz Bombs” first struck England on June 12 and 13, American engineers at Wright Field, fired a working copy of the German Argus As 014 pulse-jet engine, “reverse-engineered” from crashed German V-1s An envisioned 75,000 JB-2s were planned for production. that were brought to the United States from England for A USAAF launching squadron was formed in anticipaanalysis. The reverse engineering provided the design tion for using the weapons both against Nazi Germany of America’s first mass-produced guided missile, the JB-
230
CHAPTER 62. REPUBLIC-FORD JB-2
and Japan. However, the end of the European War in May 1945 meant a reduction of the number of JB-2s to be produced, but not the end of the program. Army commanders in Europe had dismissed it as a weapon against Nazi Germany, as the strategic bombing concept was implemented and by 1945 the number of strategic targets in Germany was becoming limited. However, the JB-2 was envisioned as a weapon to attack Japan. A 180-day massive bombardment of the Japanese Home Islands was being planned prior to the amphibious landing “by the most powerful and sustained pre-invasion bombardment of the war”. Included in the assault were the usual naval bombardment and air strikes augmented by rocket-firing aircraft and JB-2s.[1]
2 as Project EO-727-12 on 23 April 1948, at Holloman AFB, New Mexico, the former Alamogordo Army Air Field. The JB-2 was used for development of missile guidance control and seeker systems, testing of telemetering and optical tracking facilities, and as a target for new surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles (ironically fulfilling the former V1’s covername, Flakzielgerät — anti-aircraft target device). The JB-2 project used the North American Aviation NATIV (North American Test Instrument Vehicle) Blockhouse and two launch ramps at Holloman: a 400 ft (120 m), two-rail ramp on a 3° earth-filled slope, and a 40 ft (12 m) trailer ramp. The 40-foot trailer ramp was the first step toward a system which would eventually be adapted for the forthcoming Martin MGM-1 Matador, A navalized version, designated KGW-1, was planned to first operational surface-to-surface cruise missile built by be used against Japan from LSTs (Landing Ship, Tank) as the United States. The program at Holloman was termiwell as escort carriers (CVEs). In addition, launches from nated on 10 January 1949 after successful development PB4Y-2 Privateers were foreseen and techniques devel- of a radio guidance and control system that could control under the control of an airborne oped. The official U.S. Air Force Fact Sheet on the JB-2 and even skid-land a JB-2 [1] or ground transmitter. states just before the end of the war, an aircraft carrier en route to the Pacific took on a load of JB-2s for possible The 1st Experimental Guided Missiles Group used JB-2s use in the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands, in a series of tests in the late 1940s at Eglin Air Force however the name of the carrier has never been identi- Base, Florida. In the spring of 1949, the 3200th Proof fied. In addition, according to one Eglin AFB history, an Test Group tested launching JB-2s from the under the unidentified USAAF unit in the Philippines was prepar- wings of B-36 Peacemaker bombers at Eglin AFB.[4] ing to launch JB-2s against Japan.[1] The war’s end led to About a year later, JB-2s were tested as aerial targets for the cancellation of Operation Downfall and the produc- experimental infrared gunsights at Eglin.[5] tion of JB-2s was terminated on 15 September. A total The Navy version was featured in the movie The Flying of 1,391 units were manufactured.[1] Missile (1951), including submarine launches. The movie
62.2 Postwar testing The U.S. Army Air Forces continued development of the JB-2 as Project MX-544, with two versions — one with preset internal guidance and another with radar control. Several launch platforms were developed, including permanent and portable ramps, and mobile launching from beneath the wings of Boeing B-17G or Boeing B-29 bombers, much as the Heinkel He 111H-22 had actually done late in the war for the Luftwaffe. Testing continued from 1944 to 1947 at Eglin to improve launch and guidance. The U.S. Navy’s version, the KGW-1, later redesignated LTV-N-2, was developed to be carried on the aft deck of submarines in watertight containers. The first submarine to employ them was USS Cusk (SS-348) which successfully launched its first Loon on February 12, 1947, off Point Mugu, California. USS Carbonero (SS-337) was also modified to test Loon. After the United States Air Force became a fully independent arm of the National Military Establishment 18 September 1947, research continued with the development of unmanned aircraft and pilotless bombers, including the already available JB-2. The USAF Air Materiel Command reactivated the JB-
shows the missile being launched from a trolley with four JATO bottles. In the summer of 1992, military crews uncovered the well-preserved wreckage of a JB-2 at a site on an Air Force-owned section of Santa Rosa Island. Most crash sites on the barrier island were little more than flaky rust, but after the find, officials were planning further searches.[6]
62.3 JB-2 survivors • National Museum of the United States Air Force, Dayton, Ohio • U.S. Air Force Armament Museum, Eglin AFB, Florida • Evergreen Aviation & Space Museum, McMinnville, Oregon • (Engine only, operational) Planes of Fame air museum, Chino, California • A JB-2 is on open-air display at the Museum of Alaska Transportation and Industry in Wasilla, Alaska. • Museum of Transport and Technology (MOTAT), Auckland, New Zealand
62.5. REFERENCES • Hill Aerospace Museum, Hill AFB, Utah has an original JB-2, “Wendover Willie” • Point Mugu Missile Park, on open-air display at Naval Air Station Point Mugu, California. • Cradle of Aviation Museum, Garden City, New York. • National Air and Space Museum at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center, Washington, D.C. • Milford Township Park at Milford, IL.[7] • A JB-2 is on open-air display at the American Legion post in Wheaton, Minnesota. • A JB-2 is on open-air display at White Sands Missile Range Museum • A JB-2 is on open-air display at the U.S. Army Artillery Museum, Fort Sill, Oklahoma.
231 • 1st Experimental Guided Missiles Group Launch locations • Wendover Air Force Base, Utah JB-2 Testing Site (40°41′52″N 114°02′29″W / 40.69778°N 114.04139°W) • Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico JB-2 Testing Site (32°53′33″N 106°07′24″W / 32.89250°N 106.12333°W) • Santa Rosa Island Range Complex, JB-2 Launch Sites 30°23′57″N 086°42′21″W / 30.39917°N 86.70583°W (30°23′54″N 086°41′33″W / 30.39833°N 86.69250°W) • Wagner Field, Florida (Formerly: Eglin Air Force Auxiliary Field #1) (30°39′46″N 086°20′41″W / 30.66278°N 86.34472°W)
62.5 References This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the Air Force Historical Research Agency. [1] U.S. Air Force Tactical Missiles, (2009), George Mindling, Robert Bolton ISBN 978-0-557-00029-6 [2] USAFHRA document 01014091 [3] Garry R. Pape, John M. Campbell: “Northrop Flying Wings”, Schiffer Publishing Ltd., 1995 [4] USAFHRA Document 00103281 [5] USAFHRA Document 00425257 [6] Associated Press, “V-1 copy sparks interest,” Northwest Florida Daily News, Fort Walton Beach, Florida, 1 October 1992, p. 1B [7] http://www.warbirdsandairshows.com/ illinoisgateguards.htm
JB-2 on display at the National Air and Space Museum, Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center
• USAF JB-2 LOON (fact sheet), National Museum.
62.4 See also
• Mindling, George, and Bolton, Robert, 'U.S. Air Force Tactical Missiles 1949–1969: The Pioneers’, 2008, Lulu Press
Related development • V-1 (flying bomb) Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era • Interstate XBDR • McDonnell LBD Gargoyle
62.6 External links • Early History and Evolution of cruise missiles, JB-2 Loon development and testing, USAF 38th Tactical Missile Wing. • JB Series (JB-1 through JB-10) Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles
232 • V-1 “Buzz Bomb"/JB-2 Flying Bomb Fact Sheet at Hill Air Force Base website • Short JB-2 launch from a B-17 video clip • JB-2 launches video
CHAPTER 62. REPUBLIC-FORD JB-2
Chapter 63
Alpha Draco For the star Alpha Draconis, see Thuban.
project proving invaluable to the development of re-entry vehicles for future intercontinental ballistic missiles.[3]
The Alpha Draco missile, also known as Weapons System 199D (WS-199D), was an experimental ballistic missile developed by McDonnell Aircraft in the late 1950s to investigate boost-glide reentry. Three test flights were conducted in 1959, of which two were successful.
63.3 See also • Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar • Project Isinglass
63.1 Design and development As part of the WS-199 project to develop new strategic weapons for the United States Air Force's Strategic Air Command, McDonnell Aircraft developed the Alpha Draco missile between 1957 and 1959. The purpose of the rocket was to establish whether a strategic missile using the “boost-glide” principle of propulsion could be practically used.[1]
Related development • Bold Orion • High Virgo
The Alpha Draco missile was a two-stage vehicle, the 63.4 References first stage comprising a Thiokol TX-20 solid-fuel rocket of the type used in the MGM-29 Sergeant theatre ballis- Notes tic missile, and the second stage using a Thiokol TX-30 solid-fuel rocket. The payload vehicle was aerodynami[1] Parsch 2005 cally shaped, using the lifting body principle to provide [2] aerodynamic lift; following burnout of the first stage, [2] Yenne 2005, p.67. the vehicle would coast for a short time before ignition of the second stage,[1] burnout of the second stage was [3] Yengst 2010, pp.38-39. followed by the vehicle entering the glide phase of flight, which would be terminated by a dive upon the target.[3] Bibliography
63.2 Operational history Three test launches of the Alpha Draco vehicle were conducted during 1959,[2] the missile being launched from a land-based gantry. The initial flight, on February 16, was successful; the second flight, one month later, also fulfilled its test goals. The final launch of the Alpha Draco on April 30, however, suffered a flight-control failure and was destroyed by range safety command.[3] With the expenditure of the third and final vehicle, the program came to a halt,[1] the project’s cost having come to a total of approximately $5 million USD, the knowledge gained in the 233
• Parsch, Andreas (1 November 2005). “WS-199”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Archived from the original on 15 December 2010. Retrieved 20 January 2015. • Yengst, William (2010). Lightning Bolts: First Manuevering [sic] Reentry Vehicles. Mustang, OK: Tate Publishing & Enterprises. ISBN 978-1-61566547-1. • Yenne, Bill (2005). Secret Gadgets and Strange Gizmos: High-Tech (and Low-Tech) Innovations of the U.S. Military. St. Paul, MN: Zenith Press. ISBN 978-0-7603-2115-7.
234
63.5 External links Media related to Alpha Draco at Wikimedia Commons
CHAPTER 63. ALPHA DRACO
Chapter 64
Crow (missile) The Creative Research On Weapons or Crow program was an experimental missile project developed by the United States Navy's Naval Air Missile Test Center during the late 1950s. Intended to evaluate the solid-fueled integral rocket/ramjet (SFIRR) method of propulsion as well as solid-fueled ramjet engines, flight tests were conducted during the early 1960s with mixed success.
64.1 Development and RARE Studies of the rocket-ramjet and solid-fueled ramjet concepts began at the U.S. Navy’s Naval Air Missile Test Center – later the Naval Missile Center – at Point Mugu, California in 1956, with the intent of increasing the range of small air-to-air missiles through using the combined ramjet and rocket propulsion system with solid fuels only.[1] Following extensive ground testing, the concept was considered promising enough for a flight-test vehicle to be constructed to fully evaluate the new engine.[2]
Crow I on F4D Skyray
the booster stage, the rocket’s casing acted as the duct for a ramjet engine, with remaining solid fuel being mixed with the incoming air to provide thrust.[2]
The first flight test, from a Douglas F4D Skyray launch aircraft, was undertaken on January 19, 1961; due to a flaw in the launch mechanism, the rocket failed to ignite, and the test was a failure. Modifications were made, and The first flight test vehicle, known as Ram Air Rocket that November two successful flights of the Crow I vehicle Engine or RARE, was developed by the Naval Ordnance were conducted.[2] Test Station at China Lake, California. RARE was constructed using a conventional five-inch (127mm) rocket tube, 10 feet (3.0 m) in length and weighing 153 pounds 64.3 Controlled Crow (69 kg).[3] Rocket-sled tests conducted during 1956 indicated that the rocket-ramjet configuration would be stable;[1] three flight tests were conducted between 1959 With the ballistic Crow I having proved the propulsion of the and 1960, with the RARE rocket reaching speeds of concept sound, follow-up work on a modification [2] The misvehicle to provide guidance was undertaken. [4] Mach 2.3. sile was fitted with a simple autopilot, utilizing infrared horizon-scanning to maintain the missile’s attitude in flight.[2]
64.2 Crow I
Captive flight tests of Crow began in February 1963 aboard a F-4B Phantom II carrier aircraft; on May 29, the first test launch was attempted, with three further launches taking place through May 1965. None of first three attempted flights were successful, however; malfunctions in the rocket motor, autopilot, and controls plagued the program.[2] The fourth flight test proved more successful, and Crow was considered to have met the project goals.[4]
Even as testing of RARE was undertaken, the Naval Air Missile Test Center was developing their own test vehicle. Known as CROW, or Creative Research on Weapons, the NAMTC vehicle was intended to demonstrate that a solid-fueled rocket-ramjet was capable of delivering a reasonable payload.[4] A simple unguided rocket, the first Crow vehicle, known as Crow I,[2] was intended for aerial launch at low supersonic speed and an altitude of 50,000 feet (15,000 m).[4] After launch, the booster acted as an The Crow project successfully established the solidordinary solid-fueled rocket; however upon burnout of fueled rocket-ramjet as a viable method of propulsion;[2] 235
236 consideration of Crow for use as an air-to-air missile or target drone was undertaken, but this was not pursued.[4]
64.4 See also
Cutaway drawing of RARE TV-1
• ASALM • AQM-127 SLAT • BrahMos
64.5 References Notes [1] NOTS 1956, p.181. [2] Parsch 2004 [3] Parsch 2007 [4] Waltrup, White, Zarlingo and Gravlin 1997, p.238
Bibliography • “Chapter 6: Propellants and Propulsion for Missiles”. Technical Program Review 1956 (PDF). China Lake, CA: U.S. Naval Ordnance Test Station. January 1, 1957. Retrieved 2010-01-14. • Parsch, Andreas (2004). “Naval Missile Center Crow”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-0114. • Parsch, Andreas (2007). "(Other): “Missile Scrapbook"". Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-0114. • Waltrup, Paul J.; Michael E. White; Frederick Zarlino; Edward S. Gravlin (April–June 1997). “History of Ramjet and Scramjet Propulsion Development for U.S. Navy Missiles” (PDF). Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest (Laurel, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory) 18 (2). ISSN 0270-5214. Retrieved 2011-01-14.
CHAPTER 64. CROW (MISSILE)
Chapter 65
MGM-51 Shillelagh The Ford MGM-51 Shillelagh was an American antitank guided missile designed to be launched from a conventional gun (cannon). It was originally intended to be the medium-range portion of a short, medium, longrange system for armored fighting vehicles in the 1960s and '70s to defeat future armor without an excessively large gun. Developing a system that could fire both shells and missiles reliably proved complex and largely unworkable. It served most notably as a primary weapon of the M551 Sheridan light tank, but the missile system was not issued to units serving in Vietnam. Ultimately very few of the 88,000 rounds produced were ever fired in combat. Shillelagh was considered equal to the later BGM-71 TOW anti-tank wire-guided missile first produced in 1970 by the U.S, which could not be fired from the gun but had a simpler guidance system.[5] However Main battle tanks of the late 20th century fielded improved conventional 100 to 125 mm guns and ammunition which proved effective against enemy armor threats. While Soviets designers have developed gun launched missiles, the US and NATO were developing guided tank shells.
the round makes it hard to aim over longer distances. The US Army sought to overcome this problem by developing guided missiles with shaped charge warheads that were accurate beyond a few hundred yards.
65.2 Development In 1958 the Army thought that existing knowledge was sufficient to begin work on a guided missile with a HEAT warhead, and in June 1959 Sperry and Ford Aeronutronic were asked for designs to fill the shorter range role. Ford won the contract and started work on the XM13. The first test shots were fired in 1960, and limited production started in 1964. The missile was then known as the MGM-51A.
The basic system was quite advanced for its day. The missile body consisted of a long tube with fold-out fins at the extreme rear, which was propelled from the new M81 gun with a small charge strapped on the rear. Once clear of the gun the fins popped open and the engine igThe name of the system is that of a traditional wooden nited. In order to keep it from spinning while in the gun club from Ireland. due to the rifling, a small “key” fit into a straight groove in the rifled gun. Aiming the missile was simple; the gunner simply kept his gunsight on the target, while electronics in the sighting system tracked the missile optically and sent 65.1 Background corrections through an IR link (similar to a TV remote control). In general the gunners were able to achieve exWith the rapid increase in armor thickness during World cellent hit rates. War II, tanks were becoming increasingly able to survive rounds fired from even the largest of WWII-era anti-tank Because the system was so advanced, the development of guns. A new generation of guns, notably the British 105 the Shillelagh was fraught with problems. Ford Aeronumm Royal Ordnance L7, were able to cope with newer tronic underestimated the complexity of the task of detanks, but it appeared that in another generation the guns signing a missile as advanced as this, and there were major problems with the propellant, igniter, tracker and inneeded would be too large to be practical. frared command link of the missile.[6] To overcome this potential difficulty the US Army began to favor high-explosive antitank (HEAT), or shaped charge rounds in the 1950s. A shaped charge’s penetration is not dependent on the speed of the round, allow- 65.3 The Sheridan ing rounds to be fired at much lower velocities, and thus from much lighter guns. They also work better at larger The M81/MGM-51 was first installed on the M551 Sheridiameters, and a large-diameter low-velocity gun makes dan. The Sheridan was a light aluminum-armored AFV for an excellent assault gun that can be mounted on light designed to be air transportable and provide antitank supor medium-weight vehicles. However, the low speed of port for airborne forces.[7] In 1966 the US Army be237
238
CHAPTER 65. MGM-51 SHILLELAGH gun led to cracking after firing only a few shells. After further study a version with a shallower slot and new barrel was selected, creating the M81E1/MGM-51C. The new missile was about 45 inches (1,100 mm) long, about 6 inches (150 mm) in diameter, and weighed 60 pounds (27 kg). It remained in production until 1971, by which time 88,000 had been produced, probably in anticipation of use by main battle tanks (below). Nearly a half dozen missiles fired at bunkers by Sheridans during Operation Desert Storm (Iraq/Kuwait) in January and February 1991. This was the only time the missile system was fired in combat.
MGM-51 Shillelagh fired from a Sheridan
65.4 M60A2 “Starship”
gan pressing General Westmoreland to field the tank in South Vietnam, but he declined, stating that with no main gun ammunition, the Sheridan was basically nothing more than a $300,000 machine gun platform.[8] In 1968 152mm main gun ammo became available, and the M551 General Sheridan was deployed to South Vietnam for combat operations in January 1969.[8] Shillelagh missiles did not prove to be a problem in the Vietnam War: they were not used.[8] The Sheridans’ 152mm main guns were used in combat operations in Vietnam but proved troublesome.[8] The combustible casings of the 152mm caseless ammunition rounds did not burn completely, requiring a complicated and slow gas-driven scavenging system. They were also liable to cook off if the vehicle was hit. Firing the gun caused such a large recoil as to result in failures in the delicate missile firing electronics on the tank. These problems, in combination with the lack of suitable targets, resulted in the Sheridan’s deployment to South Vietnam without the complex missile system. The Shillelagh was considerably larger than a conventional round, so only a small number could be carried. Typical loads consisted of only 9 missiles and twenty M409 HEAT rounds for short-range use. In addition the missile proved to have a very long minimum range. Due to the layout of the vehicle, the missile did not come into the sight of the gun/tracker system until it was 800 yards (730 m) from the vehicle, at which point it could start to be guided. Because of its maximum range of about 2,200 yards (2,000 m), the system was only effective within a fairly narrow span of combat distances. While the maximum range of 2,200 yards (2,000 m) was acceptable, the Army thought that it could and should be improved. Ford received a contract to develop a longer range version in 1963, and returned a slightly larger design the next year. Test firing of the new MGM-51B started the next May, and production began in October 1966. Besides the changes to the missile, the gun was modified. In testing it was found that the key slot in the
M60A2 at the American Armored Foundation Museum in Danville, Virginia, July 2006.
Even with its problems the system had shown that it could be used by an airborne tank to destroy a main battle tank. The question of whether or not it could fill its original role as the main armament of all tanks was still open. The Army had originally started development of a low-profile turret with a short barrel for their existing M60 tanks in the 1960s, but did not place an order for delivery until 1971, when the main problems with the system had been resolved. The Shillelagh-equipped M60s entered service in 1974, but were hampered by reliability problems, and were phased out in 1980. The final revision of the M60A3 used the same gun and turret as the M60A1.
65.5 MBT-70 The most ambitious project based on the Shillelagh was the MBT-70, an advanced US-German tank. Design work on the MBT-70 began in 1963. The tank mounted a huge auto-loader turret on top of a very short chassis, so short that there was no room for a driver in the front hull. Instead of being located in the conventional position the driver was seated in the turret with other crew members,
65.7. EXTERNAL LINKS
239
65.7 External links • Ford M13/MGM-51 Shillelagh - Designation Systems
MBT-70 prototype test firing an MGM-51
in a rotating cupola that kept him facing forward. The gun was a new longer-barreled design, the XM-150, which extended range and performance to the point where it was useful for sabot type rounds as well. However the project dragged on, and in 1969 the estimated unit cost had risen fivefold. Germany pulled out of the project. The Army proposed a “cut-down” version of the system, the XM803, but Congress cancelled it in November 1971. It initiated and issued funds to the M1 Abrams project the next month. The M1 design incorporated a conventional gun. The Soviet KBP Instrument Design Bureau developed the somewhat similar AT-11 Sniper missile, launched by a 125 mm gun. It utilizes a laser beam rider guidance system, and a tandem warhead to defeat explosive reactive armour as used on the T-80 and T-90 tanks.
65.6 References [1] M551 Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle [2] Christensen Allan R, et al., TETAM Model Verification Study. Volume II. Modified Representations of Intervisibility [3] http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-51.html [4] R.P.Hunnicutt. Abrams. A History of the American Main Battle Tank, Vol. 2. — Presidio Press, 1990. ISBN 089141-388-X [5] Cagle, Mary T., History of the TOW Missile System, OCT 1977 [6] Technology and the American way of war. Thomas G. Mahnken. Columbia University Press, 2008. ISBN 9780-231-12336-5 [7] Starry p. 142 [8] Starry p. 143
• Starry, Donn A., General. Mounted Combat in Vietnam. Department of the Army, Washington D.C. 1978.
Chapter 66
PGM-17 Thor Thor was the first operational ballistic missile deployed orbital insertion. These missiles remain in storage, and by the U.S. Air Force (USAF). Named after the Norse could be reactivated, though the W-49 Mod 6 warheads god of thunder, it was deployed in the United Kingdom were all dismantled by June 1976. between 1959 and September 1963 as an intermediate range ballistic missile (IRBM) with thermonuclear warheads. Thor was 65 feet (20 m) in height and 8 feet (2.4 66.2 Initial development as an m) in diameter. It was later augmented in the U.S. IRBM IRBM arsenal by the Jupiter. A large family of space launch vehicles—the Thor and Delta rockets—were derived from the Thor design. The Delta II is still in active service as of 2014 and with the retirement of Atlas and Titan in the mid-2000s, the last surviving “heritage” launch vehicle in the US fleet (being derived from a Cold War-era missile system).
66.1 Design and development
Development of the Thor was initiated by the USAF in 1954. The goal was a missile system that could deliver a nuclear warhead over a distance of 1,150 to 2,300 miles (1,850 to 3,700 km) with a CEP of 2 miles (3.2 km). This range would allow Moscow to be hit from a launch site in the UK. The initial design studies were headed by Cmdr. Robert Truax (US Navy) and Dr. Adolph K. Thiel (RamoWooldridge Corporation, formerly of Redstone Arsenal). They refined the specs to an IRBM with:
See also: Program 437 • A 1,750 miles (2,820 km) range Fearful that the Soviet Union would deploy a long-range • 8 ft (2.4 m) diameter, 65 ft (20 m) long (so it could ballistic missile before the U.S., in January 1956 the be carried by Douglas C-124 Globemaster) USAF began developing the Thor, a 1,500 miles (2,400 • A gross takeoff weight of 110,000 lb (50,000 kg) km) intermediate-range ballistic missile. The program proceeded quickly, and within three years of inception • Propulsion provided by half of the Navaho-derived the first of 20 Royal Air Force Thor squadrons became Atlas booster engine (due, largely, to the lack of any operational in the UK. The UK deployment carried the alternatives at this early date) codename 'Project Emily'. One of the advantages of the design was that, unlike the Jupiter IRBM, the Thor could • 10,000 mph (4.5 km/s) maximum speed during warbe carried by the USAF’s cargo aircraft of the time, which head reentry made its deployment more rapid. The launch facilities were not transportable, and had to be built on site. The • Inertial guidance system with radio backup (for low Thor was a stop-gap measure, and once the first generasusceptibility to enemy disruption) tion of ICBMs based in the US became operational, Thor missiles were quickly retired. The last of the missiles was On November 30, 1955 three companies were given one withdrawn from operational alert in 1963. week to bid on the project: Douglas, Lockheed, and A small number of Thors, converted to “Thrust Aug- North American Aviation. They were asked to create mented Delta” launchers, remained operational in the “a management team that could pull together existing anti-satellite missile role as Program 437 until April technology, skills, abilities, and techniques in 'an un1975. These missiles were based on Johnston Island in precedented time.'" On December 27, 1955 Douglas was the Pacific Ocean and had the ability to destroy satellites awarded the prime contract for the airframe and integrain low Earth orbit. With prior warning of an impending tion. The Rocketdyne division of North American Avialaunch, they could destroy a Soviet spy satellite soon after tion was awarded the engine contract, AC Spark Plug the 240
66.4. DEPLOYMENT
241
primary inertial guidance system, Bell Labs the backup Missile 108 (11 October), exploded during launch withradio guidance system, and General Electric the nose out prior warning. Engineers were bewildered as to the cone/reentry vehicle. cause of the failure. After the first Thor-Able launch Douglas further refined the design by choosing bolted failed six months later due to a seized turbopump, it was tank bulkheads (as opposed to the initially suggested concluded to be the cause of 108’s demise, although the welded ones) and a tapered fuel tank for improved aero- missile did not have sufficient instrumentation to deterdynamics. The engine was developed as a direct descen- mine the exact nature of the failure. dant of the Atlas MA-3 booster engine. Changes involved removal of one thrust chamber and a rerouting of the plumbing to allow the engine to fit within the smaller Thor boat-tail. Engine tests were being performed as of March 1956. The first engineering model engine was available in June, followed by the first flight engine in September. Engine development was complicated by serious turbopump problems. Early Thor engines suffered from “bearing walking”, where the turbopump bearings shift axially within their housing, causing rapid wear and bearing seizure.
The Jupiter, Thor, and Atlas missiles all used a variant of the Rocketdyne LR-79 engine and all three suffered launch failures due to a marginal turbopump design which resulted in the bearings coming loose and causing the pump to seize (the first indication of trouble came during static firings of LR-79s in mid-1957). In February 1958, Rocketdyne proposed modifying the bearing retainers, but the Air Force’s Ballistic Missile Division ignored this suggestion on the grounds that there was insufficient data regarding the turbopumps’ performance. Meanwhile, the Army Ballistic Missile Agency (in charge of the Jupiter and Redstone programs) conducted a series of laboratory tests at Huntsville, Alabama in which it was determined that the decrease in air pressure at high altitudes caused 66.3 First launches lubricating oil in the bearings to foam, resulting in their failure. Modifications to the existing stock of Jupiter misThor test launches were to be from LC-17 at Cape siles proved successful and none were lost to turbopump Canaveral Missile Annex. The development schedule was failures again. so compressed that plans for the Atlas bunker were used to allow the completion of the facility in time. Neverthe- General Bernard Schreiver, head of the Air Force Ballistic Missile Division (BMD), rejected the idea of sending less pad LC-17B was just ready for the first test flight. Thor and Atlas missiles back to the factory and decided The first flight-ready Thor, Missile 101, arrived at Cape that he would only allow in-field modifications so as to not Canaveral in October 1956. It was erected on LC-17B delay the testing program. Six consecutive Thor and Atlas and launched 25 January 1957. The Thor failed almost launches failed during February-April 1958, although not immediately at liftoff as the engine lost thrust, dropped all of them could be attributed to turbopump problems. back onto the pad, and exploded. Engineers could not de- Later in the year, Thor-Able 1 failed in-fight while pertermine the cause until viewing film of prelaunch prepa- forming the first attempted launch of an American lunar rations that showed crews dragging a LOX filler hose probe on 17 August, followed by Atlas 6B in September. through a sandy area. It was concluded that debris had After this, the Air Force gave in and agreed to replace the entered the LOX and contaminated it, causing valve fail- turbopumps in all of their missiles, after which there were ure. no launch failures due to a turbopump problem. The necThor 102 was launched on 20 April. The booster was essary modifications to the missiles would have taken only performing normally, but an erroneous console readout one month and not caused any delay to either Thor-Able caused the Range Safety Officer to believe that it was 1 or Atlas 6B’s flights, thus those failures were ultimately headed inland and he initiated the destruct sequence 30 attributed to poor management of the programs. seconds into the launch. Phase II testing with the AC Spark Plug inertial guidance The third Thor launch (Missile 103) did not get off the system began 7 December with the first successful flight pad. During prelaunch preparations on 22 May, a stuck on 19 December 1957.[1] valve caused the LOX tank to overpressurize and explode, once again necessitating repairs to LC-17B. Missile 104, launched 22 August from the newly-opened 66.4 Deployment LC-17A, broke up at T+92 seconds when a guidance error caused it to pitch down. Thor was deployed to the UK starting in August 1958, Thor vehicle 105 (20 September), 21 months after the operated by 20 squadrons of RAF Bomber Command unstart of construction, flew 1,100 miles (1,800 km) down- der US-UK dual key control.[2] The first active unit was range. Estimated range without the extra load of the R No. 77 Squadron RAF at RAF Feltwell in 1958, with and D instrumentation was 1,500 miles (2,400 km). the remaining units becoming active in 1959. All were Missile 107 (3 October) fell back onto LC-17A and ex- deactivated by September 1963. ploded at launch.
All 60 of the Thor missiles deployed in the UK were
242
CHAPTER 66. PGM-17 THOR
Johnston Island Launch Emplacement One (LE1) after a Thor missile launch failure and explosion contaminated the island with Plutonium during the Operation “Bluegill Prime” nuclear test, July, 1962. The retractable missile shelter (on rails) can be seen at the rear
stroyed, nuclear device lost. RAF operational training launch of a PGM-17 Thor IRBM From Vandenberg AFB, 3 August 1959.
based at above-ground launch sites. The missiles were stored horizontally on transporter-erector trailers and covered by a retractable missile shelter. To fire the weapon, the crew used an electric motor to roll back the missile shelter (essentially a long shed mounted on steel rails), then used a powerful hydraulic launcher-erector to lift the missile to an upright position for launch. Once it was standing on the launch mount, the missile was fueled and could be fired. The entire launch sequence (from starting to roll back the missile shelter through to ignition of the rocket engine and lift-off) took approximately 15 minutes. Main engine burn time was almost 2.5 minutes, boosting the missile to a speed of 14,400 ft/s (4,400 m/s). Ten minutes into its flight the missile reached an altitude of 280 miles (450 km), close to the apogee of its elliptical flight path. At that point the reentry vehicle separated from the missile fuselage and began its descent toward the target. Total flight time from launch to target impact was approximately 18 minutes. The Thor was initially deployed with a very blunt conical G.E. Mk 2 'heat sink' re-entry vehicle. They were later converted to the slender G.E. Mk 3 ablative RV. Both RVs contained a W-49 thermonuclear warhead with an explosive yield of 1.44 megatons.
• 9 July 1962, Thor missile 195 launched a Mk4 reentry vehicle containing a W49 thermonuclear warhead to an altitude of 250 miles (400 km). The warhead detonated with a yield of 1.45 Mt of TNT (6.07 PJ). This was the Starfish Prime event of nuclear test operation Dominic-Fishbowl.
66.6 Launch vehicle Main article: Thor (rocket family) The Thor rocket was also used as a space launch vehicle. It was the first in a large family of space launch vehicles— the Delta rockets. Thor’s descendants fly to this day as the Delta II and Delta IV.
66.7 Operators United States United States Air Force • RAF South Ruislip 705th Strategic Missile Wing (1958-1960)
66.5 Noteworthy flights
Thor
IRBM
• 4 June 1962, failed Starfish flight, Thor destroyed, nuclear device lost.
United Kingdom Royal Air Force • RAF Bomber Command
• 20 June 1962, failed Bluegill Prime flight, Thor de- see Project Emily Stations and Squadrons
66.9. SEE ALSO
66.8 Specifications (PGM-17A) • Family: Thor IRBM, Thor DM-18 (single stage LV); Thor DM-19 (rocket 1st stage), Thor DM21 (rocket 1st stage), Thor DSV-2D,E,F,G (suborbital LV), Thor DSV-2J (anti-ballistic missile), Thor DSV-2U (orbital launch vehicle).
243 • Chambers: 1 • Chamber Pressure: 4.1 MPa • Area Ratio: 8.00 • Thrust to Weight Ratio: 120.32 • Country: USA • First Flight: 1958
• Overall length: 19.82 m (65.0 ft)
• Last Flight: 1980
• Span: 2.74 m (9.0 ft)
• Flown: 145.
• Weight: 49,800 kg (109,800 lb)
• Comments: Designed for booster applications. Gas generator, pump-fed
• Empty weight: 3,125 kg (6,889 lb) • Thrust (vac): 760 kN • Liftoff Thrust (sl): 670 kN (150,000 lbf)
• Guidance: Inertial • Maximum speed: 17,740 km/h (11,020 mph)
• Isp: 282 s (2.77 kN·s/kg)
• Development Cost US dollars: $500 million
• Isp(sl): 248 s (2.43 kN·s/kg)
• Recurring Price US dollars: $6.25 million
• Burn time: 165 s
• Total Number Built: 224
• Core Diameter: 2.44 m
• Total Development Built: 64
• Maximum range: 2,400 km (1,500 mi) • Ceiling: 480 km (300 mi) Warhead
• Total Production Built: 160 • Flyaway Unit Cost: US$750,000 in 1958 dollars • Launches: 59
• One W49 warhead on Mk. 2 reentry vehicle
• Failures: 14
• warhead mass: 1,000 kg (2,200 lb)
• Success Rate: 76.27%
• Yield: equivalent to 1,440 kilotons of TNT (6.02 PJ)
• First Launch Date: 25 January 1957
• CEP: 1 km (0.62 mi)
• Last Launch Date: 5 November 1975
• Boost Propulsion: Liquid fuelled rocket, LOX and Kerosene. • Engines: • Rocketdyne LR79-NA-9 (Model S-3D); 666 kN (150000 lbf) • Vernier: 2x Rocketdyne LR101-NA; 4.5 kN (1000 lbf) each
66.9 See also • Project Emily • Strategic Air Command • Thor (rocket family)
• Propellants: LOX/Kerosene (Thor kerosene propellant was referred to as 'RP1' by RAF users)
• Thor-Able
• Thrust (vac): 760 kN
• Thor-Delta
• Thor-Agena
• Isp: 282 s (2.77 kN·s/kg) • Isp (sea level): 248 s (2.43 kN·s/kg) • Burn time: 165 s • Mass Engine: 643 kg • Diameter: 2.44 m
Related lists • List of military aircraft of the United States • List of missiles
244
66.10 References [1] James N. Gibson, Nuclear Weapons of the United States, An Illustrated History, pp. 167-168, Schiffer Publishing Ltd., Atglen, PA, 1996 [2] Sam Marsden (1 August 2013). “Locks on nuclear missiles changed after launch key blunder”. Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 6 August 2013.
• Boyes, John. Project Emily: The Thor IRBM and the Royal Air Force 1959–1963. Prospero, Journal of the British Rocketry Oral History Programme (BROHP) No 4, Spring 2007. • Boyes, John. Project Emily: Thor IRBM and the RAF. Tempus Publishing, 2008. ISBN 978-0-75244611-0. • Boyes, John. The Thor IRBM: The Cuban Missile Crisis and the subsequent run-down of the Thor Force. pub: Royal Air Force Historical Society. Journal 42, May 2008. ISSN 1361 4231. • Forsyth, Kevin S. Delta: The Ultimate Thor. In Roger Launius and Dennis Jenkins (Eds.), To Reach The High Frontier: A History of U.S. Launch Vehicles. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2002. ISBN 0-8131-2245-7. • Hartt, Julian. The Mighty Thor: Missile in Readiness. New York: Duell, Sloan, and Pearce, 1961. For RAF Squadrons list: • Jefford, Wing Commander C.G., MBE, BA, RAF(Retd.). RAF Squadrons, a Comprehensive record of the Movement and Equipment of all RAF Squadrons and their Antecedents since 1912. Shrewsbury, Shropshire, UK: Airlife Publishing, 1988 (second edition 2001). ISBN 1-85310-053-6. p. 178. • Wynn, Humphrey. RAF Strategic Nuclear Deterrent Forces, their Origins, Roles and Deployment 194669. London: HMSO, 1994. ISBN 0-11-772833-0. p. 449.
66.11 External links • Thor from Encyclopedia Astronautica • Thor IRBM History site • History of the Delta Launch Vehicle • UK Thor missile launch sites on Secret Bases website • UK Thor deployment in Lincolnshire
CHAPTER 66. PGM-17 THOR • Maxwell Hunter, “Father of the Thor Rocket” • “YouTube contemporary film of Thor missiles at North Pickenham”
Chapter 67
SM-65 Atlas Main article: Atlas (rocket family)
flight in what would be a long career for the Atlas as a satellite launcher. Many retired Atlas ICBMs would be used as launch vehicles, most with an added spinstabilized solid rocket motor upper stage for polar orbit military payloads. Even before its military use ended in 1965, Atlas had placed four Project Mercury astronauts in orbit and was becoming the foundation for a family of successful space launch vehicles, most notably Atlas Agena and Atlas Centaur.
The SM-65 Atlas was the first intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) developed and deployed by the United States. It was built for the U.S. Air Force by Convair Division of General Dynamics at the Kearny Mesa assembly plant north of San Diego, California. Atlas became operational as an ICBM in October 1959 and was used as a first stage for satellite launch vehicles for half a century. The Atlas missile’s warhead was over 100 times Mergers led to the acquisition of the Atlas Centaur line more powerful than the bomb dropped over Nagasaki in by Lockheed Martin which in turn became part of the United Launch Alliance. Today Lockheed Martin and 1945. ULA support a new Atlas rocket family based on the An initial development contract was given to larger “Atlas V” which still uses the unique and highly efConsolidated Vultee Aircraft (Convair) on 16 Jan- ficient Centaur upper stage. Atlas V stage one is powered uary 1951 for what was then called MX-1593, but at a by a Russian RD-180 oxygen/kerosene engine and uses relatively low priority. The 1953 testing of the first dry conventional aluminum isogrid tankage rather than the fuel H-bomb in the Soviet Union led to the project being thin-wall, pressure-stabilized stainless steel tanks of the dramatically accelerated. The initial design completed original Convair Atlas. Payload weights have increased by Convair in 1953 was larger than the missile that along with launch vehicle weights over the years so the eventually entered service. Estimated warhead weight current Atlas V family serves many of the same type was lowered from 8,000 lb (3,630 kg) to 3,000 lb (1,360 commercial, DoD, and planetary missions as earlier Atlas kg) based on highly favorable U.S. nuclear warhead tests Centaurs. in early 1954, and on 14 May 1954 the Atlas program was formally given the highest national priority. A major development and test contract was awarded to Convair on 14 January 1955 for a 10-foot (3 m) diameter missile 67.1 History to weigh about 250,000 lb (113,400 kg).[1] Atlas development was tightly controlled by the Air Force’s Western Shortly before his death, John von Neumann headed the Development Division, WDD, later part of the Air top secret von Neumann ICBM committee. Its purpose Force Ballistic Missile Division. Contracts for warhead, was to decide on the feasibility of building an ICBM guidance and propulsion were handled separately by large enough to carry a thermonuclear weapon. Von NeuWDD. The first successful flight of a highly instrumented mann had long argued that while the technical obstacles Atlas missile to full range occurred 28 November 1958. were indeed formidable, they could be overcome in time. Atlas ICBMs were deployed operationally from 31 Events were proving him right. The weapons had become October 1959 to 12 April 1965.[2] smaller, and Diode-transistor logic enabled the construcOn 18 December 1958, the launch of Atlas 10B sent the missile into orbit around the Earth (without use of an upper stage) carrying the "SCORE" (Signal Communications by Orbiting Relay Equipment) communications payload. Atlas 10B/SCORE, at 8,750 lb (3,970 kg) was the heaviest man-made object then in orbit, the first voice relay satellite, and the first man-made object in space easily visible to the naked eye due to the large, mirror-polished stainless steel tank. This was the first
tion of compact guidance computers. (Atlas A, B, C, and D had no onboard computers, but Atlas E (1960) and F (1961) did.) The committee approved a “radical reorganization” and speeding up of the Atlas program. Atlas was informally classified as a “stage-and-a-half” rocket; both engines were started at launch, and there was only a single set of propellant tanks. One engine was jettisoned about 135 seconds into the flight. (A “stage” of a liquid propellant rocket is normally thought of as tanks and
245
246 engine(s) together. The jettisoned engine therefore constitutes a “half stage”.) The booster engine consisted of two large thrust chambers fed by a single common set of turbopumps. The sustainer engine consisted of a single large thrust chamber and two small verniers, once again fed by a single common set of turbopumps. The verniers provided roll control and final velocity trim. The total sea level thrust of all five thrust chambers was 360,000 lb for Atlas D. Later model Atlas E and F variants were built with two separate booster engines, each with a single large thrust chamber and its own independent set of turbopumps. Total sea level thrust for these three-engine Atlas Es and Fs was 389,000 lb (176,400 kg). The first Atlas flown was the Atlas A in 1957–1958. It was a test model designed to verify the structure and propulsion system, and had no sustainer engine or separable stages. This was followed by the Atlas B and C in 1958–1959. The B had full engines and booster engine staging capability. An Atlas B was used to orbit the SCORE satellite in December 1958, which was the Atlas’ first space launch.[3] The C was a slightly more developed model using even thinner skin in the propellant tanks. Finally, the Atlas D, the first operational model and the basis for all Atlas space launchers, debuted in 1959.[4] Atlas D weighed 255,950 lb (116,100 kg) (without payload) and had an empty weight of only 11,894 lb (5,395 kg), the other 95.35% was propellant. Dropping the 6,720 lb (3,048 kg) booster engine and fairing reduced the dry weight to 5,174 lb (2,347 kg), a mere 2.02% of the initial gross weight of the vehicle (still excluding payload). This very low dry weight allowed Atlas D to send its thermonuclear warhead to ranges as great as 9,000 miles (14,500 km) or orbit payloads without an upper stage.[5] The final variants of the Atlas ICBM were the E and F, introduced in 1960–1961. E and F had fully self-contained inertial navigation systems (INS) and were identical to each other except for interfaces associated with their different basing modes (underground silo for F). By 1965, with the second-generation Titan II having reached operational status, the Atlas was obsolete as a missile system, and was gradually phased out in the mid1960s. Many of the retired Atlas D, E and F missiles were used for space launches into the 1990s. Atlas, named for the Atlas of Greek mythology and the contractor’s parent Atlas Corporation, got its start in 1946 with the award of an Army Air Forces research contract to Consolidated Vultee Aircraft (later Convair) for the study of a 1,500-to-5,000-mile (2,400 to 8,000 km) range missile that might, at some future date carry a nuclear armed warhead. At the time (the late 1940s), no missile conceived could carry even the smallest nuclear warheads then thought possible. The smallest atomic warheads were all larger than the maximum theoretical payloads of the planned long range missiles. The Convair team was led by Karel Bossart. This was the MX-774 or Hiroc project. It was for this reason that the contract was canceled in 1947 but the Army Air Forces allowed
CHAPTER 67. SM-65 ATLAS Convair to launch the three almost-completed research vehicles using the remaining contract funds. The three flights were only partially successful. However they did show that balloon tanks, and gimbaled rocket engines were valid concepts. In the mid-1950s after practical thermonuclear weapons had been demonstrated and an independent design breakthrough drastically reduced the weight of such weapons, along with the CIA learning that the Soviet ICBM program was making progress, Atlas became a crash program of the highest national importance. The missile was originally given the military designation XB-65, thus making it a bomber; from 1955 it was redesignated SM-65 ('Strategic Missile 65') and, from 1962, it became CGM-16. This letter “C” stood for “coffin” or “Container”, the rocket being stored in a semi-hardened container; it was prepared for launch by being raised and fueled in the open. The Atlas-F (HGM-16) was stored vertically underground, but launched after being lifted to the surface. The penetrating lubricant WD-40 found its first use as a corrosion-resistant coating for the outer skin of the Atlas missile.[6]
67.2 Design The Atlas A-D used radio guidance: the missile sent information from its inertial system to a ground station by radio, and received course correction information in return. The Atlas E and F had completely autonomous inertial guidance systems. Atlas was unusual in its use of balloon tanks for fuel, made of very thin stainless steel (with the uncoated steel necessitating the development by Convair of the anti-corrosive spray WD-40) with minimal or no rigid support structures. Pressure in the tanks provides the structural rigidity required for flight. An Atlas rocket would collapse under its own weight if not kept pressurized, and had to have 5 psi (34 kPa) nitrogen in the tank even when not fuelled.[7] The only other known use of balloon tanks at the time of writing is the Centaur high-energy upper stage, although some rockets (such as the Falcon series) use partially pressure-supported tanks. The rocket had two small thrust chambers on the sides of the tank called vernier rockets. These provided fine adjustment of velocity and steering after the sustainer engine shut down. Atlas also had a staging system different from most multistage rockets, which drop both engines and fuel tanks simultaneously, before firing the next stage’s engines. When the Atlas missile was being developed, there was doubt as to whether a rocket engine could be ignited in space. Therefore, the decision was made to ignite all of the Atlas’ engines at launch; the booster engines would be discarded, while the sustainer continued to burn. Rockets using this technique are sometimes called “stage-anda-half” boosters. This is made possible by the extremely
67.3. VARIANTS
247
light weight of the balloon tanks. The tanks make up such a small percentage of the total booster weight that the weight penalty of lifting them to orbit is less than the technical and weight penalty required to throw half of them away mid-flight.
taur launch vehicles. The first flight of X-12 (Atlas B) was in July 1958. The X-12 pioneered the use of these 1.5stage rocket engines that became a hallmark of the Atlas rocket program. It was also the first rocket to achieve a flight distance that could be considered intercontinental Sergey Korolyov made a similar choice for the same rea- when it flew 6,325 miles (10,180 km). son in the design of the R-7, the first Soviet ICBM and the Atlas B was first flown on 19 July 1958, and was the first launcher of Sputnik and Vostok. The R-7 had a central version of the Atlas rocket to use the stage and a half desustainer section, with four boosters attached to its sides. sign. Ten flights were made. Nine of these were subAll engines were started before launch, eliminating the orbital test flights of the Atlas as an Intercontinental Balthen unexplored task of igniting a large liquid fuel engine listic Missile, with five successful missions and four failat high altitudes. Like the Atlas, the R-7 used cryogenic ures. The seventh flight, launched on 18 December 1958, oxidizer and could not be kept in the state of flight readi- was used to place the SCORE satellite into low Earth orness indefinitely. Unlike the Atlas, the R-7 had large side bit, the first orbital launch conducted by an Atlas rocket. boosters, which required use of an expensive launch pad All Atlas-B launches were conducted from Cape and prevented launching the rocket from a silo. Canaveral Air Force Station, at Launch Complexes 11, 13 and 14.[8]
67.3 Variants 67.3.1
Convair Atlas
67.3.3 SM-65C Atlas XSM-16A/X-11/SM-65A The SM-65C Atlas, or Atlas C was a prototype of the Atlas missile. First flown on 24 December 1958, the Atlas C was the final development version of the Atlas rocket, prior to the operational Atlas D. It was originally planned to be used as the first stage of the Atlas-Able rocket, but following an explosion during a static test on 24 September 1959, this was abandoned in favor of the Atlas D.
The Convair XSM-16A (later X-11) was the first testbed for what became the Atlas missile. Later the Convair X12 became a second, more advanced testbed. A total of 12 X-11’s were built and tested. The first three were involved in static tests only. X-11 Number 4 and 6, were destroyed in launch accidents. All others performed sucSix flights were made. These were all sub-orbital test cessful test flights. The test series began on June 11, 1957 flights of the Atlas as an Intercontinental Ballistic Misand ended on June 3, 1958. sile, with three tests succeeding, and three failing. It was developed into the SM-65A Atlas, or Atlas A,[8] All Atlas C launches were conducted from Cape which was the first full-scale prototype of the Atlas misCanaveral Air Force Station, at Launch Complex 12. sile, which first flew on 11 June 1957. Unlike later versions of the Atlas missile, the Atlas A did not feature the stage and a half design. Instead, the booster engines were 67.3.4 SM-65D Atlas fixed in place, and the sustainer engine was omitted. The Atlas A conducted eight test flights, of which four were successful. All test flights were conducted from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, at either Launch Complex 12 or Launch Complex 14.[8] Atlas A flights were powered by a single engine consisting of two large thrust chambers fed by a single set of turbopumps.
Main article: SM-65D Atlas
The SM-65D Atlas, or Atlas D, was the first operational version of the Atlas missile. It first flew on 14 April 1959. Atlas D missiles were also used for orbital launches, both with upper stages, such as the RM-81 Agena, and on their own as a stage and a half vehicle. The Atlas D was used for the orbital element of Project Mercury, launching four 67.3.2 Convair X-12/SM-65B Atlas manned Mercury spacecraft into low Earth orbit.[8] The modified version of the Atlas D used for Project Mercury The Convair X-12 was the second, more advanced was designated Atlas LV-3B. testbed for the Atlas rocket program. It was designed with 2 engines, the booster engine used on the predecessor X- Atlas D launches were conducted from Cape Canaveral 11 plus a sustainer engine. This combination of booster Air Force Station, at Launch Complexes 11, 12, 13 and plus sustainer engines was designated the MA-1 engine 14, and Vandenberg AFB Launch Complex 576. system. MA-1 was used in Atlas B and Atlas C. MA-1 Most Atlas D launches were sub-orbital missile tests, was the direct predecessor of the MA-2 engine system of however several were used for other missions, including Atlas D which in turn was the direct predecessor of the orbital launches of manned Mercury, and unmanned OV1 MA-5 engine system used in Atlas Agena and Atlas Cen- spacecraft. Two were also used as sounding rockets, as
248
CHAPTER 67. SM-65 ATLAS
part of Project FIRE. A number were also used with up- signature of the Mk 4 RV. The Mk 4 plus W-38 had a per stages to launch satellites.[8] combined weight of 4,050 lb (1,840 kg).
67.3.5
SM-65E Atlas
The SM-65E Atlas, or Atlas-E, was the first 3-engine operational variant of the Atlas missile, the third engine resulting from splitting the two booster thrust chambers into separate engines with independent sets of turbopumps. It first flew on 11 October 1960, and was deployed as an operational ICBM from September 1961 until March 1965.[9] Following retirement as an ICBM, the Atlas-E, along with the Atlas-F, was refurbished for orbital launches as the Atlas E/F.[8] The last Atlas E/F launch was conducted on 24 March 1995, using a rocket which had originally been built as an Atlas-E.
67.5 Operational deployment Strategic Air Command deployed 11 operational Atlas ICBM squadrons between 1959 and 1962. Each of the three missile variants, the Atlas D, E, and F series, were deployed and based in progressively more secure launchers.
67.5.1 Atlas-D deployment
To provide the United States with an interim or emergency ICBM capability, in September 1959 the Air Force Atlas-E launches were conducted from Cape Canaveral deployed three SM-65D Atlas missiles on open launch Air Force Station, at Launch Complexes 11 and 13, and pads at Vandenberg AFB, California, under the operaVandenberg Air Force Base at OSTF-1, LC-576 and tional control of the 576th Strategic Missile Squadron, 704th Strategic Missile Wing. Completely exposed to SLC-3.[8] the elements, the three missiles were serviced by a gantry crane. One missile was on operational alert at all times. They remained on alert until 1 May 1964.
67.3.6
SM-65F Atlas
The SM-65F Atlas, or Atlas-F, was the final operational variant of the Atlas missile. It first flew on 8 August 1961, and was deployed as an operational ICBM between September 1962 and April 1965. Following retirement as an ICBM, the Atlas-F, along with the Atlas-E, was refurbished for orbital launches as the Atlas E/F.[8] The last Atlas E/F launch to use a rocket which had originally been built as an Atlas-F was conducted on 23 June 1981. Atlas-F launches were conducted from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, at Launch Complexes 11 and 13, and Vandenberg Air Force Base at OSTF-2, LC-576 and SLC-3.[8] It was also used to launch the Block I series of GPS satellites from 1978 to 1985. The last refurbished Atlas-F vehicle was launched from Vandenberg AFB in 1995 carrying a satellite for the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program.
67.4 Warhead The warhead of the Atlas D was originally the G.E. Mk 2 “heat sink” re-entry vehicle (RV) with a W49 thermonuclear weapon, combined weight 3,700 lb (1,680 kg) and yield of 1.44 megatons (Mt). The W-49 was later placed in a Mk 3 ablative RV, combined weight 2,420 lb (1,100 kg) The Atlas E and F had an AVCO Mk 4 RV containing a W-38 thermonuclear bomb with a yield of 3.75 Mt which was fuzed for either air burst or contact burst. The Mk 4 RV also deployed penetration aids in the form of mylar balloons which replicated the radar
In September 1959 the first operational Atlas ICBM squadron equipped with six SM-65D Atlas missiles based in above-ground launchers, went on operational alert at F.E. Warren AFB, Wyoming. Three additional Atlas D squadrons, two near F.E. Warren AFB, Wyoming and one at Offutt AFB, Nebraska, were based in aboveground launchers that provided blast protection against over-pressures of only 5 pounds per square inch (34 kPa). These units were: • 389th Strategic Missile Wing Francis E. Warren AFB, Wyoming (2 September 1960-1 July 1964) 564th Strategic Missile Squadron (6 missiles) 565th Strategic Missile Squadron (9 missiles) • 385th Bombardment (later Strategic Aerospace) Wing Offut AFB, Nebraska (30 March 1961-1 October 1964) 549th Strategic Missile Squadron (9 missiles) The first site at Warren for the 564th SMS consisted of six launchers grouped together, controlled by two launch operations buildings, and clustered around a central guidance control facility. This was called the 3 x 2 configuration: two launch complexes of three missiles each constituted a squadron. At the second Warren site for the 565th SMS and at Offutt AFB, Nebraska for the 549th SMS, the missiles
67.6. SERVICE HISTORY were based in a 3 x 3 configuration: three launchers and one combined guidance control/launch facility constituted a launch complex, and three complexes comprised a squadron. At these later sites the combined guidance and control facility measured 107 by 121 ft (33 by 37 m) with a partial basement. A dispersal technique of spreading the launch complexes were 20 to 30 miles (30 to 50 km) apart was also employed to reduce the risk that one powerful nuclear warhead could destroy multiple launch sites.
67.5.2
Atlas-E deployment
The SM-65E Atlas squadrons deployed later in 1961 were also deployed horizontally, but the majority of the launcher was buried underground. These launchers were designed to withstand over-pressures of 25 psi (170 kPa). These units were:
249
67.5.3 Atlas-F deployment The six SM-65F Atlas squadrons were the first ICBMs to be stored vertically in underground silos. Built of heavilyreinforced concrete, the huge silos were designed to protect the missiles from over-pressures of up to 100 psi (690 kPa). The Atlas F was the final and most advanced version of the Atlas ICBM and was essentially a quick-firing version of the Atlas E, modified to be stored in a vertical position inside underground concrete and steel silos. When stored, the Atlas F sat atop an elevator. If a missile was placed on alert, it was fueled with RP-1 (kerosene) liquid fuel, which could be stored inside the missile for extended periods. If a decision was made to launch the missile, it was fueled with liquid oxygen. Once the liquid oxygen fueling was complete, the elevator raised the missile to the surface for launching.
This method of storage allowed the Atlas F to be launched in about ten minutes, a saving of about five minutes over • 92nd Bombardment (later Strategic Aerospace) the Atlas D and Atlas E, both of which were stored horiWing zontally and had to be raised to a vertical position before being fueled. Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington (28 September 1961-17 February 1965) 567th Strategic Missile Squadron, (9 missiles) • 21st Strategic Aerospace Division Forbes AFB, Kansas (10 October 1961-4 January 1965)
67.6 Service history The number of Atlas intercontinental ballistic missiles in service, by year:
67.7 Launch history
548th Strategic Missile Squadron, (9 missiles)
67.8 Retirement • 389th Strategic Missile Wing Francis E. Warren AFB, Wyoming (20 November 1961-4 January 1965) 566th Strategic Missile Squadron (9 missiles)
After the solid-fuel LGM-30 Minuteman had become operational in early 1963, the Atlas became rapidly obsolete. By October 1964, all Atlas D missiles had been phased out, followed by the Atlas E/F in April 1965. About 350 Atlas ICBMs of all versions were built, with a peak deployment level of 129 (30 D, 27 E, 72 F). Despite its relatively short life span, Atlas served as the proving ground for many new missile technologies. Perhaps more importantly, its development spawned the organization, policies, and procedures that paved the way for all of the later ICBM programs.
The major enhancement in the Atlas E was the new allinertial system that obviated the need for ground control facilities. Since the missiles were no longer tied to a central guidance control facility, the launchers could be dispersed more widely in what was called a 1 x 9 configuration, with one missile silo located at one launch site each After its retirement from operational ICBM service in 1965, the ICBMs were refurbished and used over twenty for the 9 missiles assigned to the squadron. years as space launch vehicles. The Atlas Es were based in “semi-hard” or “coffin” facilities that protected the missile against over-pressures up to 25 psi (170 kPa). In this arrangement the missile, its support facilities, and the launch operations build- 67.9 NASA use ing were housed in reinforced concrete structures that were buried underground; only the roofs protruded above Though never used for its original purpose as a weapon, Atlas was suggested for use by the United States Air Force ground level.
250 in what became known as Project Vanguard. This suggestion was ultimately turned down as Atlas would not be operational in time and was seen by many as being too heavily-connected to the military for use in the U.S.'s International Geophysical Year satellite attempt. The Atlas was used as the expendable launch system with both the Agena and Centaur upper stages for the Mariner space probes used to explore Mercury, Venus, and Mars (1962–1973); and to launch ten of the Mercury program missions (1962–1963). Atlas saw the beginnings of its “workhorse” status during the Mercury-Atlas missions, which resulted in Lt. Col. John H. Glenn Jr. becoming the first American to orbit the Earth in 1962 (Major Yuri A. Gagarin, a Soviet cosmonaut, was the first human in orbit in 1961.) Atlas was also used throughout the mid-1960s to launch the Agena Target Vehicles used during the Gemini program. Direct Atlas descendants were continued to be used as satellite launch vehicles into the 21st century. An Atlas rocket is shown exploding, in the 1983 art film Koyaanisqatsi, directed by Godfrey Reggio, in the penultimate shot. The vehicle shown in the movie was the first launch attempt of an Atlas-Centaur in May 1962.
67.10 Survivors • HGM-16F Atlas is on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio. For years the missile was displayed outside the museum. In 1998 it was removed from display. It was restored by the museum’s restoration staff and returned to display in the museum’s new Missile Silo Gallery in 2007. The white nose cone atop the museum’s Atlas is an AVCO IV re-entry vehicle built to contain a nuclear warhead. This nose cone actually stood alert in defense of the United States, as it was initially installed on an Atlas on 2 October 1962 at a Denton Valley launch site near Clyde, Texas. (The National Museum of the United States Air Force does not have an Atlas on display currently; they do have two in storage, these are visible on the Behind the Scenes Tour.) • Atlas 5A (56-6742) is on display on the lawn in front of the Canada Science and Technology Museum in Ottawa, Canada. (5A was on display throughout the 1960s at the former location of the Air Force Museum, at Wright-Patterson AFB Building 89 near Xenia Drive in Fairborn, Ohio. Formerly a static-test article, it is the only surviving Atlas in the original A-series configuration, before the boat-tail modifications that solved thermal issues which caused the early termination of the first two Atlas test flights, 4A and 6A.)
CHAPTER 67. SM-65 ATLAS • Atlas 8A is displayed in front of the Strategic Air and Space Museum in Nebraska; reconfigured as an Atlas D.
• Atlas 2E is on display in front of the San Diego Air & Space Museum at Gillespie Field, El Cajon, California.
• Atlas 2D mounted with a Mercury capsule is on display in the Rocket Garden at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex, Merritt Island, Florida
67.11 Specifications (Atlas ICBM) • Length: 75 ft 1 in (22.89 m) with Mk 2 re-entry vehicle, 82 ft 6 in (25.15 m) with Mk 3
• Span of outboard engine fairings: 16 ft (4.9 m) • Diameter: 10 ft 0 in (3.05 m) • Launch weight: 255,950 lb (116,100 kg) for Atlas D w/o payload, 260,000 lb (117,900 kg) for Atlas D with Mk 2/3 RV and W49 warhead, 268,000 lb (121,560 kg) for Atlas E&F with Mk 4 RV and W38 warhead
• Range: 9,000 mi (14,480 km)[10] • Powerplant: 1 × Rocketdyne LR105 rocket engine with 57,000 lbf (254 kN) thrust, 1 × Rocketdyne XLR89 rocket engine with two 150,000 lbf (670 kN) thrust chambers (Atlas D), 2 × Rocketdyne LR101 vernier rocket engines with 1,000 lbf (4.4 kN) of thrust (propellant feed from LR105 sustainer engine turbopumps); 2 × LR89 booster engines (independent turbopumps) with 165,000 lbf (734 kN) (Atlas E&F)
• Warhead:Mk 2 or Mk 3 re-entry vehicle with W-49 warhead (1.44 Mt yield) (Atlas D); Mk 4 re-entry vehicle with W-38 warhead (3.75 Mt yield) (Atlas E&F)
• CEP: 4,600 ft (1,400 m)
67.11. SPECIFICATIONS (ATLAS ICBM)
Atlas-B with Score payload, 1958
Atlas C missile sitting on its launch pad, 1957/58
251
Launch of an SM-65F Atlas
Convair X-11 being launched
Convair X-12 being launched Launch of an SM-65E Atlas
252
CHAPTER 67. SM-65 ATLAS
SM-65 Atlas deployment sites: SM-65D (Red), SM-65E (Purple), SM-65F (Black)
Atlas-D ICBM launching from semi-hardened “coffin” bunker at Vandenberg AFB, California.
1965 graph of Atlas launches, cumulative by month with failures highlighted (pink) along with USAF Titan II and NASA use of ICBM boosters for Projects Mercury and Gemini (blue). ApolloSaturn history and projections shown as well.
67.11. SPECIFICATIONS (ATLAS ICBM)
Atlas 2E missile, San Diego Aerospace Museum
253
Chapter 68
SM-68 Titan See also: Titan (rocket family) The SM-68 Titan (individual variants later designated HGM-25 and LGM-25) was the designation for two American intercontinental ballistic missiles, which were members of the Titan family of rockets. These consisted of the Titan I and Titan II missiles, which were operational between 1962 and 1987, and were a major component of the United States fleet of missiles during the Cold War. Titan was originally built as a backup to the SM-65 Atlas. The Titan I used RP-1 and liquid oxygen propellant, resulting in a response time of around fifteen minutes, required to fuel the rocket and raise it to a launch position. It was replaced by the more powerful Titan II, which used nitrogen tetroxide and hydrazine, allowing it to be stored with propellant loaded, giving it a much shorter response time.
68.1 Titan I Main article: Titan I The Titan I was the first version of the Titan family of rockets. It began as a backup ICBM project in case the The launch of a Titan I missile Atlas was delayed. It was a two-stage rocket propelled by RP-1 and liquid oxygen. Using RP-1 and LOX meant that • 850th Strategic Missile Squadron, Ellsworth AFB, the Titan I did not have a quick launch sequence. It took Rapid City, South Dakota about fifteen minutes to load LOX on the first missile at a complex, raise it topside and launch it, with the other two • 451st Strategic Missile Wing (formerly 703rd) missiles following at about eight-minute intervals. Titan Lowry AFB, Denver, Colorado I was operational from early 1962 to mid-1965. Several US Air Force units operated the Titan I:
68.2 Titan II
• 568th Strategic Missile Squadron, Larson AFB, Moses Lake, Washington Main article: LGM-25C Titan II • 569th Strategic Missile Squadron, Mountain Home Most Titan rockets were the Titan II, which could carry a AFB, Mt Home, Idaho W-53 nuclear warhead with a nine megaton yield, mak• 851st Strategic Missile Squadron, Beale AFB, ing it the most powerful ICBM on-standby in the US nuMarysville, California clear arsenal. These were deployed in three squadrons of 254
68.4. REFERENCES
255 • Krebs, Gunter. “Titan-1 (SM-68 / HGM-25A) ICBM”. Gunter’s Space Page. Retrieved 2008-1103. • Krebs, Gunter. “Titan-2 (SM-68B / LGM-25B) ICBM”. Gunter’s Space Page. Retrieved 2008-1103.
A Titan II launch
18 missiles each, in Arizona, Kansas, and Arkansas. All of the ICBM Titan II missile sites have been decommissioned since the retirement of the Titan II as an ICBM in 1987, but the Titan Missile Museum on Interstate 19 south of Tucson, Arizona, has preserved one deactivated launch site. The Titan II was a two-stage ICBM that was used by the US Air Force from the mid-1960s to the mid1980s. The Titan II used a hypergolic combination of nitrogen tetroxide and hydrazine for propellant. In addition to its use as an ICBM, twelve Titan II missiles were converted to launch Gemini spacecraft for NASA, ten of which were manned. Following retirement, a further thirteen were converted to the Titan 23G configuration, and used to launch satellites, and the Clementine Lunar probe. The last Titan II launch occurred in 2003.
68.3 See also • Titan III • Titan IIIB • Titan 34D • Titan IV
68.4 References • Wade, Mark. “Titan”. Encyclopedia Astronautica. Retrieved 2008-11-03.
Chapter 69
SSM-A-5 Boojum The XSSM-A-5 Boojum, also known by the project number MX-775B, was a supersonic cruise missile developed by the Northrop Corporation for the United States Air Force in the late 1940s. Intended to deliver a nuclear warhead over intercontinental range, it was determined to be too ambitious a project given technical difficulties with the SM-62 Snark which it was to follow on from, and was canceled in 1951.
69.1 Development As part of a United States Army Air Forces effort to develop guided missiles for the delivery of nuclear weapons, the Northrop Corporation was awarded a development contract in March 1946 for the design of two long-range cruise missiles. Designated MX-775, the contract called for a subsonic missile, the MX-775A, later designated SSM-A-3 Snark; and a more advanced supersonic missile, MX-775B, which in 1947 was given the name SSMA-5 Boojum,[1] Northrop naming the missiles after characters from the works of Lewis Carroll.[2]
69.2 Cancellation At the end of 1946, the contracts that had been awarded to Northrop were revised; the Snark was canceled, while the Boojum was to be fully developed as an operational system.[5] Northrop lobbied for the reinstatement of the Snark, however; this was successful in getting the program reauthorized during 1947, with the Boojum being deferred to a follow-on project.[5] Despite the design having been finalized, the United States Air Force (which the USAAF had become in 1948) determined that the project was technologically unfeasible, given continuing development difficulties and technical problems encountered during the Snark’s development. Accordingly, in 1951, the Boojum project cancled, before any prototypes of the missile had been constructed.[1][4]
69.3 See also • EKR (missile) • SM-64 Navajo • SSM-N-9 Regulus II
Given the company designation of N-25B, the design of the Boojum took place over the next several years, and 69.4 References produced a number of variations on the concept. The finalized design called for a long, slender missile, fitted Notes with delta wings, and powered by a pair of General Electric turbojet engines, mounted in nacelles near the tips of [1] A similar configuration would later be used by the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird reconnaissance aircraft. the wing.[1][N 1] The missile was intended to be launched utilizing a rocket sled; air-launch from a Convair B-36 heavy bomber was Citations an alternative that was studied.[1] The missile would climb at subsonic speeds to its operating altitude, then conduct [1] Parsch 2007 a supersonic dash to the target area, being guided using a [2] Collins 2007, p.26. celestial navigation system.[1] A “slipper” type drop tank would be jettisoned halfway through the flight.[3] The [3] Werrell 1985, p.141. Boojum was intended to be capable of carrying a war[4] Polmar and Norris 2009, p.178. head weighing up to 5,000 pounds (2,300 kg) over a range [5] Werrell 1985, p.93. between 1,500 to 5,000 miles (2,400 to 8,000 km).[4] 256
69.4. REFERENCES Bibliography • Collins, Martin J. (2007). After Sputnik: 50 Years of the Space Age. New York: HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-089781-9. Retrieved 2011-02-12. • Parsch, Andreas (2007). “Northrop SSM-A-5 Boojum”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-0212. • Polmar, Norman; Robert Stan Norris (2009). The U.S. Nuclear Arsenal: A History of Weapons and Delivery Systems Since 1945. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-55750-681-8. Retrieved 2011-02-12. • Werrell, Kenneth. (1985) The Evolution of the Cruise Missile. Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press. ASIN B000R51FWA. Retrieved 2011-02-12
257
Chapter 70
Supersonic Low Altitude Missile
Tory II-C
The Supersonic Low Altitude Missile or SLAM (not to be confused with the U.S. Navy's Standoff Land Attack Missile) was a canceled U.S. Air Force project conceived around 1955. Although it never proceeded beyond the initial design and testing phase before being declared obsolete, it represented several radical innovations as a Nuclear delivery system. The SLAM was designed to complement the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, and as a possible replacement for or augment to the Strategic Air Command system. In the event of nuclear war it was intended to fly below the cover of enemy radar at supersonic speeds, and deliver thermonuclear warheads to roughly 16 targets.
which was developed under the aegis of a separate project code-named Project Pluto, after the Roman god of the underworld. It was a ramjet that used nuclear fission to superheat incoming air instead of chemical fuel. Project Pluto produced two working prototypes of this engine, the Tory-IIA and the Tory-IIC, which were successfully tested in the Nevada desert. Special ceramics had to be developed to meet the stringent weight and tremendous heat tolerances demanded of the SLAM’s reactor. These were developed by the Coors Porcelain Company. The reactor itself was designed at the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory. The use of a nuclear engine in the airframe promised to give the missile staggering and unprecedented lowaltitude range, estimated to be roughly 113,000 miles (182,000 km) (over four and a half times the equatorial circumference of the earth). The engine also acted as a secondary weapon for the missile: direct neutron radiation from the virtually unshielded reactor would sicken, injure, and/or kill living things beneath the flight path; the stream of fallout left in its wake would poison enemy territory; and its strategically selected crash site would receive intense radioactive contamination. In addition, the sonic waves given off by its passage would damage ground installations.
Tory II-A
Another revolutionary aspect of the SLAM was its reliance on automation. It would have the mission of a longThe primary innovation was the engine of the aircraft, range bomber, but would be completely unmanned: ac258
70.2. REFERENCES
259
cepting radioed commands up to its failsafe point, where- reactor was preheated to 943 °F and compressed to 316 after it would rely on a Terrain Contour Matching psi, to simulate ramjet flight conditions.[1] (TERCOM) radar system to navigate to preprogrammed targets. Although a prototype of the airframe was never constructed, the SLAM was to be a wingless, fin-guided aircraft. Apart from the ventral ram-air intake it was very much in keeping with traditional missile design. Its estimated airspeed at thirty thousand feet was Mach 4.2. The SLAM program was scrapped on July 1, 1964. By this time serious questions about its viability had been raised, such as how to test a device that would emit copious amounts of radioactive exhaust from its unshielded reactor core in flight, as well as its efficacy and cost. ICBMs promised swifter delivery to targets, and because of their speed (the Thor traveled at roughly Mach 12) and trajectory were considered virtually unstoppable. The SLAM was also being outpaced by advances in defensive ground radar, which threatened to render its stratagem of low-altitude evasion ineffective.
70.1 Reactor design The reactor had outer diameter of 57.25 in and length 64.24 in; the dimension of the reactor core was 47.24 in diameter and 50.70 in length. The critical mass of uranium was 59.90 kg, and the reactor’s power density averaged at 10 megawatts/cubic foot, with total power of 600 megawatts. The nuclear fuel elements were made of refractory ceramic based on beryllium oxide, with enriched uranium dioxide as fuel and small amount of zirconium dioxide for structural stability. The fuel elements were hollow hexagonal tubes about 4 in long with 0.3 in distance between the outer parallel planes, with inside diameter of 0.227 in. They were manufactured by high-pressure extruding of the green compact, then sintering almost to its theoretical density. The core consisted of 465000 individual elements stacked to form 27000 airflow channels; the design with small unattached elements reduced problems related with thermal stresses. The elements were designed for average operation temperature of 2330 °F (1277 °C); the autoignition point of the reactor base plates was only 150 °C higher. The neutron flux was calculated to be 9×1017 neutrons/cm2 .s in the aft and 7×1014 neutrons/cm2 .s in the nose. The gamma radiation level was fairly high due to the lack of shielding; radiation hardening for the guidance electronics had to be designed. The reactors were successfully tested at Jackass Flats of the Nevada Test Site. The Tory II-A reactor, the scaleddown variant, was tested in mid-1961 and successfully ran for several seconds on May 14, 1961. A full-scale variant, the Tory II-C, was run for nearly five minutes at full power. The latter test, limited by the air storage facility capacity, ran for 292 seconds. The air fed to the
70.2 References [1] http://www.voughtaircraft.com/heritage/special/html/ sslam3.html
70.3 External links • The Flying Crowbar from Air And Space Magazine, 1990 • Vought SLAM entry in the Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles
Chapter 71
AAM-A-1 Firebird The AAM-A-1 Firebird was an early American air-toair missile, developed by the Ryan Aeronautical Company. The first air-to-air missile program developed for the United States Air Force, the Firebird was extensively tested in the late 1940s; although it proved successful in testing, it was soon obsolete due to the rapid advances in aircraft and missile technology at the time and did not enter production.
air missile to reach the flight-test stage outside of World War II Germany,[6] the Firebird proved to be reasonably successful in testing, with production being projected for the early 1950s;[7] however its command-guidance system limited it to clear-weather, daytime use only.[1]
Although radar beam riding guidance was planned to solve this,[6] the subsonic speed of the weapon was also considered to be insufficient to avoid obsolescence; accordingly, the AAM-A-1’s production program was terminated late in 1949,[1] the Hughes Falcon being selected for development as the Air Force’s standard intercept 71.1 Design and development missile instead.[8] The test program was considered to be successful despite this, as a considerable amount of The AAM-A-1 project began in 1946 with the awardknowledge was gained that benefited later programs.[9] ing of a study contract, under the designation MX-799, to the Ryan Aeronautical Company for the develop- A Firebird missile is preserved at the Air Force Space & ment of a subsonic air-to-air missile, which would be Missile Museum at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in used by interceptor aircraft for the destruction of enemy Florida.[3] bombers.[1] A contract for the development of the missile, designated AAM-A-1 Firebird, was awarded in 1947.[1] The AAM-A-1 Firebird was a two-stage weapon, fitted 71.3 References with cruciform wings and tailfins. Control was by differential motion of the wings; the tailfins were fixed.[1] Notes The missile’s fuselage was constructed from aluminum alloy, while the nosecone and control fins were molded [1] Some sources state the sustainer was also solid-fueled.[3] from plastic.[2] Firebird was fitted with a solid-fuel booster rocket providing initial thrust, before a liquid- [2] Some sources state the terminal guidance was semi-active radar homing.[1] fuel sustainer[N 1] rocket ignited for a 15-second powered [1] flight time. Guidance was provided during midcourse flight by radio Citations command guidance, with an operator in the launching aircraft transmitting corrections to the missile. Terminal guidance used active radar homing, with a small radar set being fitted in the nose of the missile,[3][4][N 2] with the missile’s warhead being detonated by a proximity fuse, a backup impact fuze also being fitted.[1]
[1] Parsch 2004 [2] Popular Science, January 1950, p.144. [3] Space & Missile Museum 2011 [4] Popular Science, March 1952, p.155. [5] Ross 1951, p.128.
71.2 Operational history
[6] Gunston 1979, p.222.
Flight testing of the XAAM-A-1 prototype missiles began in October 1947,[1] launched from DB-26 Invader bomber and DF-82 Twin Mustang aircraft,[1] the latter of which could carry up to four missiles.[3][5] The first air-to260
[7] Bowman 1957, p.113. [8] Francillon 1990, p.24. [9] Cooke 1951, p.147.
71.4. EXTERNAL LINKS Bibliography • “Firebird”. Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, FL: Air Force Space & Missile Museum. 2011. Retrieved 2011-02-09. • “Fighter Fires New Missile”. Popular Science (New York: Popular Science Publishing Co.) 156 (1). Retrieved 2011-02-09. • “Tiny Radar Steers Missile”. Popular Science (New York: Popular Science Publishing Co.) 160 (1). March 1952. Retrieved 2011-02-09. • Bowman, Norman John (1958). The Handbook of Rockets and Guided Missiles. Chicago: Perastadion Press. ASIN B002C3SPN2. • Cooke, David Coxe; Martin Caidin (1951). Jets, Rockets, and Guided Missiles. New York: McBride. ASIN B000MRHQEE. Retrieved 2011-02-09. • Francillon, René J. (1990). McDonnell Douglas Aircraft since 1920: Volume II. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-55750-550-0. Retrieved 2010-12-01. • Gunston, Bill (1979). The Illustrated Encyclopedia of the World’s Rockets & Missiles. London: Salamander Books. ISBN 978-0-86101-029-5. Retrieved 2011-02-09. • Parsch, Andreas (2004). “Ryan AAM-A-1 Firebird”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles Appendix 1: Early Missiles and Drones. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-02-08. • Ross, Frank (1951). Guided Missiles: Rockets & Torpedoes. New York: Lothrop, Lee & Shepard. ASIN B001LGSGX0.
71.4 External links • “Air-to-Air Missile for U.S. Planes, Popular Mechanics, February 1950.
261
Chapter 72
AAM-N-4 Oriole For the Japanese missile see, see AAM-4 (Japanese missile).
[1] Gunston 1979, p.221.
The AAM-N-4 Oriole was an early American air-toair missile, developed by the Glenn L. Martin Company for the United States Navy. Designed for launch from carrier-based aircraft, the missile programme was cancelled before flight testing began, and the missiles produced were utilized as test vehicles.
[3] Parsch 2005
[2] Friedman 1982, p.150.
[4] Haley 1959, p.130. [5] Peck 1950, p.264. [6] Bowman 1957, p.169. [7] Hemsch 1992, p.17. [8] "Aircraft Armament, Part 2: Missiles and Projectiles". Flight International, 28 January 1955, p.118.
72.1 Design and development
Development of the AAM-N-4 Oriole began in 1947, [9] USPMTC 1989, p.52-53 when a development contract was awarded by the United [10] Fahey 1958, p. 32. States Navy's Bureau of Ordnance to the Glenn L. Martin Company to develop a heavy air-to-air missile,[1] utilizing Bibliography active radar homing for fire and forget operation,[2] for [3] launch from aircraft operating from aircraft carriers. • Bowman, Norman John (1957). The Handbook of Oriole was intended to utilize a rocket[4] or rocket-ramjet Rockets and Guided Missiles. Chicago: Perastadion propulsion system; the intended range of the weapon was Press. ASIN B0007EC5N4. 20 miles (32 km),[5] however as tested it was limited to a range of approximately 10 miles (16 km).[3] Ready for • Fahey, James Charles (1958). The Ships and launch, the missile weighed 1,500 pounds (680 kg),[6] and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet (7th ed.). Washingused cruciform fins at the missile’s midbody and at the tail ton, DC: Ships and Aircraft Publishers. ASIN [7] for flight control. Flight speed was originally intended B000XG6YU6. [8] to be above Mach 3. • Friedman, Norman (1982). U.S. Naval Weapons: In 1948, the Oriole contract was redefined to be a guidevery gun, missile, mine, and torpedo used by the U.S. ance development program instead of a project to deNavy from 1883 to the present day. Annapolis, MD: velop an operational missile; the program to construct Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-0-87021-735-7. test vehicles resumed in 1950 for research and development purposes,[9] the missiles being redesignated RTV• Gunston, Bill (1979). The Illustrated Encyclopedia N-16.[3] Flight testing began shortly thereafter at the of the World’s Rockets and Missiles. London: SalaNaval Air Missile Test Center at Point Mugu, California; mander. ISBN 978-0861010295. testing continued through 1953, with 56 flight tests being [9] conducted throughout the program; as built the missile • Haley, Andrew Gallagher (1959). Rocketry and proved to be capable of Mach 2.5.[7] The Oriole program Space Exploration. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand was terminated at the end of 1953.[10] Company. ASIN B000GB0580. • Hemsch, Michael (1992). Tactical Missile Aerodynamics: General Topics. Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. ISBN 9781563470158.
72.2 References Citations 262
72.2. REFERENCES • Nichols, Gina (2011). The Navy at Point Mugu. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 978-07385-7532-2. • Parsch, Andreas (2005). “Martin AAM-N-4 Oriole”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles Appendix 1: Early Missiles and Drones. designationsystems.net. Retrieved 2013-01-21. • Peck, James L.H. “How Fast Can We Fight?". Popular Mechanics (Chicago: Popular Mechanics Company) 94 (6). Retrieved 2013-01-21. • United States Navy Pacific Missile Test Center (1989). Days of Challenge, Years of Change: a Technical History of the Pacific Missile Test Center. Washington, CC: Government Printing Office. ASIN B000S75AFK.
263
Chapter 73
AAM-N-5 Meteor The AAM-N-5 Meteor was an early American air-toair missile, developed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Bell Aircraft for the United States Navy. Designed for launch from carrier-based aircraft, the program proceeded to the flight testing stage before being cancelled.
[1] Parsch 2003 [2] Friedman 1982, p.275. [3] Babcock 2008, p.20-21. [4] "Aircraft Armament, Part 2: Missiles and Projectiles". Flight International, 28 January 1955, p.118. [5] Ordway and Wakeford 1960, p.187.
73.1 Development
Bibliography
Development of the Meteor was loosely defined at first, with both surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles being studied by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology under a contract awarded in November 1945 by the U.S. Navy’s Bureau of Ordnance; the decision was made to construct the air-to-air version for testing, with construction of the airframe being assigned to Bell Aircraft.[1][2] As built, the AAM-N-5 Meteor was a two-stage missile, utilizing semi-active radar homing;[2] the first stage consisted of a solid-fueled rocket booster, with the main sustainer stage utilizing liquid fuels.[3] It had a range of 25 miles (40 km), and reached speeds of over Mach 2,[1] with some sources claiming a top speed of Mach 3.[4] Control was provided by cruciform fins.[5] Flight testing of the AAM-N-5 began in July 1948 at the Naval Ordnance Test Station,[2] with Douglas JD1 Invader utility aircraft acting as the launching platform. Starting in 1951, test launches were conducted using Douglas F3D Skyknight nightfighters as carrier aircraft;[1] fifteen launches were also made from ground launchers at NOTS' China Lake range.[3] However, in 1953 the program was cancelled, as better missiles were becoming available.[1] An advanced version of Meteor, Meteor II, was assigned to be built by United Aircraft; it was intended to have a solid-fueled booster rocket with a ramjet sustainer stage, but was not built.[3]
73.2 References Citations 264
• Babcock, Elizabeth (2008). Magnificent Mavericks: transition of the Naval Ordnance Test Station from rocket station to research, development, test and evaluation center, 1948-58. History of the Navy at China Lake, California 3. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. ISBN 978-0945274568. • Friedman, Norman (1982). U.S. Naval Weapons: every gun, missile, mine, and torpedo used by the U.S. Navy from 1883 to the present day. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-0-87021-735-7. • Ordway, Frederick Ira; Ronald C. Wakeford (1960). International Missile and Spacecraft Guide. New York: McGraw-Hill. ASIN B000MAEGVC. • Parsch, Andreas (2003). “MIT/Bell AAM-N-5 Meteor”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles Appendix 1: Early Missiles and Drones. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2013-01-21.
Chapter 74
AIM-26 Falcon 74.1 Development
Artwork on warhead of AIM-26A on display at the National Museum of Naval Aviation.
Starting in 1956 Hughes Electronics began the development of an enlarged version of the GAR-1D Falcon that would carry a nuclear warhead. It was intended to provide a sure kill in attacks on Soviet heavy bomber aircraft. The original development was for semi-active radar homing and heat-seeking versions based on the conventional GAR-1/GAR-2 weapons, under the designations GAR5 and GAR-6, respectively. The program was canceled, but was later revived in 1959. The resultant GAR-11 (later AIM-26A) entered service in 1961, carried by Air Defense Command F-102 Delta Dagger interceptors. It used a radar proximity fuze and semi-active radar homing. The GAR-11 used a sub-kiloton (250 ton) W54 warhead shared with the 'Davy Crockett' M-388 recoilless rifle projectile, rather than the larger W25 warhead of the AIR-2 Genie nuclear rocket. Out of concern for the problems inherent in using nuclear weapons over friendly territory, a conventional version of the GAR-11, the GAR-11A, was developed, using a 40 lb (18.1 kg) conventional high-explosive warhead. After 1963 the weapon was redesignated AIM-26. The nuclear version became AIM-26A, the conventional model AIM-26B. From 1970 to 1972 the nuclear warheads of the AIM-26A weapons were rebuilt for the nuclear version of the AGM-62 Walleye glide bomb.
The AIM-26 saw little widespread use in American service, retiring in 1972. The conventional AIM-26B was exported to Switzerland as the HM-55, where it was used on Swiss Mirage IIIS fighters. The AIM-26B was proThe AIM-26 Falcon was a larger, more powerful version duced under license in Sweden as the Rb 27 and modiof the AIM-4 Falcon air-to-air missile built by Hughes. It fied, arming Saab Draken J-35F and 35J fighters, plus AJis the only guided U.S. air-to-air weapon with a nuclear 37 Viggen. It was retired in 1998. When Finland bought warhead, though the unguided AIR-2 Genie was also Saab Draken fighters the license-manufactured Swedish nuclear-armed. Falcons were included. 265
266
CHAPTER 74. AIM-26 FALCON
74.2 Specifications (GAR-11/AIM26A) • Length: 84.25 in (2.140 m) • Wingspan: 24.4 in (62 cm) • Diameter: 11.4 in (29 cm) • Weight: 203 lb (92 kg) • Speed: Mach 2 • Range: 6 mi (9.7 km) • Guidance: semi-active radar homing • Warhead: W54 nuclear, explosive yield 250 t TNT equivalent
74.3 Survivors Below is a list of museums which have an AIM-26 in their collection: • Museum of Aviation, Warner Robins, Georgia (AIM-26 A) • National Museum of Naval Aviation, Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida (AIM-26 A) • DVHAA Historical Aircraft Museum, Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove, Pennsylvania (AIM-26 A) • Keski-Suomen ilmailumuseo / Aviation Museum of Central Finland, Finland (AIM-26 B / RB 27) • Robotmuseum / Robot Museum Arboga, Sweden (AIM-26 B / RB 27) • Västerås Flygmuseum / Västerås Aviation Museum Västerås, Sweden (AIM-26 B / RB 27)
74.4 See also • W54 Warhead • List of missiles • Related Development • AIM-4 Falcon • AIM-47 Falcon • AIM-54 Phoenix
74.5 External links
Chapter 75
AIM-47 Falcon
An AIM-47A waiting to be loaded aboard a YF-12.
The Hughes AIM-47 Falcon, originally GAR-9, was a very long-range high-performance air-to-air missile that shared the basic design of the earlier AIM-4 Falcon. It was developed in 1958 along with the new Hughes AN/ASG-18 radar fire-control system intended to arm the Mach 3 XF-108 Rapier interceptor aircraft. It was never used operationally, but was a direct predecessor of the AIM-54 Phoenix.
75.1 Development 75.1.1
Development for XF-108
In the early 1950s, the United States Air Force developed a requirements for a high speed, high performance interceptor aircraft, originally called the LRI-X. In 1957, Hughes won the contract to supply the weapons system for this aircraft. This system consisted of the GAR-X missile and the YX-1 radar and fire control system. The original missile design had a range of 15 to 25 miles (25 to 40 km), and could be equipped with a conventional warhead or a 0.25 kiloton version of the W42 nuclear warhead. When the North American XF-108 Rapier was announced as the winner of the LRI-X contest in April 1958, the Hughes entries were redesignated GAR-9 and AN/ASG-18 on the same day. The F-108 was cancelled in September 1959, but the Air Force decided to continue development of the missile system with both warheads.[1]
During its development, the capabilities of the new missile grew tremendously. Growing much larger, the missile’s range was extended to 100 miles (160 km), using the Aerojet-General XM59 solid-fuel motor. Since this would be beyond the range of effective semi-active radar homing, a new active-radar terminal seeker was added to the missile. This seeker was a powerful system of its own, with no effective maximum range and the resolution to be able to lock onto a 100-square-foot (9.3 m2 ) target at 63 nm (116 km). Even the seeker was changed at one point, with the addition of a passive infrared homing seeker to improve terminal performance. However, that would have required the missile to grow by 180 lb (82 kg), and in diameter by two inches, making it too large for the F-108’s weapon bay. The W-42 nuclear version was dropped in 1958 in favor of a 100 pound high-explosive design.[1] Problems with the motor during development led to the brief consideration of using a storable liquid-fuel rocket design, but was replaced instead by the Lockheed XSR13-LP-1 solid rocket. This lowered the top speed from Mach 6 to Mach 4. In this form the GAR-9 started ground firings in August 1961. For air-launch testing at supersonic speeds the Republic XF-103 had originally been proposed as a test platform, but this aircraft was cancelled before reaching the prototype stage. Instead, B-58 Hustler s/n 55-665 was modified to house the AN/ASG18 radar in a large protruding radome that gave it the nickname “Snoopy”, and in-flight launches started in May 1962.
75.1.2 Development for YF-12 In 1960 Lockheed started development of the Lockheed YF-12 interceptor, as a lower-cost replacement for the F108. The GAR-9/ASG-18 were moved to this project. The F-12 would have featured four flip-open internal weapons bays on the chines behind the cockpit, one of these filled with electronics. The F-12B bays were too small for the GAR-9, so the GAR-9B was developed with flip-out fins to reduce its diameter. It weighed 365 kilograms (805 lb).[2] Test firings of the GAR-9A from the prototype F-12As resulted in six kills from seven launches, the lone miss due
267
268 to a missile power failure (there were several non-guiding test launches as well). The missile was renamed AIM-47 in the fall of 1962 as part of the transition to common naming for aerospace vehicles across the U.S. Department of Defense in 1962. The last launch was from a YF-12 flying at Mach 3.2 and an altitude of 74,400 feet (22,677 m) at a QB-47 target drone 500 feet (152 m) off the ground.[3] In 1966, the F-12 project was cancelled just as the F-108 had been. Another project which expressed an interest in the design was the XB-70 Valkyrie, a bomber which could have carried the AIM-47 for self-defense. This aircraft was also cancelled after Soviet deployment of effective high-altitude surface-to-air missiles made highaltitude attacks on the Soviet Union impractical. In all, Hughes had built some 80 pre-production AIM-47 missiles.
75.2 Legacy The AIM-47 was used as a base for the AIM-54 Phoenix (originally the AAM-N-11), intended for the General Dynamics F-111B. This project was also canceled in 1968, but the weapon system finally found a home on the F-14 Tomcat, entering service in the early 1970s. In 1966, the basic airframe was adapted with the seeker from the AGM-45 Shrike and the 250 lb (110 kg) warhead from the Mk. 81 bomb to create the high-speed AGM-76 Falcon anti-radar missile, although this did not see service.[4]
75.3 See also • Missile designation
75.4 References [1] Sean O'Connor, Hughes GAR-9/AIM-47 Falcon, Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles, 2004 [2] “AIM-47 (GAR-9) Falcon long-range air-to-air missile”. Testpilot.ru. Retrieved 2015-01-25. [3] B. Rich, Skunk Works (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1994), p. 236 [4] Andreas Parsch, Hughes AGM-76 Falcon, Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles, 2004
75.5 External links • AIM-47 Falcon missile launch
CHAPTER 75. AIM-47 FALCON
Chapter 76
AIM-54 Phoenix The AIM-54 Phoenix is a radar-guided, long-range airto-air missile (AAM), carried in clusters of up to six missiles on the Grumman F-14 Tomcat, its only launch platform. The Phoenix was the United States’ only long-range air-to-air missile. The combination of Phoenix missile and the AN/AWG-9 guidance radar was the first aerial weapons system that could simultaneously engage multiple targets. Both the missile and the aircraft were used by the United States Navy and are now retired, the AIM54 Phoenix in 2004 and the F-14 in 2006. They were replaced by the shorter-range AIM-120 AMRAAM, employed on the F/A-18 Hornet and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Following the retirement of the F-14 by the U.S. Navy, the weapon’s only current operator is the Islamic An AIM-54A launched from the NA-3A-testbed in 1966 Republic of Iran Air Force. Brevity code “Fox Three” was used when firing the AIM-54.
76.1.2 AIM-54 In the early 1960s Navy made the next interceptor attempt with the F-111B, and they needed a new missile 76.1 Development design. At the same time, the USAF canceled the projects for their land-based high-speed interceptor aircraft, the North American XF-108 Rapier and the Lockheed YF76.1.1 Background 12, and left the capable AIM-47 Falcon missile at a quite advanced stage of development, but with no effective Since 1951, the Navy faced the initial threat from launch platform. the Tupolev Tu-4K 'Bull' carrying[2] anti-ship missiles. The AIM-54 Phoenix, developed for the F-111B fleet air Eventually, during the height of the Cold War, the threat would have actually expanded into regimental- defense fighter, had an airframe with four cruciform fins that was a scaled-up version of the AIM-47. One characsize raids of Tu-16 Badger and Tu-22M Backfire bombers equipped with low-flying, long-range, high- teristic of the Missileer ancestry was that the radar sent speed, nuclear-armed cruise missiles and considerable it mid-course corrections, which allowed the fire control system to “loft” the missile up over the target into thinner Electronic Counter Measures (ECM) of various types. air where it had better range. The Navy would require a long-range, long-endurance interceptor aircraft to defend carrier battle groups against The F-111B was canceled in 1968. Its weapons system, this threat. The proposed F6D Missileer was intended the AIM-54 working with the AWG-9 radar, migrated to to fulfill this mission and oppose the attack far from the the new U.S. Navy fighter project, the VFX, which would fleet it was defending. The weapon needed for interceptor later become the F-14 Tomcat. aircraft, the Bendix AAM-N-10 Eagle, was to be an air- In 1977, development of a significantly improved to-air missile of unprecedented range when compared to Phoenix version, the AIM-54C, was developed to betcontemporary AIM-7 Sparrow missiles. It would work ter counter projected threats from tactical anti-naval airtogether with Westinghouse AN/APQ-81 radar. How- craft and cruise missiles, and its final upgrade included ever, the Missileer project was cancelled in December a re-programmable memory capability to keep pace with 1960. emerging ECM.[3] 269
270
CHAPTER 76. AIM-54 PHOENIX
76.2 Usage in comparison to other weapon systems The AIM-54/AWG-9 combination had multiple track capability (up to 24 targets) and launch (up to 6 Phoenixes can be launched nearly simultaneously); the large 1,000 lb (500 kg) missile is equipped with a conventional warhead. On the F-14, 4 missiles can be carried under the fuselage tunnel attached to special aerodynamic pallets, plus 2 under glove stations. A full load of 6 Phoenix missiles and the unique launch rails weigh in at over 8,000 lb (3,600 kg), about twice the weight of Sparrows, so it was more common to carry a mixed load of 4 Phoenix, 2 Sparrow AIM-54 Phoenix seconds after launch (1991) and 2 Sidewinder missiles. Most other US aircraft relied on the smaller, semi-active 76.3 medium range AIM-7 Sparrow. Semi-active guidance meant the aircraft no longer had a search capability while supporting the launched Sparrow, reducing situational 76.3.1 awareness.
Service history U.S. combat experience
The Tomcat’s radar could track up to 24 targets in TrackWhile-Scan mode, with the AWG-9 selecting up to six potential targets for the missiles. The pilot or Radar Intercept Officer (RIO) could then launch the Phoenix missiles once launch parameters were met. The large Tactical Information Display (TID) in the RIO’s cockpit gave information to the aircrew (the pilot had the ability to monitor the RIO’s display) and the radar could continually search and track multiple targets after Phoenix missiles An AIM-54 hitting a QF-4B target drone, 1983. were launched, thereby maintaining situational awareness of the battlespace. • The Gulf of Sidra incident (1981), in which AmerThe Link-4 datalink allowed US Navy Tomcats to share ican F-14s shot down 2 Libyan Su-22s, is someinformation with the E-2C Hawkeye AEW aircraft, and times thought to have involved AIM-54s. However, during Desert Shield in 1990, the Link-4A was introthe engagement was conducted at short ranges usduced and allowed the Tomcats to have a fighter-to-fighter ing the AIM-9 Sidewinder.[5] The other US F-14 datalink capability, further enhancing overall situational fighter to fighter engagement, the Gulf of Sidra inciawareness. The F-14D entered service with the JTIDS dent (1989), used AIM-7 Sparrow and Sidewinder that brought the even better Link-16 datalink “picture” to missiles, but not the Phoenix.[6] the cockpit. • On January 5, 1999, a pair of US F-14s fired two Phoenixes at Iraqi MiG-25s southeast of Baghdad. Both AIM-54s’ rocket motors failed and neither 76.2.1 Active guidance missile hit its target.[7][8] The Phoenix has several guidance modes and achieves its longest range by using mid-course updates from the F-14A/B AWG-9 radar (APG-71 radar in the F-14D) as it climbs to cruise between 80,000 ft (24,000 m) and 100,000 ft (30,000 m) at close to Mach 5. Phoenix uses this high altitude to gain gravitational potential energy, which is later converted into kinetic energy as the missile dives at high velocity towards its target. At around 11 miles (18 km) from the target, the missile activates its own radar to provide terminal guidance.[4] Minimum engagement range for the Phoenix is around 2 nmi (3.7 km) and active homing would initiate upon launch.[4]
• On September 9, 1999 another US F-14 launched an AIM-54 at an Iraqi MiG-23 that was heading south into the No-Fly Zone from Al Taqaddum air base west of Baghdad. The missile missed, eventually going into the ground after the Iraqi fighter reversed course and fled north.[9] The AIM-54 Phoenix was retired from USN service on September 30, 2004. F-14 Tomcats were retired on September 22, 2006. They were replaced by shorterrange AIM-120 AMRAAMs, employed on the F/A18E/F Super Hornet. Both the F-14 Tomcat and AIM-54
76.4. VARIANTS
271 use of its 79 F-14A Tomcats (delivered prior to 1979) in most western outlets; the exception being a book released by Osprey Publishing titled “Iranian F-14 Tomcats in Combat” by Tom Cooper and Farzad Bishop.[10] Most of the research contained in the book was based on pilot interviews. Reports vary on the use of the 285 missiles supplied to Iran,[11] during the Iran–Iraq War, 1980–88.
An AIM-54 Phoenix being attached to an F-14 wing pylon before the forward fins were installed (2003).
Phoenix missile continue in the service of the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force, although the operational abilities of these aircraft and the missiles are questionable, since the US refused to supply spare parts and maintenance after the 1979 revolution, except for a brief period during the Iran-Contra Affair. Despite the much-vaunted capabilities, the Phoenix was rarely used in combat, with only two confirmed launches and no confirmed targets destroyed in US Navy service, though a large number of kills were claimed by Iranian F-14s during the Iran–Iraq War. The USAF F-15 Eagle had responsibility for overland Combat Air Patrol (CAP) duties in Desert Storm in 1991, primarily because of the onboard F-15 IFF capabilities. The Tomcat did not have the requisite IFF capability mandated by the JFACC to satisfy the Rules of Engagement (ROE) to utilize the Phoenix capability at Beyond Visual Range (BVR). From an engineering and service standpoint, the Phoenix could be said to be a notable success. As the only surviving member of the Falcon missile family, it was not adopted by any other nation besides Iran, any other US armed service, or used on any other aircraft. It was heavy, large, expensive and not practical in close combat compared to the Sparrow or AMRAAM.
76.3.2
Iranian combat experience
Some claim that it is unlikely that the Phoenix was used operationally. First, as difficult as the missile and fire control systems were to operate, Iran had hired many American technicians. Upon leaving, they took most of the knowledge about how to operate and maintain these complex weapon systems with them. Also, without a steady supply of engineering support from Hughes Aircraft Missile Systems Group and corresponding spares and upgrades, even a technically competent operator would have extreme difficulty fielding operational weapons. Others claim that the primary use of the F-14 was as an airborne early warning aircraft, guarded by other fighters. Supporters of these claims point to the fact that, in the 1991 Gulf War, Iraqi fighter pilots consistently turned and fled as soon as American F-14 pilots turned on their fighters’ very distinctive AN/AWG-9 radars, which suggests that Iraqi pilots had learned to avoid the F-14. According to Cooper, the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force was able to keep its F-14 fighters and AIM-54 missiles in regular use during the entire Iran–Iraq War, though periodic lack of spares grounded at times large parts of the fleet. At worst, during late 1987, the stock of AIM-54 missiles was at its lowest, with less than 50 operational missiles available. The missiles needed fresh thermal batteries that could only be purchased from the US. Iran found a clandestine buyer that supplied it with batteries — though those did cost up to US$10,000 each. Iran did receive spares and parts for both the F-14s and AIM-54s from various sources during the Iran–Iraq War, and has received more spares after the conflict. Iran started a heavy industrial program to build spares for the planes and missiles, and although there are claims that it no longer relies on outside sources to keep its F-14s and AIM-54s operational, there is evidence that Iran continues to procure parts clandestinely.[12] Iran claims to be working on building an equivalent missile.[13]
76.4 Variants
Two F-14 Tomcats of the IRIAF, armed with different types of air-to-air missiles, including AIM-54 Phoenixes.
There is very little information available regarding Iran’s
AIM-54A original model that became operational with the U.S. Navy in about 1974, and it was also exported to Iran in modest numbers before the Iran hostage crisis beginning in 1979. AIM-54B Also known as the 'Dry' missile. A version with simplified construction and no coolant condi-
272
CHAPTER 76. AIM-54 PHOENIX would have consisted of one AWG-9 radar, with associated controls and displays, and a fixed 12-cell launcher for the Phoenix missiles. In the case of an aircraft carrier, for example, at least three systems would have been fitted in order to give overlapping coverage throughout the full 360°.[15] Both land and ship based tests of modified Phoenix (AIM-54A) missiles and a containerised AWG-9 (originally the 14th example off the AN/AWG-9 production line) were successfully carried out from 1974 onwards.[16]
AIM-54B A land based version for the USMC was also proposed. It has been suggested that the AIM-54B would have been used in operational Sea Phoenix systems, although that version had been cancelled by An AIM-54A “Phoenix” missile on display at Grumman Memothe second half of the 1970s. Ultimately, a mix of rial Park in New York State. budgetary and political issues meant that, despite being technically and operationally attractive, further tioning. Did not enter series production. Developdevelopment of the Sea Phoenix did not proceed. mental work started in January 1972. 7 X-AIM-54B missiles were created for testing, 6 of them by mod- Fakour 90 In February 2013 Iran reportedly tested an indigenous long-range air-to-air missile.[17] In ifying pilot production IVE/PIP rounds. After two September 2013 it displayed Fakour 2013 on a milsuccessful test firings, the 'Dry' missile effort was itary parade which looked almost identical to AIMcancelled for being “not cost effective”.[14] 54 Phoenix.[18] AIM-54C lone improved model was ever produced. It used digital electronics in the place of the analog electronics of the AIM-54A. This model had better 76.5 Characteristics abilities to shoot down low and high-altitude antiship missiles. This model took over from the AIM-54A beginning in 1986. AIM-54 ECCM/Sealed round more capabilities in electronic counter-countermeasures. It did not require coolant conditioning during flights on board F-14s and not fired (the usual situation). Deployed beginning in 1988. Because the AIM-54 ECCM/Sealed received no coolant, F-14s carrying this version of the missile could not exceed a specified airspeed. There were also test, evaluation, ground training, and captive air training versions of the missile; designated ATM- A technical drawing of AIM-54C 54, AEM-54, DATM-54A, and CATM-54. The flight versions had A and C versions. The DATM-54 was not The following is a list AIM-54 Phoenix specifications:[19] made in a C version as there was no change in the ground handling characteristics. • Primary function: Long-range air-launched air intercept missile Sea Phoenix A 1970s proposal for a ship launched version of the Phoenix as an alternative/replacement • Contractor: Hughes Aircraft Company and for the Sea Sparrow point defense system. It would Raytheon Corporation also have provided a medium range SAM capabil• Unit cost: About $477,000, but this varied greatly ity for smaller and/or non-Aegis equipped vessels (such as the CVV). The Sea Phoenix system would • Power Plant: Solid propellant rocket motor built by have included a modified shipborne version of the Hercules Incorporated AN/AWG-9 radar. Hughes Aircraft touted the fact that 27 out of 29 major elements of the standard • Length: 13 ft (4.0 m) (airborne) AN/AWG-9 could be used in the ship• Weight: 1,000–1,040 pounds (450–470 kg) borne version with little modification. Each system
76.8. EXTERNAL LINKS • Diameter: 15 in (380 mm) • Wing span: 3 ft (910 mm) • Range: over 100 nautical miles (120 mi; 190 km)* • Speed: 3,000+ mph (4,680+ km/h) • Guidance system: Semi-active and active radar homing • Warheads: Proximity fuze, high explosive • Warhead weight: 135 pounds (61 kg) • Users: US (U.S. Navy), Iran (IRIAF) • Date deployed: 1974 • Date retired (U.S.): September 30, 2004 • Actual Range Classified
76.6 See also
273
[6] Magnuson, Ed; Chavira, Ricardo; Van Voorst, Chavira. (1989, January 16). “Chemical Reaction: The US presses Libya over a nerve-gas plant”. Time Europe. Retrieved 28 November 2010. [7] DoD News Briefing January 5, 1999 [8] Parsons, Dave, George Hall and Bob Lawson. (2006). Grumman F-14 Tomcat: Bye-Bye Baby...!: Images & Reminiscences From 35 Years of Active Service. Zenith Press, p. 73. ISBN 0-7603-3981-3. [9] Tony Holmes, “US Navy F-14 Tomcat Units of Operation Iraqi Freedom”, Osprey Publishing (2005). Chapter One – OSW, pp. 16–7. [10] “Book: Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat”. Acig. Archived from the original on 30 January 2010. Retrieved 3 February 2010. [11] “Iranian Air Force F-14”. Aerospace Web. Retrieved 3 February 2010. [12] Theimer, Sharon. “Iran Gets Army Gear in Pentagon Sale”. Forbes. Archived from the original on 19 January 2007. Retrieved 17 January 2007.
• AIM-152 AAAM (Proposed successor.)
[13] Iran eyes missile stronger than Phoenix, IR: Press TV.
• AIM-47 Falcon
[14] “Budget estimates descriptive summaries”, Supporting data for fiscal year 1983, Department of the Navy.
• Vympel R-33 (AA-9 Amos), the Russian air-to-air missile most similar to the AIM-54 Phoenix) • List of missiles • Missile designation • Combat history of the F-14
[15] Weapon Systems, Jane’s, 1977. [16] Tarpgaard, PT (1976), “The Sea Phoenix—A Warship Design Study”, ASNE 88 (2): 31–44. [17] Iran test-fires latest air-to-air missile, IR: Press TV, Feb 10, 2013. [18] “Farouk missile”, The Avionist, Sep 26, 2013.
Related lists • List of military aircraft of the United States
[19] “Fact File: AIM-54 Phoenix Missile”. U.S. Navy. Archived from the original on 29 June 2011. Retrieved 14 July 2011.
• List of missiles
76.8 External links 76.7 References [1] the great book of modern warplanes. New York, New York: Salamander Books Ltd. 1987. [2] Zaloga, S.J.; Laurier, J. (2005). V-1 Flying Bomb, 194252: Hitler’s Infamous “Doodlebug”. Osprey Publishing, Limited. ISBN 9781841767918. Retrieved 3 October 2014. [3] “Raytheon AIM-54 Phoenix”. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 3 October 2014. [4] “AIM-54”. (2004) Directory of US Military Rockets and Missiles. Retrieved 28 November 2010. [5] A Country Study of Libya. (1987, December). US Department of State. Chapter 5, Encounters with the United States. Retrieved 28 November 2010.
• NASA Dryden Flight Research Center - Phoenix Missile Hypersonic Testbed
Chapter 77
AIM-68 Big Q There have been attempts to reuse the −68 designation; notably the U.S. Navy wanted their new Standard Block V missile to be known as the RIM-68A. This failed (the designation RIM-156A was used instead). In 1995, the Navy tried to change it again—apparently wanting an op77.1 Overview erational missile to have a continuous run with the RIM66 Standard MR and RIM-67 Standard ER designations. The Big Q began life in 1963 as a replacement for the The request was refused again. AIR-2 Genie rocket. The Genie was unguided, and had generally poor flight performance characteristics. The Big Q was to be a much more capable weapon, intended 77.2 Specifications to engage Soviet bombers. The AIM-68 is an American air-to-air missile design. It never entered production.
Big Q is actually a nickname only. The right to name the missile was given to the initial designer, 1st Lt John McMasters, who chose the name of the Aztec serpent god Quetzalcoatl. This led to a tremendous number of pronunciation and spelling errors until virtually everybody associated with the project referred to it as Big Q for short.
• Length : 2.92 m (9 ft 7 in) • Wingspan : 86 cm (2 ft 10 in) (with the wings extended) • Diameter : 35 cm (1 ft 2 in) • Weight : 225 kg (496 lb)
In 1965 the ZAIM-68A designation was assigned to the missile. A 20% model was successfully tested in a wind tunnel during that year and in June a contract was awarded to National Tapered Wing Engineering Company to produce 20 fuselage sections for prototype missiles. The AIM-68 was designed with a dual-thrust solidpropellant rocket and was capable of reaching speeds of Mach 4 over its 65-kilometre (40 mi) range. The prototypes were fitted with infrared guidance systems from GAR-2A/B (AIM-4C/D) Falcon missiles; the rocket motor from the AGM-12 Bullpup was used for propulsion. The warhead was a W30 0.5 kiloton nuclear warhead, smaller than the 1.5 kiloton model used on the Genie. The guidance system allowed the missile to be used against maneuvering targets, including single bombers, rather than whole formations as was the case for the Genie. The reduced yield and greater range also made using the weapon a far less hazardous prospect for the launching aircraft.
• Speed : Mach 4 • Range : 65 km (40 mi) • Propulsion : Solid-fuel rocket • Warhead : W-30 nuclear (0.5 kt)
77.3 External links
Potential users of the Big Q included the F-101B, F102A, F-106A, F-4C. The size of the missile was dictated by these choices, as some of the aircraft carried weapons in an internal bay. As part of the effort to keep the size down, the missile was fitted with fold-out sections on the main wings. 274
• Air Force Weapons Lab AIM-68 Big Q - Designation Systems
Chapter 78
AIM-82 The AIM-82 was a missile planned by the United States of America but cancelled before any prototypes were built.
78.3 See also • AIM-9 Sidewinder • AIM-95 Agile • List of missiles
78.1 Overview In 1969 the US Air Force was developing the F-15 Eagle fighter. Planned as the ultimate air superiority aircraft, the F-15 was intended to be as perfect as possible in every respect. Rather than rely on the existing AIM9 Sidewinder, it was decided to develop an entirely new short-range air-to-air missile to equip the aircraft. The AIM-82 was to be an all-aspect missile, capable of locking onto the target from any angle—Sidewinders of this period could only achieve a target lock if fired from almost directly behind the target where the heat of the engines provided a large infrared signature to the missile’s seeker head. Infra red guidance would give the missile a fire-and-forget capability, allowing the firing aircraft to break contact as soon as it was launched.
78.4 References
In 1970 a development contract was awarded to General Dynamics, Hughes Aircraft and Philco-Ford. Proposals were submitted later that year, but in that September the AIM-82 was canceled. The main reason was the existence of the United States Navy AIM-95 Agile program, which was developing a new short range air-to-air missile for the F-14 Tomcat. Inter-service rivalry aside, there seemed little point in developing two missiles to perform essentially identical roles, so development on the AIM95 was authorized. Eventually the AIM-95 was also canceled and the AIM-9 was updated to remain in service— and indeed remains in service to this day.
78.2 Specifications The AIM-82 was canceled at a stage where the basic design had not been selected; as a result, no specifications exist for the proposed missile. 275
Chapter 79
AIM-4 Falcon The Hughes AIM-4 Falcon was the first operational guided air-to-air missile of the United States Air Force. Development began in 1946; the weapon was first tested in 1949. The missile entered service with the USAF in 1956. Produced in both heat-seeking and radar-guided versions, the missile served during the Vietnam War with USAF McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II units. Designed to shoot down slow bombers with limited maneuverability, it was ineffective against maneuverable fighters over Vietnam. Lacking proximity fusing, the missile would only detonate if a direct hit was scored. Only five kills were recorded.
also hoped to use them on the Avro CF-105 Arrow interceptor; however, this was never realized because of the Arrow’s cancellation. Fighters carrying the Falcon were often designed with internal weapons bays for carrying this missile. The Scorpion carried them on wingtip pods, while the Delta Dagger and Delta Dart had belly bays with a trapeze mechanism to move them into the airstream for launch (see picture above). The F-101B had an unusual bay arrangement where two were stored externally, and then the bay door would rotate to expose two more missiles. It is likely the F-111 Aardvark's internal bay would have accommodated the missile as well, but by the time of service, the Air Force had already dropped the Falcon for use against fighters, as well as the idea of using the F-111 as an air combat fighter.
With the AIM-4’s poor kill record rendering the F-4 ineffective at air-to-air combat, the fighters were modified to carry the AIM-9 Sidewinder missile instead. The Sidewinder was much more effective and continues to The GAR-1 had semi-active radar homing (SARH), givserve the armed forces of the United States to this day. ing a range of about 5 mi (8.0 km). About 4,000 missiles were produced. It was replaced in production by the GAR-1D (later AIM-4A), with larger control surfaces. About 12,000 of this variant were produced, the major 79.1 Development production version of the SARH Falcon.
The GAR-2 (later AIM-4B) was a heat-seeker, generally limited to rear-aspect engagements, but with the advantage of being a 'fire and forget' weapon. As would also be Soviet practice, it was common to fire the weapon in salvos of both types to increase the chances of a hit (a heat-seeking missile fired first, followed moments later by a radar-guided missile). The GAR-2 was about 1.5 in (40 mm) longer and 16 lb (7 kg) heavier than its SARH counterpart. Its range was similar. It was replaced in proThe first test firings took place in 1949, at which time it duction by the GAR-2A (laterd AIM-4C), with a more was designated AAM-A-2 and given the popular name sensitive infrared seeker. A total of about 26,000 of the Falcon. A brief policy of awarding fighter and bomber infrared-homing Falcons were built. designations to missiles led it to be redesignated F-98 in All of the early Falcons had a small 7.6 lb (3.4 kg) war1951. In 1955, the policy changed again, and the missile head, limiting their lethal radius. Also limiting them tacwas again redesignated GAR-1. tically was the fact that Falcon lacked a proximity fuze: The initial GAR-1 and GAR-2 models entered ser- the fuzing for the missile was in the leading edges of the vice in 1956.[1] It armed the Northrop F-89 Scorpion, wings, requiring a direct hit to detonate. McDonnell F-101B Voodoo and Convair F-102 Delta In 1958, Hughes introduced a slightly enlarged version of Dagger and F-106 Delta Dart interceptors. The only the Falcon, initially dubbed Super Falcon, with a more other users were Canada, Finland, Sweden and Switzerpowerful, longer-burning rocket engine, increasing speed land, whose CF-101 Voodoo, Saab 35 Draken and and range. It had a larger warhead (28.7 lb / 13 kg) Dassault Mirage IIIS carried the AIM-4 Falcon. Canada Development of a guided air-to-air missile began in 1946. Hughes Aircraft was awarded a contract for a subsonic missile under the project designation MX-798, which soon gave way to the supersonic MX-904 in 1947. The original purpose of the weapon was as a self-defense weapon for bomber aircraft, but after 1950 it was decided that it should arm fighter aircraft instead, particularly in the interception role.
276
79.2. OPERATIONAL HISTORY
277 2 weapon with the improved IR seeker of the GAR4A/AIM-4G. A larger version of the Falcon carrying a 0.25-kiloton nuclear warhead was developed as the GAR-11 (later designated the AIM-26 Falcon), while a long-range version was developed for the North American XF-108 Rapier and Lockheed YF-12 interceptors as the GAR-9 (later AIM-47 Falcon).
79.2 Operational history 119th Fighter Wing weapons handlers with an AIM-4C, 1972.
The Air Force deployed AIM-4 in May 1967 during the Vietnam War on the new F-4D Phantom II, which carried it on the inner wing pylons and was not wired to carry the AIM-9 Sidewinder. The missile’s combat performance was very poor. The Falcon, already operational on Air Defense Command aircraft, was designed to be used against bombers, and its slow seeker cooling times (as much as six or seven seconds to obtain a lock on a target) rendered it largely ineffective against maneuvering fighters. Moreover, it could only be cooled once. Limited coolant supply meant that once cooled, the missile would expend its supply of liquid nitrogen in two minutes, rendering it useless on the rail. The missile also had a small warhead, and lacked proximity fusing. As a result, only five kills were scored, all with the AIM-4D version.[2] (The Falcon was also experimentally fired by the F-102 Delta Dagger against ground targets at night using its infrared seeker.)
AIM-9B and J next to HM-55 and HM-58 All used by the SwAF A New Jersey ANG F-106A launching an AIM-4, 1984.
and better guidance systems. The SARH versions were GAR-3 (AIM-4E) and the improved GAR-3A (AIM4F). The infrared version was the GAR-4A (AIM-4G). About 2,700 SARH missiles and 3,400 IR Super Falcons were produced, replacing most earlier versions of the weapon in service. The Falcon was redesignated AIM-4 in September 1962. The final version of the original Falcon was the GAR2B (later AIM-4D), which entered service in 1963. This was intended as a fighter combat weapon, combining the lighter, smaller airframe of the earlier GAR-1/GAR-
The weapon was unpopular with pilots from the onset and was supplemented or partially withdrawn in 1969, to be replaced in the F-4D by the Sidewinder after retrofitting the proper wiring. Col. Robin Olds, commanding the F-4D-equipped 8th Tactical Fighter Wing, was an outspoken critic of the missile and said of it: By the beginning of June, we all hated the new AIM-4 Falcon missiles. I loathed the damned useless things. I wanted my Sidewinders back. In two missions I had fired
278
CHAPTER 79. AIM-4 FALCON seven or eight of the bloody things and not one guided. They were worse than I had anticipated. Sometimes they refused to launch; sometimes they just cruised off into the blue without guiding. In the thick of an engagement with my head twisting and turning, trying to keep track of friend and foe, I'd forget which of the four I had (already) selected and couldn't tell which of the remaining was perking and which head was already expiring on its launch rail. Twice upon returning to base I had the tech rep go over the switchology and firing sequences. We never discovered I was doing anything wrong.[3]
• Swedish Air Force – (Licence built by SAAB) Switzerland
• Swiss Air Force United States
• United States Air Force Greece
Col. Olds became exasperated with the Falcon’s poor combat performance. He ordered his entire fighter wing rewire the F-4D’s to carry more reliable Sidewinders. Although it was an unauthorized field modification, the entire air force eventually followed his example. An effort to address the limitations of AIM-4D led to the development in 1970 of the XAIM-4H, which had a laser proximity fuze, new warhead, and better maneuverability. It was cancelled the following year without entering service.
79.2.1
• Hellenic Air Force Turkey
• Turkish Air Force
Vietnam War: U.S. AIM-4 Falcon 79.4 Air to Air Victories
Specifications (GAR-1D/ −2B / AIM-4C/D)
The AIM-4F/AIM-4G Super Falcon remained in USAF and ANG service, primarily with Convair F-102 Delta Dagger and F-106 Delta Dart interceptors, until the final retirement of the F-106 in 1988. The AIM-4C was also produced as the HM-58 for the Swiss Air Force for use on the Dassault Mirage IIIS, and license-manufactured in Sweden for the Swedish Air Force (as the Rb 28) to equip the Saab 35 Draken and 37 Viggen. The seeker of the missile was also re-designed.
79.3 Operators Canada
• Length: 78 in (2.0 m) / 79.5 in (2.02 m) • Wingspan: 20 in (510 mm)
• Royal Canadian Air Force
• Diameter: 6.4 in (160 mm)
• Canadian Forces
• Weight: 119 lb (54 kg) / 135 lb (61 kg)
Finland
• Speed: Mach 3 • Range 6 mi (9.7 km)
• Finnish Air Force – (Swedish built missiles) Sweden
• Guidance: semi-active radar homing / rear-aspect infrared homing • Warhead: 7.6 lb (3.4 kg) high explosive
79.6. REFERENCES
79.5 See also Related Development: • AIM-26 Falcon • AIM-47 Falcon • AIM-54 Phoenix
79.6 References 79.6.1
Notes
[1] Cyprus Riots, 1956/05/31 (1956). Universal Newsreel. 1956. Retrieved February 22, 2012. [2] Davies, Peter E: “USAF F-4 Phantom II MiG Killers 1965-68”, page 86. Osprey Publishing, 2004 [3] Olds, Robin. (2010) Fighter Pilot: The Memoirs of Legendary Ace Robin Olds , St. Martin’s Press, ISBN 978-0312-56023-2, p. 314. [4] McCarthy Jr. p. 152, 153 [5] Michel III p. 156
79.6.2
Bibliography
• The history of the Falcon missile, and its various configurations, is examined in Gart, Jason H. “Electronics and Aerospace Industry in Cold War Arizona, 1945-1968: Motorola, Hughes Aircraft, Goodyear Aircraft.” Phd diss., Arizona State University, 2006. • McCarthy Jr. Donald J. MiG Killers, A Chronology of U.S. Air Victories in Vietnam 1965-1973. 2009, Specialty Press. ISBN 978-1-58007-136-9. • Michel III, Marshall L. Clashes, Air Combat Over North Vietnam 1965-1972. 1997, Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-59114-519-6.
279
Chapter 80
AIM-7 Sparrow “AIM7” redirects here. For the AIM7 systems benchmark, see AIM Multiuser Benchmark. “Sparrow missile” redirects here. For the Israeli ballistic target missile, see Sparrow (target missile). The AIM-7 Sparrow is an American, medium-range semi-active radar homing air-to-air missile operated by the United States Air Force, United States Navy and United States Marine Corps, as well as other various air forces and navies. Sparrow and its derivatives were the West’s principal beyond visual range (BVR) air-to-air missile from the late 1950s until the 1990s. It remains in service, although it is being phased out in aviation applications in favor of the more advanced AIM-120 AMRAAM. The Self-Defence Forces of Japan also employ the Sparrow missile, though it is being phased out and replaced by the Mitsubishi AAM-4. NATO pilots use the brevity code Fox One in radio communication to signal launch of a Semi-Active Radar Homing Missile such as the Sparrow.[2]
The Sparrow emerged from a late-1940s United States Navy program to develop a guided rocket weapon for air-to-air use. In 1947 the Navy contracted Sperry to build a beam riding version of a standard 5-inch (127 mm) HVAR, the standard unguided aerial rocket, under Project Hotshot. The weapon was initially dubbed KAS-1, then AAM-2, and, from 1948 on, AAM-N-2. The airframe was developed by Douglas Aircraft Company. The diameter of the HVAR proved to be inadequate for the electronics, leading Douglas to expand the missile’s airframe to 8-inch (203 mm) diameter. The prototype weapon began unpowered flight-tests in 1947, and made its first aerial interception in 1952.[1]
After a protracted development cycle the initial AAMN-2 Sparrow entered limited operational service in 1954 with specially modified Skyknights all weather carrier night fighters.[3] And in 1956, they were carried by the F3H-2M Demon and F7U Cutlass fighter aircraft. Compared to the modern versions, the Sparrow I was more streamlined and featured a bullet-shaped airframe with a The Sparrow was used as the basis for a surface-to-air long pointed nose. missile, the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow, which is used by a num- Sparrow I was a limited and rather primitive weapon. The ber of navies for air defense of its ships. limitations of beam-riding guidance (which was slaved to an optical sight on single seater fighters and a radar with night fighters) restricted the missile to attacks against targets flying a straight course and made it essentially useless 80.1 Development against a maneuvering target. Only about 2,000 rounds were produced to this standard.
80.1.1
Sparrow I
80.1.2 Sparrow II As early as 1950 Douglas examined equipping the Sparrow with an active radar seeker, initially known as XAAM-N-2a Sparrow II, the original retroactively becoming Sparrow I. In 1952 it was given the new code AAM-N-3. The active radar made the Sparrow II a “fire and forget” weapon, allowing several to be fired at separate targets at the same time.
Sparrow I’s during tests on a F3D Skyknight in the early 1950s
By 1955 Douglas proposed going ahead with development, intending it to be the primary weapon for the F5D Skylancer interceptor. It was later selected, with some controversy, to be the primary weapon for the Canadian Avro Arrow supersonic interceptor, along with the new 280
80.1. DEVELOPMENT
281
Astra fire-control system. For Canadian use and as a second source for US missiles, Canadair was selected to build the missiles in Quebec. The small size of the missile forebody and the K-band AN/APQ-64-radar limited performance, and it was never able to work in testing. After considerable development and test firings in the U.S. and Canada, Douglas abandoned development in 1956. Canadair continued development until the Arrow was cancelled in 1959.
80.1.3
Sparrow X
A subvariant of the Sparrow I armed with the same nuclear warhead as the MB-1 Genie was proposed in 1958, but was cancelled shortly thereafter.
80.1.4
Sparrow III
Concurrently with the development of the Sparrow I, in 1951, Raytheon began work on the semi-active radar homing version of Sparrow family of missiles, the AAMN-6 Sparrow III. The first of these weapons entered United States Navy service in 1958. The AAM-N-6a was similar to the −6, but used a new Thiokol liquid-fuel rocket engine for improved performance. It also included changes to the guidance electronics to make it effective at higher closing speeds. The −6a was also selected to arm the Air Force’s F-110A Spectre (F-4 Phantom) fighters in 1962, known to them as the AIM-101. It entered production in 1959, with 7500 being built. Another upgrade reverted to a Rocketdyne solid-fuel motor for the AAM-N-6b, which started production in 1963. The new motor significantly increased maximum range to 35 kilometres (22 mi) for head-on attacks. During this year the Navy and Air Force agreed on standardized naming conventions for their missiles. The Sparrows became the AIM-7 series. The original Sparrow I and aborted Sparrow II became the AIM-7A and AIM-7B, despite both being out of service. The −6, −6a and −6B became the AIM-7C, AIM-7D and AIM-7E respectively. F3H Demon launching a Sparrow III in 1958 25,000 AIM-7Es were produced, and saw extensive use during the Vietnam War, where its performance was generally considered disappointing. The mixed results were a combination of reliability problems (exacerbated by the tropical climate), limited pilot training in fighter-tofighter combat, and restrictive rules of engagement that generally prohibited BVR (beyond visual range) engagements. The P (kill probability) of the AIM-7E was less than 10%; US fighter pilots shot down 59[Note 1] aircraft out of the 612 Sparrows fired.[4] Of the 612 AIM7D/E/E-2 missiles fired, 97 (or 15.8%) hit their targets, resulting in 56 (or 9.2%) kills. Two kills were obtained beyond visual range.[5]
In 1969 an improved version, the E-2, was introduced with clipped wings and various changes to the fuzing. Considered a “dogfight Sparrow”, the AIM-7E-2 was intended to be used at shorter ranges where the missile was still travelling at high speeds, and in the head-on aspect, making it much more useful in the visual limitations imposed on the engagements. Even so, its kill rate was only 13% in combat, leading to a practice of ripple-firing all four at once in hopes of increasing kill probability. Its worst tendency was that of detonating prematurely, approximately a thousand feet in front of the launching air-
282
CHAPTER 80. AIM-7 SPARROW
craft, but it also had many motor failures, erratic flights, 80.2 and fuzing problems. An E-3 version included additional changes to the fuzing, and an E-4 featured a modified 80.2.1 seeker for use with the F-14 Tomcat.
80.1.5
Foreign versions Canada
As part of the Avro Arrow program, Canadair partnered with Douglas in the development of the Sparrow II U.S. AIM-7 Sparrow Aerial Com- (AIM-7B). After Douglas dropped out of this program, bat Victories in the Vietnam War Canadair continued on with it until the termination of the Arrow. 1965-1973
Improved versions of the AIM-7 were developed in the 1970s in an attempt to address the weapon’s limitations. The AIM-7F, which entered service in 1976, had a dualstage rocket motor for longer range, solid-state electronics for greatly improved reliability, and a larger warhead. Even this version had room for improvement, leading British Aerospace and the Italian firm Alenia to develop advanced versions of Sparrow with better performance and improved electronics as the BAe Skyflash and Alenia Aspide, respectively. The most common version of the Sparrow today, the AIM-7M, entered service in 1982 and featured a new inverse monopulse seeker (matching the capabilities of Skyflash), active radar fuse, digital controls, improved ECM resistance, and better low-altitude performance. It was used to good advantage in the 1991 Gulf War, where it scored many USAF air-to-air kills. Of 44 missiles fired, 30 (68.2%) hit their intended targets resulting in 24/26 (54.5%/59.1%) kills. 19 kills were obtained beyond visual range.[7]
80.2.2 Italy Main article: Alenia Aspide The Italian company Finmeccanica, Alenia Difesa licensed the AIM-7E Sparrow technology from the US, and produced its own improved version called Aspide.
80.2.3 UK Main article: Skyflash
British Aerospace (BAe) licensed the AIM-7E2 technology in the 1970s, producing the Skyflash missile. Skyflash used a Marconi XJ521 monopulse Semi-Active seeker together with improvements to the electronics. It was powered by the Aerojet Mk52 mod 2 rocket engine (later by the Rocketdyne Mk38 mod 4). Skyflash entered service with the Royal Air Force (RAF) on their The AIM-7P is similar in most ways to the M versions, Phantom FG.1/FGR.2 in 1978, and later on the Tornado and was primarily an upgrade program for existing MF3. Skyflash was also exported to Sweden for use on their series missiles. The main changes were to the software, Viggen fighters. improving low-level performance. A follow-on Block II upgrade added a new rear receiver allowing the missile An upgraded version with active radar seeker, called Acto receive mid-course correction from the launching air- tive Sky Flash was proposed by BAe and Thomson-CSF, craft. Plans initially called for all M versions to be up- but did not receive funding because the RAF opted for graded, but currently P’s are being issued as required to other missiles.[8] replace M’s lost or removed from the inventory. The final version of the missile was to have been the 80.2.4 People’s Republic of China AIM-7R, which added an infrared homing seeker to an otherwise unchanged AIM-7P Block II. A general windMain article: PL-10 down of the budget led to it being cancelled in 1997. Sparrow is now being phased out with the availability of The LY-60/FD-60/PL-10 is a family of PRC missiles dethe active-radar AIM-120 AMRAAM, but is likely to reveloped by the Shanghai Academy of Science and Techmain in service for several years. nology, largely based on the Italian Aspide missile - a version of the Sparrow.[9][10] There are four versions of the • AIM-7Es being loaded on a Hawaii ANG F-4C in basic design, three of which are surface-to-air and one air-to-air. 1980 • AIM-7Fs on a 37th TFW F-4G in 1988
80.3 Design
• Wings being installed on an AIM-7 • An AIM-7M being loaded
The Sparrow has four major sections: guidance section, warhead, control, and rocket motor (currently the Her-
80.7. REFERENCES
283
cules MK-58 solid-propellant rocket motor). It has a 80.7 References cylindrical body with four wings at mid-body and four tail fins. Although the external dimensions of the Spar- Footnotes row remained relatively unchanged from model to model, the internal components of newer missiles represent ma- [1] Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles: jor improvements, with vastly increased capabilities. The Raytheon AIM-7/RIM-7 Sparrow. Designation Systems. warhead is of the continuous-rod type. As with other semi-active radar guided missiles, the missile does not generate radar signals, but instead homes in on reflected continuous-wave signals from the launch platform’s radar. The receiver also senses the guidance radar to enable comparisons that enhance the missile’s resistance to passive jamming.
80.4 Principle of guidance (semiactive version)
[2] “Multi-service Air-Air, Air-Surface, Surface-Air brevity codes”. Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC). 25 April 1997. p. 14. Retrieved 12 April 2012. [3] “Guided Missiles Ride Navy Jet.” Popular Mechanics, November 1954, p. 116. [4] Michel III p. 286, 287 [5] Barry D. Watts: Six Decades of Guided Munitions, Precision Strike Association, 25 January 2006, p. 5 http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006psa_winter_roundtable/ watts.pdf [6] McCarthy Jr., p. 148-157
The launching aircraft will illuminate the target with its [7] Barry D. Watts: Six Decades of Guided Munitions, radar. In radars of the 1950s these were single target Precision Strike Association, 25 January 2006, p. tracking devices using a nutating horn as part of the an7 http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006psa_winter_roundtable/ tenna. This caused the beam to be swept in a small cone. watts.pdf Signal processing would be applied to determine the direction of maximum illumination and so develop a signal [8] https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/skyflash. htm to steer the antenna toward the target. The missile detects the reflected signal from the target with a high gain [9] “LY-60 / PL-10”. FAS.org. Retrieved 2014-11-15. antenna in a similar fashion and steers the entire missile toward closure with the target. The missile guidance also [10] Barrie, Douglas (1996-11-27). “Chinese AAM aspirations may build on Alenia Aspide”. FlightGlobal. samples a portion of the illuminating signal via rearward pointing waveguides. The comparison of these two signals enabled logic circuits to determine the true target Bibliography reflection signal, even if the target were to eject radarreflecting chaff. • Bonds, Ray and David Miller. “AIM-7 Sparrow”. Illustrated Directory of Modern American Weapons. Zenith Imprint, 2002. ISBN 0-7603-1346-6.
80.5 See also • AIM-9 Sidewinder • AIM-54 Phoenix • Sparoair • Brazo (missile)
• McCarthy Jr., Donald J. MiG Killers, A Chronology of U.S. Air Victories in Vietnam 1965-1973. 2009; Specialty Press, USA. ISBN 978-1-58007-136-9. • Michel (III), Marshall L. (1997). Clashes: Air Combat Over North Vietnam, 1965-1972. US Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-55750-585-9.
80.8 External links
• Vympel R-27
• Aero Arrow Recovery Canada
• List of missiles
• GlobalSecurity.org • Designation-Systems.Net
80.6 Notes [1] Figure includes probables and bi-planes, which some sources sometime exclude
Chapter 81
AIM-9 Sidewinder The AIM-9 Sidewinder is a short-range air-to-air missile developed by the United States Navy in the 1950s. Entering service in 1956, variants and upgrades remain in active service with many air forces after five decades. The United States Air Force purchased the Sidewinder after the missile was developed by the United States Navy at China Lake, California.[3]
The Sidewinder introduced several new technologies that made it simpler and much more reliable than its United States Air Force (USAF) counterpart, the AIM-4 Falcon, under development during the same period. After disappointing experiences with the Falcon in the Vietnam War, the Air Force replaced its Falcons with Sidewinders.
Nearly 100,000 of the first generation (AIM-9B/C/D/E) of the Sidewinder were produced with Raytheon and General Electric as major sub-contractors.[7] Philco-Ford produced the guidance and control sections of the early missiles.[7] The NATO version of the first generation missile was built under licence in Germany by Bodenseewek Geratetechnik, 9,200 examples were built.[7] A second generation of the missile (AIM-9G/H/J) was introduced during 1970 and these were followed from the midseventies by the AIM-9L/P) which was a substantial improvement on the early versions particularly with an improved SR-116 reduced-smoke rocket motor.[7] The The missile was designed to be simple to upgrade.[5][6] third generation of the missile (AIM-9L/M) are all-aspect share little in common with the earlier The United States Navy hosted a 50th anniversary cel- missile which [7] missiles. ebration of its existence in 2002. Boeing won a contract in March 2010 to support Sidewinder operations through 2055, guaranteeing that the weapons system will remain in operation until at least that date. Air Force 81.1.1 Name selection Spokeswoman Stephanie Powell noted that due to its relative low cost, versatility, and reliability it is “very possible The name Sidewinder was selected in 1950 and is that the Sidewinder will remain in Air Force inventories the common name of Crotalus cerastes, a venomous rattlesnake which uses infrared sensory organs to hunt through the late 21st century.” warm-blooded prey.[7][8] The majority of Sidewinder variants utilize infrared homing for guidance; the AIM-9C variant used semi-active radar homing and served as the basis of the AGM-122 Sidearm anti-radar missile. The Sidewinder is the most widely used missile in the West, with more than 110,000 missiles produced for the U.S. and 27 other nations, of which perhaps one percent have been used in combat. It has been built under license by some other nations including Sweden. The AIM-9 is one of the oldest, least expensive, and most successful air-to-air missiles, with an estimated 270 aircraft kills in its history of use.[4]
81.1 Origins
81.2 Design
The development of the Sidewinder missile began in 1946 at the Naval Ordnance Test Station (NOTS), Inyokern, California, now the Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California as an in-house research project conceived by William B. McLean. McLean initially called his effort “Local Fuze Project 602” using laboratory funding, volunteer help and fuze funding to develop what it called a heat-homing rocket. It did not receive official funding until 1951 when the effort was mature enough to show to Admiral William “Deak” Parsons, the Deputy Chief of the Bureau of Ordnance (BuOrd). It subsequently received designation as a program in 1952.
The AIM-9 is made up of a number of different components manufactured by different companies, including Aerojet and Raytheon. The missile is divided into four main sections: guidance, target detector, warhead, and rocket motor. The Guidance and Control Unit (GCU) contains most of the electronics and mechanics that enable the missile to function. At the very front is the IR seeker head utilizing the rotating reticle, mirror, and five CdS cells or “pan and scan” focal-plane array (AIM-9X), electric motor, and armature, all protruding into a glass dome. Di-
284
81.2. DESIGN
285
z w2
y w1
An AIM-9E Sidewinder missile on display at the National Air and Space Museum
x
sensor
rotating mirror Geometric arrangement of mirror, IR detector and target
mounted nitrogen bottle. The AIM-9X model contains a Stirling cryo-engine to cool the seeker elements. Two electric servos power the canards to steer the missile (except AIM-9X). At the back of the GCU is a gas grain generator or thermal battery (AIM-9X) to provide electrical power. The AIM-9X features High-Off-Boresight capability; together with JHMCS (Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System), this missile is capable of locking on to a target that is in its field of regard said to be up to 90 degrees off boresight. The AIM-9X has several unique design features including built-in-test to aid in maintenance and reliability, an electronic safe and arm device, an additional digital umbilical similar to the AMRAAM and jet vane control. Next is a target detector with four IR emitters and detectors that detect if the target is moving farther away. When it detects this action taking place, it sends a signal to the Warhead Safe and Arm device to detonate the warhead. Versions older than the AIM-9L featured an influence fuze that relied on the target’s magnetic field as input. Current trends in shielded wires and non-magnetic metals in aircraft construction rendered this obsolete.
An AIM-9B hitting an F6F-5K drone at China Lake, 1957. A Sidewinder hitting a QF-4B drone, 1974.
rectly behind this are the electronics that gather data, interpret signals, and generate the control signals that steer the missile. An umbilical on the side of the GCU attaches to the launcher, which detaches from the missile at launch. To cool the seeker head, a 5,000 psi (35 MPa) argon bottle (TMU-72/B or A/B) is carried internally in Air Force AIM-9L/M variants while the Navy uses a rail
The AIM-9H model contained a 25-pound (11 kg) expanding rod-blast fragmentary warhead. All other models up to the AIM-9M contained a 22-pound (10 kg) annular blast fragmentary warhead. The missile’s warhead rods can break rotor blades (an immediately fatal event for any helicopter).
286 Recent models of the AIM-9 are configured with an annular blast fragmentation warhead, the WDU-17B by Argotech Corporation. The case is made of spirally wound spring steel filled with 8 pounds (4 kg) of PBXN-3 explosive. The warhead features a safe/arm device requiring five seconds at 20 g (~200 m/s²) acceleration before the fuze is armed, giving a minimum range of approximately 2.5 kilometers.
CHAPTER 81. AIM-9 SIDEWINDER pulse of infrared.
The Sidewinder also included a dramatically improved guidance algorithm. The Enzian attempted to fly directly at its target, feeding the direction of the telescope into the control system as it if were a joystick. This meant the missile always flew directly at its target, and under most conditions would end up behind it, “chasing” it down. This meant that the missile had to have enough of a speed The Mk36 solid propellant rocket motor provides propul- advantage over its target that it did not run out of fuel dursion for the missile. A reduced smoke propellant makes ing the interception. it difficult for a target to see and avoid the missile. This The Sidewinder is not guided on the actual position section also features the launch lugs used to hold the mis- recorded by the detector, but on the change in position sile to the rail of the missile launcher. The forward of since the last sighting. So if the target remained at 5 dethe three lugs has two contact buttons that electrically ac- grees left between two rotations of the mirror, the electivate the motor igniter. The fins provide stability from tronics would not output any signal to the control system. an aerodynamic point of view, but it is the “rollerons” at Consider a missile fired at right angles to its target; if the the end of the wings providing gyroscopic precession that missile is flying at the same speed as the target it should prevents the serpentine motion that gave the Sidewinder “lead” it by 45 degrees, flying to an impact point far in its name in the early days. The wings and fins of the front of where the target was when it was fired. If the AIM-9X are much smaller to accommodate one in each missile is traveling four times the speed of the target, it side bay of the F-22 Raptor as originally planned, AIM- should follow an angle about 11 degrees in front. In ei9X control surfaces are reversed from earlier Sidewinders ther case, the missile should keep that angle all the way with the control section located in the rear, while the to interception, which means that the angle that the tarwings up front provide stability. The AIM-9X also fea- get makes against the detector is constant. It was this tures vectored thrust or jet vane control to increase ma- constant angle that the Sidewinder attempted to maintain. neuverability and accuracy, with four vanes inside the ex- This "proportional pursuit" system is very easy to implehaust that move as the fins move. The last upgrade to the ment, yet it offers high-performance lead calculation almissile motor on the AIM-9X is the addition of a wire most for free and can respond to changes in the target’s harness that allows communication between the guidance flight path,[9] which is much more efficient and makes the section and the control section, as well as a new 1760 bus missile “lead” the target. to connect the guidance section with the launcher’s digital umbilical. The Sidewinder incorporated a number of innovations over the independently developed World War II-era Madrid IR range fuze used by Messerschmitt's Enzian experimental surface-to-air missile, that enabled it to be successful. The first innovation was to replace the “steering” mirror with a forward-facing mirror rotating around a shaft pointed out the front of the missile. The detector was mounted in front of the mirror. When the long axis of the mirror, the missile axis and the line of sight to the target all fell in the same plane, the reflected rays from the target reached the detector (provided the target was not very far off axis). Therefore, the angle of the mirror at the instant of detection (w1) estimated the direction of the target in the roll axis of the missile. The yaw/pitch (angle w2) direction of the target depended on how far to the outer edge of the mirror the target was. If the target was further off axis, the rays reaching the detector would be reflected from the outer edge of the mirror. If the target was closer on axis, the rays would be reflected from closer to the centre of the mirror. Rotating on a fixed shaft, the mirror’s linear speed was higher at the outer edge. Therefore if a target was further off-axis its “flash” in the detector occurred for a briefer time, or longer if it was closer to the center. The off-axis angle could then be estimated by the duration of the reflected
Gyro-actuated rollerons of the sidewinder
However this system also requires the missile to have a fixed roll axis orientation. If the missile spins at all, the timing based on the speed of rotation of the mirror is no longer accurate. Correcting for this spin would normally require some sort of sensor to tell which way is “down” and then adding controls to correct it. Instead, small control surfaces were placed at the rear of the missile with spinning disks on their outer surface; these are known as rollerons. Airflow over the disk spins them to a high speed. If the missile starts to roll, the gyroscopic force of
81.3. OPERATIONAL HISTORY & DESIGN DEVELOPMENT the disk drives the control surface into the airflow, cancelling the motion. Thus the Sidewinder team replaced a potentially complex control system with a simple mechanical solution.
81.3 Operational history & design development
287
In a highly secret effort, the United States provided a few dozen Sidewinders to ROC forces and an Aviation Ordnance Team from the U. S. Marine Corps to modify their Sabres to carry the Sidewinder. In the first encounter on 24 September 1958, the Sidewinders were used to ambush the MiG-17s as they flew past the Sabres thinking they were invulnerable to attack. The MiGs broke formation and descended to the altitude of the Sabres in swirling dogfights. This action marked the first successful use of air-to-air missiles in combat, the downed MiG’s being their first casualties.[10] During the Taiwan Strait battles of 1958, a Taiwanese AIM-9B hit a Chinese MiG-17 without exploding; the missile lodged in the airframe of the MiG and allowed the pilot to bring both plane and missile back to base. Soviet engineers later admitted that the captured Sidewinder served as a “university course” in missile design and substantially improved Soviet air-to-air capabilities. They were able to reverse-engineer a copy of the Sidewinder, which was manufactured as the Vympel K-13/R-3S missile, NATO reporting name AA-2 Atoll. There may have been a second source for the copied design: according to Ron Westrum in his book Sidewinder,[11] the Soviets obtained the plans for Sidewinder from a Swedish Air Force Colonel, Stig Wennerström. (According to Westrum, Soviet engineers copied the AIM-9 so closely that even the part numbers were duplicated, although this has not been confirmed from Soviet sources.)
Prototype Sidewinder-1 missile on an AD-4 Skyraider during flight testing
Originally called the Sidewinder 1 the first live firing was on 3 September 1952.[7] On the 11 September 1953 was the first time the missile intercepted a drone.[7] The missile carried out 51 guided flights in 1954 and in 1955 production was authorised.[7]
The Vympel K-13 entered service with Soviet air forces in 1961. In 1972, when the Finnish Air Force started using Sidewinder (AIM-9P) in their Saab 35 Draken fighters, they were already using Soviet-made Atoll in their MiG-21s; Finns found the two so similar that they tested Sidewinders in MiGs and Atolls in Drakens.
In 1954 the United States Air Force carried out trials with 81.3.2 the original AIM-9A and the improved AIM-9B at the Holloman Air Development Center.[7] The first operational use of the missile was by Grumman F9F-8 Cougars and FJ-3 Furies of the United States Navy in the middle of 1956.[7]
81.3.1
Development during early 1960s
Combat debut: Taiwan Strait, 1958
The first combat use of the Sidewinder was on September 24, 1958, with the air force of the Republic of China (Taiwan), during the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis. During that period of time, ROCAF North American F86 Sabres were routinely engaged in air battles with the People’s Republic of China over the Taiwan Strait. The PRC MiG-17s had higher altitude ceiling performance and in similar fashion to Korean War encounters between (Top: AIM-9A; Bottom: AIM-9C) Early Sidewinders mounted on the F-86 and earlier MiG-15, the PRC formations cruised an F-8D Crusader. above the ROC Sabres, immune to their .50 cal weaponry and only choosing battle when conditions favored them. The Sidewinder subsequently evolved through a series
288
CHAPTER 81. AIM-9 SIDEWINDER MiGs began challenging strike groups, the F-105 Thunderchief also carried the Sidewinder for self-defense. The USAF opted to carry only AIM-4 Falcon on their F-4D model Phantoms introduced to Vietnam service in 1967, but disappointment with combat use of the Falcon led to a crash effort to reconfigure the F-4D so that it could carry Sidewinders.
Performance of the 454 Sidewinders launched[12] during the war, and the AIM-7 Sparrow was not as satisfactory as hoped. Both the USN and USAF studied the performance of their aircrews, aircraft, weapons, training, and supporting infrastructure. The USAF conducted the classified Red Baron Report while the Navy conducted a study concentrating primarily on performance of air(From top to bottom) The U.S. Navy’s AIM-9B, AIM-9D, and to-air weapons that was informally known as the "Ault AIM-9C in the early 1970s Report". The impact of both studies resulted in modifications to the Sidewinder by both services to improve its performance and reliability in the demanding air-to-air of upgraded versions with newer, more sensitive seek- arena. ers with various types of cooling and various propulsion, fuse, and warhead improvements. Although each of those versions had various seeker, cooling, and fusing differ- US Navy develops AIM-9D/G/H ences, all but one shared infrared homing. The exception was the U.S. Navy AAM-N-7 Sidewinder IB (later AIM-9C), a Sidewinder with a semi-active radar homing seeker head developed for the F-8 Crusader. Only about 1,000 of these weapons were produced, many of which were later rebuilt as the AGM-122 Sidearm anti-radiation missile.
81.3.3
USAF adoption from 1964
The original USAF nomenclature for the Sidewinder was the GAR-8, although it too later adopted the name AIM9. Although originally developed for the USN and a competitor to the USAF AIM-4 Falcon, the Sidewinder was subsequently introduced into USAF service. The US DoD directed that the F-4 Phantom be adopted by the USAF. The Air Force originally borrowed F-4B model Phantoms, which were equipped with AIM-9B Sidewinders as the short-range armament. The first production USAF Phantoms were the F-4C model, which carried the AIM-9B Sidewinder, from December 1964. During the 1960s the USN and USAF pursued their own separate versions of the Sidewinder, but cost considerations later forced the development of common variants beginning with the AIM-9L.
81.3.4
Vietnam War service 1965–1973
When air combat started over North Vietnam in 1965, Sidewinder was the standard short range missile carried by the US Navy on its F-4 Phantom and F-8 Crusader fighters and could be carried on the A-4 Skyhawk and on the A-7 Corsair for self-defense. The US Air Force also used the Sidewinder on its F-4C Phantoms and when
AIM-9Ds armed F-4B of VF-111 on the USS Coral Sea.
The Navy Sidewinder design progression went from the early production B model to the D model that was used extensively in Vietnam. The G and H models followed with new forward canard design improving ACM performance and expanded acquisition modes and improved envelopes. The “Hotel” model followed shortly after the “Golf” and featured a solid state design that improved reliability in the carrier environment where shock from catapult launches and arrested landings had a deteriorating effect on the earlier vacuum tube designs. The Ault report had a strong impact on Sidewinder design, manufacture, and handling. US Air Force develops AIM-9E/J/N/P Once the Air Force adopted the Sidewinder as part of its arsenal, it developed the AIM-9E, introducing it in 1967. The “Echo” was an improved version of the basic AIM-9B featuring larger forward canards as well as a
81.3. OPERATIONAL HISTORY & DESIGN DEVELOPMENT more aerodynamic IR seeker and an improved rocket motor. The missile, however still had to be fired at the rear quarter of the target, a drawback of all early IR missiles. Significant upgrades were applied to the first true dogfight version, the AIM-9J, which was rushed to the SouthEast Asia Theatre in July 1972 during the Linebacker campaign, in which many aerial encounters with North Vietnamese MiGs occurred. The Juliet model could be launched at up to 7.5g (74 m/s²) and introduced the first solid state components and improved actuators capable of delivering 90 lb·ft (120 N·m) torque to the canards, thereby improving dogfight prowess. In 1973, Ford began production of an enhanced AIM-9J-1, which was later redesignated the AIM-9N. The AIM-9J was widely exported. The J/N evolved into the P series, with five versions being produced (P1 to P5) including such improvements as new fuzes, reduced-smoke rocket motors, and all-aspect capability on the latest P4 and P5. BGT in Germany has developed a conversion kit for upgrading AIM9J/N/P guidance and control assemblies to the AIM-9L standard, and this is being marketed as AIM-9JULI. The core of this upgrade is the fitting of the DSQ-29 seeker unit of the AIM-9L, replacing the original J/N/P seeker to give improved capabilities.
289
The next major advance in IR Sidewinder development was the AIM-9L (“Lima”) model which was in full production in 1977.[15] This was the first "all-aspect" Sidewinder with the ability to attack from all directions, including head-on, which had a dramatic effect on close in combat tactics. Its first combat use was by a pair of US Navy F-14s in the Gulf of Sidra in 1981 versus two Libyan Su-22 Fitters, both of the latter being destroyed by AIM-9Ls. Its first use in a prolonged conflict was by the United Kingdom during the 1982 Falklands War; in this campaign the “Lima” reportedly achieved a kill ratio of around 80%, a dramatic improvement over the 10–15% levels of earlier versions, scoring 17 kills and 2 shared kills against Argentine aircraft.[16]
In combat uses of the AIM-9L, opponents had not developed tactics for the evasion of head-on missile shots with it, making them more vulnerable.[17] The AIM-9L was also the first Sidewinder that was a joint variant used by both the US Navy and Air Force since the AIM-9B. The “Lima” was distinguished from earlier Sidewinder variants by its double delta forward canard configuration and natural metal finish of the guidance and control section. The Lima was also built under license in Europe by a team headed by Diehl BGT Defence. There are a number of “Lima” variants in operational service at present. First developed was the 9L Tactical, which is an upgraded verSummary of Vietnam War AIM-9 aerial combat kills sion of the basic 9L missile. Next was the 9L Genetic, which has increased infra-red counter counter measures USN AIM-9 Sidewinder aerial combat kills [13] (IRCCM); this upgrade consisted of a removable module in the Guidance Control Section (GCS) which provided flare-rejection capability. Next came the 9L(I), USAF AIM-9 Sidewinder aerial combat kills [13] which had its IRCCM module hardwired into the GCS, providing improved countermeasures as well as an upIn total 452 Sidewinders were fired during the Vietnam graded seeker system. Diehl BGT also markets the AIM[14] War, resulting in a kill probability of 0.18. 9L(I)−1 which again upgrades the 9L(I)GCS and is considered an operational equivalent to the initially “US only” AIM-9M.
81.3.5
Introduction Sidewinders
of
all-aspect
81.3.6 Developments since 1982 AIM-9L AIM-9M
AIM-9L Captive air training missile with part/section in blue color, denoting inert warhead and rocket motor, for training purposes.
AIM-9M Sidewinder with distinctive “Dash-9” lettering being preflighted by a USAF pilot. Note the blue stripe, which indicates that this example has an inert warhead intended for training purposes
290
CHAPTER 81. AIM-9 SIDEWINDER
The subsequent AIM-9M (“Mike”) has the all-aspect BOA/Boxoffice capability of the L model while providing all-around higher performance. The M model has improved capability against infrared countermeasures, enhanced background discrimination capability, and a reduced-smoke rocket motor. These modifications increase its ability to locate and lock-on to a target and decrease the chance of missile detection. Deliveries of the initial AIM-9M1 began in 1982. The only changes from the AIM-9L to the AIM-9M were related to the Guidance Control Section (GCS). Several models were introduced in pairs with even numbers designating Navy versions and odd for USAF: AIM-9M-2/3, AIM-9M-4/5, and AIM-9M6/7 which was rushed to the Persian Gulf area during Operation Desert Shield (1991) to address specific threats expected to be present. The AIM-9M-8/9 incorporated replacement of five circuit cards and the related parentboard to update infrared counter counter measures (IRCCM) capability to improve 9M capability against the latest threat IRCM. The first AIM-9M-8/9 modifications, fielded in 1995, involved deskinning the guidance section and substitution of circuit cards at the depot level, which is labor-intensive and expensive—as well as removing missiles from inventory during the upgrade period. The AIM-9X concept is to use reprogrammable software to permit upgrades without disassembly. AIM-9R
Testing compressed carriage Sidewinder BOA configuration at China Lake
China Lake developed an improved compressed carriage control configuration titled BOA. (“Compressed carriage” missiles have smaller control surfaces to allow more missiles to fit in a given space.[18] The surfaces may be permanently “clipped”, or may fold out when the missile is launched.) The BOA design reduced size of control surfaces, eliminating the rollerons, and returned to simple forwardcanard design. Although the Navy and Air Force had jointly developed and procured AIM-9L/M, BOA was a Navy-only effort supported by internal China Lake Independent Research & Development (IR&D) funding. Meanwhile, the Air Force was pursuing a parallel effort to develop a compressed carriage version of Sidewinder, called Boxoffice, for the F-22. The Joint Chiefs of Staff directed that the services collaborate on AIM-9X, which ended these separate efforts. The results of BOA and Boxoffice were provided to the industry teams competing for AIM-9X, and elements of both can be found in the AIM-9X design. AIM-9X
AIM-9R test firing from an F/A-18C at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake
The Navy began development of AIM-9R, a Sidewinder seeker upgrade in 1987 that featured a Focal Plane Array (FPA) seeker using video-camera type charge-coupled device (CCD) detectors and featuring increased offboresight capability. The technology at the time was restricted to visual (daylight) use only and the USAF did not agree on this requirement, preferring another technology path. AIM-9R reached flight test stage before it was cancelled and subsequently both services agreed to join a joint development of the AIM-9X variant.
After looking at advanced short range missile designs during the AIM portion of the ACEVAL/AIMVAL Joint Test and Evaluation at Nellis AFB in the 1974-78 timeframe, the Air Force and Navy agreed on the need for the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile AMRAAM. But agreement over development of an Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile ASRAAM was problematic and disagreement between the Air Force and Navy over design concepts (Air Force had developed AIM-82 and Navy had flight-tested Agile and flown it in AIMVAL). Congress eventually insisted the services work on a joint effort resulting in the AIM-9M, thereby compromising without exploring the improved off boresight and kinematic capability potential offered by Agile. In 1985, the Soviet Union did field a short range mis-
81.3. OPERATIONAL HISTORY & DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
291
sile (SRM) (AA-11 Archer/R-73) that was very similar to Agile. At that point, the Soviet Union took the lead in SRM technology and correspondingly fielded improved InfraRed Counter Measures (IRCM) to defeat or reduce the effectiveness of the latest Sidewinders. With the reunification of Germany and improved relations in the aftermath of the Soviet Union, the West became aware of how potent both the AA-11 and IRCM were and SRM requirements were readdressed.
An AIM-9X on an 422d Test & Evaluation Squadron F-15C, 2002.
The first guided launch of an AIM-9X occurred in 1999 from a VX-9 F/A-18C and shot-down a QF-4 Drone
For a brief period in the late 1980s, an ASRAAM effort led by a European consortium was in play under a MOA with the United States in which AMRAAM development would be led by the US and ASRAAM by the Europeans. The UK working with the aft end of the ASRAAM and Germany developing the seeker (Germany had first-hand experience improving the Sidewinder seeker of the AIM9J/AIM-9F). By 1990, technical and funding issues had stymied ASRAAM and the problem appeared stalled, so in light of the threat of AA-11 and improved IRCM, the US embarked on determining requirements for AIM-9X as a counter to both the AA-11 and improved IRCM features. The first draft of the requirement was ready by 1991 and the primary competitors were Raytheon and Hughes. Later, the UK resolved to revive the ASRAAM development and selected Hughes to provide the seeker technology in the form of a high off-boresight capable Focal Plane Array. However, the UK did not choose to improve the turning kinematic capability of ASRAAM to compete with AA-11. As part of the AIM-9X program, the US conducted a foreign cooperative test of the ASRAAM seeker to evaluate its potential, and an advanced version featuring improved kinematics was proposed as part of the AIM-9X competition. In the end, the Hughesevolved Sidewinder design, featuring virtually the same British funded seeker as used by ASRAAM, was selected as the winner. The AIM-9X Sidewinder, developed by Raytheon engineers, entered service in November 2003 with the USAF (lead platform is the F-15C; the USN lead platform is the F/A-18C) and is a substantial upgrade to the Sidewinder family featuring an imaging infrared focal plane array (FPA) seeker with claimed 90° off-boresight capability, compatibility with helmet-mounted displays such as the new U.S. Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System, and a totally new three-dimensional thrust-vectoring control (TVC) system providing increased turn capability over traditional control surfaces. Utilizing the JHMCS, a pilot
can point the AIM-9X missile’s seeker and “lock on” by simply looking at a target, thereby increasing air combat effectiveness.[19] It retains the same rocket motor, fuze and warhead of the 9-"Mike”, but its lower drag gives it improved range and speed.[20] AIM-9X also includes an internal cooling system, eliminating the need for use of launch-rail nitrogen bottles (U.S. Navy and Marines) or internal argon bottle (USAF). It also features an electronic safe and arm device similar to the AMRAAM, allowing reduction in minimum range and reprogrammable InfraRed Counter Counter Measures (IRCCM) capability that coupled with the FPA provide improved look down into clutter and performance against the latest IRCM. Though not part of the original requirement, AIM-9X demonstrated potential for a Lockon After Launch capability, allowing for possible internal use for the F-35, F-22 Raptor and even in a submarinelaunched configuration for use against ASW platforms.[21] The AIM-9X has been tested for a surface attack capability, with mixed results.[22] Testing work on the AIM-9X Block II version began in September 2008.[23] The Block II adds Lock-on After Launch capability with a datalink, so the missile can be launched first and then directed to its target afterwards by an aircraft with the proper equipment for 360 degree engagements, such as the F-35 and F-22.[24] By January 2013, the AIM-9X Block II was about halfway through its operational testing and performing better than expected. NAVAIR reported that the missile was exceeding performance requirements in all areas, including lock-on after launch (LOAL). The Block II performed as designed in 21 of 22 combined developmental and live fire tests, with 17 of the tests resulting in the missile guiding to a lethal target intercept in aggressive scenarios. Since the beginning of operational testing, 5 of 7 live fire attempts had guided to a lethal target intercept. One area where the Block II needs improvement is helmetless high offboresight (HHOBS) performance. It is functioning well on the missile, but performance is below that of the Block I AIM-9X. The HHOBS deficiency does not impact any other Block II capabilities, and is planned to be improved upon by a software clean-up build. Objectives of the op-
292 erational test are due to be completed by the third quarter of 2013.[25] However, as of May 2014 there have been plans to resume operational testing and evaluation (including surface-to-air missile system compatibility).[26] As of June 2013, Raytheon has delivered 5,000 AIM-9X missiles to the armed services.[27]
CHAPTER 81. AIM-9 SIDEWINDER
81.4.1 TC-1 Republic of China (Taiwan)
CSIST TC-1 is a Taiwanese development of the AIM-9L originally meant to arm the ROCAF’s indigenous F-CK-1 fighter. A ground-launched version was since developed as part of the Antelope air defence system, being carried on a Humvee-based launcher vehicle. The PelicanHardigg Technical Packaging division of Pelican Products Inc. has designed, qualified, and now manufactures Block III a single missile AUR (All Up Round) Container for this In September 2012, Raytheon was ordered to continue missile. The Pelican-Hardigg Missile Container has been developing the Sidewinder into a Block III variant, even designed to be light enough for the loaded container to be [33] though the Block II had not yet entered service. The USN physically handled by 6 men. projected that the new missile would have a 60 percent longer range, modern components to replace old ones, and an insensitive munitions warhead, which is more sta- 81.4.2 Chaparral ble and less likely to detonate by accident, making it safer for ground crews. The need for the AIM-9 to have an A version for the U.S. Army with a launcher for four increased range was from digital radio frequency mem- AIM-9D missiles mounted on a tracked vehicle and ory (DRFM) jammers that can blind the onboard radar called the MIM-72/M48 Chaparral was also developed. of an AIM-120D AMRAAM, so the Sidewinder Block In this configuration an operator sat in a protected capsule III’s passive imaging infrared homing guidance system that was incorporated into the launcher assembly that rowas a useful alternative. Although it could supplement tated as an integrated unit. The Chaparral was introduced the AMRAAM for beyond visual range (BVR) engage- into service in 1969 and remained an integral part of the ments, it would still be capable at performing within vi- Army’s air defense network until 1998. sual range (WVR). Modifying the AIM-9X was seen as a cost-effective alternative to developing a new missile in a time of declining budgets. To achieve the range in- 81.4.3 AGM-122A Sidearm crease, the rocket motor would have a combination of increased performance and missile power management. Main article: AGM-122 Sidearm The Block III would “leverage” the Block II’s guidance unit and electronics, including the AMRAAM-derived The Sidewinder was also the basis for the AGM-122A datalink. The Block III was scheduled to enter the enSidearm anti-radiation missile utilizing an AIM-9C gineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase guidance section modified to detect and track a rain 2016, with developmental testing in 2018 and operadiating ground-based air defense system radar. The tional tests in 2020, and achieve initial operational capatarget-detecting device is modified for air-to-surface use, bility (IOC) in 2022. The Block III development schedule employing forward hemisphere acquisition capability. followed the increased number of F-35 Lightning II Joint Sidearm stocks have apparently been expended, and the [28][29] Strike Fighters to enter service. The Navy pressed weapon is no longer in the active inventory. for this upgrade in response to a projected threat which analysts have speculated will be due to the difficulty of targeting upcoming Chinese Fifth-generation jet fighters (Chengdu J-20, Shenyang J-31) with the radar guided AMRAAM.[30] Specifically, analysts predict that Chinese advances in electronics will mean Chinese fighters will use their AESA radars as jammers to degrade the AIM-120’s kill probability.[31] However, the Navy’s FY 2016 budget would cancel the AIM-9X Block III as they cut down buys of the F-35C, as it was primarily intended to permit the fighter to carry six BVR missiles; the insensitive munition warhead will be retained for the AIM-9X program.[32]
81.4 Other Sidewinder developments
Experimental use of an AIM-9L against tanks at China Lake, 1971.
81.5. OPERATORS
81.4.4
Anti-tank variant
China Lake experimented with Sidewinder in the air-toground mode including use as an anti-tank weapon. Starting from 2008, the AIM-9X demonstrated its ability as a successful light air-to-ground missile.[34]
81.4.5
Larger rocket motor
Under the High Altitude Project, engineers at China Lake mated a Sidewinder warhead and seeker to a Sparrow rocket motor to experiment with usefulness of a larger motor.
81.5 Operators 81.5.1
Current operators
•
Argentina
•
Australia[35]
•
Portugal AIM-9B/J/P/L/M
•
293 •
Kuwait
•
Malaysia
•
Mexico
•
Morocco
•
Netherlands
•
Oman
•
Pakistan
•
Philippines
•
Poland
•
Qatar
•
Saudi Arabia[39]
•
Singapore[40]
•
South Korea
•
Taiwan
•
Switzerland
•
Thailand
Belgium
•
Turkey[41]
•
Bahrain
•
Tunisia
•
Brazil
•
United Kingdom
•
Canada
•
United States
•
Chile
•
Venezuela
•
Colombia
•
Czech Republic[36]
•
Denmark
•
Egypt
•
Ethiopia
•
Finland[37]
•
Hungary
•
81.5.2 Former operators •
Austria
•
Cameroon
•
France
•
Germany
•
Italy
•
New Zealand
Greece
•
Norway
•
Indonesia
•
South Africa[42]
•
Iran[38]
•
Spain
•
Iraq
•
Sweden
•
Israel
•
South Vietnam
•
Japan
•
Zimbabwe
•
Jordan
Please note that this list is not exhaustive.
294
81.6 Notable pilots
CHAPTER 81. AIM-9 SIDEWINDER
81.8 References
Wally Schirra was an early Sidewinder test pilot when 81.8.1 Notes he was stationed at NOTS between 1952 to 1954. During one flight, Schirra fired the Sidewinder missile and 81.8.2 Citations the missile “doubled back” and started to chase his jet. Schirra, through skillful flying, avoided the Sidewinder. [1] Sea Power (January 2006). Wittman, Amy; Atkinson, PeHe later went on to join NASA's Mercury program as one ter; Burgess, Rick, eds. “Air-to-Air Missiles” 49 (1). Arlington, Virginia: Navy League of the United States. pp. of the first seven American astronauts to fly into space.[43] 95–96. ISSN 0199-1337.
81.7 See also • Missile designation
[2] “GAO-13-294SP DEFENSE ACQUISITIONS Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs”. US Government Accountability Office. March 2013. p. 43. Retrieved 26 May 2013.
• AGM-87 Focus
[3] Babcock, Elizabeth (September 1999). Sidewinder Invention and Early Years. The China Lake Museum Foundation. The Air Force subsequently procured Sidewinder AIM-9B missiles for its hottest tactical and strategic aircraft, p. 21
• Diamondback, a proposed enlarged, nuclear-armed version of Sidewinder
[4] “Raytheon AIM-9 Sidewinder”. www. designation-systems.net. Archived from the original on 9 February 2010. Retrieved 2 February 2010.
• K-13 (AA-2 Atoll)
[5] Military Technology (August 2008). “News Flash” 32 (8). Heilsbachstraße 26 53123 Bonn-Germany: Mönch Publishing Group. pp. 93–96. ISSN 0722-3226. “Alliant Techsystems and RUAG Aerospace have signed a teaming agreement to provide full-service and upgrade support of the AIM-9P-3/4/5 Sidewinder family of IR-guided shortrange air-to-air missiles.
Related development
• AIM-95 Agile, Developed in the 1970’s to (unsuccessfully) replace the AIM-9 Related lists • List of missiles Comparable missiles
[6] “Air Weapons: Beyond Sidewinder”. www.strategypage. com. Archived from the original on 3 February 2010. Retrieved 2 February 2010.
• ASRAAM
[7] Tom Hildreth (March–April 1988). “The Sidewinder Missile”. Air-Britain Digest (Air-Britain) 40 (2): 39–40. ISSN 0950-7434.
• IRIS-T
[8] “U.S. Naval Museum of Armament & Technology”. Retrieved 26 March 2015.
• MAA-1 Piranha
[9] Interestingly, echo-locating bats as they pursue flying insects also adopt such a strategy, see this PLoS Biology report: “Echo-locating Bats Use a Nearly Time-Optimal Strategy to Intercept Prey”. Public Library of Science. 18 April 2006. Retrieved 10 August 2010.
• MICA • R550 Magic • Red Top
[10] “Sidewinder AIM-9”. Retrieved 26 March 2015.
• PL-9
[11] Westrum, Ron (2013). Sidewinder: Creative Missile Development at China Lake. Annapolis, Maryland: U.S. Naval Institute. ISBN 9781591149811.
• Python 5
[12] Michel III p. 287
• R-73 • Shafrir
[13] McCarthy Jr. p. 148-157
• Fatter
[14] Friedman, Norman, The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapon Systems Naval Institute Press, Anapolis, MD, 1989, ISBN 1-55750-262-5, p. 439.
• AAM-1/3/5
[15] Bonds 1989, p. 229.
81.9. EXTERNAL LINKS
[16] “F-16 Armament - AIM-9 Sidewinder”. Retrieved 26 March 2015. [17] zetaboards.com Mainly Military web forum
295
[40] “SIPRI arms transfer database”. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. 19 March 2012. Retrieved 27 April 2012. [41] Turkey Buys 127 AIM-9X Sidewinder Missiles
[18] http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADP010957 [19] Doty, Steven R. (2008-02-29). “Kunsan pilots improve capability with AIM-9X missile”. Air Force Link. Archived from the original on 2 March 2008. Retrieved 2008-02-29. [20] Sweetman, Bill, Warming trend, Aviation Week and Space Technology, July 8, 2013, p.26 [21] Raytheon Press Release [22] “Raytheon AIM-9X Block II Air/Air Missile.” Defense Update, 20 September 2011. [23] Raytheon Press Release, September 18, 2008 [24] “Raytheon AIM-9X Block II Missile Completes First Captive Carry Flight”. Retrieved 26 March 2015. [25] AIM-9X Block II performing better than expected Flightglobal.com, January 28, 2013 [26] David C. Isby (May 2014). “AIM-9X Block II resumes IOT&E”. Jane’s International Defense Review 47: 16. ISSN 2048-3449. [27] Raytheon Delivers 5,000th AIM-9X Sidewinder Air-toAir Missile - Deagel.com, 15 June 2013 [28] “US Navy hopes to increase AIM-9X range by 60%.” Flightglobal.com, 18 July 2013 [29] New Sidewinder Tweaks - Strategypage.com, September 5, 2012 [30] Sweetman, Bill (June 19, 2013). “Raytheon Looks At Options For Long-Range AIM-9”. Aviation Week. Retrieved 2013-06-23. [31] Sweetman, Bill, Warming Trend, Aviation Week and Space Technology, July 8, 2013, p.26 [32] F-35Cs Cut Back As U.S. Navy Invests In Standoff Weapons - Aviationweek.com, 3 February 2015 [33] “marketing redirect”. Retrieved 26 March 2015. [34] “AIM-9X Sidewinder demonstrates Air-To-Surface capability”. Retrieved 26 March 2015. [35] La Franchi, Peter (27 March 2007). “Australia confirms AIM-9X selection for Super Hornets”. Flight International. Retrieved 20 April 2011.
[42] “AIM-9B Sidewinder”. South African Air Force Association. Archived from the original on 27 June 2008. Retrieved 2008-08-04. [43] “Test Pilot”. WallySchirra.com. Retrieved 2012-01-26.
81.8.3 Bibliography • Bonds, Ray ed. The Modern US War Machine. New York, New York: Crown Publishers, 1989. ISBN 0-517-68802-6. • Bonds, Ray and David Miller. “AIM-9 Sidewinder”. Illustrated Directory of Modern American Weapons. Zenith Imprint, 2002. ISBN 0-7603-1346-6. • Clancy, Tom. “Ordnance: How Bombs Got 'Smart'". Fighter Wing. London: HarperCollins, 1995. ISBN 0-00-255527-1. • Doty, Steven R. (2008-02-29). “Kunsan pilots improve capability with AIM-9X missile”. Air Force Link. Archived from the original on 2 March 2008. Retrieved 2008-02-29. • Babcock, Elizabeth (1999). Sidewinder – Invention and Early Years. The China Lake Museum Foundation. 26 pp. A concise record of the development of the original Sidewinder version and the central people involved in its design. • McCarthy, Donald J. Jr. MiG Killers, A Chronology of U.S. Air Victories in Vietnam 1965-1973. 2009, Specialty Press, North Branch, MN, U.S.A. ISBN 978-1-58007-136-9 • Michel III, Marshall L. Clashes, Air Combat Over North Vietnam 1965-1972. 1997. ISBN 978-159114-519-6. • Westrum, Ron (1999). "Sidewinder—Creative missile development at China Lake.” Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-55750-951-2
81.9 External links
[36] Czech Air force ordered 100 AIM-9M
• Defense Industry Daily - AIM-9X Block II: The New Sidewinder Missile
[37] Finland Ordering 150 AIM-9X Sidewinders
• Encyclopædia Britannica
[38] “Taking On Iran’s Air Force - Defense Tech”. Retrieved 26 March 2015.
• AIM-9 Sidewinder on GlobalSecurity.org
[39] 150 AIM-9 Sidewinder Missiles for Saudi Arabia
• Raytheon AAM-N-7/GAR-8/AIM-9 Sidewinder – Designation Systems
296 • The Sidewinder Story • Sidewinder at Howstuffworks.com • NAMMO Raufoss – Nordic Ammunition Company • F-15As launching AIM-9 Sidewinders at QF-4 on YouTube • Rolleron demonstration on YouTube • “Fox Two!" From Aviation History magazine, March 2013. Includes photos & video
CHAPTER 81. AIM-9 SIDEWINDER
Chapter 82
Brazo For other uses, see Brazo (disambiguation). Elimination) project was cancelled,[8] and no air-to-air For the US-Mexico work program, see Bracero Program. antiradiation missiles would enter service in the West.[9] The Brazo missile was an American project, intended to produce an anti-radiation missile for air-to-air use. Developed by Hughes Aircraft and based on the AIM-7 Sparrow air-to-air missile, the Brazo underwent a series of successful test firings; however, the program was terminated at the end of its test program.
82.3 See also • AIM-7 Sparrow • AIM-97 Seek Bat • R-27 (air-to-air missile)
82.1 Design and development 82.4 References
A joint development project between Hughes Aircraft and the United States Navy,[1] the Brazo missile (named as a pun by one of the project’s Navy developers, a Notes Hispanic; “Brazo” is Spanish for “Arm”, the acronym for an Anti-Radiation Missile[2] ) project was initiated in [1] Parsch 2003 1972, as a proof-of-concept demonstration of the utility of an air-to-air, anti-radar missile.[1] In 1973, the [2] Stevenson 2001, p.18. United States Air Force's Pave Arm project, a program [3] Friedman 1982, p.179. with similar goals, was merged into the Brazo program, with the Air Force assuming responsibility for testing the [4] Morison and Rowe 1975, p.282. missile.[3] [5] Fitzsimons 1978, p.425.
The first air-to-air anti-radiation missile developed by the United States,[4] the Brazo utilised the airframe of the existing AIM-7E Sparrow air-to-air missile, fitted with a new, Hughes-built passive radar seeker head developed by the Naval Electronics Center.[5] The seeker was intended to detect and home on enemy radar emissions, such as those on interceptor and AWACS aircraft.[6]
[6] Gunston 1977, p.96. [7] International Aeronautic Federation (1974). volume 29, p.603.
Interavia
[8] Bidwell 1978, p.165. [9] Sweetman 1987, p.160.
82.2 Operational history
Bibliography
The first test firing of the Brazo missile was conducted in April 1974, with the missile, launched from a USAF F-4D Phantom II,[7] successfully shooting down a BQM34 Firebee drone; four follow-up tests over the following year continued the missile’s successful record, with none of the test shots failing[1] despite difficult test conditions.[3] However, despite the Brazo’s success, the follow-on ERASE (Electro-magnetic RAdiation Source 297
• Bidewell, Shelford (1978). World War 3: A Military Projection Founded on Today’s Facts. London: Hamlyn Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-60039416-7. • Fitzsimons, Bernard (1978). The Illustrated Encyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons and Warfare. Columbia House. ASIN B000RUOW6Q.
298 • Friedman, Norman (1982). U.S. Naval Weapons: Every gun, missile mine and torpedo used by the US Navy from 1883 to the present day. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-0-87021-735-7. • Gunston, Bill (1977). F-4 Phantom. New York: Scribner. ISBN 978-0-684-15298-1. • Morison, Samuel L.; John S. Rowe (1975). The Ships & Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet (10th ed.). Annapolis, MD: United States Naval Institute. ISBN 0-87021-639-2. • Parsch, Andreas (2003). “Hughes Brazo”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designationsystems.net. Retrieved 2010-12-29. • Stevenson, James Perry (2001). The $5 Billion Misunderstanding: The Collapse of the Navy’s A-12 Stealth Bomber Program. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-55750-777-8. • Sweetman, Bill (1987). Advanced Fighter Technology: The Future of Cockpit Combat. Osceola, WI: Motorbooks International. ISBN 978-0-87938265-0.
CHAPTER 82. BRAZO
Chapter 83
Pye Wacket Pye Wacket was the codename for an experimental lenticular-form air-to-air missile developed by the Pomona’s Convair Division of the General Dynamics Corporation [1] in 1957. Intended as a defensive missile for the B-70 Valkyrie Mach 3 bomber, the program saw extensive wind-tunnel testing and seemed promising; however the cancellation of the B-70 removed the requirement for the missile, and the project was cancelled.
83.1 Genesis Project “Pye Wacket”, officially known as the Lenticular Defense Missile (LDM) Program and by the project number WS-740A,[2] was instituted in 1958 in response to a US Air Force request for a Defensive Anti-Missile System (DAMS) to protect the proposed B-70 Valkyrie strategic bomber from high-speed, high-altitude surfaceto-air missiles (SAMs) and interceptor aircraft.[3] The extreme speed and operating altitude of the Valkyrie was considered sufficient protection against Soviet interceptors of the time.[4] However it was anticipated that future aircraft and missile developments would reduce the B-70’s margin of superiority,[3] especially following the SA-2 Guideline SAM being displayed during the 1957 May Day parade.[5] Intelligence reports indicated that SAMs were being deployed in large numbers throughout Russia,[6] and it was believed the SA-2 was capable of being fitted with a nuclear warhead.[7] Therefore, it was decided that the B-70 would need an interceptor missile to defend itself against the perceived threat.[3]
83.2 Design The specifications for the proposed DAMS called for an air-launched defensive missile, capable of engaging incoming missiles at relative speeds of up to Mach 7,[3] surviving a rate of acceleration between 60 g to 250 g, and being able to undertake rapid terminal-phase guidance changes in any direction.[8]
Development Center,[3] a radically unconventional design emerged that featured a lenticular, wedge-shaped airframe.[3] The lenticular design was considered to have the best handling characteristics at extremely high angles of attack, and would theoretically possess ideal mass distribution, giving the missile outstanding terminal agility.[3] In addition, the lenticular design allowed for omnidirectional launching from the carrying aircraft.[2] Following the feasibility studies, a contract for the development of the DAMS design was awarded to the Convair division of the General Dynamics Corporation in Pomona, California in 1959.[3][9] Wind tunnel testing of several options for control of the missile resulted in an arrangement of six small rocket thrusters being selected for reaction control.[3] The airframe of the missile was constructed of magnesium alloy, and main power would be provided by three Thiokol M58A2 solid-fuel rockets.[3]
83.3 Cancellation Pye Wacket was planned to be tested using a rocket sled launcher,[3] with a Mach 5 booster rocket being used later in the test program.[2] There are unconfirmed reports that some tests were conducted in 1960.[3] However the high cost and perceived vulnerability of the B-70 against the projected performance of Soviet air defenses,[10] combined with the 1960 U-2 incident in which a high-flying spyplane had been shot down, led to the decision that intercontinental ballistic missiles would, in the future, be the primary nuclear delivery force of the United States, and therefore the B-70 project was cancelled in early 1961.[11] Pye Wacket, its delivery vehicle no longer available, is believed to have been cancelled soon after,[3] although the ultimate fate of the program remains classified.[2]
83.4 See also
Following initial studies and wind-tunnel testing at the Air Proving Ground Center and Arnold Engineering 299
• Flying saucer • Lenticular Reentry Vehicle • North American XB-70 Valkyrie
300
83.5 References Notes [1] http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/325216.pdf (a document from ARMED SERVICES TECHNICAL INFORMATION AGENCY) [2] USAF 1961. [3] Parsch 2005 [4] Rees 1960, p.125. [5] Hannah 2001, p.68. [6] Crabtree 1994, p.107. [7] Cochran et al. 1989, p.32. [8] General Dynamics 1961. [9] http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord& metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0325216 Pye Wacket: Feasibility Test Vehicle Study. Summary. Volume 1. General Dynamics, July 1961. [10] Greenwood 1995, p.289. [11] Kennedy, John F. “Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, Horton Plaza, San Diego, CA , November 2, 1960.” The American Presidency Project at ucsb.edu. Retrieved: 6 April 2009. “1961 Budget Message.” Kennedy Archives, 28 March 1961, pp. I-38.
Bibliography • Cochran, Thomas B.; William M. Arkin; Robert S. Norris; Jeffrey Sands (1989). Nuclear Weapons Databook, Volume IV: Soviet Nuclear Weapons. Pensacola, FL: Ballinger. ISBN 978-0-88730-0486. • Crabtree, James D. (1994). On Air Defense. Westport, CT: Praeger. ISBN 978-0-275-94792-7. • General Dynamics; Convair/Pomona Division (July 1961). Pye Wacket. Feasibility Test Vehicle Study. Summary. Volume 1. Reproduced by Defense Technical Information Center. Retrieved on May 22, 2009. • Greenwood, John T., ed. (1995). Milestones of Aviation: National Air and Space Museum. Westport, CT: Hugh Lauter Levin Associates. ISBN 0-88363661-1. • Hannah, Craig C. (2001). Striving for air superiority: the Tactical Air Command in Vietnam. College Station, TX: TAMU Press. ISBN 978-1-58544146-4. Retrieved 2010-12-02.
CHAPTER 83. PYE WACKET • Rees, Ed (October 17, 1960). “The Furor Over Fantastic Plane”. Life (TIME Inc) 49 (16). Retrieved 2010-12-02. • Parsch, Andreas (2005). “Convair Pye Wacket”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles, Appendix 4: Undesignated Vehicles. designationsystems.net. Retrieved 2010-12-02. • US Air Force (1961) History of the Arnold Engineering Development Center: July - December 1960. II-24, IL-25. Reproduced per request to Air Force Historical Research Agency. Retrieved on May 22, 2009.
Chapter 84
AGM-86 ALCM The AGM-86 ALCM is an American subsonic airlaunched cruise missile (ALCM) built by Boeing and operated by the United States Air Force. This missile was developed to increase the effectiveness and survivability of the Boeing B-52H Stratofortress bomber. In combination, the missile dilutes an enemy’s forces and complicates air defense of its territory.[2]
tional blast/fragmentation payload rather than a nuclear payload. The AGM-86C/D uses an onboard Global Positioning System (GPS) coupled with its inertial navigation system (INS) to navigate in flight. This allows the missile to guide itself to the target with pinpoint accuracy. Litton Guidance and Control, and Interstate Electronics Corp. were the guidance contractors for the C-model.[2]
Examples of the AGM-86A and AGM-86B are on display at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center of the National Air and Space Museum, near Washington, D.C.[3]
84.2 Development 84.1 Design 84.2.1 AGM-86A/B
All variants of the AGM-86 missile are powered by a Williams F107 turbofan jet engine that propels it at sustained subsonic speeds and can be launched from aircraft In February 1974, the U.S. Air Force entered into conat both high and low altitudes. The missile deploys its tract to develop and flight-test the prototype or proof-offolded wings, tail surfaces and engine inlet after launch. concept vehicle AGM-86A air-launched cruise missile, which was slightly smaller than the later B and C modAGM-86B/C/D missiles increase flexibility in target se- els. The 86A model did not go into production; it was lection. AGM-86B missiles can be air-launched in large designed to fit the weapon bay of the B-1A, which was numbers by the bomber force. B-52H bombers carry cancelled (to be later resurrected as the B-1B). Now besix AGM-86B or AGM-86C missiles on each of two ex- ing free of the length restriction of the B-1A weapon bay, ternally mounted pylons and eight internally on a rotary the Air Force began full-scale development of the AGMlauncher, giving the B-52H a maximum capacity of 20 86B in January 1977, which greatly enhanced the B-52’s missiles per aircraft. capabilities and helped the USA maintain a strategic deAn enemy force would have to counterattack each of the terrent. missiles, making defense against them costly and com- Production of the initial 225 AGM-86B missiles began in plicated. The enemy’s defenses are further hampered by fiscal year 1980 and production of a total 1,715 missiles the missiles’ small size and low-altitude flight capability, was completed in October 1986. The air-launched cruise which makes them difficult to detect on radar.[2] missile had become operational four years earlier, in De-
84.1.1
AGM-86B
cember 1982. More than 100 launches have taken place since then, with a 90% approximate success rate. The missile’s flight path is pre-programmed and it becomes totally autonomous after launch.
The nuclear armed AGM-86B uses a terrain contourmatching guidance system (TERCOM) to fly to its as- In June 1986 a limited number of AGM-86B missiles were converted to carry a high-explosive signed target.[2] blast/fragmentation warhead and an internal GPS. They were redesignated as the AGM-86C CALCM. This modification also replaced the B model’s terrain 84.1.2 AGM-86C/D contour-matching guidance system (TERCOM) and The AGM-86C/D CALCM differs from the AGM-86B integrated a GPS capability with the existing inertial air-launched cruise missile in that it carries a conven- navigation computer system.[2] 301
302
CHAPTER 84. AGM-86 ALCM tinued hostilities against the Kurds in northern Iraq, the Air Force launched 13 CALCMs in a joint attack with the Navy. This mission has put the CALCM program in the spotlight for future modifications. Operation Desert Strike was also the combat debut of the B-52H and the carriage of the CALCM on the weapons bay-mounted Common Strategic Rotary Launcher (CSRL). During the Operation Desert Storm, the CALCM had been carried on the B-52G and wing-mounted pylons. The CALCM was also used in Operation Desert Fox in 1998, Operation Allied Force in 1999, and Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. Operation Iraqi Freedom was also the combat debut of the AGM-86D, a further development of the missile which replaced the blast/fragmentation warhead of the AGM-86C with a penetrating warhead.
84.4 Future of the ALCM Up to 20 AGM-86B missiles could be loaded onto one B-52 bomber.
84.2.2
AGM-86C/D
The AGM-86C is a Conventional Air-Launched Cruise Missile (CALCM) and is a conventional blast/fragmentation derivative of the nuclear armed AGM-86B. The D is the Penetrator version of the CALCM which is designed to attack deeply buried targets. In 1996 and 1997, 200 additional CALCMs were produced from excess ALCMs. These missiles, designated Block I, incorporate improvements such as a larger and improved conventional payload (3,000 pound blast class), a multi-channel GPS receiver and integration of the buffer box into the GPS receiver. The upgraded avionics package was retrofitted into all existing CALCM (Block 0) so all AGM-86C missiles are electronically identical.[2]
Loading an AGM-86 ALCM on a B-52 at Minot Air Force Base
In 2007, the USAF announced its intention to retire all of its AGM-129 ACMs, and to reduce the ALCM fleet by more than 500 missiles, leaving 528 nuclear cruise missiles. The ALCM force will be consolidated at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, and all excess cruise missile bodies will be destroyed.
The reductions are in part a result of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty requirement to go below 2,200 deployed nuclear weapons by 2012, with the AGM-129 84.3 Operations ACM chosen because it has reliability problems and also [4] The CALCM became operational in January 1991 at the higher maintenance costs. onset of Operation Desert Storm. Seven B-52Gs from Even with the SLEP, the remaining AGM-86s were to Barksdale AFB launched 35 missiles at designated launch reach their end of service by 2020, leaving the B-52 withpoints in the U.S. Central Command's area of responsibil- out a nuclear mission.[5] However in 2012, the USAF anity to attack high-priority targets in Iraq. These “round- nounced plans to extend the useful life of the missiles unrobin” missions marked the beginning of the operation’s til at least 2030.[6] Air Force component and were the longest known aircraft The USAF planned to award a contract for the developcombat sorties in history at the time (more than 14,000 ment of the replacement Long-Range Stand-Off (LRSO) miles and 35 hours of flight). weapon in 2015.[7] Unlike the AGM-86, the LRSO will CALCM’s next employment occurred in September 1996 be carried on multiple aircraft, including the B-52, the Bduring Operation Desert Strike. In response to Iraq’s con- 2 Spirit, and the Long Range Strike Bomber.[8] Like the
84.6. SEE ALSO
303
AGM-86, the LRSO can be armed with either a conven- [12] Guarino, Douglas P. (29 April 2014). “GOP Defense Bill Pushes Back Against Proposed Nucleartional or nuclear warhead. The LRSO program is to deModernization Delays”. www.nti.org (Nuclear Threat Inivelop a weapon that can penetrate and survive integrated tiative). Archived from the original on 30 April 2014. Reair defense systems and prosecute strategic targets. Both trieved 29 April 2014. conventional and nuclear versions of the weapon are required to reach initial operational capability (IOC) before [13] Long-Range Standoff Missile Development Pushed Back the retirement of their respective ALCM versions, around By Three Years - Insidedefense.com, 5 March 2014 2030.[9] The technology development contracts were to be submitted before the end of 2012.[10] In March 2014 a further 3-year delay in the project was announced by the Department of Defense, delaying a contract award until fiscal year 2018.[11] The House Armed Services Committee moved to reject this delay.[12] The delay was caused by financial pressures and an uncertain acquisition plan, and allowed by the long remaining service life left for the AGM-86 and lack or urgent necessity compared to other defense needs.[13]
84.6 See also • Strategic Air Command
84.7 External links • Boeing.com ALCM/CALCM Photo Gallery • Designation Systems’ Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles: AGM-86
84.5 References [1] “Factsheets: AGM-86B/C/D Missiles.” U.S. Air Force. United States Air Force, 2010. Web. Accessed 14 Dec 2012. Archived 1 August 2013 at the Wayback Machine [2] “Factsheet: AGM-86B/C/D MISSILES”. United States Air Force. Archived from the original on 10 July 2008. Retrieved 7 October 2008. [3] “Missile, Cruise, Air-launched, AGM-86B”. Collections Database. Smithsonian Institution. Archived from the original on 23 July 2009. Retrieved 7 October 2008. [4] AIR FORCE Magazine, August 2007. [5] Air Force Next-Generation Bomber: Background and Issues for Congress, page 8 Archived 2 May 2014 at the Wayback Machine [6] Weisgerber, Marcus. “USAF Outlines Nuke Weapon Inventory Modernization.” Defense News, 24 May 2012. [7] “Air Force plans two-year delay in developing new Cruise Missile.” Archived 5 November 2013 at the Wayback Machine [8] Kristensen, Hans (22 April 2013). “B-2 Stealth Bomber To Carry New Nuclear Cruise Missile”. fas.org. Federation of American Scientists. Archived from the original on 22 April 2014. Retrieved 5 November 2013. [9] USAF’s LRSO missile may reach IOC around 2030 Flightglobal.com, 7 January 2014 [10] “USAF to develop new cruise missile.” Archived 5 November 2013 at the Wayback Machine [11] USAF delays LRSO again, this time by three years 3/13/2014 - Flight Global Archived 15 March 2014 at the Wayback Machine
• Global Security’s AGM-86C/D Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missiles
Chapter 85
AGM-12 Bullpup The AGM-12 Bullpup is an air-to-ground missile which was used on the A-4 Skyhawk, A-6 Intruder, F-105 Thunderchief and F-4 Phantom among others. It has been superseded by more advanced weapons, notably the AGM-62 Walleye and AGM-65 Maverick.
one problem quickly discovered by pilots in Vietnam was that gunners on the ground could simply fire at the smoke trail of the missile’s flare and have a fairly good chance of hitting the aircraft that had launched—and was still guiding—the missile. Thus, to try to protect their own aircraft, the pilot would “jig” slightly off of the missile’s path and hopefully avoid the anti-aircraft fire.
85.1 Design The Bullpup was the first mass-produced air-surface command guided missile, first deployed by the United States Navy in 1959 as the ASM-N-7, until it was redesignated the AGM-12B in 1962. It was developed as a result of experiences in the Korean War where US airpower had great difficulty in destroying targets which required precise aiming and were often heavily defended, such as bridges. Although they could hit targets fairly accurately, pilots found that the warhead of the AGM-12 was not very effective against the massive concrete structures of large bridges in North Vietnam. However, in at least one specific instance, the Bullpup proved its value when a pilot guided one into the cave entrance of a large ammunition dump dug into a mountain. Previous attacks with conventional, unguided (“dumb”) bombs had been ineffective against the mountain surface, but when the Bullpup missile entered the cave and detonated, it set off a huge secondary explosion of the stored ammunition.[1]
85.3 Variants Later versions of the missile included upgrades such as a larger 1000 lb (450 kg) warhead, improved rocket motors, and improved guidance—the latter originally developed as part of the GAM-79 White Lance project for an improved, enlarged Bullpup for the US Air Force—and, in one late version, the ability to carry a nuclear warhead, also pioneered as part of the GAM-79 project.[2] The weapon was phased out of US service in the 1970s but was still used by other countries much later. Some militaries currently still use some as inert practice weapons.
85.4 Operators Australia • Royal Australian Air Force
85.2 Operation
Denmark The Bullpup had a Manual Command Line Of Sight guidance system with roll-stabilization. In flight the pilot or weapons operator tracked the Bullpup by watching a flare on the back of the missile and used a control joystick to steer it toward the target using radio signals. It was initially powered by a solid fuel rocket motor, and carried a 250 lb (110 kg) warhead. After launching the Bullpup, best accuracy was maintained by continuing to fly the same track, so that the pilot could sight down the smoke trail and steer the missile from directly behind as much as possible. Unfortunately, 304
• Royal Danish Air Force Greece • Hellenic Air Force Israel
85.6. REFERENCES
305
• Israel Defense Forces Norway
• Royal Norwegian Air Force Taiwan (Republic of China) • Republic of China Air Force Turkey
An AGM-12C at the National Museum of the United States Air Force
• Turkish Air Force
• AS-20 – similar French missile developed in the late 1950s
United Kingdom
• AJ 168 Martel missile – contemporary AngloFrench missile with TV guidance
• Royal Air Force
• Martin Pescador MP-1000 – an Argentinian guided missile with similar guidance system
• Royal Navy Related lists • List of military aircraft of the United States • List of missiles by nation
85.6 References [1] http://www.history.navy.mil/shiphist/e/cvn-65/1967.pdf [2] Parsch, Andreas (2007). “Martin AGM-12 Bullpup”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designationsystems.net. Retrieved 2013-02-16.
A US Navy A-4E of VA-164 from USS Oriskany (CVA-34) over North Vietnam in November 1967. The Bullpup missile is clearly visible under the port wing
85.7 External links • Designation Systems.Net website • Federation of American Scientists webpage
United States
• United States Air Force • United States Navy
85.5 See also • Kh-23 (AS-7 'Kerry') – a Soviet command-guided missile inspired by the Bullpup
Chapter 86
AGM-131 SRAM II The SRAM II (Short-Range Attack Missile) was a warhead, the W91 thermonuclear warhead and was to be nuclear air-to-surface missile intended as a replacement carried by the F-15E. for the AGM-69 SRAM, but it was cancelled by President George H.W. Bush for geopolitical reasons just as the first flight-test missile was delivered. 86.2 Cancellation The mission of the SRAM family is to deliver the warhead to the target without the need for the penetrating bomber to directly overfly the target. The SRAM family of weapons had an extremely small radar signature and were near-impossible to counter. SRAM ensured the airborne leg of the US nuclear triad (the others being land-based ICBMs and SLBM) and was the penetrating airlaunched strategic nuclear weapon for the B-1 Lancer and B-2 Spirit. In 1977, the USAF planned to develop an upgrade of the SRAM for the forthcoming B-1A bomber as AGM-69B SRAM B. When the B-1A was cancelled in 1978, the AGM-69B was dropped, too. After the resurrection of the B-1 program (as B-1B) in 1981, it was decided to develop an entirely new weapon, the SRAM II. In 1986, Boeing was finally awarded a development contract for the AGM-131A SRAM II. The AGM-131A was planned to have only about 2/3 the size of an AGM-69A, so that 36 missiles could be carried by the B-1B, as compared to 24 AGM-69As. The final design of the SRAM II ended up with the “II” version roughly equal to the “A” version in size and about 80% of the weight. One new feature of SRAM II was a lighter, simpler, and more reliable two-pulse solid rocket motor designed by Hercules for increased range and age stability.
Both SRAM II and SRAM T were cancelled in September 1991 by President George H.W. Bush, along with the W89 and W91 warheads. Stated reasons were political (nuclear arms reduction in the face of a disintegrating Soviet Union) and technical difficulties with the rocket motor.
86.3 Specification[1] • Length: 3.18 meters • Diameter: 39 centimeters • Weight: 900 kilograms • Speed: Mach 2 • Range: 400 kilometers • Propulsion: Solid-fueled rocket • Warhead: W-89
86.4 See also
The SRAM II was slated to use the newly developed W89 thermonuclear warhead, which being much newer, was also much safer to operate than the W-69 of the AGM69. The W89 had a 200 kiloton design yield,
• AGM-69 SRAM • W89 • W91
Initial Operational Capability for the AGM-131A was planned for 1993, but before flight tests could take place, the program was cancelled in 1991.
86.5 References 86.1 SRAM-T
[1] http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-131.html
The SRAM II air vehicle was also the basis for a tactical nuclear variant - the SRAM T which employed a different 306
Chapter 87
AGM-28 Hound Dog For other uses, see Hound Dog (disambiguation). The North American Aviation AGM-28 Hound Dog was a supersonic, Turbojet propelled, air-launched cruise missile. The Hound Dog missile was first given the designation B-77, then redesignated GAM-77, and finally as AGM-28. The Hound Dog was conceived as a temporary standoff missile for the B-52 Stratofortress bomber, to be used until the GAM-87 Skybolt air-launched ballistic missile was available. Instead, the Skybolt missile was cancelled within a few years, and the Hound Dog was deployed for 15 years until the missile was replaced by newer weapons, including the SRAM missile and the AGM-86 Air-Launched Cruise Missile.
87.1 Development
pabilities was called for in General Operational Requirement 148, which was released on March 15, 1956, known as WS-131B.[1][2] GOR 148 called for a supersonic airto-surface cruise missile with a weight of not more than 5,700 kilograms (12,500 lb) (fully fueled and armed) to be carried in pairs by the B-52 Stratofortress.[3] Each B52 would carry two of the missiles, one under each wing, on a pylon located between the B-52’s fuselage and its inboard pair of engines.[4] Both Chance Vought and North American Aviation submitted GAM-77 proposals to the USAF in July 1957, and both based on their earlier work on long-range groundlaunched cruise missiles. Vought’s submission was for an air-launched version of the Regulus missile, developed for the US Navy,[3] while North American’s was adapted from their Navaho missile.[5] On August 21, 1957, North American Aviation was awarded a contract to develop Weapon System 131B, which included the Hound Dog missile.[5]
The importance of Hound Dog in penetrating the Soviet air-defense system was later described by Senator John F. Kennedy in a speech to the American Legion convention in Miami, Florida, on October 18, 1960: “We must take immediate steps to protect our present nuclear striking force from surprise attack. Today, more than 90 percent of our retaliatory capacity is made up of aircraft and missiles which have fixed, un-protectable bases whose location is known to the Russians. We can only do this by providing SAC with the capability of maintaining a continuous airborne alert, and by pressing projects such as the Hound Dog air-ground missile, which will enable manned bombers to penetrate Soviet defenses with their The Air Force’s solution to this problem was the introducweapons".[6] tion of stand-off missiles. Since the Soviet air-defenses were static and easy to spot from aerial reconnaissance or satellite reconnaissance photos, the plan was to use a long-range cruise missile to attack these air-defense bases 87.2 Design before the bombers got into range of them. The SA-2 Guideline missile had a maximum range of about 30 kilometers at that time, but since the bombers would be ap- The Hound Dog missile’s engine, airframe, and warhead proaching the sites, their own guided missiles would have were all adaptations of technology developed in the SMto be launched well-before it entered this SAM range. 64 Navaho missile, adapted for launching from the BIf the American missile was to be used to attack enemy 52.[5][7] The Hound Dog’s design was based on that of the air bases as well, an extended range of several hundred Navaho G-38 missile, which featured small delta wings kilometers would be needed. A missile with these ca- and forward canards.[3] During the 1950s the US became aware of developments regarding the Soviet Union's surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), notably at large installations being constructed around Moscow. At the time the entire nuclear deterrent of the United States was based on manned strategic bombers, both with the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Navy, and the deployment of large numbers of SAMs placed this force at some risk of being rendered ineffective. One solution to this problem is to extend the range of the bomb, either through glide bomb techniques, or more practically, by mounting them in a short-tomedium-range missile.
307
308
CHAPTER 87. AGM-28 HOUND DOG • High Altitude Attack: The Hound Dog would have flown at a high altitude (up to 17,000 metres (56,000 ft) depending on the amount of jet fuel on board the missile) all the way to the immediate area of its target, then diving to its nuclear warhead's preset detonation altitude.
Hound Dog and its mounting pylon, which includes electronics and refueling systems
A Pratt & Whitney J52-P-3 turbojet propelled the Hound Dog, replacing the Navaho’s ramjet engine. The J52 engine was located in a pod located beneath the rear fuselage, giving it an appearance similar to the Lockheed X-7 high-speed experimental drone. The J52-P-3 used in the Hound Dog, unlike J52’s installed in aircraft like the A4 Skyhawk or the A-6 Intruder, was optimized to run at maximum power during the missile’s flight. As a result, the Hound Dog’s version of the J52 had a short operating lifetime of only six hours.[6] However, in combat, the Hound Dog was expected to self-destruct in less than six hours.
• Low Altitude Attack: The Hound Dog would have flown at a low altitude - below 1,500 metres (5,000 ft) (air-pressure altitude) to its target where its nuclear warhead would have detonated. In this mode of operation, the Hound Dog had a shortened range of about 640 kilometres (400 mi) when this flight profile was used. The missile would not carry out terrain following in this flight profile. No major terrain obstructions could exist at the preset altitude along the missile’s flight path. • Low Altitude Attack: The GAM-77B (later AGM28B) could fly a low RADAR altitude, from 914 to 30 metres (3,000 to 100 ft) above the ground. As mentioned above in the GAM-77A model description, this shortened range. However, the improvement of “flying in the weeds”, was such that the missile could be flown down in ground clutter (radar) thus nearly invisible to radar detection. Eventually, all A model GAM-77s were given this modification as well.
A derivative of the Navaho’s NAA Autonetics Division • A Dogleg Attack: The Hound Dog would have flown N-6 inertial navigation system (INS), the N5G, was used along a designated heading (at either high or low in the Hound Dog. A Kollsman Instruments Company altitudes) to a preset location. At that location the star-tracker located in the B-52’s pylon was used to cormissile would have turned left or right and then prorect inertial navigation system orientation errors with ceeded to its target. The intention of this maneuver celestial observations while the Hound Dog was being was to attempt to draw defensive fighter planes away carried by the B-52.[3] The INS could also be used to defrom the missile’s target. termine the bomber’s position after the initial calibration and “leveling” process, which took about 90 minutes. The Hound Dog had a circular error probable (CEP) of 3.5 The first air-drop test of a dummy Hound Dog was carkilometres (2.2 mi), which was acceptable for a weapon ried out in November 1958. 52 GAM-77A missiles were equipped with a nuclear warhead.[1] launched for testing and training purposes between 23 The thermonuclear warhead carried by the Hound Dog April 1959 and 30 August 1965. Hound Dog launches occurred at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, at Eglin was the W28 Class D bomb.[6] The W28 warhead could and at the White Sands Missile be preset to yield an explosive power of between 70 kilo- Air Force Base, Florida, [3] Range, New Mexico. tons and 1.45 megatons. Detonation of the Hound Dog’s The Hound Dog missile’s development was completed in only 30 months.[7] North American received a production contract to build Hound Dogs on 16 October 1958.[4] The first production Hound Dog missile was then delivered to the Air Force on 21 December 1959. 722 Hound Dog missiles were produced by North American Aviation be[3] The Hound Dog could be launched from the B-52 Strato- fore its production of them ended in March 1963. fortress at high altitudes or low altitudes, but not below In May 1961, an improved Hound Dog missile was 1,500 metres (5,000 ft) in altitude. Initially, three differ- test-flown for the first time. This upgrade incorpoent flight profiles for the Hound Dog were available for rated improvements to reduce its radar cross-section.[8] selection by the commander and the bombardier of the The Hound Dog already had a low head-on radar crossbomber (though other options were added later): section because of its highly swept delta wings. This W28 warhead could be programmed to occur on impact (Ground burst) or air burst at a preset altitude. An air burst would have been used against a large area, soft target. A surface impact would have been used against a hard target such as a missile site or command and control center.
87.3. OPERATIONAL HISTORY low radar cross-section was lowered further by replacing its nose cap, its engine intake spike, its engine duct with new radar-absorbent material components that scattered or absorbed radar energy. It has been reported that these radar cross-section improvements were removed as Hound Dogs were withdrawn from service. The GAM-77A version of the GAM-77 also included a new Kollsman Instruments KS-140 star-tracker that was integrated with the N-6 inertial navigation system. This unit replaced the celestial navigation star-tracker that had been located in the B-52’s wing pylon. The fuel capacity of the GAM-77A was increased during this upgrade. A radar altimeter was added to the missile to provide (vertical) terrain-following radar capability to the Hound Dog. 428 Hound Dog missiles were upgraded to the GAM-77A configuration by North American.[9]
309 Hound Dog missile.[4] Just two months later in February, SAC test-launched its first unarmed Hound Dog at Eglin Air Force Base. In July 1960, the Hound Dog reached initial operational capability with the first B-52 unit. The Hound Dog was used on airborne alert for the first time in January 1962. In 1962, SAC activated missile maintenance squadrons to provide maintenance for both the Hound Dog and the ADM-20 Quail decoy missile. Full operational capability was achieved in August 1963 when 29 B-52 bomber wings were operational with the Hound Dog.
In 1960, SAC developed procedures so that the B-52 could use the Hound Dog’s J52 engine for additional thrust while the missile was located on the bomber’s two pylons. This helped heavily laden B-52s fly away from their airbases faster, before enemy nuclear weapons oblit66 GAM-77A Hound Dog missiles were launched for erated them. The Hound Dog could then be refueled from testing and training up through April 1973.[6] the B-52’s wing fuel tanks.[9] In June 1963 the GAM-77 and GAM-77A were re- One Hound Dog missile crashed near the town of designated AGM-28A and AGM-28B, respectively. Samson, Alabama, when it failed to self-destruct after a test launch from Eglin Air Force Base, Florida.[6] In 1962, In 1971, a Hound Dog missile was test-flown with a newly a Hound Dog was accidentally dropped to the ground durdeveloped Terrain Contour Matching (TERCOM) naviing an underwing systems check.[6] gation system. Reportedly, the designation AGM-28C was reserved for this version of the Hound Dog if development had been continued. While a Hound Dog with TERCOM was never deployed, this technology, with much better electronics and digital computers, was later used in both the Air Force’s Air Launched Cruise Missile and the Navy’s Tomahawk (missile).[10] In 1972, the Bendix Corporation was awarded a contract to develop an anti-radiation missile passive radar seeker to guide the Hound Dog missile to antennas transmitting radar signals. A Hound Dog with this radar seeker was test-flown in 1973, but never mass-produced.[11]
87.3 Operational history
In May 1962, operation “Silk Hat” was conducted at Eglin Air Force Base. During this exercise, a Hound Dog test launch was conducted before an audience of national and international dignitaries headed by President John F. Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon B. Johnson.[6] On September 22, 1966, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara recommended retiring all of the remaining Hound Dog missiles, within a few years. The Hound Dogs would be retained pending the outcome of the Terrain Contour Matching (TERCOM) guidance system development program. Secretary McNamara’s recommendation was not acted upon, and the Hound Dog remained in service [6] After thirteen years of service with the Air Force, the last Hound Dog missile was removed from alert deployment on June 30, 1975. The Hound Dog missiles were kept in dead storage for a number of years. The last Hound Dog was retired for scrapping on June 15, 1978, from the 42nd Bomb Wing at Loring Air Force Base, Maine.[4] No Hound Dog missile was ever used in combat, since it was strictly a weapon for nuclear warfare.
87.3.1 Missile Tail Numbers [1]
B-52F takeoff with AGM-28 Hound Dog missiles
On December 21, 1959, General Thomas S. Power, the 87.3.2 Numbers in Service Commander in Chief of the U.S. Air Force’s Strategic Air Command (SAC), formally accepted the first production The number of Hound Dog missiles in service, by year:
310
CHAPTER 87. AGM-28 HOUND DOG
87.4 Variants • B-77 — Redesignated GAM-77 prior to production. • XGAM-77 — 25 prototype missiles produced • GAM-77 — 697 missiles produced. • GAM-77A — 452 missiles upgraded from GAM77 to GAM-77A configuration. • AGM-28A — The GAM-77 was redesignated the AGM-28A in June 1963 • AGM-28B — The GAM-77A was redesignated the AGM-28B in June 1963 • AGM-28C — Proposed Hound Dog that would have been equipped with a TERCOM guidance system.
87.5 Operator
• 28th Bombardment Squadron • 28th Bombardment Wing, Heavy – Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota • 77th Bombardment Squadron • 39th Bombardment Wing – Eglin AFB, Florida • 62d Bombardment Squadron • 42d Bombardment Wing, Heavy – Loring AFB, Maine • 69th Bombardment Squadron • 70th Bombardment Squadron • 68th Bombardment Wing – Seymour Johnson AFB, North Carolina • 51st Bombardment Squadron • 70th Bombardment Wing – Clinton-Sherman AFB, Oklahoma • 6th Bombardment Squadron
United States
• United States Air Force
87.5.1 •
Units using the Hound Dog • 2d Bombardment Wing – Barksdale AFB, Louisiana • 20th Bombardment Squadron • 62d Bombardment Squadron • 596th Bombardment Squadron
• 5th Bombardment Wing, Heavy – Travis AFB, California / Minot AFB, North Dakota • 23d Bombardment Squadron • 6th Bombardment Wing, Heavy – Walker AFB, New Mexico • 24th Bombardment Squadron • 40th Bombardment Squadron • 11th Bombardment Wing, Heavy – Altus AFB, Oklahoma • 26th Bombardment Squadron • 17th Bombardment Wing, Heavy – WrightPatterson AFB, Ohio • 34th Bombardment Squadron • 19th Bombardment Wing, Heavy – Homestead AFB, Florida / Robins AFB Georgia
• 72d Bombardment Wing, Heavy – Ramey AFB, Puerto Rico • 60th Bombardment Squadron • 92d Bombardment Wing, Heavy – Fairchild AFB, Washington • 325th Bombardment Squadron • 97th Bombardment Wing, Heavy – Blytheville AFB, Arkansas • 340th Bombardment Squadron • 306th Bombardment Wing – McCoy AFB, Florida • 367th Bombardment Squadron • 319th Bombardment Wing, Heavy – Grand Forks AFB, North Dakota • 46th Bombardment Squadron • 320th Bombardment Wing – Mather AFB, California • 441st Bombardment Squadron • 340th Bombardment Wing – Bergstrom AFB, Texas • 486th Bombardment Squadron • 379th Bombardment Wing, Heavy – Wurtsmith AFB, Michigan • 524th Bombardment Squadron • 397th Bombardment Wing – Dow AFB, Maine • 341st Bombardment Squadron
87.6. SURVIVORS • 410th Bombardment Wing – K. I. Sawyer AFB, Michigan • 644th Bombardment Squadron • 416th Bombardment Wing – Griffiss AFB, New York • 668th Bombardment Squadron • 449th Bombardment Wing – Kincheloe AFB, Michigan
311 • 335th Bombardment Squadron • 4133d Strategic Wing – Grand Forks AFB, North Dakota • 30th Bombardment Squadron • 4134th Strategic Wing – Mather AFB, California • 72d Bombardment Squadron • 4135th Strategic Wing – Eglin AFB, Florida • 301st Bombardment Squadron
• 716th Bombardment Squadron • 450th Bombardment Wing – Minot AFB, North Dakota • 721st Bombardment Squadron • 454th Bombardment Wing – Columbus AFB, Mississippi • 736th Bombardment Squadron • 456th Bombardment Wing – Beale AFB, California • 744th Bombardment Squadron
• 4136th Strategic Wing – Minot AFB, North Dakota • 525th Bombardment Squadron • 4137th Strategic Wing – Robins AFB, Georgia • 342d Bombardment Squadron • 4138th Strategic Wing – Turner AFB, Georgia • 336th Bombardment Squadron • 4228th Strategic Mississippi
• 465th Bombardment Wing – Robins AFB Georgia • 781st Bombardment Squadron
• 4039th Strategic Wing – Griffiss AFB, New York
• 526th Bombardment Squadron • 4043d Strategic Wing – Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio • 42d Bombardment Squadron • 4047th Strategic Wing – McCoy AFB, Florida • 347th Bombardment Squadron • 4123d Strategic Wing – Clinton-Sherman AFB, Oklahoma • 98th Bombardment Squadron • 4126th Strategic Wing – Beale AFB, California • 31st Bombardment Squadron – Beale AFB, California • 4130th Strategic Wing – Bergstrom AFB, Texas
AFB,
• 436th Bombardment Squadron • 4239th Strategic Wing – Kincheloe AFB, Michigan • 93d Bombardment Squadron • 4241st Strategic Wing – Seymour Johnson AFB, North Carolina • 73d Bombardment Squadron
• 75th Bombardment Squadron • 4042d Strategic Wing – K.I. Sawyer AFB, Michigan
Columbus
• 4238th Strategic Wing – Barksdale AFB, Louisiana
• 4038th Strategic Wing – Dow AFB, Maine • 341st Bombardment Squadron
–
• 492d Bombardment Squadron
• 484th Bombardment Wing – Turner AFB Georgia • 864th Bombardment Squadron
Wing
[12] [13]
87.6 Survivors • AGM-28 S/N 60-2176 located at the Eighth Air Force Museum, Barksdale Air Force Base, Bossier City, Louisiana, United States. • AGM-28 located at the Aerospace Museum of California, former McClellan Air Force Base, Sacramento, California, United States. • AGM-28 located at the Air Force Space & Missile Museum, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, United States. • AGM-28 S/N 33792 located at the Air Force Space & Missile Museum, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, United States.
312
CHAPTER 87. AGM-28 HOUND DOG
• AGM-28 S/N 62-0003 located at the Castle Air Museum, former Castle Air Force Base, Atwater, California, United States.
• AGM-28 S/N 60-2110 located at the U.S. Space and Rocket Center, Huntsville, Alabama, United States. • AGM-28 located at the Strategic Air and Space Museum, adjacent to Offutt Air Force Base, Omaha, Nebraska, United States.
• AGM-28 S/N 60-2192 located at the Dyess Linear Air Park, Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, United States.
• AGM-28 located at the American Legion in Tecumseh, Oklahoma, United States.
• AGM-28 marked as S/N 59-2794, located at the Air Force Armament Museum, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, United States.
• XGAM-77 located at the Travis Air Museum, Travis Air Force Base, California, United States.
• AGM-28 located at Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota, United States.
• AGM-28 S/N 59-2847 located at the Veterans Home of Wyoming in Buffalo, Wyoming, United States.
• AGM-28 located at the Joe Davies Heritage Airpark, Air Force Plant 42, Palmdale, California, United States
• AGM-28 located at the White Sands Missile Range Missile Park, New Mexico, United States.
• AGM-28 located at Mars Hill Town Park, Mars Hill, North Carolina, United States
• AGM-28 S/N 60-2971 located at the Wings of Eagles Discovery Center, Horseheads, New York, United States.
• AGM-28 S/N 61-2206 located at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, United States • AGM-28 S/N 60-2141 located at the National Atomic Museum, adjacent to Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States.
Ģ
87.7 Popular culture
• AGM-28 S/N 62-0007 located at the National Museum of the United States Air Force, Wright- Where it received the name Hound Dog has been the Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio, United source of argument for decades. In recent years however States. It was transferred to the museum in 1975. people have given credit to fans in the Air Force of Elvis [3] • AGM-28 S/N 60-505 located at the New England Presley's version of Hound Dog (song). Air Museum, Windsor Locks, Connecticut, United States.
87.8 See also
• AGM-28 S/N 59-2796 located at the Octave Chanute Aerospace Museum, former Chanute Air Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era Force Base, Rantoul, Illinois, United States. • AGM-28 S/N 59-2866 located at the Pima Air & Space Museum, adjacent to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Tucson, Arizona, United States.
• P-270 Moskit • Raduga Kh-20
• Raduga K-10S • AGM-28 S/N 60-2092 located at the Pima Air & Space Museum, adjacent to Davis-Monthan Air Related lists Force Base, Tucson, Arizona, United States. • AGM-28 located at the Pratt & Whitney Engine Museum and Hangar, East Hartford, Connecticut, United States. • AGM-28 located at Veterans Park in Presque Isle, Maine, United States.
• List of military aircraft of the United States • List of missiles
87.9 References
• AGM-28 S/N 61-2148 located at the Museum of Aviation, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, United Citations States. • AGM-28 S/N 59-2791 located at the South Dakota Air and Space Museum, Ellsworth Air Force Base, Rapid City, South Dakota, United States.
[1] “AGM-28 Missile Hound Dog Missile Hound Dog” Access date: 8 October 2007. [2] “AGM-28A Hound Dog” Access date: 8 October 2007.
87.9. REFERENCES
313
[3] “A Brief Account of the Beginning of the Hounddog (GAM 77)" Access date: 28 October 2007. [4] “AGM-28 Hound Dog Missile” Access date: 8 October 2007. [5] Mark Wade. “Navaho”. Encyclopedia Astronautica Website. Access date: 20 October 2007. [6] “AGM-28 Missile Memos” Access date: 8 October 2007.
• North American AGM-28B Hound Dog, Aviation Enthusiast Corner Website, retrieved on October 21, 2007. • The USAF and the Cruise Missile Opportunity or Threat, Kenneth P. Werrell, Technology and the Air Force A Retrospective Assessment, Air Force History and Museums Program, 1997
Access date: 21
• Airpower Theory and Practice, Edited by John Gooch, Frank Cass Publishing, 1995, ISBN 0-71464186-3.
[8] David C. Aronstein and Albert C. Piccirillo. Have Blue and the F-117A: Evolution of the Stealth Fighter, AIAA, 1997, ISBN 1-56347-245-7.
• Association of the Air Force Missileers: “Victors in the Cold War, Turner Publishing Company, 1998, ISBN 1-56311-455-0
[7] Mongrel Makes GoodTime Magazine. October 2007.
[9] National Museum of the Air Force. North American AGM-28B Hound Dog. Access date: 20 October 2007. [10] Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. AGM28. Access date: 28 October 2007. [11] IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN WEBSITE. [3.0] Cruise Missiles Of The 1950s & 1960s. Access date: 28 October 2007. [12] Dorr, R. & Peacock, L.B-52 Stratofortress: Boeing’s Cold War Warrior, Osprey Aviation: Great Britain. ISBN 184176-097-8 [13] Enchanted Forest Web Page Design Service. “AMMS Bases”. Ammsalumni.org. Retrieved 2011-09-28.
Bibliography • Hound Dog, Historical Essay by Andreas Parsch, Encyclopedia Astronautica website, retrieved October 8, 2007. • Indoor Exhibits, Travis Air Museum website, retrieved October 8, 2007 • The Navaho Project – A Look Back, North American Aviation Retirees Bulletin, Summer 2007. • Complete List of All U.S. Nuclear Weapons, Nuclear Weapon Archive Website, retrieved October 13, 2007. • B-52 Stratofortress: Boeing’s Cold War Warrior, Dorr, R. & Peacock, L., Osprey Aviation: Great Britain. ISBN 1-84176-097-8 • Hound Dog Fact Sheet, Space Line Website, retrieved on October 14, 2007 • Angle of Attack: Harrison Storms and the Race to the Moon, Mike Gray, Penguin, 1994, ISBN 978-0-14023280-6 • GAM-77 Hound Dog Missile, Boeing Corporate Website, retrieved on October 14, 2007,
Chapter 88
AGM-65 Maverick The AGM-65 Maverick is an air-to-ground tactical missile (AGM) designed for close air support. The most widely produced precision-guided missile in the Western world,[4] it is effective against a wide range of tactical targets, including armor, air defenses, ships, ground transportation and fuel storage facilities. Originally designed and built by Hughes Missile Systems, development of the AGM-65 spanned from 1966 to 1972, after which it entered service with the United States Air Force in August 1972. Since then, it has been exported to more than 30 countries and is certified on 25 aircraft.[5] The Maverick served during the Vietnam, Yom Kippur, Iran–Iraq and Gulf Wars, along with other smaller conflicts, destroying enemy forces and installations with varying degrees of success.
for further development and testing of the missile; at the same time, contract options called for 17,000 missiles to be procured.[7] Hughes conducted a smooth development of the AGM-65 Maverick, culminating in the first, and successful, firing of the AGM-65 on a tank at Air Force Missile Development Center at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico, on 18 December 1969.[7] In July 1971, the USAF and Hughes signed a $69.9 million contract for 2,000 missiles,[7] the first of which was delivered in 1972.[6]
Although early operational results were favorable, military planners predicted that the Maverick would fare less successfully in the hazy conditions of Central Europe, where it would have been used against Warsaw Pact forces.[8] As such, development of the AGM-65B began Since its introduction into service, numerous Maver- in 1975 before it was delivered during the late 1970s. ick versions had been designed and produced, using When production of the AGM-65A/B was ended in 1978, electro-optical, laser, charge-coupled device and infra- more than 35,000 missiles had been built.[2] red guidance systems. The AGM-65 has two types of More versions of the Maverick appeared, among which warhead: one has a contact fuze in the nose, the other was the laser-guided AGM-65C/E. Development of the has a heavyweight warhead fitted with a delayed-action AGM-65C started in 1978 by Rockwell, who built a numfuze, which penetrates the target with its kinetic energy ber of development missiles for the USAF.[2][8] Due to before detonating. The Maverick shares the same config- high cost, the version was not procured by the USAF, uration as Hughes’s AIM-4 Falcon and AIM-54 Phoenix, and instead entered service with the United States Maand measures more than 2.4 m (8 ft) in length and 30 cm rine Corps (USMC) as the AGM-65E.[2][8] Another ma(12 in) in diameter. jor development was the AGM-65D, which employed an imaging infrared (IIR) seeker and thus is all-weather operable.[2] The five-year development period of the AGM-65D started in 1977 and ended with the first deliv88.1 Development ery to the USAF in October 1983.[2] The version received [1] The Maverick’s development history began in 1965, when initial operating capability in February 1986. the United States Air Force (USAF) began a program to The AGM-65F is a hybrid Maverick combining the develop a replacement to the AGM-12 Bullpup.[6] With a AGM-65D’s IIR seeker and warhead and propulsion range of 16.3 km (8.8 nmi), the radio-guided Bullpup was components of the AGM-65E.[2] Deployed by the United introduced in 1959 and was considered a “silver bullet” States Navy (USN), the AGM-65F is optimized for marby operators. However, the launch aircraft was required itime strike roles.[2] The first AGM-65F launch from the to fly straight towards the target during the missile’s flight P-3C took place in 1989, and in 1994, the USN awarded instead of performing evasive maneuvers, thus risking the Unisys a contract to integrate the version with the Pcrew.[6] 3C.[4][9] Meanwhile, Hughes produced the AGM-65G, From 1966 to 1968, Hughes Missile Systems and which essentially has the same guidance system as the D, Rockwell competed for the contract to build the new mis- with some software modifications that track[1]larger tarsile. Each were allocated $3 million for preliminary de- gets, coupled with a shaped-charge warhead. sign and engineering work of the Maverick in 1966.[7] In the mid-1990s to early 2000s, there were several ideas In 1968, Hughes emerged with the $95 million contract 314
88.3. VARIANTS of enhancing the Maverick’s potential. Among them was the stillborn plan to incorporate the Maverick millimeter wave active radar homing, which can determine the exact shape of a target.[10] Another study called “Longhorn Project”[10] was conducted by Hughes, and later Raytheon following the absorption of Hughes into Raytheon, looked a Maverick version equipped with turbojet engines instead of rocket motors. The “Maverick ER”, as it was dubbed, would have a “significant increase in range” compared to the Maverick’s current range of 25 kilometres (16 mi).[11] The proposal was abandoned, but if the Maverick ER had entered production, it would have replaced the AGM-119B Penguin carried on the MH60R.[11]
315 and a cylindrical body, reminiscent of the AIM-4 Falcon and the AIM-54 Phoenix.[3] Different models of the AGM-65 have used electrooptical, laser, and infra-red guidance systems. The AGM-65 has two types of warheads: one has a contact fuze in the nose, the other has a heavyweight warhead fitted with a delayed-action fuze, which penetrates the target with its kinetic energy before detonating. The latter is most effective against large, hard targets. The propulsion system for both types is a solid-fuel rocket motor behind the warhead.[1] The Maverick missile is unable to lock onto targets on its own; it has to be given input by the pilot or Weapon Systems Officer (WSO) after which it follows the path to the target autonomously, allowing the WSO to fire and forget. In an A-10 Thunderbolt, for example, the video fed from the seeker head is relayed to a screen in the cockpit, where the pilot can check the locked target of the missile before launch. A crosshair on the head-up display is shifted by the pilot to set the approximate target while the missile will then automatically recognize and lock on to the target. Once the missile is launched, it requires no further assistance from the launch vehicle and tracks its target automatically. This fire-and-forget property is not shared by the E version that uses semi-active laser homing.[2]
88.3 Variants
An AGM-65 test-fired against an M-48 tank (1978) The most modern versions of the Maverick are the AGM65H/K, which were in production as of 2007.[1] The AGM-65H was developed by coupling the AGM-65B with a charge-coupled device (CCD) seeker optimized for desert operations and which has three times the range of the original TV-sensor;[2][11] a parallel USN program aimed at rebuilding AGM-65Fs with newer CCD seek- Laser AGM-65 Maverick on a USN F/A-18C, 2004 ers resulted in the AGM-65J.[2] The AGM-65K, meanwhile, was developed by replacing the AGM-65G’s IR • Maverick A is the basic model and uses an electroguidance system with an electro-optical television guidoptical television guidance system. No longer in ance system.[1] U.S. service.
88.2 Design
• Maverick B is similar to the A model, although the B model added optical zooming to lock onto small or distant targets.
The Maverick has a modular design construction, allowing a different combination of the guidance package and warhead to be attached to the rocket motor section to produce a different weapon.[1] It has long-chord delta wings
• Maverick C was to be a laser-guided variant for the United States Marine Corps (USMC). It was canceled before production, however its requirement was later met by the Maverick E.
316
CHAPTER 88. AGM-65 MAVERICK
• Maverick D replaced the electro-optical guidance with an imaging infrared system which doubled the practical firing distance and allowed for its use at night and during bad weather. A reduced smoke rocket engine was also introduced in this model. It achieved its initial operation capability in 1983. • Maverick E uses a laser designator guidance system optimized for fortified installations and heavier penetrating blast-fragmentation warhead (140 kg (300 lb) vs. 57 kg (125 lb) in older models). It achieved IOC in 1985 and was used mainly by USMC aviation.
An A-10 firing a Maverick missile
• Maverick F, designed specially for US Navy, it uses a modified Maverick D infrared guidance system optimized for tracking ships fitted onto a Maverick-E In June 1975, during a border confrontation, Iranian troops fired twelve Mavericks, all successful, at Iraqi body and warhead. tanks.[17] Five years later, during Operation Pearl as part • Maverick G model essentially has the same guid- of the Iran–Iraq War, Iranian F-4s used Mavericks to sink ance system as the D with some software modifica- three OSA II missile boats and four P-6 combat ships.[18] tion that enables the pilot to track larger targets. The Due to weapons embargoes, Iran had to equip its AH-1J G model’s major difference is its heavier penetrator SeaCobra helicopters with AGM-65 Maverick missiles warhead taken from the Maverick E, compared to and used them with some success in various operations the D model’s shaped-charge warhead. It completed such as Operation Undeniable Victory whereas Iranian AH-1J’s fired 11 Mavericks.[19][20][21] tests in 1988. • Maverick H model is an AGM-65B/D missile up- In August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. In early 1991, the graded with a new charge-coupled device (CCD) US-led Coalition executed Operation Desert Storm during which Mavericks played a crucial role in the ousting of seeker better suited for the desert environment. Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Employed by F-15E Strike Ea• Maverick J model is a Navy AGM-65F missile up- gles, F-18 Hornets, AV-8B Harriers, F-16 Fighting Falgraded with the new CCD seeker. However, this cons and A-10 Thunderbolts, but used mainly by the last two, more than 5,000 Mavericks were deployed to atconversion is not confirmed. tack armored targets.[1][22] The most-used variant by the • Maverick K model is an AGM-65G upgraded with USAF was the IIR-guided AGM-65D.[22] The reported the CCD seeker; at least 1,200, but possibly up to hit rate by USAF Mavericks was 80–90%, while for the 2,500 AGM-65G rounds are planned for conversion USMC it was 60%.[2] The Maverick was used again in to AGM-65K standard.[2] Iraq during the 2003 Iraq War, during which 918 were fired.[9] • Maverick E2/L model incorporates a laser-guided seeker that allows for designation by the launch air- The first time the Maverick were fired from a Lockheed craft, another aircraft, or a ground source and can P-3 Orion at a hostile vessel was when the USN and coaliengage small, fast moving, and maneuvering targets tion units came to the aid of Libyan rebels to engage the Libyan Coast Guard vessel Vittoria in the port of Misrata, on land and at sea.[12][13] Libya, during the late evening of 28 March 2011. Vittoria was engaged and fired upon by a USN P-3C Maritime Patrol aircraft with AGM-65 Maverick missiles.[23] 88.4 Deployment The Maverick was declared operational on 30 August 1972 with the F-4D/Es and A-7s initially cleared for the 88.5 Launch platforms type;[7] the missile made its combat debut four months later with the USAF in the Vietnam War.[14] During the 88.5.1 United States Yom Kippur War in October 1973, the Israelis used Mavericks to destroy and disable enemy vehicles.[8] Deploy- LAU-117 Maverick launchers have been used on USN, ment of early versions of the Mavericks in these two wars USAF, and USMC aircraft: were successful due to the favorable atmospheric conditions that suited the electro-optical TV seeker.[8] Ninety• Bell AH-1W SuperCobra[24] nine missiles were fired during the two wars, eighty-four • Boeing AH-64 Apache[4] of which were successful.[15][N 1]
88.5. LAUNCH PLATFORMS
317
88.5.2 Export The Maverick has been exported to at least 30 countries: •
Royal Australian Air Force: F/A-18[27]
•
Belgian Air Component: F-16 (AGM-65G)
•
Royal Canadian Air Force: CF-18[28]
•
US Navy F/A-18C Hornet armed with AGM-65 Maverick
•
Czech Air Force: L-159[29]
•
Royal Danish Air Force:[9] F-16
•
Egyptian Air Force:[9] F-4 and F-16 (AGM65A/B/E)
•
Hellenic Air Force: F-4[26] and F-16 Blocks 30, 50, and 52+
•
An IRIAF F-4E Phantom II carrying four AGM-65 Mavericks
Chilean Air Force: F-16 AM/BM MLU, F-16 Block 50+
Hungarian Air Force: JAS 39
•
Indonesian Air Force: F-16A/B Block 15 OCU, Hawk 209
•
Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force: F-4E[26] and SH-3D; Islamic Republic of Iran Army Aviation: AH-1J SeaCobra
•
Israeli Air Force: F-4E[26] and F-16
•
Italian Navy:[9] AV-8B
• Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet[25]
•
• Douglas A-4M Skyhawk[26]
•
• Grumman A-6 Intruder[24]
•
Royal Malaysian Air Force: F/A-18D,[30] and Hawk 208
•
Royal Moroccan Air Force:[9] F-16 Block 52+, F-5E/F
•
Royal Netherlands Air Force: F-16 MLU
•
Royal New Zealand Navy: SH-2G;[31] and Royal New Zealand Air Force: A-4 (after being upgraded in the late 1980s under Project Kahu, retired 2001)[32]
• Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II[22] • General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark[24] • General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon[22] • Kaman SH-2G Seasprite[24] • Lockheed P-3 Orion[23] • LTV A-7 Corsair II[7] • McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II[22]
• McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet[22]
Kuwait Air Force.[9]
•
Pakistan Air Force:[9] F-16
•
Polish Air Force: F-16 Block 50/52+
•
Portuguese Air Force:[9] F-16A/B Block 15 OCU and F-16AM/BM MLU
•
Romanian Air Force:[9] F-16A/B Block 15
• McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II[7] • McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle[22]
Royal Jordanian Air Force:[9] F-16 MLU and F-5E/F
MLU •
Royal Saudi Air Force: F-5E[26]
318
CHAPTER 88. AGM-65 MAVERICK
• •
Serbian Air Force: J-22[33] and G-4[34] Republic of Singapore Air Force: A-4SU, F5S, F-16C/D Block 52 and F-15SG
•
Republic of Korea Air Force: FA-50,TA50,[35] F-16C/D Block 52D, F-15K, F-4[26]
•
Spanish Air Force:[9] F/A-18; and Spanish Navy: AV-8B
•
Swedish Air Force: AJ37[26] JAS 39
•
Swiss Air Force: F-5E and Hunter[26]
•
•
Republic of China Air Force (Taiwan):[9] F16A/B Block 20 (AGM-65G), and F-5E/F (AGM65B) Royal Thai Air Force:[9] F-16A/B Block 15 OCU/ADF and JAS 39
[1] “AGM-65 Maverick”. United States Air Force. 16 November 2007. Archived from the original on 2013-0801. Retrieved 19 December 2011. [2] “Raytheon (Hughes) AGM-65 Maverick”. Designationsystems.net. 7 April 2005. Archived from the original on 2013-10-04. Retrieved 19 December 2011. [3] Bonds & Miller 2002, p. 230. [4] “AGM-65 Maverick” (PDF). Raytheon. 2001. Archived from the original on 2013-11-04. Retrieved 22 December 2011. [5] “AGM-65 Maverick” (PDF). Raytheon. 2007. Archived from the original on 2012-07-28. Retrieved 22 December 2011. [6] Clancy 1995, p. 163. [7] “Maverick: smarter than average”. Flight International. 23 November 1972. Archived from the original on 201311-05. Retrieved 20 December 2011.
•
Turkish Air Force: F-16 and F-4[26]
[8] Clancy 1995, p. 164.
•
Tunisian Air Force
[9] Friedman 2006, p. 562.
•
Royal Air Force: Harrier GR7[36]
•
JMSDF: P-1[37]
88.6 See also • Joint Air-to-Ground Missile • AGM-114 Hellfire • Kh-29 • C-704 Related lists • List of military aircraft of the United States • List of missiles
88.7 References Notes [1] Laur and Llanso claim that 18 Mavericks were launched for 13 hits during the Vietnam War from January to February 1973, while the Israelis launched 50 Mavericks during the Yom Kippur War for 42 hits and five deliberate misses.[16]
Citations
[10] Clancy 1995, p. 166. [11] Lewis, Paul (30 April – 6 May 2002). “Raytheon considers turbojet as part of Maverick missile upgrade package”. Archived from the original on 2014-04-08. Retrieved 21 December 2011. [12] U.S. Air Force Completes Developmental Testing of Raytheon Laser-Guided Maverick - Raytheon news release, 9 August 2011 [13] Laser Maverick Missile Will Hit Pirates - Ainonline.com, 15 February 2012 [14] Clancy 1995, pp. 163–164. [15] “Air-to-ground: Hughes AGM-65 Maverick”. Flight International. 2 August 1980. Archived from the original on 2013-11-05. Retrieved 20 December 2011. [16] Laur & Llanso 1995, pp. 273–274. [17] Laur & Llanso 1995, p. 274. [18] “Operation Morvarid”. Iinavy.org. Archived from the original on 2012-02-11. Retrieved 22 December 2011. [19] http://axgig.com/images/79016160811542429413.jpg Archived May 16, 2013 at the Wayback Machine [20] Welcome Shahed Magazines Archived February 2, 2014 at the Wayback Machine [21] http://www.aja.ir/portal/File/ShowFile.aspx?ID= 3b14fc31-0ee4-4e3f-8809-664c181e3b6d Archived February 3, 2014 at the Wayback Machine [22] Elliott, Simon. “The Missiles That Worked”. Flight International. p. 38. Archived from the original on 2014-0408. Retrieved 20 December 2011.
88.8. EXTERNAL LINKS
[23] U.S. 6th Fleet Public Affairs (31 March 2011). “Navy Firsts During Odyssey Dawn”. United States European Command. Archived from the original on 2014-04-09. Retrieved 20 December 2011. [24] “LAU-117 Maverick Launcher”. FAS Military Analysis Network. 23 April 2000. Archived from the original on 2014-04-08. Retrieved 21 December 2011. [25] “F/A-18 fact file”. United States Navy. 13 October 2006. Archived from the original on 2014-01-11. Retrieved 21 December 2011. [26] “Hughes AGM-65 Maverick”. Flight International. 5 February 1983. p. 324. Archived from the original on 2014-04-08. Retrieved 21 December 2011. [27] Karim 1996, p. 71. [28] “Technical Specifications: CF-188 Hornet”. Airforce.forces.gc.ca. 26 March 2007. Archived from the original on 2011-01-05. Retrieved 21 December 2011. [29] “L-159 calls the shots in Norway”. Flight International. 23–29 June 1999. Archived from the original on 201404-08. Retrieved 21 December 2011. [30] “Malaysia asks for more F-18s”. Flight International. 14– 20 September 1994. Archived from the original on 201404-08. Retrieved 21 December 2011. [31] “Australian navy makes avionics software deal”. Flight International. 20–26 February 2001. Archived from the original on 2014-04-08. Retrieved 21 December 2011. [32] “Kahu Skyhawk fires Maverick”. Flight International. 13 May 1989. Archived from the original on 2014-04-08. Retrieved 21 December 2011. [33] “Soko J-22 Orao Ground Attack and Reconnaissance Aircraft, Bosnia and Herzegovina”. Airforcetechnology.com. Archived from the original on 2014-04-08. Retrieved 21 December 2011. [34] “Soko G-4 Super Galeb Military Trainer and Ground Attack Aircraft, Serbia”. Airforce-technology.com. Archived from the original on 2014-04-08. Retrieved 21 December 2011. [35] Sung-Ki, Jung (15 February 2008). “S. Korea Speeds Up Air Changes”. DefenseNews.com. Retrieved 21 December 2011. [36] Hoyle, Craig; Hasharon, Ramat (14–20 December 2004). “UK considers decoy for Harriers”. Flight International. Archived from the original on 2014-04-08. Retrieved 21 December 2011. [37] " (XP-1) ". Technical Research and Development Institute. 2012-06. Check date values in: |date= (help)
Bibliography • Bonds, Ray; Miller, David (2002). “AGM-65 Maverick”. Illustrated Directory of Modern American Weapons. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zenith Imprint. ISBN 978-0-7603-1346-6. Archived from the original on 2013-05-27.
319 • Clancy, Tom (1995). “Ordnance: How Bombs Got 'Smart'". Fighter Wing. London: HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-00-255527-2. • Friedman, Norman (2006). The Naval Institute guide to world naval weapon systems. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-155750-262-9. Archived from the original on 201404-09. • Karim, Afsir (1996). Indo-Pak relations: viewpoints, 1989–1996. New Delhi: Lancer Publishers. ISBN 978-1-897829-23-3. • Laur, Timothy M.; Llanso, Steven L (1995). Encyclopedia of modern U.S. military weapons. New York City: Berkley Books. ISBN 978-0-42514781-8.
88.8 External links • Video clip of a T50 trainer firing a Maverick • Video clip detailing the Maverick’s operation
Chapter 89
AGM-69 SRAM The Boeing AGM-69 SRAM (Short-range attack mis- of 24 missiles, all internal. The smaller FB-111A could sile) was a nuclear air-to-surface missile designed to re- carry two missiles internally and four more missiles under place the older AGM-28 Hound Dog stand-off missile. the aircraft’s swing-wing. The externally mounted missiles required the addition of a tailcone to reduce aerodyThe requirement for the weapon was issued by the Strategic Air Command of the United States Air Force namic drag during supersonic flight of the aircraft. Upon rocket motor ignition, the missile tailcone was blown in 1964, and the resultant AGM-69A SRAM contract was awarded to Boeing in 1966,[1] After delays and tech- away by the exhaust plume. nical flaws during testing,[2] it was ordered into full production in 1971 and entered service in August 1972.[3] It was carried by the B-52, FB-111A, and, for a very short period starting in 1986, by B-1Bs based at Dyess AFB in Texas. SRAMs were also carried by the B-1Bs based at Ellsworth AFB in South Dakota, Grand Forks AFB in North Dakota, and McConnell AFB in Kansas up until late 1993. SRAM had an inertial navigation system as well as a radar altimeter which enabled the missile to be launched in either a semi-ballistic or terrain-following flight path. The SRAM was also capable of performing one “major maneuver” during its flight which gave the missile the capability of reversing its course and attacking targets that were behind it, sometimes called an “over-the-shoulder” launch. The missile had a Circular Error Probable (CEP) of about 1,400 feet (430 m) and a maximum range of 110 nautical miles (200 km). The SRAM used a single W69 nuclear warhead with a variable yield of 17 kilotons as a fission weapon, or 210 kilotons as a fusion weapon with Tritium boost enabled. The aircrew could turn a switch on the Class III command to select the destructive yield required. The SRAM missile was completely coated with 0.8 in (2.0 cm) of soft rubber, used to absorb radar energy and also dissipate heat during flight. The three fins on the tail were made of a phenolic material, also designed to minimize any reflected radar energy. All electronics, wiring, and several safety devices were routed along the top of the missile, inside a raceway. On the B-52, SRAMs were carried externally on 2 wing pylons (6 missiles on each pylon) and internally on an eight-round rotary launcher mounted in the bomb bay; maximum loadout was 20 missiles. The capacity of the B-1B was 8 missiles on up to three rotary launchers (one in each of its three stores bays) for a maximum loadout
About 1,500 missiles were built at a cost of about $592,000 each by the time production ended in 1975. The Boeing Company sub-contracted with the Lockheed Propulsion Company for the propellants, which subsequently closed with the end of the SRAM program. An upgraded AGM-69B was proposed in the late 1970s, with an upgraded motor to be built by Thiokol and a W80 warhead, but it was cancelled by President Jimmy Carter (along with the B-1A) in 1978. Various plans for alternative guidance schemes, including an anti-radar seeker for use against air defense installations and even a possible air-to-air missile version, came to nothing. A new weapon, the AGM-131 SRAM II, began development in 1981, intended to arm the resurrected B-1B, but it was cancelled in 1991 by President George Bush, along with most of the U.S. Strategic Modernization effort (including Peacekeeper Mobile (Rail) Garrison, Midgetman small ICBM and Minuteman III modernization) in an effort by the U.S. to ease nuclear pressure on the disintegrating Soviet Union. In June 1990, Defense Secretary Dick Cheney ordered the missiles removed from bombers on alert pending a safety inquiry.[4][5] A decade earlier in September 1980, A B-52H on alert status at Grand Forks AFB in northeastern North Dakota experienced a wing fire that burned for three hours, fanned by evening winds of 26 mph (42 km/h). Fortunately, the wind direction was parallel to the fuselage, which likely had SRAMs in the main bay. Eight years later, weapons expert Roger Batzel testified to a closed U.S. Senate hearing that a change of wind direction could have led to a conventional explosion and a widespread scattering of radioactive plutonium.[6] The AGM-69A was finally retired in 1993 over growing concerns about the safety of its warhead and rocket motor. With the end of the Cold War it is unlikely to be replaced in the immediate future. There were serious
320
89.3. SEE ALSO concerns about the solid rocket motor, when several motors suffered cracking of the propellant, thought to occur due to the hot/cold cycling year after year. Cracks in the propellant could cause catastrophic failure once ignited. The SRAM was effectively replaced by the AGM-86 cruise missile, which has longer range, though easier to intercept.
321 • Maximum range: 35–105 miles (56–169 km) depending on flight profile • Powerplant: 1 × Lockheed SR75-LP-1 two stage solid-fuel rocket motor • Guidance: General Precision/Kearfott KT-76 IMU and Stewart-Warner radar altimeter • CEP: 1,400 ft (430 m)
89.1 Service history
• Warhead: W69 thermonuclear (170-200 kt of TNT)
The number of AGM-69 missiles in service, by year: • 1972 - 227 • 1973 - 651
89.3 See also • Strategic Air Command
• 1974 - 1149 • 1975 - 1451 • 1976 - 1431 • 1977 - 1415 • 1978 - 1408 • 1979 - 1396 • 1980 - 1383 • 1981 - 1374 • 1982 - 1332 • 1983 - 1327 • 1984 - 1309 • 1985 - 1309 • 1986 - 1128 • 1987 - 1125 • 1988 - 1138
89.4 References [1] “Boeing wins missile contract”. The Day (New London, CT). Associated Press. November 2, 1966. p. 26. [2] “Missile flaws called fixed”. Toledo Blade. Associated Press. July 23, 1971. p. 6. [3] “Missile study won by Boeing”. Spokane Daily Chronicle. Associated Press. October 16, 1972. p. 19. [4] Schaefer, Susanne M. (June 9, 1990). “Cheney orders missiles removed from bombers pending safety inquiry”. Schenectady Gazette. Associated Press. p. A1. [5] “Some missiles ordered removed”. Eugene RegisterGuard. (Washington Post). June 9, 1990. p. 3A. [6] Karaim, Reed (August 13, 1991). “A Brush With Nuclear Catastrophe”. Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved May 11, 2014.
• Gunston, Bill (1979). Illustrated Encyclopedia of the World’s Rockets & Missiles. London: Salamander Books. ISBN 0-517-26870-1
• 1989 - 1120 • 1990 - 1048 (deactivated by President George H.W. Bush)
89.5 External links • Air University and the 42nd Air Base Wing
89.2 Specifications • Length: 15 ft 10 in (4.83 m) with tail fairing, 14 ft 0 in (4.27 m) without tail fairing • Diameter: 17.5 in (0.44 m). • Wing span: 2 ft 6 in (0.76 m). • Launch weight: 2,230 lb (1,010 kg). • Maximum speed: Mach 3.5
• Strategic Air Command
Chapter 90
AGM-79 Blue Eye The AGM-79 Blue Eye was a missile developed by the United States of America.
90.1 Overview The Blue Eye was a development of the AGM-12 Bullpup, intended to provide a more advanced homing system. The Bullpup was manually steered onto the target, whereas the guidance system in the Blue Eye was an optical area correlation seeker. A TV camera in the missile’s nose provided an image to the pilot; he used this to select the target and lock the missile on before firing. Once launched the area correlation system could detect any deviation of the picture compared to the locked image and correct the missile’s course accordingly. The Blue Eye used the same airframe as the AGM12C/E. A radar altimeter was fitted to allow the warhead to explode in an air burst mode. Firing trials took place in late 1968, with the prototype missile designated XAGM-79A. After several years of development the missile was cancelled in the early 1970s.
90.2 Specifications • Length: 13 ft 7 in (4.14 m) • Wingspan: 4 feet (1.22 m) • Diameter: 1 foot 6 in (0.46 m)
90.3 Operators •
United States: The AGM-79 was cancelled before entering service.
322
Chapter 91
ASM-N-5 Gorgon V For earlier missiles in the Gorgon series, see Gorgon (missile family).
91.2 References Notes
The ASM-N-5 Gorgon V was an unpowered air-tosurface missile, developed by the Glenn L. Martin Com- [1] One source indicates that the weapon may have been command-guided based on a television signal from the pany during the early 1950s for use by the United States missile.[3] Navy as a chemical weapon delivery vehicle. Developed from the earlier PTV-N-2 Gorgon IV test vehicle, the program was cancelled without any Gorgon Vs seeing Citations service. [1] Parsch 2005 [2] Friedman 1982, p.201. [3] Fahey 1958, p.32.
91.1 Design and development
[4] Gunston 1979, p.121.
The Gorgon V project was begun in 1950 as a project to develop an air-to-surface missile capable of dispersing chemical warfare agents over a combat area.[1] The design of the missile was contracted to the Glenn L. Martin Company, which used the company’s earlier PTV-N-2 Gorgon IV ramjet test missile as a basis for the weapon’s design.[1] The Gorgon V was to be a long, slender missile, with swept wings and conventional tail.[1] The Gorgon IV’s ramjet engine, slung underneath the missile’s tail, was replaced in the Gorgon V with a X14A aerosol generator, developed by the Edo Aircraft Corporation.[2]
Bibliography
Operational use of the Gorgon V was intended to be based on two missiles being carried by a launching aircraft.[2] These would be released at an altitude of 35,000 feet (11,000 m), the Gorgon V would be piloted by autopilot in a high-subsonic dive.[2][N 1] Upon reaching an altitude of 500 feet (150 m) or less, as measured by a radar altimeter, the aerosol generator would be activated, dispersing chemical agent over an area of up to 12 mi (20 km) by 5.6 mi (9 km).[1] Development of the Gorgon V continued throughout the Korean War; in 1953, it was projected that the weapon would be ready for operational service by 1955.[2] However later that year, the Gorgon V was cancelled by the U.S. Navy;[4] it is unknown if any prototype vehicles had been constructed before the termination of the project.[1] 323
• Fahey, James Charles. The Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet (7 ed.). Washington, D.C.: Ships and Aircraft Publishers. ASIN B000XG6YU6. Retrieved 2011-02-11. • Friedman, Norman (1982). U.S. Naval Weapons: every gun, missile, mine, and torpedo used by the U.S. Navy from 1883 to the present day. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-0-87021-735-7. • Gunston, Bill (1979). The Illustrated Encyclopedia of the World’s Rockets & Missiles. London: Salamander Books. ISBN 0-517-26870-1. • Parsch, Andreas (2005). “Martin ASM-N-5 Gorgon V”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles Appendix 1: Early Missiles and Drones. designationsystems.net. Retrieved 2011-02-11.
Chapter 92
Bold Orion The Bold Orion missile, also known as Weapons System 199B (WS-199B), was a prototype air-launched ballistic missile (ALBM) developed by Martin Aircraft during the 1950s. Developed in both one- and two-stage designs, the missile was moderately successful in testing, and helped pave the way for development of the GAM87 Skybolt ALBM. In addition, the Bold Orion was used in early anti-satellite weapons testing, performing the first interception of a satellite by a missile.
92.1 Design and development The Bold Orion missile was developed as part of Weapons System 199, initiated by the United States Air Force (USAF) in response to the U.S. Navy’s Polaris program,[1] with funding authorised by the United States Congress in 1957.[2] The purpose of WS-199 was the development of technology that would be used in new strategic weapons for the USAF’s Strategic Air Command, not to deliver operational weapons; a primary emphasis was on proving the feasibility of an air-launched ballistic missile.[2][3][4]
motor of the missile itself, allowed the missile to achieve its maximum range, or, alternatively, to reach space.[9] A twelve-flight test series of the Bold Orion vehicle was conducted;[3] however, despite suffering only one outright failure, the initial flight tests of the single-stage rocket proved less successful than hoped.[3] Authorisation was received to modify the Bold Orion to become a twostage vehicle; in addition to the modifications improving the missile’s reliability, they increased the range of Bold Orion to over 1,000 miles (1,600 km).[4][10] Four of the final six test firings were of the two-stage vehicle; these were considered completely successful, and established that the ALBM was a viable weapon.[2][3]
92.2.1 ASAT test
The final test launch of Bold Orion, conducted on October 13, 1959, was a test of the vehicle’s capabilities in the anti-satellite role.[11][12] Launched from an altitude of 35,000 feet (11,000 m) from its B-47 mothership, the missile successfully intercepted the Explorer 6 satellite,[13] passing its target at a range of less than 4 miles (6.4 km) at an altitude of 156 miles (251 km).[2][3] The designation WS-199B was assigned to the project Had the missile been fitted with a nuclear warhead, the that, under a contract awarded in 1958 to Martin Aircraft, satellite would have been destroyed.[9][14] would become the Bold Orion missile.[3] The design of Bold Orion was simple, utilizing parts developed for other The Bold Orion ASAT test was the first interception of proving that anti-satellite mismissile systems to reduce the cost and development time a satellite by any method, [11][15] [3] siles were feasible. However this test, along with of the project. The initial Bold Orion configuration was an earlier, unsuccessful test of the High Virgo missile a single-stage vehicle, utilising a Thiokol TX-20 Sergeant [3][5] in the anti-satellite role, had political repercussions; the Following initial testing, the Bold solid-fuel rocket. Eisenhower administration sought to establish space as a Orion configuration was altered to become a two-stage neutral ground for everyone’s usage, and the “indication vehicle, an Allegany Ballistics Laboratory Altair upper of hostile intent” the tests were seen to give was frowned stage being added to the missile.[3][6] upon, with anti-satellite weapons development being curtailed shortly thereafter.[9][16]
92.2 Operational history 92.2.2 Legacy Having been given top priority by the Air Force,[7] the first flight test of the Bold Orion missile was conducted on May 26, 1958, from a Boeing B-47 Stratojet carrier aircraft,[3][8] which launched the Bold Orion vehicle at the apex of a high-speed, high-angle climb.[3][9] The zoom climb tactic, combined with the thrust from the rocket
The results of the Bold Orion project, along with those from the testing of the High Virgo missile, also developed under WS-199, provided data and knowledge that assisted the Air Force in forming the requirements for the follow-on WS-138A, which would produce the GAM-87
324
92.5. REFERENCES Skybolt missile.[3][17]
92.3 Launch history
325
[6] Smith 1981, p.178. [7] Missiles and Rockets, volume 5. Washington Countdown. p.9. [8] Friedman 2000, p.122. [9] Temple 2004, p.111. [10] Besserer and Besserer 1959, p.34. [11] Peebles 1997, p. 65. [12] Chronology 1961, p.89. [13] Bowman 1986, p.14. [14] Bulkeley and Spinardi 1986, p.17. [15] Hays 2002, p.84. [16] Lewis and Lewis 1987, pp.93–95. [17] International Aeronautic Federation. Interavia volume 15, p.814.
Bold Orion on B-47 carrier aircraft
92.4 See also • Terra-3
Related development • Alpha Draco • High Virgo
Comparable weapons • ASM-135 ASAT • GAM-87 Skybolt • NOTS-EV-2 Caleb
92.5 References Citations [1] Ball 1980, p.226. [2] Yengst 2010, p.37. [3] Parsch 2005 [4] Stares 1985, p.109. [5] Ordway and Wakeford 1960, p.30.
[18] Bold Orion. Encyclopedia Astronautica. Accessed 201101-19.
Bibliography • 1st Session. House Committee On Science And Astronautics. U.S. Congress. 87th Congress (1961). A Chronology of Missile and Astronautic Events. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. ASIN B000M1F3O0. Retrieved 2011-01-19. • Ball, Desmond (1980). Politics and Force Levels: The Strategic Missile Program of the Kennedy Administration. Berkely, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-03698-0. Retrieved 2011-0119. • Besserer, C.W.; Hazel C. Besserer (1959). Guide to the Space Age. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall. ASIN B004BIGGO6. • Bowman, Robert (1986). Star Wars: A Defense Insider’s Case Against the Strategic Defense Initiative. Los Angeles: Tarcher Publications. ASIN B000NQI6B6. Retrieved 2011-01-19. • Bulkeley, Rip; Graham Spinardi (1986). Space Weapons: Deterrence or Delusion?. Totowa, NJ: Barnes & Noble Books. ISBN 0-389-20640-7. Retrieved 2011-01-19. • Friedman, Norman (2000). Seapower and Space: From the Dawn of the Missile Age to Net-Centric Warfare. London: Chatham Publishing. ISBN 9781-86176-004-3. • Hays, Peter L. (2002). United States Military Space: Into the Twenty-First Century. INSS Occasional Papers 42. Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press. Retrieved 2011-01-19.
326 • Lewis, John S.; Ruth A. Lewis (1987). Space Resources: Breaking the Bonds of Earth. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-06498-5. Retrieved 2011-01-19. • Ordway, Frederick Ira; Ronald C. Wakeford (1960). International Missile and Spacecraft Guide. New York: McGraw-Hill. ASIN B000MAEGVC. • Parsch, Andreas (2005). “WS-199”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designationsystems.net. Retrieved 2010-12-28. • Peebles, Curtis (1997). High Frontier: The U.S. Air Force and the Military Space Program. Washington, D.C.: Air Force Historical Studies Office. ISBN 978-0-7881-4800-2. Retrieved 2010-12-28. • Smith, Marcia S. (1981). United States Civilian Space Programs, 1958–1978; Report Prepared for the Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications 1. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. ASIN B000VA45WS. • Stares, Paul B. (1985). The Militarization of Space: U.S. Policy, 1945–1984. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-1810-5. • Temple, L. Parker, III (2004). Shades of Gray: National Security and the Evolution of Space Reconnaissance. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. ISBN 978-1-56347-723-2. Retrieved 2010-12-28. • Yengst, William (2010). Lightning Bolts: First Manuevering [sic] Reentry Vehicles. Mustang, OK: Tate Publishing & Enterprises. ISBN 978-1-61566547-1. • Yenne, Bill (2005). Secret Gadgets and Strange Gizmos: High-Tech (and Low-Tech) Innovations of the U.S. Military. St. Paul, MN: Zenith Press. ISBN 978-0-7603-2115-7. Further reading • Armagnac, Alden P. (Jun 1961). “U.S. Plans First Warship In Space”. Popular Science (New York: Popular Science Publishing) 178 (6). Retrieved 2011-01-19.
92.6 External links • Bold Orion ALBM (WS-199B), Gunter’s Space Page. • Bold Orion (2 Stage) ALBM (WS-199B), Gunter’s Space Page. • Bold Orion, spaceline.org.
CHAPTER 92. BOLD ORION
Chapter 93
GAM-63 RASCAL For other uses, see Rascal.
MX-776B. 22 X-9 missiles were launched between April 1949 and January 1953.[2]
The GAM-63 RASCAL is a supersonic Air-to-surface missile that was developed by the Bell Aircraft Company. The RASCAL was the United States Air Force's first nuclear armed standoff missile. The RASCAL was initially designated the ASM-A-2, then re-designated the B-63 in 1951 and finally re-designated the GAM-63 in 1955. The name RASCAL was the acronym for RAdar SCAnning Link, the missile’s guidance system.[1] The RASCAL project was cancelled in September 1958.
93.1 Development During World War II, Nazi Germany air-launched 1,176 V-1 missiles from Heinkel He 111 bombers. The United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) studied this weapon system. Testing was conducted in the United States using B-17 bombers and the JB-2 Doodle Bug, a locally produced copy of the V-1. Successful testing of this combination led to the release of requirements to the aerospace industry for an air-to-surface missile on 15 July 1945.[2] In March 1946 the USAAF began work on Project Mastiff, a nuclear armed air-to-surface drone or selfcontrolled air-to-surface missile. Northrop Corporation, Bell, and Republic Aviation were invited by the USAAF to submit proposals for Mastiff.[3] Bell was awarded a feasibility study contract by the USAAF on 1 April 1946. Bell studied the feasibility of developing a subsonic “pilot-less” bomber carrying a substantial payload over a distance of 300 miles (480 km).[4] After 18 months of study, Bell concluded that rocket propulsion was not capable of providing the performance needed to boost the missile the AAF wanted to a range of 300 miles.[4] The range requirement was reduced to 100 miles (160 km) (160.9 km) but other technical problems surfaced.[4] The USAAF started Project MX-776. As a risk reduction measure, Project MX-776 was divided into two sub projects. The MX-776A development developed the RTV-A-4 Shrike later re-designated the X-9 as a testbed for the RASCAL that would be developed under project
93.2 Design In May 1947, the USAAF awarded the Bell Aircraft Company a contract for the construction of a supersonic air-to-surface missile [2] compatible with the B-29 Superfortress, the B-36 bomber, and the B-50 Superfortress bomber. The missile was to have a range of 100 miles.,[1][5][6] Bell’s development effort was led by Walter R. Dornberger.[7] The RASCAL design used the X-9’s canard aerodynamic configuration and a rocket engine derived from the X9’s rocket-propulsion system.[4] The RASCAL was larger than the X-9 with a fuselage that was 9 feet (2.7 m) longer and 2 feet (0.61 m) larger in diameter. The RASCAL’s flight controls included forward and rear surfaces. Forward surfaces include fixed horizontal stabilizers and movable dorsal and ventral surfaces. Rear surfaces include wings with ailerons and fixed dorsal and ventral stabilizers. The aft lower stabilizer could be folded for ground handling. The RASCAL was powered by a XLR67-BA-1 rocket engine also developed by Bell. The XLR-67 provided 10,440 pounds-force (46.4 kN) [8] of thrust using three vertical in-line thrust chambers. All three thrust chambers of the XLR67 were operated during the missile’s boost phase which could last up to two minutes. At the conclusion of the boost phase the upper and lower chambers of the XLR-67 were shut down and thrust was sustained by the center chamber alone.[1] Fuel for the XLR67 included 600 US gallons (2,300 l) of white fuming nitric acid oxidizer and 293 US gallons (1,110 l) of JP4 jet fuel.[1] The oxidizer was stored in a series of tube bundles instead of a spherical storage tank. It is believed this configuration was chosen because it weighed less than a spherical tank of the same volume. [9] Propellant was provided to the thrust chambers by a turbine driven propellant pump. A gas generator powered the propellant pump. The propellants were glow plug ignited. Bell contracted with Purdue University for the glow plug ignition system. Aerojet provided the pump drive assemblies.[9]
327
328 The GAM-63 used a command guidance control system where the RASCAL was remotely controlled by the bombardier in the launching bomber. The RASCAL guidance system was developed jointly by Bell, Federal Communications/Radio Corporation of America (RCA) and Texas Instruments.[1] The initial version of the control system provided an accuracy or circular error probable (CEP) of 3,000 feet (910 m). Adequate for a missile equipped with a nuclear weapon. The bomber carrying the missile was modified with an additional antenna and equipment at the bombardier’s position needed to guide the RASCAL. During the flight to the launch point, the bombardier transferred wind and navigation data periodically to the missile. Prior to launch the bombardier tuned a video relay receiver, altitude phasing, and adjusted the terminal guidance tracking indicator. Missile control surfaces were also checked to make sure they were functional.[1] Prior to the bomber taking off, the RASCAL was preprogrammed for a given flight path. The bomber flew along a heading towards the target. A computer in the RASCAL tracked the aircraft heading and azimuth to the target and automatically dropped the missile at the launch point. After launch, a lanyard connecting the RASCAL to the bomber was used to start the missile’s rocket engine. In the event the lanyard failed an automatic timer would count down and start the engine. The RASCAL was air-launched above 40,000 feet (12,000 m).[1] After launch, the bomber turned away from the target. The missile would climb from the launch altitude to 50,000 feet (15,000 m). Video providing radar imaging of the target would be transmitted back to the bomber. As the missile approached the target the detail in the radar video transmitted from the missile improved. The missile began a terminal dive about 20 miles from the target.[10] The command guidance system did not send a directional signal and was not encrypted which made it susceptible to detection and jamming.[1] An inertial guidance system developed by Bell was used in the later GAM-63A version of the RASCAL. This improved guidance system decreased the CEP of RASCAL to 1,500 feet (457 m).[2] This system received reference information from the bomber prior to launch.[1] The accuracy claims of the inertial guidance system have been questioned by sources.,[1][2] This system could also be used to guide the missile throughout its flight to the target.[1] The RASCAL’s forward section was interchangeable for different targets. Using this capability the RASCAL could be equipped with nuclear, biological, chemical, blast, or incendiary warheads.[3] The requirements for biological and chemical warheads were dropped at the end of 1953.[3] On 5 December 1949, requirements for the RASCAL called for a nuclear warhead weighing between 3,000 pounds (1,400 kg) and 5,000 pounds (2,300 kg).[3] The RASCAL warhead compartment accommodated a
CHAPTER 93. GAM-63 RASCAL cylinder 3.8 feet (1.2 m) in diameter and 6.25 ft (1.9 m) long. The USAF also wanted the ability to use the RASCAL as a standard gravity bomb if the missile could not be readied for launch.[3] In January 1950, Bell began to study what nuclear warheads were available for RASCAL.[3] The W-5 Nuclear Warhead was to initially considered. On 20 August 1950 the Special Weapons Development Board (SWDB) authorized a W-5/RASCAL integration effort.[3] The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was responsible for developing the fuzing system for the RASCAL warhead. No provision was made for surface burst at this time.[3] In April 1952 fuze development was shifted to Bell which resulted because it was USAF policy to make airframe contractors responsible for nuclear weapons fuzing since this system needed to be integrated with the missiles guidance system.[3] Bell developed two complete fuzing systems, airburst or surface burst.[3] Then in March 1956 the W-5/RASCAL program was canceled.[3] In July 1955, the W-27 Nuclear Warhead was considered as a replacement for the W-5 for the RASCAL.[11] USAF requirements for the W-27 called for a 2,800 lb (1,300 kg) nuclear warhead with either electronic countermeasures equipment, infrared countermeasures equipment, or extra fuel to increase the range of the RASCAL...[3] A design for the adaption kit between the W-27 and the RASCAL was completed in January 1957 before the RASCAL was canceled.[3] Three bombers were originally considered as RASCAL launch platforms. The B-29 was removed from front line service while the RASCAL was in development.[2] In March 1952, the USAF then turned to the B-36 and B47 as RASCAL missile carriers.[4] The B-36 was assigned first priority for the RASCAL.[4] The USAF Strategic Air Command did not agree with the decision to use the B47 to carry the RASCAL. SAC wished to substitute the B-47 with the B-50 proposing to field a single squadron each of RASCAL equipped B-50s and B-36s. It was determined that RASCAL-carrying B-50s would need to be based outside the United States because the B-50 would have less range while carrying the RASCAL.[1] The decision to eliminate the B-50 as a RASCAL carrier was not reached until June 1956.[1] A single B-50 was used as a launch platform in support of the RASCAL test program until 1955. A cradle lowered the RASCAL from the B50’s bomb bay before launch. The first powered RASCAL was launched from the test B-50 on 30 September 1952 at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico in the United States[1] In May 1953, 12 DB-36H “director-bombers” were ordered from Convair.[1] Each bomber would be equipped to carry a single RASCAL missile. The RASCAL occupied both of the B-36’s aft bomb bays where it was carried semi-submerged. A portion of the missile was located inside the aircraft and a portion of the missile hung below the aircraft. One forward bomb bay was used to hold
93.3. OPERATIONAL HISTORY
329
equipment required by the RASCAL’s guidance system. 93.3 Operational history The retractable antenna for the command guidance system was installed in the rear of the aircraft. In early 1956, the USAF limited DB-47E production [4] The first YDB-36H was flown on 3 July 1953. Six captive to just two aircraft. In May 1957 the USAF decarry flights were flown between 31 July 1953 and 16 Au- cided to field only one instead of two DB-47 squadrons [4] gust 1953.[1] The addition of the missile to the B-36 did equipped with the RASCAL missile. Strategic Air not increase drag or change the handling characteristics Command leadership believed the RASCAL was already [1][4] By December 1957, the USAF 445th of the bomber.[1] An un-powered RASCAL was dropped obsolete., from a YDB-36H on 25 August 1953. On 21 Decem- Bomb Squadron of the USAF 321st Bomb Wing was ber 1954, a DB-36H was delivered to the Air Force for training with the RASCAL. The first production RASuse in the RASCAL test program at Holloman Air Force CAL was accepted at Pinecastle Air Force Base on 30 [1] Base, New Mexico in the United States.[1] By June 1955, October 1957. Funding shortages would prevent facilat least two missiles had been launched from the B-36 ities from being built at Pinecastle Air Force Base until and Convair had completed manufacturing modification 1959. In August 1958 a review of the previous 6 months kits for the 12 planned aircraft. Two kits had been in- RASCAL testing revealed that out of 65 scheduled test stalled on B-36 aircraft when the USAF decided to carry launches only one launch was a success. More than half of the test launches were canceled and most of the others the RASCAL only on the B-47 bomber.[1] were failures.[4] Before the end of 1952, Boeing received a contract from the USAF to modify two B-47Bs into prototype RAS- On 29 September 1958 the USAF terminated the RAS[1][4] CAL missile carriers. A removable missile support strut CAL program., was installed on the right side of the B-47. Extra in- The AGM-28 Hound Dog replaced the GAM-63 proternal structure was installed to support the loads of the gram. The first flight tests of the Hound Dog were in April strut and missile. While carrying the RASCAL, the B- 1959, and the first operational Hound Dog was delivered 47 could not carry other weapons.[1] The guidance equip- to the USAF in December 1959. The first Hound Dog ment for RASCAL was added to the B-47 bomb bay. The equipped SAC squadron reached initial operational caretractable antenna needed by RASCAL was added to the pability in July 1960. The Hound Dog offered a weapon rear fuselage.[1] Both aircraft were sent to Holloman Air with nearly five times the range of the RASCAL, withForce Base to support the RASCAL test program. After out command guidance, and without hazardous fuels to completion of the two DB-47B prototypes, the delays in contend with. the RASCAL’s development effectively placed the DB47 modification effort on hold until March 1955.[4] Then in June 1955, Boeing received a contract to modify 30 93.4 Variants DB-47Bs to carry the RASCAL. The Strategic Air Command was concerned that externally mounting the RASCAL and the associated internal equipment needed to support the missile would seriously degrade the performance of the bomber. The performance impact was great enough to make the B47/RASCAL combination of questionable value.[4] SAC also argued the B-47/RASCAL combination might never work well. Since the equipment being added to the B-47 to guide the missile added more complexity to the already complex B-47.[4] Then the modification costs required to carry the RASCAL added nearly $1 million US dollars to the cost of every B-47.[4] To SAC these costs seemed premature considering the state of the RASCAL’s development at that time.[4] Finally SAC considered it unwise to commit aircraft and to start training crews before the missile’s development had been completed.[4] The USAF then decided to use the B-47E as a RASCAL missile carrier. Boeing was contracted to convert two B-47E into YDB-47E aircraft. The first YDB-47E flew in January 1954.[4] The first successful RASCAL launch from a DB-47E occurred in July 1955.[1] RASCAL Test Launches at White Sands Missile Range
• ASM-A-2 - RASCAL designation under the USAF 1947 to 1951 designation system. • B-63 - RASCAL designation under the USAF 1951 to 1955 designation system. • XGAM-63 - 75 Prototype RASCALs (Serial Numbers 53-8195 through 53-8269)[1] • GAM-63A - 58 Production RASCALs (Serial Numbers 56-4469 through 56=4506)[1]
93.5 Operator •
United States • United States Air Force
93.6 Survivors • GAM-63 - American Legion Post 170, Midwest City, Oklahoma, United States.[12]
330
CHAPTER 93. GAM-63 RASCAL
• GAM-63 - Air Force Space & Missile Museum, [10] National Museum of the Air Force Website YDB-47E, , retrieved on November 22, 2007. Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, United States. This pristine artifact is in sequestered stor[11] Federation of American Scientists Website, Complete List age in Hangar R on Cape Canaveral AFS and cannot of all U.S. Nuclear Weapons, , retrieved on December 8, be viewed by the general public. 2007. • GAM-63 - Castle Air California, United States.
Museum,
Atwater,
• XGAM-63 - National Museum of the United States Air Force, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio, United States.
[12] http://www.facebook.com/pages/ American-Legion-Post-170-Midwest-City-OK/ 404232636306095?ref=stream
93.9 External links
93.7 See also
• GAM-63 Raskcal Mark Fisher’s Model Rocket Headquarters
Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era
• Shakit 1/72 scale model of the GAM-63
• AGM-28 Hound Dog • AGM-69 SRAM Related lists • List of military aircraft of the United States • List of missiles
• Bertram Andres’ Flugzeugmodelle (Airplane Models) • The Brookings Institution RASCAL page • Bell ASM-A-2/B-63/GAM-63 Rascal Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles • Rascal Encyclopedia Astronautica • GAM-63 Rascal Federation of American Scientists
93.8 References [1] Jenkins, Dennis R. (July 1, 2006). Little RASCAL: the first stand-off weapon”. Airpower, p. 44 [2] Gibson, James N. (1996). Nuclear Weapons of the United States - An Illustrated History. Schiffer Publishing. ISBN 0-7643-0063-6. [3] Hansen, Chuck (1988). U.S. Nuclear Weapons - The Secret History. Aerofax, Arlington Texas. ISBN 0-51756740-7 [4] Knaack, Marcelle Size (1988). Encyclopedia of U.S. Air Force Aircraft and Missile Systems Volume II - PostWorld War II Bombers 1945-1973. Office of Air Force History, USAF, Washington D.C. ISBN 0-912799-59-5 [5] Mark Wade, RASCAL, , retrieved on December 6, 2007. [6] Aeronautical Systems Division History Office Website Development to Combat - Additional Technical Developments Chapter 7, , retrieved on December 6, 2007. [7] Time Magazine Website. Changes of the week Nov 25, 1957, , retrieved on December 29, 2007. [8] National Museum of the United States Air Force Website. BELL XGAM-63 RASCAL retrieved on December 26, 2007. [9] Emresman, C.M. and Boorady Fredrick A. (2007). Bell Aircraft Company from a Modest Beginning to a Major Aerospace Innovator. 43rd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit 8–11 July 2007, Cincinnati, OH
• Declassified Military Records on the GAM-63 RASCAL
Chapter 94
GAM-87 Skybolt The Douglas GAM-87 Skybolt (AGM-48 under the 1962 Tri-service system) was an air-launched ballistic missile (ALBM), equipped with a thermonuclear warhead, developed by the United States during the late 1950s. The UK joined the program in 1960, intending to use it on their V bomber force. A series of test failures and the development of submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) eventually led to its cancellation in December 1962.[1] The UK had decided to base its entire 1960s deterrent force on Skybolt, and its cancellation led to a major disagreement between the UK and US, known today as the “Skybolt Crisis”. This was resolved during a series of meetings that led to the Royal Navy gaining the UGM-27 Polaris missile and construction of the Resolution-class submarines to launch them.
tack while they "loitered" awaiting orders. With in-air refuelling, the loiter times were on the order of a day if need be. In addition, the inaccuracy of missiles in the 1950s made them useless as precision strike weapons. They could attack area targets like cities, but could not reliably and accurately attack precision strike targets like enemy bomber bases, hardened command and control centers, naval bases, or weapons storage areas. Initially, western ballistic missiles could not even reach such targets, which would be located deep within interior of the Sino-Soviet land mass in Asia. Therefore the potential integration of aircraft with the invulnerability of the ballistic missile was an intriguing prospect to 1950s military planners.
94.1.2 ALBMs
94.1 History
Basing the strike package on aircraft offered a flexibility that missiles could not match. For instance, the bombers 94.1.1 Background could stand off from the targets and wait for instructions Nuclear weapons theorists had speculated about how to from secure command centers to attack targets that were integrate the flexibility of the manned bomber with the missed in an initial strike. Additionally, the bombers could use long-range weapons to strike known air deinvulnerability (in the attack) of the ballistic missile. The introduction of useful surface-to-air missiles in the 1950s fenses, and then overfly them to deliver precision strikes with freefall nuclear bombs. rendered flight over enemy territory much more dangerous and had greatly reduced the effective deterrent Secondly, and most importantly, this mode of deploypower of a bomber force. Yet the Air Force and mili- ment meant that the strike force was rendered almost intary planners were, in the mid-1950s, reluctant to simply vulnerable. The bombers could fly to staging areas well hand over the nuclear strike capability to missiles. After outside the range of even the longest-legged defenses, and launch, missiles were no longer under positive control, strike with impunity. This allowed for gradual escalacould not be recalled or redirected, and would reach their tion and a possible backing down through diplomacy. A targets within a matter of minutes after the order to fire. ground-based missile cannot be used in the same fashion; Bombers, in comparison, could be re-directed in flight, it is either launched or not. If threatened with a nuclear and their longer flight times offered greater chance of a strike, this presents their owners with the 'use them or negotiated settlement during the attack. lose them' predicament. Furthermore the missiles of the day were all required to be loaded with their fuels immediately prior to launch, and they could only be launched from above ground after long pre-launch checkouts. This made them vulnerable to attack from the air while they prepared – the first ICBMs, Atlas 1 and Titan 1 were of this type. In contrast, a bomber could be ordered into the air long in advance of an attack, rendering them effectively invulnerable to at-
For the British, their dilemma was a matter of geography and financial resources. No fixed land-based missile system could be credibly installed in the British Isles; they were well within the range of Soviet air strikes. The limited land mass available meant it would be relatively easy for missile sites to be spotted no matter what security measures were taken. Suitable locations for construction also carried a social and political cost. Fixed land based
331
332
CHAPTER 94. GAM-87 SKYBOLT
ballistic missile sites need many thousands of acres per squadron (typically ten missiles); and the squadrons need to be apportioned over many thousands of square miles, so that no single attack could conceivably destroy them all in one strike.
94.1.3
Development
In 1958 several American contractors demonstrated that large ballistic missiles could be launched from strategic bombers at high altitude. The use of astronavigation systems for mid-flight corrections of an inertial guidance platform (astro-inertial guidance), similar to that of the US Navy's SLBM systems, led to an accuracy similar to that of their existing ground-based missiles. The US Air Force was interested and began accepting bids for development systems in early 1959. Douglas Aircraft received the prime contract in May, and in turn subcontracted to Northrop for the guidance system, Aerojet for the propulsion system, and General Electric for the reentry vehicle. The system was initially known as WS138A and was given the official name GAM-87 Skybolt in 1960.
icans were given nuclear submarine basing facilities in Scotland.[2] Following the agreement the Blue Streak programme was formally cancelled in April 1960 and in May 1960 an agreement for an initial order of 100 Skybolts was concluded.[2] Avro were made an associate contractor to manage the Skybolt programme for the United Kingdom and four different schemes were submitted to find a platform for the missile.[2] A number of different aircraft platforms were considered including a variant of the Vickers VC10 airliner and two of the current V bombers, the Avro Vulcan and Handley Page Victor.[2] It was decided to use the Vulcan to initially carry two missiles each on hardpoints outboard of the main landing gear.[2]
94.1.4 Tests By 1961, several test articles were ready for testing from USAF B-52 bombers, with drop-tests starting in January. In January 1961 a Vulcan visited the Douglas plant at Santa Monica to make sure the modifications to the aircraft were electrically compatible with the missile. In Britain, compatibility trials with mockups started on the Vulcan.[2] Powered tests started in April 1962, but the test series went badly, with the first five trials ending in failure of one sort or another. The first fully successful flight occurred on December 19, 1962.
94.1.5 Cancellation By this point the value of the Skybolt system had been seriously eroded. The US Navy’s Polaris submarinelaunched ballistic missile had recently gone into service, with overall capabilities similar to Skybolt, but with “loiter” times on the order of months instead of hours. Additionally, the US Air Force itself was well into the process of developing the Minuteman missile, whose imSkybolt at RAF Museum Cosford Showing the RAF roundel and proved accuracy reduced the need for any bomber atthe manufacturer (Douglas Aircraft) logo tacks. Robert McNamara was particularly opposed to the bomber force and repeatedly stated he felt that the combiAt the same time the Royal Air Force was having prob- nation of SLBMs and ICBMs would render them useless. lems with their MRBM missile project, the Blue Streak, He pressed for the cancellation of Skybolt as an unneceswhich was long overdue. At the same time, they faced the sary program. same problems with the dwindling survivability of their The British, on the other hand, had cancelled all other existing nuclear deterrent, the V bomber fleet. The long- projects to concentrate fully on Skybolt. When Mcrange Skybolt would eliminate the need for both the Blue Namara informed them that they were considering canStreak and the Blue Steel II standoff missile, then under celling the program in November 1962, a firestorm of development. The Blue Steel II was cancelled in Decem- protest broke out in the House of Commons. Jo Grimond ber 1959 and the British cabinet had decided in February noted “Does not this mark the absolute failure of the pol1960 to cancel the Blue Streak. icy of the independent deterrent? Is it not the case that Prime Minister Macmillan met President Eisenhower in March 1960 and agreed to purchase 144 Skybolts for the RAF. By agreement, British funding for research and development was limited to that required to modify the V bombers to take the missile, but the British were allowed to fit their own warheads and the Amer-
everybody else in the world knew this, except the Conservative Party in this country?"[3] President Kennedy officially cancelled the program on December 22, 1962.[1] As the political row grew into a major crisis, an emergency meeting between parties from the US and UK was called, leading to the Nassau agreement.
94.6. FURTHER READING Over the next few days a new plan was hammered out that saw the UK purchase the Polaris SLBM, but equipped with British warheads that lacked the dual-key system. The UK would thus retain its independent deterrent force, although its control passed from the RAF largely to the Royal Navy. The Polaris, a much better weapon system for the UK, was a major “scoop” and has been referred to as “almost the bargain of the century”[4] The RAF kept a tactical nuclear capability with the WE.177 which armed V bombers and later the Panavia Tornado force. The “Skybolt Crisis” was a major event in the eventual downfall of the Macmillan government.
333
[2] Brooks 1982, pp. 114-123 [3] “Hansard 17 December 1962, SKYBOLT MISSILE (TALKS)", Hansard, 17 December 1962 [4] John Dumbrell, “A special relationship: Anglo-American relations from the Cold War to Iraq”, Palgrave Macmillan, 2006, p. 174 [5] http://archive.is/20120716163108/http://www.af.mil/ information/heritage/milestones.asp?dec=1960&sd=01/ 01/1960&ed=12/31/1969
A B-52G launched last XGAM-87A missile down the 94.5.1 Bibliography Atlantic Missile Range a day after the program was • Brookes, Andrew (1982). V Force – The History of cancelled.[5] In June 1963, the XGAM-87A was redesBritain’s Airborne Deterrent. London: Book Club ignated as XAGM-48A. Associates.
94.2 Description The GAM-87 was powered by a two-stage solid-fuel rocket motor. Each B-52 was to carry four missiles, two under each wing on side-by-side pylons, while the Avro Vulcan carried one each on smaller pylons. The missile was fitted with a tailcone to reduce drag while on the pylon, which was ejected shortly after being dropped from the plane. After first stage burnout, the Skybolt coasted for a while before the second stage ignited. First stage control was by eight movable tail fins, while the second stage was equipped with a gimballed nozzle. Guidance was entirely by inertial platform. The current position was constantly updated from the host aircraft though accurate fixes, meaning that the accuracy of the platform inside the missile was not as critical.
94.3 Survivors • RAF Museum Cosford, Shropshire • National Museum of the United States Air Force, Dayton, Ohio • Air Force Space & Missile Museum, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida.
94.4 See also • List of military aircraft of the United States • List of missiles by nation
94.5 References [1] http://www.af.mil/search/generalsearch.asp?q=skybolt& site=AFLINK
94.6 Further reading • Neustadt, Richard E. Report to JFK: The Skybolt Crisis in Perspective. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999. ISBN 0-8014-3622-2.
94.7 External links • Skybolt, Encyclopedia Astronautica
Chapter 95
High Virgo The High Virgo, also known as Weapons System 199C (WS-199C), was a prototype air-launched ballistic missile (ALBM) jointly developed by Lockheed and the Convair division of General Dynamics during the late 1950s. The missile proved moderately successful and aided in the development of the later GAM-87 Skybolt ALBM; in addition, it was used in early test of antisatellite weapons.
95.1 Design and development As part of the WS-199 project to develop new strategic weapons for the United States Air Force's Strategic Air Command, the Lockheed Corporation and the Convair division of General Dynamics proposed the development of an air-launched ballistic missile, to be carried by the Convair B-58 Hustler supersonic medium bomber.[1] In early 1958 the two companies were awarded a contract for development of the weapon, designated WS-199C and given the code-name “High Virgo”.[2] While the project was intended to be strictly a research-and-development exercise, it was planned that the weapon would be quickly capable of being developed into an operational system if required.[2] The High Virgo missile was a single-stage weapon, powered by a solid-fueled Thiokol TX-20 rocket, and was equipped an advanced inertial guidance system derived from that of the AGM-28 Hound Dog cruise missile.[3] Four tailfins in a cruciform arrangement provided directional control.[1] The missile was developed by Lockheed, utilising components developed for several existing missiles in order to reduce the cost of the project, and also to reduce the development time required, while Convair was responsible for development of a pylon for carriage and launching of the missile from the prototype B-58, the pylon replacing the aircraft’s normal weapons pod.[1]
95.2 Operational history Four test flights of the High Virgo missile were conducted; due to development problems, the first two did not include the inertial guidance system, instead being fitted with a simple autopilot guiding the weapon on a preprogrammed course.[1][3] Launched from its B-58 carrier aircraft at high altitude and supersonic speed, the initial flight, conducted on September 5, 1958, was a failure when the missile’s controls malfunctioned; the second test, three months later, proved more successful, with the missile flying over a range of nearly 200 miles (320 km). The third flight test, the following June, utilized the inertial guidance system for the first time; it, too, was a successful flight.[1]
95.2.1 Anti-satellite test The fourth High Virgo missile was utilized in a test mission intended to demonstrate the capability of the missile for use as a “satellite interceptor”, or anti-satellite missile (ASAT).[1] the missile, modified with cameras to record the results of the test, was initially targeted at the Explorer 4 satellite, but due to errors in calculating the satellite’s orbit Explorer 5 was targeted instead.[1] The ASAT test mission, the final flight of the High Virgo missile, was conducted on September 22, 1959; less than a minute after the launch of the missile from its B-58 carrier aircraft at Mach 2,[4] the telemetry signal was lost.[5] No data was recovered from the test, and the camera data, intended to be recovered afterward, was not located; therefore the test was inconclusive.[1] No further test firings of High Virgo were conducted, the research project having been concluded. However the Air Force was already undertaking work on what would become the GAM-87 Skybolt missile, which incorporated lessons learned from the WS-199 project in its construction.[1]
334
95.5. REFERENCES
95.3 Launch history 95.4 See also • Terra-3
Related development • Alpha Draco • Bold Orion
Comparable weapons • ASM-135 ASAT • GAM-87 Skybolt • NOTS-EV-2 Caleb
95.5 References Notes [1] Altitude at which telemetry was lost.[5]
Citations [1] Parsch 2005 [2] Yengst 2010, p.37. [3] McMurran 2008, p.266 [4] Temple 2004, p.111. [5] Yenne 2005, p.67. [6] High Virgo. Encyclopedia Astronautica. Accessed 201101-19.
Bibliography • McMurran, Marshall William (2008). Achieving Accuracy: A Legacy of Computers and Missiles. Bloomington, IN: Xlibris. ISBN 978-1-4363-81079. Retrieved 2011-10-03. • Parsch, Andreas (20058). “WS-199”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designationsystems.net. Retrieved 2010-12-28. Check date values in: |date= (help)
335 • Temple, L. Parker, III (2004). Shades of Gray: National Security and the Evolution of Space Reconnaissance. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. ISBN 978-1-56347-723-2. Retrieved 2010-12-28. • Yengst, William (2010). Lightning Bolts: First Manuevering [sic] Reentry Vehicles. Mustang, OK: Tate Publishing & Enterprises. ISBN 978-1-61566547-1. • Yenne, Bill (2005). Secret Gadgets and Strange Gizmos: High-Tech (and Low-Tech) Innovations of the U.S. Military. St. Paul, MN: Zenith Press. ISBN 978-0-7603-2115-7.
Chapter 96
AGM-123 Skipper II AGM-123 Skipper II is a short-range laser-guided missile developed by the United States Navy.
96.1 Overview The Skipper is a short range missile intended for precision strikes. It is composed of a Mark 83 bomb, fitted with a Paveway kit, and an attached rocket propulsion system to allow it to be dropped at greater distances from the target. Tandem mounted Mk 78 solid propellant rockets which both fire simultaneously on launch provide propulsion. The increased range of the weapon compared to a freefall bomb gives the delivery aircraft a degree of protection from surface-to-air-missiles and anti-aircraft artillery in the vicinity of the target. The Skipper was intended as an anti-ship weapon, capable of disabling the largest vessels due to the powerful 1000 lb (450 kg) impact fuzed warhead of the Mk 83 bomb. It could be carried by the A-6E Intruder, A-7 Corsair II, and F/A-18. The AGM-123 was developed at the China Lake Naval Weapons Center.
96.2 External links • Designation systems - Emerson Electric AGM-123 Skipper II • Federation of American Scientists - AGM-123 Skipper II
336
Chapter 97
Harpoon (missile) The Harpoon is an all-weather, over-the-horizon, antiship missile system, developed and manufactured by McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing Defense, Space & Security). In 2004, Boeing delivered the 7,000th Harpoon unit since the weapon’s introduction in 1977. The missile system has also been further developed into a land-strike weapon, the Standoff Land Attack Missile (SLAM).
The Harpoon has also been adapted for carriage on several aircraft, such as the P-3 Orion, the A-6 Intruder, the S-3 Viking, the AV-8B Harrier II, and the F/A-18 Hornet and U.S. Air Force B-52H bombers. Harpoon was purchased by many American allies, including Pakistan, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, the United Arab Emirates and most NATO countries. It has been carried by several U.S. Air Force aircraft, including the B-52H The regular Harpoon uses active radar homing, and a lowlevel, sea-skimming cruise trajectory to improve surviv- bomber and F-16 Fighting Falcon. ability and lethality. The missile’s launch platforms in- The Royal Australian Air Force is capable of firing clude: AGM-84 series missiles from its F/A-18F Super Hornets, F/A-18A/B Hornets, and AP-3C Orion aircraft, and pre• Fixed-wing aircraft (the AGM-84, without the viously from the now retired F-111C/Gs. The Royal Australian Navy deploys the Harpoon on major surface comsolid-fuel rocket booster) batants and in the Collins-class submarines. The Spanish • Surface ships (the RGM-84, fitted with a solid-fuel Air Force and the Chilean Navy are also AGM-84D cusrocket booster that detaches when expended, to al- tomers, and they deploy the missiles on surface ships, and F/A-18s, F-16s, and P-3 Orion aircraft. The British low the missile’s main turbojet to maintain flight) Royal Navy deploys the Harpoon on several types of sur• Submarines (the UGM-84, fitted with a solid-fuel face ship. rocket booster and encapsulated in a container to enable submerged launch through a torpedo tube); • Coastal defense batteries, from which it would be fired with a solid-fuel rocket booster.
97.1 Development In 1965 the U.S. Navy began studies for a missile in the 45 km (25 nm) range class for use against surfaced submarines. The name Harpoon was assigned to the project (i.e. a harpoon to kill “whales”, a naval slang term for submarines). The sinking of the Israeli destroyer Eilat in 1967 by a Soviet-built Styx anti-ship missile shocked senior United States Navy officers, who until then had not been conscious of the threat posed by anti-ship missiles. In 1970 Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Elmo Zumwalt accelerated the development of Harpoon as part of his “Project Sixty” initiative, hoping to add much needed striking power to US surface combatants. Harpoon was primarily developed for use on US Navy warships such as the Ticonderoga-class cruiser as their principal anti-ship weapon system.
The Canadian frigate HMCS Regina fires a Harpoon anti-ship missile during a Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) sinking exercise
The Royal Canadian Navy carries Harpoon missiles on its Halifax-class frigates. The Royal New Zealand Air Force is looking at adding the capability of carrying a standoff missile, probably Harpoon or AGM-65 Maverick, on its six P-3 Orion patrol planes once they have all been upgraded to P3K2 standard. The Republic of Singapore Air Force also operates five modified Fokker 50 Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA)
337
338
CHAPTER 97. HARPOON (MISSILE)
which are fitted with the sensors needed to fire the Harpoon missile. The Pakistani Navy carries the Harpoon missile on its naval frigates and P-3C Orions. The Turkish Navy carries Harpoons on surface warships and Type 209 submarines. The Turkish Air Force will be armed with the SLAM-ER.
97.1.3 Harpoon Block 1J Block 1J was a proposal for a further upgrade, AGM/RGM/UGM-84J Harpoon (or Harpoon 2000), for use against both ship and land targets.
At least 339 Harpoon missiles were sold to the Republic of China Air Force (Taiwan) for its F-16 A/B Block 97.1.4 20 fleet and the Taiwanese Navy, which operates four guided-missile destroyers and eight guided-missile frigates with the capability of carrying the Harpoon, including the eight former U.S. Navy Knox-class frigates and the four former USN Kidd-class destroyers which have been sold to Taiwan. The two Zwaardvis/Hai Lung submarines and 12 P-3C Orion aircraft can also use the missile. The eight Cheng Kung-class frigate, despite being based on the US Oliver Hazard Perry-class class, have Harpoon capabilities deleted from their combat systems, and funding to restore it has so far been denied. The Block 1 missiles were designated AGM/RGM/UGM-84A in US service and UGM84B in the UK. Block 1B standard missiles were designated AGM/RGM/UGM-84C, Block 1C missiles were designated AGM/RGM/UGM-84D. Block 1 used a terminal attack mode that included a pop-up to approximately 1800m before diving on the target; Block 1B omitted the terminal pop-up; and Block 1C provided a selectable terminal attack mode.[2]
97.1.1
Harpoon Block 1D
Harpoon Block II
Loading Mk 141 canister launcher
In production at Boeing facilities in Saint Charles, Missouri, is the Harpoon Block II, intended to offer an expanded engagement envelope, enhanced resistance to electronic countermeasures and improved targeting. Specifically, the Harpoon was initially designed as an open-ocean weapon. The Block II missiles continue progress begun with Block IE, and the Block II missile provides the Harpoon with a littoral-water anti-ship capability. The key improvements of the Harpoon Block II are obtained by incorporating the inertial measurement unit from the Joint Direct Attack Munition program, and the software, computer, Global Positioning System (GPS)/inertial navigation system and GPS antenna/receiver from the SLAM Expanded Response (SLAM-ER), an upgrade to the SLAM.
This version featured a larger fuel tank and re-attack capability, but was not produced in large numbers because its intended mission (warfare with the Warsaw Pact countries of Eastern Europe) was considered to be unlikely following the events of 1991–92. Range is 278 km. Block 1D missiles were designated RGM/AGM-84F. In Block The US Navy awarded a $120 million contract to Boeing in July 2011 for the production of about 60 Block 1D II Harpoon missiles, including missiles for 6 foreign militaries.[1] Boeing lists 30 foreign navies as Block II customers.[1]
97.1.2
SLAM ATA (Block 1G)
This version, under development, gives the SLAM a reattack capability, as well as an image comparison capability similar to the Tomahawk cruise missile; that is, the weapon can compare the target scene in front of it with an image stored in its on-board computer during terminal phase target acquisition and lock on (this is known as DSMAC).[3] Block 1G missiles AGM/RGM/UGM-84G; the original SLAM-ER missiles were designated AGM84H (2000-2002) and later ones the AGM-84K (2002 onwards).
India acquired 24 Harpoon Block II missiles to arm its maritime strike Jaguar fighters in a deal worth $170 million through the Foreign Military Sales system.[4] In December 2010, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) notified U.S. Congress of a possible sale of 21 additional AGM-84L HARPOON Block II Missiles and associated equipment, parts and logistical support for a complete package worth approximately $200 million; the Indian government intends to use these missiles on its Indian Navy P-8I Neptune maritime patrol aircraft.[5] Indian Navy is also planning to upgrade the fleet of four submarines – Shishumar class submarine – with tubelaunched Harpoon missiles.[6]
97.3. OPERATORS Harpoon Block 2 AGM/RGM/UGM-84L.
339 missiles
are
designated Jagvivek, a 250 ft (76 m) long Indian-owned ship, during an exercise at the Pacific Missile Range near Kauai, Hawaii. A Notice to Mariners had been issued warning of the danger, but Jagvivek left port before receiving 97.1.5 Harpoon Block III the communication and subsequently strayed into the test range area, and the Harpoon missile, loaded just with an Harpoon Block III was intended to be an upgrade pack- inert dummy warhead, locked onto it instead of its inage to the existing USN Block 1C missiles and Com- tended target. mand Launch Systems (CLS) for guided-missile cruisIn June 2009, it was reported by an American newspaper, ers, guided-missile destroyers, and the F/A-18E/F Super citing unnamed officials from the Obama administration Hornet fighter aircraft. After experiencing an increase and the U.S. Congress, that the American government in the scope of required government ship integration, test had accused Pakistan of illegally modifying some older and evaluation, and a delay in development of a data-link, Harpoon missiles to strike land targets. Pakistani officials the Harpoon Block III program was canceled by the U.S. denied this and they claimed that the US was referring Navy in April 2009. to a new Pakistani-designed missile. Some international experts were also reported to be skeptical of the accusations. Robert Hewson, editor of Jane’s Air Launched 97.2 Operational history Weapons, pointed out that the Harpoon is not suitable for the land-attack role due to deficiency in range. He also • Block I coastal missile defense system truck, in ser- stated that Pakistan was already armed with more sophisticated missiles of Pakistani or Chinese design and, therevice in the Danish Navy 1988–2003. fore, “beyond the need to reverse-engineer old US kit.” • A Harpoon missile is launched from the Hewson offered that the missile tested by Pakistan was Ticonderoga-class cruiser USS Shiloh during a part of an undertaking to develop conventionally armed missiles, capable of being air- or surface-launched, to live-fire exercise in 2014. counter its rival India’s missile arsenal.[12][13][14] It was later stated that Pakistan and the US administration had In 1981 and 1982 there were two accidental launches of reached some sort of agreement allowing US officials to Harpoon missiles. One by the USN and another by the inspect Pakistan’s inventory of Harpoon missiles,[15][16] Danish Navy, which destroyed and damaged buildings in and the issue had been resolved.[17] the recreational housing area Lumsås. The Danish missile was later known as the hovsa-missile (hovsa being the Danish term for oops). In November 1980 during Operation Morvarid Iranian missile boats attacked and sank two Iraqi Osa-class missile boats; one of the weapons used was the Harpoon missile. In 1986, the United States Navy sank at least two Libyan patrol boats in the Gulf of Sidra. Two Harpoon missiles were launched from the USS Yorktown with no confirmed results and several others from A-6 Intruder aircraft that were said to have hit their targets.[7][8] Initial reports claimed that the USS Yorktown scored hits on a patrol boat, but action reports indicated that the target may have been a false one and that no ships were hit by those missiles.[9] In 1988, Harpoon missiles were used to sink the Iranian frigate Sahand during Operation Praying Mantis. Another was fired at the Kaman-class missile boat Joshan, but failed to strike because the fast attack craft had already been mostly sunk by RIM-66 Standard missiles. An Iranian-owned Harpoon missile was also fired at the guided missile cruiser USS Wainwright. The missile was successfully lured away by chaff.[10] In December 1988, a Harpoon launched by an F/A-18 Hornet fighter from the aircraft carrier USS Constellation[11] killed one sailor when it struck the merchant ship
97.3 Operators Australia
• Royal Australian Air Force • F/A-18 Hornet • F/A-18F Super Hornet • AP-3C Orion • Royal Australian Navy • Adelaide class frigate • Anzac class frigate • Collins class submarine Belgium • Belgian Navy • Karel Doorman class frigate Brazil
340
CHAPTER 97. HARPOON (MISSILE) • Ivar Huitfeldt class frigate Egypt
• Egyptian Air Force • Egyptian Navy Germany
• German Navy • Sachsen class frigate (F124) • Bremen class frigate (F122) Greece • Hellenic Navy • Elli class frigate • Hydra class frigate • Type 209 submarine, Glafkos class (1100) and Poseidon class (1200) Australia Anzac-class frigate, HMAS Toowoomba
• Brazilian Air Force
• Papanikolis Type 214 class submarine Iran
• P-3AM Canada
• Royal Canadian Air Force • CF-18 Hornet • CP-140 Aurora • Royal Canadian Navy • Halifax class frigate
• Islamic Republic of Iran Navy (nearly retired, most replaced by Russian-made AS-20 and Chinesemade C-802 ASMs) Israel • Israeli Air Force • Israeli Navy India
Chile • Chilean Navy • Chilean Air Force Denmark
• Indian Navy • Boeing P-8I Neptune • Shishumar class submarine (Type-209)[18] • Indian Air Force • Jaguar aircraft
• Royal Danish Navy • Absalon class support ship
Japan
97.3. OPERATORS • Japan Maritime Self Defense Force Republic of Korea
341 • Republic of Singapore Air Force • Republic of Singapore Navy Spain
• Republic of Korea Air Force • F-15K • KF-16 • Republic of Korea Navy • Sejong the Great Class destroyer
• Spanish Air Force • Spanish Navy Taiwan
• Chungmugong Yi Sun-shin class destroyer • Gwanggaeto the Great class destroyer • Son Won-Il class Submarine • Chang Bogo class Submarine
• Republic of China Air Force • Republic of China Navy
Malaysia
• Royal Malaysian Air Force Mexico • Mexican Navy Netherlands • Royal Netherlands Navy British Type 23 frigate HMS Iron Duke firing a Harpoon
Pakistan Thailand • Pakistan Navy Poland • Polish Navy Portugal
• Royal Thai Navy Turkey
• Turkish Air Force • Turkish Navy
• Portuguese Navy United Arab Emirates Saudi Arabia United Kingdom • Royal Saudi Navy Singapore
• Royal Navy • Royal Air Force (retired)
342
CHAPTER 97. HARPOON (MISSILE)
United States
• United States Air Force • United States Navy • United States Coast Guard(retired)
97.4 General characteristics AGM-84D being prepared for P-3 Orion weapons pylon.
• Air-launched: 3.8 metres (12 ft) • Surface and submarine-launched: 4.6 metres (15 ft) • Weight: • Air-launched: 519 kilograms (1,144 lb) • Submarine or ship launched from box or canister launcher: 628 kilograms (1,385 lb) Harpoon Block II test firing from USS Thorn.
• Diameter: 340 millimetres (13 in) • Wing span: 914 millimetres (36.0 in) • Maximum altitude: 910 metres (2,990 ft) with booster fins and wings • Range: miles)
Over-the-horizon (approx 50 nautical
• AGM-84D (Block 1C): 220 km (120 nmi) • RGM/UGM-84D (Block 1C): 140 km (75 nmi) • AGM-84E (Block 1E) : 93 km (50 nmi) • AGM-84F (Block 1D): : 315 km (170 nmi) • RGM-84F (Block 1D): 278 km (150 nmi). • RGM/AGM-84L (Block 2): 278 km (150 nmi) UGM-84 submarine launch
• Primary function: Air-, surface-, or submarinelaunched anti-surface (anti-ship) missile • Contractor: The McDonnell Douglas Astronautic Company – East • Power plant: Teledyne CAE J402 turbojet, 660 lb (300 kg)-force (2.9 kN) thrust, and a solid-propellant booster for surface and submarine launches • Length:
• AGM-84H/K (Block 1G / Block 1J): 280 km (150 nmi) • Speed: High subsonic, around 850 km/h (460 knots, 240 m/s, or 530 mph) • Guidance: Sea-skimming cruise monitored by radar altimeter, active radar terminal homing • Warhead: 221 kilograms (487 lb), penetration high-explosive blast • Unit cost: US$527,416 • Date deployed: • Ship-launched (RGM-84A): 1977
97.7. EXTERNAL LINKS • Air-launched (AGM-84A): 1979 • Submarine-launched (UGM-84A): 1981 • SLAM (AGM-84E): 1990 • SLAM-ER (AGM-84H): 1998 (delivery); 2000 (initial operational capability (IOC)) • SLAM-ER ATA (AGM-84K): 2002 (IOC)
97.5 See also • Exocet • Brahmos • Sea Eagle • RBS-15 • SS-N-25
343
[13] Rediff.com / PTI. Pakistan illegally modified Harpoon missile: Report. August 30, 2009. [14] The Times of India / PTI. Harpoon missile modification by Pak very serious: US. September 1, 2009. [15] Dawn News. http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/ connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/ 09-pakistan-allows-us-to-inspect-harpoons--szh-11 [16] India TV News. http://www.indiatvnews.com/main/ newsdetails.php?id=3479&pg=index [17] http://thenews.jang.com.pk/updates.asp?id=87764 [18] “US agrees to sell 22 Harpoon missiles to India for $200 Mn”. IANS. news.biharprabha.com. Retrieved 3 July 2014.
97.7 External links
• C-802
• Official Harpoon information – Boeing website
• Type 90 Ship-to-Ship Missile
• Detailed information of all Harpoon versions and upgrades – From Encyclopedia Astronautica
• Long Range Anti-Ship Missile
97.6 References [1] “Backgrounder – Harpoon Block II”. Boeing. Retrieved 2014-05-11. [2] “Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles”. Andreas Parsch.
• AGM-84 variants • McDonnell-Douglas AGM-84A Harpoon and AGM-84E SLAM • FAS Harpoon article • Global Security Harpoon article • Boeing Harpoon Block III Press Release
[3] Global Security Harpoon article
• Boeing Harpoon Block II Backgrounder
[4] “Military pacts on hold but India, US continue with exercises, arms deals”. The Times Of India. September 22, 2010.
• Royal Netherlands Navy launches Harpoons from new frigate HMS De Ruyter (Defense-Aerospace)
[5] “India to Receive AGM-84L HARPOON Block II Missiles Worth $200 Million”. defpro.com. December 23, 2010. [6] “Navy plans missiles for four submarines”. Jun 20, 2012. [7] Time (magazine). High-Tech Firepower. April 7, 1986. [8] Ronald Reagan. Letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate on the Gulf of Sidra Incident. March 26, 1986. [9] The New York Times. PENTAGON REVISES LIBYAN SHIP TOLL. March 27, 1986. [10] The New York Times. U.S. STRIKES 2 IRANIAN OIL RIGS AND HITS 6 WARSHIPS IN BATTLES OVER MINING SEA LANES IN GULF. April 19, 1988. [11] The New York Times / AP. U.S. Rocket Hits Indian Ship Accidentally, Killing Crewman. December 13, 1988. [12] The New York Times. US Says Pakistan Made Changes to Missiles Sold for Defense August 29, 2009
Chapter 98
UGM-89 Perseus For the Anglo-French supersonic cruise missile, see missile warhead payload would be a new 21-inch (533 Perseus (missile). mm) diameter homing torpedo to be developed concurrently with the UGM-89 Perseus missile.[2][5] The UGM-89 Perseus was a proposed U.S. Navy submarine-launched anti-ship (AShM) and antisubmarine (ASW) cruise missile that was developed under the Submarine Tactical Missile (STAM) project, which was also referred to as the Submarine Anti-ship Weapon System (STAWS). This missile system was to be the centerpiece for a proposed third-generation nuclear-powered cruise missile submarine championed by then-Vice Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, the influential but controversial head of the Navy’s nuclear propulsion program.[3][4]
98.1 Development The Navy issued the STAM requirement in March 1969, and the Lockheed Missiles and Space Company (LMSC) responded to this proposal, which included the formation of an undersea warfare program organization in Sunnyvale, California.[1][2][5] It is unclear if this was to be an entirely new organization or part of the Lockheed Underwater Missile Facility (LUMF) which had been responsible for the design and development of the Polaris, Poseidon, and Trident submarine-launched strategic ballistic missile (SLBM) systems for the U.S. Navy.[7] In February 1970, the missile designation ZUGM-89A Perseus was reserved for the U.S. Navy presumably for the STAM/STAWS missile development program.[5][8]
By 1971, the STAM project had evolved into a longrange advanced cruise missile (ACM) program capable of undertaking a variety of combat missions, including strategic nuclear strike (see table below).[4] The proposed ACM versions of the UGM-89 Perseus STAM would use a slightly enlarged launch tube (40 x 400 inches, or 101.6 x 1016 cm), and 1979 would have been the date for its initial operational capability (IOC).[4]
98.3 Cancellation The UGM-89 Perseus missile system was cancelled in 1973, and its proposed nuclear-powered cruise missile submarine platform was officially cancelled in 1974, with the Navy deciding to build the less expensive Los Angelesclass nuclear-powered attack submarines, which would subsequently carry both the Harpoon and Tomahawk cruise missiles.[2][3][4][5] The ASW component of the UGM-89 Perseus would later serve as the baseline for the proposed Sea Lance stand-off ASW missile system.[4][6]
98.4 See also • BGM-109 Tomahawk • RUR-5 ASROC • UGM-84 Harpoon
98.2 Design overview
• UUM-44 SUBROC
Because of its large size, the UGM-89 Perseus missile could not be launched from the Navy’s standard 21-inch (533 mm) submarine torpedo tubes, but would be carried in a vertical launch system (VLS) housed within the proposed cruise missile submarine’s hull. Twenty VLS tubes would be located in a separate compartment situated between the submarine’s operations and reactor compartments.[3][4] The individual launcher tube would be 30 x 300 inches (76.2 x 762 cm) in dimension.[4] The
• UUM-125 Sea Lance
98.5 Notes
344
[1] “Lockheed’s Tactical Undersea Missile”. Flight International. 29 May 1969. p. 911. Retrieved 2009-08-26. [2] “UGM-89 Perseus”. Directory of US Military Rockets and Missiles. 24 October 2002. Retrieved 2009-08-26.
98.7. EXTERNAL LINKS
345
[3] Polmar, Norman; J.K. Moore (2004). Cold War Submarines: The Design and Construction of U.S. and Soviet Submarines. Washington, DC: Potomac Books, Inc. pp. 274–275, 376n40. ISBN 1-57488-530-8. Retrieved 2009-08-26. [4] Friedman, Norman (1994). U.S. Submarines Since 1945: An Illustrated Design History. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. pp. 270–271. ISBN 1-55750-2609. Retrieved 2009-08-26. [5] “UGM-89 Perseus”. trieved 2009-08-26.
Encyclopedia Astronautica.
Re-
[6] “Boeing RUM/UUM-125 Sea Lance”. Directory of US Military Rockets and Missiles. 28 May 2002. Retrieved 2009-08-26. [7] Francillon, René J. (1988). Lockheed Aircraft since 1913. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. pp. Appendix D, p. 558–564. ISBN 0-87021-897-2. [8] “Missile Design Series”. Military. GlobalSecurity.org. 2 March 2009. Retrieved 2009-08-26.
98.6 References • Francillon, René J. (1988). Lockheed Aircraft since 1913. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0-87021-897-2. • Friedman, Norman (1994). U.S. Submarines Since 1945: An Illustrated Design History. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-55750260-9. • Polmar, Norman; J.K. Moore (2004). Cold War Submarines: The Design and Construction of U.S. and Soviet Submarines. Washington, DC: Potomac Books, Inc. ISBN 1-57488-530-8.
98.7 External links • UGM-89 Perseus - Directory of US Military Rockets and Missiles • UGM-89 Perseus - Harpoon series • UGM-89 Perseus - Encyclopedia Astronautica • Missile Design Series - GlobalSecurity.org • “Lockheed’s Tactical Undersea Missile” - Flight International - May 29, 1969
Chapter 99
AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER The AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER (Standoff Land Attack F-15K Slam Eagle, has been capable of launching and Missile-Expanded Response) is a precision-guided, air- controlling the SLAM-ER since 2006 in test exercises.[7] launched cruise missile produced by Boeing Defense, Space & Security for the United States Armed Forces and their allies. Developed from the AGM-84E SLAM 99.2 Users (Standoff Land Attack Missile), the SLAM-ER is capable of attacking land and sea targets at medium• Saudi Arabia[8] to-long-ranges (155 nautical miles/250 km maximum). The SLAM-ER relies on the Global Positioning System • South Korea[9] (GPS) and infrared imaging for its navigation and control, • Turkey[10] and it can strike both moving and stationary targets. The SLAM-ER, can be remotely controlled while in flight, and it can be redirected to another target after launch if the original target has already been destroyed, or is no longer considered to be dangerous (command guidance).[1][4] The SLAM-ER is a very accurate weapon, as of 2009 it had the best circular error probable (CEP) of any missile used by the U.S. Navy.[1]
•
United Arab Emirates[8]
•
United States of America
99.3 References [1] “SLAM-ER Missile.” The US Navy – Fact File. United States Navy, 20 Feb. 2009. Web. 22 July 2013.
99.1 History The SLAM-ER obtained initial operating capability in June 2000. A total of three SLAM-ER missiles were fired by the U.S. Navy during the Iraq War,[5] and the missile was also used during Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.
[2] Parsch, Andreas. “AGM/RGM/UGM-84.” Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. 2008. Web. 22 July 2013. [3] “AGM-84 Harpoon / SLAM [Stand-Off Land Attack Missile."] Military Analysis Network. Federation of American Scientists, 22 July 2013. Web. 22 July 2013.
The General Electric Company provides an Automatic [4] Target Recognition Unit (ATRU) for the SLAM-ER[6] [5] that processes prelaunch and postlaunch targeting data, allows high speed video comparison (DSMAC), and enables the SLAM-ER to be used in a true "fire and forget" manner. It also includes a "man-in-the-loop" mode, [6] where the pilot or weapons system officer can designate [7] the point of impact precisely, even if the target has no dis[4] tinguishing infrared signature. It can be launched and controlled by a variety of aircraft including the F/A-18 Hornet, F/A-18 Super Hornet, and P-3C Orion, as well [8] as by the U.S. Air Force's F-15E Strike Eagle. Before the retirement of the S-3B Viking, it was also able to launch and control the SLAM-ER, and it is anticipated that the [9] U.S. Navy’s new land-based patrol plane, the Boeing P-8 Poseidon will carry the SLAM-ER as well.[4] The South Korean Air Force's version of the F-15E Strike Eagle, the [10] 346
Boeing SLAM-ER Home: Overview Cordesman, Anthony H. The Iraq War: Strategy, Tactics, and Military Lessons. (Washington: CSIS Press, 2003) 296. GE - Automatic Target Recognition Unit (ATRU) Boeing: “F-15K Makes History with SLAM-ER Release”. St. Louis: 27 Mar 2006. Web. Accessed 15 Jan 2013. “Washington Beef up the Gulf States with 10,000 Strike Weapons Worth US$10 Billion”. Defense Update. 17 October 2013. Retrieved 21 October 2013. “Republic of Korea Chooses Boeing SLAM-ER Missile”. Boeing. “SLAM-ER and Harpoon Foreign Military Sales”.
99.4. EXTERNAL LINKS
99.4 External links • Boeing (McDonnell-Douglas) AGM/RGM/UGM84 Harpoon, Designation Systems • SLAM-ER, Boeing
347
Chapter 100
Bat (guided bomb) Not to be confused with bat bomb. The ASM-N-2 Bat was a United States Navy World War
100.2 Development The Bat was the production version which combined the original NBS airframe with a 1,000-pound (454 kg) GP bomb, the same basic ordnance that was used in the contemporary Azon guided munition, and the Pelican active radar system.[6] Gyrostabilized with an autopilot supplied by Bendix Aviation, the steerable tail elevator was powered by small wind-driven generators. The Navy’s Bureau of Ordnance[6] in partnership with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) supervised development and the NBS was in charge of the overall development. Flight tests were conducted at the Naval Air Ordnance Test Station at Chincoteague Island, Virginia. Hugh Latimer Dryden won the President’s Certificate of Merit for the development of the Bat,[3] which “was flight tested by a small unit based at Philadelphia against targets in New Jersey.”[7]
A Bat on its hoist
II radar-guided unpowered missile[3][4] which was used in combat beginning in April 1944.
100.3 Deployment
100.1 Background In January 1941 RCA proposed a new TV-guided antishipping weapon called Dragon for which an operator would use the TV image sent from the nose of the weapon and operate aerodynamic controls during the weapon’s fall. The National Bureau of Standards (NBS) would provide the airframe for use with a standard bomb, and was the same guidable ordnance airframe design used for the earlier, abortive Project Pigeon weapons program.[5] The Pelican was a June 1942 modification to instead drop depth charges against submarines using semi-active radar homing. By mid-1943, the design was changed again to use a new active radar homing system from Western Electric with a 2,000-pound (907 kg) general-purpose (GP) bomb, the same basic ordnance unit as used for the heavier USAAF VB-2 version of the Azon radio-controlled ordnance. This Pelican version entered testing in summer 1944 at Naval Air Station New York, where it hit its target ship in two out of four drops.
A Bat weapon on a bomb cart, with its nose radome removed
The antiship variant of the Bat (SWOD, for “Special Weapons Ordnance Device”,[8] Mark 9 Modification 0) eventually saw combat service beginning in April 1945 off Borneo, dropped by PB4Y Privateers[6] (one bomb mounted under each wing) at altitudes of 15,000 to
348
100.7. EXTERNAL LINKS
349
25,000 feet (4,600–7,600 m) at airspeeds of 140 to 210 knots (260–390 km/h). Several Japanese ships were sunk and the kaibokan Aguni was damaged from a range of 20 nmi (37 km), which is frequently miscredited as being sunk and as being a destroyer.[9] Several Bats were also fitted with modified radar systems (SWOD Mark 9 Model 1) and dropped on Japanese-held bridges in Burma and other land-based targets. The Bat’s pioneering radar guidance system was easily confused by radar land clutter, particularly against targets close to shore.
[3] “Missile, Air-to-Surface, Bat”. Rockets and Missiles. Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. Archived from the original on 7 May 2009. Retrieved 2009-05-12.
After the war, the naval designation ASM-N-2 was applied to the unit.
[6] Fahrney, Delmar S., RADM USN (December 1980). “The Birth of Guided Missiles”. United States Naval Institute Proceedings. p. 60.
The Privateer was the primary launch platform for the Bat, but other aircraft were also modified to launch the weapon, including the F4U Corsair, SB2C Helldiver, and TBF Avenger. The primary post-World War II aircraft to carry the weapon was the P-2 Neptune.
100.4 Existing missiles
[4] Newman, Michael E. “Students Help Renovate a Part of WWII-and NIST-History”. NIST Tech Beat - February 2001 - Preservation. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Retrieved March 19, 2015. [5] Neilster (July 14, 2006). “Pigeon guidance system”. ww2aircraft.net. Retrieved June 7, 2013.
[7] Merrill, Capt Grayson (undated anecdote). “Innovation Wins Wars”. Your story - Class of 1934. USNA Alumni Association and Foundation. Retrieved 2013-0107. BAT was flight tested by a small unit based at Philadelphia against targets in New Jersey. Check date values in: |date= (help) [8] SWOD [9] http://www.combinedfleet.com/Aguni_t.htm
The original NBS test airframe of the Bat was renovated [10] “The Bat Missile”. NIST. Archived from the original on in 2001 to resemble the real missile and is currently on 27 May 2010. Retrieved 7 June 2010. display at the museum of the National Institute of Standards and Technology,[10] the successor to the earlier US National Bureau of Standards.
100.7 External links
100.5 See also • Fritz X • Henschel Hs 293 • Azon • VB-6 Felix • McDonnell LBD-1 Gargoyle • Project Pigeon • GB-8 Related lists • List of anti-ship missiles
100.6 References [1] “ASM-N-2”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. Archived from the original on 13 November 2007. Retrieved 2007-12-24. [2] Kopp, Dr Carlo. “The Dawn of the Smart Bomb”. Air Power Australia. Retrieved 2007-12-24.
• Andreas Parsch’s “Directory of US Military Rockets & Missiles” entry on the Bat
Chapter 101
GT-1 (missile) The GT-1 (Glide Torpedo 1) was an early form of missile developed by the United States Army Air Forces during World War II. Intended to deliver an aerial torpedo at a safe range from the launching aircraft, the weapon proved successful enough in testing to be approved for operational use, and the GT-1 saw limited use in the closing stages of the war.
Following the end of World War II, the aerial torpedo rapidly fell out of favor as a weapon of war against surface ships, and the 'GT' category of weapons was abolished in 1947.[8]
101.3 References Notes
101.1 Design and development
[1] Parsch 2003
The GT-1 was derived from the GB-1 series of glide bombs, developed by Aeronca for the United States Army Air Forces.[1] The weapon’s airframe was inexpensive and simply designed, with a basic wing and twin tails attached to a cradle for carrying the payload.[1] The flight path of the GT-1 was determined by a preset autopilot that kept the weapon on a steady course after release.[1]
[2] Esquire 1947; Volume 28, p.70. [3] Army Ordnance, Volume 30, 1946. American Defense Preparedness Association. p.384. [4] Cate and Craven 1958, p.259. [5] Daso 1997, p.82.
The GT-1 was usually released from its carrier aircraft at an altitude of 10,000 feet (3,000 m); this provided a [6] Goebel 2010 standoff range of as much as 25 miles (40 km) under ideal conditions.[2][3] The GT-1’s warload consisted of a Mark [7] Hanle 2011 13 Mod 2A aerial torpedo. The GT-1 was fitted with a paravane, trailing 20 feet (6.1 m) below the main body of [8] Mann 2008, p.256. the craft; upon the paravane’s striking the surface of the water, explosive bolts would fire to release the torpedo, Bibliography which would then execute a preset search pattern to locate and destroy its target.[1][2] • Craven, Wesley F.; James L. Cate (1958). USAF Historical Division, ed. Men and Planes. The Army Air Forces in World War II 6. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ASIN B000ZIBK5G. 101.2 Operational history Initially tested during 1943,[1][4] the GT-1 proved to be successful,[5] and was issued to operational units for service.[6] Launched from North American B-25 Mitchell bombers,[1][7] the GT-1 saw brief operational service late in the war;[1][4] three missions are known to have been flown using the weapon from Okinawa in late 1945.[7] On one mission, against Kagoshima, eleven of thirteen GT-1s launched successfully entered the water; three hits were recorded, against a fleet carrier, a light carrier, and a freighter.[7] The Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress was also capable of carrying the GT-1.[3] 350
• Daso, Dik A. (1997). Architects of American Air Supremacy: General Hap Arnold and Dr. Theodore von Kármán. Maxwell Air Force Base, AL: Air University Press. ASIN B0006F9WT4. Retrieved 2011-02-02. • Goebel, Greg (2010). “World War II Glide Bombs”. Dumb Bombs & Smart Munitions. VectorSite. Retrieved 2011-02-02. • Hanle, Donald J. (January 2011). “Hail November”. Air Force Magazine 94 (1). Retrieved 2011-02-02.
101.3. REFERENCES • Mann, Robert A. (2008). Aircraft record cards of the United States Air Force: How to Read the Codes. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company. ISBN 9780-7864-3782-5. Retrieved 2011-02-02. • Parsch, Andreas (2003). “GB Series”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles Appendix 1: Early Missiles and Drones. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-02-02.
351
Chapter 102
LBD Gargoyle The McDonnell LBD-1 Gargoyle (later KBD-1) was an Related lists American air-to-surface missile developed during World War II . It was one of the precursors of modern anti-ship • List of anti-ship missiles missiles. Following German success with the Hs-293 and Fritz-X, the U.S. began work on a series of similar weapons, based on its own success with the Azon guided ordnance. These included Bat, Felix, GB-8, and Gargoyle.
102.2 Sources • This article contains material that originally came from the placard at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center.
Gargoyle had a 450 kilograms (1,000 lb) warhead (M65 general purpose or M59 semi–armor piercing), intended to be launched from carrier-borne aircraft in conditions of good visibility, against maneuvering targets. Launched from 4,600 m (15,000 ft), it had a range of almost 9.3– 13.0 kilometres (5–7 nmi), and could be controlled at up to 52 kilometres (28 nmi). A launch speed of at least 320 kilometres per hour (200 mph) was necessary, so its low wings would not stall; a 4,400 newtons (1,000 lbf) static thrust 8AS1000 jetassisted takeoff (JATO) bottle in the tail boosted it to a maximum speed of 970 km/h (600 mph).
• Fitzsimons, Bernard, editor. “Gargoyle”, in The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Weapons and Warfare, Volume 10, p. 1090. London: Phoebus Publishing, 1978.
102.3 External links
Operated by radio command guidance, Gargoyle was tracked visually by means of flares in the tail, much as Fritz-X was; this limited its maximum range to how far the flares could be seen. Gargoyle was capable of sustaining a 4 g0 (39 m/s2 ) turn, for a turning circle of 777.2 metres (2,550 ft). Production by McDonnell Aircraft began in 1944 and the missile was tested from March to July 1945, but the war ended before it entered operational service. Testing continued, however, until it was cancelled in 1947.
102.1 See also • Fritz X • Henschel Hs 293 • Azon • VB-6 Felix • GB-8 352
• Gargoyle Missile at the National Air and Space Museum • Allied & German guided weapons of WW2 • The Dawn of the Smart Bomb • Guided weapons of WW2 • GB series weapons
Chapter 103
Long Range Anti-Ship Missile The Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) is a stealthy anti-ship cruise missile under development for the US Navy by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).[4] The LRASM is intended as a replacement for the US Navy’s current anti-ship missile, the Harpoon, which has been in service since 1977. Various launch platform configurations are being evaluated. LRASM is anticipated to pioneer autonomous targeting capabilities for anti-ship missiles. The Navy was authorized by the Pentagon to put the LRASM into limited production as an operational weapon in February 2014 as an urgent capability stopgap solution to address range and survivability problems with the Harpoon anti-ship missile and to prioritize defeating enemy warships, which has been neglected since the end of the Cold War but taken on importance with the modernization of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy. The Navy will hold a competition for the Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW)/Increment 2 antiship missile as a follow-on to LRASM to enter service in 2024.[5]
get without the presence of prior, precision intelligence, or supporting services like Global Positioning Satellite navigation and data-links. These capabilities will enable positive target identification, precision engagement of moving ships and establishing of initial target cueing in extremely hostile environment. The missile will be designed with advanced counter-countermeasures to effectively evade hostile active defense systems.[7] The LRASM is based on the AGM-158B JASSM-ER, but incorporates a multi-mode radio frequency sensor, a new weapon data-link and altimeter, and an uprated power system. It can be directed to attack enemy ships by its launch platform, receive updates via its datalink, or use onboard sensors to find its target. LRASM will fly towards its target at medium altitude then drop to low altitude for a sea skimming approach to counter anti-missile defenses. DARPA states its range is greater than 200 nmi (370 km; 230 mi).[8] Although the LRASM is based on the JASSM-ER, which has a range of 500 nmi (930 km; 580 mi), the addition of the sensor and other features will somewhat decrease that range.[9]
Competitors to Lockheed Martin had protested the decision to award them a contract for 90 LRASMs given the circumstances of selection and competition for the missile. Raytheon claimed their JSOW-ER had comparable capabilities with lower costs. The Navy responded by saying Lockheed’s LRASM program was limited in scope, the decision to move ahead with them was made after an initial DARPA contract award, and that it was an urgent need to face future threats. The OASuW Increment 2 competition will be completely open and start by FY 2017.[6] It is expected the LRASM will compete against the joint Kongsberg/Raytheon offering of the Joint Strike Missile (JSM) for air-launch needs and an upgraded Raytheon Tomahawk cruise missile for surfacelaunch needs.[1]
To ensure survivability to and effectiveness against a target, the LRASM is equipped with a BAE Systemsdesigned seeker and guidance system, integrating jamresistant GPS/INS, passive RF and threat warning receiver, an imaging infrared (IIR infrared homing) seeker with automatic scene/target matching recognition, a datalink, and passive Electronic Support Measure (ESM) and radar warning receiver sensors. Artificial intelligence software combines these features to locate enemy ships and avoid neutral shipping in crowded areas. Automatic dissemination of emissions data is classified, located, and identified for path of attack; the data-link allows other assets to feed the missile a real-time electronic picture of the enemy battlespace. Multiple missiles can work together to share data to coordinate an attack in a swarm. Aside from short, low-power data-link transmissions, the LRASM does not emit signals, which combined with the stealthy JASSM airframe and low IR signature re103.1 Design duces detectability. Unlike previous radar-only seekerequipped missiles that went on to hit other vessels if diverted or decoyed, the multi-mode seeker ensures the corUnlike current anti-ship missiles the LRASM will be carect target is hit in a specific area of the ship. An LRASM pable of conducting autonomous targeting, relying on oncan find its own target autonomously by using its active board targeting systems to independently acquire the tar353
354
CHAPTER 103. LONG RANGE ANTI-SHIP MISSILE
radar homing to locate ships in an area, then using passive On July 11, 2013, Lockheed reported successful commeasures once on terminal approach. Like the JASSM, pletion of captive-carry testing of the LRASM on a B-1 the LRASM is capable of hitting land targets.[10][11] Lancer.[8] LRASM is designed to be compatible with the Mk 41 Vertical Launch System used on many US Navy ships[12] and to be fired from aircraft,[13] including the B-1 bomber.[14] For surface launches, LRASM will be fitted with a modified Mk 114 jettison-able rocket booster to give it enough power to reach altitude. Although priority development is on air and surface-launched variants, Lockheed is exploring the concept of a submarinelaunched variant.[8] As part of OASuW Increment 1, the LRASM will be used only as an air-launched missile to be deployed from the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and B-1B Lancer.[5]
On August 27, 2013, Lockheed conducted the first flight test of the LRASM, launched from a B-1.[21] Halfway to its target, the missile switched from following a preplanned route to autonomous guidance. It autonomously detected its moving target, a 260 ft unmanned ship out of three in the target area, and hit it in the desired location with an inert warhead. The purpose of the test was to stress the sensor suite, which detected all the targets and only engaged the one it was told to. Two more flight tests were planned the year, involving different altitudes, ranges, and geometries in the target area. Two launches from vertical launch systems were planned for summer 2014.[22] The missile had a sensor designed by BAE Systems. The sensor is designed to enable targeted attacks within a group of enemy ships protected by sophisticated air defense systems. It autonomously located and targeted the moving surface ship. The sensor uses advanced electronic technologies to detect targets within a complex signal environment, and then calculates precise target locations for the missile control unit.[23]
Some naval advisors have proposed increasing the LRASM’s capabilities to serve dual functions as a shipbased land attack weapon in addition to anti-ship roles. By reducing the size of its 1,000 lb (450 kg) warhead to increase range from some 300 mi (480 km) to 1,000 mi (1,600 km), the missile would still be powerful enough destroy or disable warships while having the reach to hit inland targets. With the proper guidance system, a single missile would increase the Navy’s flexibility rather than On September 17, 2013, Lockheed launched an LRASM needing two missiles specialized for different roles.[15] Boosted Test Vehicle (BTV) from a Mk 41 VLS canister. The company-funded test showed the LRASM, fitted with the Mk-114 rocket motor from the RUM-139 VLASROC, could ignite and penetrate the canister cover and 103.2 History perform a guided flight profile.[24] The program was initiated in 2009 and started along two different tracks. LRASM-A is a subsonic cruise missile based on Lockheed Martin’s 500 nm-range AGM158 JASSM-ER - Lockheed Martin was awarded initial development contracts.[16] LRASM-B was planned to be a high-altitude supersonic missile along the lines of the Indo-Russian Brahmos, but it was cancelled in January 2012. Captive carry flight tests of LRASM sensors began in May 2012; a missile prototype was planned to fly in “early 2013” and the first canister launch was intended for “end 2014”.[17] On October 1, 2012, Lockheed received a contract modification to perform risk reduction enhancements in advance of the upcoming flight test of the air-launched LRASM A version.[18] On March 5, 2013, Lockheed received a contract to begin conducting air and surfacelaunch tests of the LRASM. Three air-launched tests were scheduled for 2013, with one from a B-1 Lancer. Two surface-launch tests were scheduled for 2014. The contract includes risk reduction efforts, such as electromagnetic compatibility testing of the missile and follow-on captive carry sensor suite missions.[19] On June 3, 2013, Lockheed successfully conducted “push through” tests of a simulated LRASM on the Mk 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS). Four tests verified the LRASM can break the canister’s forward cover without damaging the missile.[20]
On November 12, 2013, an LRASM scored a direct hit on a moving naval target on its second flight test. A B1B bomber launched the missile, which navigated using planned waypoints that it received in-flight before transitioning to autonomous guidance. It used onboard sensors to select the target, descend in altitude, and successfully impact.[25][26] In January 2014, Lockheed demonstrated that the LRASM could be launched from a Mk 41 VLS with only modified software to existing shipboard equipment.[27] On 4 February 2015, the LRASM conducted its third successful flight test, conducted to evaluate low-altitude performance and obstacle avoidance. Dropped from a B-1B, the missile navigated a series of pre-planned waypoints, then detected, tracked, and avoided an object deliberately placed in the flight pattern in the final portion of the flight to demonstrate obstacle-avoidance algorithms.[28]
103.3 See also • List of anti-ship missiles
103.4 References [1] Arming New Platforms Will Push Up Value Of Missiles
103.5. EXTERNAL LINKS
Market - Aviationweek.com, 5 January 2015 [2] Lockheed Martin Completes Captive Carry Tests with LRASM - Navyrecognition.com, 12 July 2013 [3] Congressional Research Service (23 Apr 2013). U.S. Air Force Bomber Sustainment and Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress (by Michael A Miller). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Library of Congress. p. 33. Retrieved 16 Aug 2014. LRASM is based on the AGM158B JASSM and has an unclassified range of 500 nautical miles. [4] “DARPA - Tactical Technology Office (TTO)". 21 May 2010. Retrieved 27 Apr 2011.
355
[21] SAM FELLMAN. "DARPA Testing New Ship-Killing Missile" DefenseNews, October 10, 2013. Accessed: October 20, 2013. [22] Darpa Tests Jassm-Based Stealthy Anti-Ship Missile Aviationweek.com, 6 September 2013 [23] BAE Sensor Hits the Mark in Live Long-Range Missile Flight Test - Asdnews.com, 10 October 2013 [24] First LRASM Boosted Test Vehicle Successfully Launched from Mk41 Vertical Launch System Deagel.com, 17 September 2013 [25] Air-Launched LRASM Successfully Completes Second Flight Test - Deagel.com, 14 November 2013
[5] Majumdar, Dave (13 Mar 2014). “Navy to Hold Contest for New Anti-Surface Missile”. usni.org. U.S. NAVAL INSTITUTE. Retrieved 13 Mar 2014.
[26] LRASM Prototype Scores 2nd Successful Flight Test Darpa.mil, 3 December 2013
[6] US Navy plans competition for next-generation missile Reuters.com, 26 Mar 2014
[27] Lockheed Martin Successfully Tests LRASM MK 41 Vertical Launch System Interface - Deagel.com, 15 January 2014
[7] “Next Generation Missiles - LRASM”. 18 Nov 2010. Retrieved 18 Nov 2010.
[28] LRASM Prototype is Three-for-Three on Successful Flight Tests - Darpa.mil, 9 February 2015
[8] Majumdar, Dave (11 July 2013). “Lockheed LRASM completes captive carry tests”. The DEW Line. Flightglobal. Retrieved 16 August 2014.
103.5 External links
[9] Lockheed dishes 30m for key LRASM test - breakingdefense.com, 9 September 2013 [10] Gresham, John D. “LRASM: Long Range Maritime Strike for Air-Sea Battle.” Defense Media Network. Faircount Media Group, 2 Oct 2013. Web. 16 Aug 2014. [11] The Navy’s Smart New Stealth Anti-Ship Missile Can Plan Its Own Attack - Foxtrotalpha.Jalopnik.com, 4 December 2014 [12] “LRASM / Long Range Anti-Ship Missile”. Retrieved 2010-11-14. [13] Ewing, Philip. “The Navy’s advanced weapons shopping list” Military.com, 3 July 2012. [14] “B-1B To Test New Offensive Anti-Surface Missile.” [15] 47 Seconds From Hell: A Challenge To Navy Doctrine Breakingdefense.com, 21 November 2014 [16] “Lockheed Snags DARPA Anti-Ship Missile Award”. AVIATION WEEK. Retrieved 2010-11-14. [17] “Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM)". DARPA. 2012. Retrieved 30 June 2012. [18] Lockheed LRASM contract - GCACnews.com, October 1, 2012 [19] Lockheed Martin Receives $71 Million Long Range AntiShip Missile Contract - Lockheed press release, March 5, 2013 [20] LRASM Successfully Completes Vertical Launch System Tests - Deagel.com, June 3, 2013
• Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) United States of America • LRSASM on Naval-technology.com
Chapter 104
Boeing Ground-to-Air Pilotless Aircraft Boeing's Ground-to-Air Pilotless Aircraft (GAPA) was a short-range anti-aircraft missile (SAM) developed in the late 1940s by the US Army Air Force, and then the US Air Force after 1948. It was given the reference number SAM-A-1, the first Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) in the 1947 tri-service designation system. By 1950 over 100 test rockets had been launched using a variety of configurations and power plants, with one launch in 1949 setting the altitude record for a ramjet powered vehicle at 59,000 ft (18,000 m).
dropped to zero. As early as 1942, German flak commanders were keenly aware of the problem, and expecting to face jet bombers, they began a missile development program to supplant their guns.[5] Of the many programs that resulted, the designs fell into two categories. One used a high-speed missile that flew directly up at the target. With enough speed the missile did not have to “lead” the target, the bomber moved only a short distance in the time between launch and interception. A second class used low-speed designs that were first boosted to altitude in front of the bombers, then flew level at them on intercept courses at much lower speeds. These were essentially radio-guided drone versions of the Messerschmitt Me 163 rocket-propelled interceptor aircraft carrying very large warheads.
GAPA faced strong competition from the US Army's Nike missile system, and was eventually cancelled in favour of Nike for deployment. The GAPA work was later re-used by the Boeing and Project Wizard team at the Michigan Aeronautical Research Center to develop a much longer-ranged missile, the CIM-10 Bomarc. Bomarc would end up competing with the Army’s Hercules missile, and was deployed only in small numbers. 104.1.2
104.1 History 104.1.1
German work
The inherent inaccuracy of anti-aircraft artillery means that when shells reach their targets they are randomly distributed in space. This distribution is much larger than the lethal radius of the shells, so the chance that any one shell will successfully hit the target is very small. Successful anti-aircraft gunnery therefore requires as many rounds to be fired as possible, increasing the chances that one of the rounds will get a “hit”. German gunners estimated that an average of 2,800 shells were required to down a single Boeing B-17.[4] Flying faster means that the aircraft passes through the range of a gun more rapidly, reducing the number of rounds a particular gun can fire at that aircraft. Flying at higher altitudes has a similar effect, as it requires larger shells to reach those altitudes, and this typically results in slower firing rates for a variety of practical reasons. Aircraft using jet engines basically double the speed and altitude of conventional designs, so limiting the number of shells that the chance of hitting the bomber essentially
US Army program
The western allies maintained air superiority for much of the war and development of new anti-aircraft systems was not as urgent. Nevertheless, by the mid-war period the US Army had reached the same conclusion as their German counterparts; flak was simply no longer useful.[6] Accordingly, in February 1944 the Army Ground Forces sent the Army Service Forces (ASF) a request for information on the possibility of building a “major caliber anti-aircraft rocket torpedo”. The ASF concluded that it was simply too early to tell if this was possible, and suggested concentrating on a program of general rocket development instead.[6] The introduction of German jet-powered bombers late in 1944 led to a re-evaluation of this policy, and on 26 January 1945 the Army Chief of Ordnance issued a requirement for a new guided missile weapon system. Like the German efforts, the Army designs quickly fell into two groups, high-speed line-of-sight weapons for short ranges, and airplane-like systems that flew at lower speeds but offered longer range. Eventually two such programs were selected; Bell Labs, a world leader in radar, radio control and automated aiming systems (see Hendrik Wade Bode)[7] won the contract for a short-range weapon known as Project Nike. Boeing led development of an aircraft-like longer range system, GAPA, designated
356
104.2. DESCRIPTION project MX-606.[3]
104.1.3
GAPA
357
104.1.4 Computer work Boeing built two computers to aid with development of the GAPA effort. The first was the BEMAC, Boeing Electro-Mechanical Analog Computer, which was used for various calculations and aerodynamic research. The second, BEAC, the Boeing Electronic Analog Computer, was developed in 1949 in Seattle to aid calculations in the GAPA project. BEAC proved so useful that other divisions within the company started asking for time on the system. This led the Physical Research Unit to build further examples of improved models of BEAC for the Acoustics and Electrical Department, Aerodynamics, Power Plant, Mechanical Equipment and Structures Department. Given the success of the BEAC design, the company began to offer it commercially in 1950. Sales continued through the 1950s.[20]
Although GAPA was based on similar principles as earlier German designs, it evolved into an entirely different concept; GAPA designs were long and thin and looked like missiles, not aircraft. Aerojet was selected to build solid-fuel boosters, while Boeing tried a wide variety of engine designs for the upper stage. The first test shot of an unguided GAPA airframe design took place on 13 June 1946 from a 100 ft × 100 ft (30 m × 30 m) launch pad at the WWII Wendover Bombing and Gunnery Range on the western edge of the Bonneville Salt Flats.[8] These early “Model 600” designs were for aerodynamic testing only, and used solid fuel in both stages.[9] Over the following two week period, a total of 38 launches were con- 104.1.5 Bomarc ducted, ending on 1 July. The new MX-1599 also ran into development and fundIn a report to the President’s Air Policy Commission in ing problems, and repeated early history when the project October, Boeing reported the range of the system at 30 was joined by the team from the Michigan Aeronautimiles (48 kilometres). The need for a 50 mile range, cal Research Center (MARC) working on Project WizMach 0.9 version was identified for the “interim” air deard. Wizard was based on a high performance missile, fense system.[10] In early 1948 the USAF was “ready to existing only on paper, able to intercept missiles travelbuy complete GAPA missiles for test and training purling at up to 4,000 mph (6,400 km/h) at altitudes up to poses, [but] guidance components were not available”, 500,000 ft (150 km). Wizard had also put considerable and of the planned $5.5 million for GAPA, only $3 milthought into the problem of early detection and commulion was provided in July 1948.[11] nications needed for interceptions that lasted only minAt the end of 1948, Air Material Command was in- utes. The combination of the two teams, from Boeing structed to buy 70 test vehicles.[12] Over 74 launches took and MARC, resulted in the new BOMARC name. At the place at the Alamogordo Guided Missile Test Base[13] be- time the Air Force considered missiles to be unmanned ginning on 23 July 1947 (the 39th launch).[14] A ramjet aircraft, and assigned the new missile the “F-99” name, powered Model 602 first flew on 14 November 1947, and considering its role to be the same as a fighter aircraft. a liquid-fuel rocket Model 601 on 12 March 1948.[15] By This was later changed to “Interceptor Missile”, IM-99. the end of the test program in 1950, 114 launches were and finally CIM-10 Bomarc when the 1962 United States carried out, with the last on 15 August 1950.[16] Tri-Service missile and drone designation system was [21] By 1949 the performance of the competing Nike design introduced. had demonstrated capabilities similar to GAPA, at about 25 miles (40 kilometres), and was much closer to being ready for deployment. The Department of Defense (DoD) saw no need for two systems with similar performance, and inter-service fighting since the 1948 creation of the Air Force was a constant problem for the DoD. They eventually decided the matter in 1949 when the Joint Chiefs of Staff determined that each branch of the armed forces would conduct missile development according to its mission[17] and handed the Army control of all short-range air defences, whether missile or gun.[12] GAPA was cancelled outright,[18] and a new contract for a much longer-range weapon was created under MX-1599. To keep GAPA development alive in the meantime, the US Air Force re-directed funding from an anti-ballistic missile program, Project Thumper, which was being ended in favour of a more advanced system, Project Wizard.[19]
Bomarc development dragged on, and by 1956 less than 25 test launches had taken place, many of them failures. By this point the Army had begun early production of its greatly improved Nike Hercules missile, which offered high supersonic speeds, intercept altitudes as high as 100,000 ft (30 km), and ranges on the order of 75 mi (121 km). Although Bomarc’s range was much greater than Hercules, the mission of protecting cities was adequately served, and Hercules was dramatically simpler, cheaper and more reliable (Bomarc was estimated to be ready to fire 25% of the time or less).[22]
104.2 Description There were three main models of the GAPA vehicle, and their layout differed considerably. All were “missile like”
358
CHAPTER 104. BOEING GROUND-TO-AIR PILOTLESS AIRCRAFT
with four cropped-delta fins at the extreme rear of a cylindrical fuselage capped with an ogive nose cone. Aerodynamic lift for control was provided by a long wing running along the upper surface of the fuselage, only slightly wider that the body. The wing tapered to a point just behind the nose cone. The booster was about the same length as the missile, although slightly larger in diameter and featuring much larger cropped-delta fins.
[15] Bushnell 1986, p. 2. [16] Bushnell 1986, p. 3. [17] HAER 1966. [18] McMullen 1980, p. 91. [19] McMullen 1980, pp. 90-91. [20] Small, James. The Analogue Alternative... pp. 47–48.
GAPA used beam riding guidance, in which the missile Retrieved 2013-08-09. attempts to keep itself centred in the middle of a radar signal that is pointed directly at the target. This system [21] Parsch 2002 allows a single powerful radar to act as both the tracking [22] Cagle 1973, pp. 144-148. and guidance system. However, beam riding also means that the missile has to fly directly at its target, and therefore cannot “lead” it to a calculated intercept point. This Bibliography means of guidance is generally inefficient as it requires the missile to continue maneuvering throughout the ap• ACC (1996). HAFB Report #1996-006 Buildproach as the radar is moved to continue tracking the tarings 107, 289, And 291 Demolition Habs/Haer Arget. This can be significant in the case of high-speed airchitectural Assessment Holloman Air Force Base craft. Otero County, New Mexico (Report).
104.3 See also • IM-99 BOMARC • SA-2 Guideline
• Bushnell (1986-08-25). GAPA: Holloman’s First Missile Program (Scribd.com image) (Report). Air Force Missile Development Center: Historical Branch. IRIS 00169113. Retrieved 2013-08-11. • Cagle, Mary (1973). History of the Nike Hercules Weapon System. Redstone Arsenal: U.S. Army Missile Command. Retrieved 1 January 2014.
104.4 References
• Federation of American Scientists (29 June 1999). “Nike Ajax (SAM-A-7) (MIM-3, 3A)".
Citations
• “Historical background”. Los Pinetos Nike Missile Site. Historic American Engineering Record (HAER No. CA-56). 1966.
[1] Parsch 2004. [2] “Boeing: GAPA (Ground-to-Air Pilotless Aircraft)". boeing.com. 2014. Retrieved 31 January 2014. [3] Rosenberg 1964, p. 76. [4] Westerman 2001, p. 197. [5] Westerman 2001, p. 11. [6] Cagle 1973, I. [7] FAS 1999. [8] ACC 1996, p. 11. [9] Bushnell 1986, pp. 1-2. [10] McMullen 1980, p. 50. [11] McMullen 1980, p. 51. [12] McMullen 1980, p. 90. [13] Bushnell 1986, p. 1. [14] “Rocket Trials Center Moved”. Eugene Register-Guard. 24 July 1947. p. 6.
• McMullen, Richard (25 January 1980). History of Air Defense Weapons 1946–1962 (Report). ADC Historical Study No. 14. Historical Division, Office of information, HQ ADC. Retrieved 2014-01-01. • Parsch, Andreas (2002). “Boeing F-99/IM-69/IM99/CIM-10 Bomarc”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2014-05-08. • Parsch, Andreas (2004). “Boeing SAM-A-1 GAPA”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles Appendix 1: Early Missiles and Drones. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2014-02-01. • Rosenberg, Max (1964). The development of ballistic missiles in the United States Air Force 1944-1950. USAF Historical Division Liaison Office. • Westerman, Edward (2001). Flak: German AntiAircraft Defenses, 1914–1945. University Press of Kansas. ISBN 0700614206.
Chapter 105
CIM-10 Bomarc This article is about the USAF surface-to-air missile. For system”. Boeing’s previous research SAM, see Boeing Ground-to- Launches were from Florida test range sites (AFMTC & Air Pilotless Aircraft. Eglin’s Santa Rosa Island) and controlled by AN/GPAThe Boeing CIM-10 Bomarc (IM-99 Weapon Sys35 and/or AN/FSQ-7 computers, e.g., the Montgomery SAGE Center commanded three BOMARCs simultaneously in-flight during a May 1960 test.[3] BOMARC launches as target drones began at Vandenberg Air Force Base on 25 August 1966[15] (the 1st Vandenberg BOMARC launch was 14 October 1964).[16]
105.1 Design and development
tem[8] prior to September 1962)[9] was a supersonic ramjet powered interceptor for Cold War air defense of North America which, in addition to being the first longrange anti-aircraft missile (cf. proposed WIZARD predecessor), was the only SAM deployed by the United States Air Force. It used the same Marquardt RJ43 as the Lockheed X-7 hypersonic prototype and the Lockheed AQM-60 drone.[10] Its models had a range of 250 to 440 miles.[11] Stored horizontally in a launcher shelter with movable roof, the missile was erected, fired vertically using rocket boosters and then ramjet-powered during midcourse command guidance to a dive point. During the “homing dive”,[1] the missile’s onboard AN/DPN-34 radar[12] allowed the BOMARC to guide itself to the target (e.g., enemy bomber or formation) and a radar proximity fuze detonated the warhead (conventional or 10 kiloton nuclear W-40). After the 17 May 1957, $7 million[2] initial contract for operational aircraft;[13] the “Interceptor Missile” was deployed at launch areas[14] in Canada and the United States (e.g., the 1960 Fort Dix IM-99 accident contaminated a launch area.) Boeing indicated: “Differences in the Langley Base layout are due to planning for accommodation of the advanced missile system [(IM99B) ground equipment with equipment for] the IM-99A
In 1946, Boeing started to study surface-to-air guided missiles under the United States Army Air Forces project MX-606. By 1950, Boeing had launched more than 100 test rockets in various configurations, all under the designator XSAM-A-1 GAPA (Ground-to-Air Pilotless Aircraft). Because these tests were very promising, Boeing received a USAF contract in 1949 to develop a pilotless interceptor (a term then used by the USAF for air-defense guided missiles) under project MX-1599. The MX-1599 missile was to be a ramjet-powered, nuclear-armed longrange surface-to-air missile to defend the Continental United States from high-flying bombers. The Michigan Aerospace Research Center (MARC) was added to the project soon afterward, and this gave the new missile its name Bomarc (for Boeing and MARC). In 1951, the USAF decided to emphasize its point of view that missiles were nothing else than pilotless aircraft by assigning aircraft designators to its missile projects, and antiaircraft missiles received F-for-Fighter designations. The Bomarc became the F-99.[17] Test flights of XF-99 test vehicles began in September 1952 and continued through early 1955. The XF-99 tested only the liquid-fueled booster rocket, which would accelerate the missile to ramjet ignition speed. In February 1955, tests of the XF-99A propulsion test vehicles began. These included live ramjets, but still had no guidance system or warhead. The designation YF-99A had been reserved for the operational test vehicles. In August 1955, the USAF discontinued the use of aircraftlike type designators for missiles, and the XF-99A and YF-99A became XIM-99A and YIM-99A, respectively.
359
360 Originally the USAF had allocated the designation IM69, but this was changed (possibly at Boeing’s request to keep number 99) to IM-99 in October 1955. In October 1957, the first YIM-99A production-representative prototype flew with full guidance, and succeeded to pass the target within destructive range. In late 1957, Boeing received the production contract for the IM-99A Bomarc A interceptor missile, and in September 1959, the first IM-99A squadron became operational.[17]
CHAPTER 105. CIM-10 BOMARC ing of the Bomarc missiles, which were housed in a constant combat-ready basis in individual launch shelters in remote areas. At the height of the program, there were 14 Bomarc sites located in the United States and two in Canada.[17]
The liquid-fuel booster of the Bomarc A was no optimal solution. It took two minutes to fuel before launch, which could be a long time in high-speed intercepts, and its hypergolic propellants (hydrazine and nitric acid) The IM-99A had an operational radius of 200 miles (320 were very dangerous to handle, leading to several serious km) and was designed to fly at Mach 2.5–2.8 at a cruis- accidents.[17] ing altitude of 60,000 feet (18 km). It was 46.6 ft (14.2 As soon as high-thrust solid-fuel rockets became a realm) long and weighed 15,500 pounds (7,000 kg). Its ar- ity in the mid-1950s, the USAF began to develop a new mament was either a 1,000 pounds (450 kg) conventional solid-fueled Bomarc variant, the IM-99B Bomarc B. It warhead or a W40 nuclear warhead (7–10 kiloton yield). used a Thiokol XM51 booster, and also had improved A liquid-fuel rocket engine boosted the Bomarc to Mach Marquardt RJ43-MA-7 (and finally the RJ43-MA-11) 2, when its Marquardt RJ43-MA-3 ramjet engines, fueled ramjets. The first IM-99B was launched in May 1959, by 80-octane gasoline, would take over for the remainder but problems with the new propulsion system delayed the of the flight.[17] first fully successful flight until July 1960, when a supersonic KD2U-1/MQM-15A Regulus II drone was intercepted. Because the new booster took up less space in the missile, more ramjet fuel could be carried, increasing the range to 710 km (440 mi). The terminal homing system was also improved, using the world’s first pulse Doppler search radar, the Westinghouse AN/DPN-53. All Bomarc Bs were equipped with the W-40 nuclear warhead. In June 1961, the first IM-99B squadron became operational, and Bomarc B quickly replaced most Bomarc A missiles.[17] On 23 March 1961, a Bomarc B successfully intercepted a Regulus II cruise missile flying at 100,000 ft, thus achieving the highest interception in the world up to that date. Boeing built 570 Bomarc missiles between 1957 and 1964, 269 CIM-10A, 301 CIM-10B.[17] October 1960, BOMARCs in New Jersey (BOMARC Site No. 1)
The operational IM-99A missiles were based horizontally in semi-hardened shelters, nicknamed “coffins”. After the launch order, the shelter’s roof would slide open, and the missile raised to the vertical. After the missile was supplied with fuel for the booster rocket, it would be launched by the Aerojet General LR59-AJ-13 booster. After sufficient speed was reached, the Marquardt RJ43MA-3 ramjets would ignite and propel the missile to its cruise speed and altitude of Mach 2.8 at 20,000 m (66,000 ft).[17] When the Bomarc was within 16 km (9.9 mi) of the target, its own Westinghouse AN/DPN-34 radar guided the missile to the interception point. The maximum range of the IM-99A was 400 km (250 mi), and it was fitted with either a conventional high-explosive or a 10 kiloton W-40 nuclear fission warhead.[17] The Bomarc relied on the Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE), an automated control system used by NORAD for detecting, tracking and intercepting enemy bomber aircraft. SAGE allowed for remote launch- 4751st ADMS (Training) Emblem
105.2. OPERATIONAL HISTORY In September 1958 Air Research & Development Command decided to transfer the Bomarc program from its testing at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station to a new facility on Santa Rosa Island, immediately south of Eglin AFB Hurlburt Field on the Gulf of Mexico. To operate the facility and to provide training and operational evaluation in the missile program, Air Defense Command established the 4751st Air Defense Wing (Missile) (4751st ADW) on 15 January 1958. The first launch from Santa Rosa took place on 15 January 1959.[17]
105.2 Operational history 105.2.1
United States
The first USAF operational Bomarc squadron was the 46th Air Defense Missile Squadron (ADMS), organized on 1 January 1959 and activated on 25 March. The 46th ADMS was assigned to the New York Air Defense Sector at McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey. The training program, under the 4751st ADW used technicians acting as instructors and was established for a four-month duration. Training included missile maintenance; SAGE operations and launch procedures, including the launch of an unarmed missile at Eglin. In September 1959 the squadron assembled at their permanent station, the Bomarc site near McGuire AFB, and trained for operational readiness. The first Bomarc-A went operational at McGuire on 19 September 1959 with Kincheloe AFB getting the first operational IM-99Bs. While several of the squadrons replicated earlier fighter interceptor unit numbers, they were all new organizations with no previous historical counterpart.[18]
361 contamination.[19] In 2002, the concrete at the site was removed and transported to Lakehurst Naval Air Station for transport by rail to a site for proper disposal. In 1962, the US Air Force started using modified Amodels as drones; following the October 1962 tri-service redesignation of aircraft and weapons systems they became CQM-10As. Otherwise the air defense missile squadrons maintained alert while making regular trips to Santa Rosa Island for training and firing practice. After the inactivation of the 4751st ADW(M) on 1 July 1962 and transfer of Hurlburt to Tactical Air Command for air commando operations the 4751st Air Defense Squadron (Missile) remained at Hurlburt and Santa Rosa Island for training purposes.[17] In 1964, the liquid-fueled Bomarc-A sites and squadrons began to be inactivated. The sites at Dow and Suffolk County closed first. The remainder continued to be operational for several more years while the government started dismantling the air defense missile network. Niagara Falls was the first BOMARC B installation to close, in December 1969; the others remained on alert through 1972. In April 1972, the last Bomarc B in U.S. Air Force service was retired at McGuire and the 46th ADMS inactivated.[17]
ADC’s initial plans called for some 52 Bomarc sites around the United States with 120 missiles each but as defense budgets decreased during the 1950s the number of sites dropped substantially. Ongoing development and reliability problems didn't help, nor did Congressional debate over the missile’s usefulness and necessity. In June 1959, the Air Force authorized 16 Bomarc sites with 56 missiles each; the initial five would get the IM-99A with the remainder getting the IM-99B. However, in March 1960, HQ USAF cut deployment to eight sites in the United States and two in Canada.[17] Within a year of becoming operational, a Bomarc-A with a nuclear warhead caught fire at McGuire AFB on 7 June 1960 following the explosive rupture of its onboard helium tank. While the missile’s explosives didn't detonate, the heat melted the warhead, releasing plutonium, which the fire crews spread. The Air Force and the Atomic Energy Commission cleaned up the site and covered it with concrete. This was the only major incident involving the weapons system.[17] The site remained in operation for several years following the fire. After its closure in 1972, the accident resulted in the area remaining off limits to the present day, primarily due to low levels of plutonium
A CQM-10B drone launched at Vandenberg Air Force Base, 1977.
The Bomarc, designed to intercept relatively slow manned bombers, had become a useless asset in the era of the intercontinental ballistic missile. The remaining Bomarc missiles were used by all armed services as highspeed target drones for tests of other air-defense missiles. The Bomarc A and Bomarc B targets were designated as CQM-10A and CQM-10B, respectively.[17]
362
CHAPTER 105. CIM-10 BOMARC
Notably, due to the accident, the McGuire complex has never been sold or converted to other uses and remains in Air Force ownership, making it the most intact site of the eight in the US. It has been nominated to the National Register of Historic Sites. Although a number of IM99/CIM-10 Bomarcs have been placed on public display, concerns about the possible environmental hazards of the thoriated magnesium structure of the airframe have resulted in several being removed from public view.[20]
squadron became fully operational from 31 December 1963, when the nuclear warheads arrived, until disbanding on 31 March 1972. All the warheads were stored separately and under control of Detachment 1 of the USAF 425th Munitions Maintenance Squadron. During operational service, the Bomarcs were maintained on standby, on a 24-hour basis, but were never fired, although the squadron test-fired the missiles at Eglin AFB, Florida on annual winter retreats.[26]
Russ Sneddon, director of the Air Force Armament Museum, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida provided information about missing CIM-10 exhibit airframe serial 592016, one of the museum’s original artifacts from its founding in 1975 and donated by the 4751st Air Defense Squadron at Hurlburt Field, Eglin Auxiliary Field 9, Eglin AFB. As of December 2006, the suspect missile was stored in a secure compound behind the Armaments Museum. In December 2010, the airframe was still on premises, but partially dismantled.
No. 447 SAM Squadron operating out of RCAF Station La Macaza, Quebec was activated on 15 September 1962 although warheads were not delivered until late 1963. The squadron followed the same operational procedures as No. 446, its sister squadron. With the passage of time the operational capability of the 1950s-era Bomarc system no longer met modern requirements; the Department of National Defence deemed that the Bomarc missile defense was no longer a viable system, and ordered both squadrons to be stood down in 1972. The bunkers and ancillary facilities remain at both former sites.[27]
105.2.2
Canada
The Bomarc Missile Program was highly controversial in Canada.[21] The Progressive Conservative government of Prime Minister John Diefenbaker initially agreed to deploy the missiles, and shortly thereafter controversially scrapped the Avro Arrow, a supersonic manned interceptor aircraft, arguing that the missile program made the Arrow unnecessary.[21] Initially, it was unclear whether the missiles would be equipped with nuclear warheads. By 1960 it became known that the missiles were to have a nuclear payload, and a debate ensued about whether Canada should accept nuclear weapons.[22] Ultimately, the Diefenbaker government decided that the Bomarcs should not be equipped with nuclear warheads.[23] The dispute split the Diefenbaker Cabinet, and led to the collapse of the government in 1963.[23] The Official Opposition and Liberal Party leader Lester “Mike” Pearson originally was against nuclear missiles, but reversed his personal position and argued in favor of accepting nuclear warheads.[24] He won the 1963 election, largely on the basis of this issue, and his new Liberal government proceeded to accept nucleararmed Bomarcs, with the first being deployed on 31 December 1963.[25] When the nuclear warheads were deployed, Pearson’s wife, Maryon, resigned her honorary membership in the anti-nuclear weapons group, Voice of Women.[22] Canadian operational deployment of the Bomarc involved the formation of two specialized Surface/Air Missile squadrons. The first to begin operations was No. 446 SAM Squadron at RCAF Station North Bay, Ontario which was the command and control center for both squadrons.[25] With construction of the compound and related facilities completed in 1961, the squadron received its Bomarcs in 1961, without nuclear warheads.[25] The
105.3 Variants • XF-99 (experimental for booster research) • XF-99A/XIM-99A (experimental for ramjet research) • YF-99/YIM-99[12] (service-test) • IM-99A (initial production) • IM-99B (“advanced”[14] ) • CQM-10 (target drone)[28]
105.4 Operators /
Canada
• Royal Canadian Air Force from 1955–1968 / Canadian Forces from 1968–1972 446 SAM Squadron: 28 IM-99B, CFB North Bay, Ontario 1962–1972[26][29] Bomarc site located at 46°25′46″N 079°28′16″W / 46.42944°N 79.47111°W 447 SAM Squadron: 28 IM-99B, La Macaza, Quebec (La Macaza – Mont Tremblant International Airport) 1962–1972[27][30] Bomarc site located at 46°24′41″N 074°46′08″W / 46.41139°N 74.76889°W (Approximately)
105.5. SURVIVING MISSILES
United States • United States Air Force Air (later Aerospace) Defense Command • Air Force Systems Command Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida Launch Complex 4 (LC4) was used for Bomarc testing and development launches 2 February 1956 – 15 April 1960 (17 Launches). 28°27′59″N 080°32′08″W / 28.46639°N 80.53556°W Vandenberg Air Force Base, California Two launch sites, BOM-1 and BOM-2 were used by the United States Navy for Bomarc launches against aireal targets. The first launch taking place on 25 August 1966. The last two launches occurred on 14 July 1982. BOM1 49 launches; BOM2 38 launches. 34°48′02″N 120°35′57″W / 34.80056°N 120.59917°W
363 Reference for BOMARC units and locations:[31]
• 6th ADMS • 22d ADMS • 26th ADMS • 30th ADMS • 35th ADMS • 37th ADMS • 46th ADMS • 74th ADMS • 4751st ADMS • RCAF 446 Sqdn • RCAF 447 Squdn
105.5 Surviving missiles
Locations under construction but not activated. Each site was programmed for 28 IM-99B missiles: • Camp Adair, Oregon 44°42′08″N 123°12′00″W / 44.70222°N 123.20000°W • Charleston AFB, South Carolina • Ethan Allen AFB, Vermont 44°30′38″N 073°09′49″W / 44.51056°N 73.16361°W • Paine Field, Washington 47°54′43″N 122°15′55″W / 47.91194°N 122.26528°W • Travis AFB, California 38°29′14″N 121°53′07″W / 38.48722°N 121.88528°W • Truax Field, Wisconsin 43°11′27″N 089°09′15″W / 43.19083°N 89.15417°W
Bomarc B on display at the Canada Aviation and Space Museum Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, c. 2006.
• Vandenberg AFB, California 34°43′47″N Below is a list of museums or sites which have a Bomarc 120°30′15″W / 34.72972°N 120.50417°W missile on display:
364 • Air Force Armament Museum, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida • Air Force Space & Missile Museum, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida. This pristine artifact is in sequestered storage in Hangar R on Cape Canaveral AFS and cannot be viewed by the general public. • Alberta Aviation Museum, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada • Canada Aviation and Space Museum, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada • Hill Aerospace Museum, Hill Air Force Base, Utah • Historical Electronics Museum, Linthicum, Maryland (display of AN/DPN-53, the first airborne pulse-doppler radar, used in the Bomarc) • Illinois Soldiers & Sailors Home, Quincy, Illinois • Keesler Air Force Base, Biloxi, Mississippi • Museum of Aviation, Robins Air Force Base, Warner Robins, Georgia • National Museum of Nuclear Science & History, Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, New Mexico • National Museum of the United States Air Force, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio • Octave Chanute Aerospace Museum (former Chanute Air Force Base), Rantoul, Illinois • Peterson Air and Space Museum, Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado • Strategic Air and Space Museum, Ashland, Nebraska • U.S. Air Force History and Traditions Museum, Lackland Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas • Vandenberg Air Force Base (Space and Missile Heritage Center), California. Bomarc not for public access.
105.6 See also Related development • MGM-1 Matador • MGM-13 Mace • SSM-N-8 Regulus Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era • Bristol Bloodhound
CHAPTER 105. CIM-10 BOMARC
105.7 References [1] The SAGE/Bomarc Air Defense Weapons System: An Illustrated Explanation of What it is and How it Works (“fact sheet”) (Report). New York: International Business Machines Corporation. 1959. Archived from the original on 23 April 2013. Retrieved 23 April 2013. BOMARC Crew training was activated January 1, 1958. The operator requests an “engagement prediction point” from the IBM computer. Missile guidance information is relayed via leased lines to Cape Canaveral, and via radio to the BOMARC missile. AN/FPS-20 long-range search radar at Patrick Air Force Base (cited by History of Strategic Air and Ballistic Missile Defense: Volume I, p. 257.) [2] “BOMARC: Boeing’s Long-range A.A. Missile”. Flight Global: 687. 24 May 1957. Retrieved 4 August 2013. Development of the electronic guidance was assisted by simulated IM-99 nose sections, pressurized by nitrogen and cooled by ammonia, fitted to a T-33 and a B-57, the pilot of these aircraft cutting out the guidance and breaking away from the collision course as the target was neared. … 70 per cent subcontracted): prime contractor, Boeing (assembly of missiles at the main Seattle plant, Pilotless Aircraft Division); cruise propulsion, Marquardt; boost propulsion, Aerojet-General; guidance and control, Westinghouse Air Arm Division; ground control gear, Westinghouse Electronics Division; ground-support and test gear, Farnsworth Division of I.T. and T.; airborne electronic intelligence, Lear (LearCal and Grand Rapids Divisions); nose of missile, Pastushin (glass fibre, leaves radar beams undistorted). [3] McMullen, R. F. (15 February 1980). History of Air Defense Weapons 1946–1962 (Report). ADC Historical Study No. 14. Historical Division, Office of information, HQ ADC. p. 312. Development of a long-range interceptor missile to be known as BOMARC was approved by the Research and Development Board of the Department of Defense in December 1950. BOMARC flight testing got off to a shaky start on 10 September 1952 when the first missile was launched from the Florida test center that later became known as Cape Canaveral. …the BOMARC Weapons System Project Officer (WSPO), an ARDC official, gave permission for the launching of 12 YIM-99A (the “Y” designated experimental missiles). The first attempt at SAGE control of BOMARC occurred 7 August 1958… Because of split radar returns, SAGE was not able to give the missile the proper commands and [then a] GPA-35 took control. The missile malfunctioned, however, and [crashed] into the Atlantic. Air Force Missile Employment Facility at Hurlburt Field, Florida, Hurlburt (officially designated Eglin Auxiliary Field No. 9) [with launchers] was on a narrow strip of sand known as Santa Rosa Island. In August 1960, the BOMARC Weapons System Project Office (AMC) had assured the BOMARC General Officers Board that $100,000 would be available to pay for Boeing help. “Bomarc Alternate Boost Program at React ion Motors, Inc.,” 3 July 1953 … Msg, WWXDBE-FA 18-5-47, IM-99 Field Test Sec to USAF, 19 May 1960 [Doc 304 to Hist of ADC, Jan-Jun 1960]. [4] Preface by Buss, L. H. (Director) (1 May 1960). North American Air Defense Command and Continental Air
105.7. REFERENCES
Defense Command Historical Summary: July–December 1959 (Report). Directorate of Command History: Office of Information Services. “On 7 October 1959, NORAD provided guidance on this to ADC as follows. Gap fillers will be redeployed to provide low altitude coverage (500 feet) 230 nautical Jl1il~s forward and 150 miles to the rear of all BOMARC launch sites … Criteria for BOMARC coverage is that no lateral gaps exceed 25 nautical miles (normal terrain) at a curve of constant altitude of 300 feet… Directional antennas and high power amplifiers tor the ground-to-air transmitter sites will be programmed and deployed only as required to support BOMARC operations. NORAO Objective Plan 1961-1965 … called for an F-101 squadron for Comox AB, Canada, and a BOMARC squadron for Paine AFB, Washington. To control these squadrons, NORAD also provided for an AN/FPS-28 for the Queen Charlotte Islands. … total off-shore coverage, available from ALRI and land-based sources, would permit use of the BOMARC B only to approximately 70 per cent of its low-altitude and 50 per cent of its high-altitude range capability. In the last six months of 1959. two IM-99A squadrons became operational and assumed an air defense role. The first was the 46th Air Defense Missile Squadron (BOMARC) based at McGuire AFB, New Jersey…activated on 1 January 1959, operational on 1 September 1959 with three missiles. …the 6th Air Defense Missile Squadron (BOMARC) at Suffolk 6th ADMS activated on 1 February 1959, operational on 1 December 1959. As of 1 January 1960. the McGuire squadron had 24 IM-39A missiles and the Suffolk squadron had four missiles available for air defense. The 26th ADMS, activated at Otis AFB, Massachusetts, on 1 March 1359; the 30th ADMS, activated on 1 June 1959 at Dow AFB. Maine; and the 22nd ADMS, activated on 1 September 1959 at Langley AFB, Virginia. These units were expected to become operational in 1960. NADOP 1959-1963, dated 16 December 1958 [planned for] FY 1963 of 36 IM-99B sites and 2,772 launchers. [32] in the U. S. (excluding Alaska), two in the [Alaska] 64th Air Div1sion area, and two in Canada. In March 1960, the JCS told NORAD that they were considering reducing the BOMARC program to eight U.S. and two Canadian squadrons.” [5] http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2007/ june/i_history.pdf [6] “Big Bite”. newspaper tbd (photo P24418 caption, tail number AF58-5968 with “100” below “BOEING”). 18 March 1960. as it was loaded aboard an Air Force transport…this was the 100th production Model A missile, Boeing has built more than 100 additional experimental and service-test Bomarc units. [7] Boyne. Beyond the Wild Blue ... p. 132. The Bomarc was highly successful against many high-speed drone targetsg, and 570 were built. [8] IM-99 Weapon System: 26 October - 28 November 1958 (Report). Approved 17 December 1958, declassified. Retrieved 4 August 2013. technical training facility at Eglin Air Force Auxiliary Field Number 9. The IM-99A and IM-99B warheads (W-40) The IM-99B had been designed to include a “Pattern Patrol” type operation. Missiles could be launched in multiples, or at very close intervals
365
and guided in a line abreast type formation.with target seekers operating in search mode. This would provide a capability to patrol a given area where targets were suspected but where definite tracks had not been established. Check date values in: |date= (help) [9] Baugher, Joe. “Boeing/MARC F-99”. JoeBaugher.com. Retrieved 4 August 2013. [10] Skarrup, Harold A. Florida Warplanes. Bloomington, Indiana: IUniverse, 2010. ISBN 978-1-4502-64457. [11] Gibson 1996, pp. 200–201 [12] “Bomarc”. Encyclopedia Astronautica. Retrieved 7 August 2013. Promising [GAPA] results led to Boeing receiving a USAF contract in 1949 to develop the exotic MX-1599 ramjet-powered, nuclear-armed longrange surface-to-air missile for defense of the continental United States from high-altitude bombers. The last Bomarc A was phased out in December 1964. In April 1972 the last Bomarc B was retired. Test flights of XF99 test vehicles began in September 1952 and continued through early 1955. The XF-99 tested only the liquidfueled booster rocket, which would accelerate the missile to ramjet ignition speed. In February 1955, tests of the XF-99A propulsion test vehicles began. These included live ramjets, but still had no guidance system or warhead. The designation YF-99A had been reserved for the operational test vehicles. In August 1955, the USAF discontinued the use of aircraft-like type designators for missiles, and the XF-99A and YF-99A became XIM-99A and YIM-99A. [13] Rice, Helen. History of Ogden Air Material Area, 1934– 1960 (Scribd image) (Report). p. 204. Retrieved 22 July 2013. Boeing completed the first production model of the IM-99A Bomarc in 1957, accepted by the AF on 30 December. After repairing [a test-damaged XIM-99A in 1958 Ogden (OOMWA) shipped it to the USAF Orientation Group at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. Ogden’s facility capability to support the Bomarc included 26 buildings and scores of pieces of special equipment. Fourteen of the buildings were in the West Area Complex. … The special facilities and skilled technicians at the AF-Marquardt Jet Laboratory at Little Mountain. [14] “IM-99A Bases Manual”. Boeing: Pilotless Aircraft Division (Seattle, Washington), 12 March 1959. [15] “BOMARC in California.” Militarymuseum.org. trieved: 18 August 2013.
Re-
[16] “Vandenberg BOM1.” Astronautix.com. Retrieved: 18 August 2013. [17] Gibson 1996, pp. 200–201. [18] “46th Air Defense Missile Squadron.” NYADS 1960 Yearbook. Retrieved 28 September 2010. [19] Gambardello, Joseph A. “Plutonium Spill Neither Gone Nor Forgotten, 40 Years Later.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, 1 June 2000, p. A01. Retrieved: 26 December 2009.
366
CHAPTER 105. CIM-10 BOMARC
[20] Young, Gord. “Cold War relic on the move.” North Bay Nugget, 12 September 2009. Retrieved: 24 December 2009. [21] Buteux, Paul. “Bomarc Missile Crisis”. The Canadian Encyclopedia. Toronto: Historica Foundation, 2012. Archived from the original on 11 August 2012. Retrieved 11 August 2012. [22] CBC Digital Archives. “Voice of Women protest nuclear testing”. CBC News, 26 March 2012 (Toronto). Archived from the original on 11 August 2012. Retrieved 11 August 2012. [23] “The Nuclear Question in Canada (1957–1963)". Diefenbaker Canada Centre. Regina, Saskatchewan: University of Saskatchewan. Archived from the original on 11 August 2012. Retrieved 11 August 2012. [24] “Cold War Canada: The Voice of Women”. Canada: A People’s History, 2001 (Toronto: CBC). Archived from the original on 11 August 2012. Retrieved 11 August 2012. [25] “Special to The Star: Canada’s Bomarcs get atom warheads.” The Toronto Daily Star, 2 January 1964, pp. 1, 4.
• Jenkins, Dennis R. and Tony R. Landis. Experimental & Prototype U.S. Air Force Jet Fighters. North Branch, Minnesota: Specialty Press, 2008. ISBN 978-1-58007-111-6. • Nicks, Don, John Bradley and Chris Charland. A History of the Air Defence of Canada 1948–1997. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Commander Fighter Group, 1997. ISBN 0-9681973-0-2. • Pedigree of Champions: Boeing Since 1916, Third Edition. Seattle, Washington: The Boeing Company, 1969. • Winkler, David F. Searching the Skies: The Legacy of the United States Cold War Defense Radar Program. Langley Air Force Base, Virginia: United States Air Force Headquarters Air Combat Command, 1997. ISBN 978-1-907521-91-1.
105.8 External links • RCAF 446 SAM Squadron
[26] Nicks et al. 1997, pp. 84–85.
• BOMARC Missile Sites
[27] Nicks et al. 1997, pp. 85–87.
• Boeing Company History, Bomarc
[28] “Factsheets : Boeing XF-99.” Nationalmuseum.af.mil. Retrieved: 18 September 2013.
• Astronautix.com
[29] “446 SAM Squadron.” radomes.org. September 2010.
Retrieved: 12
[30] “447 SAM Squadron.” radomes.org. September 2010.
Retrieved: 12
[31] “Bomarc Missile Sites.” radomes.org. Retrieved: 26 December 2009.
105.7.1
Bibliography
• Clearwater, John. Canadian Nuclear Weapons: The Untold Story of Canada’s Cold War Arsenal. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Dundern Press, 1999. ISBN 1-55002-299-7. • Clearwater, John. U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Canada. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Dundern Press, 1999. ISBN 1-55002-329-2. • Cornett, Lloyd H., Jr. and Mildred W. Johnson. A Handbook of Aerospace Defense Organization 1946–1980. Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado: Office of History, Aerospace Defense Center, 1980. No ISBN. • Gibson, James N. Nuclear Weapons of the United States: An Illustrated History. Atglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer Publishing Ltd., 1996. ISBN 0-7643-00636.
• Bomarc pictures • Bomarc Video Clip
Chapter 106
LIM-49 Nike Zeus Nike Zeus was an anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system developed by the US Army during the late 1950s and early 1960s, designed to destroy Soviet Intercontinental ballistic missile warheads before they could hit targets in the United States. It was designed by Bell’s Nike team, and was initially based on the earlier Nike Hercules antiaircraft missile. The original Zeus A, given the tri-service identifier XLIM-49, was designed to intercept warheads in the upper atmosphere, mounting a 25 kiloton W31 nuclear warhead to guarantee a kill. During development it was greatly enlarged and extended into a totally new design, Zeus B, intended to intercept warheads over a much larger area, and mounting a 400 kiloton W50 warhead. In several successful tests, the B model proved itself able to intercept warheads, and even satellites.
sion surrounding the ABM system. In 1963, the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, decided to cancel Zeus as it would be ineffective. McNamara directed funding towards studies of new ABM concepts being considered by ARPA, selecting the Nike-X concept, a layered system with more than one type of missile. To Zeus, Nike-X added a short range missile, the Sprint, along with greatly improved radars and computer systems that provided defense over a wide area. The Zeus test site at Kwajalein was briefly used as an anti-satellite weapon.
The nature of the strategic threat changed dramatically during the period that Zeus was being developed. Originally expected to face only a few dozen ICBMs, a nationwide defense was feasible, although expensive. In 1957, growing fears of a Soviet sneak attack led it to be positioned primarily as a way to protect Strategic Air Command's bomber bases. When the Soviets claimed to be building hundreds of missiles, the US raced to close this mythical missile gap. Building more Zeus missiles to match the Soviet fleet would be expensive, more expensive than building US ICBMs and ignoring the defense of the bombers. Adding to the concerns, a number of technical problems emerged that suggested Zeus would have little capability against any sort of sophisticated attack.
106.1.1 Early ABM studies
106.1 History
The first known concerted effort to attack ballistic missiles was carried out by the Army Air Force in 1946, when two contracts were sent out as Project Wizard and Project Thumper to consider the problem of shooting down missiles of the V-2 type.[1] These projects identified the main problems; the target could approach from anywhere within a vast area, and reached its targets in only five minutes. To start with, existing radar systems would have difficulty seeing the missile launch at ranges in the hundreds of miles. Assuming one had detection of the missile, existing command and control arrangements would have serious problems forwarding that information to any behind-the-lines battery in time for them to find it The system was the topic of intense debate and interser- on their local radars and attack. The task appeared imvice rivalry throughout its lifetime. When the ABM role possible at that time.[2] was given to the Army in 1958, the US Air Force began a long series of attacks on Zeus, both within defense However, the early results also noted that the system circles as well as in the press. The Army returned these might be able to work against longer-ranged missiles, [2] attacks in kind, taking out full page spreads in popular where they would have much longer times to prepare. mass market news magazines to promote Zeus, as well Both projects were allowed to continue as research efas spreading development contracts across many states in forts, and were transferred to the US Air Force when the order to garner the maximum political support. As de- Air Force separated from the Army. The Air Force faced ployment neared in the early 1960s, the debate became significant budget constraints and cancelled Thumper in a major political issue. The question ultimately became 1949 in order to use its funds to continue their GAPA whether or not a system with limited effectiveness would surface-to-air missile (SAM). The next year they merged the Wizard and GAPA projects to develop a new longbe better than nothing at all. range SAM design, which would emerge a decade later The decision whether to proceed with Zeus eventually fell as the CIM-10 Bomarc. ABM research at the Air Force to President Kennedy, who was fascinated by the indeci- essentially, although not officially, ended.[2][3] 367
368
106.1.2
CHAPTER 106. LIM-49 NIKE ZEUS
Nike II
The Nike missile family, with the Zeus B in front of the Hercules and Ajax
95 and 100% of the time in order to be worthwhile. They considered attacks against the warhead while the missile was in the midcourse, just as it reached the highest point in its trajectory and was traveling at its slowest speed. Practical limitations eliminated this possibility, as it required the ABM to be launched at about the same time as the ICBM in order to meet in the middle, and they could not imagine a way to arrange this. Working at much shorter ranges seemed the only possible solution.[8] In the terminal phase, the ICBM warhead would approach at rates on the order of 5 miles (8.0 km) per second; in order to have enough time to maneuver for the final approach, an active seeker in the warhead would have to be very powerful, and thus very heavy. Instead, a command guided solution like the earlier Nikes was selected.[9] Bell returned a further study, delivered on 4 January 1956, that demonstrated the need to intercept the incoming warheads at 100-mile (160 km) altitude, and suggested that this was within the abilities of an upgraded version of the Nike Hercules missile.[10] The 5 mile per second approach speed of the ICBM warhead, combined the tens of seconds that it took for the Nike missile to climb to the warhead’s altitude, required that the warhead be initially detected at about 1,000 miles (1,600 km) range in order to leave enough time to it to be intercepted. Warheads are relatively small and have limited radar cross sections, so this requirement demanded radars of extremely high power.[10]
By the early 1950s the Army was firmly established in The interceptor would lose maneuverability as it climbed the surface-to-air missile field with their Nike and Nike out of the atmosphere and its aerodynamic surfaces beB missile projects. These projects had been led by Bell came less effective, so it should be directed onto the target Labs, working with Douglas.[4] as rapidly as possible, leaving only minor fine tuning later The Army contacted the Johns Hopkins University in the engagement. This required that accurate tracks be Operations Research Office (ORO) to consider the task developed for both the warhead and outgoing missile very of shooting down ballistic missiles using a Nike-like sys- quickly in comparison to a system like Hercules where the tem. The ORO report took three years to complete, and guidance could be updated throughout the engagement. the resulting The Defense of the United States Against Air- This demanded new computers and tracking radars with craft and Missiles was comprehensive.[5] While this study much higher processing rates than the systems used on was still progressing, in February 1955 the Army had con- earlier Nikes. Bell suggested that their transistor offered cluded that missile systems had advanced enough to at- the solution to the data processing problem.[11] After runtack ICBMs, and in March they contracted Bell’s Nike ning 50,000 simulated intercepts on analog computers, team to begin a detailed 18 month study of the problem Bell returned a final report on the concept in October under the name Nike II.[3] 1956, indicating that the system was within the state of [10] The first section of the Bell study was returned to the the art. Army Ordnance department at the Redstone Arsenal on 2 December 1955. It considered the full range of threats including existing jet aircraft, future ramjet powered aircraft flying at up to 3,000 knots (5,600 km/h), shortrange ballistic missiles of the V-2 type flying at about the same speed, and an ICBM warhead traveling at 14,000 knots (26,000 km/h).[6] They suggested that a single rocket booster could be equipped with either of two upper stages, one with fins for use in the atmosphere against aircraft, and another with vestigial fins and thrust vectoring for use above the atmosphere against missiles.[7]
A 13 November 1956 memo gave new names to the entire Nike series; the original Nike became Nike Ajax, Nike B became Nike Hercules, and Nike II became Nike Zeus.[12][13]
106.1.3 Army vs. Air Force
The Army and Air Force had been involved in interservice fighting over missile systems since they split in 1947. The Army considered surface-to-surface missiles (SSM) Considering the ICBM problem, the study went on to sug- an extension of artillery and surface-to-air designs as the gest that the system would have to be effective between modern replacement for their anti-aircraft artillery. The
106.1. HISTORY
369
Air Force considered the nuclear SSM to be an extension of their strategic bombing role, and any sort of long-range anti-aircraft system to be their domain as it would integrate with their fighter fleet. Both forces were developing missiles for both roles, leading to considerable duplication of effort which was widely seen as wasteful.[14] Although the Air Force had earlier abandoned their ABM efforts, as soon as the Nike II program was announced in 1955 they reactivated Wizard. This time the program was not aimed at V-2 class battlefield missiles, but called for a long-range anti-ICBM system of much greater performance than Zeus.[15] This was added to a growing list of tit-for-tat projects, which included the Army’s Hercules vs. Air Force Bomarc, and the Army’s Jupiter missile which prompted the Air Force to start their own IRBM Projected numbers of Soviet ICBMs over time. Program A: CIA, B: USAF, C: Army & Navy. effort, Thor.[16] In a 26 November 1956 memorandum, US Secretary of Defense Charles Erwin Wilson attempted to end the fighting and prevent duplication. His solution was to limit the Army to weapons with 200-mile (320 km) range, and those involved in surface-to-air defense to only 100 miles (160 km).[17] The memo also placed limits on Army air operations, severely limiting the weight of the aircraft they were allowed to operate. To some degree this simply formalized what had largely already been the case in practice, but Jupiter fell outside the range limits and the Army was forced to hand them to the Air Force.[18]
While the report was being prepared, in August 1957 the Soviets successfully launched their R-7 Semyorka (SS-6) ICBM, and followed this up with the successful launch of Sputnik 1 in October. Over the next few months, a series of intelligence reviews resulted in ever increasing estimates of the Soviet missile force. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) 11-10-57, issued in December 1957, stated that the Soviets would have perhaps 10 prototype missiles in service by mid-1958. But after Nikita Khrushchev claimed to be producing them “like [23][lower-alpha 1] the numbers began to rapidly inThe result was another round of fighting between the two sausages”, forces. Jupiter had been designed to be a highly accurate flate. NIE 11-5-58, released in August 1958, suggested weapon able to attack Soviet military bases in Europe,[19] there would be 100 ICBMs in service by 1960, and 500 [25] as compared to Thor, which was intended to attack Soviet by 1961 or 1962 at the latest. [20] cities and had accuracy on the order of several miles. With the NIE’s suggesting the existence of the gap Losing Jupiter, the Army was eliminated from any offen- Gaither predicted, near panic broke out in military cirsive strategic role. In return, the Air Force complained cles. In response, the US began to rush its own ICBM efthat Zeus was too long ranged and the ABM effort should forts, centered on the SM-65 Atlas. These missiles would center on Wizard. But the Jupiter handover meant that be less susceptible to attack by ICBM than bombers, esZeus was now the only strategic program being carried pecially in future versions which would be launched from out by the Army, and its cancellation would mean “vir- underground silos. But even as Atlas was rushed, it aptually the surrender of the defense of America to the peared there would be a missile gap; during the period U.S.A.F at some future date.”[21] from about 1959 to 1963 the NIE estimates suggested
106.1.4
Gaither Report, missile gap
In May 1957, Eisenhower tasked the President’s Science Advisory Committee (PSAC) to provide a report on the potential effectiveness of fallout shelters and other means of protecting the US population in the event of a nuclear war. Chaired by Horace Rowan Gaither, the PSAC team completed their study in September, publishing it officially on 7 November as Deterrence & Survival in the Nuclear Age, but today known as the Gaither Report. After ascribing an expansionist policy to the USSR, along with suggestions that they were more heavily developing their military than the US, the Report suggested that there would be a significant gap in capability in the late 1950s due to spending levels.[22]
the Soviets would have significantly more ICBMs than the US. To ensure this did not happen, the Gaither Report called for the installation of active defenses at SAC bases, Hercules in the short term and an ABM for the 1959 period, along with new early warning radars for ballistic missiles to allow alert aircraft to get away before the missiles hit.[26] Even Zeus would come too late to cover this period, and some consideration was given to an adapted Hercules or a land based version of the Navy’s RIM-8 Talos as an interim ABM.[27]
106.1.5 Zeus B Douglas Aircraft had been selected to build the missiles for Zeus, known under the company designation DM15. This was essentially a scaled up Hercules with an
370
CHAPTER 106. LIM-49 NIKE ZEUS speeds while still in the lower atmosphere, so the missile fuselage had to be covered over completely with a phenolic ablative heat shield to protect the airframe from melting.[33][lower-alpha 2] The new DM-15B Nike Zeus B (the earlier model retroactively becoming the A) received a go ahead for development on 16 January 1958,[34] the same date the Air Force was officially told to stop all work on a Wizard missile.[27] On 22 January 1958, the National Security Council gave Zeus S-Priority, the highest national priority.[35][36] Additional funds were requested to the Zeus program to ensure an initial service date in the fourth quarter of 1962, but these were denied, delaying service entry until some time in 1963.[37]
The Nike Zeus project office at Redstone Arsenal, home of the earlier Nike efforts as well
improved, more powerful single piece booster replacing Hercules’ cluster of four smaller boosters. Intercepts could take place at the limits of the Wilson requirements, at ranges and altitudes of about 100 miles (160 km), but accuracy limits reduced this to about 75 miles (121 km). Prototype launches were planned for 1959. For more rapid service entry there had been some consideration given to an interim system based on the original Hercules missile, but these efforts were dropped. Likewise, early requirements for a secondary anti-aircraft role were also eventually dropped.[28] In early 1957 Wilson signaled his intentions to retire, and Eisenhower began looking for a replacement. During his exit interview, only four days after Sputnik, Wilson told Eisenhower that “trouble is rising between the Army and the Air Force over the 'anti-missile-missile'.”[29] The new Secretary of Defense, Neil McElroy, took office on 9 October 1957. McElroy was previously president of Procter & Gamble and was best known for the invention of the concept of brand management and product differentiation.[30] He had little federal experience, and the launch of Sputnik left him little time to ease into the position.[31] Shortly after taking office, McElroy formed a panel to investigate ABM issues. The panel examined the Army and Air Force projects, and found the Zeus program considerably more advanced than Wizard. McElroy told the Air Force to stop work on ABM missiles and use Wizard funding for the development of long range radars for early warning and raid identification. These were already under development as the BMEWS network. The Army was handed the job of actually shooting down the warheads, and McElroy gave them free hand to develop an ABM system as they saw fit, free of any range limitations.[32] The team designed a much larger missile with a greatly enlarged upper fuselage and three stages, more than doubling the launch weight. This version extended range, with interceptions taking place as far as 200 miles (320 km) downrange and over 100 miles (160 km) in altitude. An even larger booster took the missile to hypersonic
106.1.6 Exchange ratio and other problems With their change of fortunes after McElroy’s 1958 decision, Army General James M. Gavin stated that Zeus would soon replace strategic bombers as the nation’s main deterrent. In response to this turn of events, the Air Force stepped up their policy by press release efforts against the Army, as well as agitating behind the scenes within the Defense Department.[38] As part of their Wizard research, the Air Force had developed a formula that compared the cost of an ICBM to the ABM needed to shoot it down. The formula, later known as the cost-exchange ratio, produced a dollar figure; if the cost of the ICBM was less than that figure, the economic advantage was in favor of building more ICBMs, and an adversary could win an offensive/defensive arms race. A variety of scenarios demonstrated that it was almost always the case that the offense had the advantage. This problem had been conveniently ignored during Wizard, but as soon as the Army was handed sole control of the ABM efforts, the Air Force immediately submitted it to McElroy. McElroy identified this as an example of interservice fighting, but was concerned that the formula might be correct.[39] For an answer, McElroy turned to the Re-entry Body Identification Group (RBIG), a sub-group of the Gaither Committee led by William E. Bradley, Jr. that had been studying the issue of penetrating a Soviet ABM system. The RBIG delivered an extensive report on the topic on 2 April 1958 which suggested that defeating a Soviet ABM system would not be difficult. Their primary suggestion was to arm US missiles with more than one warhead, a concept known as Multiple Re-entry Vehicles (MRV), and ensure they would separate by more than a mile during their flight. Combined with radiation hardening of the warhead, this would ensure that multiple interceptor missiles would be needed to attack them. The US could overwhelm a Soviet ABM system for relatively low cost.[39] The arguments would remain the primary arguments against ABMs for the next two decades.[39]
106.1. HISTORY Turning this argument about, they delivered a report to McElroy that agreed with the Air Force’s original claims on cost.[39] But they then considered the Zeus system itself, and noted that its use of mechanically steered radars, with one radar per missile, meant that Zeus could only launch a small number of missiles at once. If the Soviets deployed MRV, several warheads would arrive at the same time, and the Zeus would simply not have time to shoot at them all. Only four warheads arriving within one minute would result in one of them hitting the Zeus base 90% of the time.[40] The RBIG noted that an ABM system “demands such a high rate of fire from an active defense system, in order to intercept the numerous reentry bodies which arrive nearly simultaneously, that the expense of the required equipment may be prohibitive”. They went on to question the “ultimate impossibility” of an ABM system.[41]
106.1.7
Project Defender
371 The problem here is the usual problem between defense and offenses, measures, countermeasures, counter-counter measures, et cetera, in which it has been my judgement and still is that the battle is so heavily weighted in favor of the offense that it is hopeless against a determined offense and that incidentally applies to our position with regard to an antimissile that they might build. I am convinced that we can continue to have a missile system that can penetrate any Soviet defense.[42] When this report was received, McElroy then charged ARPA to begin studying long term solutions to the ICBM defense, looking for systems that would avoid the apparently insurmountable problem presented by the exchange ratio.[43] ARPA responded by forming Project Defender, initially considering a wide variety of far out concepts like particle beam weapons, lasers and huge fleets of space-borne interceptor missiles, the later known as Project BAMBI. In May 1958, York also began working with Lincoln Labs, MIT's radar research lab, to begin researching ways to distinguish warhead from decoy by radar or other means. This project emerged as the Pacific Range Electromagnetic Signature Studies, or Project PRESS.[29]
106.1.8 More problems In the midst of the growing debate over Zeus’ abilities, the US conducted its first high yield, high altitude tests – Hardtack Teak on 1 August 1958, and Hardtack Orange on 12 August. These demonstrated a number of previously unknown or underestimated effects, notably that nuclear fireballs grew to very large size and caused all of the air in or immediately below the fireball to become opaque to radar signals. This was extremely worrying for any system like Zeus, which would not be able to track warheads in or behind such a fireball.[44]
Herbert York led studies of the ABM concept, and would from then on be a vocal opponent of any deployment.
If this were not enough, there was a growing awareness that simple radar reflectors could be launched along with the warhead that would be indistinguishable to Zeus’ radars. This problem was first alluded to in 1958 in public talks that mentioned Zeus’ inability to discriminate targets.[45] If the decoys spread apart further than the lethal radius of the Zeus’ warhead, several interceptors will be required to guarantee that the warhead hiding among the decoys will be destroyed.[46] Decoys are light weight, and would slow down when they began to reenter the upper atmosphere, allowing them to be picked out, or decluttered. But by that time it would be so close to the Zeus base that there might not be time for the Zeus to climb to altitude.[46]
McElroy responded to the RBIG report in two ways. First, he turned to the newly created ARPA group to examine the RBIG report. APRA, directed by Chief Scientist Herbert York, returned another report broadly agreeing with everything they said.[39] Considering both the In 1959 the Defense Department ordered one more study need to penetrate a Soviet ABM and a potential US ABM on the basic Zeus system, this time by the PSAC. They system, York noted that: put together a heavyweight group with some of the most
372
CHAPTER 106. LIM-49 NIKE ZEUS
President Kennedy was fascinated by the debate over Zeus, and became an expert on all aspects of the system.
Hans Bethe's work with PSAC led to a famous 1968 article in Scientific American outlining the major problems facing any ABM defensive system.
famous and influential scientists forming its core, including Hans Bethe who had worked on the Manhattan Project and later on the hydrogen bomb, Wolfgang Panofsky, the director of the High-Energy Physics Lab at Stanford University, Harold Brown, director of the Lawrence Livermore weapons lab, among similar luminaries. The PSAC report was almost a repeat of the RBIG. They recommended that Zeus should not be built, at least without significant changes to allow it to better deal with the emerging problems.[39]
enough to solve the looming missile gap.[25][lower-alpha 3] After his win in the 1960 elections he was flooded with calls and letters urging that Zeus be continued. This was a concentrated effort on the part of the Army, who was fighting back against similar Air Force tactics. They also used the now common tactic of deliberately spreading the Zeus contracts over 37 states in order to gain as much political and industrial support as possible, while taking out advertisements in major mass-market magazines like Life and The Saturday Evening Post promoting the system.[50] Kennedy appointed Army General Maxwell D. Taylor as his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Taylor, like most Army brass, was a major supporter of the Zeus program. Kennedy and Taylor initially agreed to build a huge Zeus deployment with seventy batteries and 7,000 missiles. McNamara was also initially in favor of the system, but suggested a much smaller deployment of twelve batteries with 1,200 missiles. A contrary note was put forth by Jerome Wiesner, recently appointed as Kennedy’s scientific advisor, and chair of the 1959 PSAC report. He began to educate Kennedy on the technical problems inherent to the system. He also had lengthy discussions with David Bell, the budget director, who came to realize the enormous cost of any sort of reasonable Zeus system.[51]
Throughout, Zeus was the focus of fierce controversy in both the press and military circles. Even as testing started, it was unclear if development would continue.[33] President Eisenhower’s defense secretaries, McElroy (1957–59) and Thomas S. Gates, Jr. (1959–61), were unconvinced that the system was worth the cost. Eisenhower was highly skeptical, questioning whether an effective ABM system could be developed in the 1960s.[47] Another harsh critic on cost grounds was Edward Teller, who simply stated that the exchange ratio meant the so- Kennedy was fascinated by the Zeus debate, especially lution was to build more ICBMs.[48] the way that scientists were lined up on diametrically opposed positions for or against the system. He commented to Wiesner, “I don’t understand. Scientists are supposed 106.1.9 Kennedy and Zeus to be rational people. How can there be such differences on a technical issue?"[52] His fascination grew and John F. Kennedy campaigned on the platform that Eisen- he eventually compiled a mass of material on Zeus which hower was weak on defense and that he was not doing took up one corner of a room where he spent hundreds
106.1. HISTORY
373
of hours becoming an expert on the topic. In one meetmultiple decoys. Saturation of the target is aning with Edward Teller, Kennedy demonstrated that he other possibility as ICBMs become easier and knew more about the Zeus and ABMs than Teller. Teller cheaper to produce in coming years. Finally, then expended considerable effort to bring himself up it is a very expensive system in relation to the to the same level of knowledge.[53] Wiesner would later degree of protection that it can furnish.[58] note that the pressure to make a decision built up until “Kennedy came to feel that the only thing anybody in the Looking for a near term solution, McNamara once again turned to ARPA, asking them to consider the Zeus system country was concerned about was Nike-Zeus.”[52] in depth. They returned a new report in April 1962 that To add to the debate, it was becoming clear that the miscontained four basic concepts. First was the Zeus system sile gap was fictional. The first Corona spy satellite misin its current form, outlining what sort of role it might sion in August 1960 put limits on their program that applay in various war fighting scenarios. Zeus could, for peared to be well below the lower bound of any of the instance, be used to protect SAC bases, thereby requiring estimates, and a follow-up mission in late 1961 clearly the Soviets to expend more of their ICBMs to attack the demonstrated the US had a massive strategic lead.[54] A base. This would presumably mean less damage to other new intelligence report published in 1961 reported that targets. Another considered the addition of new passive the Soviets had no more than 25 ICBMs and would not electronically scanned array radars and computers to the be able to add more for some time.[55][lower-alpha 4] Zeus, which would allow it to attack dozens of targets at Nevertheless, the system continued slowly moving to- once over a wider area. Finally, in their last concept, they wards deployment. On 22 September 1961, McNa- replaced Zeus with a new very high speed, short range mara approved funding for continued development, and missile designed to intercept the warhead at altitudes as approved initial deployment of a Zeus system pro- low as 20,000 feet (6.1 km), by which time any decoys or tecting twelve selected metropolitan areas. These in- fireballs would be long gone.[59] This last concept became cluded Washington/Baltimore, New York, Los Ange- the Nike-X system. les, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, Ottawa/Montreal, Boston, San Francisco, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and Toronto/Buffalo. However, the deployment was later 106.1.11 Perfect or nothing overturned, and in January 1962 only the development funds were released.[57]
106.1.10
Nike-X
Main article: Nike-X In 1961, McNamara agreed to continue development funding through FY62, but declined to provide funds for production. He summed up both the positives and the concerns this way: Successful development [of Zeus] may force an aggressor to expend additional resources to increase his ICBM force. It would also make accurate estimates of our defensive capabilities more difficult for a potential enemy and complicate the achievement of a successful attack. Furthermore, the protection that it would provide, even if for only a portion of our population, would be better than none at all ... There is still considerable uncertainty as to its technical feasibility and, even if successfully developed, there are many serious operating problems yet to be solved. The system, itself, is vulnerable to ballistic missile attack, and its effectiveness could be degraded by the use of more sophisticated ICBMs screened by
Robert McNamara ultimately decided Zeus simply didn't offer enough protection given its cost.
As work on Nike-X began, high-ranking military and civilian officials began to press for Zeus deployment as an interim system in spite of the known problems. The system could then be upgraded in-place as new technologies became available. McNamara was opposed to early
374
CHAPTER 106. LIM-49 NIKE ZEUS
deployment, while Congressman Daniel J. Flood would 106.1.12 Cancellation and the ABM gap be a prime force for immediate deployment.[60] that the McNamara’s argument against deployment basically By 1963 McNamara had convinced Kennedy [64] The earlier Zeus was simply not worth deploying. rested on two primary issues. One was the apparent inefconcerns about cost and effectiveness, as well as new fectiveness of the system, and especially its benefit-cost difficulties in terms of attack size and decoy problems, ratio compared to other options. For instance, fallout to cancel the Zeus project on 5 January shelters would save more Americans for far less money, led McNamara [46][65] 1963. In its place they decided to continue work and he was adamant that no ABM system should be built [66] on Nike-X. Nike-X development was based in the [61] without funding shelters as well. The second, ironiexisting Nike Zeus Project Office until their name was cally, was the concerns about a Soviet ABM system. The changed to Nike-X on 1 February 1964.[65] US’s existing SM-65 Atlas and SM-68 Titan both used re-entry vehicles with blunt noses that greatly slowed the warheads as they entered the lower atmosphere and made them relatively easy to attack. The solution was the LGM30 Minuteman missile, which used new sharp nosed reentry shapes that traveled at much higher terminal speeds, and included a number of decoy systems that were expected to make interception very difficult for the Soviet ABMs. If there was a budget choice to be made, McNamara supported Minuteman, although he tried not to say this.[62]
While reporting to the Senate Armed Services Committee in February, McNamara noted that they expected the Soviets to have an initial ABM system deployed in 1966, and then later stated that the Nike-X would not be ready for use until 1970. Noting a “defensive gap”, Strom Thurmond began an effort to deploy the existing Zeus as an interim system. Once again the matter spilled over into the press.[67]
McNamara: We are spending hundreds of millions of dollars, not to stop things but to accelerate the development of an anti-ICBM system... I do not believe it would be wise for us to recommend the procurement of a system which might not be an effective anti-ICBM device. That is exactly the state in which we believe the Zeus rests today.
Additional tracking tests were carried out by TTRs at Bell’s Whippany, NJ labs and an installation on Ascension Island. The latter was first used in an attempt to track a SM-68 Titan on 29 March 1961, but the data download from Cape Canaveral simulating ZAR information failed. A second test on 28 May was successful. Later in the year the Ascension site tracked a series of four test launches, two Atlas, two Titan, generating tracking information for as long as 100 seconds.[72] A ZAR at White Sands reached initial operation in June 1961, and was tested against balloons, aircraft, parachutes deployed from sounding rockets and Hercules missiles. A TTR
On 11 April 1963, Thurmond led the Congress in an effort to fund deployment of Zeus. In the first closed session In one particularly telling exchange between McNamara of the Senate in twenty years, Zeus was debated and the and Flood, McNamara initially refuses to choose one op- decision was made to continue with the planned develoption over the other: ment of Nike-X with no Zeus deployment.[66] The Army continued the testing program until December 1964 at White Sands Missile Range, and May 1966 at Kwajalein Flood: Which comes first, the chicken or Missile Range.[68] the egg? Which comes first, Minuteman because he may develop a good Zeus, or our own Zeus? McNamara: I would say neither comes first. I 106.2 Testing would carry on each simultaneously with the maximum rate of activity that each could benefit from.[63] As the debate over Zeus raged, the Nike team was making rapid progress developing the actual system. Test firings But later, Flood managed to get a more accurate state- of the original A models of the missile began in 1959 at White Sands Missile Range. The first attempt on 26 ment out of him: August 1959 was of a live booster stage and dummy sustainer, and broke up shortly before booster/sustainer sepFlood: I thought we had broken through aration. A similar test on 14 October was a success, folthis problem in this country, of wanting things lowed by the first two stage attempt on 16 December.[69] to be perfect before we send them to the The first complete test of both stages with active guidtroops. I have an enemy who can kill me and ance and thrust vectoring was successfully carried out on I cannot defend myself against him, and I say 3 February 1960.[70] Data collected from these tests led to I should hazard all risks within the rule of changes to the design to improve speed during the ascent. reason, to advance this by 2 or 3 years. The first test of the Zeus B took place in May 1961.[71]
Flood: ... You may not be aware of it, but you have just about destroyed the Nike-Zeus. That last paragraph did that.[63]
106.2. TESTING
A Nike Zeus A missile being test launched at White Sands illustrates the similarities between the A model and the earlier Hercules.
375
A Nike Zeus B missile is launched from the Pacific Missile Range at Point Mugu on 7 March 1962. This was the ninth launch of a Zeus from the Pt. Mugu site, today known as Naval Base Ventura County.
A Nike Zeus B missile stands on static display at White Sands while another Zeus B is being test launched in the background.
followed and in November, and all-up testing began that month. On 14 December a Zeus passed within 100 feet (30 m) of a Nike Hercules being used as a test target, a success that was repeated in March 1962.[73] Many test firings were conducted through the early 1960s, but White Sands was too close to its own launch sites to truly test an ICBM flight profile. By this time launches were being carried out at Point Mugu in California where the Zeus missiles could fly to their maximum range over the Pacific. Consideration was given to using Point Mugu to launch against ICBMs flying from Cape Canaveral, but range safety requirements placed limits on the poten-
A view of Kwajalein during the Zeus era. Mount Olympus is in the lower center of the image, with the Battery Control up and to the left. The ZDR is the square building in the two concentric circles, with the two TTRs just above it, under construction. At the opposite end of the runway the two large circles are the ZAR’s transmitter and receiver.
376
CHAPTER 106. LIM-49 NIKE ZEUS
tial tests. The Atlantic Test Range, to the northeast of Canaveral, had a high population density and little land available for building accurate downrange tracking stations, Ascension being the only suitable location. Eventually Kwajalein Island was selected, as it was 4,800 miles from California, perfect for ICBMs, and already had a US Navy base with considerable housing and an airstrip.[74]
switched to clutter mode, which watched the TTR data for any derivation from the originally calculated trajectory, which would indicate that it had begun tracking debris. It also continued to predict the location of the warhead, and if the system decided it was tracking debris, it would wait for the debris and warhead to separate enough to begin tracking them again. However, the system failed to propthe warhead was lost, and tracking was A minor Army-Air Force fight then broke out about what erly indicate when never regained.[73] targets would be used for the Kwajalein tests. The Army favored using its Jupiter design, fired from Johnston Atoll, A second test on 19 July was a partial success,[lower-alpha 6] while the Air Force recommended using Atlas fired from with the Zeus passing within 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) of the Vandenberg AFB. The Army had already begun convert- target. The control system ran out of hydraulic fluid during the former Thor launchers to Jupiter when an Ad Hoc ing the last 10 seconds of the approach, causing the large Panel considered the issue. On 26 May 1960 they decided miss distance, but the test was otherwise successful. The in favor of Atlas, and this was made official on 29 June guidance program was updated to stop the rapid control when the Secretary of Defense ended pad conversion and cycling that led to the fluid running out. A third attempt Jupiter production was earmarked for Zeus testing.[75] on 12 December successfully brought the missile to very A key development of the testing program was a miss- close distances, but the second missile of the planned two distance indicator system, which independently measured missile salvo failed to launch due to an instrument probthe distance between the Zeus and the target at the in- lem. A similar test on 22 December also suffered a failure the first passed only 200 metres stant the computers initiated the detonation of the war- in the second missile, but [76] (660 ft) from its target. head. For testing, a small conventional warhead was used, which provided a flash that could be seen on long exposure photographs of the interceptions. There were concerns that if the Zeus’ own radars were used for this ranging measure, any systematic error in ranging would also be present in the test data, and thus would be hidden.[76] The solution was the use of a separate UHF-frequency transmitter in the warhead reentry vehicle, and a receiver in the Zeus. The received signal was retransmitted to the ground, where its Doppler shift was examined to extract the range information. These instruments eventually demonstrated that the Zeus’ own tracking information was accurate.[77][lower-alpha 5]
Of the tests carried out over the two year test cycle, ten of them were successful in bringing the Zeus within its lethal range.[79][lower-alpha 7]
On 26 June the first all-up test against an Atlas target was attempted. The ZAR began successfully tracking the target at 446 nautical miles (826 km) and handed off immediately to a TTR. The TTR switched tracks from the missile fuselage to the warhead at 131 nautical miles (243 km). When the fuselage began to break up, the computer
missile. A second on 19 April also failed when the beacon failed 30 seconds before intercept. The third test, this time using an actual target consisting of an Agena-D upper stage equipped with a Zeus miss-distance transmitter, was carried out on 24 May 1963, and was a complete success. From that point until 1964, one DM-15S was kept in a state of instant readiness and teams continually
106.3 Anti-satellite use
In April 1962, McNamara asked the Nike team to consider using the Zeus site on Kwajalein as an operational anti-satellite base after the main Zeus testing had completed. The Nike team responded that a system could be readied for testing by May 1963. The concept was given The Zeus site, known as the Kwajalein Test Site, was offithe name Project Mudflap.[80] cially established on 1 October 1960. As it grew in size, it eventually led to the entire island complex being handed Development was a straightforward conversion of the over to the Army from the Navy on 1 July 1964.[74] The DM-15B into the DM-15S. The changes were mainly site took up a considerable amount of the empty land concerned with providing more upper stage maneuverto the north side of the airfield. The launchers were lo- ability through the use of a new two-stage hydraulic cated on the far southwestern corner of the island, with pump, batteries providing 5 minutes of power instead of the TTR, MTR and various control sites and generators 2, and an improved fuel in the booster to provide higher running along the northern side of the airfield. The ZAR peak altitudes. A test of the new booster with a DMtransmitter and receiver were some distance away, also 15B upper was carried out at White Sands on 17 Deon the northern edge of the airfield but at the eastern end cember 1962, reaching an altitude of 100 nautical miles of it.[78] On 24 January 1962, the Zeus Acquisition Radar (190 km), the highest of any launch from White Sands to at Kwajalein achieved its first returns from an ICBM tar- that point. A second test with a complete DM-15S on 15 [77] get, and on 18 April was used to track Kosmos 2. On February 1963 reached 151 nautical miles (280 km). the 19 January it reacquired Kosmos 2 and successfully Testing then moved to Kwajalein. The first test on 21 transferred the track to one of the TTRs.[59] March 1963 failed when the MTR failed to lock onto the
106.4. DESCRIPTION
377
trained on the missile.[81] After 1964 the Kwajalein site was no longer required to be on alert, and returned primarily to Zeus testing. The system was kept active in a non-alert role between 1964 and 1967, known as Program 505. In 1967 it was replaced by a Thor based system, Program 437.[82] A total of 12 launches, including those at White Sands, were carried out as part of the 505 program between 1962 and 1966.
106.4 Description The Zeus Acquisition Radar’s triangular transmitter is in the foreground, with the dome covered receiver in the background.
bit file including location, velocity, time of measure and a measure of the quality of the data. Clouds of objects were tracked as a single object with additional data indicating the width and length of the cloud. Tracks could be updated every five seconds while the target was in view, but the antenna rotated at a relatively slow 4 RPM so targets moved significantly between rotations. Each FAR could feed data to up to three Zeus sites.[83]
The basic Zeus system included long-range and short-range radars and the missiles, spread over some distance.
Nike Zeus was originally intended to be a straightforward development of the earlier Hercules system giving it the ability to hit ICBM warheads at about the same range and altitude as the maximum performance of the Hercules.[10] In theory, hitting a warhead is no more difficult than an aircraft; the interceptor does not have to travel any further or faster, the computers that guide it simply have to select an intercept point farther in front of the target to compensate for the target’s much higher speed. In practice, the difficulty is detecting the target early enough that the intercept point is still within range of the missile. This demands much larger and more powerful radar systems, and faster computers.[4]
106.4.1
Early detection
In order to provide the maximum warning time, some consideration was given to the design of a Forward Acquisition Radar (FAR). These would be deployed 300 to 700 miles (480–1,130 km) ahead of the Zeus bases to provide early warning of up to 200 to 300 seconds of tracking data on up to 200 targets. The system broadcast 10 MW pulses at UHF between 405–495 MHz, allowing it to detect a 1 square metre radar reflection at 1,020 nautical miles (1,890 km) or a more typical 0.1 m2 target at 600 nautical miles (1,100 km). Each track was stored as a 200
Each Zeus Defense Center was based around its Zeus Acquisition Radar, or ZAR, which provided wide area early warning and initial tracking information.[84] This enormously powerful radar was driven by multiple 1.8 MW klystrons and broadcast through three 80-foot (24 m) wide antennas arranged as the outside edges of a rotating equilateral triangle. The ZAR spun at 10 RPM, simulating a single antenna rotating three times as fast. The entire transmitter was surrounded by a 65-foot (20 m) high fence located 350 feet (110 m) away from the antenna. The signal was received on a separate set of three antennas, situated at the centre of an 80 foot (24 m) diameter Luneburg lens, which rotated synchronously with the broadcaster under a 120-foot (37 m) diameter dome.[84] Multiple feed horns were used in the receiver to allow reception from many vertical angles at once. Around the receiver dome was a large field of wire mesh, forming a reflector.[84] The ZAR also operated in the UHF on various frequencies between 495–605 MHz. ZAR had detection range on the order of 460 nautical miles (850 km) on a 0.1 m2 target, but greatly increased data collection to every two seconds, and did not lose sight of targets as the antenna turned.[83]
106.4.2 Battery layout Data from the ZARs were passed to the appropriate Zeus Firing Battery to attack, with each ZAR being able to send its data to up to ten batteries. Each battery was selfcontained after handoff, including all of the radars, computers and missiles needed to perform an intercept. In a typical deployment, a single Zeus Defense Center would
378
CHAPTER 106. LIM-49 NIKE ZEUS by passing each frequency in the chirp to a separate range gate. The range resolution was 0.25 microseconds, about 75 metres (246 ft).[86] As the signal was spread out over the entire cloud, it had to be very powerful; the ZDR produced 40 MW 2 µs pulses in the L-band between 1270– 1400 MHz.[87] To ensure no signal was lost by scanning areas that were empty, the ZDR used a Cassegrain reflector that could be moved to focus the beam as the cloud approached to keep the area under observation constant.[88][89]
Two TTR’s are closest to the camera at the bottom, and the ZDR is centered. The MTRs are located on the building in the distant background.
The MTRs were very small as they homed in on strong signals from a transmitter in the missile.
Data from the ZDR was passed to the All-Target Processor (ATP), which ran initial processing on as many as 625 objects in a cloud. As many as 50 of these could be picked out for further processing in the Discrimination and Control Computer (DCC), which ran more tests on those tracks and assigned each one a probability of being the warhead or decoy. The DCC was able to run 100 different tests. For exoatmospheric signals the tests included measure of radar return pulse-to-pulse to look for tumbling objects, as well as variations in signals strength due to changes in frequency. Within the atmosphere, the primary method was examining the velocities of the objects to determine their mass.[86] Any target with a high probability was then passed to the Battery Control Data Processor (BCDP), which selected missiles and radars for an attack.[90] This started with the assignment of a Target Tracking Radar (TTR) to a target passed to it from the DCC. TTRs operated in the C-band from 5250–5750 MHz at 10 MW, allowing tracking of a 0.1 m2 target at 300 nautical miles (560 km), which they expected to be able to double with a new maserbased receiver design. Once targets were being successfully tracked and a firing order received, the BCDP selected available Zeus missiles for launch and assigned a Missile Tracking Radar (MTR) to follow them. These were much smaller radars operating in the X-band between 8500–9600 MHz and assisted by a transponder on the missile, using only 300 MW to provide missile tracking to 200 nautical miles (370 km). Information from the ZDR, TTR and MRTs was all fed to the Target Intercept Computer (TIC) which handled the interceptions. This used twistor memory for ROM and core memory for RAM. Guidance commands were sent to the missiles inflight via modulation of the MTR signal.[91]
The nominal battery consisted of three TTR/ZDR pairs, Photo of “Mount Olympus”, the Nike-Zeus launcher complex on with one normally operating as a hot backup. The site Kwajalein Island. The built-up hill allowed full-sized Zeus silos also included ten MTRs, with one of those a backup. This meant that a single Zeus site would normally attack to be built into land only feet above sea level. two targets, although a third could be attacked if needed. Each could be attacked by three missiles, although a norbe connected to three to six batteries, spread out by as mal salvo used two.[92] much as 100 miles (160 km).[85] It was expected that the ZAR would take 20 seconds to Targets picked out by the ZAR were then illuminated by develop a track and hand off a target to one of the TTRs, the Zeus Discrimination Radar (ZDR, also known as De- and 25 seconds for the missile to reach the target. With coy Discrimination Radar, DDR or DR). ZDR imaged these sorts of salvo rates, a Zeus installation was expected the entire cloud using a chirped signal that allowed the to be able to successfully attack 14 “bare” warheads per receiver to accurately determine range within the cloud
106.5. SPECIFICATIONS minute.[89] Its salvo rate against warheads with decoys is not recorded, but would depend on the ZDR’s processing rate more than any physical limit. The actual engagement would normally take place at about 75 nautical miles (139 km) due to accuracy limitations, beyond that missiles could not be guided accurately enough to bring them within their lethal 800 foot (240 m) range against a shielded warhead.[93][94]
106.4.3
Zeus missiles
379 effects, like the Hercules, and was to be armed with a relatively small nuclear warhead. As the range and altitude requirements grew, along with a better understanding of weapons effects at high altitude, the Zeus B intended to attack its targets through the action of neutron heating. This relied on the interceptor’s warhead releasing a huge number of high energy neutrons (similar to the neutron bomb), some of which would hit the enemy warhead. These would cause fission to occur in some of the warhead’s own nuclear fuel, rapidly heating the “primary”, hopefully enough to cause it to melt.[96] For this to work, the Zeus mounted the W50, a 400 kt enhanced radiation warhead, and had to maneuver within 1 km of the target warhead. Against shielded targets, the warhead would be effective to as little as 800 feet (0.24 km).[93] When Zeus B was upgraded into the Zeus EX that worked at even higher altitudes and longer ranges, a new type of attack became possible. In the vacuum of space, where the EX operated, x-rays travel long distances and can be used for an attack over a wide area, larger than a practical neutron weapon. To fill this need a much larger gold tampered warhead was developed, the 5 Mt W71.[97] For the short range Sprint that operated closer to the ground, the much smaller W66 was created, operating much the same way as the Zeus’ W50 but with a much lower (still classified but ~1 kt) yield. The W66 is widely reported as the first neutron bomb, although any differences compared to the W50, other than yield, are unclear.[98]
106.5 Specifications
West Point Cadets pose in front of a Zeus at White Sands. The three stages of the missile are clearly evident, as well as details of the movable upper stage thrusters.
The original D-15 Zeus A was similar to the original Hercules, but featured a revised control layout and gas “puffers” for maneuvering at high altitudes where the atmosphere was too thin for the aerodynamic surfaces to be effective. The Zeus B interceptor was longer at 14.7 metres (48 ft), 2.44 metres (8 ft 0 in) wide, and 0.91 metres (3 ft 0 in) in diameter. This was so much larger than the earlier Hercules that no attempt was made to have them fit into the existing Hercules/Ajax launchers. Instead, the B models were launched from silos, thus the change of numbering from MIM (mobile surface launched) to LIM (silo launched). Since the missile was designed to intercept its targets in space, it did not need large maneuvering fins of the A model. Rather, it featured a third rocket stage with small control jets to maneuver in space. Zeus B had a maximum range of 250 miles (400 km) and altitude of 200 miles (320 km).[95] Zeus A was designed to attack warheads through shock
Different sources appear to confuse measures between the Zeus A, B and Spartan. The A and Spartan figures are taken from US Strategic and Defensive Missile Systems 1950–2004,[99] B from the Bell Labs history.[100]
106.6 See also • Project Wizard was the US Air Force’s on-again, off-again ABM system that was ultimately replaced by Nike Zeus. • The A-35 anti-ballistic missile system was a Soviet system roughly equivalent to the Nike Zeus. • The A-135 anti-ballistic missile system replaced the A-35, and is roughly equivalent of NIke-X.
106.7 Notes [1] When Khrushchev’s son asked why he made this statement, Khrushchev explained that “the number of missiles we had wasn’t so important.… The important thing was that Americans believed in our power”.[24]
380
CHAPTER 106. LIM-49 NIKE ZEUS
[2] The outer layer of the missile can be seen turning black in the Bell Labs film. [3] Kennedy publicly introduced the term “missile gap” as part of a August 1958 speech.[49] [4] It was later demonstrated the actual number of ICBMs in the Soviet fleet at that time was four.[56] [5] This result proved useful during later tests of the Sprint missile, where changes in frequency and demands to encrypt all data made the adaption of this simple method much more difficult. Instead, the TTR radars from the original Zeus site were used, as the original tests had demonstrated the TTR data to be accurate.[77] [6] Leonard incorrectly states this took place on 19 June.[59] It is one of a number of mistakes in the Chronology section, which indicates references from this list should be checked against other references. [7] Canavan mentions there being 14 tests, Bell’s history shows only 13 in the table.
[19] MacKenzie 1993, p. 113. [20] MacKenzie 1993, p. 121. [21] Technical Editor (6 December 1957). “Missiles 1957”. Flight International: 896. [22] Gaither 1957, p. 5. [23] Thielmann, Greg (May 2011). “The Missile Gap Myth and Its Progeny”. Arms Control Today. [24] Khrushchev, Sergei (200). Nikita Khrushchev and the Creation of a Superpower. Pennsylvania State University Press. p. 314. ISBN 0271043466. [25] Preble 2003, p. 810. [26] Gaither 1957, p. 6. [27] Leonard 2011, p. 332. [28] Leonard 2011, p. 183. [29] Slayton 2013, p. 52.
106.8 References
[30] “P&G: Changing the Face of Consumer Marketing”. Harvard Business School. 2000.
106.8.1
[31] “Neil H. McElroy (1957–1959): Secretary of Defense”. University of Virginia Miller Center.
Citations
[1] Walker, Bernstein & Lang 2003, p. 20. [2] Jayne 1969, p. 29. [3] Leonard 2011, p. 180. [4] Zeus 1962, p. 165. [5] Jayne 1969, p. 30. [6] Bell Labs 1975, p. 1.2. [7] Bell Labs 1975, p. 1.3. [8] Bell Labs 1975, pp. 1.3–1.4. [9] Bell Labs 1975, p. 1.4. [10] Zeus 1962, p. 166. [11] Jayne 1969, p. 32. [12] “Nike Ajax (SAM-A-7) (MIM-3, 3A)". Federation of American Scientists. 29 June 1999. [13] Leonard 2011, p. 329. [14] Kaplan 2006, p. 4. [15] Jayne 1969, p. 33. [16] MacKenzie 1993, p. 120. [17] Larsen, Douglas (1 August 1957). “New Battle Looms Over Army’s Newest Missile”. Sarasota Journal. p. 35. Retrieved 18 May 2013. [18] Trest, Warren (2010). Air Force Roles and Missions: A History. Government Printing Office. p. 175. ISBN 9780160869303.
[32] Kaplan 2006, p. 7. [33] Zeus 1962, p. 170. [34] Berhow 2005, p. 31. [35] Walker, Bernstein & Lang 2003, p. 39. [36] Leonard 2011, p. 331. [37] Leonard 2011, p. 182. [38] Kaplan 2008, p. 80. [39] Kaplan 2008, p. 81. [40] WSEG 1959, p. 20. [41] Kaplan 1983, p. 344. [42] Yanarella 2010, pp. 72–73. [43] Broad, William (28 October 1986). "'Star Wars’ Traced To Eisenhower Era”. The New York Times. [44] Garvin & Bethe 1968, pp. 28–30. [45] Leonard 2011, pp. 186–187. [46] Baucom 1992, p. 19. [47] Kaplan 2006, p. 6–8. [48] Papp 1987. [49] “US Military and Diplomatic Policies - Preparing for the Gap”. JFK Library and Museum. 14 August 1958. [50] Kaplan 2008, p. 82. [51] Kaplan 1983, p. 345.
106.8. REFERENCES
381
[52] Kaplan 2006, p. 9.
[85] Bell Labs 1975, p. II, 1.1.
[53] Brown 2012, p. 91.
[86] Bell Labs 1975, p. II, 1.14.
[54] Day, Dwayne (3 January 2006). Of myths and missiles: the truth about John F. Kennedy and the Missile Gap. The Space Review. pp. 195–197.
[87] Bell Labs 1975, p. II, 1.12.
[55] Heppenheimer, T. A. (1998). The Space Shuttle Decision. NASA. pp. 195–197.
[89] Program For Deployment Of Nike Zeus (Technical report). 30 September 1961.
[56] Day 2006.
[90] Bell Labs 1975, p. II, 1.25.
[57] Leonard 2011, p. 334.
[91] Zeus 1962, pp. 167,170.
[58] Yanarella 2010, p. 68. [59] Leonard 2011, p. 335. [60] Yanarella 2010, pp. 68–69.
[88] Bell Labs 1975, p. II, 1.11.
[92] WSEG 1959, p. 10. [93] Bell Labs 1975, p. 1.1. [94] WSEG 1959, p. 160.
[61] Yanarella 2010, p. 87. [62] Yanarella 2010, p. 69.
[95] “Nike Zeus”. Encyclopedia Astronautica. Retrieved 18 May 2013.
[63] Yanarella 2010, p. 70.
[96] Kaplan 2006, p. 12.
[64] “JFK Accepts McNamara View On Nike Zeus”. Sarasota Herald-Tribune. 8 January 1963. p. 20.
[97] Johnson, Wm. Robert (6 April 2009). “Multimegaton Weapons”.
[65] Walker, Bernstein & Lang 2003, p. 49.
[98] Berhow 2005, p. 32.
[66] Kaplan 2006, p. 13.
[99] Berhow 2005, p. 60. [67] Allan, Robert; Scott, Paul (26 April 1963). “McNamara Lets Reds Widen Antimissile Gap”. Evening Independent. [100] Bell Labs 1975, p. 1–33. p. 3-A. [68] Kaplan 2006, p. 14. [69] Gibson 1996, p. 205. [70] Walker, Bernstein & Lang 2003, p. 42. [71] Walker, Bernstein & Lang 2003, p. 44. [72] Bell Labs 1975, p. 1.23. [73] Bell Labs 1975, p. 1.24. [74] Walker, Bernstein & Lang 2003, p. 41. [75] Leonard 2011, p. 333. [76] Bell Labs 1975, p. 1.26. [77] Bell Labs 1975, p. 1.31. [78] Kaplan 2006, p. 10. [79] Canavan 2003, p. 6. [80] Hubbs, Mark (February 2007). “Where We Began – the Nike Zeus Program”. The Eagle. p. 14. [81] Bell Labs 1975, p. 1.32. [82] “Program 505”. Encyclopedia Astronautica. Retrieved 18 May 2013. [83] WSEG 1959. [84] Zeus 1962, p. 167.
106.8.2 Bibliography • Bell Labs (October 1975). ABM Research and Development at Bell Laboratories, Project History (Technical report). Retrieved 13 December 2014. • Berhow, Mark (2005). US Strategic and Defensive Missile Systems 1950–2004. Oxford: Osprey. ISBN 978-1-84176-838-0. OCLC 62889392. • Baucom, Donald (1992). The Origins of SDI, 1944–1983. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas. ISBN 978-0-7006-0531-6. OCLC 25317621. • Brown, Harold (2012). Star Spangled Security: Applying Lessons Learned over Six Decades Safeguarding America. Brookings Institution Press. ISBN 9780815723837. Retrieved 13 Dec 2014. • Canavan, Gregory (2003). Missile Defense for the 21st Century. Heritage Foundation. ISBN 0-89195261-6. OCLC 428736422. • Garvin, Richard; Bethe, Hans (March 1968). “AntiBallistic-Missile Systems”. Scientific American 218 (3): pp. 21–31. Bibcode:1968SciAm.218c..21G. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0368-21. Retrieved 13 December 2014.
382 • Gibson, James (1996). Nuclear Weapons of the United States: An Illustrated History. Atglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer Publishing. ISBN 978-0-76430063-9. OCLC 35660733. • Jayne, Edward Randolph (1969). The ABM debate: strategic defense and national security (Technical report). Massachusetts Institute of Technology. OCLC 19300718. Retrieved 13 December 2014. • Kaplan, Fred (1983). The Wizards of Armageddon. Stanford University Press. ISBN 9780804718844. • Kaplan, Fred (2008). Daydream Believers: How a Few Grand Ideas Wrecked American Power. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9780470121184. • Kaplan, Lawrence (2006). Nike Zeus: The U.S. Army’s First ABM. Falls Church, Virginia: Missile Defense Agency. OCLC 232605150. Retrieved 13 May 2013. • Leonard, Barry (2011). History of Strategic and Ballistic Missile Defense: Volume II: 1956–1972. DIANE Publishing. Retrieved 13 May 2013. • MacKenzie, Donald (1993). Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance. MIT Press. ISBN 9780262631471. • Papp, Daniel (Winter 1987–88). “From Project Thumper to SDI”. Airpower Journal. • Preble, Christopher (December 2003). “Who Ever Believed in the 'Missile Gap'" John F. Kennedy and the Politics of National Security”. Presidential Studies Quarterly: 801. JSTOR 27552538. • Security Resources Panel of the Science Advisory Committee (7 November 1957). Deterrence & Survival in the Nuclear Age (Technical report). Retrieved 13 December 2014. • Slayton, Rebecca (2013). Arguments that Count: Physics, Computing, and Missile Defense, 1949– 2012. MIT Press. ISBN 9780262019446. Retrieved 15 December 2014. • Walker, James; Bernstein, Lewis; Lang, Sharon (2010). Seize the High Ground: The U. S. Army in Space and Missile Defense. Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History. ISBN 9780813128092. Retrieved 13 May 2013. • Yanarella, Ernest (2010). The Missile Defense Controversy: Technology in Search of a Mission. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 9780813128092. Retrieved 13 May 2013. • US Army Weapons Systems Evaluation Group (23 September 1959). Potential Contribution of NikeZeus to Defense of the U.S. Population and it’s Industrial Base, and the U.S. Retaliatory System (Technical report). Retrieved 13 December 2014.
CHAPTER 106. LIM-49 NIKE ZEUS • Technical Editor (2 August 1962). “Nike Zeus”. Flight International: pp. 165–170. ISSN 00153710. Retrieved 13 May 2013.
106.9 External links • “Nike Zeus”. Nuclearabms.info. Retrieved 18 May 2013. • AT&T Archives: Nike Zeus Missile System, made early in the program • The Range Goes Green, movie of a Zeus test launch at White Sands
Chapter 107
LIM-49 Spartan The LIM-49A Spartan was a United States Army antiballistic missile, designed to intercept attacking nuclear warheads from Intercontinental ballistic missiles at long range and while still outside the atmosphere. For deployment, a defensive five-megaton atomic warhead was planned to destroy the incoming ICBM.[1] It was part of the Safeguard Program.
with aims to deploy the first operational sites in 1963.
107.1 History
The former problem was becoming increasingly obvious from about 1957. Missiles designed to carry a specific warhead found themselves with excess throw-weight as warhead physics improved and they became smaller and lighter. Even a small amount of excess capacity could be used to throw radar decoys or chaff, which are very light weight, and would provide additional radar returns that would make it difficult to pick out the warhead. As long as the decoys spread out or blocked an area larger than the lethal radius of the interceptor, several interceptors would have to be launched to guarantee the warhead would be hit. Adding more decoys was extremely inexpensive, requiring very expensive ABMs to be added in response.
To fully test the system, the Army took control of Kwajalein Island from the US Navy, and began building an entire Zeus site on the island. By 1962 the system was ready for testing, and after some initial problems, demonstrated its ability to intercept warheads launched from California. Eventually fourteen “all up” tests were carried Spartan was the ultimate development in a long series of out over the next two years, with ten of them bringing the missile designs from the team of Bell Laboratories and missile within the lethal radius of its warhead, sometimes Douglas Aircraft Company that started in the 1940s with within a few hundred meters. the Nike. Spartan was developed directly from the preceding LIM-49 Nike Zeus, retaining the same tri-service identifier, but growing larger and longer ranged, from the 107.1.2 Cancellation Zeus’ 250 miles (400 km) to about 450 miles (720 km). Spartan was initially developed as part of the Nike-X In spite of Zeus’ smooth testing program and successful project, later becoming the Sentinel Program. This was interceptions, it was becoming increasingly clear that the eventually cancelled and replaced with the much smaller system would not be effective in a real war scenario. This Safeguard Program. Spartans were deployed as part of was due primarily to two problems; decoys would shield the Safeguard system from October 1975 to early 1976. the warhead from detection until it was too late to intercept it, and the rapid increase in the number of ICBMs threatened to overwhelm the system.
107.1.1
Zeus
The US Army started their first serious efforts in the antiballistic missile arena when they asked the Bell Labs missile team to prepare a report on the topic in February 1955. The Nike team had already designed the Nike Ajax system that was in widespread use around the US, as well as the Nike Hercules that was in the late stages of development as the Ajax’s replacement. They returned an initial study on Nike II in January 1956, concluding that the basic concept was workable using a slightly upgraded version of the Hercules missile, but requiring dramatically At the same time, both the US and USSR were in upgraded radars and computers to handle interceptions the midst of introducing their first truly mass produced that took place at thousands of miles an hour. ICBMs, and their numbers were clearly going to grow Work began on the resulting LIM-49 Nike Zeus system in dramatically during the early 1960s. Zeus, like HerJanuary 1957, initially at a low priority. However, several cules and Ajax before it, used mechanically directed radar developments that year, including the development of the dishes that could track only one target and one intercepfirst Soviet ICBMs and the launch of Sputnik I, caused the tor at once. It was planned that Zeus bases would actuschedule to be pushed up several times. In January 1958 ally consist of several launcher sites connected to a cenZeus was given “S-Priority”, the highest national priority, tral control, but even in this case the site might be able to 383
384
CHAPTER 107. LIM-49 SPARTAN
guide perhaps four to six missiles at once. With the ICBM fleet reaching hundreds even before Zeus could become operational, it would be easy to simply overwhelm the defense by flying enough warheads over it that it couldn't guide interceptions rapidly enough.
107.1.3
107.2 Survivors • The Air Defense Artillery museums at Fort Bliss, Texas and the ADA park at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, have both Safeguard missiles on display, the Sprint and Spartan.[3][4][5]
Nike X
The solution to both of these problems is to improve speed, both of the defending missiles and the defense system as a whole. Decoys are less dense than warheads, and not aerodynamic. Therefore they are subject to more deceleration when they begin the re-enter the upper atmosphere. The warhead, which is dense and streamlined, experiences less deceleration from air resistance, eventually flying out in front of the decoys. The rate at which this happens depends on the types of decoys used, but the warhead will have pulled past even advanced types by the time it is between 250,000–100,000 feet (76,000–30,000 m). At that point the warhead is open to attack, but leaves only 5 to 10 seconds before impact. To handle these scenarios, a very high speed missile was required. Zeus was simply not fast enough to perform such an attack, it was designed for interceptions lasting about two minutes.
107.3 Photo gallery • • • •
107.4 See also • Sprint (missile) • Nike-Hercules missile
• Nike Zeus Likewise, the solution to dealing with massive numbers of warheads was to use faster computers and radars, allowing many interceptors to be in flight at once. Zeus was Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era being developed just as digital computers were starting a massive improvement in performance through parallel • PGM-17 Thor processing, and radar systems were likewise introducing the first phased array radar (Passive electronically scanned array) systems. Combining the two would al- Related lists low hundreds of warheads and interceptors to be tracked and controlled at once. As long as the interceptor mis• List of military aircraft of the United States sile wasn't significantly more expensive than the ICBM, which was likely given to their relative sizes, overwhelm• List of missiles ing such a system would be a losing proposition. Studying all of this, ARPA outlined four potential approaches to an ABM system. The first was Nike Zeus in its current form. The second was Zeus combined with a new radar system, the third included new radars and computers. Finally, the “X” plan called for all of these changes, as well as a new short-range missile. As the shorter range missile would overlap with Zeus, X also called for Zeus to be modified for even greater range as Zeus EX. After considerable debate, the decision was made to cancel the existing Zeus deployment and move ahead with the X plan.
107.1.4
Testing
107.5 References [1] http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/ Allbombs.html [2] James Walker, Lewis Bernstein, Sharon Lang (2005). Seize the High Ground: The U.S. Army in Space and Missile Defense. Government Printing Office. ISBN 0160723086. The SPARTAN test program began on 30 March 1968 [3] http://www.city-data.com/articles/ US-Army-Air-Defense-Artillery-Museum-El.html [4] http://srmsc.org/mis2050.html
The first test-launch of the Spartan occurred at Kwajalein Missile Range on 30 March, 1968.[2]
[5] ADA park (Fort Sill), photo journal of Daniel DeCristo
107.6. EXTERNAL LINKS
107.6 External links • Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles • a further development of the Nike Zeus B missile • index of pictures • Mickelsen Safeguard Complex • W71 nuclear warhead for the Spartan
385
Chapter 108
Nike-X titude where decoys or explosions had any effect. Nike-X also used a new radar system that could track hundreds of objects at once, allowing salvos of many Sprints. Dozens of ICBMs would need to arrive at the same time in order to overwhelm the system. Nike-X considered retaining the longer range Zeus missile, and later developed an extended range version known as Zeus EX. It played a secondary role in the Nike-X system, intended primarily for use in areas outside the Sprint protected regions. Nike-X required at least one interceptor missile to attack each incoming warhead. As the USSR’s missile fleet grew, the cost of implementing Nike-X began to grow as well. Looking for lower-cost options, a number of studies carried out between 1965 and 1967 examined a variety of The Sprint missile was the main weapon in the Nike-X system, scenarios where a limited number of interceptors might intercepting enemy ICBM warheads only seconds before they ex- still be militarily useful. Among these, the I-67 concept suggested building a lightweight defense against very limploded. ited attacks. When the Chinese exploded their first HNike-X was a proposed US Army anti-ballistic mis- bomb in 1967, I-67 was promoted as a defense against a sile (ABM) system designed to protect major cities in Chinese attack, and this system became Sentinel in Octhe United States from attacks by the Soviet Union's tober. Nike-X development, in its original form, ended. Intercontinental ballistic missile fleet. The name referred to its experimental basis, and it was intended it would be replaced by a more appropriate name when the system 108.1 History was put into production. This never came to pass; the original Nike-X concept was canceled and replaced by a much thinner defense system known as the Sentinel Pro- 108.1.1 Nike Zeus gram that used some of the same equipment. As early as 1955 the US Army began considering the Nike-X was a response to the failure of the earlier Nike possibility of further upgrading their Nike B surface-toZeus system. Zeus had been designed to face a few dozen air missile (SAM) system to intercept ICBMs. Bell was Soviet ICBMs in the 1950s, and its design would mean it asked to consider the issue, and returned a report noting was largely useless by mid-1960s when it would be fac- that the missile could be upgraded to the required pering hundreds. It was calculated that a salvo of only four formance relatively easily. However, in order to detect ICBMs would have a 90% chance of hitting the Zeus the warhead while it was still far enough away to give the base, whose radars could only track a few warheads at missile time to launch would require extremely powerful the same time. Worse, the attacker could use radar re- radar systems. All of this appeared to be within the state flectors or high-altitude nuclear explosions to obscure the of the art, and in early 1957 Bell was given the go-ahead warheads until they were too close to attack, making a to develop what was then known as Nike II.[1] Lingering single warhead attack highly likely to succeed. inter-service rivalries between the Army and Air Force Nike-X addressed these concerns by basing its defense on led to the Nike II being re-defined several times. When a very fast, short-range missile known as Sprint. Large these were swept aside in 1957 after the launch of the R-7 numbers would be clustered near potential targets, allow- Semyorka, the first Soviet ICBM, the design was further ing successful attack right up to the few last seconds of upgraded, given the name Zeus, and assigned the highest the warhead’s re-entry. They would operate below the al- development priority.[2] 386
108.1. HISTORY
387
The Zeus system required two separate radars for each missile it launched, with extras for redundancy.
108.1.2 Zeus problems
The Nike missile family included Ajax (Nike, front), Hercules (Nike B, middle) and Zeus (Nike II, rear).
Zeus was generally similar to the two Nike designs that preceded it, using a long range search radar to pick up targets, separate radars to track the target and interceptor missiles in flight, and a computer to calculate intercept points. While similar in concept, Zeus was different in form. The missile itself was much larger, with a range of up to 200 miles (320 km), compared to Hercules’ 75 miles (121 km). It flew so fast it burned the outer layer of its skin off while climbing through the lower atmosphere. To ensure a kill at 100,000 feet (30 km) altitude, where there was little atmosphere to carry a shock wave, it mounted a large 400 kt warhead. The search radar was a 120 foot (37 m) wide triangle able to pick out warheads while still over 600 nautical miles (1,100 km) away (an especially difficult problem given the small size of a typical warhead), and a new digital computer was used to be able to calculate trajectories for intercepts taking place at relative velocities over 5 miles (8.0 km) per second.[3]
Zeus had initially been proposed to defend widelydispersed Strategic Air Command (SAC) bases against attacks by a few dozen missiles, or as a wider defense involving attacks with two ICBMs being launched at each major US city.[6] But by the time Zeus could be deployed in the early-to-mid 1960s it was expected a nuclear war would consist of ICBMs fired in the hundreds.[7][8] Zeus used mechanically steered radars, like the Nike SAMs before it. A typical Zeus site would have between two and six Target Tracking Radars, limiting the number of launches it could carry out at one time.[9] A study by the Weapons Systems Evaluation Group (WSEG) calculated that the Soviets had a 90% chance of successfully hitting a Zeus base by firing only four warheads at it. These did not even have to land close to destroy the base, due to the difficulty of hardening the mechanical radars in any reasonable fashion.[10][11] This meant that 4 Soviet ICBMs could eliminate 100 Zeus missiles, a superb exchange ratio.[12]
If this were not enough, a number of technical problems arose that appeared to make the Zeus almost trivially easy to defeat. One problem, discovered in tests during 1958, was that nuclear fireballs expanded to very large sizes at high altitudes, rendering everything behind them invisible to radar. This was known as nuclear blackout. Exploding one warhead just outside the Zeus’ maximum range, or even the explosion of the Zeus’ own warhead, would allow warheads following it to approach unseen. By the time the Test firings of the missile started in 1959 at White Sands warheads passed through the fireball, about 60 kilometres to Missile Range (WSMR) and were generally successful. (37 mi) above the base, it would be too late for the radar[13] lock on and fire a Zeus before the warhead hit its target. Longer range testing took place at Naval Air Station Point Mugu. For full-scale tests, the Army built a new It was also possible to deploy radar decoys to confuse the base on Kwajalein Island in the Pacific, where it could defense. Decoys are made of lightweight materials, ofbe tested against ICBMs launched from Vandenberg Air ten strips of aluminum or mylar balloons, which can be Force Base in California. Test firings at Kwajalein began packed in with the RV for little additional cost in terms of in June 1962, and were generally very successful, pass- throw weight. In space, these are ejected to create radar ing within hundreds of yards of the warheads,[4] and even returns that are indistinguishable from the RV. The relow-flying satellites.[5] sult is a large number of radar objects stretched out in a
388
CHAPTER 108. NIKE-X
threat tube approaching a given target, a few kilometers across and tens of kilometers long. Zeus had to get within about 1,000 feet (300 m) to kill a warhead, which could be anywhere in the tube. Zeus’ inability to distinguish decoys from high-quality decoys was considered to be a major problem,[4] and the WSEG suggested that a single ICBM with good quality decoys would almost certainly be able to hit a Zeus base.[12]
108.1.3
Nike-X
ARPA, today known as DARPA, was initially formed in 1958 by President Eisenhower's Secretary of Defense, Neil McElroy in reaction to Soviet rocketry advances. ARPA was formed to oversee all missile development across the forces, in order to avoid duplicated effort and the huge expenditures that were apparently accomplishing little in comparison to the Soviets. As the problems with Zeus became clear, McElroy asked ARPA to consider the ABM problem and come up with other solutions.[10]
NX Defense Center would provide protection over large metropolitan areas. The system optionally retained Zeus, which could be used in areas away from cities.[16] The name Nike-X was apparently an ad hoc suggestion by Jack Ruina, who was tasked with presenting the options to the President’s Science Advisory Committee (PSAC).[17] The time for a decision on Zeus came in late 1962. Considering the issues, in January 1963 McNamara announced that the construction funds allocated for Zeus would not be released, and the Zeus development funding would instead be used for development of the new system.[18]
108.1.4 System concept Decoys are lighter than the reentry vehicle (RV),[lower-alpha 1] so they will suffer higher atmospheric drag as they begin to reenter the atmosphere.[19] This will eventually cause the RV to move out in front of the decoys, opening it to attack. But the RV can often be picked out before this by examining the threat tube as a whole and watching for portions of it that have higher speeds.[20] This process, known as atmospheric filtering, or more generally, decluttering, will not provide accurate information until the threat tube begins to reenter the denser portions of the atmosphere.[21] Nike-X intended to wait until this point, and then launch a high-speed missile at the RV, meaning the interceptions would take place only seconds before the warheads hit their targets, between 5 and 30 miles (8.0–48.3 km) away from the base.[22]
The resulting Project Defender was extremely broad in scope, considering everything from minor upgrades to the Zeus system, to far-out concepts like antigravity and the then-new laser.[14] One improvement to Zeus had already been suggested; a new phased-array radar replacing Zeus’ mechanical ones would greatly increase the number of targets and interceptors that a single site could handle, as well as allowing them to be hardened to much greater strengths. Known as the Zeus Multi-function Array Radar, or ZMAR, initial studies at Bell Labs started in 1960. In June 1961, Western Electric and Sylvania were Low-altitude intercepts would also have the advantage of selected to build a prototype, with Sperry Rand Univac reducing the problem with nuclear radar blackout. This providing the control computer.[10] effect occurs at similar altitudes as decluttering, about 60 By this time a decision on whether or not to deploy Zeus km. Operating well below this altitude meant that delibwas looming. President Kennedy's Secretary of Defense, erate attempts to create nuclear blackout would not effect Robert McNamara once again turned to ARPA to study the operation of the Sprint. Just as importantly, because the Zeus system and offer any suggestions they might have the Sprint’s own warheads would be going off well beto improve its effectiveness. ARPA returned a report out- low this altitude, their fireballs would be much smaller lining four basic concepts. First was a study of the exist- and only black out a small portion of the sky. The radar ing Zeus system considering various scenarios where it would have to survive the electrical effects of blackout, might be used effectively. The next replaced Zeus with including EMP, but this was not considered a difficult a shorter-range but higher-speed missile to allow it to at- problem. It also meant that the threat tube trajectories tack warheads that had approached closer to the ground, would have to be developed rapidly, before or between which would help with both decoys and nuclear blackout. blackout periods.[23] The next used a new short-range phased-array radar that The upside to this approach was that Nike-X did not have allowed for greatly increased salvo rates, while still using to launch multiple missiles in order to ensure the warhead Zeus’ long-range radar for early detection.[15] would be hit, although in practice two would be launched The fourth concept, NX, combined the new missile and radar. NX was based around the ZMAR radar, used for tracking everything from the incoming warheads to outgoing interceptors. The interceptors would be a shortrange missile for point defense, known as Sprint. New computers would track hundreds of incoming targets and outgoing interceptors, and communicate that information between widely distributed missile batteries. A single
at every target for redundancy reasons. This had been the concept with Zeus as well, but the introduction of decoys upset this, with one Army study suggesting that every ICBM would require as many as twenty Zeus missiles to be launched at it to ensure the warhead was hit.[6] This meant that every missile the Soviets added to their fleet would require twenty new Zeus’. A 20-to-1 exchange rate may sound bad enough, but because the Soviets can target
108.1. HISTORY
389
that single ICBM anywhere in the US, it actually means that every Zeus base would have to add twenty new missiles. This terrible cost-exchange ratio was one of the primary reasons Zeus was abandoned.[10]
was making the cost of such a system very expensive, in spite of a reasonable cost-exchange ratio on the order of 1 to 1.[27] This led to further studies of the system to try to determine whether an ABM would be the proper way The centerpiece of the Nike-X system was the MAR, the to save lives, or if there was some other plan that would Z having been dropped from the name with the ending do the same for less money. of the Zeus program. MAR used the then-new active In the case of Zeus, for instance, it was clear that buildelectronically scanned array (AESA) concept to allow it ing more fallout shelters would both be less expensive and to generate multiple virtual radar beams, simulating any save more lives than Zeus.[28] A major report on the topic number of mechanical radars needed. While one beam by PSAC in October 1961 made this blunt, suggesting scanned the sky for new targets, others were formed to ex- that Zeus without shelters was useless, and that having amine the threat tubes and generate high-quality tracking Zeus might lead the US to “introduce dangerously misinformation very early in the engagement, and then addi- leading assumptions concerning the ability of the U. S. tional beams were formed to track the RVs once picked to protect its cities”.[29] They concluded that there was no out, and more to track the Sprints on their way to the way to justify the large scale deployment of Zeus, which interceptions. To make all of this work, MAR also re- at that time called for 70 Zeus bases under the control of quired data processing capabilities on an unprecedented NORAD.[29] level. In the era of individual transistors and small-scale This led to a series of increasingly sophisticated models integrated circuits, the computers required were huge and to better predict the effectiveness of an ABM system and expensive. For this reason, Nike-X centralized the battle what the offence would do to improve their performance control systems at their Defense Centers, consisting of a against it. A key development was the Prim-Read theory, MAR and its associated Defense Center Data Processing which provided an entirely mathematical solution to genSystem (DCDPS).[24] erating the ideal defensive layout. Using a Prim-Read layBecause the Sprint was designed to operate at short range, a single base could not provide protection over a typical US city, given urban sprawl. This required the Sprint launchers to be distributed around the defended area. Because the missile might not be visible to the MAR during the initial stages of the launch, Bell proposed building a much simpler radar at most launch sites, the Missile Site Radar (MSR). MSR would have just enough power and logic to generate tracks for its outgoing Sprint missiles, and would hand that information off to the DCDPS over voice quality phone lines. Bell noted that the MSR could also provide a useful second-angle look at threat tubes, which might allow the decoys to be picked out earlier, as well as offering a way to triangulate jammers within the tube.[25] When the system was first being proposed it was not clear whether the phased-array systems could provide the accuracy needed to guide the missiles to a successful interception at very long ranges. Early concepts retained Zeus Missile Tracking Radars and Target Tracking Radars (MTRs and TTRs) for this purpose. In the end the new radars proved more than capable and these radars were dropped.[26] However, this capability proved useful during testing; while the new radars were still being built, early launches used the MTRs built during the Zeus test program.
108.1.5
Problems
out for Nike-X, Air Force Brigadier General Glenn Kent began considering Soviet responses. His 1964 report produced a cost-exchange ratio that required $2 of defense for every $1 of offence if one wanted to limit US casualties to 30% of the population, which increased to 6-to1 if the US wished to limit that to 10%. The ABM system would only be cheaper than the ICBMs if the US was willing to allow over half its population die in the exchange. When he realized he was using outdated exchange rates for the Soviet ruble, the exchange ratio for the 30% casualty rate jumped to 20-to-1.[30][31] As the cost of defeating Nike-X was less than the cost of building Nike-X, many reviewers concluded that the construction of an ABM system would simply prompt the Soviets to build more ICBMs.[29] This led to serious concerns about a new arms race, which it was believed would increase the chance of an accidental war.[32] When the numbers were presented to McNamara, according to Kent, he; ...observed that this was a race that we probably would not win and should avoid. He noted that it would be difficult indeed to stay the course with a strategy that aimed to limit damage. The detractors would proclaim that, with 70 percent surviving, there would be upwards of 60 million dead.[30]
McNamara was convinced of the validity of cost-benefit analysis, which suggested the ABM was simply a bad deal. Nike-X had been defined in the early 1960s as a system to While reporting to Congress on the issue in the spring of defend US cities and industrial centers against a heavy So- 1964, McNamara noted that: viet attack during the 1970s. By 1965 the growing fleets of ICBMs in the inventories of both the US and USSR It is estimated that a shelter system at a cost
390
CHAPTER 108. NIKE-X of $2 billion would save 48.5 million lives. The cost per life saved would be about $40.00. An active ballistic missile defense system would cost about $18 billion and would save an estimated 27.8 million lives. The cost per life saved in this case would be about $700. [He later added that] I personally will never recommend an anti-ICBM program unless a fallout program does accompany it. I believe that even if we do not have an anti-ICBM program, we nonetheless should proceed with the fallout shelter program.[33]
From about 1965, the ABM became what one historian calls a “technology in search of a mission.”[34] As the only strategic system being developed by the US Army (as opposed to tactical systems like Pershing), they were unwilling to concede defeat and allow the program to be cancelled. As the cost of deploying a complete Nike-X system grew, it became clear that it would never survive through Congress and be deployed. In early 1965, the Army launched a series of studies to find a mission concept that would lead to deployment.[27] Hardpoint, Hardsite, and VIRADE See also: HIBEX, Hardsite and Sentry Program One of the main deployment plans for Zeus had been a defensive system for SAC, but the Air Force argued against such a system. They noted that adding a Zeus to a missile field required the Soviets to use another missile to attack that field, but the same was true if you added another ICBM. The Air Force was far more interested in building its own missiles than the Army’s, especially For even higher performance, the Hardsite concept replaced for a system that appeared likely to be of little practical Sprint with HiBEX, which could accelerate at up to 400 g. effect.[35] Things had changed by the early 1960s. McNamara had already placed limits on the Air Force fleet, 1000 Minuteman missiles and 54 Titan II's. This meant that the Air Force could not respond to new Soviet missiles simply by building more of their own. An even greater existential threat than Soviet missiles was the US Navy's Polaris missile fleet, which was considered to be largely invulnerable to attack, and led some to question the need for any ground-based ICBM. If the ICBM was to offer value, there had to be the expectation that it could survive a Soviet attack in enough numbers for a successful counterstrike. An ABM might provide that assurance.[36]
sile fields. Most follow-up work focused on the HSD-II concept.[38]
Hardsite proposed building small Sprint-only bases close to Minuteman fields. Incoming warheads would be tracked until the last possible moment, decluttering them completely and generating highly accurate tracks. Since the warheads had to land within a certain distance of a missile silo to damage it, any warheads that could be seen as falling outside that area were simply ignored. This was expected to be true for well over half the Soviet warheads of that era. This acted as a force multiplier, allowing a A fresh look at this concept started at ARPA around small number of Sprints defend against a large number only 30 interceptors 1963–64 under the name Hardpoint. This proved inter- of ICBMs; one might need to launch [38] to counter a force of 100 ICBMs. esting enough for the Army and Air Force to collaborate on a follow-up study, Hardsite.[37] The first Hardsite con- To counter this system, the attacker would have to ascept, HSD-I, considered defending bases within urban ar- sign additional missiles to each silo to use up the supeas that would have Nike-X protection anyway. An ex- ply of Sprints, which would require several missiles in ample might be a SAC command and control center, or order to place enough inside the area that would cause an airfield on the outskirts of a city. The second, HSD- a Sprint launch. Although there was no expectation II, considered the protection of isolated bases like mis- that the system would actually stop a major attack if at-
108.1. HISTORY tempted, the idea was simply to force any counterforce attack to use many more warheads than an undefended site, and thereby eliminate a number of low-cost attack scenarios.[37] Unfortunately, this also leads to the possibility of defeating the system by attacking the radar. In this case it is still possible for the Hardsite to ignore any warheads that will fall outside its own lethal area, but as radars are difficult to protect to the same level as a silo, a smaller number of warheads would be needed to ensure they fell within their larger lethal range. As the various Hardsite studies progressed, the MSR was progressively hardened, but it was never enough. This problem led to the Virtual Radar Defense system (VIRADE), which included radars that would be moved between sites on railways, forcing additional warheads to be expended to attack each potential site. This would be extremely expensive to deploy.[38] Another problem identified during the Hardpoint studies was the data processing requirements were beyond even the large machines envisioned for Nike-X. This was also becoming a problem even for a baseline city defense, as the number of ICBMs grew. This led to further studies on units able to handle much higher processing loads, and resulted in the Parallel Element Processing Ensemble computer, or PEPE, one of the earlier experiments in parallel processing.[39] Although initially supportive of the concept, by 1966 the Air Force came to reject Hardpoint largely for the same reasons it had rejected Zeus in the same role. If money was to be spent on protecting Minuteman, they felt that money would be better spent by the Air Force than the Army. As Morton Halperin noted: In part this was a reflex reaction, a desire not to have Air Force missiles protected by 'Army' ABMs. [...] The Air Force clearly preferred that the funds for missile defense be used by the Air Force to develop new hard rock silos or mobile systems.[40] Small City Defense, PAR See also: AN/FPQ-16 PARCS
391 along with a simplified data processing system known as the Local Data Processor (LDP). This was essentially the DCDP with fewer modules installed, reducing the number of tracks it could compile and the amount of decluttering it could handle.[25] To further reduce costs, Bell later replaced the cut-down MAR with an upgraded MSR, TACMSR.[41] They studied a wide variety of potential deployments, starting with systems like the original Nike-X proposal with no SCDs, to deployments offering complete continental US protection with a large number of SCD modules of various types and sizes. The deployments were arranged to be able to be built in phases, working up to complete coverage.[42] One issue that emerged from these studies was the problem of providing early warning to the SCD sites. MAR had been carefully tuned to provide just enough warning for their systems to complete the interception, and did not offer any sort of very long range warning. The SCD’s MSR radars provided detection at perhaps 100 miles (160 km), which meant targets would appear on their radars only seconds before launches would have to be carried out. In a sneak attack scenario there would not be enough time to receive command authority for the release of nuclear weapons, which meant the bases would have to have launch on warning authority, which was politically unacceptable.[43] This led to proposals for a new radar dedicated solely to the early warning role, developing tracks only accurately enough to determine which MAR or SCD would ultimately have to deal with the threat. Used primarily in the first minutes of the attack, and not responsible for the engagements, the system could be considered disposable and did not need anything like the sophistication of the MAR. This led to the Perimeter Acquisition Radar (PAR), which would operate at VHF frequencies in order to greatly lower the cost of the electronics.[44]
Zeus EX Through late 1964 Bell was considering the role of Zeus in the Nike-X system. A January 1965 report[lower-alpha 2] noted that new understanding of high-altitude nuclear explosions might significantly improve the value of the Zeus. When a nuclear warhead explodes it gives off a huge number of high-energy x-rays which normally react with any nearby matter, including air, causing the air to ionize and block further progress of the x-rays. In the highest layers of the atmosphere there simply isn't enough matter for this to occur, and the x-rays can travel long distances. Enough of these hitting a re-entry vehicle can cause damage to its heat shields.[45]
During the project’s development phase, fighting broke out over the siting of the Nike-X bases.[15] Originally intended to protect only the largest urban areas, smaller cities complained that they were not only being left open to attack, but that their lack of defences might make them primary targets. This led to a series of studies on the Small City Defense (SCD) concept. By 1964 SCD had become part of the baseline Nike-X deployment, with ev- To take full advantage of this effect, the Zeus would ery city with a population over 100,000 being provided have to have a much larger warhead dedicated to the some level of defensive system.[25] production of x-rays, and would have operate at higher SCD would consist primarily of a single autonomous bat- altitudes.[46] A major advantage was that accuracy needs tery centered on a cut-down MAR called TACMAR, were much reduced, from a minimum of about 800 feet
392
CHAPTER 108. NIKE-X
(240 m) for the original Zeus’ neutron based attack, to 108.1.6 something on the order of a few miles. This meant that the range limits of the original Zeus, which were defined by the accuracy of the radars to about 75 miles (121 km), were greatly eased and attacks could take place at much greater range. This Extended Range Nike Zeus, or Zeus EX for short, would be able to provide protection over a wider area, reducing the number of bases needed to provide full-country defense. These missiles would also be expensive.[46]
Continued pressure to deploy
Nth country, DEPEX, I-67 In February 1965 the Army asked Bell to consider different deployment concepts under the Nth country study. This examined what sort of system would be needed to provide protection against an unsophisticated attack with a limited number of warheads. Using the Zeus EX, a small number of bases could provide coverage for the entire US. The system would be unable to deal with large numbers of warheads, but that was not a concern for a system that would not be tasked with beating a deliberate Soviet attack.[46] With only small numbers of targets, the full MAR was not needed and Bell initially proposed TACMAR to fill this need. This would have shorter detection range, so a long range radar like PAR would be needed for early detection.[46] The missile sites would consist of a single TACMAR along with about 20 Zeus EX missiles.[47] In October 1965 the TACMAR was replaced by the TACMSR from the SCD studies. Since this radar had even shorter range than TACMAR, it could not be expected to generate tracking information in time for a Zeus launch. PAR would thus have to be upgraded to have higher accuracy and the processing power to generate tracks that would be handed off to the TACMSRs. During this same time, Bell had noted problems with long wavelength radars in the presence of radar blackout. Both of these issues argued for a change from VHF to UHF frequencies for the PAR.[44] Further work along these lines led to the Nike-X Deployment Study, or DEPEX. DEPEX described a system similar to that initially considered under Nth Country, but was designed to grow as the nature of the threat changed. They imagined a four-phase deployment sequence that added more and more terminal defenses as the sophistication of the Nth country missiles increased over time.[26] In December 1966, the Army asked Bell to prepare a detailed deployment concept combining the light defense of Nth country with the point defense of Hardsite. On 17 January 1967 this became the I-67 project, which delivered its results on 5 July. I-67 was essentially Nth country but with additional bases near Minuteman fields, armed primarily with Sprint. The wide-area Zeus and shortrange Sprint bases would both be supported by the PAR network.[48]
Robert McNamara had resisted pressure to deploy Zeus knowing it would have little real-world effect, and faced the same problem with Nike-X four years later.
The basic outlines of these various studies were becoming clear by 1966. The heavy defense from the original NikeX proposals would cost about $40 billion ($291 billion today) and offer limited protection and damage prevention. The thin defense of Nth country would be much less expensive, around $5 billion ($36 billion today), but could only have any effect at all under certain limited scenarios. Finally, the Hardsite concepts would cost about the same as the thin defence, and provide some protection against a counterforce attack.[49] None of these concepts appeared to be worth deploying, but there was considerable pressure from Congressional groups dominated by hawks who continued to force development of the ABM even when McNamara and President Johnson didn't ask for it.[50] Further support for deployment came from the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), who used the Soviet construction of ABM systems around Tallinn and Moscow as an argument to demand their own. This was the first strong vote of support from the JCS for ABM; previously the Air Force had been dead-set against any Army system, and had publicly blasted their earlier efforts in the press.[51] According to one historian, this was likely due to the rapid improvement of the US Navy’s missile fleet, which could survive any conceivable attack, and led the Air Force to support any way to improve the survivability of their own defenses.[52] The debate spilled over into public and led to comments about an “ABM gap”, especially by Republican Governor George W. Romney.[31]
108.2. TESTING McNamara attempted to short-circuit deployment in early 1966 by stating that the only program that had any reasonable cost-effectiveness was the thin defense against the Chinese, and then noting there was no rush to build such a system as it would be some time before they had an ICBM. Overruling him, Congress provided $167.9 million ($1 billion today) for immediate production of the original Nike-X concept. McNamara and Johnson met on the issue on 3 November 1966, and McNamara once again convinced Johnson that the system simply wasn't worth deploying. He then headed off the expected counterattack from Romney by calling a press conference on the topic of Soviet ABMs and stating that the new Minuteman III and Poseidon SLBM would ensure the Soviet system would be overwhelmed.[49] Another meeting on the issue was called on 6 December 1966, attended by Johnson, McNamara, the deputy Secretary of Defense Cyrus Vance, Walt Rostow and the Joint Chiefs. Rostow took the side of the JCS and it appeared that development would start. However, McNamara once again outlined the problems and stated that the simplest way to close the ABM gap was to simply build more ICBMs, rendering the Soviet system impotent and a great waste of money. He then proposed that the money sidelined by Congress for deployment be used for initial deployment studies while the US attempted to negotiate an arms limitation treaty. Johnson agreed with this compromise, and ordered Dean Rusk to open negotiations with the Soviets.[49]
108.1.7
Nike-X becomes Sentinel
393
MAR-I was built at White Sands, seen here looking southsouthwest. The transmitter is on the small dome on the right, with its associated receiver on the main dome above it. The elements fill only a small area of the original antenna outlines.
108.2.1 MAR Work on the ZMAR radar was already progressing by the time McNamara cancelled Zeus in 1963. Two experimental systems had been built consisting of a single row of elements, essentially a slice from a larger array. One, built by Sylvania, used MOSAR phase-shifting using time delays, while the other, by General Electric, used a “novel modulation scanning system”.[53] Sylvania’s system won a contract for a test system, MAR-I.[54] To save money, the prototype MAR-I would only install antenna elements for the inner section of the original 40 foot (12 m) diameter antenna, populating the central 25 feet (7.6 m). This had the side-effect of reducing the number of antenna elements from 6,405 to 2,245, but would not change the basic control logic. A full sized, four sided MAR would require 25,620 parametric amplifiers to be individually wired by hand, so building the smaller MAR-I greatly reduced cost and construction time.[55] The transmitter face was similarly reduced. Both antennas were built full sized and could be expanded out to full MAR performance at any time.
By 1967 the debate over ABM systems had become a major public policy issue, with almost continual debate on the topic in newspapers and magazines. It was in the midst of these debates, on 17 June 1967, that the Chinese tested their first H-bomb in Test No. 6. Suddenly the Nth country concept was no longer simply theoretical. McNamara seized on this event as a solution to the problem of a Nike-X’s lack of mission. On 18 September 1967 he A test site for MAR-I had already been selected at announced that Nike-X would now be known as Sentinel, WSMR, about a mile off of U.S. Route 70, and some 25 and outlined deployment plans broadly following the I-67 miles (40 km) north of the Army’s main missile launch [50] concept. sites along WSMR Route 2 (Nike Avenue).[56] A new road, WSMR Route 15, was built to connect the MARI to Launch Complex 38 (LC38), the Zeus launch site. MAR-I’s northern location meant that the MAR would see the many unrelated rocket launches taking place at 108.2 Testing the Army sites to the south, as well as the target missiles that were launched towards them from the north. This [57] Although the original Nike-X concept was cancelled, a provided the test program with numerous free targets. number of its components were built and tested both as part of Nike-X and the follow-on Sentinel. The following section discusses the main developments during the NikeX period.
Since MAR was central to the entire Nike-X system, it had to survive attacks directed at the radar itself. At the time, the response of hardened buildings to nuclear shock was not well understood, and the MAR-I building was
394 dramatically over-designed. It consisted of a large central hemispherical dome of 10 foot (3.0 m) thick reinforced concrete with similar but smaller domes arranged on the corners of a square bounding the central dome. The central dome held the receiver arrays, and the smaller domes the transmitters. The concept was designed to allow a transmitter/receiver pair to be built into any of the faces to provide wide coverage around the radar site. As a test site, MAR-I only installed the equipment on the northwest facing side, although provisions were made for a second set on the north-east side that was never used. A tall metal clutter fence surrounded the building, preventing reflections from nearby mountains.[56]
CHAPTER 108. NIKE-X vaged by Colgate’s New Mexico Tech. A number found their way into the astronomy field, including Colgate’s supernova detector, SNORT.[63] About 2,000 of these remained in storage at New Mexico Tech until 1980. An assay at that time discovered that there was well over one ounce of gold in each one, and the remaining stocks were melted down to produce $941,966 for the university ($3 million today). The money was used to build a new wing on the university’s Workman Center, known unofficially as the “Gold Building”.[64]
108.2.2 MSR
Groundbreaking on the MAR-I site started in March 1963 and proceeded rapidly. The radar was powered up for the first time in June 1964.[56] However, this demonstrated very low reliability in the transmitter’s travelling wave tube (TWT) amplifiers, which led to an extremely expensive re-design and re-installation. Once upgraded, MAR-I demonstrated the system would work as expected; it could generate multiple virtual radar beams, could simultaneously generate different types of beams for detection, tracking and discrimination at the same time, and had the accuracy and speed needed to generate many tracks.[20] By this time work had already begun on MAR-II on Kwajalein, which differed in form and in its beam steering system.[58][lower-alpha 3] The prototype MAR-II was built on reclaimed land just west of the original Zeus site. Having learned more about nuclear hardening, this version was built of thinner concrete and had provisions for antennas on only two faces, built into a horizontally truncated pyramid.[59] Like MAR-I, in order to save money MAR-II would be equipped with only one set of transmitter/receiver elements installed, but with all the wiring in place in case it had to be upgraded in the future.[60][lower-alpha 4] Nike-X was cancelled before MAR-II was complete, and the semi-completed building was instead used as a climate-controlled storage facility.[57][lower-alpha 5]
The TACMSR at Mickelsen was the only complete MSR built. Note that the antenna elements only fill the center of the circular areas; the larger area was intended for possible future expansion.
Bell ran a number of studies to identify the sweet spot for the MSR that would allow it to have enough functionality to be useful at different stages of the attack, as well as being inexpensive enough to justify its existence in a system dominated by MAR. This led to an initial proposal for an S band system using passive scanning (PESA) that was sent out in October 1963.[65] Of the seven proposals received, Raytheon won the development contract in Testing on MAR-I lasted until 30 September 1967. It December 1963, with Varian providing the high-power continued to be used at a lower level as part of the Senklystrons (twystrons) for the transmitter.[16] tinel developments. This work ended in May 1969, when the facility was mothballed. In November, the building An initial prototype design was developed between Jan[65] was re-purposed as the main fallout shelter for everyone uary and May 1964. When used with MAR, the MSR at the Holloman Air Force Base, about 25 miles (40 km) needed only short range, enough to hand off the Sprint to the east. To hold the 5,800 staff and their dependents, missiles. This led to a design with limited radiated power. the radar and its underground equipment areas had to be For Small City Defense, this would not offer enough completely emptied. Starting in 1970, the radar began to power to acquire the warheads at reasonable range. This led to an upgraded design with five times the transmitter be dismantled.[61] power, which was sent to Raytheon in May 1965.[66] A Stirling Colgate wrote a letter to Science bemoaning further upgrade in May 1966 included the battle control MAR’s salvaging as he felt it would make an excellent computers and other features of the TACMSR system.[66] [62] radio astronomy instrument. With minor re-tuning it could be used to observe the hydrogen line. This did not As it was expected that the Sprint and Zeus missiles would come to be, but over 2000 of the Western Electric para- be ready in time for the MSR to be used with them, the metric amplifiers driving the system ended up being sal- decision was made to skip construction of an MSR at White Sands and build the first example at Kwajalein. As
108.2. TESTING the earlier Zeus system had taken up most of the available land on Kwajalein Island itself, the missile launchers and MSR were to be built on Meck Island, about 20 miles (32 km) north. This site would host a complete TACMSR, allowing the Army to test both MAR-hosted (using MAR-II) and autonomous MSR deployments.[41] A second launcher site was built on Illeginni Island, 17.5 miles (28.2 km) northwest of Meck, with two Sprint and two Spartan launchers.[67] Three camera stations built to record the Illeginni launches were installed, and used for tracking long after the program shut down.[68] Construction of the launch site on Meck began in late 1967. As the island is only a few feet over sea level, it was decided not to build the MSR in the form it would have in a deployment system, where the computers and operations would be underground. Instead, the majority of the system was built above ground in a single-floor rectangular building. The MSR was built in a boxy extension on the north-western corner of the roof, with two sides angled back to form a half-pyramid shape where the antennas were mounted. Small clutter fences were build to the north and northwest, the western side faced out over the water which was only a few tens of meters from the building.[69] Illeginni did not have a radar site, it was operated remotely from Meck.[67]
108.2.3
Sprint
395 around the missile.[70] The development program was referred to as “pure agony”.[16] In the original Nike-X plans, Sprint was the primary weapon, and thus was considered to be an extremely high-priority development. To speed development, a subscale version of Sprint, known as Squirt, was tested from Launch Complex 37 at White Sands, the former Nike Ajax/Hercules test area.[71] A total of five Squirts were fired between 1964 and 1965. The first Sprint Propulsion Test Vehicle (PTV) was launched from another area at the same Complex on 17 November 1965, only 25 months after the final design was signed off. Sprint testing predated construction of an MSR, and the missiles were initially guided by Zeus TTR and MTR radars.[72] Testing continued under Safeguard, with a total of 42 test flights at White Sands and another 34 at Kwajalein.[70]
108.2.4 Zeus EX/Spartan Main article: LIM-49 Spartan Zeus B had been test fired at both White Sands and the Zeus base on Kwajalein. For Nike-X, the extended range EX model was planned, replacing Zeus’ second stage with a larger model that provided more thrust through the midsection of the boost phase. Also known as the DM-15X2, the EX was renamed Spartan in January 1967. The Spartan never flew as part of the original Nike-X, and its first flight in March 1968 took place under Sentinel.[45]
108.2.5 Re-entry testing
The sub-scale Squirt was used to test Sprint concepts.
Main article: Sprint (missile) On 1 October 1962, Bell’s Nike office sent specifications for a high-speed missile to three contractors. The responses were received on 1 February 1963, and Martin Marietta was selected as the winning bid on 18 March.[16] Sprint ultimately proved to be the most difficult technical challenge of the Nike-X system. Designed to intercept incoming warheads at an altitude of about 45,000 feet (14,000 m), it had to fly so quickly that its outer layer became hotter than an oxy-acetylene welding torch. This caused enormous problems in materials, controls, and even receiving radio signals through the ionized air
One of the reasons for the move from Zeus to Nike-X was concern that the Zeus radars would not be able to tell the difference between the warhead and a decoy until it was too late to launch. One solution to this problem was the Sprint missile, which had the performance required to wait until decluttering was complete. Another potential solution was to look for some sort of signature of the re-entry through the highest levels of the atmosphere that might differ between a warhead and decoy; specifically, it appeared that the ablation of the heat shield might produce a clear signature pointing out the warhead.[73] The re-entry phenomenology was of interest both to the Army, as it might allow long-range decluttering to be carried out, as well as to the Air Force, whose own ICBMs might be at risk of long-range interception if the Soviets exploited a similar concept.[73] A program to test these concepts was a major part of ARPA’s Project Defender, especially Project PRESS, which started in 1960. This led to the construction of a number of high-power radar systems on Roi-Namur, the northernmost point of the Kwajalein atoll. Although the results remain classified, a number of sources mention the failure to find a reliable signature of this sort.[73][lower-alpha 6]
396 In 1964, Bell Labs formulated their own set of requirements for radar work in relation to Nike-X. Working with the Army, Air Force, Lincoln Labs and ARPA, Nike-X ran a long series of reentry measurements with the PRESS radars, especially TRADEX.[74] By the late 1960s it was clear that discrimination of decoys was an unsolved problem, but that the techniques might still be useful against less sophisticated decoys. This work appears to be one of the main reasons that the thin defense of I-67 was considered worthwhile. At that time, in 1967, ARPA passed the PRESS radars to the Army.[75]
108.3 Description
CHAPTER 108. NIKE-X The receivers had three channels, one tuned to each part of the pulse chain.[78] After reception and conversion to intermediate frequency, the signals were sent to two units, the Search Signal Processor (SSP) and Video Pulse Converter (VPC). The SSP examined the long range detection signal to extract rough range, direction and speed through doppler shift. The VPC received the tracking signal and digitized it for processing in the accurate tracking and discrimination systems.[78] MAR operated in two modes, surveillance and engagement. In surveillance mode the range of the radar was maximized, and the system scanned the entire sky every 20 seconds.[lower-alpha 7] Returns were fed into systems that automatically extracted the range and velocity of the object, and if the return was deemed interesting, the system automatically began a track for threat verification. During the threat verification phase, the radar spent more time examining the returns in an effort to more accurately determine the trajectory, and then eliminated any objects that would not be falling into the area defended by the MAR.[54]
A typical Nike-X deployment around a major city would consist of a number of missile batteries.[76] One of these would be equipped with the MAR and its associated DCDP computers, while the others would optionally have an MSR. The sites were all networked together using communications equipment working at normal voice bandwidths. A number of the smaller bases would be Those targets that did pose a threat to the Defense Cenbuilt north of the MAR to provide protection to this cen- ter’s area automatically triggered the switch to engagetral station.[24] ment mode. In this mode the radar’s range was reduced to Almost every aspect of the battle would be managed by allow more accurate tracking of the target. As the return the DCDPS at the MAR base.[24] The reason for this cen- strength grew, a sub-beam was generated and left staring tralization was two-fold; one was that the radar system at the target. By rapidly changing the tuning of the rewas extremely complex and expensive and could not be ceiver delays, the system could sweep through the threat built in large numbers, the second was that the transistor- tube in range while keeping the width constant, thereby [79] In based computers needed to process the data were likewise maximizing the energy being sent into the tube. contrast, a conventional radar antenna with a fixed anvery expensive. Nike-X thus relied on a small number of very expensive sites, and a large number of greatly sim- gle would put less energy onto more distant targets as a side-effect of the inverse square law. Data from those elplified batteries.[42] ements being used in the monopulse precision tracking mode was sent to the Coherent Signal Processing System (CSPS). The CSPS extracted velocity data to attempt to 108.3.1 MAR pick out the warhead as the decoys slowed in the atmoMAR was an L band active electronically scanned array sphere. One CSPS was built but not installed on MARthe Zeus Discrimination phased-array radar. The original MAR-I had been built I, it was instead connected to [20] Radar on Kwajalein for testing. into a strongly reinforced dome, but the later designs consisted of two half-pyramid shapes, with the transmitters in a smaller pyramid in front of the receivers. The reduction in size and complexity was the result of a number of studies on nuclear hardening, especially those carried out as part of Operation Prairie Flat in Alberta, where a 500 ton ball of TNT was constructed to simulate a nuclear explosion.[77] MAR used separate transmitter and receivers, a necessity at the time due to the size of the individual transmit and receive units and the required switching systems. Both systems worked in concert to be able to generate multiple steerable beams. Each transmitter antenna was fed by its own power amplifier using travelling wave tubes with switching diodes and strip lines performing the delays. The signal generally consisted of a single pulse chain modulated at different frequencies so the single pulse could be used for search, track and discrimination.
Nike-X originally planned to alternately use a cut down version of MAR known as TACMAR. This was essentially a MAR with half of the elements hooked up, reducing its price considerably at the cost of shorter detection range. The processing equipment was likewise reduced in complexity, lacking some of the more sophisticated discrimination processing. TACMAR was designed from the start to be able to be upgraded to full MAR performance if needed, especially as the sophistication of the threat grew.[60] MAR-II is sometimes described as the prototype TACMAR, but there is considerable confusion on this point in existing sources.[lower-alpha 8]
108.3. DESCRIPTION
108.3.2
MSR
397 information by sending tracking data from site to site.[87]
As initially conceived, MSR was a short-range system 108.3.3 for tracking Sprint missiles before they appeared in the MAR’s view, as well as offering a secondary target and jammer tracking role. In this initial concept, the MSR would have limited processing power, just enough to following instructions from the MAR and create tracks to feed back to the MAR.[65]
Sprint
The MSR was an S band PESA phased-array radar, unlike the actively scanned MAR. In the PESA system, a single signal is sent and received to the entire radar face, and delay systems in the antenna elements achieve steering. This means a PESA system cannot generate different waveforms in different directions, but this level of sophistication was not needed in the MSR role. The upside is that this eliminates the need for a separate oscillator and amplifier for each antenna element; instead one, or more commonly a small number, of active elements feeds the entire array.[81] The delays were based on diode shifters with 16 possible shifts held in a 4 bit register in the control computer.[82] Additionally, the same antenna array can easily be used for both transmit and receive, as the area behind the array is much less cluttered and has ample room for switching in spite of the large radio frequency switches needed at this level of power.[83] After some consideration, a solution to feeding the microwave energy to the antenna elements was found in a concept known as a space array. This consisted of a large empty chamber behind the antenna face with separate feed horns from the klystron amplifier[lower-alpha 9] and receivers at the back of the chamber. The feed horns were aimed at the back of the face where the delay units were positioned, feeding the signal through to the transmit/receive antennas on the outside face of the array.[81] An advantage to this design is that the signal is supplied through the air, meaning that the individual elements only need to be supplied with power, the RF does not have to come through a cable. This allowed the elements to be packaged into long tubular containers that could be individually removed from the exterior of the building.[85] Replacement did not take place until a number of units had failed, at which point all the failed units were replaced at once, a task that took about two minutes per unit.[81] Failures were tracked both electronically for basic faults, as well as the periodic sending and receiving a test signal to and from a nearby antenna at each of the sixteen different shift values.[82]
Sprint was the centrepiece of the original Nike-X concept, but relegated to a secondary role in Sentinel.
Sprint was the primary weapon of Nike-X as originally conceived, and would be placed in clusters around the targets being defended by the MAR system. Each missile was housed in an underground silo and was driven into the air before launch by a gas-powered piston.[88] The missile was initially tracked by the local MSR, which would hand off tracking to the MAR as soon as it became visible. A transponder in the missile could respond to signals from either the MAR or MSR for accurate tracking.[89] Although a primary concern of the Sprint missile was high speed, the design is actually not optimized for maximum energy, but instead relies on the first stage (booster) to provide as much thrust as possible. This leaves the second stage (sustainer) lighter than optimal, in order to improve its maneuverability. Staging is under ground control, with the booster being cut away from the missile body by explosives. The sustainer is not necessarily ignited immediately, depending on the flight profile. For control, the first stage used a system that injected Freon into the exhaust to cause thrust vectoring to control the flight. The second stage used small air vanes for control.[90]
Unlike the MAR, which would be tracking targets primarily from the north, the MSR would be tracking its interceptors in all directions. MSR was thus built into a four-faced truncated pyramid, with any of all of the faces carrying radar arrays.[86] Isolated sites, like the one considered for Hawaii, would normally have arrays on all four faces. Those that were networked into denser sys- The required acceleration was such that the solid fuel had tems could reduce the number of faces and get the same to burn ten times as fast as contemporary designs like
398 the Pershing or Minuteman. Both the burning fuel and skin friction created so much heat that radio signals were strongly attenuated through the resulting ionized plasma around the missile body.[91] It was expected that the average interception would take place at about 40,000 feet (12,000 m) at a range of 10 nautical miles (19 km; 12 mi) after 10 seconds of flight time.[88]
108.4 See also • Project Nike, the technical office that ran Nike-X. • The A-135 anti-ballistic missile system was the Soviet equivalent to Nike-X.
CHAPTER 108. NIKE-X
(MAR-II), and TACMAR”, again suggesting these were different systems.[80] [9] There were two klystrons in the MSR, normally acting in concert, but either was able to take over if the other failed. This produced a −3 dB loss of power, but could be brought rapidly back to operation by replacing the failed unit while the other continued to operate. Each klystron is about the size of a refrigerator.[84]
108.6 References 108.6.1 Citations [1] Bell Labs 1975, p. I-2.
108.5 Notes
[2] Bell Labs 1975, p. I-15. [3] Zeus 1962, pp. 166–168.
[1] Which is the whole reason to use them. If your missile has enough extra throw-weight to carry another warhead, that serves the same purpose in terms of overwhelming the ABM system but does not suffer problems at lower altitudes, while also increasing the chance the target will be destroyed and potentially allowing attacks against more than one target. This is not always the case; the UK’s Chevaline system removed one warhead from the Polaris missile bus and used that space and weight to carry a large number of advanced decoys, ensuring that even a small number of missiles would overwhelm the Moscow ABM system.
[10] Bell Labs 1975, p. I-33.
[2] Bell says the first report on this was in December 1964.
[11] Pursglove 1964, p. 218.
[3] The Bell document is not clear on what sort of beamsteering system was used in MAR-II,[58] but as it was built by General Electric it might use their “novel modulation technique.”
[12] WSEG 1959, p. 20.
[4] Bell’s document is somewhat confusing; although it states only one of the two faces was installed, the text can also be read to suggest that they also installed half as many elements, like they had on MAR-I.[60]
[4] Bell Labs 1975, p. I-24. [5] Bell Labs 1975, p. I-31. [6] Kent 2008, p. 202. [7] Baucom 1992, p. 21. [8] Pursglove 1964, p. 125. [9] Moeller 1995, p. 7.
[13] Garvin & Bethe 1968, pp. 28–30. [14] Murdock 1974, p. 117. [15] Bell Labs 1975, p. I-36. [16] Bell Labs 1975, p. I-37.
[5] Piland claims that the MAR-II was actually the prototype of something called CAMAR, a single-antenna version of MAR. This claim can be found on many web sites. However, the MAR-II building clearly has separate transmit/receive antennas, and the Bell documents all refer to this being a MAR system. CAMAR may have been a planned upgrade while MAR-II was under construction, but if this is the case it is not recorded in the Bell history.
[17] Reed 1991, p. 1-14.
[6] Bell’s history makes several mentions of PRESS and later efforts’ failures in this regard.
[22] Baucom 1992, p. 22.
[7] This was for the four-face MAR-I design, examples with fewer installed faces, including MAR-II, would take less time to scan. [8] Bell’s ABM history separates the MAR-II and TACMAR sections, but the TACMAR section does appear to describe a system very similar to what was installed at MARII.[60] It then concludes its discussion of the MAR concepts by referring to “MAR, the Kwajalein prototype
[18] Baucom 1992, p. 13. [19] Garvin & Bethe 1968, pp. 27–29. [20] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-19. [21] Garvin & Bethe 1968, p. 27.
[23] Garvin & Bethe 1968, p. 28. [24] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-5. [25] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-6. [26] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-11. [27] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-10. [28] WSEG 1959, p. 13.
108.6. REFERENCES
399
[29] Panofsky 1961.
[64] Hayward 2011, p. 28.
[30] Kent 2008, p. 49.
[65] Bell Labs 1975, p. 7-3.
[31] Ritter 2010, p. 153.
[66] Bell Labs 1975, p. 7-4.
[32] Ritter 2010, p. 149.
[67] Bell Labs 1975, p. 5-20.
[33] Yanarella 2010, p. 87.
[68] Bell Labs 1975, p. 5-25.
[34] Yanarella 2010.
[69] Bell Labs 1975, p. 7-1.
[35] Kaplan 2009, pp. 80–81.
[70] Bell Labs 1975, p. 9-1.
[36] MacKenzie 1993, pp. 203–224.
[71] “Squirt Missile Ready to Fire”. White Sands Missile Range Museum.
[37] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-12. [38] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-13. [39] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-14. [40] Freedman, Lawrence (2014). U.S. Intelligence and the Soviet Strategic Threat. Princeton University Press. p. 123. ISBN 9781400857999.
[72] Bell Labs 1975, Figure I-35. [73] Reed 1991, p. 1-13. [74] Reed 1991, p. 1-16. [75] Reed 1991, p. 1-17. [76] Bell Labs 1975, Figure 2-2.
[41] Bell Labs 1975, p. I-38.
[77] Bell Labs 1975, p. 6-13.
[42] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-7.
[78] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-21.
[43] Holst, John (2013). Missile Defense: Implications for Europe. Elsevier. pp. 191–192.
[79] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-18.
[44] Bell Labs 1975, p. 8-1. [45] Bell Labs 1975, p. 10-1. [46] Bell Labs 1975, p. I-41. [47] Bell Labs 1975, p. I-43. [48] Bell Labs 1975, p. I-45. [49] Ritter 2010, pp. 154. [50] Ritter 2010, pp. 175. [51] “Air Force Calls Army Unfit to Guard Nation”. New York Times. 21 May 1956. p. 1. [52] MacKenzie 1993, Chapter 5. [53] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-16. [54] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-17. [55] Hayward 2011, pp. 37–38. [56] Piland 2006, p. 1. [57] Piland 2006, p. 3. [58] Bell Labs 1975, p. I-40. [59] Bell Labs 1975, p. I-39. [60] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-22.
[80] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-24. [81] Bell Labs 1975, p. 7-6. [82] Bell Labs 1975, p. 7-7. [83] Bell Labs 1975, p. 7-14. [84] Bell Labs 1975, p. 7-5. [85] Bell Labs 1975, Figure 7-7. [86] Bell Labs 1975, Figure 7-2. [87] Bell Labs 1975, Figure 3-1. [88] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-9. [89] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-8. [90] Bell Labs 1975, p. 9-4. [91] Bell Labs 1975, p. 9-3.
108.6.2 Bibliography • Baucom, Donald (1992). The Origins of SDI, 1944–1983. University Press of Kansas. ISBN 9780700605316. OCLC 25317621. • Bell Labs (October 1975). ABM Research and Development at Bell Laboratories, Project History (Technical report).
[61] Hayward 2011, p. 11. [62] Hayward 2011, p. 2. [63] Hayward 2011, p. 15.
• Garvin, Richard; Bethe, Hans (March 1968). “AntiBallistic-Missile Systems”. Scientific American: 21– 31. Retrieved 13 December 2014.
400 • Garvin, Richard; Bethe, Hans (March 1968). “AntiBallistic-Missile Systems”. Scientific American: 21– 31. Retrieved 13 December 2014. • Kaplan, Lawrence (2009). Nike-X Missile Antiballistic Missile System. unpublished (Technical report). • Hayward, Bob (2011). The Colgate Paramp (Technical report). Radio Astronomy & the ISM. • Kent, Glenn (2008). Thinking About America’s Defense. RAND. ISBN 9780833044525. • MacKenzie, Donald (1993). Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Missile Guidance. MIT Press. ISBN 9780262631471. • Moeller, Stephen (May–June 1995). “Vigilant and Invincible”. ADA Magazine. • Murdock, Clark (1974). Defense Policy Formation: A Study and Translation. SUNY Press. ISBN 9781438413945. • Panofsky, Wolfgang (21 October 1961). WKHP61-24: Limited Deployment, NIKE-ZEUS (Technical report). • Piland, Doyle (2006). “Way Back When...”. Hands Across History (White Sands Missile Range Historical Foundation): pp. 1–3. ISSN 0015-3710. • Pursglove, S. David (January 1964). “Cold War Race for a Missile Killer”. Popular Mechanics: 122– 125, 216, 218. • Technical Editor (2 August 1962). “Nike Zeus”. Flight International: 165–170. ISSN 0015-3710. • US Army Weapons Systems Evaluation Group (23 September 1959). Potential Contribution of NikeZeus to Defense of the U.S. Population and its Industrial Base, and the U.S. Retaliatory System (Technical report). Retrieved 13 December 2014. • Reed, Sidney (1991). DARPA Technical Accomplishments, Volume 2. Institute for Defense Analyses. • Ritter, Scott (2010). Dangerous Ground: America’s Failed Arms Control Policy, from FDR to Obama. Nation Books. ISBN 9780786727438. • Yanarella, Ernest (2010). The Missile Defense Controversy: Technology in Search of a Mission. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 9780813128092.
CHAPTER 108. NIKE-X
Chapter 109
RIM-2 Terrier The Convair RIM-2 Terrier was a two-stage mediumrange naval surface-to-air missile (SAM), and was among the earliest surface-to-air missiles to equip United States Navy ships. It underwent significant upgrades while in service, starting with a beam-riding system with 10 nmi range at a speed of Mach 1.8, and ending as a semi-active radar homing system with a range of 40 nmi at speeds as high as Mach 3. It was replaced in service by the RIM-67 Standard ER (SM-1ER). Terrier has also been used as a sounding rocket.
109.1 History The Terrier was a development of the Bumblebee Project, the Navy’s effort to develop a surface-to-air missile to provide a middle layer of defense against air attack (between carrier fighters and antiaircraft guns). It was test launched from USS Mississippi (AG-128) ex (BB-41) on January 28, 1953, and first deployed operationally on the Boston-class cruisers, USS Boston (CAG-1) and USS Canberra (CAG-2) in the mid-1950s, with Canberra being the first to achieve operational status June 15, 1956. Its US Navy designation was SAM-N-7 until 1963 when it was re-designated RIM-2.
1958. The wings were replaced with fixed strakes, and the tail became the control surface. The BT-3 also had a new motor, and featured extended range, Mach 3 speed, and better maneuverability. The RIM-2D Terrier BT-3A(N) used a W45 1kt nuclear warhead, but all other variants used a 218 lb (99 kg) controlled-fragmentation warhead. The RIM-2E introduced semi-active radar homing, for greater effectiveness against low-flying targets. The final version, the RIM-2F, used a new motor which doubled effective range to 40 nmi (74 km; 46 mi). The Terrier was the primary missile system of most US Navy cruisers built during the 1960s. It could be installed on much smaller ships than the much larger and longer-ranged RIM-8 Talos. A Terrier installation typically consisted of the Mk 10 twin-arm launcher with a 40-round rear-loading magazine, but some ships had extended magazines with 80 or 120 rounds, and the installation in Boston and Canberra used a bottom-loading magazine of 72 rounds. The French Navy’s Masurca missile was developed with some technology provided by the USN from Terrier. The Terrier was replaced by the extended range RIM-67 Standard missile. The RIM-67 offered the range of the much larger RIM-8 Talos in a missile the size of the Terrier.
For a brief time during the mid-1950s the USMC had two Terrier battalions equipped with specially modified twin sea launchers for land use that fired the SAM-N-7. The Terrier was the first surface-to-air missile operational with the USMC. The launchers were reloaded by a special vehicle that carried two Terrier reloads. [1]
Terrier has also been used, typically as a first stage, for conducting research. The Terrier can be equipped with various upper stages, like the Asp, the TE-416 Tomahawk (not to be confused with the similarly named BGM109 Tomahawk cruise missile) or the Orion. The booster also served as the basis for the MIM-3 Nike Ajax booster, Initially, the Terrier used radar beam-riding guidance, which was slightly larger but otherwise similar, which has wing control, and a conventional warhead. It had a top also seen widespread use in sounding rockets. speed of only Mach 1.8, a range of only 10 nautical miles (19 km), and was only useful against subsonic targets. Originally, the Terrier had a launch thrust of 23 kN (5,200 lbf), and weight of 1,392 kg (3,069 lb). Its origi- 109.2 Terrier versions nal dimensions were a diameter of 340 mm, a length of 8.08 m, and a fin span of 1.59 m. Cost per missile in 1957 109.3 Operators was an estimated $60,000. [2] Before it was even in widespread service it was seeing major improvements. The RIM-2C, named the Terrier BT3 (Beam-riding, Tail control, series 3) was introduced in 401
Marina Militare
402
CHAPTER 109. RIM-2 TERRIER
• Italian cruiser Giuseppe Garibaldi • Andrea Doria-class cruiser • Italian cruiser Vittorio Veneto Royal Netherlands Navy • HNLMS De Zeven Provinciën United States Navy
109.4 Gallery • Early-model Terrier. • Early Model Terrier launched from test vessel USS Mississippi. • A P4Y-2K drone being shot down by a Terrier, 1956. • USS Canberra (CAG-2) launching a Terrier, 1960. • RIM-2 aboard USS Providence (CLG-6), 1962. • RIM-2 launch from USS Constellation (CVA-64), 1962. • Terrier launch from USS Dale (DLG-19), 1964.
109.5 See also • USS Norton Sound (AVM-1) • RIM-8 Talos • RIM-24 Tartar • RIM-67 Standard • Terasca • Masurca
109.6 References • http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/terrier.htm • http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/terrier.htm • http://www.nsroc.com • General Dynamics (Convair) SAM-N-7/RIM-2 Terrier [1] Rockets & Missiles by Bill Gunston, p. 201, Crescent Books 1979, ISBN 0-517-26870-1 [2] “Shell Cost Soars” Popular Mechanics, July 1957, p. 115.
109.7 External links Media related to RIM-2 Terrier at Wikimedia Commons • “US Marines Terrier” YouTube video
Chapter 110
RIM-8 Talos The Bendix RIM-8 Talos was a long-range naval surfaceto-air missile, and was among the earliest surface-to-air missiles to equip United States Navy ships. The Talos used radar beam riding for guidance to the vicinity of its target, and semiactive radar homing (SARH) for terminal guidance. The array of four antenna which surround the nose are SARH receivers which functioned as a continuous wave interferometer. Initial thrust was provided by a solid rocket booster for launch and a Bendix ramjet for flight to the target with the warhead doubling as the ramjet’s compressor.
Last Talos missile launched by USS Oklahoma City (CLG-5) in 1979.
110.1 History Talos was the end product of Operation Bumblebee, the Navy’s 16-year surface-to-air missile development program for protection against guided anti-ship missiles like Henschel Hs 293 glide bombs, Fritz X, and kamikaze aircraft.[1] The Talos was the primary effort behind the Bumblebee project, but was not the first missile the program developed; the RIM-2 Terrier was the first to enter service. The Talos was originally designated SAM-N6, and was redesignated RIM-8 in 1963. The airframe structure was manufactured by McDonnell Aircraft in St. Louis; final assembly was by Bendix Missile Systems in Mishawaka, Indiana.
could accommodate the large missiles with the AN/SPW2 missile guidance radar and the AN/SPG-49 target illumination and tracking radar.[2] Indeed, the 11.6-meterlong, 3½-tonne missile was similar in size to a fighter aircraft.[3] The Talos Mark 7 launcher system was installed in three Galveston-class cruisers (converted Cleveland class light cruisers) with 14 missiles in a ready-service magazine and up to 30 unmated missiles and boosters in a storage area above the main deck. Nuclear-powered USS Long Beach and three Albany-class cruisers (converted Baltimore class heavy cruisers) carried Mark 12 launchers fed from behind by a 46-round magazine below the main deck. The initial SAM-N-6b/RIM-8A had an effective range of about 50 nm, and a conventional warhead. The SAMN-6bW/RIM-8B was a RIM-8A with a nuclear warhead; terminal guidance was judged unnecessary for a nuclear warhead, so the SARH antenna were omitted. The SAMN-6b1/RIM-8C was introduced in 1960 and had nearly double the range, and a more effective conventional continuous-rod warhead. The RIM-8D was the nuclearwarhead version of the −8C. The SAM-N-6c/RIM-8E “Unified Talos” had a warhead that could be swapped while embarked, eliminating the need to waste magazine capacity carrying dedicated nuclear warhead variants. The RIM-8E also carried an improved continuouswave terminal homing seeker, and had a higher ceiling. Some RIM-8Cs were retrofitted with the new seeker, and designated RIM-8F. The RIM-8G and RIM-8J had further radar homing improvements. The RIM-8H TalosARM was a dedicated anti-radar homing missile for use against shore-based radar stations. Initial testing of the RIM-8H was performed in 1965, and soon after it was deployed in Vietnam on Chicago, Oklahoma City, and Long Beach, attacking North Vietnamese SAM radars. The surface-to-air versions also saw action in Vietnam, a total of three MiGs being shot down by Chicago and Long Beach. The Talos missile also had surface-to-surface capabilities.[4]
The Talos saw relatively limited use due to its large size and dual radar antenna system; there were few ships that 403
404
CHAPTER 110. RIM-8 TALOS
110.2 Variants
110.3 Chronology
SAM-N-6 Development and prototype missiles; pre1962 US Navy designation of the Talos missile.
110.4 Fate
SAM-N-6a Development and prototype missiles; pre- Talos was phased out of fleet service in 1976, though 1962 US Navy designation of the Talos missile. the ships carrying the system soldiered on a few more years with the launchers left in place until they (AlbanySAM-N-6b Production missiles deployed with conven- class, and Oklahoma City) were retired in 1980, after tional explosive warheads; re-designated RIM-8A. Long Beach had her Talos launcher removed in 1978. AfSAM-N-6bw The −6b missile with nuclear warhead, ter 22 years of fleet service, the missile was replaced by omitting terminal guidance and SARH antennae; re- the RIM-67 Standard missile, which was fired from the smaller Mk10 launcher. designated RIM-8B. A Talos missile is displayed in the atrium of the South SAM-N-6b1 An improved −6b with much greater Bend Regional Airport (historically known as Bendix range and continuous rod conventional warhead; re- Field). designated RIM-8C. Another example can be seen at the Patriots Point Naval SAM-N-6c “Unified Talos” with interchangeable nu- & Maritime Museum, located at Mount Pleasant, South clear / conventional warheads eliminating the need Carolina. for storage of both missile types, also fitted with improved terminal homing and higher operating ceiling; re-designated RIM-8E. 110.5 Gallery RIM-8A Talos Production missiles deployed with conventional explosive warheads; re-designated from SAM-N-6b.
• Talos missile guidance radars, AN/SPG-49.
RIM-8B Talos The RIM-8A missile with nuclear warhead, omitting terminal guidance and SARH antennae; re-designated from SAM-N-6bw.
• A Talos shortly before hitting a B-17 target drone in 1957.
RIM-8C Talos An improved RIM-8A with much greater range and continuous rod conventional warhead; re-designated from SAM-N-6b1. RIM-8D Talos The RIM-8C with nuclear warhead. RIM-8E Talos “Unified Talos” with interchangeable nuclear / conventional warheads eliminating the need for storage of both missile types, also fitted with improved terminal homing and higher operating ceiling; re-designated from SAM-N-6c. RIM-8F Talos Some RIM-8C missiles retro-fitted with the new seeker from the RIM-8E. RIM-8G Talos Variant with further homing improvements. RIM-8H Talos-ARM A dedicated surface-to-surface anti-radar homing version for deployment on ships already fitted out for the Talos SAM. RIM-8J Talos Variant with further homing improvements. MQM-8G Vandal Talos missiles remaining after removal from active service were converted to supersonic drone targets, with the inventory being exhausted circa 2008.
• RIM-8A and −8B missile launch.
• USS Little Rock (CLG-4) fires a Talos, 4 May 1961. • Talos missiles on USS Little Rock (CLG-4), November 1960. • MQM-8G Vandal launch from San Nicolas Island, in 1999. • RIM-8 Talos missile loading conveyor aboard USS Little Rock (CLG-4). • RIM-8 Talos magazine racks in USS Little Rock (CLG-4).
110.6 See also • RIM-2 Terrier • RIM-24 Tartar
110.7 Notes [1] “A Brief History of White Sands Proving Ground 19411965”. New Mexico State University. Retrieved 201008-19.
110.9. EXTERNAL LINKS
[2] Polmar, Norman (December 1978). “The U.S.Navy: Shipboard Radars”. United States Naval Institute Proceedings. [3] The contemporary Soviet MiG-15 jet fighter was 10.1 meters long and weighted 5 tonnes. [4] “USS Oklahoma City - Talos Missile Firing Operations”. Retrieved 2014-05-23. [5] “Welcome Aboard”. USS Columbus Veterans Association. Retrieved 2010-08-27. [6] “Chronology - U.S.S. Galveston CL-93 / CLG-3”. USS Galveston Shipmates Association. Retrieved 2010-08-27. [7] “A Brief History of the USS Little Rock”. USS Little Rock Association. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
110.8 References • Friedman, Norman (1982). “The “3 T” Programme”. Warship (London: Conway Maritime Press) VI (22–3): 158–166, 181–185. ISBN 087021-981-2.
110.9 External links • Designation systems.net - RIM-8 Talos • Talos missile and launching system, Talos history • Talos Missile Handling, Cruiser Installation Film
405
Chapter 111
RIM-24 Tartar The General Dynamics RIM-24 Tartar was a mediumrange naval surface-to-air missile (SAM), and was among the earliest surface-to-air missiles to equip United States Navy ships. The Tartar was the third of the so-called “3 T’s”, the three primary SAMs the Navy fielded in the 1960s and 1970s, the others being the RIM-2 Terrier and RIM-8 Talos.
111.3 Ships carrying Tartar fire control systems • Audace-class destroyer (Italy) • Impavido-class destroyer (Italy) • Charles F. Adams-class destroyer / Lütjens-class destroyer (Germany) / Perth-class destroyer (Australia)
111.1 History
• Albany-class cruiser • Mitscher-class destroyer (guided missile modification)
The Tartar was born of a need for a more lightweight system for smaller ships, and something that could engage targets at very close range. Essentially, the Tartar was simply a RIM-2C Terrier without the secondary booster. The Tartar was never given a SAM-N-x designation, and was simply referred to as Missile Mk 15 until the unified Army-Navy designation system was introduced in 1963.
• Forrest Sherman-class destroyer (guided missile modification) • Brooke-class frigate • California-class cruiser
The Tartar was used on a number of ships, of a variety of sizes. Initially the Mk 11 twin-arm launcher was used, later ships used the Mk 13 and Mk 22 single-arm launchers. Early versions proved to be unreliable. The Improved Tartar retrofit program upgraded the earlier missiles to the much improved RIM-24C standard. Further development was canceled and a new missile, the RIM-66 Standard, was designed to replace it. Even after the upgrade to a new missile, ships were still said to be Tartar ships because they carried the Tartar Guided Missile Fire Control System.
• Virginia-class cruiser • Kidd-class destroyer • T 47-class destroyer (guided missile modification) • Cassard-class frigate • Tromp-class frigate with Mk.13 missile launcher (retired from service)
111.4 Operators 111.2 Variations
Australia
• RIM-24A: Original missile
• Royal Australian Navy
• RIM-24B: Improved Tartar
France
• RIM-24C: Improved Tartar Retrofit (ITR) aka. Tartar Reliability Improvement Program (TRIP) 406
• French Navy
111.5. EXTERNAL LINKS
Germany
• German Navy Italy
• Italian Navy Japan
• Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force Netherlands • Royal Netherlands Navy United States
• United States Navy
111.5 External links • http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-24. html • http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/tartar.htm • http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/ kn10000/kn11658c.htm (Potential image source)
407
Chapter 112
RIM-66 Standard See also: Standard Missile
112.1.2 Standard missile 2
The RIM-66 Standard MR (SM-1MR/SM-2MR) is a medium range surface-to-air missile (SAM) originally developed for the United States Navy (USN). The SM1 was developed as a replacement for the RIM-2 Terrier and RIM-24 Tartar that were deployed in the 1950s on a variety of USN ships. The RIM-67 Standard (SM1ER/SM-2ER), is an extended range version of this missile with a solid rocket booster stage. The Standard can also be used as an anti-ship missile.
The RIM-66C/D Standard MR (SM-2MR Block I), was developed in the 1970s and was a key part of the Aegis combat system and New Threat Upgrade (NTU). The SM-2MR introduced inertial and command mid-course guidance. The missile’s autopilot is programmed to fly the most efficient path to the target and can receive course corrections from the ground. Target illumination for semi-active homing is needed only for a few seconds in the terminal phase of the interception. This capability enables the Aegis combat system and New Threat Upgrade equipped vessels to time share illumination radars, greatly increasing the number of targets that can be engaged in quick succession. Mk 41 VLS adopts modular design concept, which result in different versions that vary in size and weight. The length comes in three sizes: 209 inches for the self-defense version, 266 inches for the tactical version, and 303 inches for the strike version. The empty weight for an 8-cell module is 26,800 pounds for the self-defense version, 29,800 pounds for the tactical version, and 32,000 pounds for the strike version.
112.1 Description
The Standard missile program was started in 1963 to produce a family of missiles to replace existing guided missiles used by the Terrier, Talos, and Tartar guided missile launch systems. The intention was to produce a new generation of guided missiles that could be retrofit to existing guided missile systems.[3] In the middle 1980s, the SM-2MR was deployed via Mk 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) aboard USS Bunker Hill, the first U.S. Navy ship to deploy a vertical launcher. VLS has, since 2003, been the only launcher used for the 112.1.1 Standard missile 1 Standard missile in the U.S. Navy aboard Ticonderogaclass cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. The RIM-66A is the medium ranged version of the Stan- The United States Navy is committed to keeping the Standard missile and was initially developed as a replace- dard Missile 2 medium range viable until 2035.[4] ment for the earlier RIM-24C as part of the Mk74 “Tartar” Guided Missile Fire Control System. It used the The SM-1 and SM-2 were continuously upgraded through same fuselage as the earlier Tartar missile, for easier use Blocks (see below). with existing launchers and magazines for that system. The Standard can also be used against ships, either at lineThe RIM-66A/B while looking like the earlier RIM-24C of-sight range using its semi-active homing mode, or over on the exterior is a different missile internally with re- the horizon using inertial guidance and terminal infrared designed electronics and a more reliable homing system homing.[5] and fuse that make it more capable than its predecessor. The RIM-66A/B Standard MR, (SM-1MR Block I to V) was used during the Vietnam War. The only remaining version of the Standard missile 1 in service is the RIM- 112.2 Contractors 66E (SM-1MR Block VI). While no longer in service with the USN, the RIM-66E is still in service with many Standard missiles were constructed by General Dynamnavies globally and is expected to remain in service until ics Pomona Division until 1992, when it became part of the Hughes Missile Systems Company. Hughes formed 2020. 408
112.4. DEPLOYMENT HISTORY
409
a joint venture with Raytheon called Standard Missile 112.4.1 SM-1 Medium Range Block Company (SMCo). Hughes Missile Systems was evenI/II/III/IV, RIM-66A tually sold to Raytheon making it the sole contractor.[6] The First Standard missiles entered service in the USN in 1967. Blocks I, II, and III were preliminary versions. Block IV was the production version. This missile was a 112.3 Operational history replacement for the earlier RIM-24C Tartar missile. The Standard missile one became operational in 1968. The missile was utilized by ships equipped with the Tartar Guided Missile Fire Control System. The missile saw its first combat use in the early 1970s in the Vietnam war. The Standard missile two became operational in the late 1970s and was deployed operationally with the Aegis Combat System in 1983. Both Standard one and two were used against both surface and air targets during Operation Praying Mantis. On July 3, 1988, USS Vincennes mistakenly shot down Iran Air Flight 655, an Airbus A300B2, using two SM-2MR missiles from her forward launcher.[7] In 1988 the Iranian Kaman-class missile boat Joshan was disabled by RIM-66 Standard missiles during Operation Praying Mantis.[8]
112.4.2 SM-1 Medium Range Block V, RIM-66B The RIM-66B introduced changes that resulted in higher reliability. A new faster reacting autopilot, a more powerful dual thrust rocket motor, and a new warhead were added. Many RIM-66A missiles were re-manufactured into RIM-66B.
112.4.3 SM-1 Medium Range Blocks VI/VIA/VIB, RIM-66E The RIM-66E was the last version of the standard missile one medium range. This version entered service in 1983[9] with the United States Navy and export customers. The RIM-66E was used by all remaining Tartar vessels that were not modified to use the New Threat Upgrade and Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates which controlled it with the Mk92 fire control system. Production of this missile ended in 1987. The missile was retired from USN service in 2003; however there are a large number of this model in service abroad and it is expected to remain viable until 2020.[10]
112.4.4 SM-2 Medium Range Block I, RIM-66C/D The RIM-66C was the first version of the Standard missile two. The missile became operational in 1978 with the Aegis combat system fitted to the Ticonderoga-class cruiser. The RIM-66D was the SM-2 medium range block I version for the New Threat Upgrade. The SM2 incorporates a new autopilot giving it inertial guidance in all phases of flight except for the terminal intercept where semi-active radar homing is still used. This version is no longer in service; remaining missiles have either been remanufactured into later models or have been put in storage. RIM-66M Standard launching
112.4.5 SM-2 Medium Range Block II, RIM-66G/H/J
112.4 Deployment history
The Block II missile was introduced in 1983 with a new rocket motor for longer range and a new warhead. The The Standard missile is designated by blocks depending RIM-66G is for the Aegis combat system and the Mk26 upon their technological package. missile launcher. The RIM-66H is for Aegis and the
410
CHAPTER 112. RIM-66 STANDARD
Mk41 vertical launcher. The RIM-66J is the version for the New Threat Upgrade. Block II missiles are no longer manufactured, and have been withdrawn from service. The remainder have either been put in storage, scrapped for spare parts, or remanufactured into later models.
112.4.6
SM-2 Medium Range Block III/IIIA/IIIB, RIM-66K/L/M
The RIM-66M is the version of the Standard missile two medium range (SM-2MR) currently in service with the USN aboard Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. The missile is specifically designed for the Aegis Combat System and the Mk41 Vertical launch system. The Block III missiles differ from earlier blocks by the addition of the MK 45 MOD 9 target detecting device, for improved performance against low altitude targets. The Block IIIB missile additionally has a dual semi-active/infrared seeker for terminal homing. The dual seeker is intended for use in high-ECM environments, against targets over the horizon or with a small radar cross section.[10] The seeker was originally developed for the canceled AIM-7R Sparrow air-to-air missile. All USN Block III and IIIA missiles are to be upgraded to Block IIIB. Block IIIA missiles are operated by the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force on its Kongō-class and Atago-class Aegis destroyers. Aegis equipped vessels in the Spanish and South Korean navies use it as well. The Dutch and German Navies have added it to the Anti-Air Warfare system, which uses the Thales Nederland Active Phased Array Radar and Smart-L radar. South Korean KDX-II destroyers use the block IIIA with a New Threat Upgrade compatible guided missile fire control system. Block III variants for Aegis and arm launchers are designated RIM-66L. Block III missiles for New Threat Upgrade systems are designated RIM-66K. Block IIIB missiles were not produced for the New Threat Upgrade. Blocks IIIA and IIIB are the current production versions. The Thales Nederland STIR 1.8 and 2.4 fire control systems are also supported.[2]
A RIM-66 being assembled.
• California-class cruiser (Mk74 Missile Fire Control SM-1/later New Threat Upgrade for SM-2) • Virginia-class cruiser (Mk74 Missile Fire Control SM-1/later New Threat Upgrade for SM-2) • Ticonderoga-class cruiser (Aegis Combat System ) • Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (Aegis Combat System ) RIM-66 has also been widely exported and is in service in other navies worldwide.
112.5 Surface to air variants Table sources, reference material:[1][9][10][11]
112.6 Land Attack Standard Missile
The RGM-165 LASM, also given the designation SM4, was intended as means to give long range precision fires in support of the US Marine Corps. Intended as an 112.4.7 Deployment adaptation of the RIM-66, it retained the original MK In the US Navy, RIM-66 Standard was deployed on ships 125 warhead and MK 104 rocket motor, with the radar of the following classes, replacing RIM-24 Tartar in some seeker replaced by GPS/INS guidance. While test fired in 1997 using three modified RIM-66K SM-2MR Block cases: III missiles, with 800 missiles set for replacement and IOC expected for 2003/2004, it was cancelled in 2002 • Charles F. Adams-class destroyer (Mk74 Missile due to limited capabilities against mobile or hardened Fire Control) targets.[12][13] • Albany-class cruiser (Mk74 Missile Fire Control) • Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate (Mk 92 Missile Fire Control) • Kidd-class destroyer (Mk74 Missile Fire Control SM-1/later New Threat Upgrade for SM-2)
112.7 Current operators Australia
112.7. CURRENT OPERATORS
411
• Chilean Navy (Onboard Jacob van Heemskerckclass frigates) Denmark • Royal Danish Navy (Onboard Iver Huitfeldt-class frigates) France A RIM-66 being launched in 2006 from the Spanish frigate Canarias
• French Navy (Onboard Cassard-class frigates) Germany
• German Navy (Onboard Sachsen-class air defense frigates) Iran • Islamic Republic of Iran Navy (on frigates and a few of Kaman/Sina-class missile boats) German Sachsen-class frigate Sachsen launching a RIM-66.
Italy • Italian Navy (Onboard Durand de la Penne-class destroyers) Japan • Japan Maritime Self Defense Force (Onboard Hatakaze-class, Kongō-class & Atago-class destroyers) Netherlands HNLMS De Zeven Provinciën launching a RIM-66.
• Royal Australian Navy(Onboard Adelaide-class frigates & Hobart-class destroyers)
• Royal Netherlands Navy (Onboard De Zeven Provinciën-class frigates) Poland
Canada • Royal Canadian Navy(Onboard Iroquois-class destroyers)
• Polish Navy (onboard Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates) South Korea
Chile
412
CHAPTER 112. RIM-66 STANDARD
• Republic of Korea Navy (onboard Chungmugong Yi Sun-sin-class & Sejong the Great-class destroyers) Spain
112.10 References [1] United States Navy,US Navy Fact File:Standard Missile, October 11, 2002. Accessed June 5, 2006. [2] Raytheon,Raytheon.com, March 17, 2009, Accessed August 24, 2009.
• Spanish Navy (onboard Santa María-class & Álvaro de Bazán-class frigates) Taiwan • ROC Navy (onboard Cheng Kung-class & Chi Yangclass frigates, Kee Lung-class destroyers) Turkey
• Turkish Navy (Onboard G-class frigates) United States
[3] http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-66.html [4] Raytheon Press Release December 17, 2012. Accessed May 19, 2013. [5] Canadian Forces Maritime Command. Standard missile. Accessed June 5, 2006. [6] GlobalSecurity.org - Standard specs Designation systems RIM-66. [7] United States Navy. “Formal Investigation into the Circumstances Surrounding the Downing of Iran Air Flight 655 on 3 July 1988” (PDF). Retrieved 2007-01-28. [8] The New York Times. Surface Combatant Weapon System RIM-67 / RIM-156 Standard Missile ER SM-1ER / SM-2ER [9] Raytheon RIM-66 Standard MR
112.8 Former operators
[10] USNI Combat Fleets 2005-2006, Wertheim, Eric; Editor, USN section Naval Institute Press © 2005 [11] SM-2 RIM-66 / RIM-67 Standard Missile
Greece • Hellenic Navy (onboard Charles F. Adams-class destroyers 1991-2004)
[12] http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-165.html [13] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ munitions/lasm.htm
112.11 External links 112.9 See also • Aegis combat system
• Raytheon Standard missile website, mfr of Standard missiles
• AGM-78 Standard ARM
• Navy Fact file - Standard Missile 2
• Mk 74 “Tartar” Guided Missile Fire Control System
• NAVAIR War fighters encyclopedia - Standard missile
• Mk 92 Guided Missile Fire Control System • New Threat Upgrade • RIM-2 Terrier • RIM-8 Talos • RIM-24 Tartar - predecessor • RIM-67 Standard Extended Range • RIM-156 Standard SM-2ER Block IV • RIM-161 Standard SM-3 • RIM-174 Standard SM-6 Extended Range Active Missile
• Designation systems.net RIM-66 • FAS - SM-2 • GlobalSecurity.org - SM-2
Chapter 113
SAM-N-2 Lark The Lark project was a high-priority, solid-fuel boosted, liquid-fueled rocket surface-to-air missile developed by the United States Navy to meet the kamikaze threat.[2] After Lark configuration was established by the Bureau of Aeronautics in January 1945 Fairchild Aircraft was given a contract to produce 100 missiles in March 1945. Fairchild used radio command guidance with a semiactive radar homing AN/DPN-7. A backup contract for another 100 missiles was given to Convair in June 1945. Convair used beam riding guidance with AN/APN-23 active radar homing.[3] Neither version was successful. Six of the Convair airframes were given to Raytheon to explore use of velocity-gated continuous wave doppler radar for guided missile target seekers, while most other United States investigators used range-gated pulse radar. One of these Raytheon guidance systems in a Convair airframe scored the first successful United States surfaceto-air missile interception of a flying target in January 1950.[2]
113.1 Early guided missile development The Lark never proceeded past the prototype stage. Further Lark development was halted by the Bureau of Ordnance in late 1950 in favor of the RIM-2 Terrier being developed by Operation Bumblebee. A subsonic missile was of doubtful use against anticipated supersonic targets; but three successful Lark interceptions by the Raytheon guidance system[2] generated interest within the Army and Air Force. Modified Larks were used for guidance system development testing by all three services through the early 1950s.[3] The Bureau of Aeronautics Sparrow program began in 1950 using the Lark target seeker in air-to-air missiles.[2] The Army used Lark components investigating guidance options for the MGM-18 Lacrosse surface-to-surface missile. Changing roles during a period of changing nomenclature created a confusing number of designations for Lark. Fairchild production was identified as KAQ, SAM-N-2, and CTV-N-9. Convair production was identified as KAY, SAM-N-4, and CTVN-10. Army test versions were designated RV-A-22.[3]
Lark missile launch at NOTS China Lake.
113.2 References
413
[1] “Lark”. Smithsonian Air and Space Museum. [2] Peck, Merton J. & Scherer, Frederic M. The Weapons Acquisition Process: An Economic Analysis (1962) Harvard Business School pp.232-233&659 [3] “SAM-N-2/SAM-N-4”. 2013-04-17.
Andreas Parsch.
Retrieved
Chapter 114
Sprint (missile) The Sprint was a two-stage, solid-fuel anti-ballistic 114.1 Design predecessors missile, armed with a W66 enhanced radiation thermonuclear warhead. It was designed as the See also: Nike Zeus short-range high-speed counterpart to the longer-range The “HIBEX” (HIgh Boost EXperiment) missile is conLIM-49 Spartan as part of the Sentinel program. Sentinel never became operational, but the technology was deployed briefly in a downsized version called the Safeguard program. The Sprint, like the Spartan, was in operational service for only a few months in the Safeguard program, from October 1975 to early 1976. Congressional opposition and high costs linked to its questionable economics and efficacy against the then emerging MIRV warheads of the Soviet Union, resulted in a very short operational period. The Sprint accelerated at 100 g, reaching a speed of Mach 10 in 5 seconds.[1][2] It was designed for close-in defense against incoming nuclear weapons. As the last line of defense it was to intercept the reentry vehicles that had not been destroyed by the Spartan, with which it was deployed. HIBEX rocket The conical Sprint was stored in and launched from a silo. To make the launch as quick as possible, the cover was sidered to be somewhat of a design predecessor and comblown off the silo by explosive charges, then the missile petitor to the Sprint missile, as it was a similar high acwas ejected by an explosive-driven piston. As the missile celeration missile in the early 1960s, with a technological cleared the silo, the first stage fired and the missile was transfer from that program to the Sprint development protilted toward its target. The first stage was exhausted after gram occurring.[4] Both were tested at the White Sands only 1.2 seconds, but produced 2,900 kN (650,000 lbf) Launch Complex 38. Although HIBEX’s initial accelerof thrust. The second stage fired within 1 – 2 seconds of ation rate in G’s was higher at near 400 G, its role was to launch. Interception at an altitude of 1,500 m to 30,000 intercept reentry vehicles at a much lower altitude than Sprint, 6,100 m, and it is considered to be a last ditch m took at most 15 seconds. ABM missile “in a similar vein to Sprint”.[5] The Sprint was controlled by ground-based radio command guidance, which tracked the incoming reentry The small “Thunderbird” rocket of 1947 produced an acvehicles with phased-array radar and guided the missile celeration of 100 G with a polysulfide composite propellant, star-grained cross section solid rocket motor.[6] to its target. The Sprint was armed with an enhanced radiation nuclear warhead with a yield reportedly of a few kilotons, though the exact number has not been declassified. The warhead was intended to destroy the incoming reentry vehicle primarily by neutron flux.
114.2 Engines & Propellant
The first stage, Hercules X-265 engine, is believed to have The first test of the Sprint missile took place at White contained alternating layers of zirconium “staples” emSands Missile Range on 17 November 1965.[3] bedded in nitrocellulose powder, followed by gelatinizing with nitroglycerine, thus forming a higher thrust doublebase powder.[7][8] 414
114.6. EXTERNAL LINKS
415
114.3 Survivors
• Nike Sprint dual launch during a salvo test at Kwajalein Atoll test range
• The Air Defense Artillery museums at Fort Bliss, Texas and the ADA park at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, have both Safeguard missiles on display, the Sprint and Spartan.[9][10][11]
114.4 See also • 53T6 • Anti-ballistic missile • Surface-to-air missile • LIM-49 Spartan • Nike-Hercules missile • Project Nike • Safeguard Program
114.5 References [1] Sprint [2] Designation-systems Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. Martin Marietta Sprint [3] James Walker, Lewis Bernstein, Sharon Lang (2005). Seize the High Ground: The U.S. Army in Space and Missile Defense. Government Printing Office. ISBN 0160723086. 17 November 1965 First guided SPRINT flight test took place at WSMR [4] III. HIBEX - UPSTAGE [5] Sprint [6] http://www.astronautix.com/articles/comlants.htm [7] Up-ship. Sprint missile [8] DTIC. by SB Moorhead - 1974 [9] http://www.city-data.com/articles/ US-Army-Air-Defense-Artillery-Museum-El.html [10] http://srmsc.org/mis2050.html [11] ADA park (Fort Sill), photo journal of Daniel DeCristo
114.6 External links • Sprint • Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles • Terminal defense using the Sprint • Sprint missile launch
• Video of Nike Sprint launch (2 MB .mpg) • Encyclopedia Astronautica - Sprint • Chapter 9: Sprint Missile Subsystem from ABM Research and development at Bell Labs • Nike Sprint and Spartan Photo Gallery
Chapter 115
AIM-120 AMRAAM The AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-toAir Missile, or AMRAAM (pronounced “am-ram”), is a modern beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM) capable of all-weather day-and-night operations. Designed with the same form-and-fit factors as the previous generation of semi-active guided Sparrow missiles, it is a fire-and-forget missile with active guidance. When an AMRAAM missile is being launched, NATO pilots use the brevity code – Fox Three.[7]
115.1 Origins 115.1.1
AIM-7 Sparrow MRM
The AIM-7 Sparrow medium range missile (MRM) was purchased by the US Navy from original developer Howard Hughes[8] in the 1950s as its first operational airto-air missile with “beyond visual range” (BVR) capability. With an effective range of about 12 miles (19 km), it was introduced as a radar beam riding missile and then it was improved to a semiactive radar guided missile which would home in on reflections from a target illuminated by the radar of the launching aircraft. It was effective at visual to beyond visual range. The early beam riding versions of the Sparrow missiles were integrated onto the F3H Demon and F7U Cutlass, but the definitive AIM-7 Sparrow was the primary weapon for the all-weather F-4 Phantom II fighter/interceptor, which lacked an internal gun in its U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, and early U.S. Air Force versions. The F-4 carried up to four AIM-7s in built-in recesses under its belly. Although designed for use against non-maneuvering targets such as bombers, due to poor performance against fighters over North Vietnam, these missiles were progressively improved until they proved highly effective in dogfights. Together with the short range infrared guided AIM-9 Sidewinder, they replaced the AIM-4 Falcon IR and radar guided series for use in air combat by the USAF as well. A disadvantage to semi-active homing was that only one target could be illuminated by the launching fighter plane at a time. Also, the launching aircraft had to remain pointed in the direction of the target (within the azimuth and elevation of its own radar set) which could
be difficult or dangerous in air-to-air combat.
115.1.2 AIM-54 Phoenix LRM The US Navy later developed the AIM-54 Phoenix long range missile (LRM) for the fleet air defense mission. It was a large 1,000 lb (500 kg) Mach 4 missile designed to counter cruise missiles and the bombers that launched them. Originally intended for the straight-wing Douglas F6D Missileer and then the navalized version of the F111B, it finally saw service with the Grumman F-14 Tomcat, the only fighter capable of carrying such a heavy missile. Phoenix was the first US fire-and-forget multiple launch radar-guided missile: one which used its own active guidance system to guide itself without help from the launch aircraft when it closed on its target. This in theory gave a Tomcat with a six-Phoenix load the unprecedented capability of tracking and destroying up to six targets beyond visual range, as far as 100 miles (160 km) away – the only US fighter with such capability. A full load of six Phoenix missiles and its 2,000 pounds (910 kg) dedicated launcher exceeded a typical Vietnamera bomb load. Its service in the US Navy was primarily as a deterrent, as its use was hampered by restrictive Rules of engagement in conflicts such as Operations Desert Storm, Southern Watch and Iraqi Freedom. The US Navy retired the Phoenix in 2004[9] in light of availability of the AIM-120 AMRAAM on the F/A-18 Hornet and the pending retirement of the F-14 Tomcat from active service in late 2006.
115.1.3 ACEVAL/AIMVAL The Department of Defense conducted an extensive evaluation of air combat tactics and missile technology from 1974–78 at Nellis AFB using the F-14 Tomcat and F15 Eagle equipped with Sparrow and Sidewinder missiles as blue force and Aggressor F-5E aircraft equipped with AIM-9L all-aspect Sidewinders as the Red force. This Joint Test and Evaluation (JT&E) was designated Air Combat Evaluation/Air Intercept Missile Evaluation (ACEVAL/AIMVAL). A principal finding was the necessity to produce illumination for the Sparrow until im-
416
115.2. DEVELOPMENT pact resulted in the Red Force being able to launch their all-aspect Sidewinders before impact thereby resulting in mutual kills. What was needed was Phoenix type multiple launch and terminal active capability in a Sparrow size airframe. This led to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with European allies (principally the UK and Germany for development) for the US to develop an Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) with the USAF as lead service. The MOA also assigned responsibility for development of an Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile to the European team – this would become the British ASRAAM.
115.1.4
417
115.2 Development
Requirements
First successful test at the White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico 1982
Surface-to-air mounting (shown: CATM-120C captive training variant)
AMRAAM was developed as the result of an agreement (the Family of Weapons MOA, no longer in effect by 1990), among the United States and several other NATO nations to develop air-to-air missiles and to share production technology. Under this agreement the U.S. was to develop the next generation medium range missile (AMRAAM) and Europe would develop the next generation short range missile (ASRAAM). Although Europe initially adopted the AMRAAM, an effort to develop the MBDA Meteor, a competitor to AMRAAM, was begun in Great Britain. Eventually the ASRAAM was developed solely by the British, but using another source for its infrared seeker. After protracted development, the deployment of AMRAAM (AIM-120A) began in September 1991 in US Air Force F-15 Eagle fighter squadrons. The US Navy soon followed (in 1993) in its F/A-18 Hornet squadrons.
By the 1990s, the reliability of the Sparrow had improved so much from the dismal days of Vietnam that it accounted for the largest number of aerial targets destroyed in Desert Storm. But while the USAF had passed on the Phoenix and their own similar AIM-47/YF-12 to optimize dogfight performance, they still needed a multiplelaunch fire-and-forget capability for the F-15 and F-16. AMRAAM would need to be fitted on fighters as small as the F-16, and fit in the same spaces that were designed to fit the Sparrow on the F-4 Phantom. The European partners needed AMRAAM to be integrated on aircraft as small as the Sea Harrier. The US Navy needed AMRAAM to be carried on the F/A-18 Hornet and wanted capability for two to be carried on a launcher that normally carried one Sparrow to allow for more air- The eastern counterpart of AMRAAM is the somewhat to-ground weapons. similar Russian Air Force AA-12 “Adder”, sometimes reThe AMRAAM became one of the primary air-to-air ferred to in the West as the “AMRAAMski.” Likewise, weapons of the new F-22 Raptor fighter, which needed to France began its own air-to-air missile development with place all of its weapons into internal weapons bays in or- the MICA concept that used a common airframe for sepder to help achieve an extremely low radar cross-section. arate radar-guided and infrared-guided versions.
418
CHAPTER 115. AIM-120 AMRAAM
115.3 Operational features summary
speed. The missile uses this information to fly on an interception course to the target using its built in inertial navigation system (INS). This information is generally obtained using the launching aircraft’s radar, although it AMRAAM has an all-weather, beyond-visual-range could come from an Infra-red search and track system, (BVR) capability. It improves the aerial combat capabil- from a data link from another fighter aircraft, or from an ities of US and allied aircraft to meet the threat of enemy AWACS aircraft. air-to-air weapons as they existed in 1991. AMRAAM serves as a follow-on to the AIM-7 Sparrow missile se- After launch, if the firing aircraft or surrogate continues ries. The new missile is faster, smaller, and lighter, and to track the target, periodic updates—such as changes in has improved capabilities against low-altitude targets. It the target’s direction and speed—are sent from the launch also incorporates a datalink to guide the missile to a point aircraft to the missile, allowing the missile to adjust its where its active radar turns on and makes terminal inter- course so that it is able to close to a self-homing distance cept of the target. An inertial reference unit and micro- where it will be close enough to “catch” the target aircraft computer system makes the missile less dependent upon in the basket (the missile’s radar field of view in which it will be able to lock onto the target aircraft, unassisted by the fire-control system of the aircraft. the launch aircraft). Once the missile closes in on the target, its active radar guides it to intercept. This feature, known as “fire-and- Not all armed services using the AMRAAM have elected forget”, frees the aircrew from the need to further provide to purchase the mid-course update option, which limguidance, enabling the aircrew to aim and fire several mis- its AMRAAM’s effectiveness in some scenarios. The siles simultaneously at multiple targets and perform eva- RAF initially opted not to use mid-course update for its sive maneuvers while the missiles guide themselves to the Tornado F3 force, only to discover that without it, testing proved the AMRAAM was less effective in BVR entargets. gagements than the older semi-active radar homing BAE The missile also features the ability to “Home on Skyflash weapon—the AIM-120’s own radar is necessarJamming,”[10] giving it the ability to switch over from ac- ily of limited range and power compared to that of the tive radar homing to passive homing – homing on jam- launch aircraft. ming signals from the target aircraft. Software on board the missile allows it to detect if it is being jammed, and guide on its target using the proper guidance system. 115.4.2 Terminal stage and impact
115.4 Guidance system overview 115.4.1
Interception course stage
Once the missile closes to self-homing distance, it turns on its active radar seeker and searches for the target aircraft. If the target is in or near the expected location, the missile will find it and guide itself to the target from this point. If the missile is fired at short range (typically visual range), it can use its active seeker just after launch, making the missile truly “fire and forget”. However, this tactic is considerably risky – the now-active AMRAAM will acquire and home in on the first target it sees, regardless of friend or foe.
115.4.3 Boresight mode Apart from the slave mode, there is a free guidance mode, called boresight. This mode is radar guidance-free, the missile just fires and locks the first thing it sees. This mode can be used for defensive shot, i.e. when the enemy has numerical superiority.
Grumman F-14 Tomcat carrying an AMRAAM during a 1982 test
115.5 Kill probability and tactics
AMRAAM uses two-stage guidance when fired at long 115.5.1 General considerations range. The aircraft passes data to the missile just before launch, giving it information about the location of the tar- The kill probability (P ) is determined by several factors, get aircraft from the launch point and its direction and including aspect (head-on interception, side-on or tail-
115.6. VARIANTS AND UPGRADES chase), altitude, the speed of the missile and the target, and how hard the target can turn. Typically, if the missile has sufficient energy during the terminal phase, which comes from being launched at close range to the target from an aircraft with an altitude and speed advantage, it will have a good chance of success. This chance drops as the missile is fired at longer ranges as it runs out of overtake speed at long ranges, and if the target can force the missile to turn it might bleed off enough speed that it can no longer chase the target. Operationally, the missile, which was designed for beyond visual range combat, has a P of 46% when fired at targets beyond visual range (13 missiles for 6 kills). In addition, the targets lacked missile warning systems, were not maneuvering, and were not attempting to engage the fighter that fired the AMRAAM. One of the targets was a US Army Blackhawk helicopter.[11]
115.5.2
Lower-capability targets
419 AMRAAM-equipped aircraft can turn and re-engage, although they will be at a disadvantage compared to the chasing aircraft due to the speed they lose in the turn, and would have to be careful that they are not being tracked with SARH missiles.
115.5.3 Similarly armed targets The other main engagement scenario is against other aircraft with fire-and-forget missiles like the R-77 (NATO AA-12 “Adder”) – perhaps MiG-29s, Su-27s or, more likely and recently, Chinese J-15/J-16 with PL-12. In this case engagement is very much down to teamwork and could be described as “a game of chicken.” Both flights of aircraft can fire their missiles at each other beyond visual range (BVR), but then face the problem that if they continue to track the target aircraft in order to provide midcourse updates for the missile’s flight, they are also flying into their opponents’ missiles. This assumes of course that all aircraft will detect each other.
This leads to two main engagement scenarios. If the target is not armed with any medium or long-range fire-andforget weapons, the attacking aircraft need only get close 115.6 Variants and upgrades enough to the target and launch the AMRAAM. In these scenarios, the AMRAAM has a high chance of hitting, especially against low-maneuverability targets. The launch distance depends upon whether the target is heading towards or away from the firing aircraft. In a head-on engagement, the missile can be launched at longer range, since the range will be closing fast. In this situation, even if the target turns around, it is unlikely it can speed up and fly away fast enough to avoid being overtaken and An AIM-120 AMRAAM missile on display at the U.S. National hit by the missile (as long as the missile is not released Air and Space Museum too early). It is also unlikely the enemy can outmaneuver the missile since the closure rate will be so great. In a tail-on engagement, the firing aircraft might have to close to between one-half and one-quarter maximum range (or maybe even closer for a very fast target) in order to give the missile sufficient energy to overtake the targets. If the targets are armed with missiles, the fire-and-forget nature of the AMRAAM is valuable, enabling the launching aircraft to fire missiles at the target and subsequently take defensive actions. Even if the targets have longerrange semi-active radar homing (SARH) missiles, they will have to chase the launching aircraft in order for the missiles to track them, effectively flying right into the AMRAAM. If the target aircraft fires missiles and then turns and runs away, those missiles will not be able to hit. Of course, if the target aircraft have long range missiles, even if they are not fire-and-forget, the fact that they force the launching aircraft to turn and run reduces the kill probability, since it is possible that without the mid-course updates the missiles will not find the target aircraft. However the chance of success is still good and compared to the relative impunity the launching aircraft enjoy, this gives the AMRAAM-equipped aircraft a decisive edge. If one or more missiles fail to hit, the
AIM-120 AMRAAM (right) fitted in a weapons bay of a F-22 Raptor
115.6.1 Air-to-air missile versions There are currently four main variants of AMRAAM, all in service with the United States Air Force, United States
420 Navy, and the United States Marine Corps. The AIM120A is no longer in production and shares the enlarged wings and fins with the successor AIM-120B. The AIM120C has smaller “clipped” aerosurfaces to enable internal carriage on the USAF F-22 Raptor. AIM-120B deliveries began in 1994.
CHAPTER 115. AIM-120 AMRAAM 161 Standard Missile 3.[14]
The −120A and −120B models are currently nearing the end of their service life while the −120D variant has just entered full production. AMRAAM was due to be replaced by the USAF, the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Marine Corps after 2020 by the Joint Dual Role Air Dominance The AIM-120C deliveries began in 1996. The C-variant Missile (Next Generation Missile). This was unexpecthas been steadily upgraded since it was introduced. The edly terminated in the 2013 budget plan,[15] and so the AIM-120C-6 contained an improved fuse (Target Detec- future replacement is uncertain. tion Device) compared to its predecessor. The AIM120C-7 development began in 1998 and included improvements in homing and greater range (actual amount 115.6.2 Ground-launched systems of improvement unspecified). It was successfully tested in 2003 and is currently being produced for both domestic and foreign customers. It helped the U.S. Navy replace the F-14 Tomcats with F/A-18E/F Super Hornets – the loss of the F-14’s long-range AIM-54 Phoenix missiles (already retired) is offset with a longer-range AMRAAM-D. The lighter weight of the advanced AMRAAM enables an F/A-18E/F pilot greater bring-back weight upon carrier landings. The AIM-120D is an upgraded version of the AMRAAM with improvements in almost all areas, including 50% greater range (than the already-extended range AIM-120C-7) and better guidance over its entire flight envelope yielding an improved kill probability (P ). Raytheon began testing the D model on August 5, 2008, the company reported that an AIM-120D launched from an F/A-18F Super Hornet passed within lethal distance of a QF-4 target drone at the White Sands Missile Range.[12]
Battery of four SL-AMRAAM on HMMWV
Raytheon successfully tested launching AMRAAM missiles from a five-missile carrier on a M1097 Humvee. This system will be known as the SLAMRAAM (Surface Launched (SL) and AMRAAM). They receive their initial guidance information from a radar not mounted on the vehicle. Since the missile is launched without the benefit of an aircraft’s speed or high altitude, its range is considerably shorter. Raytheon is currently marketing an SL-AMRAAM EX, purported to be an extended range AMRAAM and bearing a resemblance to the RIM-162 ESSM.
The AIM-120D (P3I Phase 4, formerly known as AIM120C-8) is a development of the AIM-120C with a twoway data link, more accurate navigation using a GPSenhanced IMU, an expanded no-escape envelope, improved HOBS (High-Angle Off-Boresight) capability, and a 50% increase in range. The AIM-120D is a joint USAF/USN project, and is currently in the testing phase. The USN will field it from 2014, and AIM-120D will be carried by all Pacific carrier groups by 2020, although the The Norwegian Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Sys2013 sequestration cuts could push back this later date to tem (NASAMS), developed by Kongsberg Defence & 2022.[13] Aerospace, consists of a number of vehicle-pulled launch There are also plans for Raytheon to develop a ramjet- batteries (containing six AMRAAMs each) along with powered derivative of the AMRAAM, the Future separate radar trucks and control station vehicles. Medium Range Air-Air Missile (FMRAAM). It is not known whether the FMRAAM will be produced since the target market, the British Ministry of Defence, has chosen the Meteor missile over the FMRAAM for a BVR missile for the Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft.
While still under evaluation for replacement of current US Army assets, the SL-AMRAAM has been deployed in several nations’ military forces. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has requested the purchasing of SLAMRAAM as part of a larger 7 billion dollar foreign The sale would include 288 AMRaytheon is also working with the Missile Defense military sales package. [16] RAAM C-7 missiles. Agency to develop the Network Centric Airborne Defense Element (NCADE), an anti-ballistic missile derived The US Army has test fired the SL-AMRAAM from a from the AIM-120. This weapon will be equipped with HIMARS artillery rocket launcher as a common launcher, a Ramjet engine and an infrared homing seeker derived as part of a move to switch to a larger and more survivable from the Sidewinder missile. In place of a proximity- launch platform.[17][18] fused warhead, the NCADE will use a kinetic energy hitThe National Guard Association of the United States has to-kill vehicle based on the one used in the Navy’s RIMsent a letter asking for the United States Senate to stop
115.8. FOREIGN SALES
421
the Army’s plan to drop the SLAMRAAM program be- 115.8 Foreign sales cause without it there would be no path to modernize the Guard’s AN/TWQ-1 Avenger Battalions.[19] Canadair, now Bombardier, had largely helped with the On January 6, 2011, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates development of the AIM-7 Sparrow and Sparrow II, and announced that the U.S. Army has decided to terminate assisted to a less extent in the AIM-120 development. acquisition of the SLAMRAAM as part of a budget- Canada had placed an order for 256 AIM-120’s, but cancelled half of them after engine ignition problems due to cutting effort.[20] cold weather conditions. The AIM-9X & AIM-7 were On February 22, 2015 Raytheon announced an Extended ordered as replacements. Range upgrade to NASAMS-launched AMRAAM, callIn early 1995 South Korea ordered 88 AIM-120A mising it AMRAAM-ER. siles for its KF-16 fleet. In 1997 South Korea ordered additional 737 AIM-120B missiles.[25][26] In 2006 Poland received AIM-120C-5 missiles to arm its new F-16C/D Block 52+ fighters.[27] In early 2006, the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) ordered 500 AIM-120C-5 AMRAAM missiles as part of a $650 million F-16 ammunition deal to equip its F-16C/D Block 50/52+ and F-16A/B Block 15 MLU fighters. The PAF The AMRAAM was used for the first time on Decem- got the first three F-16C/D Block 50/52+ aircraft on ber 27, 1992, when a USAF F-16D shot down an Iraqi July 3, 2010 and first batch of AMRAAMs on July 26, [28] MiG-25 that violated the southern no-fly-zone.[21] Inter- 2010. estingly enough, this missile was returned from the flight In 2007, the United States government agreed to sell 218 line as defective a day earlier. AMRAAM gained a sec- AIM-120C-7 missiles to Taiwan as part of a large arms ond victory in January 1993 when an Iraqi MiG-23 was sales package that also included 235 AGM-65G-2 Mavshot down by a USAF F-16C. erick missiles. Total value of the package, including The third combat use of the AMRAAM was in 1994, launchers, maintenance, spare parts, support and trainwhen a Republika Srpska Air Force J-21 Jastreb aircraft ing rounds, was estimated at around US$421 million. was shot down by a USAF F-16C that was patrolling the This supplemented an earlier Taiwanese purchase of 120 [27] UN-imposed no-fly-zone over Bosnia. In that engage- AIM-120C-5 missiles a few years ago.
115.7 Operational history
ment at least 3 other Serbian aircraft were shot down by USAF F-16C fighters using AIM-9 missiles (see Banja Luka incident for more details). At that point three launches in combat resulted in three kills, resulting in the AMRAAM being informally named “slammer” in the second half of the 1990s.
2008 has brought announcements of new or additional sales to Singapore, Finland, Morocco and South Korea; in December 2010 the Swiss government requested 150 AIM-120C-7 missiles.[29] Sales to Finland have stalled, because the manufacturer has not been able to fix a mysterious bug that causes the rocket motors of the missile to [30] In 1998 and 1999 AMRAAMs were again fired by USAF fail in cold tests. F-15 fighters at Iraqi aircraft violating the No-Fly-Zone, but this time they failed to hit their targets. During the spring of 1999, AMRAAMs saw their main com115.9 Cold weather malfunctions bat action during Operation Allied Force, the Kosovo bombing campaign. Six Serbian MiG-29 were shot down [31] on September 3, by NATO (4 USAF F-15C, 1 USAF F-16C, 1 Dutch F- Finnish Defence Forces reported 2012 that the United States had not delivered any of the 16A MLU), all of them using AIM-120 missiles (the kill AMRAAM anti-aircraft missiles they had ordered due to by the F-16C may have happened due to friendly fire, [22] a mysterious engine malfunction in cold weather. The from SA-7 MANPAD fired by Serbian infantry). manufacturer, Raytheon, has not been able to determine As of mid 2008, the AIM-120 AMRAAM has shot the cause of the problem. Colonel Kari Renko, an engidown nine aircraft (six MiG-29s, one MiG-25, one neer at the Finnish Air Force, was quoted[31] by Helsingin MiG-23, and one Soko J-21 Jastreb).[22] An AMRAAM Sanomat as saying, “The problem involves the rocket enwas also involved in a friendly-fire incident in 1994 gines which have been in use for decades” and that Finland when F-15 fighters patrolling the Northern No-Fly Zone first was told of the problems by the Americans about two inadvertently shot down a pair of U.S. Army Black Hawk years ago. The reason for the malfunction has been dehelicopters.[23] termined to be a change in the chemical formula of the Since 2007 Raytheon has continued to slip on AMRAAM rocket propellant to comply with new environmental regdeliveries, leading the USAF to withhold $621 million in ulations. The change caused the supplier of AMRAAM 2012 on account of 193 missiles not delivered.[24] rocket motors, Alliant Techsystems, to produce motors
422
CHAPTER 115. AIM-120 AMRAAM
that were unreliable, especially in cold conditions where aircraft carrying them would fly. ATK has been unable to find a solution, and no new AMRAAM missiles had been delivered to the USAF since 2010 as a result. In late 2012, Raytheon solved the problem by selecting Norwegian ammunition manufacturer Nammo Raufoss to be their new supplier of AMRAAM rocket motors.[32]
[5] Aim-120c-5, Designation Systems [6] Зарубежные ракеты воздух-воздух[Foreign air to air missiles], Rusarm (in Russian) (2), 2008, retrieved July 21, 2010 [7] “Multi-service Air-Air, Air-Surface, Surface-Air brevity codes” (PDF). DTIC. April 25, 1997. p. 14. Retrieved April 12, 2012.
115.10 Operators
[8] “Howard Hughes Medical Institute sells Hughes Aircraft Company”. Archived from the original on October 26, 2010. Retrieved April 30, 2014.
115.11 See also
[9] Navy Retires AIM-54 Phoenix Missile, US: Navy
• BVRAAM • FMRAAM • List of missiles
115.11.1
Similar weapons
• AIM-7 Sparrow • AAM-4 • Derby • R-27EA • R-77 • MICA • Meteor • Sky Sword II • PL-12 • Astra
115.12 References Notes [1] “United States Department Of Defense Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request Program Acquisition Cost By Weapon System” (pdf). Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense (Comptroller)/ Chief Financial Officer. March 2014. p. 53. [2] “Updated Weapons File” (PDF). Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC). 2003–2004. Retrieved April 12, 2012. [3] M-120, Designation Systems [4] Richardson, Doug (2002), Stealth – Unsichtbare Flugzeuge (in German), Dietkion-Zürich: Stocker-Schmid, ISBN 37276-7096-7
[10] “Military Analysis Network: AIM-120 AMRAAM Slammer”. FAS. April 14, 2000. Retrieved April 12, 2012. [11] “Assessing the Evidence Provided by AVM Kym Osley, New Air Combat Capability Project Manager (Date: 10 May 2012)". Parliament of Australia. Retrieved June 10, 2012. [12] Raytheon Press Release, 5 August 2008 [13] Greenert, Admiral Jonathan (September 18, 2013). “Statement Before The House Armed Services Committee on Planning For Sequestration in FY 2014 And Perspectives of the Military Services on the Strategic Choices And Management Review” (PDF). US House of Representatives. Retrieved September 21, 2013. [14] “Defense Industry Daily report, 20 November 2008”. Defenseindustrydaily.com. November 20, 2008. Retrieved April 12, 2012. [15] “USAF cancels AMRAAM replacement”. Flight International. February 14, 2012. Retrieved April 12, 2012. [16] “DSCA Announces Billions in Military Sales”. Aviation Week. September 11, 2008. Retrieved April 12, 2012. [17] HIMARS Launcher Successfully Fires Air Defense Missile [18] “Raytheon, Army test new SLAMRAAM platform”. Upi.com. September 10, 2010. Retrieved April 12, 2012. [19] “U.S. Army Recommends SLAMRAAM Termination”. Defensenews.com. Retrieved April 12, 2012. [20] “Statement on Department Budget and Efficiencies” (PDF). U.S. Department of Defense. January 6, 2011. Archived from the original on July 11, 2011. Retrieved July 13, 2011. [21] Bjorkman, Eileen, Small, fast and in your face, Air & Space, February/March 2014, p,35 [22] Air Power Australia. “Air Power Australia: Technical Report APA-TR-2008-0301”. Ausairpower.net. Retrieved April 12, 2012. [23] R. GORDON, MICHAEL (April 15, 1994). “U.S. JETS OVER IRAQ ATTACK OWN HELICOPTERS IN ERROR; ALL 26 ON BOARD ARE KILLED”. New York Times. Retrieved March 18, 2010.
115.13. EXTERNAL LINKS
[24] Farrell, Michael B. “Air Force holding back $621m from Raytheon.” Boston Globe. March 21, 2012. [25] http://newslibrary.naver.com/viewer/index.nhn? articleId=1995081400329102011&editNo=40& printCount=1&publishDate=1995-08-14&officeId= 00032&pageNo=2&printNo=15510&publishType= 00010 [26] http://www.deagel.com/equipment/Air-to-Air-Missiles/ AIM-120-AMRAAM.htm [27] [28] Raytheon Press Release, 15 January 2007 [29] “defence.professionals”. defpro.com. Retrieved December 27, 2010. [30] Outo vika pysäytti ohjuskaupan – Kotimaa – Helsingin Sanomat [31] Helsingin Sanomat – International Edition – Home [32] Nammo is a 50/50 joint venture of the state of Norway and the Finnish partly state-owned Patria corporation. Norwegian Rocket Makers Save AMRAAM – Strategypage.com, December 22, 2012 [33] Gurney, Kyra (15 August 2014). “Infiltration of Chile Air Force Emails Highlights LatAm Cyber Threats”. InSightCrime. [34] “Czech Air force has bought 24 AMRAAMs”. Radio.cz. Retrieved April 12, 2012.
Bibliography • Bonds, Ray; Miller, David (2002). “AIM-120 AMRAAM”. Illustrated Directory of Modern American Weapons. Zenith. ISBN 0-7603-1346-6. • Clancy, Tom (1995). “Ordnance: How Bombs Got 'Smart'". Fighter Wing. London: Harper Collins. ISBN 0-00-255527-1.
115.13 External links • AIM-120 at Designation-Systems.
423
Chapter 116
AN/TWQ-1 Avenger The Avenger Air Defense System, designated AN/TWQ-1 under the Joint Electronics Type Designation System, is an American self-propelled surface-to-air missile system which provides mobile, short-range air defense protection for ground units against cruise missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, low-flying fixed-wing aircraft, and helicopters.[1]
The first operational deployment of the system occurred during the buildup for the Persian Gulf War. With the success of this deployment, the U.S. Army signed an additional contract for another 679 vehicles, bringing the total order to 1,004 units. The Avenger was again successfully deployed in support of NATO operations during the Bosnian War.[3] The Avenger system received widespread The Avenger was originally developed for the United public exposure when it was placed around the Pentagon during the first anniversary of the September 11 attacks States Armed Forces and is currently used by the U.S. [5] Army. The Avenger system was also used by the U.S. of 2001. The Avenger has also been deployed during the U.S. military’s operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.[3] Marine Corps.[2]
116.2 Overview
116.1 History Originally developed as a private venture by Boeing in the 1980s, the Avenger was developed over a period of only 10 months from initial concept to delivery for testing to the U.S. Army. Initial testing was conducted in May 1984 at the Army’s Yakima Training Center in the U.S. state of Washington. During testing three FIM-92 Stinger missiles were fired. During the first test firing the system achieved a direct hit while moving at 20 mph (30 km/h).[1]
The second test firing, conducted at night while stationary, also achieved a direct hit. The third test firing, conducted while on the move and in the rain, did not achieve a direct hit, but did however, pass within the missile’s kill range and the shot was scored as a tactical kill. All three test shots were conducted by operators who had never A Stinger missile being launched from an Avenger platform at Onslow Beach, North Carolina, in April 2000. fired the missile before.[1] In 1987, the U.S. Army awarded the first production contract for 325 units.[3] In 1989, the system began its Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) series of tests. The tests were conducted in two stages with Stage 1 consisting of acquisition and tracking trials at Fort Hunter Liggett, California and Stage 2 consisting of livefire testing at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. In February 1990, the Avenger system was deemed operationally effective and began replacing the M163 and M167 VADS.[4] Two variants were deployed based on the Humvee chassis: M998 HMMWV Avenger and M1097 Heavy HMMWV Avenger.
The Avenger comes mainly in three configurations, the Basic, Slew-to-Cue, and the Up-Gun. The Basic configuration consists of a gyro-stabilized air defense turret mounted on a modified heavy Humvee. The turret has two Stinger missile launcher pods, each capable of firing up to 4 fire-and-forget infrared/ultraviolet guided missiles in rapid succession.[1] The Avenger can be linked to the Forward Area Air Defense Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence (FAAD C3I) system, which permits external radar tracks and messages to be passed to the fire unit to alert and cue the gunner.[4]
424
116.4. SPECIFICATIONS
425
Avenger has been pressed into this role.[8] The FLIR/laser rangefinder combined with the .50 cal machine gun has proven very effective, but is limited by no-fire zones, particularly to the front of the vehicle.[9] A program was instituted to remove one of the missile pods and move the machine gun to that position to enable a 360° field of fire.[10] This upgrade also increased the ammunition The Up-Gun Avenger was developed specifically for the capacity to 650 rounds. 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment for the Regiment’s 2005 deployment to Iraq. The modification was designed to al- 116.3.4 Avenger DEW low the Avenger to perform unit and asset defense in addition to its air defense mission. The right missile pod was Another potential variant proposed by Boeing is an removed and the M3P .50 cal machine gun was moved to Avenger with a Directed Energy Weapon (DEW). Boethe pod’s former position. This allowed for the removal ing completed an initial test of a 1 kilowatt laser mounted of the turret’s cab safety limits which enabled the gun where the right missile pod would be.[11] The M3P .50 cal to be fired directly in front of the HMMWV.[7] Eight of has been replaced by the M242 Bushmaster as its close the unit’s Avengers were modified to this configuration.[3] defense weapon. With the 3rd ACR’s redeployment from Iraq, the Up-Gun Avenger completed its role in Operation Iraqi Freedom and the Avengers have been scheduled to be converted 116.3.5 Avenger Multi-Role Weapon Sysback to STC systems. tem The Slew-to-Cue (STC) subsystem allows the commander or gunner to select a FAAD C3I reported target for engagement from a display on a Targeting Console developed from VT Miltope’s Pony PCU.[6] Once the target has been selected, the turret can be automatically slewed directly to the target with limited interaction by the gunner.[4]
Test firing demonstrations took place in 2004 of this variant modified by re-locating the M3P machine gun over the turret cab to allow a 360-degree field of fire, increas116.3.1 Boeing/Shorts Starstreak Avenger ing ready-use machine gun ammunition stowage to 600 rounds, and providing the option to substitute launch2 FGM-148 Javelin missiles in place of 1 Stinger Boeing teamed with Shorts Brothers PLC to offer the ers for [12] pod. Avenger system modified by replacing 1 Stinger pod with a pod of 4 Shorts Starstreak Hyper-velocity laser-guided missiles in the hopes of attracting a U.S. Army contract 116.3.6 Accelerated Improved Interceptor under the Forward Area Air Defense System Line-ofInitiative (AI3) Sight Rear (FAADS-LOS-R) program. Test installation was carried out in mid-1990 and firing trials followed Raytheon was awarded a contract to from mid-1991 in the U.K. Starstreak would comple- In February 2012 [13] develop the AI3. ment the Stinger by improving the overall systems ability to deal with low hovering helicopters which frequently In 2013, The US Army decided to not buy the system.[14] do not provide enough contrast for lock-on by infrared In 2014 the system successfully intercepted a cruise misguided missiles. Starstreak also has the ability to be used sile target in a test. [15] against un-armored and lightly armored ground vehicles.
116.3 Variants
116.3.2
Boeing/Matra Guardian
In the 1990s Boeing teamed with Matra of France to offer the Avenger modified by the substitution of standard triple launcher boxes for Matra Mistral missiles in place of the quadruple Stinger pods of the standard Avenger. One demonstrator vehicle was built in 1992 and test firings took place in France. The project was dropped around 1997.
116.3.3
Avengers during the Iraq War
Due to the lack of serious airborne threats during much of the Iraq War, along with the pressing need for ground assets for combat roles such as convoy protection, the
116.3.7 Other variants Boeing have proposed that the Avenger PMS turret could be mounted on other vehicles such as Unimog truck, BV206 all-terrain vehicles, M113 APC, and M548 tracked cargo carrier as well as being used as a stationary ground mount on a pallet for defense of static targets. The Avenger PMS has been demonstrated with a mock-up of two 70 mm helicopter-type rocket pods carrying a total of 36 rockets to give the system greater multi-mission utility. Other missiles such as the Bofors RBS 70/Bolide have been proposed for use on the Avenger PMS.
116.4 Specifications
426
CHAPTER 116. AN/TWQ-1 AVENGER
116.4.1
Dimensions
116.6 See also
• Length – 16 ft 3 in (4.95 m)
• Anti-aircraft warfare
• Width – 7 ft 2 in (2.18 m)
• Atılgan PMADS
• Height – 8 ft 8 in (2.64 m)
• FIM-92 Stinger
• Weight – 8,600 lb (3,900 kg)
• Joint Electronics Type Designation System
• Crew – 2 (Basic), 3 (STC)
• United States Army Aviation and Missile Command
• Road speed – 55 mph (89 km/h) • Range – 275 miles (440 km) • Engine – Detroit Diesel cooled V-8 • Engine power output – 135 hp (99 kW)
116.4.2
• Type 93 Surface-to-air missile • 9K35 Strela-10 • SA-9 Gaskin
Sensors
• Forward Looking Infrared Receiver (FLIR) • Eye Safe Laser rangefinder • Optical sight
116.4.3
116.6.1 Comparable systems
Weapons
116.7 References [1] Avenger AN/TWQ-1 (United States) - Jane’s Land Based Air Defense [2] - Details of Avenger use by the USMC [3] Avenger Low Level Air Defense System, USA- Army Technology
• 4/8 ready-to-fire FIM-92 Stinger missiles
[4] Avenger (Pedestal Mounted Stinger) - GlobalSecurity.org
• 1 M3P machine gun built by FN Herstal,[16] a variant of the Browning AN/M3 developed for aviation use during World War II. It is a .50 caliber machine gun with an electronic trigger that can be fired from both the remote control unit (RCU) located in the drivers cab, and from the handstation located in the Avenger turret. It has a 950 to 1200 rounds per minute firing rate. Loads one box of 200–250 rounds at a time.
[5] Stinger Missile In Nation’s Capital - Life
116.5 Operators • •
Bahrain – Received in 2003
[6] Pony PCU (United States) - Janes C4I Systems [7] Boeing Frontiers Online - Boeing team gives troops in Middle East extra firepower [8] Air Defense Artillery April-June 2005 [9] FM 44-44 - AVENGER PLATOON, SECTION, AND SQUAD OPERATIONS [10] Giving Troops Extra Firepower - Boeing [11] Popular Mechanics - Boeing Laser Avenger - Humvee Hunts IEDs and Bombs in Tests [12] Javelin Avenger Variant Testing Details - Defense Update
Chile – To receive 36 AN/TWQ-1 Avenger units plus 578 Stinger missiles [13] “Accelerated Improved Interceptor Initiative (AI3)"
[14] Fein, Geoff (21 October 2013). “AUSA 2013: US Army halts AI3 C-RAM buy despite successful tests”. IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly. Retrieved 4 September 2014.
•
Egypt
•
Iraq – 40 on order plus 681 Stinger missiles
•
Lithuania – Received in 2007
•
Taiwan
[15] Forrester, Anna (August 29, 2014). “Thomas Bussing: Raytheon AI3 Missile Built to Complement Army Ground Weapon System”. ExecutiveBiz. Retrieved 4 September 2014.
•
United States – Used by the U.S. Army
[16] “FN Herstal Airborne Gun Systems”.
116.8. EXTERNAL LINKS
116.8 External links • U.S. Army Technology Avenger Project Details • U.S. Army Fact File
427
Chapter 117
GTR-18 Smokey Sam The GTR-18A, commonly known as the Smokey Sam, is a small unguided rocket developed by Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWCWD) in China Lake, California as a threat simulator for use during military exercises. Widely used in training, the Smokey Sam remains in operational service with the United States military.
117.1 Design and development The GTR-18 was conceived in the late 1970s by Robert A. McLellan, a Weapons Range Scientist working with RED FLAG at Nellis AFB. He first searched for a commercially available system that would perform as he envisioned. It quickly became apparent that no commercial product would perform adequately, so the development of the GTR-18 was undertaken by the Naval Weapons Center (NWC) during the early 1980s, with the intent of developing Mr. McLellan’s idea of a simple and inexpensive rocket for visually simulating the launch of surfaceto-air missiles (SAMs) during training exercises.[1]
A GTR-18 is launched at the Crow Valley Range Complex.
Receiving the altered designation DGTR-18A in the early 1990s, the Smokey Sam remains in production and operational service, being extensively used by the U.S. military.[1]
117.3 References
Constructed from phenolic paper and styrofoam, the Smokey Sam is designed for minimal cost and, in the Notes event of accidentally striking low-flying aircraft, to cause [1] Parsch 2002 minimal damage.[1] [2] Kitfield 1995, p.166.
117.2 Operational history
[3] Taylor 2006
The complete launch system, known as the Smokey Sam Bibliography Simulator, includes single- and four-rail launching pads, an AN/VPQ-1 radar set, and the GTR-18A rockets them• Kitfield, James (1995). Prodigal Soldiers: How selves, making up the SMU-124/E system as a whole.[1] the Generation of Officers Born of Vietnam Revolutionzed the American Style of War. New York: SiWhen launched, the GTR-18’s rocket motor produces a mon & Schuster. ISBN 0-671-76925-1. distinctive white plume, providing a realistic simulation of the launch of a surface-to-air missile.[2] While the ordinary GTR-18A has a simple, model rocket type motor, an improved 'Dual Thrust Smokey Sam' tested in the early 2000s featured a modified rocket motor, providing a 1.5 second boost period, followed by a lower-thrust sustainer burn with burnout occurring at 7.1 seconds after launch.[3] 428
• Parsch, Andreas (2002). “NWC GTR-18 Smokey Sam”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-0105. • Taylor, Bill (9 March 2006). “Dual Thrust Modified Smokey Sam for Low Cost Testing and Simulation”.
117.3. REFERENCES NDIA 22nd National Test & Evaluation Conference. Sensor Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory. Retrieved 2011-01-06.
429
Chapter 118
Operation Bumblebee Not to be confused with Operation Bumblebee (UK). Talos. The Terrier was later modified as a short-range Operation Bumblebee was a US Navy effort to develop missile system for smaller ships, entering service in 1963 as the RIM-24 Tartar. Together, the three missiles were known as the “3 T’s”. Bumblebee was not the only early Navy SAM project; the SAM-N-2 Lark was rushed into production as a shortrange counter to the Kamikaze threat, but never matured into an operational weapon.
118.1 Origin
RIM-8 Talos test firing
Navy ships were hit by air-launched Henschel Hs 293 glide bombs and Fritz X anti-ship missiles during 1943. A ramjet-powered anti-aircraft missile was proposed to destroy aircraft launching such weapons while remaining beyond the range of shipboard artillery.[3] Initial performance goals were target intercept at a horizontal range of 10 miles and 30,000 feet altitude, with a 300 to 600 pound warhead for a 30 to 60 percent kill probability.[4] Heavy shipping losses to Kamikaze attacks during the Battle of Okinawa provided additional incentive for guided missile development.[3]
surface to air missiles (SAMs) to provide a mid-range layer of anti-aircraft defence, between anti-aircraft guns in the short range and fighter aircraft operating at long range. A major reason for the Bumblebee efforts was the need to attack bombers before they could launch standoff 118.2 Field testing anti-shipping weapons, as these aircraft might never enter the range of the shipboard guns. In addition to initial tests at the Island Beach, New JerBumblebee originally concentrated on a ramjet pow- sey, and Fort Miles, Delaware, temporary sites,[5] Camp ered design, and the initial Applied Physics Lab PTV- Davis, North Carolina, was used for Operation BumbleN-4 Cobra/BTV (Propulsion Test Vehicle/Burner Test bee from c. June 1, 1946, to July 28, 1948.[6] Topsail Vehicle)[1] was flown in October 1945.[2] The Cobra Island, North Carolina, became the permanent Bumbleeventually emerged as the RIM-8 Talos, which entered bee testing and launch facility in March 1947.[5] The Topservice on 28 May 1958 aboard the USS Galveston. As sail Historical Society hosts the Missiles and More Mupart of the development program, several other vehicles seum at the site. Testing was transferred to Naval Air were also developed. One of these developed into the Weapons Station China Lake and then to White Sands RIM-2 Terrier, which gained operational status on the Missile Range in 1951 where USS Desert Ship (LLS-1) USS Canberra on 15 June 1956, two years before the was built as a prototype Talos launch facility.[3] 430
118.5. EXTERNAL LINKS
118.3 Program results The RIM-2 Terrier, devised as a test vehicle, became operational as a fleet anti-aircraft missile aboard USS Boston in 1955, and evolved into the RIM-66 Standard. Talos became operational with the fleet aboard USS Galveston in February, 1959, and saw combat use during the Vietnam War. Ramjet knowledge acquired during the program aided development of the XB-70 Valkyrie and the SR71 Blackbird. Solid fuel boosters developed to bring the ramjet to operational velocity formed the basis for larger solid fuel rocket motors for ICBMs, satellite launch vehicles and the space shuttle.[4]
118.4 References [1] Parsch, Andreas. “PTV-N-4”. Retrieved 2009-07-30. [2] Parsch, Andreas. “Cobra-BTV”. astronautix.com. Retrieved 2009-03-19. [3] “A Brief History of White Sands Proving Ground 19411965”. New Mexico State University. Retrieved 201008-19. [4] “Talos Missile History”. Hays, Philip R. Retrieved 201008-19. [5] “US Naval Ordnance Test Facilities, Topsail Island MPS”. From Sand Dunes to Sonic Booms. NPS.gov. Retrieved 2009-03-19. [6] Jones, Wilbur D. (Jr) (2005). The Journey Continues: The World War II Home Front. Shippensburg, PA: White Mane Books. p. 83. ISBN 1-57249-365-8.
118.5 External links • Topsail Historical Society’s Missiles and More Museum
431
Chapter 119
RIM-50 Typhon The RIM-50 Typhon LR was a missile that was intended to be a Terrier missile–sized replacement to the Talos missile to be used with the Typhon combat system.[1] The RIM-50 was canceled in 1963 along with the medium range RIM-55, when the Typhon combat system was canceled. The technology in development for this missile was incorporated in to the RIM-67 Standard missile.
119.1 See also • AN/SPG-59
119.2 References [1] Bendix RIM-50 Typhon LR
119.3 External links • RIM-50 Typhon—GlobalSecurity.org • Bendix SAM-N-8/RIM-50 Typhon LR—Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles • Bendix SAM-N-9/RIM-55 Typhon MR— Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles
432
Chapter 120
RIM-67 Standard See also: Standard Missile (disambiguation)
retained. This design change was made so that missiles could time share illumination radars and enable equipped The RIM-67 Standard ER (SM-1ER/SM-2ER) is an ships to defend against saturation missile attacks. extended range surface-to-air missile (SAM) and anti Terrier ships reequipped as part of the New Threat Upship missile originally developed for the United States grade were refit to operate the RIM-67B (SM-2ER Block Navy (USN). The RIM-67 was developed as a replace- II) missile. However, Aegis ships were not equipped with ment for the RIM-8 Talos, a 1950s system deployed on a launchers that had space enough for the longer RIM-67B. variety of USN ships, and eventually replaced the RIM- The RIM-156A Standard SM-2ER Block IV with the Mk 2 Terrier as well since it was of a similar size and fitted 72 booster was developed to compensate for the lack of a existing Terrier launchers and magazines. The RIM-66 long range SAM for the Ticonderoga-class of Aegis cruisStandard MR was essentially the same missile without ers. The Mk72 booster allows the RIM-156A to fit into the booster stage, designed to replace the RIM-24 Tar- the Mk41 guided missile launch system. This configuratar. The RIM-66/67 series thus became the US Navy’s tion can also be used for Terminal phase Ballistic Missile universal SAM system, hence “Standard Missile.” Defense.[1]
120.1 RIM-67A SM-1 Extended Range The RIM-67A (SM-1ER Block I) was the Navy’s replacement for RIM-8 Talos missile. Improved technology allowed the RIM-67 to be reduced to the size of the earlier RIM-2 Terrier missile. Existing ships with the Mk86 guided missile fire control system, or “Terrier” were adapted to employ the new missile in place of the older RIM-2 Terrier missile. Ships that switched from the RIM-2 Terrier to the RIM-67A were still referred to as Terrier ships even though they were equipped with the An SM-2ER on the rail inside USS Mahan (DDG-42). newer missile.
120.2 RIM-67 and RIM-156 SM-2 Extended Range The second generation of Standard missile, the Standard Missile 2, was developed for the Aegis combat system, and New Threat Upgrade program that was planned for existing Terrier and Tartar ships. USS Mahan (DDG42) served as the test platform for the development of the CG/SM-2 (ER) missile program project. The principal change over the Standard missile 1 is the introduction of inertial guidance for each phase of the missile’s flight except the terminal phase where semi-active homing was
There was a plan to build a nuclear armed standard missile mounting a W81 nuclear warhead as a replacement for the earlier Nuclear Terrier missile (RIM-2D). The USN rescinded the requirement for the nuclear armed missile in the 1980s, and the project was canceled.[2] The Standard can also be used against ships, either at lineof-sight range using its semi-active homing mode, or over the horizon using inertial guidance and terminal infrared homing.[3] A new generation of Standard extended range missiles is expected to become operational in 2011. This missile is covered in a separate article. Please see RIM-174 Standard ERAM for details.
433
434
CHAPTER 120. RIM-67 STANDARD
120.3 Operational history During the Iran–Iraq War (1980–1988) the United States had deployed Standard missiles to protect its navy, as well as other ships in the Persian Gulf from the threat of Iranian attacks. According to the Iranian Air Force, its F-4 Phantom IIs were engaged by SM-2ERs but managed to evade them, with one aircraft sustaining non-fatal damage due to shrapnel.[4] During the same war United States navy accidentally shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, Iran Air Flight 655 using two SM-2 missiles. On April 18, 1988, during Operation Praying Mantis, USS Simpson (FFG-56) fired four RIM-66 Standard missiles and USS Wainwright (CG-28) fired two RIM-67 Standard missiles at Joshan, an Iranian (Combattante II) Kaman-class frigate. The attacks destroyed the Iranian ship’s superstructure but did not sink it.
120.3.1
Deployment
RIM-67 Standard was deployed on ships of the following classes, replacing the RIM-2 Terrier, and it never was VLS-capable. All of the ships used the AN/SPG-55 for guidance. The Mk10 guided missile launching system was used as the launching system. New Threat Upgrade equipped vessels operated the RIM-67B which used inertial guidance for every phase of the intercept except for the terminal phase where the AN/SPG-55 radar illuminates the target. • USS Long Beach (CGN-9) SM-1ER later SM-2ER with NTU. • Farragut class destroyers SM-1ER later SM-2ER with NTU (USS Mahan only). • Leahy-class cruisers SM-1ER later SM-2ER with NTU. • USS Bainbridge (CGN-25) SM-1ER later SM-2ER with NTU. • Belknap-class cruisers SM-1ER later SM-2ER with NTU. • USS Truxtun (CGN-35) SM-1ER later SM-2ER with NTU. • Italian cruiser Vittorio Veneto SM-1ER Only. The RIM-156 Standard Block IV, is a version that has been developed for Aegis Combat System it has a smaller compact sized booster stage for firing from the Mk41 Guided missile launch system. Like the earlier RIM67B it employs inertial/command guidance with terminal semi-active homing. • Ticonderoga-class cruisers (VLS units only) • Arleigh Burke-class destroyers
RIM-67A Launching
The last vessel to operate the RIM-67 was the Italian cruiser Vittorio Veneto which was retired in 2003. The RIM-174 Standard ERAM or Standard Missile Six has superseded the RIM-156A in production. The RIM156A remains in service as of 2010. RIM-67 Standard missiles have been withdrawn from service, remaining rounds are being re-manufactured in to GQM-163 Coyote supersonic targets.
120.4 Surface to air variants 120.5 Gallery RIM-67 intercepting Firebee drone in 1980 test.
• Blue training missiles on the rails of a MK-10 GMLS on USS Josephus Daniels (CG-27)
120.8. EXTERNAL LINKS
435
[2] Raytheon RIM-67 Standard ER [3] Canadian Forces Maritime Command. Standard missile. Accessed June 5, 2006. [4] . Accessed October 7, 2007.
120.8 External links • Raytheon Standard missile website, mfr of Standard missiles • Designation systems.net - RIM-67 • FAS - SM-2ER • GlobalSecurity.org - SM-2 • Navweaps.com
A RIM-156A (VLS version of the RIM-67) launching from a VLS cell on USS Lake Erie in 2008.
• USS Worden (CG-18) showing the Mk 10 GMLS. Note the launcher at left, the blast doors behind launcher where the missiles exit the launcher feeder and AN/SPG-55 radars at middle right. • An SM-2ER in the magazine area, on a ready service ring of the Mk-10 GMLS on USS Mahan (DDG-42)
120.6 See also • RIM-2 Terrier - predecessor • RIM-8 Talos - predecessor • RIM-24 Tartar • AGM-78 Standard ARM • RIM-66 Standard Medium Range • RIM-161 Standard SM-3 • RIM-174 Standard ERAM - successor
120.7 References [1] Aegis BMD Project Office. Standard missile. Accessed September 26, 2009.
Chapter 121
RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile For the earlier weapon named Ram, see Ram (rocket).
121.2 Service
The RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) is a small, lightweight, infrared homing surface-to-air missile in use by the American, German, South Korean, Greek, Turkish, Japan, Saudi and Egyptian navies. It was intended originally and used primarily as a point-defense weapon against anti-ship cruise missiles. The missile is so-named because it rolls around its longitudinal axis to stabilize its flight path, much like a bullet fired from a rifled barrel. It is the only US Navy missile to operate in this manner.[2]
The RIM-116 is in service on several American and 30 German warships. All new German Navy warships will be equipped with the RAM, such as the new Braunschweig-class corvettes, which will mount two RAM launchers per ship. The Greek Navy has equipped the new Super Vita class fast attack craft with the RAM. South Korea has signed license-production contracts for their navy’s KDX-II, KDX-III, and Dokdo-class amphibious assault ship.[3]
The Rolling Airframe Missiles, together with the Mk 49 Guided Missile Launching System (GMLS) and support equipment, comprise the RAM Mk 31 Guided Missile Weapon System (GMWS). The Mk-144 Guided Missile Launcher (GML) unit weighs 5,777 kilograms (12,736 lb) and stores 21 missiles. The original weapon cannot employ its own sensors prior to firing so it must be integrated with a ship’s combat system, which directs the launcher at targets. On American ships it is integrated with the AN/SWY-2 Ship Defense Surface Missile System (SDSMS) and Ship Self Defense System (SSDS) Mk 1 or Mk 2 based combat systems. SeaRAM, a weapon system model equipped with independent sensors, is undergoing testing.
121.2.1 US Navy The U.S. Navy plans to purchase a total of about 1,600 RAMs and 115 launchers to equip 74 ships. The missile is currently active aboard Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers, Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, Wasp-class amphibious assault ships, Tarawa-class amphibious assault ships, San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ships, Whidbey Island-class dock landing ship, Harpers Ferry-class dock landing ships, and littoral combat ships (LCS).[4]
121.3 Variants 121.1 Development 121.3.1 Block 0 The RIM-116 was developed by General Dynamics Pomona and Valley Systems divisions under a July 1976 agreement with Denmark and West Germany (the General Dynamics missile business was later acquired by Hughes Aircraft and is today part of Raytheon). Denmark dropped out of the program, but the USN joined in as the major partner. The Mk 49 launcher was evaluated on board the destroyer USS David R. Ray (DD-971) in the late 1980s.[2] The first 30 missiles were built in FY85 and they became operational on 14 November 1992, on board USS Peleliu (LHA-5).
Also known as RIM-116A in US service, the original version called Block 0 whose design is based on that of the AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missile, from which it took its rocket motor, fuze, and warhead. Block 0 missiles initially home in on active radiation emitted from a target (such as the radar of an incoming anti-ship missile). Then, the terminal guidance is done by an infrared seeker derived from that of the FIM-92 Stinger missile. In test firings, the Block 0 missiles achieved hit rates of over 95%.
436
121.3. VARIANTS
437 siles in a salvo and directly hitting the target. This verified the command and control capabilities of the system, upgraded kinematic performance, guidance system, and airframe capabilities. Raytheon was scheduled to deliver 25 Block 2 missiles during the integrated testing phase of the program.[6][7] The Block 2 RAM was delivered to the U.S. Navy in late August 2014,[8] with 502 missiles to be acquired from 2015 to 2019.[9]
121.3.4 HAS Mode
Sailors handle the rolling airframe missile system aboard the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75).
In 1998, a memorandum of understanding was signed by the defense departments of Germany and the United States to improve the system, so that it could also engage so-called “HAS”, Helicopter, Aircraft, and Surface targets. As developed, the HAS upgrade just required software modifications that can be applied to all Block 1 RAM missiles.
121.3.5 SeaRAM (weapon system)
The aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) launches a Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM)
121.3.2
Block 1
The Block 1 (RIM-116B) is an improved version of the RAM missile that adds an overall infrared-only guidance system that enables it to intercept missiles that are not emitting any radar signals. The Block 0’s radar homing capabilities have been retained.
121.3.3
Block 2
The RAM Block 2 is an upgraded version of the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) ship self-defense missile system. The RAM Block 2 missile upgrade aim is to more effectively counter the emerging threat of more maneuverable anti-ship missiles. The US Navy awarded Raytheon Missile Systems a $105 million Block 2 RAM development contract on 8 May 2007, with the missile development expected to complete by December 2010. LRIP began in 2012.[5] 51 missiles were initially ordered. On 22 October 2012, the RAM Block 2 completed its third guided test vehicle flight, firing two mis-
SeaRAM
The SeaRAM combines the radar and electro-optical system[2] of the Phalanx CIWS Mk-15 Block 1B (CRDC) with an 11-cell RAM launcher to produce an autonomous system - one which does not need any external information to engage threats. Like the Phalanx, SeaRAM can be fitted to any class of ship. In 2008 a SeaRAM system was delivered to be installed on USS Independence (LCS-2).[10] As of December 2013, one SeaRAM is fitted to each Independence-class vessel.[11] In late 2014, the Navy revealed it had chosen to install the SeaRAM on its Small Surface Combatant LCS follow-on ships.[12]
438
CHAPTER 121. RIM-116 ROLLING AIRFRAME MISSILE
121.4 General (Block 1)
characteristics
Surface-to-air (SAM) missile being fired from USS Green Bay (LPD-20)
• Primary Function: Surface-to-Air Missile • Contractor: Raytheon, Diehl BGT Defence • Length: 2.79 m (9 ft 2 in)
RAM Launcher on fast attack craft Ozelot of the German Navy.
• Diameter: 127 mm (5.0 in) • Fin span: 434 mm (1 ft 5.1 in)
•
Turkey
• Speed: Mach 2.0+
•
United Arab Emirates
•
United States
•
Germany
• Warhead: 11.3 kg (24.9 lb) blast fragmentation • Launch Weight: 73.5 kg (162 lb) • Range: 9 km (5.6 mi) • Guidance System: three modes—passive radio frequency/infrared homing, infrared only, or infrared dual mode enabled (radio frequency and infrared homing) • Unit Cost: $998,000 • Date Deployed: 1992
121.5 Operators
121.6 References Notes [1] “United States Department Of Defense Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request Program Acquisition Cost By Weapon System” (pdf). Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense (Comptroller)/ Chief Financial Officer. March 2014. p. 63.
•
Egypt
[2] Norman Polmar (2005). Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet. The Naval Institute. p. 519.
•
Saudi Arabia
[3] “PGM - Precision Guided Munitions”. LigNex1.com. Retrieved 31 October 2014.
•
Greece
•
Japan [13]
[5] “Raytheon’s RAM Strikes Twice During Back-to-Back Tests.” Raytheon, 39 January 2012.
•
South Korea
[6] RAM Block 2 Missile Successful in Double-fire Test Deagel.com, 22 October 2012
[4]
121.7. EXTERNAL LINKS
[7] “Rolling Airframe Missile Block 2 completes initial fleet firing”. 12 August 2013. [8] Raytheon delivers first Block 2 Rolling Airframe Missiles to US Navy - Raytheon news release, 27 August 2014 [9] Navy to Accept New Rolling Airframe Missile - DoDBuzz.com, 19 May 2014 [10] “Raytheon Company has delivered its SeaRAM anti-ship missile defense weapon system for installation aboard the littoral combat ship USS Independence (LCS-2)" (Press release). Raytheon. Retrieved 15 September 2010. [11] “Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) High-Speed Surface Ship”. www.naval-technology.com. Retrieved 14 December 2013. [12] Hagel Approves Navy’s Proposal to Build More Lethal LCS Variant - Military.com, 11 December 2014 [13] “SeaRAM, Close-In Weapon System - Japanese Example Ship”. military-today.com. Retrieved 2013-08-13.
Bibliography • Norman, Polmar (15 January 2005). The Naval Institute Guide to the Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet (Hardcover, 18th ed.). Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. p. 519. ISBN 978-1-59114-685-8. retrieved 15 September 2010.
121.7 External links • RIM-116 RAM Rolling Airframe Missile - GlobalSecurity.org • RIM-116 RAM - Rolling Airframe Missile - waffenHQ.de • Raytheon (General Dynamics) RIM-116 RAM Designation Systems • RAM on the Homepage of German developer and manufacturer Diehl BGT (in English)
439
Chapter 122
RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 See also: Standard Missile (disambiguation)
rean attack with fewer deployed ships” but it is also the key element of the EPAA phase 3 deployment in Europe. The RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) is a ship- The Block IIA is being jointly developed by Raytheon and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries; the latter manages “the based missile system used by the US Navy to intercept budshort-to intermediate-range ballistic missiles as a part of third-stage rocket motor and nose cone”. The U.S. [8] geted cost to date is $1.51 billion for the Block IIA. [4] Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. Although primarily designed as an anti-ballistic missile, the SM-3 has also been employed in an anti-satellite capacity against a satellite at the lower end of low Earth orbit.[5] The SM-3 122.2 Operation and performance is primarily used and tested by the United States Navy and also operated by the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force. The ship’s AN/SPY-1 radar finds the ballistic missile tar-
122.1 Motivation and development The SM-3 evolved from the proven SM-2 Block IV design. The SM-3 uses the same solid rocket booster and dual thrust rocket motor as the Block IV missile for the first and second stages and the same steering control section and midcourse missile guidance for maneuvering in the atmosphere. To support the extended range of an exoatmospheric intercept, additional missile thrust is provided in a new third stage for the SM-3 missile, containing a dual pulse rocket motor for the early exo-atmospheric phase of flight.[6] Initial work was done to adapt SM-3 for land deployment (“Aegis ashore”) to especially accommodate the Israelis, but they then chose to pursue their own system, the NATO code-name Arrow 3. A group in the Obama administration envisioned a European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) and SM-3 was chosen as the main vector of this effort because the competing U.S. THAAD does not have enough range and would have required too many sites in Europe to provide adequate coverage. Compared to the GMD's Ground-Based Interceptor however, the SM-3 Block I has about 1 ⁄5 to 1 ⁄6 of the range. A significant improvement in this respect, the SM-3 Block II variant widens the missile’s diameter from 0.34 m (13.5 in) to .53 m (21 in), making it more suitable against intermediate-range ballistic missiles.[7]
get and the Aegis weapon system calculates a solution on the target. When the missile is ordered to launch, the Aerojet MK 72 solid-fuel rocket booster launches the SM-3 out of the ship’s Mark 41 vertical launching system (VLS). The missile then establishes communication with the launching ship. Once the booster burns out, it detaches, and the Aerojet MK 104 solid-fuel dual thrust rocket motor (DTRM) takes over propulsion through the atmosphere. The missile continues to receive mid-course guidance information from the launching ship and is aided by GPS data. The ATK MK 136 solid-fueled third-stage rocket motor (TSRM) fires after the second stage burns out, and it takes the missile above the atmosphere (if needed). The TSRM is pulse fired and provides propulsion for the SM-3 until 30 seconds to intercept. At that point the third stage separates, and the Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile (LEAP) kinetic warhead (KW) begins to search for the target using pointing data from the launching ship. The Aerojet throttleable divert and attitude control system (TDACS) allows the kinetic warhead to maneuver in the final phase of the engagement. The KW’s sensors identify the target, attempt to identify the most lethal part of the target and steers the KW to that point. If the KW intercepts the target, it provides 130 megajoules (96,000,000 ft·lbf, 31 kg TNT equivalent) of kinetic energy at the point of impact.[9]
Independent studies by some physics experts have raised some significant questions about the missile’s success rate in hitting targets.[10][11][12] In a published response, the Defense Department claimed that these findings were inThe Block IIA missile is largely new sharing only the first- valid, as the analysts used some early launches as their stage motor with the Block I. The Block IIA was “de- data, when those launches were not significant to the signed to allow for Japan to protect against a North Ko- overall program.[13] The DoD stated: 440
122.3. VARIANTS ...the first tests [used] prototype interceptors; expensive mock warheads weren’t used in the tests since specific lethality capability wasn’t a test objective—the objective was to hit the target missile. Contrary to the assertions of Postol and Lewis, all three tests resulted in successful target hits with the unitary ballistic missile target destroyed. This provided empirical evidence that ballistic missile intercepts could in fact be accomplished at sea using interceptors launched from Aegis ships. After successful completion of these early developmental tests, the test program progressed from just “hitting the target” to one of determining lethality and proving the operationally configured Aegis SM-3 Block I and SM-3 Block 1A system. These tests were the MDA’s most comprehensive and realistic test series, resulting in the Operational Test and Evaluation Force’s October 2008 Evaluation Report stating that Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Block 04 3.6 System was operationally effective and suitable for transition to the Navy. Since 2002, a total of 19 SM-3 missiles have been fired in 16 different test events resulting in 16 intercepts against threatrepresentative full-size and more challenging subscale unitary and full-size targets with separating warheads. In addition, a modified Aegis BMD/SM-3 system successfully destroyed a malfunctioning U.S. satellite by hitting the satellite in the right spot to negate the hazardous fuel tank at the highest closure rate of any ballistic missile defense technology ever attempted. The authors of the SM-3 study cited only tests involving unitary targets, and chose not to cite the five successful intercepts in six attempts against separating targets, which, because of their increased speed and small size, pose a much more challenging target for the SM-3 than a much larger unitary target missile. They also did not mention the fact the system is successfully intercepting targets much smaller than probable threat missiles on a routine basis, and have attained test scores that many other Defense Department programs aspire to attain.[13] In an October 25, 2012 test, a SM-3 Block IA failed to intercept a SRBM.[14] In May 2013 however a SM-3 Block IB was successful against a “complex, separating shortrange ballistic missile target with a sophisticated separating mock warhead”, making it “the third straight successful test of Raytheon’s SM-3 Block IB, after a target was missed on its first intercept attempt in September 2011.”[15] On 4 October 2013, an SM-3 Block IB eliminated the
441 medium-range ballistic missile target at the highest altitude of any test to date. The test was the 26th successful intercept for the SM-3 program and the fifth back-toback successful test of the SM-3 Block IB missile. Postmission data showed that the intercept was slightly lower than anticipated, but the systems adjusted to ensure the missile intercepted the target. The SM-3 Block IB is expected to be delivered for service in 2015.[16]
122.3 Variants The SM-3 Block IA version provides an incremental upgrade to improve reliability and maintainability at a reduced cost. The SM-3 Block IB, due in 2010, offers upgrades which include an advanced two-color infrared seeker, and a 10thruster solid throttling divert and attitude control system (TDACS/SDACS) on the kill vehicle to give it improved capability against maneuvering ballistic missiles or warheads. Solid TDACS is a joint Raytheon/Aerojet project, but Boeing supplies some components of the kinetic warhead. With Block IB and associated ship-based upgrades, the Navy gains the ability to defend against medium range missiles and some Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles. SM-3 Block II will widen the missile body to 21 in and decrease the size of the maneuvering fins. It will still fit in Mk41 vertical launch systems, and the missile will be faster and have longer range. The SM-3 Block IIA is a joint Raytheon/Mitsubishi Heavy Industries project, Block IIA will add a larger diameter kill vehicle that is more maneuverable, and carries another sensor/ discrimination upgrade. It’s currently scheduled to debut around 2015, whereupon the Navy will have a weapon that can engage some intercontinental ballistic missiles.[17] Table sources, reference material:[18][19][20] A further SM-3 Block IIB was “conceived for fielding in Europe around 2022”.[21] In March 2013, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced that the development program of the SM-3 Block IIB, also known as the “next generation AEGIS missile” (NGAM), was undergoing restructuring. Under Secretary James N. Miller was quoted saying that “We no longer intend to add them [SM-3 Block IIB] to the mix, but we’ll continue to have the same number of deployed interceptors in Poland that will provide coverage for all of NATO in Europe”, explaining that Poland is scheduled instead for the deployment of “about 24 SM-3 IIA interceptors – same timeline, same footprint of U.S. forces to support that.”[22] A US defense official was quoted saying that “The SM3 IIB phase four interceptors that we are now not going to pursue never existed other than on Power Points; it was a design objective.”[23] Daniel Nexon connected the backpedaling of the administration on the Block IIB development with pre-election promises made by Obama to Dmitry Medvedev.[24] Pen-
442
CHAPTER 122. RIM-161 STANDARD MISSILE 3
tagon spokesman George E. Little denied however that Russian objections played any part in the decision.[25]
122.4 Operators 122.4.1
United States
Missile defense In September 2009, President Obama announced plans to scrap plans for missile defense sites in East Europe, in favor of missile defense systems located on US Navy warships.[26] On 18 September 2009, Russian Prime Minister Putin welcomed Obama’s plans for missile defense which may include stationing American Aegis armed warships in the Black Sea.[27][28] This deployment began to occur that same month, with the deployment of Aegis-equipped warships with the RIM-161 SM-3 missile system, which complements the Patriot systems already deployed by American units.[29][30] In February 2013, a SM-3 intercepted a test IRBM target using tracking data from a satellite for the first time.[31][32]
An SM-3 launched to destroy a failed satellite
On 23 April 2014, Raytheon announced that the U.S. Navy and the Missile Defense Agency had started to deploy the SM-3 Block 1B missile operationally. The de- 122.4.2 Japan ployment starts the second phase of the Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) adopted in 2009 to protect Europe from In December 2007, Japan conducted a successful test of Iranian ballistic missile threats.[33] an SM-3 block IA aboard JDS Kongō against a ballistic missile. This was the first time a Japanese ship was employed to launch the interceptor missile during a test of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. In preAnti-satellite vious tests the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force had provided tracking and communications.[40][41] Further information: Anti-satellite weapon On February 14, 2008, U.S. officials announced plans In November 2008 a second Japanese-American joint test was performed from JDS Chōkai which was unsucto use a modified SM-3 missile launched from a group of three ships in the North Pacific to destroy the failed cessful. Following a failure review board, JFTM-3 occurred launching from JDS Myōkō resulting in a successAmerican satellite USA-193 at an altitude of 130 nautical [42] miles (240 kilometers) shortly before atmospheric reen- ful intercept in October 2009. try, stating that the intention was to “reduce the danger October 28, 2010 a successful test was performed from to human beings” due to the release of toxic hydrazine JDS Kirishima. The U.S. Navy’s Pacific Missile Range fuel carried on board.[34][35] A spokesperson stated that Facility on Kauai launched the ballistic missile target. software associated with the SM-3 had been modified to The crew of Kirishima, operating off the coast of Kauai, enhance the chances of the missile’s sensors recognizing detected and tracked the target before firing a SM-3 that the satellite was its target, since the missile was not Block IA missile.[43][44] designed for ASAT operations. The Japanese Defense Ministry is considering allocating On February 21, 2008 at 3:26 am (UTC), the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Lake Erie fired a single SM-3 missile, hit and successfully destroyed the satellite, with a closing velocity of about 22,783 mph (36,667 km/h) while the satellite was 247 kilometers (133 nautical miles) above the Pacific Ocean.[36][37] USS Decatur, USS Russell as well as other land, air, sea and space-based sensors were involved in the operation.[38][39]
money in the fiscal 2015 state budget for research on introducing the ground-based SM-3. Japanese ballistic missile defense strategy involves ship-based SM-3s to intercept missiles in space, while land-based Patriot PAC3 missiles shoot down missiles SM-3s fail to intercept. Due to concern that PAC-3s could not respond to massive numbers of missiles fired simultaneously, and that the Maritime Self-Defense Force needs Aegis destroyers
122.5. IN MEDIA for other missions, basing SM-3s on land would be able to intercept more missiles earlier. With a coverage radius of 500 km (310 mi), three missile posts could defend all of Japan; launch pads can be disassembled, moved to other locations, and rebuilt in 5–10 days. Ground-basing of the SM-3 is dubbed “Aegis ashore.”[45]
443 best basing option is in the North Sea, but making the SM-3 Block 2B ship compatible could add significantly to its cost”.[51] The troubles of the Block IIB program however do not affect the planned Block IB deployments in Romania.[23][52]
122.4.5 Turkey 122.4.3
Poland
On July 3, 2010, Poland and the United States signed an amended agreement for missile defense under whose terms land-based SM-3 systems would be installed in Poland at Redzikowo. This configuration was accepted as a tested and available alternative to missile interceptors that were proposed during the Bush administration but which are still under development. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, present at the signing in Kraków along with Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, stressed that the missile defense program was aimed at deterring threats from Iran, and posed no challenge to Russia.[46] As of March 2013, Poland is scheduled to host “about 24 SM3 IIA interceptors”[22] in 2018.[47] This deployment is part of phase 3 of the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA).[48]
122.4.4
Romania
Main article: NATO missile defence system In 2010/2011 the US government announced plans to station mobile land-based SM-3s (Block IB) in Romania at Deveselu starting in 2015,[49][50] part of phase 2 of EPAA.[48] There are some tentative plans to upgrade them to Block IIA interceptors around 2018 as well (EPAA phase 3). In March 2013, a US defense official was quoted saying “The Romanian cycle will start out in 2015 with the SM-3 IB; that system is in fly testing now and doing quite well. We are very confident it is on track and on budget, with very good test results. We are fully confident the missile we are co-developing with Japan, the SM-3 IIA, will have proved in fly testing, once we get to that phase. Assuming success in that fly testing, then we will have ready the option of upgrading the Romanian site to the SM-3 IIA, either all of the interceptor tubes or we'll have a mix. We have to make that decision. But both options will be there.”[23] The SM-3 Block IIB (currently in development for EPAA phase 4[48] ) was considered for deployment to Romania as well (around 2022[21] ), but a GAO report released Feb. 11, 2013 found that “SM-3 Block 2B interceptors launched from Romania would have difficulty engaging Iranian ICBMs launched at the United States because of unspecified “flight path” issues. Poland is a better option, but only if the interceptors can be launched early enough to hit targets in their boost phase, an engagement scenario that presents a whole new set of challenges. The
The Turkish Navy is considering the SM-3s for its upcoming TF-2000 frigate program. Instead of Aegis guidance, Turkey plans on integrating a more advanced version of Havelsan's Genesis architecture and a phased array radar built by Aselsan.[53] Genesis is currently jointly offered with Raytheon as a C4ISR upgrade for Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates around the world.[54]
122.5 In media • In 2012 Japanese anime movie, 009 RE:Cyborg, Zumwalt-class DDG named USS Sentinel, deployed RIM-161 Standards missiles as part of its weapon load. In the film, the Sentinel was hijacked by 00 Cyborgs to use the ship’s anti-ballistic missile capacities to shoot down a flight of nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles launched from a rogue US SSBN. The film showcases in detail the SM-3s intercepting inbound missiles in a dramatic sequence.
122.6 Gallery • SM-3 launch from USS Lake Erie, 2005 • SM-3 launch from USS Shiloh, 2006 • SM-3 climb from USS Decatur, 2007 • SM-3 climb from USS Lake Erie, 2008
122.7 See also • Arrow 3, Israel’s home-grown alternative • THAAD, US Army’s solution • Indian Ballistic Missile Defence Programme, India’s 2 Tier ABM system.
122.8 References [1] Range and ceiling figures based on absolute 700s capability shown for Block IIA missile in Figure 4 at linked source—"Breaking Defense”.[3] Intercept capability against an SS-19 Stiletto launched from Kaliningrad
444
CHAPTER 122. RIM-161 STANDARD MISSILE 3
against New York is shown as approximately 1200 km range and 900 km ceiling for a North Sea intercept. Range and ceiling against a hypothetical Iranian ICBM launched against the same target is shown as approximately 1200 km and 1050 km respectively in Figure 3 of the same source for an intercept coming from Redzikowo, Poland.designFlight ceiling Block IA/B ~500 km (311 miles) Block IIA ~1500 km (933 miles)[3] Speed Block IA/B ~3 km/s Block IIA ~4.5 km/sn exo-atmospher“Why Russia Keeps Moving the Football on European Missile Defense”. Breaking Defense. October 17, 2013. Retrieved 201310-19.
[15] David Wichner (2013-05-17). “Raytheon missile passes an important test flight”. Arizona Daily Star. Retrieved 2013-06-13.
[1] Ronald O'Rourke (2011-04-19). “Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress” (PDF). Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved 2011-05-29
[20] Raytheon Standard Missile-3 Block IB Completes Major Development Milestone
[2] “United States Department Of Defense Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request Program Acquisition Cost By Weapon System” (pdf). Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense (Comptroller)/ Chief Financial Officer. March 2014. p. 47. [3] [4] Raytheon Completes SM-3 Test Flight Against Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile, Raytheon Company, Retrieved 6 September 2011 [5] Pentagon news briefing of February 14, 2008 (video, transcript): although no name for the satellite is given, the launch date of December 14, 2006 is stated [6] “RIM-161 SM-3 Upgrades”. 2008. Retrieved 2009-1110. [7] “SM-3 BMD, in from the Sea: EPAA & Aegis Ashore”. Defenseindustrydaily.com. 2013-03-15. Retrieved 201306-13. [8] MDA Still Sees 2018 Deployment In Restructured SM-3 IIA Plan [9] Raytheon’s SM-3 fact sheet [10] Review Cites Flaws in U.S. Antimissile Program, By WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER, New York Times, May 17, 2010. [11] Obama’s 'Proven' SM-3 Missile Interceptor May Only Succeed 20 Percent of the Time, Say Physicists, By Clay Dillow, Popular Science, 05.18.2010. [12] A Flawed and Dangerous U.S. Missile Defense Plan, George N. Lewis and Theodore A. Postol. [13] Lehner, Richard (May 18, 2010). “Missile Defense Agency Responds to New York Times Article”. DoD Live. Archived from the original on July 18, 2011. Retrieved October 13, 2012 [14] defensetech (2012-12-19). “MDA lays out 2013 testing plans”. Defense Tech. Retrieved 2013-06-13.
[16] Raytheon’s newest SM-3 intercepts medium-range ballistic missile target at highest altitude to date. Navyrecognition.com. 4 October 2013. [17] “Land-Based SM-3s for Israel - and Others?". 2009. Retrieved 2009-11-10. [18] “Raytheon RIM-161 Standard SM-3”. systems.net. Retrieved 2013-10-25.
Designation-
[19] “RIM-161 SM-3 (AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense)". 2008. Retrieved 2008-02-22.
[21] Oswald, Rachel. “U.S. Looking “Very Hard” at Future of Missile Interceptor: Pentagon | Global Security Newswire”. NTI. Retrieved 2013-06-13. [22] Eshel, Tamir. “Alaska’s Ground Based Interceptors to Pivot US Defenses Against North Korea - Defense Update - Military Technology & Defense News”. Defense Update. Retrieved 2013-06-13. [23] “US defence official: The Deveselu base will be equipped with SM-3 IB interceptors by 2015, later on to be upgraded | ACTMedia”. Actmedia.eu. 2013-03-25. Retrieved 2013-06-13. [24] Nexon, Daniel (2013-03-17). “Washington “Cancels” Fourth Stage of European Phased Adaptive Approach » Duck of Minerva”. Whiteoliphaunt.com. Retrieved 2013-06-13. [25] Herszenhorn, David M.; Gordon, Michael R. (16 March 2013). “U.S. Cancels Part of Missile Defense That Russia Opposed”. New York Times. Retrieved 2014-01-07. [26] NY Times article, 9/18/09. [27] Russia’s Putin praises Obama’s missile defense decision, LA Times, 9/19/09. [28] No missile defense in Eastern Europe, foreignpolicy.com, 9/17/09. [29] Obama sharply alters missile defense plans By William H. McMichael, Sep 19, 2009, navytimes.com. [30] Article on Sm-3 missile system, strategypage.com, 10/4/09. [31] “Navy Uses Raytheon SM-3 and Space Sensor to Destroy Missile Target.” [32] “Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Intercepts Target Using Space Tracking and Surveillance System-Demonstrators Data.” [33] U.S. Deploys First SM-3 Block IB Missile News.USNI.org, 23 April 2014 [34] Lolita C. Baldor, The Associated Press (2008-02-15). “US to Try to Shoot Down Spy Satellite”. Washington Post.
122.9. EXTERNAL LINKS
[35] “DefenseLink News Transcript: DoD News Briefing with Deputy National Security Advisor Jeffrey, Gen. Cartwright and NASA Administrator Griffin”. 2008. Retrieved 2008-02-22. [36] “Satellite Shoot Down: How It Will Work”. Space.com. February 19, 2008. Retrieved 2008-02-21. [37] “Navy Hits Satellite With Heat-Seeking Missile”. Space.com. February 21, 2008. Retrieved 2008-02-21. [38] “DoD Succeeds In Intercepting Non-Functioning Satellite (Release No. 0139-08)" (Press release). U.S. Department of Defense. February 20, 2008. Retrieved 2008-02-20. [39] “Navy Succeeds In Intercepting Non-Functioning Satellite (Release NNS080220-19)" (Press release). U.S. Navy. February 20, 2008. Retrieved 2008-02-20. [40] “AFP: Japan shoots down test missile in space: defence minister”. 2008. Retrieved 2008-02-22. [41] MDA press release. 17 December 2007. [42] JFTM-2 & 3 dates [43] “Japan Achieves Third Ballistic Missile Intercept”. Spacedaily.com. Retrieved 2013-06-13. [44] “Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Media Gallery”. Mda.mil. Retrieved 2013-09-17. [45] Defense ministry mulls introducing ground-based SM-3 interceptor missiles - Mainichi.jp, 12 August 2014 [46] US, Poland Sign Revised Missile Defense Accord http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/2010/ space-100703-voa01.htm [47] “US drops key European missile defense component — RT News”. Rt.com. 2013-03-16. Retrieved 2013-06-13. [48] “Ballistic Missile Defense | EUCOM, Stronger Together”. Eucom.mil. 2009-09-17. Retrieved 2013-06-13. [49] Romania Agrees to Host Ballistic Missile Interceptor http://www.america.gov/st/eur-english/2010/February/ 20100204155405esnamfuak0.8593866.html [50] “Joint Press Availability With Romanian Foreign Minister Teodor Baconschi”. State.gov. 2011-09-13. Retrieved 2013-06-13. [51] “Editorial | Rethink the SM-3 Block 2B”. SpaceNews.com. 2013-02-25. Retrieved 2013-06-13. [52] de Andrei Luca POPESCU (2013-05-06). “EXCLUSIV. Frank Rose, negociatorul scutului de la Deveselu: “Schimbările din programul american de apărare antirachetă au fost determinate de ameninţarea Coreei de Nord " - Gandul”. Gandul.info. Retrieved 2013-06-13. [53] “Lockheed Martin remains sole bidder for new frigates”. TR Defence. 2012-05-21. Retrieved 2013-06-13. [54] “Raytheon and HAVELSAN Partner for FFG 7 Fleet Modernization With GENESIS Program”. Raytheon.mediaroom.com. 2009-04-28. Retrieved 2013-06-13.
445
122.9 External links • Pros and Cons of Missile Shield in Romania 2010 • U.S. Navy Fact File: Standard Missile • Designation-systems - RIM-161 Standard SM-3 • GlobalSecurity.org - RIM-161 Standard SM-3 • Astronautix.com - Raytheon RIM-161 Standard SM-3 • Obama Shifts Gears on Missile Defense, by Cole Harvey, armscontrol.org, October 2009.
Chapter 123
RIM-174 Standard ERAM See also: Standard Missile (disambiguation) The RIM-174 Standard Extended Range Active Missile (ERAM), or Standard Missile 6 (SM-6) is a missile in current production for the United States Navy. It was designed for extended range anti-air warfare (ERAAW) purposes providing capability against fixed and rotary-wing aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, and antiship cruise missiles in flight, both over sea and land. The missile uses the airframe of the earlier SM-2ER Block IV (RIM-156A) missile,[7] adding the active radar homing seeker from the AIM-120C AMRAAM in place of the semi-active seeker of the previous design. This will improve the capability of the Standard missile against highly agile targets, and targets beyond the effective range of the launching vessels’ target illumination radars. Initial operating capability was planned for 2013 and has been successfully achieved on November 27, 2013.[8] The SM-6 is not meant to replace the SM-2 series of missiles, alongside which it will serve, but does give extended range and increased firepower.[9] The SM-6 is to have a range out to 230 miles (370 km), according to Jane’s Naval Weapon Systems.[10]
ries missiles, primarily being able to intercept very high altitude or sea-skimming anti-ship missiles; the missile is also slated to perform terminal phase ballistic missile defense. It can discriminate targets using its dual-mode seeker, with the semi-active seeker relying on a shipbased illuminator to highlight the target, and the active seeker having the missile itself send out an electromagnetic signal; the active seeker has the ability to detect a land-based cruise missile amid ground features, even from behind a mountain. The multi-mission SM-6 is engineered with the aerodynamics of an SM-2, the propulsion booster stack of the SM-3, and the front end configuration of the AMRAAM.[11]
123.2 History Raytheon entered a contract in 2004 to develop this missile for the United States Navy, after the cancellation of the Standard missile two extended range block IVA (RIM-156B). Development started in 2005, followed by testing in 2007. The missile was officially designated RIM-174A in February 2008. Initial low rate production was authorized in 2009.[12]
Raytheon received a $93 million contract to begin production of the RIM-174A in September 2009.[13] The first low-rate production missile was delivered in March [14] SM-6 was approved for full-rate production in The Standard ERAM is a two-stage missile with a booster 2011. May 2013 and the first full-production missile will be destage and a second stage. It is similar in appearance to the livered in April 2015.[15] RIM-156A Standard missile. The radar seeker is an enlarged version adapted from the AIM-120C AMRAAM As of 2013 the program is scheduled to build 1200 misseeker (13.5 inches versus 7 inches). siles at a total cost of $6,167.8m, at a flyaway cost of $4.3m.[5] The missile may be employed in a number of modes: inertial guided to target with terminal acquisition using ac- On October 3, 2013 Raytheon was awarded a contract tive radar seeker, semi-active radar homing all the way, for “89 Standard Missile-6 Block I all up rounds, spares, or an over the horizon shot with Cooperative Engagement containers and services” by the U.S. Navy.[16] Capability. The missile is also capable of terminal ballis- On November 27, 2013 Standard ERAM achieved IOC tic missile defense as a supplement to the Standard missile (Initial Operating Capability) when it was fielded on three (RIM-161). board USS Kidd (DDG-100).[8]
123.1 Description
Unlike other missiles of the Standard family, the Standard During exercises from 18-20 June 2014, USS John Paul ERAM can be periodically tested and certified without Jones (DDG-53) fired four SM-6 missiles. One part of removal from the VLS cell. the exercise, designated NIFC-CA AS-02A, resulted in The SM-6 offers extended range over previous SM-2 se- the longest surface-to-air engagement in naval history.[17] 446
123.5. EXTERNAL LINKS
447
The exact range of the intercept was not publically [11] Navy Missile Hits Subsonic Target Over Land - Defensetech.org, 20 August 2014 released.[18] On 14 August 2014, an SM-6 was test fired against a sub- [12] Raytheon RIM-174 ERAM (SM-6), designationsonic, low-altitude cruise missile target and successfully systems.net, November 24, 2009. intercepted it over land. A key element of the test was to assess its ability to discern a slow-moving target among [13] U.S. Navy Awards Raytheon $93 Million Contract for Standard Missile-6 Raytheon Media Center: Press Reground clutter.[11] lease, September 9, 2009. Accessed November 8, 2009.
On 24 October 2014, Raytheon announced that two SM6 missiles intercepted anti-ship and cruise missile targets during “engage on remote” scenarios. A low-altitude, short-range supersonic GQM-163A and a low-altitude, medium-range subsonic BQM-74E were shot down by SM-6s fired from a guided-missile cruiser using targeting information provided by a guided-missile destroyer. Advanced warning and cueing from other ships allows the missile’s over-the-horizon capability to be more greatly utilized so a single ship is able defend a larger area.[19]
123.3 See also • RIM-66 Standard Medium Range
[14] Raytheon Delivers First Standard Missile-6 to U.S. Navy Raytheon Media Center: Press Release, April 25, 2011. Accessed April 27, 2011. [15] “Defense Acquisition Board approves Standard Missile-6 full-rate production”. Raytheon Company. 22 May 2013. [16] http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Raytheon_awarded_ Standard_Missile_6_contract_999.html [17] US Navy destroyer conducts longest ever surface-air engagement with new SM-6 missiles - Defense-Update.com, 28 June 2014 [18] SM-6 Goes Long - Strategypage.com, 10 July 2014 [19] Raytheon SM-6s Intercept Targets in ‘Engage on Remote’ Tests - Navyrecognition.com, 24 October 2014
• RIM-67 Standard Extended Range • RIM-161 Standard Missile 3
123.4 References [1] Australian Defence White Paper 2009
123.5 External links • http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ munitions/sm-6.htm • http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-174. html
[2] [3] S. Korea to deploy new surface-to-air missiles for Aegis destroyers - Yonhapnews.co.kr, 12 June 2013 [4] “United States Department Of Defense Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request Program Acquisition Cost By Weapon System” (pdf). Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense (Comptroller)/ Chief Financial Officer. March 2014. p. 64. [5] “GAO-13-294SP DEFENSE ACQUISITIONS Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs”. US Government Accountability Office. March 2013. pp. 123–4. Retrieved 26 May 2013. [6] http://www.janes.com/article/40550/ us-navy-s-sm-6-and-over-the-horizon-fire-control-score-intercepts-at-sea [7] Raytheon Missile Systems Standard Missile 6, Accessed February 10, 2011. [8] http://www.navsea.navy.mil/NewsView.aspx?nw= NewsWires&id=337 [9] Non-Standard: Navy SM-6 Kills Cruise Missiles Deep Inland - Breakingdefense.com, 19 August 2014 [10] http://www.janes.com/article/40550/ us-navy-s-sm-6-and-over-the-horizon-fire-control-score-intercepts-at-sea
Chapter 124
BGM-75 AICBM The ZBGM-75 Advanced Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, also known as Weapons System 120A (WS120A), was a program to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), proposed by the United States Air Force in the 1960s as a replacement for the LGM-30 Minuteman as the Air Force’s standard ICBM. Funding was not allocated for the program and the project was cancelled in 1967.
124.1 Background The Department of Defense began the STRAT-X study on 1 November 1966 to evaluate a new ballistic missile proposal from the Air Force,[1] which was designated the Advanced Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (AICBM). The project was intended to provide a successor to the LGM-30 Minuteman ICBM then in United States Air Force service.[2] The program was officially launched in April of 1966, and in June the project received the designation ZBGM-75,[2] the “Z” prefix indicating a project in the planning stage.[3]
Staff recommended to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara that the ZBGM-75 be funded starting in Fiscal Year (FY) 1969, with a projected entry into service by 1973. This recommendation came after the Air Force had completed the preliminary studies on the missiles and the new, hardened silos. McNamara instead kept the missile in “advanced development”, which stopped all work on the project. Only development of the new superhardened silos was approved for funding; these would be used by the Minuteman missiles.[5] As a result the missile’s development was cancelled.[2] McNamara’s rationale for cancelling the program was the destabilizing influence of the new missile, which could have rendered existing Soviet anti-ballistic missile defenses ineffective. McNamara saw relative parity between the two powers— the strategic basis for mutually assured destruction—as the best method to keep the Soviet Union in a position where it must negotiate with the United States.[8]
After the cancellation of WS-120A, the Air Force made no further development of new ICBMs until 1972. In that year the M-X project was begun, which resulted in the development of the LGM-118 Peacekeeper.[2] The Peacekeeper entered service in the mid-1980s and served until The specifications for the ZBGM-75 called for a large 2005;[9] the Minuteman III is still in service, and has out[4] solid-fuel-powered missile, which would be fitted with lasted both of its planned replacements.[10] between 10 and 20 multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs).[5] The missiles would be based in silo launchers, which were specified to be hardened by a factor of 10 over the existing silos used by Minuteman 124.3 References missiles.[6] In addition, there was also a plan to develop a railroad-based deployment system for the AICBM.[2] Notes Improvements in accuracy over existing missiles, combined with penetration aids under development to en- [1] Friedman 1994, p.202. hance the effectiveness of each missile, were expected to make the AICBM capable of defeating existing and [2] Parsch 2003 projected Soviet anti-ballistic missile systems.[5] [3] Parsch 2009 [4] Tammen 1973, p.88.
124.2 Cancellation
[5] Auten 2008, pp.42–43.
Ultimately, the Navy won the STRAT-X competition with the design that would become the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines. Nevertheless, the final report, issued in August 1967, recommended that the ZBGM-75 also be developed.[7] Accordingly, the Joint Chiefs of 448
[6] Hartunian 2003 [7] Friedman 1994, p.204. [8] Auten 2008, p.43. [9] Edwards 2005
124.3. REFERENCES
[10] “AICBM”. Encyclopedia Astronautica. Archived from the original on 7 January 2010. Retrieved 2009-12-07.
Bibliography • Auten, Brian J. (2008). Carter’s Conversion: the hardening of American defense policy. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press. ISBN 978-08262-1816-2. Retrieved 2010-12-07. • Edwards, Joshua S. (2005-09-20). “Peacekeeper missile mission ends during ceremony”. United States Air Force. Retrieved 2010-12-07. • Friedman, Norman (1994). US Submarines Since 1945: An Illustrated Design History. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1557502609. • Hartunian, Richard (2003). “Ballistic Missiles and Reentry Systems: The Critical Years”. Crosslink. El Segundo, CA: The Aerospace Company. Archived from the original on 2012-03-05. Retrieved 201012-07. • Parsch, Andreas (2003). “BGM-75 AICBM”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Archived from the original on 15 December 2010. Retrieved 2010-12-07. • Parsch, Andreas (2009). “Current Designations of U.S. Unmanned Military Aerospace Vehicles”. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2010-12-10. • Tammen, Ronald L. (1973). MIRV and the Arms Race: An Interpretration of Defense Strategy. Westport, CT: Praeger. ASIN B000JNG51G.
449
Chapter 125
Davy Crockett (nuclear device)
Davy Crockett was a recoilless gun on a tripod for firing the M388 atomic round
The M-28 or M-29 Davy Crockett Weapon System(s) was a tactical nuclear recoilless gun (smoothbore) for firing the M-388 nuclear projectile that was deployed by the United States during the Cold War. Named after American soldier, congressman, and folk hero Davy Crockett, it was one of the smallest nuclear weapon systems ever built.
125.1 Development
US officials view a W54 nuclear warhead, as used on the Davy Crockett. The unusually small size of the warhead is apparent.
The M-388 round used a version of the W54 warhead, a very small sub-kiloton fission device. The Mk-54 weighed about 51 lb (23 kg), with a yield equivalent to somewhere between 10 or 20 tons of TNT— very close to the minimum practical size and yield for a fission warhead. The only selectable feature with either versions of the Davy Crockett (M28 & M29) was the height-of-burst dial on the warhead. Post-Davy Crockett versions of the W54 nuclear device apparently had a selectable yield feature (see below for Hi/Lo Switch and Launching Piston references.) The complete round weighed 76 lb (34.5 kg). It was 31 in. (78.7 cm) long with a diameter of 11 in. (28 cm) at its widest point; a subcaliber piston at the back of the shell was inserted into the launcher’s barrel for firing.[1] The “piston” was considered a spigot prior to the discharge of the propellant cartridge in the recoilless gun chamber of the Davy Crockett. The M-388 atomic projectile was mounted on the barrel-inserted spigot via bayonet slots. Once the propellant was discharged the spigot became the launching piston for the M-388 atomic projectile. The nuclear yield is hinted at in FM 9-11: Operation and Employment of the Davy Crockett Battlefield Missile, XM-28/29 (June 1963).
The Davy Crockett recoilless spigot gun was developed in the late 1950s for use against Soviet armor and troops if war broke out in Europe. Davy Crockett Sections were assigned to USAREUR (United States Army Europe) armor and mechanized and non-mechanized infantry battalions. During alerts to the Inner German border in the Fulda Gap the Davy Crocketts accompanied their battalions. All V Corps (including 3rd Armored Division) combat maneuver battalions had preassigned positions in the Fulda Gap. These were known as GDP (General Defense Plan) positions. The Davy Crockett sections were included in these defensive deployment plans. In addition to the Davy Crocketts (e.g., assigned to the 3rd Armored Division), V Corps had nuclear artillery rounds The M-388 could be launched from either of two launchand Atomic Demolition Mines, and these were also tar- ers known as the Davy Crockett Weapon System(s): the geted on the Fulda Gap. 4-inch (120 mm) M28, with a range of about 1.25 mi 450
125.2. PROPOSED GERMAN MILITARY USE (2 km), or the 6.1-in (155 mm) M29, with a range of 2.5 mi (4 km). Both weapons used the same projectile, and were either mounted on a tripod launcher transported by an armored personnel carrier, or they were carried by a Jeep (M-38 & later M-151). The Jeep was equipped with an attached launcher for the M28 or the M29, as required, whereas the Davy Crockett carried by an armored personnel carrier was set up in the field on a tripod away from the carrier. The Davy Crocketts were operated by a three-man crew.[2] In the 3rd Armored Division in Germany in the 1960s many Davy Crockett Sections (all of which were in the Heavy Mortar Platoons, in Headquarters Companies of Infantry or Armor Maneuver Battalions) received what became a mix of M28 & M29 launchers [e.g., one of each per D/C section]. Eventually, the M28s were replaced by M29s, so that both the armored personnel carriers and the Jeeps carried the M29.
451 total of 2,100 being made. The weapon was tested between 1962 and 1968 at the Pohakuloa Training Area on Hawaiʻi island, with 714 M101 spotter rounds (not live warheads) that contained depleted uranium.[4][5] The weapon was deployed with US Army forces from 1961 to 1971. It was deactivated from US Army Europe (in West Germany) in August, 1967.[6] Versions of the W54 warhead were also used in the Special Atomic Demolition Munition project and the AIM-26A Falcon. Mk-54 (Davy Crockett) — 10 or 20 ton yield, Davy Crockett Gun warhead Mk-54 (SADM) — variable yield 10 ton to 1 kiloton, Special Atomic Demolition Munition device W-54 — 250 ton yield, warhead for AIM-26 Falcon air-to-air missile The 55th and 56th Infantry Platoons, attached to the Division Artillery of the US 82nd Airborne Division, were the last units equipped with the M-29 Davy Crockett weapons system. These two units were parachute deployed and, with a 1/2 ton truck per section, (3 per platoon) were fully air droppable. The units were deactivated in mid-1968.
125.2 Proposed German military use One of the most fervent supporters of the Davy Crockett was West Germany’s defense minister Franz Josef Strauss, in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Strauss promoted the idea of equipping German brigades with the weapon to be supplied by the US, arguing that this would allow German troops to become a much more effective factor in NATO’s defense of Germany against a potential Soviet invasion. He argued that a single Davy Crocket could replace 40–50 salvos of a whole divisional artillery park — allowing the funds and troops normally needed A Davy Crockett casing preserved in the United States Army Ordfor this artillery to be invested into further troops, or not nance Museum having to be spent at all. US NATO commanders strongly opposed Strauss’s ideas, as they would have made the use Both recoilless guns proved to have poor accuracy in test- of tactical nuclear weapons almost mandatory in case of ing, so the shell’s greatest effect would have been its ex- war, further reducing the ability of NATO to defend itself treme radiation hazard. The M-388 would produce an al- without resorting to atomic weapons.[7] most instantly lethal radiation dosage (in excess of 10,000 rem) within 500 feet (150 m), and a probably fatal dose (around 600 rem) within a quarter mile (400 m).[3]
125.3 Museum examples
The warhead was tested on July 7, 1962 in the Little Feller II weapons effects test shot, and again in an actual firing The following museums have a Davy Crockett casing in of the Davy Crockett from a distance of 1.7 miles (2.72 their collection: km) in the Little Feller I test shot on July 17. This was the last atmospheric test detonation at the Nevada Test Site. • Air Force Space & Missile Museum, Cape Production of the Davy Crockett began in 1956, with a Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida
452 • National Atomic Museum, Albuquerque, New Mexico • National Infantry Museum, Fort Benning, Georgia • United States Army Ordnance Museum, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland • Watervliet Arsenal Museum, Watervliet, New York • West Point Museum, West Point, New York • Atomic Testing Museum, Las Vegas, Nevada • Don F. Pratt Museum, Fort Campbell, Clarksville, Tennessee
125.4 See also • Nuclear weapon • Nuclear artillery • Nuclear weapon design • Nuclear strategy • Nuclear land mine
125.5 References [1] “Characteristics of all US nuclear weapons designs”, USA weapons, Nuclear weapon archive, retrieved October 20, 2006. [2] “Davy Crockett”, Gun truck, retrieved October 20, 2006. [3] “Section 5.6, Mechanisms of Damage and Injury”, Nuclear Weapons (FAQ), Nuclear weapon archive, retrieved October 20, 2006. [4] Miller, Erin (September 1, 2010). “Military says DU at PTA likely harmless: Army reports 'no likely adverse impacts’ from spotting rounds”. West Hawaii Today. Retrieved September 2, 2010. [5] “Pohakuloa Training Area Firing Range Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment for Residual Depleted Uranium” (PDF). Cabrera Services Radiological Engineering and Remediation. Hawaii, US: Army. June 2010. Retrieved September 2, 2010. [6] History of the Custody and Deployment of Nuclear Weapons(U): July 1945 through September 1977; “Prepared by Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense (Atomic Energy) February 1978”, Page B-7. [7] “Bedingt abwehrbereit”. Der Spiegel (in German) (41) (DE). 1962.
CHAPTER 125. DAVY CROCKETT (NUCLEAR DEVICE)
125.6 External links • Facts about the “Davy Crockett” missile • Loaded and unloaded M29 Davy Crockett • Hi and Lo Height of Burst Switch • D/C Launching Piston • Characteristics of all US nuclear weapons designs • DCs in 3rd Armored Division • DCs on the highway • President Kennedy questions Davy Crockett crewmen • DC Souvenirs • See John Marshall’s Davy Crockett write up in the 3rd Bn, 36th Infantry section • Davy Crocketts in Southern Avenue of Fulda Gap • Davy Crocketts during Oct 62 Cuban Crisis (Southern Avenue of Fulda Gap)-- see especially bottom of jchorazy’s Page 12 • Video showing testing of device on youtube.com • Operation Ivy Flats — testing of the Davy Crockett, 1962 (17:46) • Wee Gwen - a UK weapon similar to Davy Crockett
Chapter 126
LGM-118 Peacekeeper The LGM-118A Peacekeeper, also known as the MX missile (for Missile-eXperimental), was a land-based ICBM deployed by the United States starting in 1986. The Peacekeeper was a MIRV missile that could carry up to 10 re-entry vehicles, each armed with a 300-kiloton W87 warhead in a Mk.21 reentry vehicle (RV). A total of 50 missiles were deployed starting in 1986, after a long and contentious development program that traced its roots into the 1960s. Under the START II treaty, which never entered into force, the missiles were to be removed from the US nuclear arsenal in 2005, leaving the LGM-30 Minuteman as the only type of land-based ICBM in the arsenal. Despite the demise of the START II treaty, the last of the LGM-118A “Peacekeeper” ICBMs was decommissioned on September 19, 2005. Current plans are to move some of the W87 warheads from the decommissioned Peacekeepers to the Minuteman III.
A number of Mk21 re-entry vehicles (“dunce-caps”) on a Peacekeeper MIRV bus. Each Mk21 carries a 300 kT W87 warhead, approx. twenty times the power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima during World War II).[3]
The private launch firm Orbital Sciences Corporation has developed the Minotaur IV, a four-stage civilian Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, was given the expendable launch system using old Peacekeeper compo- seemingly impossible task of making the US military the nents. most powerful in the world while at the same time reducing its expenditures. He ultimately solved this problem by greatly reducing reliance on the bomber and passing the role to the Minuteman. Over time, improvements to 126.1 Development and deploy- the Soviet missiles, real or imagined, led to US officials proposing a worrying scenario; a Soviet first strike with a ment limited number of warheads could cripple the US ICBM fleet. At the time a limited attack was all the Soviet could 126.1.1 Minuteman mount; their missiles had limited accuracy so only the small number of their missiles carrying very large warDeployment of the Minuteman ICBM began in 1962, heads (multi-megaton range) could be used against the during the Cold War, and proceeded rapidly. Limited ac- US missile silos. They had just enough of these to make curacy with a circular error probable (CEP) of about 0.6 a damaging, but not critical, attack on the US fleet. By to 0.8 nautical miles[4] and a small warhead of less than 1 April 1964 the US had more ICBMs on active alert than megaton meant the system was unable to attack hardened strategic bombers, which exacerbated this concern.[6] targets like missile silos. This limited these early mod- The US ICBM fleet was primarily targeted against cities. els to attacks on strategic targets like cities and ports, and In the event of a Soviet missile launch, the US faced the the system had little or no capability as a counterforce difficult decision of whether to fire their own missiles imweapon. The Air Force relied on its manned bombers as mediately or wait to determine the targets of the Soviet the primary weapon for attacking hardened targets, and missiles. Firing early might mean striking civilian targets saw the ICBM as a survivable deterrent that would guard (countervalue) when the Soviets had only targeted miliagainst attacking its bomber fleet.[5] tary installations, something US politicians considered to As the Kennedy administration took power, the new be a serious problem (part of the flexible response doc453
454
CHAPTER 126. LGM-118 PEACEKEEPER
trine). Conversely, waiting to fire might mean the loss of side of the mountains before they could hit the silos themthe entire ICBM fleet. But this was not true of the US selves. Properly positioned, this would keep the exploNavy's Polaris fleet, which was essentially invulnerable. sions at least 5,000 feet away from the silos; it was beThis scenario was of deep concern to the Air Force. If the lieved that silos able to withstand multi-megaton explorole of the nuclear missile was to ride out a first strike and sions at one mile could be built, although this was an ensure a counterstrike, then the Navy might be handed the area of some uncertainty. This system had the advantage mission outright. Looking for a new role, the Air Force that the basing would be immune to changes in accuracy increases in yield began to turn their attention away from the deterrent role or speed of the attack, only enormous could overcome this physical barrier.[12] towards counterforce. Continued work on the Minuteman led to the Minuteman II specification, set in 1962. They proposed 100 missiles in three bases of thirty misThe new version included two key improvements. One siles each. They expected that at least one base would be was the new NS-17 inertial navigation system improved able to survive even an all-out attack.[12] However, if such the CEP to 0.34 nautical miles,[7] enough to allow it to a force of approximately 30 missiles was going to be a reaattack hardened targets. Just as important, the guidance sonable deterrent, each missile would need to carry 20 or system allowed for the inclusion of eight pre-selected tar- more warheads. To launch them, the study introduced the gets. This allowed the force to ride out a Soviet first strike, “ICBM-X”, a massive new 156 inches (400 cm) diameselect the appropriate enemy targets, military or civilian, ter design, well over twice the diameter of the existing and launch.[5] Against a limited attack this offered the US LGM-30 Minuteman, and larger even than the Titan II a major strategic advantage. “heavy” design at 120 inches (300 cm).[13] Any of the Golden Arrow concepts would be extremely expensive, and in the era of Robert McNamara's US Department of Defense, cost was as important as any other consideration. As Alain Enthoven put it, “Our gross national product, though large, is limited. If we attempted to develop and procure a dozen or more distinct different nuclear delivery systems… we doubtless would end up squandering our resources and not doing a good job on 126.1.2 Golden Arrow any of them.”[14] Golden Arrow, along with many similar proposals from other firms, proceeded no further, in The Air Force had depended on the engineering firm favor of the Minuteman II. TRW during the early days of the development of their ICBM force. In 1960 a number of TRW and other engineers involved in the ICBM program formed The 126.1.3 WS-120A Aerospace Corporation, initially working on the Mercury spacecraft, X-20 Dynasoar and various ICBM projects. Another project spun out from the ICBM-X was a smaller In 1964, the Air Force contracted them to consider a wide version limited to 10 to 20 warheads, known initially as variety of survivable ICBM solutions, under the name WS-120A and later as BGM-75 AICBM. The missile “Golden Arrow”.[8] was small enough to fit in existing large silos, like those Of course, the Soviets could also improve their own system’s CEP and turn all of their missiles into counterforce weapons as well. With the ICBM force now critical to the strategic mission, the Air Force became increasingly interested in new ways to keep the missiles safe from such an attack.[8]
The project considered road, rail, submarine and airlaunched weapons.[9] One of these suggested an airlaunched ballistic missile. The proposal called for an enormous (for the day) turboprop-powered aircraft with two-day endurance carrying up to eight missiles that would be dropped out the back, parachuted to the vertical, and then launched.[10] As part of the same study, Aerospace also considered a missile and wheeled launcher combination that was small enough that they could be carried in existing C-141 Starlifter aircraft, During periods of heightened tensions, they would be flown to practically any airport and set up. The Soviets would have to target thousands of airports, runways and even dirt strips and long stretches of highway in order to attack the fleet.[11] Finally, they also considered conventional missiles in “super hard” silos, buried under the southern side of mountains. As the enemy warheads would approach at a fairly shallow angle from the north, they would strike the north
for the Titan II, but was otherwise similar in concept to the ICBM-X, with a circular error probable (CEP) of about 0.1 miles, and especially the ability to be quickly re-programmed to attack any targets needed. In comparison, the Minuteman II had a selection of eight targets, any one of which could be quickly selected for attack, but otherwise selecting a target outside this pre-computed list was not something that could be done “on the fly”. WS120A’s preferred basing mode was a super hardened shelter, but dispersed mobile options were also considered.[15] However, like Golden Arrow before it, WS-120A’s advantages found themselves being diluted by the new Minuteman III. The Minuteman III used the new NS-20 inertial navigation system (INS) with a CEP of 0.12 nautical miles, and three warheads with an expanded collection of radar countermeasures. Although the system did not include the ability to be rapidly retargetted, this capability was under development and started deployment in 1972, before the planned 1975 introduction date of WS-120A.
126.1. DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT
455
When it was fully deployed in 1978, the entire ICBM fleet bilities needed to ensure even a small number of survivors could be entirely reprogrammed in 10 hours.[16] would be able to attack the remaining Soviet missile fleet. The Minuteman III simply did not have this combination of features.
126.1.4
INS advances
Since the late 1950s, engineers at the Charles Stark Draper Laboratory had been working on a new type of inertial platform that replaced the mechanical gimbals with a sphere floating in a thin layer of fluorocarbon fluid. The so-called “flimbal” (apparently for “FLoated Measurement BAL”)[17] would offer unprecedented accuracy and would be free from "gimbal lock", a problem that caused conventional platforms to “tumble” and lose their accuracy. Like the ICBM-X, there was little development as there appeared to be no need for a platform with the sort of accuracy the flimbal provided, and the expense of developing the system would be extremely high.[18] In spite of a lack of official interest, during the late 1960s Kenneth Fertig managed to arrange some funding through the Air Force for the “SABRE” INS project, short for “Self-Aligning Boost and RE-entry”. The name referred to the concept that the system would be so accurate and free from the effects of mechanical shocks and jarring that it would not require any other form of “fixing” in flight. This was in contrast to the stellar-inertial systems under development by the Navy and others. It would retain its accuracy even through the rough conditions during re-entry, allowing the creation of maneuvering reentry vehicles.[19]
126.1.5
Counterforce Considerations
During the late 1970s, the Soviet Union fielded a large number of increasingly accurate MIRVed heavy Heavy ICBMs like the SS-18. These missiles carried as many as 10 warheads along with up to 40 penetration aids, meaning that a small number of launches could present a threat to the Air Force’s ICBM fleet while retaining a large force in reserve. If the Soviet Union launched a sneak attack and the US did not respond immediately, the majority of their missiles and strategic bombers might be caught on the ground (Soviet first strike). A credible deterrent force would remain, but such a force might not have enough warheads left to attack both the remaining Soviet fleet and cities and other military targets.
Whether or not this problem actually existed is open to debate. The Minuteman had a relatively fast launch time, and early warning satellites meant that commanders would have almost instant warning of a Soviet launch, with ample time to plan a response. However, it would not be until much later in the sequence of events that land-based radars would be able to track the incoming individual warheads and determine the targets. In the case of a limited counterforce attack, it would be desirable to wait until the individual targeted silos were determined, determine which Soviet missiles had not been launched, and then launch only the targeted missiles against their unlaunched Soviet counterparts. This would require extremely tight timing. The development of practical SLBM systems upset the nuclear equation dramatically. These weapons were essentially invulnerable when at sea, and offered a credible countervalue force (against civilian targets) although early models like the UGM-27 Polaris and UGM-73 Poseidon did not have the accuracy to attack Soviet silos and thus offered little counterforce capability. In some ways this helped the Air Force, as it meant they could concentrate on the counterforce scenarios, knowing that a countervalue attack would always be available from the Navy. However, improvements in SLBM accuracy might allow them to handle counterforce as well, and render the entire land-based ICBM fleet superfluous. The Air Force was not interested in handing the strategic role to the Navy. A survivable ICBM would address this issue.
126.1.6 MX
The outcome of this thinking was obvious from the start; in 1971 the Air Force started a requirements development process combining the ICBM-X and SABRE concepts into a single platform, “Missile, Experimental”, or MX. The new missile would be so accurate and carry so many warheads that even a few survivors would be able to destroy enormous numbers of any remaining Soviet force. The specifications for MX were fixed in February 1972, and the advanced development program started in late [20] At the time, MX was to be based in existing In such a situation, the US would be left with two uncom- 1973. Minuteman silos, in keeping with the original ICBM-X fortable options. If they chose to respond in kind and concept of MX as essentially a bigger Minuteman. attack the remaining Soviet missile fleet, there would be little to respond with if the Soviets immediately launched For MX, the Draper Laboratory developed SABRE into against US cities. The other option would require the US the "Advanced Inertial Reference Sphere" (AIRS). AIRS to be the first country to launch an attack on civilian tar- would have a drift rate of only 1.5 x 10−5 degrees per gets, an attack that was both morally reprehensible as well hour, allowing it to be periodically referenced to an exas against stated policy. This worrying scenario led to the ternal point, like the silo wall, and then left for extended effort to develop a new ICBM with the accuracy needed periods of time. Over the period of the flight the drift to be an excellent counterforce weapon, the survivability would be so low that any inaccuracies in the platform needed to absorb a Soviet first strike, and the MIRV capa- would account for a maximum of 1% of the warhead’s fi-
456
CHAPTER 126. LGM-118 PEACEKEEPER
nal accuracy - the rest would be due to issues like the timing of the firing of the rocket engines, minor differences in warhead construction, and unavoidable randomness in the atmosphere.[21] The Air Force also contracted with Autonetics for a backup design using mechanical gimbals, the “Advanced Stable Platform” (ASP). In May 1975 the first hand-built AIRS was transferred from Draper’s laboratory to Northrop for further development.[22]
uteman III silos similarly adapted over time to bring the force to a total of 100 missiles. Additionally, he suggested funding development of three additional concepts, airborne drops from cargo aircraft, an “active defence” using short-range anti-ballistic missile, or basing new silos deep underground or on the south side of mesas (“reverseinclination basing”).[26] The later two quickly proved unacceptable for various reasons, while testing of the airdrop concept was pursued.
On 22 November 1982 the administration announced that the missile was to be known as Peacekeeper, and introduced an entirely new basing concept, the "dense pack". The dense pack idea involved building super-hardened silos that would withstand more than 10,000 psi (70 MPa) of overpressure, compared to 2,000 of the existing silos, or 5,000 psi for the upgraded versions originally proposed. This extra hardness can be easily offset by minor increases in warhead accuracy. The key to dense pack concept was to space the silos so close together, about 1,800 feet (550 m), that warheads attacking one silo would destroy others incoming to attack another silo in the same pack. This "fratricide theory” was highly criticized due to the expected relative ease with which the Soviets could modify their warheads and circumvent this design. All that was required was that several warheads arrive and be detonated within a few milliseconds of each Time exposure shot of testing of the Peacekeeper re-entry vehicles other, so the blast waves did not reach each other before completing destruction of the silo. Such timing could at the Kwajalein Atoll, all eight fired from one missile. be easily achieved with commercially available clocks. [27] In 1976, Congress refused to fund MX using a silo-based Congress again rejected the system. system on grounds of vulnerability, and the project was halted. Several new proposals were made for alternate basing arrangements, including mobile basing in railway 126.1.8 SLBMs come of age cars that would be sent out into the nation’s rail network during times of heightened threat levels, and more By this time both the US and USSR were beginning to complex systems of deeply buried silos under mesas that field third-generation SLBMs with greatly improved acwould include systems to quickly dig themselves out after curacy. These now arguably had all of the capability of an attack. the land-based ICBMs, and were equally able to carry out the counterforce mission. Additionally, the submarines Eventually, the program was reinstated in 1979 by President Carter, who authorized deployment of 200 mis- could manoeuvre much closer to their targets, greatly reducing the warning time, potentially to the point that the siles throughout eastern Nevada and western Utah. The deployment would occur in a system of multiple protec- command structure would not have time to launch their ICBMs and bombers before the warheads were reaching tive shelters linked by underground or aboveground roads, the so-called “Racetrack” proposal. However, local op- them. This scenario was a major concern during the early position in Nevada was intense, and the concept gained 1980s, to the point where it was the topic of lengthy telea powerful enemy in the form of Senator Paul Laxalt.[23] vision programs.
126.1.7
Basing options
Initially support was high in Utah, especially in the Beaver County area; although opposition increased dramatically following a statement of disapproval by the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[24][25]
This development caused some to suggest that the solution was to simply shift the entire deterrent force to the SLBM on both sides. In the US, however, a combination of factors led to the continued retention of the nuclear When Ronald Reagan took office, Laxalt’s close ties with triad. Reagan proved useful. Reagan canceled the new shel- A compromise was eventually developed in mid-1983. ter system in 1981, calling it “a Rube Goldberg scheme”. Under this scheme, 100 missiles would be deployed in exHe proposed deploying an initial force of missiles in the isting Minuteman silos to “show national will”. The plan approximately 60 existing Titan II silos, removing those also called for the removal of the venerable and accidentnow outdated missiles from service. The silos would be prone liquid fueled Titan II from use. However, this did modified for much greater strength, and a number of Min- not address the problem the MX was originally intended
126.2. RETIREMENT AND DEACTIVATION
457
to solve, providing high survivability. This would later be addressed through the re-introduction of the “rail garrison” concept, with twenty-five trains each carrying two missiles. This system was expected to be operational in 1992. The supposed counterforce gap, then being widely talked about on television, also resulted in the schedule for silo deployment being moved up, dropping the production time from 44 months to 29.[28]
parts and some of these required as many as 11,000 testing steps.[29] Bogged down in paperwork due to government procurement policies, managers started bypassing official channels and buying replacement parts wherever they could be found, including claims that some of the parts were sourced at Radio Shack. In other cases, managers had created false shell companies to order needed test equipment.[29]
Additionally, the plan also called for the development of an entirely new missile, which would emerge as the MGM-134 Midgetman. The Midgetman deliberately carried only one warhead and was highly mobile. Countering a single Midgetman would require the Soviets to blanket an area around its last known position with warheads. Even if this was successful, they would destroy only a single warhead. Faced with this choice, it was expected the Soviets would instead expend their warheads on easier targets.
When these allegations were released by 60 Minutes and the Los Angeles Times, the fallout was immediate. Northrop was slapped with a $130 million fine for late delivery, and when they reacted against employees they were countersued in whistleblower suits. The Air Force also admitted that 11 of the 29 missiles deployed were not operational. A Congressional report stated that “Northrop was behind schedule before it even started” and noted that the Air Force knew as early as 1985 that there were “serious system deficiencies as well as a lack of effective progress”.[29] They complained that the Air Force should have come clean and simply pushed back the deployment date, but instead, in order to foster the illusion of progress, the missiles were deployed in a nonoperational state.[29]
126.1.9
Deployment
The first prototype AIRS, by then known more generically as the Inertial Measurement Unit, or IMU, was delivered in May 1986, 203 days late.[29] It was not until July 1987 that the first production AIRS were ready to ship, and the complete supply for the first 50 missiles was not complete until December 1988. Given these delays, and increased performance of the UGM-133 Trident II, Congress had already cancelled the 100-missile option in July 1985. In that decision, Congress limited the deployment of Peacekeeper ICBMs to 50 missiles until a more Retired Peacekeeper rail garrison car prototype at the USAF Na“survivable” basing plan could be developed. tional Museum. The new ICBM missile was originally planned to be called “Peacemaker”, but at the last minute was officially designated the LGM-118A Peacekeeper. It was first test fired on 17 June 1983, by the Air Force Systems Command Ballistic Missile Office (Norton AFB, CA); 6595th Missile Test Group (Vandenberg AFB, CA Strategic Air Command); and Martin Marietta, from Vandenberg AFB, California Test Pad-01, traveling 4,200 nautical miles (4,800 mi; 7,800 km) to strike successfully in the Kwajalein Test Range in the Pacific. The first eight test flights were launched from an above ground canister on TP-01, with the remaining test and operational Strategic Air Command flights from silos (LF-02, −05, & −08) all located on North Vandenberg AFB. A total of 50 flight tests were accomplished. The operational missile was first manufactured in February 1984 and was deployed in December 1986 to the Strategic Air Command, 90th Strategic Missile Wing at the Francis E. Warren Air Force Base in Cheyenne, Wyoming in re-fitted Minuteman silos. However, the AIRS was not yet ready and the missiles were deployed with non-operational guidance units. AIRS had 19,000
Development of the rail garrison system was carried out in parallel. However, budgetary constraints and the dissolution of the Soviet Union led to its being scrapped. The National Museum of the United States Air Force has a rail garrison box car on display on the museum grounds east of the main display hangars and developmental remnants of the program can still be found at Vandenberg Air Force Base. The project had already cost around $20 billion up to 1998 and produced 114 missiles, at $400 million for each operational missile. The “flyaway” cost of each warhead was estimated at 20 to 70 million dollars.[30]
126.2 Retirement and deactivation The missiles were gradually retired, with 17 withdrawn during 2003, leaving 29 missiles on alert at the beginning of 2004, and only 10 by the beginning of 2005. The last Peacekeeper was removed from alert on September 19, 2005 during the final deactivation ceremony when the 400th Missile Squadron was inactivated as well. Dur-
458
CHAPTER 126. LGM-118 PEACEKEEPER
ing the ceremony an Under-Secretary of the Air Force [10] Pomeroy 2006, p. 131. credited the Peacekeeper with helping to end the Cold [11] Pomeroy 2006, p. 133. War.[31] The Peacekeeper rockets are being converted to the satellite launcher role by Orbital Sciences, as the Minotaur IV (OSP-2), while their warheads will be deployed on the existing Minuteman III missiles. Parts of the missile are reused for the Ares rocket, in the 'Roll Control System' (RoCS).
[12] Pomeroy 2006, p. 135. [13] Pomeroy 2006, p. 136. [14] Pomeroy 2006, p. 137. [15] Pomeroy 2006, p. 143. [16] Pomeroy 2006, p. 140.
126.3 Operator • The United States Air Force was the only operator of the Peacekeeper. 400th Strategic Missile (later Missile) Squadron, Francis E. Warren AFB, Wyoming (1987-2005) • Orbital Sciences: Will use the Minotaur IV civilian launch platform version.
126.4 See also • List of missiles • Missile • Peace through strength • Strategic Air Command
[17] “Non-linear servo drive for a flimbal”, MIT, 1959 [18] MacKenzie 1993, p. 218. [19] MacKenzie 1993, p. 222. [20] MacKenzie 1993, pp. 225-226. [21] “Advanced Inertial Reference Sphere”, FAS, 22 October 1997 [22] MacKenzie 1993, p. 226. [23] MacKenzie 1993, p. 229. [24] Martha Sonntag Bradley. “The MX Missile Project”. Utah History To Go. State of Utah. Retrieved 9 June 2012. [25] Jolley, Joann (1981). “News of the Church: First Presidency Statement on Basing of MX Missile”. Ensign (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) (June 1981). Retrieved 9 June 2012. [26] Jonathan Medalia, “The MX Basing Debate”, US Congress, 11 February 1981 [27] “Congress Rejects MX Dense Pack Deployment”, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 1983 [28] Ramirez 1988.
126.5 References 126.5.1
Notes
[1] In Combat Magazine Collection - Ballistic Missiles issue (1991) [2] In Combat Magazine Collection - Ballistic Missiles issue (1991) [3] Malik, John (September 1985). “The Yields of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Nuclear Explosions” (PDF). Los Alamos National Laboratory. Retrieved 2007-09-05. [4] MacKenzie 1993, p. 205. [5] MacKenzie 1993, p. 206. [6] Pomeroy 2006, p. 123. [7] MacKenzie 1993, p. 213. [8] Pomeroy 2006, p. 124. [9] Pomeroy 2006, pp. 124-129.
[29] Cushman 1988. [30] The Peacekeeper (MX) ICBM [31] Edwards, Joshua S. (2005-09-20). “Peacekeeper missile mission ends during ceremony”. United States Air Force. Archived from the original on 2012-07-17. Retrieved 2009-05-28.
126.5.2 Bibliography • “The Politics of Armageddon: The Scowcroft Commission and the MX Missile,” in Kenneth Kitts, Presidential Commissions and National Security (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2006). • Donald MacKenzie, “Inventing Accuracy: a historical sociology of nuclear missile guidance”, MIT Press, 1993 • Steven Pomeroy, “Echos That Never Were: American Mobile Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, 1956-1983”, US Air Force, 11 August 2006
126.6. EXTERNAL LINKS • Anthony Ramirez, “The Secret Bomber Bugging Northrop”, Fortune, 14 March 1988 • John Cushman Jr., “Northrop’s Struggle With the MX, The New York Times, 22 November 1988
126.6 External links • Fact File: Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles • ICBM Peacekeeper Launch video
459
Chapter 127
LGM-25C Titan II “Titan II” redirects here. For the smartphone, see HTC Titan II. The Titan II was an intercontinental ballistic missile
Mark 6 re-entry vehicle which contained the W-53 nuclear warhead, fitted to the Titan II
127.1 Titan II missile Titan-II ICBM silo test launch, Vandenberg Air Force Base
The Titan II ICBM was the successor to the Titan I, with double the payload. It also used storable propellants, which reduced the time to launch and permitted it to be (ICBM) and space launcher developed by the Glenn L. launched from its silo. Titan II carried the largest single Martin Company from the earlier Titan I missile. Titan warhead of any American ICBM. II was originally used as an ICBM. It was later used as a medium-lift space launch vehicle to carry payloads for the United States Air Force (USAF), National Aeronautics 127.1.1 LGM-25C Missile and Space Administration (NASA) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). These pay- The missile consists of a two-stage, rocket engine powloads include the USAF Defense Meteorological Satel- ered vehicle and a re-entry vehicle (RV). Provisions are lite Program (DMSP), the NOAA weather satellites, and included for in-flight separation of Stage II from Stage NASA’s Gemini manned space capsules. The modified I, and separation of the RV from Stage II. Stage I and Titan II SLVs (Space Launch Vehicles) were launched Stage II vehicles each contain propellant and pressurizafrom Vandenberg Air Force Base, California up until tion, rocket engine, hydraulic and electrical systems, and 2003. explosive components. In addition, Stage II contains the 460
127.1. TITAN II MISSILE
461
127.1.2 Airframe The airframe is a two-stage, aerodynamically stable structure that houses and protects the airborne missile equipment during powered flight. The missile guidance system enables the shutdown and staging enable relay to initiate Stage I separation. Each stage is 10 feet in diameter and has fuel and oxidizer tanks in tandem, with the walls of the tanks forming the skin of the missile in those areas. External conduits are attached to the outside surface of the tanks to provide passage for the wire bundles and tubing. Access doors are provided on the missile forward, aft and between-tanks structure for inspection and maintenance. A man-hole cover for tank entry is located on the forward dome of each tank.
127.1.3 Stage I airframe
Titan II launch vehicle launching Gemini 11 (September 12, 1966)
The Stage I airframe consists of an interstage structure, oxidizer tank forward skirt, oxidizer tank, inter-tank structure, and fuel tank. The interstage structure, oxidizer tank forward skirt, and inter-tank structure are all fabricated assemblies utilizing riveted skin, stringers and frame. The oxidizer tank is a welded structure consisting of a forward dome, tank barrel, an aft dome and a feedline. The fuel tank, also a welded structure, consists of a forward dome, tank barrel an aft cone, and internal conduit.
127.1.4 Stage II airframe The Stage II airframe consists of a transition section, oxidizer tank, inter-tank structure, fuel tank and aft skirt. The transition section, inter-tank structure and aft skirt are all fabricated assemblies utilizing riveted skin, stringers and frame. The oxidizer tank and fuel tank are welded structures consisting of forward and aft domes.
127.1.5 Missile characteristics The following data is from publication T.O. 21MLGM25C-1 (Dash 1)
127.1.6 Guidance
Titan 23G launch vehicle (Sept. 5, 1988)
flight control system and missile guidance set.
The first Titan II guidance system was built by AC Spark Plug. It used an IMU (inertial measurement unit, a gyroscopic sensor) made by AC Spark Plug derived from original designs from MIT Draper Labs. The missile guidance computer (MGC) was the IBM ASC-15. When spares for this system became hard to obtain, it was replaced by a more modern guidance system, the Delco Universal Space Guidance System (USGS). The USGS used a Carousel IV IMU and a Magic 352 computer.[1]
462
127.1.7
CHAPTER 127. LGM-25C TITAN II
Development
The Titan rocket family was established in October 1955, when the Air Force awarded the Glenn L. Martin Company a contract to build an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). It became known as the Titan I, the nation’s first two-stage ICBM and first underground silo-based ICBM. The Martin Company realized that the Titan I could be further improved and presented a proposal to the U.S. Air Force for an improved version. It would carry a larger warhead over a greater range with more accuracy and could be fired more quickly. The Martin company received a contract for the new missile, designated SM68B Titan II, in June 1960. The Titan II was 50% heavier than the Titan I, with a longer first stage and a larger diameter second stage. The Titan II also used storable propellants, Aerozine 50, which is a 1:1 mixture of hydrazine and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) and dinitrogen tetroxide, also known as “red-fuming nitric acid”, a substance which is 78% oxygen. The Titan I, whose liquid oxygen oxidizer must be loaded immediately before launching, had to be raised from its silo and fueled before launch. The use of storable propellants enabled the Titan II to be launched within 60 seconds directly from within its silo. Their hypergolic nature made them dangerous to handle; a leak could (and did) lead to explosions, and the fuel was highly toxic. However, it allowed for a much simpler and more trouble-free engine system than on cryogenically-fueled boosters. Titan-II 23G-9 B-107 carrying DMSP-5D3 F-16 Final Titan II launch Oct 18, 2003
ating capability in October 1963. The Titan II contained one W-53 nuclear warhead in a Mark 6 re-entry vehicle with a range of 9,325 miles (15,000 kilometres (9,300 mi)). The W-53 had a yield of 9 megatons. This warhead was guided to its target using an inertial guidance unit. The 54 deployed Titan IIs formed the backbone of America’s strategic deterrent force until the LGM-30 Minuteman ICBM was deployed en masse during the early to mid-1960s. Twelve Titan IIs were flown in NASA’s Gemini manned space program in the mid-1960s. The Department of Defense predicted that a Titan II missile could eventually carry a warhead with a 35 megaton yield, based on projected improvements. However, that warhead was never developed or deployed. This would have made this warhead one of the most powerful ever, and in terms of power-to-weight ratio, advantageous over the B41 nuclear bomb by almost double.[2]
127.1.8 Launch history and development The first Titan II launch was carried out on March 16, 1962 from LC16 at Cape Canaveral and was otherwise successful but for one problem: excessive longitudinal viThe first flight of the Titan II was in March 1962 and the brations in the first stage. While this was of little concern missile, now designated LGM-25C, reached initial oper- to the Air Force, it greatly worried NASA officials who Titan II rocket launch with Clementine spacecraft (January 25, 1994)
127.1. TITAN II MISSILE believed that this phenomenon would be harmful to astronauts on a manned Gemini flight. Another three Titan tests were carried out during the summer, and on two of those flights, the second stage engine underperformed. In both cases, the reason for this was different and apparently unconnected. Aside from 'POGO' oscillation (the nickname NASA engineers invented for the Titan’s vibration problem since it was thought to resemble the action of a pogo stick),[3] the Titan II was experiencing other teething problems that were expected of a new launch vehicle. The July 25 test (Vehicle N-4) had been scheduled for June 27, but was delayed by a month when the Titan’s right engine experienced severe combustion instability at ignition that caused the entire thrust chamber to break off of the booster and fall down the flame deflector pit, landing about 20 feet from the pad (the Titan’s onboard computer shut the engines down the moment loss of thrust occurred). The problem was traced to a bit of cleaning alcohol carelessly left in the engine. A new set of engines had to be ordered from Aerojet, after which the launch proceeded without any problems. Although three Titan II tests during September and October met most of their objectives, the nagging POGO problem remained and the booster could not be considered man-rated until this was fixed. Martin-Marietta thus added a surge-suppressor standpipe to the oxidizer feed line in the first stage, but when the system was tested on Titan N-11 on December 6, the effect was instead to worsen POGO in the first stage, which also ended up shutting down prematurely due to the strong vibration. Vehicle N-13 was launched 13 days later and carried no standpipes, but it did have increased pressure in the first stage propellant tanks, which did cut down on vibration. In addition, the oxidizer feedlines were made of aluminum instead of steel. On the other hand, the exact reason for POGO was still unclear and a vexing problem for NASA.
463 tic missile (ICBM) use and that no further improvements needed to be made. While adding more pressure to the propellant tanks had reduced vibration, it could only be done so much before putting unsafe structural loads on the Titan and in any case the results were still unsatisfactory from NASA’s point of view. While BSD tried to come up with a way to help NASA out, they finally decided that it was not worth the time, resources, and risk of trying to cut down further on POGO and that the ICBM program ultimately came first. Despite the Air Force’s lack of interest in man-rating the Titan II, General Bernard Adolph Schriever assured that any problems with the booster would be fixed. BSD decided that 0.6 Gs was good enough despite NASA’s goal of 0.25 Gs and they stubbornly declared that no more resources were to be expended on it. On March 29, 1963, Schriever invited Space Systems Development (SSD) and BSD officials to his headquarters at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, but the meeting was not encouraging. Brig. Gen John L. McCoy (director of the Titan Systems Program Office) reaffirmed BSD’s stance that the POGO and combustion instability problems in the Titan were not a serious issue to the ICBM program and it would be too difficult and risky at this point to try and improve them for NASA’s sake. Meanwhile, Martin-Marietta and Aerojet both argued that most of the major development problems with the booster had been solved and it would only take a little more work to man-rate it. They proposed adding more standpipes to the first stage and using baffled injectors in the second stage. A closed-door meeting of NASA and Air Force officials led to the former arguing that without any definitive answer to the POGO and combustion instability problems, the Titan could not safely fly human passengers. But by this point, the Air Force was taking a bigger role in the Gemini program due to proposed uses of the spacecraft for military applications (e.g. Blue Gemini). During the first week of April, a joint plan was drafted which would ensure that POGO was to be reduced to fit NASA’s target and to make design improvements to both Titan stages. The program carried the conditions that the ICBM program retained first priority and was not to be delayed by Gemini, and that General McCoy would have final say on all matters.
The tenth Titan II flight (Vehicle N-15) took place on January 10. While it appeared that the POGO problem was largely contained on this flight, the second stage engine again underperformed and the missile only flew half its intended trajectory. While previous second stage problems were blamed on POGO, this could not be the case for N-15. Meanwhile, combustion instability was still an issue and was confirmed by Aerojet static-firing tests which Meanwhile, the Titan II development program faltered showed that the LR91 liquid-propellant engine had diffi- severely during the first half of 1963. On February 16, culty attaining smooth burning after the shock of startup. Vehicle N-7 was launched from a silo at Vandenberg Air Efforts to man-rate the Titan II also ran afoul of the fact Force Base in California and malfunctioned almost immediately at liftoff. An umbilical cord failed to separate that the Air Force and not NASA was in charge of its development. The former’s primary aim was to develop a cleanly, ripping out wiring in the base of the missile and missile system, not a launch vehicle for Project Gemini, cutting off power to the guidance system. The Titan beand they were only interested in technical improvements gan a rapid roll and pitch downward, but due to the power to the booster insofar as they had relevance to that pro- loss, Range Safety was unable to destroy the errant vehigram. On January 29, the Air Force Ballistic Systems Di- cle. Launch crews were terrified that it would fly into a vision (BSD) declared that POGO in the Titan had been populated area, but finally the tumbling booster broke up reduced sufficiently enough for inter-continental ballis- when the onboard backup destruct system activated.
464 While N-18 flew successfully from the Cape on March 21, N-21 again suffered loss of second stage thrust after having been delayed several weeks due to another episode of the first stage thrust chambers breaking off prior to launch. The next four flights (April 27, May 9, May 13, and May 21) were mostly successful, but the last was only the tenth Titan II launch so far where all objectives were met. On May 29, Missile N-20 was launched with a new round of POGO-suppressing devices on board. Unfortunately, a fuel leak caused a fire to break out in the engine compartment soon after liftoff, leading to loss of control and vehicle breakup at T+55 seconds. No useful POGO data was obtained due to the early termination of the flight.
CHAPTER 127. LGM-25C TITAN II in Arkansas, and McConnell Air Force Base in Wichita, Kansas.[6] Mishaps
In August 1965, a fire and resultant loss of oxygen when a high-pressure hydraulic line was cut with an oxyacetylene torch in a missile silo (373-4) near Searcy, Arkansas killed 53 people, mostly civilian repairmen doing maintenance.[7] The fire occurred while the 750-ton silo lid was closed, which contributed to a reduced oxygen level for the men who survived the initial fire. Two men escaped alive, both with injuries due to the fire and smoke, one by groping in complete darkness for the The next flight was a silo test from Vandenberg Air Force exit.[8] The missile survived and was undamaged. Base on June 20, but once again the second stage lost thrust. At this point, BSD suspended further flights for On August 24, 1978, one airman, SSgt Robert Thomas, the time being. Of the 20 Titan launches so far, seven was killed at a site outside Rock, Kansas when a miswould have required the abort of a manned launch and sile in its silo leaked propellant. Another airman, A1C later died from lung injuries sustained in General McCoy had to make good 12 of the 13 remain- Erby Hepstall, [9][10] the spill. ing scheduled tests. Since the ICBM program came first, POGO suppression had to be shelved. On September 19, 1980, a major mishap occurred after On the other hand, only Missile N-11 suffered a malfunc- a socket from a socket wrench rolled off a platform and tion due to POGO and the combustion instability issue punctured the missile’s Stage I fuel tank, subsequently had occurred in static firings, but not any actual flights. causing the missile to collapse. Due to the hypergolic All Titan II failures save for N-11 were caused by hy- propellants involved, the entire missile exploded a few draulics or fuel leaks or bad wiring or other problems of hours later, killing an Air Force airman, SrA David Livdestroying the silo (374-7, near Damascus, that nature. The trouble appeared to be with Aerojet, and ingston, and [11] Arkansas). Thanks to the warhead’s built-in safety feaa visit of MSC officials to their Sacramento, California tures, it did not detonate. A television movie portrays this plant in July revealed a number of extremely careless hanevent, “Disaster at Silo 7”.[12] Author Eric Schlosser pub[4][5] dling and manufacturing processes. lished a book centered on the accident, Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety, in September 2013.[13] Retirement It is a common misconception that the Titan IIs were decommissioned because of a weapons reduction treaty, but in fact, they were simply aging victims of a weapons modernization program. Because of the volatility of the liquid fuel and the problem with aging seals, the Titan II missiles 1965 graph of Titan II launches (middle), cumulative by month had originally been scheduled to be retired beginning in with failures highlighted (pink) along with USAF SM-65 Atlas 1971. After the two accidents in 1978 and 1980, respecand NASA use of ICBM boosters for Projects Mercury and Gemtively, deactivation of the Titan II ICBM system finally ini (blue). Apollo-Saturn history and projections shown as well. began in July 1982. The last Titan II missile, located at Silo 373-8 near Judsonia, Arkansas, was deactivated on May 5, 1987. With their warheads removed, the deactivated missiles were initially placed in storage at Davis– 127.1.9 Service history Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona and the former Norton The Titan II was in service from 1963 to 1987. There Air Force Base, California, but were later broken up for were originally 63 Titan II Strategic Air Command mis- salvage in 2006. siles. Nine were deployed to Vandenberg Air Force Base A single Titan II complex belonging to the former stratetraining base in California. Eighteen of the missiles were gic missile wing at Davis–Monthan Air Force Base eson 24 hour continuous alert surrounding Davis–Monthan caped destruction after decommissioning and is open to Air Force Base near Tucson, Arizona. The remaining the public as the Titan Missile Museum at Sahuarita, Arimissiles were deployed to Little Rock Air Force Base zona. The missile resting in the silo is a real Titan II, but
127.2. OPERATIONAL UNITS was a training missile and never contained fuel, oxidizer or a warhead.
465
127.2 Operational units
There is also a surviving silo complex at Vandenberg Air Each Titan II ICBM wing was equipped with eighteen Force Base which is now a museum, one of three test silos missiles; nine per squadron with one each at dispersed launch silos in the general area of the assigned base. See used operationally. squadron article for geographic locations and other inforNumber of Titan II missiles in service, by year: mation about the assigned launch sites. • 1963 - 56 • 1964 - 59 • 1965 - 59 • 1966 - 60 • 1967 - 63 • 1968 - 59 (3 deactivated at Vandenberg Air Force Base) • 1969 - 60
373d SMS
374th SMS • 1970 - 57 (3 more deactivated at Vandenberg Air Force Base) 532d SMS • 1971 - 58
533d SMS
• 1972 - 57
570th SMS
• 1973 - 57
571st SMS
• 1974 - 57
395th SMS
• 1975 - 57
Map of LGM-25C Titan II Operational Squadrons
• 1976 - 58 • 1977 - 57
• 308th Strategic Missile Wing 1 April 1962 – 18 August 1987
• 1978 - 57
Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas
• 1979 - 57
373d Strategic Missile Squadron
• 1980 - 56 • 1981 - 56 (President Ronald Reagan announces retirement of Titan II systems) • 1983 - 53
374th Strategic Missile Squadron 308th Missile Inspection and Maintenance Squadron • 381st Strategic Missile Wing 1 March 1962 – 8 August 1986
• 1984 - 43 (Davis–Monthan Air Force Base site closure completed)
McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas
• 1985 - 21
533d Strategic Missile Squadron
• 1986 - 9 (Little Rock Air Force Base closure completed in 1987)
532d Strategic Missile Squadron
• 390th Strategic Missile Wing 1 January 1962 – 31 July 1984
466
CHAPTER 127. LGM-25C TITAN II Davis–Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona 570th Strategic Missile Squadron 571st Strategic Missile Squadron
• 1st Strategic Aerospace Division Vandenberg Air Force Base, California
to the Evergreen Aviation & Space Museum in McMinnville, Oregon. Finally, B-34 Stage 2 was delivered from Norton Air Force Base to Martin Marietta on 28 Apr 1986, but was not modified to a G, nor was it listed as arriving or being destroyed at the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group at Davis–Monthan Air Force Base, it is therefore unaccounted for within the open source public domain.
42 B-series missiles remained, 41 full and one first stage at Norton Air Force Base, and the second stage at Martin. Of these 38 and one second stage were stored outside Operated 3 silos for technical deat the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center velopment and testing, 1963–1969 (AMARC), now known as the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (309 AMARG)), adjaNote: In 1959, a fifth Titan II installation at the former cent to Davis–Monthan Air Force Base to await final deGriffiss Air Force Base, New York was proposed, but struction in 2004 thru 2008. Four of the 42 were saved and sent to museums (below). never constructed. 395th Strategic Missile Squadron, 1 February 1959 – 31 December 1969
Air Force Base Silo Deactivation date ranges:
127.3 Titan II missile disposition
• Davis–Monthan Air Force Base 10 Aug 82 – 28 Jun 1984
33 Titan-II Research Test (N-type) missiles were built • McConnell Air Force Base 31 Jul 1984 – 18 Jun and all but one were launched either at Cape Canaveral 1986 Air Force Station, Florida or Vandenberg Air Force Base, California from March 1962 through April 1964. The • Little Rock Air Force Base 31 May 1985 – 27 Jun surviving N-10, AF Ser. No. 61-2738/60-6817 resides 1987 in the silo at the Titan Missile Museum (ICBM Site 5717), operated by the Pima Air & Space Museum at Green Titan II Movement Dates: Valley, south of Tucson, Arizona on Interstate-19.[14] 12 Titan-II Gemini Launch Vehicles (GLVs) were produced. All were launched from the then-Cape Kennedy Air Force Station from April 1964 through November 1966. The top half of GLV-5 62-12560 was recovered offshore following its launch and is on display at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center, Alabama. 108 Titan-II ICBM (B-Types) were produced. 49 were launched for testing at Vandenberg Air Force Base from July, 1964 through June, 1976. 2 were lost in accidents within silos. One B-2, AF Ser. No. 61-2756 was given to the U.S. Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama in the 1970s. The 56 surviving missiles were pulled from silos and individual base stores and all transferred to the then-Norton Air Force Base, California during the 1980s. They were stored under plastic coverings and had helium pumped into their engine components to prevent rust. Two buildings at Norton Air Force Base held the missiles, Building 942 and 945. Building 945 held 30 missiles, while Building 942 held 11 plus a single stage 1. The buildings also held extra stage engines and the interstages. 14 full missiles and one extra second stage had been transferred from Norton Air Force Base to the manufacturer, Martin Marietta, at Martin’s Denver, Colorado facility for refurbishment by the end of the decade.[15] 13 of the 14 were launched as 23Gs. One missile, B-108, AF Ser. No. 66-4319 (23G-10 the spare for the 23G program), went
• Titan II Bs moved to Norton Air Force Base between - 12 Mar 1982 thru 20 Aug 1987 • Missiles relocated to AMARC at Davis– Monthan Air Force Base prior to Apr 1994 closure of Norton Air Force Base due to BRAC 1989 action • Titan II Bs delivered to Martin Marietta/Denver between - 29 Feb 1986 thru 20 Sep 1988 • Titan II Bs delivered to AMARC - 25 Oct 1982 thru 23 Aug 1987 • Titan II Bs destroyed at AMARC - 7 Apr 2004 thru 15 Oct 2008 • Titan II Bs destruction periods at AMARC - 7 Apr 2004 x2; 17 Aug 2005 x 5; 12 Jan - 17 Jan 2006 x 10; 9 Aug 2007 x 3; 7 Oct - 15 Oct 2008 x 18; 2 shipped out to museums, Aug 2009 Official Count: 108 Titan-2 'B' Series Vehicles were delivered to USAF: 49 Test launches, 2 Silo losses, 13 Space launches, 6 in museums, 37.5 destroyed at AMARC, +.5 (one second stage missing B-34)=108. • Norton Air Force Base Bldg 942 June 1989
127.5. REFERENCES • Norton Air Force Base Bldg 945 June 1989 • Titan-2 ICBMs in storage at Norton Air Force Base 1989 • Titan-2 ICBMs in storage at Norton Air Force Base 1989
467 for use as space launch vehicles. All twelve Gemini capsules, ten of which were manned, were launched by Titan II launchers. The Titan 23B was a Titan II with an Agena third stage that was used to launch reconnaissance satellites.
The Titan II space launch vehicle is a two-stage liquid fueled booster, designed to provide a small-to-medium • The remaining 38 and one half missiles awaiting de- weight class capability. It is able to lift approximately struction at Davis–Monthan Air Force Base in 2006 1,900 kilograms (4,200 lb) into a circular polar lowEarth orbit. The first stage consists of one ground ignited Titan-II surviving missiles/ Museum locations within the Aerojet LR-87 liquid propellant rocket engine (with two United States: combustion chambers and nozzles but a single turbopump system), while the second stage consists of an Aerojet • GLV-5, AF Ser. No. 62-12560 top half of Stage LR91 liquid-propellant engine. 1 was recovered offshore following its launch and is The Martin Marietta Astronautics Group was awarded on display at the Alabama Space & Rocket Center a contract in January 1986 to refurbish, integrate, and in Huntsville, Alabama. launch fourteen Titan II ICBMs for government space launch requirements. These were designated Titan 23G. The Air Force successfully launched the first Titan 23G space launch vehicle from Vandenberg Air Force Base September 5, 1988. NASA’s Clementine spacecraft was launched aboard a Titan 23G in January 1994. All Ti• B-2 AF Ser. No 61-2756 at the U.S. Space & tan 23G missions were launched from Space Launch Complex 4 West (SLC-4W) on Vandenberg Air Force Rocket Center, Huntsville, Alabama in the 1970s. Base, under the operational command of the 6595th • B-5 AF Ser. No. 61-2759 at the National Museum Aerospace Test Group and its follow-on organizations of of the United States Air Force, Wright-Patterson Air the 4th Space Launch Squadron and 2nd Space Launch Force Base, Dayton, Ohio Squadron. • N-10 AF Ser. No. 61-2738/60-6817 in the silo at the Titan Missile Museum (ICBM Site 571-7), southwest of Davis–Monthan Air Force Base in Green Valley, Tucson, Arizona.
• B-14/20 AF Ser. No. 61-2768 at the Stafford Museum, Oklahoma • B-44/16 AF Ser. No. 62-0025 at the National Museum of Nuclear Science & History adjacent to Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, New Mexico • B-104 AF Ser. No 66-4315 at the Spaceport USA Rocket Garden, Kennedy Space Center, Florida • B-108 AF Ser. No. 66-4319 (23G-10 the spare for the 23G program) at the Evergreen Aviation Museum in McMinnville, Oregon
127.5 References • Gunston, Bill (1979). Illustrated Encyclopedia of the World’s Rockets & Missiles. London: Salamander Books. ISBN 0-517-26870-1. • Stumpf, David K. (2000). Titan II: A History of a Cold War Missile Program. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press. ISBN 1-55728-601-9.
127.6 See also
Note: B-34 Stage 2 was delivered from Norton Air Force • Strategic Air Command Base to Martin on 4/28/86 but was not modified to a G, nor was it listed as arriving or being destroyed at Related development AMARC, it is therefore unaccounted for.
127.4 Titan II launch vehicle Main articles: Titan (rocket family), Titan II GLV and Titan 23G
• Titan (rocket family) • Titan I • Titan 23B • ASC-15
• Blue Streak (missile) The Titan II space-launch vehicles were purpose-built as space launchers or are decommissioned ICBMs that have been refurbished and equipped with hardware required Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era
468 • Atlas (missile) • SS-18 Satan • DF-5 Related lists
CHAPTER 127. LGM-25C TITAN II
127.8 External links • Google Map of 62 Titan II Missile Sites throughout the United States • Titan Missile Museum
• List of military aircraft of the United States
• Titan Missile at Evergreen Space Museum (site of Spruce Goose)
• List of missiles
• Titan missiles & variations • Titan II Missile Information
127.7 References This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. [1] Stumpf, David K. (2000). Titan II: A History of a Cold War Missile Program. University of Arkansas Press. pp. 63–7. ISBN 1-55728-601-9. [2] U.S. Department of Energy (January 1, 2001). “Restricted Data Declassification Decisions 1946 To The Present”. FAS. [3] Tom Irvine (October 2008). “Apollo 13 Pogo Oscillation” (PDF-0.96 Mb). Vibrationdata Newsletter. pp. 2–6. Retrieved 2009-06-18. [4] http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/ 19780012208_1978012208.pdf [5] http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/titan2.htm [6] “Titan II Missile Base Locations”. Retrieved September 12, 2006. [7] “Escape Route Blocked in Silo Disaster”. Ellensburg Daily Record. Associated Press. August 13, 1965. p. 1. Retrieved October 18, 2009. [8] Titan II Accident Searcy AR, August 9 1965 [9] “1 killed, 6 injured when fuel line breaks at Kansas Titan missile site”. St. Petersburg Times. United Press International. August 25, 1978. p. 4. Retrieved October 18, 2009. [10] “Thunderhead Of Lethal Vapor Kills Airman At Missile Silo”. The Ledger. Associated Press. August 25, 1978. p. 7. Retrieved October 18, 2009. [11] “Light on the Road to Damascus” Time magazine, September 29, 1980. Retrieved 2009-10-18 [12] Disaster At Silo 7 (1988) IMDB Page [13] Schlosser, Eric (2013). Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety. Penguin Press. ISBN 978-1-59420-227-8. [14] http://www.titanmissilemuseum.org/ [15] Powell, Joel W.; Caldwell, Lee Robert (October 1989). Spaceflight Magazine. Missing or empty |title= (help)
• Original Titan II ICBM Web Site
Chapter 128
LGM-30 Minuteman The LGM-30 Minuteman is a US land-based intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), in service with the Air Force Global Strike Command. As of 2014, the LGM-30G Minuteman-III version[lower-alpha 1] is the only land-based ICBM in service in the United States. It is one component of the US nuclear triad—the other two parts of the triad being the Trident submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), and nuclear weapons carried by long-range strategic bombers. Each missile carries up to three nuclear warheads, which have a yield in the range of 300 to 500 kilotons. The Minuteman was the first MIRV-capable missile. The name “Minuteman” comes from the Revolutionary War's Minutemen. It also refers to its quick reaction time; the missile can be launched within minutes after the receipt of a valid launch order.[2][3] The Air Force plans to keep the missile in service until at least 2030.[4][5] The current US force consists of 450 Minuteman-III missiles[6] in missile silos around Malmstrom AFB, Montana; Minot AFB, North Dakota; and F.E. Warren AFB, Wyoming.[1] This will slowly be reduced to 400 armed missiles, with 50 unarmed missiles in reserve, and four non-deployed test launchers to comply with the New START treaty.[7] Minuteman-I missile
perchlorate composite propellant. Adapting a concept developed in the UK, they cast the fuel into large cylinders with a star-shaped hole running along the inner axis. 128.1.1 Edward Hall and solid fuels This allowed the fuel to burn along the entire length of the cylinder, rather than just the end as in earlier designs, Minuteman owes its existence largely to the efforts of increasing thrust. This also meant the heat was spread then Air Force Colonel Edward N. Hall. In 1956, Hall across the entire motor and did not reach the wall of the was put in charge of the solid fuel propulsion division missile fuselage until the engine was finished burning.[9] of General Schriever’s Western Development Division, Guidance of an ICBM is based not only on the direction which led development of the Atlas and Titan. Solid fu- the missile is travelling, but the precise instant that thrust els were already commonly used in rockets, but strictly for is cut off. Too much thrust and the warhead will overshort-range uses. Hall’s superiors were interested in short shoot its target, too little and it will fall short. Solids are and medium range missiles with solids, especially for use normally very hard to predict in terms of burning time and in Europe, but Hall was convinced that they could be used their instantaneous thrust during the burn, which made for a true ICBM with 5,500 nautical miles (10,200 km; them questionable for the sort of accuracy required to hit 6,300 mi) range.[8] a target at intercontinental range. This appeared at first to
128.1 History
To achieve the required energy, Hall began funding re- be an insurmountable problem, but in the end was solved search at Boeing and Thiokol into the use of ammonium in almost trivial fashion. A series of ports were added 469
470
CHAPTER 128. LGM-30 MINUTEMAN
inside the rocket nozzle that were opened when the guidance systems called for engine cut-off. The reduction in pressure was so abrupt that the last burning fuel ejected itself and the flame was snuffed out.[9]
design of 71 inches (1.8 m) diameter, much smaller than the Atlas and Titan at 120 inches (3.0 m), which would mean much smaller and cheaper silos. Hall’s goal of dramatic cost reduction was a success, although many of the [12] Rapid success in the development program, combined other concepts of his missile farm was abandoned. with Edward Teller's promise of much lighter nuclear warheads during Project Nobska, led the Navy to aban- 128.1.3 Guidance system don their work with the US Army's Jupiter missile and begin development of a solid fuel missile of their own. Main article: Missile guidance They felt that liquid fuels were too dangerous to use on- A key problem remained; the guidance system. Previous board ships, and especially submarines. Aerojet’s work with Hall would be adapted for their Polaris missile starting in December 1956.[10]
128.1.2
Missile farm concept
The Air Force, however, saw no pressing need for a solid fuel ICBM. Atlas and Titan were progressing, and “storable” liquids were being developed that would allow the missiles to be left in a ready-to-shoot form for extended periods. But Hall saw solid fuels not only as a way to improve launch times or safety, but part of a radical plan to greatly reduce the cost of ICBMs so that thousands could be built. He was aware that new computerized assembly lines would allow continual production, and that similar equipment would allow a small team to oversee operations for dozens or hundreds of missiles. A solid fuel design would be much simpler to build, and easier to maintain in service.[11]
Autonetics D-17 guidance computer from a Minuteman-I missile.
long-range missiles were liquid fueled and required considerable time, 30 minutes to an hour or more, to be fueled. During this time other crewmembers would be spinning up the inertial guidance system, setting its initial position, and programming in the target coordinates. This His ultimate plan was to build a number of integrated misnormally took about as long as the fueling process, so it sile “farms” that included factories, missile silos, transwas not considered a problem that needed to be solved.[13] port and even recycling. Each farm would support between 1,000 and 1,500 missiles being produced in a con- Minuteman was designed from the outset to be launched tinual low rate cycle. Systems in the missiles would detect in minutes. While the use of solid fuel eliminated the failures, at which point it would be removed and recycled, delays fueling up, it did nothing for the delays in erectwhile a newly built missile was put into the silo.[11] The ing and aligning the guidance system. For quick launch, missile design itself was based purely on lowest possible the guidance system would have to be kept running and cost, reducing its size and complexity because “the ba- aligned at all times, a serious problem for the mechanical sis of the weapon’s merit was its low cost per completed systems of the era, especially the gyroscopes which used mission; all other factors - accuracy, vulnerability and re- ball bearings.[14] liability - were secondary.”[12] After considerable deliberation, a design by Autonetics Hall’s plan did not go unopposed, especially by the more established names in the ICBM field. Ramo-Wooldridge pressed for a system with higher accuracy, but Hall countered that the missile’s role was to attack Soviet cities, and that “a force which provides numerical superiority over the enemy will provide a much stronger deterrent than a numerically inferior force of greater accuracy.”[12] Hall was known for his “friction with others” and in 1958 Schriever removed him from the Minuteman project and sent him to the UK to oversee deployment of the Thor ICBM.[8] On his return to the US in 1959, Hall retired from the Air Force, but received his second Legion of Merit in 1960 for his work on solid fuels.[9]
using air bearings was selected, after they pointed out that their experimental set had been running continually from 1952 to 1957.[14] Autonetics further advanced the state of the art by building their bearing not in the form of a single spindle but a ball. This allowed the gryos to precess in two directions instead of along a single axis, meaning that only two gryos instead of three would be needed for the inertial platform.[15][lower-alpha 2]
The last major advance in the Minuteman development was the decision to use a general purpose digital computer in place of the analog or custom designed digital computers of earlier missile designs. This was not chosen to improve the guidance accuracy per se, but a side Although he was removed from the Minuteman project, effect of wishing to reduce the total number of parts in Hall’s work on cost reduction had already produced a new the missile. Previous missile designs had an autopilot that
128.1. HISTORY
471
kept the missile flying in a straight line, and a separate guidance system that provided inputs to the autopilot to adjust its trajectory. Using a single more powerful computer would eliminate the need for two separate units.[16] More importantly, since the guidance computer would otherwise be doing nothing while the missile sat in the silo, using a general purpose computer running a different program allowed it to handle the monitoring of the various sensors and test equipment. With older designs this had been handled externally, requiring miles of extra wiring and many connectors. In order to store multiple programs, the computer was built in the form of a drum machine but used a hard disk in place of the drum.[16] Building a computer with the required performance, size and weight demanded the use of transistors, which were at that time very expensive and not very reliable. Earlier efforts to use transistorized computers for guidance, BINAC and the system on the SM-64 Navaho, had failed to work and were abandoned. The Air Force and Autonetics spent millions on a program to improve transistor and component reliability 100 times. This program led to Polaris could do everything the Air Force missiles could, and was the “Minuteman high-rel parts” that had enormous spin- essentially invulnerable to attack. [17] off effects in the electronics industry. The use of a general purpose computer would have longlasting effects on the Minuteman program, and the US’s nuclear stance in general. Earlier ICBMs using custom wired computers were capable of attacking a single target, the precise trajectory information hard coded directly in the system’s logic. With Minuteman, the targeting could be easily changed by loading new trajectory information into the computer’s memory, a somewhat time consuming process, but one that could be completed in a few hours.[13] Much more importantly, this reprogrammability meant that the information could be continually updated in the field, allowing the system to gain accuracy as improving estimates of the Earth’s gravitational field were fed into the system. Initially deployed with an estimated best-case circular error probable (CEP) of 1.1 nautical miles (2.0 km; 1.3 mi), Minuteman underwent several in-field updates that roughly halved this to 0.6 nautical miles (1.1 km; 0.69 mi) by about 1965.[18] The was accomplished without any mechanical changes to the missile or its navigation system.[13]
128.1.4
The Puzzle of Polaris
were confident that their bombers would survive in great enough numbers that such a strike would utterly destroy the country.[19] Soviet ICBMs upset this equation to a degree. Their accuracy was known to be low, on the order of 4 nautical miles (7.4 km; 4.6 mi), but they carried large warheads that would be useful against Strategic Air Command's bombers, which parked in the open. Since there was no system to detect the ICBMs being launched, the possibility was raised that the Soviets could launch a sneak attack with a few dozen missiles that would take out a significant portion of SACs bomber fleet. In this environment, the Air Force saw their own ICBMs not as a primary weapon of war, but as a way to ensure that the Soviets would not risk a sneak attack. Missiles, especially later models housed in silos, could be expected to survive a sneak attack in sufficient numbers to ensure destruction of all major Soviet cities. In such an environment, the Soviets would not risk an attack.[19] The problem was that you did not need many weapons to effect this threat. An attack of “400 equivalent megatons” aimed at the largest Soviet cities would promptly kill 30% of their population and destroy 50% of their industry. Larger attacks raised these numbers only slowly. This suggested that there was a “finite deterrent” level around 400 megatons that would be enough to prevent a Soviet attack no matter how many missiles they had of their own.[20] All that had to be ensured was that the US missiles survived, which seemed likely given the low accuracy of the Soviet weapons.
Main article: UGM-27 Polaris During Minuteman’s early development, the Air Force maintained the policy that the manned strategic bomber was the primary weapon of nuclear war. Blind bombing accuracy on the order of 1,500 feet (0.46 km) was expected, and the weapons sized to ensure even the hardest targets would be destroyed as long as the weapon fell within this range. The USAF had enough bombers to at- This presented a serious problem for the Air Force. tack every military and industrial target in the USSR and While still pressing for development of their bombers
472
CHAPTER 128. LGM-30 MINUTEMAN
as the weapon of choice against military targets, at that time represented by the supersonic B-70, it appeared the missile role was served perfectly well by the Navy’s Polaris. Polaris was essentially invulnerable, and the Navy’s intended fleet of 41 submarines carrying 16 missiles each meant the Navy held a finite deterrent that was unassailable. A February 1960 memo by RAND entitled “The Puzzle of Polaris” was passed around among high-ranking Air Force officials, suggesting that Polaris negated any need for Air Force ICBMs if they were also being aimed at Soviet cities. This would have long-lasting effects on the future of the Minuteman program, which, by 1961, was firmly evolving towards a counterforce capability.[21]
128.1.5
Kennedy and Minuteman
Primary among these qualities was its digital computer. This could be updated in the field with new targets and better information about the flight paths with relative ease, gaining accuracy for little cost. One of the unavoidable effects on the warhead’s trajectory was the mass of the Earth, which is not even, and contains many mass concentrations that pull on the warhead. Through the 1960s, the Defense Mapping Agency (now part of National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency) mapped these with increasing accuracy, feeding that information back into the Minuteman fleet. The Minuteman was deployed with a circular error probable (CEP) of about 1.1 nautical miles (2.0 km; 1.3 mi), but this had improved to about 0.6 nautical miles (1.1 km; 0.69 mi) by 1965.[24] At those levels, the ICBM begins to approach the manned bomber in terms of accuracy. A small upgrade, roughly doubling the accuracy of the INS, would give it the same 1,500 feet (460 m) CEP as the manned bomber. Autonetics began such development even before the original Minuteman entered fleet service, and the Minuteman-II had a CEP of 0.26 nautical miles (0.48 km; 0.30 mi). Additionally, the computers were upgraded with more memory, allowing them to store information for eight targets, which the missile crews could select among almost instantly, greatly increasing their flexibility.[8] From that point, Minuteman became the US’s primary deterrent weapon, until its performance was matched by the Navy’s Trident missile of the 1980s.
Minuteman was entering final testing just as John Kennedy was entering the White House. His new Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, was tasked with the seemingly impossible mission of producing the world’s best defense while at the same time limiting spending. McNamara began to apply cost/benefit analysis to the problem, and Minuteman’s low production cost made its selection as the basis for a US buildout natural. Atlas and Titan were soon scrapped, and the storable liquid fueled Titan II deployment was severely curtailed.[12] Perhaps a foregone conclusion, McNamara also cancelled Questions about the need for the manned bomber were the B-70.[22] quickly raised. The Air Force began to offer a number of Minuteman’s low cost also had spin-off effects on non- reasons why the bomber offered value, in spite of costing ICBM programs. Another way to prevent a sneak attack more money to buy and being much more expensive to was provided by the Army’s Nike Zeus, an interceptor operate and maintain. Newer bombers with better survivmissile that was capable of shooting down the Soviet war- ability, like the B-70, cost many times that of the Minuteheads. The Army argued that upgraded Soviet missiles man, and in spite of great efforts through the 1960s this might be able to attack US missiles in their silos, and Zeus was never addressed. The B-1 of the early 1970s eventuwould be able to blunt such an attack. Zeus was expen- ally emerged with a price tag around $200 million ($572 sive, however, and the Air Force pointed out that it was million today) while the Minuteman-III’s built during the less expensive to build another Minuteman missile than 1970s cost only $7 million ($25 million today). the Zeus system needed to protect it. Given the large size The Air Force countered that having a variety of platand complexity of the Soviet liquid-fueled missiles, an forms complicated the defense; if the Soviets built an ICBM building race was one the Soviets could not afford. effective anti-ballistic missile system of some sort, the Zeus was cancelled in 1963.[23] ICBM and SLBM fleet might be rendered useless, while the bombers would remain. This became the nuclear triad concept, which survives into the 2000s. Although this ar128.1.6 Minuteman and counterforce gument was successful, the numbers of manned bombers has been repeatedly cut and the deterrent role increasingly Main articles: Counterforce and Pre-emptive nuclear passed to missiles. strike Minuteman’s selection as the primary Air Force ICBM was initially based on the same logic as their earlier mis- 128.1.7 Minuteman-I (LGM-30A/B SM-80/HSM-80A) siles, that the weapon was primarily one designed to ride out any potential Soviet attack and ensure they would be hit in return. But Minuteman had a combination of feaSee also W56 Warhead tures that led to its rapid evolution into the US’s primary weapon of nuclear war.
or
128.1. HISTORY
473 filtered command outputs were sent by each minor cycle to the engine nozzles. Unlike modern computers, which use descendants of that technology for secondary storage on hard disk, the disk was the active computer memory. The disk storage was considered hardened to radiation from nearby nuclear explosions, making it an ideal storage medium. To improve computational speed, the D-17 borrowed an instruction look-ahead feature from the Autonetics-built Field Artillery Data Computer (M18 FADAC) that permitted simple instruction execution every word time. The D-17B and the D-37C guidance and control computers were integral components of the Minuteman-I and Minuteman-II missiles, respectively, which formed a part of the United States ICBM arsenal. The Minuteman-III missiles, which use D-37D computers, complete the 1000 missile deployment of this system. The initial cost of these computers ranged from about $139,000 (D-37C) to $250,000 (D-17B).
128.1.8 Minuteman-II (LGM-30F) See also W56 warhead Some effort was given to a mobile version of Minuteman to improve its survivability, but this was later cancelled.
Deployment The LGM-30A Minuteman-I was first test-fired on 1 February 1961,[25] and entered into the Strategic Air Command's arsenal in 1962, at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana;[26] the “improved” LGM-30B became operational at Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota, Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming, and Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri in 1963. All 800 Minuteman-I missiles were delivered by June 1965. Each of the bases had 150 missiles emplaced. F.E. Warren AFB had 200 of the MinutemanIB missiles. Malmstrom AFB had 150 of the MinutemanI and about five years later added 50 of the Minuteman-II similar to those installed at Grand Forks AFB, ND.
Guidance The Minuteman-I Autonetics D-17 flight computer used a rotating air bearing magnetic disk holding 2,560 “coldstored” words in 20 tracks (write heads disabled after program fill) of 24 bits each and one alterable track of 128 words. The time for a D-17 disk revolution was 10 ms. The D-17 also used a number of short loops for faster access of intermediate results storage. The D-17 computational minor cycle was three disk revolutions or 30 ms. During that time all recurring computations were performed. For ground operations the inertial platform was aligned and gyro correction rates updated. During flight,
The guidance system of the Minuteman-II was much smaller due to the use of integrated circuits. The inertial platform is in the upper bay.
The LGM-30F Minuteman-II was an improved version of the Minuteman-I missile. Development on the Minuteman-II began in 1962 as the Minuteman-I entered the Strategic Air Command’s nuclear force. MinutemanII production and deployment began in 1965 and completed in 1967. It had an increased range, a greater throw weight and guidance system with better azimuthal coverage, providing military planners with better accuracy and a wider range of targets. Some missiles also carried penetration aids, allowing higher probability of kill against
474
CHAPTER 128. LGM-30 MINUTEMAN
Moscow’s anti-ballistic missile system. The payload consisted of a single Mk-11C reentry vehicle containing a W56 nuclear warhead with a yield of 1.2 megatons of TNT (5 PJ). The major new features provided by Minuteman-II were: • An improved first-stage motor to increase reliability. Side view of Minuteman-III ICBM
• A novel, single, fixed nozzle with liquid injection thrust vector control on a larger second-stage motor to increase missile range. Additional motor improvements to increase reliability. • An improved guidance system, incorporating microchips and miniaturized discrete electronic parts. Minuteman-II was the first program to make a major commitment to these new devices. Their use made possible multiple target selection, greater accuracy and reliability, a reduction in the overall size and weight of the guidance system, and an increase in the survivability of the guidance system in a nuclear environment. The guidance system contained 2000 microchips made by Texas Instruments. • A penetration aids system to camouflage the warhead during its reentry into an enemy environment. In addition, the Mk-11C reentry vehicle incorporated stealth features to reduce its radar signature and make it more difficult to distinguish from decoys. The Mk-11C was no longer made of titanium for this and other reasons.[27] • A larger warhead in the reentry vehicle to increase Airmen work on a Minuteman-III’s Multiple Independentlykill probability. targetable Re-entry Vehicle (MIRV) system. Current missiles carry a single warhead.
System modernization was concentrated on launch facilities and command and control facilities. This provided decreased reaction time and increased survivability when under nuclear attack. Final changes to the system were performed to increase compatibility with the expected LGM-118A Peacekeeper. These newer missiles were later deployed into modified Minuteman silos.
128.1.9 Minuteman-III (LGM-30G): the current model The LGM-30G Minuteman-III program started in 1966, and included several improvements over the previous versions. It was first deployed in 1970. Most modifications related to the final stage and reentry system (RS). The final (third) stage was improved with a new fluidinjected motor, giving finer control than the previous four-nozzle system. Performance improvements realized in Minuteman-III include increased flexibility in reentry vehicle (RV) and penetration aids deployment, increased survivability after a nuclear attack, and increased payload capacity.[1] The missile retains a gimballed inertial guidance system.
The Minuteman-II program was the first mass-produced system to use a computer constructed from integrated circuits (the Autonetics D-37C). The Minuteman-II integrated circuits were diode-transistor logic and diode logic made by Texas Instruments. The other major customer of early integrated circuits was the Apollo Guidance Computer, which had similar weight and ruggedness constraints. The Apollo integrated circuits were resistortransistor logic made by Fairchild Semiconductor. The Minuteman-II flight computer continued to use rotating Minuteman-III originally contained the following distinguishing features: magnetic disks for primary storage.
128.1. HISTORY • Armed with W62 warhead, having a yield of only 170 kilotons TNT, instead of previous W56's yield of 1.2 megatons.[28] • It was the first[29] Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRV) missile. A single missile was then able to target 3 separate locations. This was an improvement from the Minuteman-I and Minuteman-II models, which were only able to carry one large warhead.
475
5
E D
6
4
C
3
B
7
2
A
8
1
• An RS capable of deploying, in addition to the warheads, penetration aids such as chaff and decoys. Minuteman-III MIRV launch sequence: • Minuteman-III introduced in the post-boost- 1. The missile launches out of its silo by firing its 1st-stage boost stage (“bus”) an additional liquid-fuel propul- motor (A). 2. About 60 seconds after launch, the 1st stage drops off and the sion system rocket engine (PSRE) that is used 2nd-stage motor (B) ignites. The missile shroud (E) is ejected. to slightly adjust the trajectory. This enables 3. About 120 seconds after launch, the 3rd-stage motor (C) igit to dispense decoys or – with MIRV – dis- nites and separates from the 2nd stage. pense individual RVs to separate targets. For 4. About 180 seconds after launch, 3rd-stage thrust terminates the PSRE it uses the bipropellant Rocketdyne and the Post-Boost Vehicle (D) separates from the rocket. RS-14 engine. 5. The Post-Boost Vehicle maneuvers itself and prepares for reentry vehicle (RV) deployment. 6. The RVs, as well as decoys and chaff, are deployed during backaway. 7. The RVs and chaff re-enter the atmosphere at high speeds and are armed in flight. 8. The nuclear warheads initiate, either as air bursts or ground bursts.
• The Hercules M57 third stage of Minuteman-I and Minuteman-II had thrust termination ports on the sides. These ports, when opened by detonation of shaped charges, reduced the chamber pressure so abruptly that the interior flame was blown out. This allowed a precisely timed termination of thrust for targeting accuracy. The larger Minuteman-III thirdstage motor also has thrust termination ports al- Guidance Replacement Program (GRP) though the final velocity is determined by PSRE. The Guidance Replacement Program (GRP) replaces the • A fixed nozzle with a liquid injection TVC system NS20A Missile Guidance Set with the NS50A Missile on the new third-stage motor (similar to the second- Guidance Set. The newer system extends the service life stage Minuteman-II nozzle) additionally increased of the Minuteman missile beyond the year 2030 by replacing aging parts and assemblies with current, high relirange. ability technology while maintaining the current accuracy replacement program was completed • A flight computer (Autonetics D37D) with larger performance. The[4] 25 February 2008. disk memory and enhanced capability. • A Honeywell HDC-701 flight computer which employed non-destructive read out (NDRO) plated wire memory instead of rotating magnetic disk for primary storage was developed as a backup for the D37D, but was never adopted.
Propulsion Replacement Program (PRP) Beginning in 1998 and continuing through 2009,[31] the Propulsion Replacement Program extends the life and maintains the performance by replacing the old solid propellant boosters (downstages).
• The Guidance Replacement Program (GRP), initiated in 1993, replaced the disk-based D37D flight computer with a new one that uses Single Reentry Vehicle (SRV) radiation-resistant semiconductor RAM. The Single Reentry Vehicle (SRV) modification enabled the United States ICBM force to abide by the nowThe existing Minuteman-III missiles have been further vacated START II treaty requirements by reconfiguring improved over the decades in service, with more than Minuteman-III missiles from three reentry vehicles down $7 billion spent in the last decade to upgrade the 450 to one. Though it was eventually ratified by both parties, missiles.[30] START II never entered into force and was essentially
476
CHAPTER 128. LGM-30 MINUTEMAN
superseded by follow-on agreements such as SORT and New START, which do not limit MIRV capability. Safety Enhanced Reentry Vehicle (SERV) Beginning in 2005, Mk-21/W87 RVs from the deactivated Peacekeeper missile will be placed on the Minuteman-III force under the Safety Enhanced Reentry Vehicle (SERV) program. The older W78 does not have many of the safety features of the newer W87, such as insensitive high explosive, as well as more advanced safety devices. In addition to implementing these safety features in at least a portion of the future MinutemanIII force, the decision to transfer W87s onto the missile is based on two features that will improve the targeting capabilities of the weapon: more fuzing options which will allow for greater targeting flexibility and the most accurate reentry vehicle available which provides a greater probability of damage to the designated targets. The first SERV-modded Minuteman-III was put on alert status at FE Warren AFB, Wyoming, in 2006.
128.2 Current and future deployment A Minuteman-III missile in its silo
The Minuteman-III missile entered service in 1970, with weapon systems upgrades included during the production run from 1970 to 1978 to increase accuracy and payload indicate that its course may take it unsafely over inhabited capacity. As of 2008, the USAF plans to operate it until areas. Since these flights are for test purposes only, even terminated flights can send back valuable information to at least 2030.[4][5] correct a potential problem with the system. The LGM-118A Peacekeeper (MX) ICBM, which was to have replaced the Minuteman, was retired in 2005 as part The 576th Flight Test Squadron is responsible for planning, preparing, conducting, and assessing all ICBM of START II.[32] ground and flight tests. A total of 450 LGM-30G missiles are emplaced at F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming (90th Missile Wing), Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota (91st Missile 128.4 Advanced Maneuverable Wing), and Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana (341st Missile Wing). All Minuteman-I and Minuteman-II misReentry Vehicle siles have been retired. The United States prefers to keep its MIRV deterrents on submarine-launched Trident Nu- Main article: Maneuverable reentry vehicle clear Missiles.[33] Fifty of these will be put into “warm” unarmed status, taking up half the 100 slots in America’s When defending hardened targets, it is possible for a deallowable nuclear reserve.[34] fensive ABM system to accurately track incoming warheads and choose to ignore those that will fall outside the lethal range of the target. This can, depending on the 128.3 Testing accuracy of the warheads, greatly reduce the number of defensive missiles that have to be fired in response to an Minuteman-III missiles are regularly tested with launches attack. The simplest way to counter this possibility is to from Vandenberg Air Force Base in order to validate the make a reentry vehicle that can maneuver, approaching its effectiveness, readiness, and accuracy of the weapon sys- target along a trajectory that looks like it is going to miss, tem, as well as to support the system’s primary purpose, and then correcting at the last possible moment, leaving nuclear deterrence. The safety features installed on the too little time for the defensive missile to launch. This Minuteman-III for each test launch allow the flight con- concept is known as a maneuverable reentry vehicle, or trollers to terminate the flight at any time if the systems MARV.
128.5. RELATED PROGRAMS
477
The Advanced Maneuverable Reentry Vehicle (AMaRV) was a prototype MARV built by McDonnell-Douglas Corp.. Four AMaRVs were made and represented a significant leap in Reentry Vehicle sophistication. Three of the AMaRVs were launched by surplus Minuteman1s on 20 December 1979, 8 October 1980 and 4 October 1981. AMaRV had an entry mass of approximately 470 kg, a nose radius of 2.34 cm, a forward frustum halfangle of 10.4°, an inter-frustum radius of 14.6 cm, aft frustum half angle of 6°, and an axial length of 2.079 meters. No accurate diagram or picture of AMaRV has ever appeared in the open literature. However, a schematic sketch of an AMaRV-like vehicle along with trajectory plots showing hairpin turns has been published.[35] AMaRV’s attitude was controlled through a split body flap (also called a “split-windward flap”) along with two yaw flaps mounted on the vehicle’s sides. Hydraulic actuation was used for controlling the flaps. AMaRV was guided by a fully autonomous navigation system designed for evading anti-ballistic missile (ABM) interception.
• GIANT PROFIT: A Minuteman modified operational missile test plan
128.5 Related programs
• OLYMPIC EVENT: A Minuteman III nuclear operational systems test
• Remote Visual Assessment (RVA): provides realtime video to ICBM security forces. This video allows forces to respond to threats more quickly, and with appropriate force and situational awareness. RVA will also cut down on “wear and tear” of equipment and personnel, often caused from responding to false alarm threats. • Missile Defense: Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI, “space bullet”) • LONG LIFE: launch of Minuteman from 'live' launch facility w/7 sec of fuel • BUSY SENTRY: Strategic Air Command exercise for intercontinental ballistic missile units.
• GIGANTIC CHARGE: Program to notify NORAD of all or part of Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP)[i] targeting for Minuteman • GIN PLAYER: Strategic Air Command tests of Minuteman missile for identification and execution • HAVE LEAP: A Space and Missile Test Center support of Minuteman-III program • MIDDLE GUST: An Air Force test conducted at Crowley, CO involving a simulated nuclear overblast of a Minuteman silo • OLD FOX: Minuteman-III flight tests • OLYMPIC ARENA III: Strategic Air Command missile competition of all nine operational missile units
• OLYMPIC PLAY: A Strategic Air Command missiles and operational ground equipment program for EWO missions • OLYMPIC TRIALS: A program to represent a series of launches having common objectives • PACER GALAXY: Support of Minuteman force modification program • PAVE PEPPER: An Air Force SAMSO (Space & Missile Systems Organization) project to decrease the size of the Minuteman III warheads and allow for more to be launched by one Minuteman.
• BUSY SURVEY II: Strategic Air Command Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) 4D missile training assistance program
• RIVET ADD: Modification of Minuteman-II launch facilities to hold MM III missiles
• BUSY USHER: Strategic Air Command launch of No. 13 LF-02 missile MK-1 Minuteman-II
• RIVET MILE: Minuteman Integrated Life Extension. Included IMPSS security system upgrade.
• BUTTON UP: Strategic Air Command security system reset procedures used during Minuteman facility wind down
• RIVET SAVE: A Minuteman crew sleep program modification to reduce personnel number
• DUST HARDNESS: A modification improvement to Minuteman-III approved for service use in 1972
• SABER SAFE: Minuteman pre-launch survivability program
• GIANT PATRIOT: The code name describes an operational base launch program of test flights of Minuteman-II missiles. The program was terminated by Congress in July 1974
• SABER SECURE: A Minuteman rebasing program
• GIANT PLOW: An Air Force Minuteman launcher closure test program
• UPGRADE SILO: A modification improvement program for Minuteman-III
• SENTINEL ALLOY: Land gravity surveys in support of the Minuteman system, cancelled
478
CHAPTER 128. LGM-30 MINUTEMAN
128.6 Influences
March 1961, that the 3 squadrons were to be replaced with “fixed-base squadrons”,[37] Strategic Air Command The Minuteman Missile National Historic Site in South discontinued the 4062nd Strategic Missile Wing on 20 Dakota preserves a Launch Control Facility (D-01) and a February 1962. launch facility (D-09) under the control of the National Park Service.
128.7 Appearances in media Footage of Minuteman-III ICBM test launches have been featured in several theatrical films and television movies where missile launch footage is needed. The Department of Defense film released for use was mainly drawn from Vandenberg Air Force Base test shots in 1966, including from a “salvo launch” (more than one ICBM launched simultaneously). Theatrically released films using the footage include (most notably), the 1978 film Superman (which features the “twin shot”), and more extensively, the 1977 nuclear war film Damnation Alley. The made for TV film The Day After also features the same footage, although the first stage of flight is completed via special effects. Terminator 3 uses computer generated images of Minuteman missiles launching from the Plains on “Judgment Day”. Minutemen also feature in Eagle Strike, by Anthony Horowitz, in which fictional power-crazed multimillionaire Damian Cray orders their release from Air Force One. In the film WarGames a failed Minuteman launch simulation exercise caused by a conflicted launch control officer is the impetus for the conversion of the missiles to full automatic control by the computer system that Matthew Broderick's character later hacks into.
128.8 Other roles 128.8.1
Air Mobile Feasibility Demonstration – 24 Oct 1974
128.8.2 Air Launched ICBM Main article: Air-launched ballistic missile Air Launched ICBM was a STRAT-X proposal[38] in which SAMSO successfully conducted an Air Mobile Feasibility Test that airdropped a Minuteman 1b from a C-5A Galaxy aircraft from 20,000 ft (6,100 m) over the Pacific Ocean. The missile fired at 8,000 ft (2,400 m), and the 10-second engine burn carried the missile to 20,000 feet again before it dropped into the ocean. Operational deployment was discarded due to engineering and security difficulties, and the capability was a negotiating point in the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks.[39][40]
Mobile Minuteman
128.8.3 Emergency Rocket CommunicaFor the subsequent plans for Peacekeeper Rail Garrison tions System (ERCS) and Soviet Scalpel rail basing, see LGM-118A and SS-24. See also: Emergency Rocket Communications System Mobile Minuteman was a program for rail-based ICBMs to help increase survivability and for which the USAF released details on 12 October 1959. The Operation Big Star performance test was from 20 June to 27 August 1960 at Hill Air Force Base, and the 4062nd Strategic Missile Wing (Mobile) was organized 1 December 1960 for 3 planned missile train squadrons, each with 10 trains carrying 3 missiles per train. During the Kennedy/McNamara cutbacks, the DoD announced “that it has abandoned the plan for a mobile Minuteman ICBM. The concept called for 600 to be placed in service— 450 in silos and 150 on special trains, each train carrying 5 missiles.”[36] After Kennedy announced on 18
An additional part of the National Command Authority communication relay system was called the Emergency Rocket Communication System (ERCS). Specially designed rockets called BLUE SCOUT carried radiotransmitting payloads high above the continental United States, to relay messages to units within line-of-sight. In the event of a nuclear attack, ERCS payloads would relay pre-programmed messages giving the “go-order” to SAC units. BLUE SCOUT launch sites were located at Wisner, West Point and Tekamah, Nebraska. These locations were vital for ERCS effectiveness due to their centralized position in the US, within range of all missile complexes. Later ERCS configurations were placed on the
128.9. OPERATOR
479
top of modified Minuteman-II ICBMs (LGM-30Fs) under the control of the 510th Strategic Missile Squadron located at Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri. The Minuteman ERCS may have been assigned the designation LEM-70A.[41]
128.8.4
Satellite launching role
See also: Minotaur (rocket) and Conestoga (rocket) The U.S. Air Force has considered using some decommissioned Minuteman missiles in a satellite launching role. These missiles would be stored in silos, for launch upon short notice. The payload would be variable, and would have the ability to be replaced quickly. This would allow a surge capability in times of emergency. During the 1980s, surplus Minuteman missiles were used to power the Conestoga rocket produced by Space Services Inc. of America. It was the first privately developed rocket, but only saw three flights and was discontinued Connectivity of 91st SW Missile Field due to a lack of business. More recently, converted Minuteman missiles have been used to power the Minotaur the same Space Launch Wing). Each Minuteman wing line of rockets produced by Orbital Sciences. is assisted logistically by a nearby Missile Support Base (MSB).
128.8.5
Ground and air launch targets
L-3 Communications is currently using SR-19 SRBs, Minuteman-II Second Stage Solid Rocket Boosters, as delivery vehicles for a range of different re-entry vehicles as targets for the THAAD and ASIP interceptor missile programs as well as radar testing.
Active
128.9 Operator United States: The United States Air Force has been the only operator of the Minuteman ICBM weapons system, currently with three operational wings and one test squadron operating the LGM-30G. The active inventory in FY 2009 is 450 missiles and 45 Missile Alert Facilities (MAF).
128.9.1
Operational units
The basic tactical unit of a Minuteman wing is the squadron, consisting of five flights. Each flight consists of ten unmanned launch facilities (LFs) which are remotely controlled by a manned launch control center (LCC). The five flights are interconnected and status from any LF may be monitored by any of the five LCCs. Each LF is located at least three nautical miles (5.6 km) from any LCC. Control does not extend outside the squadron (thus the 319th Missile Squadron's five LCCs cannot control the 320th Missile Squadron's 50 LFs even though they are part of
Active LGM-30 Minuteman deployment, 2010
• 90th Missile Wing – “Mighty Ninety” • at Francis E. Warren AFB, Wyoming, (1 July 1963 – present) • Units: • 319th Missile Squadron – “Screaming Eagles”
480
CHAPTER 128. LGM-30 MINUTEMAN • 320th Missile Squadron – “G.N.I.” • 321st Missile Squadron – “Frontier Warriors” • 150 missiles, 15 MAF – Launch sites • LGM-30B Minuteman-I, 1964–74 • LGM-30G Minuteman-III, 1973–present
• 91st Missile Wing – “Roughriders” • at Minot AFB, North Dakota (25 June 1968 – present) • Units: • 740th Missile Squadron – “Vulgar Vultures” • 741st Missile Squadron – “Gravelhaulers” • 742d Missile Squadron – “Wolf Pack” • 150 Missiles, 15 MAF – Launch sites • LGM-30B Minuteman-I, 1968–72 • LGM-30G Minuteman-III, 1972–present • 341st Missile Wing
128.10 See also • LGM-30 Minuteman chronology • Strategic Air Command • Missile combat crew • Minuteman Missile National Historic Site • Single Integrated Operational Plan • Nuclear weapons and the United States Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era • PGM-17 Thor • R-36 • SS-13 Savage • DF-5 Related lists
• at Malmstrom AFB, Montana (15 July 1961 – present)
• List of military aircraft of the United States
• Units:
• List of missiles
• 10th Missile Squadron – “First Aces” • 12th Missile Squadron – “Red Dawgs” • 490th Missile Squadron – “Farsiders” • 150 Missiles, 15 MAF – Launch sites • LGM-30A Minuteman-I, 1962–69 • LGM-30F Minuteman-II, 1967–94 • LGM-30G Minuteman-III, 1975–present
128.11 Notes [1] The letter “L” in “LGM” indicates that the missile is silolaunched; the “G” indicates that it is designed to attack ground targets; the “M” indicates that it is a guided missile.[1] [2] A third gyro was later added for other reasons.[15]
Historical
^i All available descriptions of GIGANTIC CHARGE use the identical language shown here, so it’s not clear Support whether the “strategic” was instead supposed to be “sin• 532d Training Squadron – Vandenberg AFB, Cal- gle” to match the normal meaning of the SIOP acronym ifornia (Missile Maintenance: “the most important (Single Integrated Operational Plan), or whether this was intentionally referring to a separate plan. Without any piece of the pie”) further context, the phrasing doesn't give enough detail • 392d Training Squadron – Vandenberg AFB, Cali- to distinguish. fornia (Missile Initial Qualification Course) • 328th Weapons Squadron – Nellis AFB, Nevada (ICBM Weapons Instructor Course) • 526th ICBM Systems Wing – Hill Air Force Base, Utah[42] • 576th Flight Test Squadron – Vandenberg Air Force Base, California[43] – “Top Hand” • 625th Strategic Operations Squadron – Offutt AFB, Nebraska – Strategic Nuclear Targeting
128.12 References [1] “Factsheets : LGM-30G Minuteman III”. Af.mil. 26 July 2010. Archived from the original on 12 December 2012. Retrieved 20 March 2011. [2] Unique and Complementary Characteristics of the U.S. ICBM and SLBM Weapons Systems by Mitch Bott (PDF), Center for Strategic and International Studies, Date unspecified, p. 76 Check date values in: |date= (help).
128.12. REFERENCES
[3] Discussion of the Unique and Complementary Characteristics of the ICBM and SLBM Weapon Systems (PDF), Center for Strategic and International Studies/Northrop Grumman, 2009, p. 5. [4] “Photo Release – Northrop Grumman/Air Force Complete Guidance Upgrade Installations on Minuteman III ICBMs (NYSE:NOC)". Irconnect.com. 11 March 2008. Retrieved 20 March 2011. [5] “Earmark Disclosure 81542, Minuteman III Solid Rocket Motor Warm Line Program (SRMWL)". WashingtonWatch.com. 14 March 2011. Retrieved 20 March 2011.
481
[27] The Innovators: How a Group of Inventors, Hackers, Geniuses, and Geeks Created the Digital Revolution, Walter Isaacson, Simon & Schuster, 2014, p.181. [28] “Complete List of All U.S. Nuclear Weapons”. Retrieved 9 February 2011. [29] “Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs)". [30] “Life Extension Programs modernize ICBMs.” [31] 2006 ATK press release on PRP
[32] Edwards, Joshua S. (20 September 2005). “Peacekeeper missile mission ends during ceremony”. United States Air Force. Archived from the original on 17 July 2012. Retrieved 28 May 2009. [7] http://www.defense.gov/documents/ Fact-Sheet-on-US-Nuclear-Force-Structure-under-the-New-START-Treaty. [33] http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid= pdf 2200&tid=1400&ct=2 [8] MacKenzie 1993, p. 152. [34] Kristensen, Hans M. (9 April 2014). “Obama Administration Decision Weakens New START Implementation”. [9] Thomas H. Maugh II, “Edward N. Hall, 91; Rocket Piofas.org. Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved 9 neer Seen as the Father of Minuteman ICBM”, LA Times, April 2014. 16 January 2006 [6] Norris, R. S. and H. M. Kristensen U.S. nuclear forces, 2009 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists March/April 2009
[10] Teller, Edward (2001). Memoirs: A Twentieth Century Journey in Science and Politics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Perseus Publishing. pp. 420–421. ISBN 07382-0532-X.
[35] Regan, Frank J. and Anadakrishnan, Satya M., “Dynamics of Atmospheric Re-Entry,” AIAA Education Series, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., New York, ISBN 1-56347-048-9, (1993).
[11] MacKenzie 1993, p. 153.
[36] “Minuteman: The West’s Biggest Missile Programme”. Flight: 844. 21 December 1961.
[12] MacKenzie 1993, p. 154. [13] MacKenzie 1993, p. 156. [14] MacKenzie 1993, p. 157. [15] MacKenzie 1993, p. 159. [16] MacKenzie 1993, p. 160. [17] MacKenzie 1993, pp. 160-161. [18] MacKenzie 1993, pp. 205-206. [19] MacKenzie 1993, p. 202. [20] MacKenzie 1993, p. 199. [21] MacKenzie 1993, p. 197.
[37] title tbd (Kennedy speech), The three mobile Minuteman squadrons funded in the January budget should be deferred for the time being and replaced by three more fixedbase squadrons (thus increasing the total number of missiles added by some two-thirds). Development work on the mobile version will continue. [38] “History Milestones”. U.S. Air Force. AF.mil. Archived from the original on 19 July 2012. Retrieved 24 February 2012. [39] U.S. Air Force, Inside the AF.MIL Heritage section (Thursday, 1 January 1970 – Sunday, 31 December 1989) [40] Marti and Sarigul-Klijn, A Study of Air Launch Methods for RLVs. Doc No. AIAA 2001–4619, Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering Dept, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
[22] MacKenzie 1993, p. 203. [23]
• Kaplan, Fred (2008). Daydream Believers: How a Few Grand Ideas Wrecked American Power. John Wiley & Sons. p. 81. ISBN 9780470121184.
[41] Parsch, Andreas (2002). “Boeing LEM-70 Minuteman ERCS”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 10 January 2011. [42] Hill AFB, Utah
[24] MacKenzie 1993, p. 166. [43] Vandenberg AFB, California [25] “The 6555th, Chapter III, Section 8, The MINUTEMAN Ballistic Missile Test Program”. Fas.org. Retrieved 20 March 2011. [26] “BOEING LGM-30A MINUTEMAN IA”. National Museum of the Air Force. Retrieved 13 November 2013.
• The Boeing Corporation (1973). Technical Order 21M-LGM30G-1-1: Minuteman Weapon System Description. Seattle: Boeing Aerospace. Contains basic weapon descriptions.
482 • The Boeing Corporation (1973). Technical Order 21M-LGM30G-1-22: Minuteman Weapon System Operations. Seattle: Boeing Aerospace. Operators Manual. • The Boeing Corporation (1994). Technical Order 21M-LGM30G-2-1-7: Organizational Maintenance Control, Minuteman Weapon System. Seattle: Boeing Aerospace. Operators Manual. • Heefner, Gretchen (2012). The Missile Next Door: The Minuteman in the American Heartland. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. • Lloyd, A. (2000). Cold War Legacy: A Tribute to the Strategic Air Command: 1946–1992. New York: Turner Publishing. • MacKenzie, Donald (1993). Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Missile Guidance. MIT Press. • Neal, Roy. (1962). Ace in the Hole: The Story of the Minuteman Missile. New York: Doubleday & Company. • TRW Systems (2001). Minuteman Weapon System History and Description. • Zuckerman, E. (1984). The Day after World War III. New York: Viking Press.
128.13 External links • Minuteman Information Site • Strategic-Air-Command.com Minuteman Missile History • Minuteman III ICBM factsheet • Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles • Nuclear Weapon Archive • Minuteman Missile National Historic Site • Federation of American Scientists • “Primed for Defense - The Minuteman” on YouTube
CHAPTER 128. LGM-30 MINUTEMAN
Chapter 129
Mark 45 torpedo The Mark 45 anti-submarine torpedo, a.k.a. ASTOR, was a submarine-launched wire-guided nuclear torpedo designed by the United States Navy for use against highspeed, deep-diving, enemy submarines. The 19-inch (480 mm)-diameter torpedo was fitted with a W34 nuclear warhead. The need to maintain direct control over the warhead meant that a wire connection had to be maintained between the torpedo and submarine until detonation. Wire guidance systems were piggybacked onto this cable, and the torpedo had no homing capability. The design was completed in 1960, and 600 torpedoes were built between 1963 and 1976, when ASTOR was replaced by the Mark 48 torpedo.
129.3 Notes [1] Jolie, E.W. (15 September 1978). “A Brief History of US Navy Torpedo Development: Torpedo Mine Mk45”. Retrieved 24 June 2013. [2] Kurak (September 1966) p.147 [3] Polmar (November 1978) p.160
129.4 References
129.1 Design This electrically propelled, 19-inch (480 mm)-diameter torpedo was 227 inches (5,800 mm) long and weighed 2,400 pounds (1,100 kg).[2][3] The W34 nuclear warhead used in ASTOR had an explosive yield of 11 kilotons. The requirement for positive control of nuclear warheads meant that ASTOR could only be detonated by a deliberate signal from the firing submarine, which necessitated a wire link. Because of this, the torpedo was only fitted with wire guidance systems (transmitted over the same link), and had no homing capability. The torpedo had a range of 5 to 8 miles (8.0 to 12.9 km).[3] By replacing the nuclear warhead and removing the wire guidance systems, the torpedo could be reconfigured for unguided launch against surface targets.[2]
129.2 History Development of ASTOR was completed in 1960 and it entered service in 1963. Approximately 600 torpedoes were built by 1976, when the torpedo was replaced by the Mark 48 torpedo. The ASTORs were collected, fitted with conventional warheads and wake homing guidance systems, then sold to foreign navies as the Mark 45 Mod 1 Freedom Torpedo.[3] 483
• Kurak, Steve (September 1966). “The U. S. Navy’s Torpedo Inventory”. United States Naval Institute Proceedings. • Polmar, Norman (November 1978). “The Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet: Torpedoes”. United States Naval Institute Proceedings.
Chapter 130
Medium Atomic Demolition Munition This article is about the nuclear weapon. For the alterna- a relatively low explosive yield from a W45 warhead, betive rock musician, see Melissa Auf der Maur. tween 1 and 15 kilotons. Each MADM weighed around Medium Atomic Demolition Munition (MADM) was 400 lb (181 kg) total. They were produced between 1965 and 1986.
130.1 See also • Special Atomic Demolition Munition
130.2 External links • “Atomic Demolition Munitions”
Scientists look at a MADM nuclear land mine. Cutaway casing with warhead inside, code-decoder / firing unit is at left.
Internal components of the MADM setup. From left to right: packing container, W45 warhead, code-decoder unit, firing unit.
a tactical nuclear weapon developed by the United States during the Cold War. They were designed to be used as nuclear land mines and for other tactical purposes, with 484
Chapter 131
B61 Family The B61 Family is a series of thermonuclear bombs and Nuclear core thermonuclear warheads based on the B61 nuclear bomb. The nuclear device within the outer B61 core is probably the same overall dimensions as the W80 warhead, which is 11.8 inches (300 mm) in diameter and 31.4 inches (800 131.1 B61 nuclear bomb mm) long.
131.1.1
Initial development
The B61 bomb was developed by Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (LASL; now Los Alamos National Laboratory) starting in 1960. The intent was to develop an aircraft bomb which was high yield (up to over 100 kilotons) and yet was small enough and had low enough drag to carry under the wing of a fighter or fighter-bomber type aircraft. One major feature was Full Fuzing Options (allowing various air and ground burst usage options; free fall air burst, parachute retarded air burst, free fall ground burst, parachute retarded ground burst, and laydown or parachute retarded time delay after impact ground burst). The B61 project started in 1960 with a study contract analyzing the potential of such a weapon. The official development program was funded in 1961, and the weapon was designated TX-61 (Test/Experimental) in 1963. The first TX-61 free fall ballistic test was held at Tonopah Test Range on August 20, 1963. The first War Reserve B61-0 was accepted by the AEC on December 21, 1966.[1]
131.2 Warheads 131.2.1
W69
The W69 missile warhead was produced in the early 1970s for use in the AGM-69 SRAM Short Range Attack Missile. The W69 was 15 inches (380 mm) in diameter and 30 inches (760 mm) long, weighed 275 pounds, and had a yield of 170-200 kilotons. 1,500 W69 warheads were produced.
131.2.2
W73
The W73 missile warhead was designed for the AGM-53 Condor air to ground missile. Other than being described as a derivative of the B61, details of the W73 design are poorly documented.
The original models of B61 used PBX 9404 HMX based Both the W73 and the Condor missile were cancelled and plastic bonded explosive to implode the fissile material in never entered service. the primary stage. Newer models use TATB based PBX 9502, which is an insensitive high explosive (IHE) and 131.2.3 W80 will not detonate due to fire, shock, or impact.
131.1.2
Two versions of the base W80 cruise missile warhead were designed and deployed. Both were the same basic size and shape and weight: 11.8 inches in diameter, 31.4 inches long, and weight of 290 pounds.
Specifications
Bomb The overall B61 bomb was 13.3 inches (340 mm) diameter by 141 inches (3,600 mm) long, and weighed 695715 pounds depending on version. This includes the outer aerodynamic shell, a crushable nose cone, parachute section in the tail, tail fins, etc. (Weight includes tail fins; diameter is of the bomb body itself, without fins).
W80-0 The BGM-109 Tomahawk TLAM-N cruise missile was equipped with a W80-0 warhead. The W80-0 used supergrade plutonium with less inherent radioactivity, due to missile storage in close proximity to submarine
485
486 crew. It also has an outer shielding or case around the “front” end of the weapon, presumably some sort of radiation shielding. The W80-0 had a variable yield of 5 or 170-200 kilotons. 367 W80-0 warheads were produced. W80-1 The AGM-86 ALCM and ACM cruise missiles used the W80-1 variant warhead. It had a yield of 5 or 150-170 kilotons.
CHAPTER 131. B61 FAMILY • B61 nuclear bomb, assembled and disassembled. • Internal nuclear components of the B61 bomb. • A W80-1 ALCM cruise missile warhead • A W80-0 SLCM cruise missile warhead • W81 warhead and SM-2 ground-to-air missile. • W84 GLCM cruise missile warhead • A DOE drawing of the W85 Pershing-II IRBM warhead.
1,750 W80-1 warheads were produced.
131.3 See also 131.2.4 W81 The W81 missile warhead was designed for use on the SM-2 missile. An enhanced radiation version was proposed, but the final version was fission-only. Detailed dimensions and weight are unknown. Yields are described as 2-4 kilotons.
• List of nuclear weapons
131.4 References [1] AEC Declassified Report RR00520
The W81 was cancelled and never entered service. • B61 at nuclearweaponarchive.org
131.2.5 W84 The W84 was a LLNL design based on the B61, used in the Ground Launched Cruise Missile. It was slightly larger (13 inches diameter, 34 inches long) and heavier (388 pounds) than the otherwise similar W80 warheads, possibly to make it safer for ground handling in the field. Between 300 and 350 W84 warheads were produced. They remain in US inactive inventory.
131.2.6 W85 Used on the Pershing II IRBM missile, the W85 was a cylinder 13 inches (330 mm) in diameter and 42 inches (1,100 mm) long. The warhead weighed 880 pounds. It had a variable yield from 5 to 80 kilotons. 120 W85 warheads were produced. They were recycled into B61 Mod 10 bombs after the Pershing II was scrapped.
131.2.7 W86 The W86 warhead was a planned earth-penetrating warhead for the Pershing II missile. The W86 was cancelled after the Pershing II was changed from hard target to soft target missions in its design phase. No units were ever produced. • B61 variants
Chapter 132
RACER IV RACER IV was a component of several of the first hydrogen bombs made by the United States during the 1950s. It was the first stage for three of the devices tested in four shots of the Castle series. They were shots Castle Bravo (Shrimp device), Romeo (Runt device), Union (Alarm Clock device) and Yankee (Runt II). The Racer primary was developed in 1953 at Los Alamos for the first generation of US thermonuclear weapons, the Mark 14, Mark 16, and Mark 17 bombs. Racer was tested in the Upshot-Knothole series of tests with mockup secondary stages as shots Nancy (Mark 14), Badger (Mark 16) and Simon (Mark 17). According to Chuck Hansen, during the Upshot-Knothole tests the Racer had proven to have inconsistent yield,[1] varying from 23 kilotons in the Badger shot to 43 kilotons in the Simon shot. The design was revised and RACER IV was the version used as the primary in the stockpiled Mark 14 and Mark 17 bombs.
132.1 References [1] Hansen, Chuck (1995). The Swords of Armageddon: U.S. nuclear weapons development since 1945. Sunnyvale, CA: Chukelea Publications.
487
Chapter 133
Special Atomic Demolition Munition In the 1950s and 1960s, the United States developed several different types of lightweight nuclear device. The smallest of these was the W54 warhead, which had a 10.75 inches diameter (270 mm), was about 15.7 inches long (400 mm), and weighed approximately 23 kg (50 lb). It was fired by a mechanical timer and had a TNT equivalent between 10 tons and 1 kiloton. The W54 nuclear device was also used in the Davy Crockett Weapon System and in the GAR-11/AIM-26A. The Atomic Demolitions Munitions school was located at the US Army Engineer Center on Ft. Belvoir, Virginia, until it was closed in 1985.
133.1 See also • Medium Atomic Demolition Munition • Suitcase nuke • List of nuclear weapons H-912 transport container for Mk-54 SADM
The Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) was a family of man-portable nuclear weapons fielded by the US military in the 1960s, but never used in combat. The US Army planned to use the weapons in Europe in the event of a Soviet invasion. US Army Engineers would use the weapon to destroy, irradiate and deny key routes of communication through limited terrain such as the Fulda Gap. Troops were trained to parachute into Soviet-occupied western Europe with the SADM and destroy power plants, bridges, and dams.
133.2 External links
It was also intended that the munition could be used against targets in coastal and near-coastal locations. One person carrying the weapon package would parachute from an aircraft and place the device in a harbor or other strategic location that was accessible from the sea. Another parachutist without a weapon package would follow the first to provide support as needed. The two-person team would place the weapon package in the target location, set the timer, and swim out into the ocean, where they would be retrieved by a submarine or a high-speed surface water craft. 488
• SADM Delivery by Parachutist/Swimmer (Special Atomic Demolition Munition) Film Clip (full film) • image of the SADM • ADM Web Page
Chapter 134
T-4 Atomic Demolition Munition The T4 Atomic Demolition Munitions (ADM) were Reportedly, a major operational issue with planned usage modified versions of the W9 nuclear artillery shells. of the T4 was that the success rate of parachuting five team members into hostile territory at sea with a heavy load and having them all land close together, uninjured, and able to complete transporting the weapon compo134.1 History nents and assembling it was highly unreliable. Several practice exercises failed to complete when one or more The T4 was produced in 1957 from recycled W9 fissile team members landed too far away or were injured. Fucomponents and was in service until 1963, when it was reture ADM units were single-component and while they placed with W30 Tactical Atomic Demolition Munitions might require several people’s codes to arm, were a sinand W45 Medium Atomic Demolition Munitions. gle physical unit which did not need field assembly. The T4 and W9 are gun type uranium nuclear bombs (see Nuclear weapon design for more details). Few details on the T4 variant have been officially released, but the W9 134.3 See also 11 inch artillery shell was 11 inches (28 cm) in diameter, 54 inches (137 cm) long, and weighed either 803 or 850 • W54 Special Atomic Demolition Munition pounds. • List of nuclear weapons
134.2 Media coverage 134.4 External links An article in the mid-1990s in Soldier of Fortune magazine by a former US Navy Underwater Demolition Team member described the T4 ADM without naming it. The description was moderately detailed, including that the T4 was assembled out of a number of separate components: • A gun barrel assembly, with the fission bullet and propellant and detonator preloaded • A base assembly, which the gun barrel screwed into, which was normally handled empty • Three heavy HEU rings, which were added to the base assembly and came in separate carrying cases These five components would be assembled by first transporting all five components to the target area, then loading the three uranium rings into the base assembly, then screwing the gun barrel assembly into the base. According to the article, two combination locks with different combinations were then activated by different team members, then the weapon could be armed and the timer set. Each component was reportedly heavy enough that it was a full load for one team member. 489
• Allbombs.html list of nuclear weapons at nuclearweaponarchive.org
Chapter 135
Tactical Atomic Demolition Munition The Mk 30 Mod 1 Tactical Atomic Demolitions Munition (TADM) was a portable atomic bomb, consisting of a Mk 30 warhead installed in a X-113 case. The X-113 was 26 inches (66cm) in diameter and 70 inches (178cm) long, and looked like corrugated culvert pipe. The whole system weighed 840 pounds (381kg). Production of the TADM started in 1961 and all were removed from stockpile by 1966. A weapons effect test of the TADM was made in the Johnny Boy shot of the Dominic II series. The yield of Johnny Boy was .5 kt.
135.1 See also • T-4 Atomic Demolition Munition
135.2 References • Hansen, Chuck, “Swords of Armageddon,” Sunnyvale, CA, Chucklea Publications, 1995.
490
Chapter 136
Titan (rocket family) See also: LGM-25 Titan Titan was a family of U.S. expendable rockets used between 1959 and 2005. A total of 368 rockets of this family were launched, including all the Project Gemini manned flights of the mid-1960s. Titans were part of the American intercontinental ballistic missile deterrent until the late 1980s, and lifted other American military payloads as well as civilian agency intelligence-gathering satellites. Titans also were used to send highly successful interplanetary scientific probes throughout the Solar System.
The most famous use of the civilian Titan II was in the NASA Gemini program of manned space capsules in the mid-1960s. Twelve Titan IIs were used to launch two U.S. unmanned Gemini test launches and ten manned capsules with two-man crews. All of the launches were successes.
136.1 Titan I Main article: Titan I The Titan I was the first version of the Titan family of rockets. It began as a backup ICBM project in case the Atlas was delayed. It was a two-stage rocket whose LR-87 engine was powered by RP-1 and liquid oxygen. It was operational from early 1962 to mid-1965. The ground guidance for the Titan was the Unisys ATHENA computer, designed by Seymour Cray, based in a hardened underground bunker.[2] Using radar data, it made course corrections during the burn phase.
136.2 Titan II Main article: LGM-25C Titan II
AC Spark Plug derived from original designs from MIT Draper Labs. The missile guidance computer (MGC) was the IBM ASC-15. When spares for this system became hard to obtain, it was replaced by a more modern guidance system, the Delco Electronics Universal Space Guidance System (USGS). The USGS used a Carousel IV IMU and a Magic 352 computer.[3] The USGS was already in use on the Titan III space launcher when work began in March 1978 to replace the Titan II guidance system. The main reason was to reduce the cost of maintenance by $72 million per year; the conversions were completed in 1981.[4]
Also, in the late 1980s some of the deactivated Titan IIs were converted into space launch vehicles to be used for launching U.S. Government payloads. The final such vehicle launched a Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) weather satellite from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, on 18 October 2003.[5]
136.3 Titan III Main articles: Titan IIIA, Titan IIIB, Titan IIIC, Titan IIID, Titan IIIE, Titan 34D and Commercial Titan III The Titan III was a modified Titan II with optional solid rocket boosters. It was developed on behalf of the United States Air Force as a heavy-lift satellite launcher to be used mainly to launch American military payloads and civilian intelligence agency satellites such as the Vela Hotel nuclear-test-ban monitoring satellites, observation and reconnaissance satellites (for intelligence-gathering), and various series of defense communications satellites.
Most of the Titan rockets were the Titan II ICBM and their civilian derivatives for NASA. The Titan II used the LR-87-5 engine, a modified version of the LR-87, that relied on a hypergolic combination of nitrogen tetroxide for its oxidizer and Aerozine 50 (a 50/50 mix of hydrazine and UDMH) for its fuel instead of the liquid oxygen and The Titan IIIA was a prototype rocket booster, which RP-1 combination used in the Titan I. consisted of a standard Titan II rocket with a Transtage The first Titan II guidance system was built by AC Spark upper stage. The Titan IIIB with its different verPlug. It used an Inertial measurement unit made by sions (23B, 24B, 33B, and 34B) had the Titan III core 491
492 booster with an Agena D upper stage. This combination was used to launch the KH-8 GAMBIT series of intelligence-gathering satellites. They were all launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, due south over the Pacific into polar orbits. Their maximum payload mass was about 7,500 lb (3,000 kg). The powerful Titan IIIC used a Titan III core rocket with two large strap-on solid-fuel boosters to increase its launch thrust, and hence the maximum payload mass capability. The solid-fuel boosters that were developed for the Titan IIIC represented a significant engineering advance over previous solid-fueled rockets, due to their large size and thrust, and their advanced thrust-vector control systems. The Titan IIID was a derivative of the Titan IIIC, without the upper transtage, that was used to place members of the Key Hole series of reconnaissance satellites into low Earth orbits. The Titan IIIE, the one with an additional high-specific-impulse Centaur upper stage, was used to launch several scientific spacecraft, including both of NASA's two Voyager space probes to Jupiter, Saturn and beyond, and both of the two Viking missions to place two orbiters around Mars and two instrumented landers on its surface.
CHAPTER 136. TITAN (ROCKET FAMILY) due to improvements in the longevity of reconnaissance satellites, and in addition, the declining foreign threat to the security of the United States that followed the internal disintegration of the Soviet Union. As a result of these events, and improvements in technology, when including the cost of the ground operations and facilities for the Titan IV at Vandenberg Air Force Base for launching satellites into polar orbits, the unit cost of a Titan IV launch was very high. Titan IVs were also launched from the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida for non-polar orbits.
136.5 Rocket fuel See also: Hypergolic propellant
The more-advanced Titan IIIC used the Delco Carousel VI IMU and the Magic 352 guidance computer.[7]
Liquid oxygen is dangerous to use in an enclosed space, such as a missile silo, and cannot be stored for long periods in the booster oxidizer tank. Several Atlas and Titan I rockets exploded and destroyed their silos. The Martin Company was able to improve the design with the Titan II. The RP-1/LOX combination was replaced by a room-temperature fuel whose oxidizer did not require cryogenic storage. The same first-stage rocket engine was used with some modifications. The diameter of the second stage was increased to match the first stage. The Titan II’s hypergolic fuel and oxidizer ignited on contact, but they were highly toxic and corrosive liquids. The fuel was Aerozine 50 (a 50/50 mix of hydrazine and UDMH) and the oxidizer was nitrogen tetroxide.
136.4 Titan IV
136.6 Accidents at Titan II silos
The first guidance system for the Titan III used the AC Spark Plug company IMU (inertial measurement unit) and an IBM ASC-15 guidance computer from the Titan II. For the Titan III, the ASC-15 drum memory of the computer was lengthened to add 20 more usable tracks, which increased its memory capacity by 35%.[6]
Main article: Titan IV The Titan IV is a “stretched” Titan III with non-optional solid rocket boosters on its sides. The Titan IV could be launched with a Centaur upper stage, the USAF Inertial Upper Stage (IUS), or no upper stage at all. This rocket was used almost exclusively to launch American military or civilian intelligence agency payloads. However, it was also used for a purely scientific purpose to launch the NASA - ESA Cassini / Huygens space probe to Saturn in 1997. The primary intelligence agency that needed the Titan IV’s launch capabilities was the National Reconnaissance Office, the NRO. By the time it became available, the Titan IV was the most powerful unmanned rocket produced and used by United States, because the extremely large and powerful Saturn V rocket had not been available for some years. Still, the Titan IV was considered to be quite expensive to manufacture and use. By the time the Titan IV became operational, the requirements of the U.S. Department of Defense and the NRO for launching satellites had tapered off
There were several accidents in Titan II silos resulting in loss of life and/or serious injuries. In August 1965, 53 construction workers were killed in Arkansas when hydraulic fluid used in the Titan II caught fire from a welder’s torch in a missile silo northwest of Searcy.[8] [9] The liquid fuel missiles were prone to developing leaks of their toxic propellants. At a silo in Kansas outside Rock, an oxidizer transfer line carrying nitrogen tetroxide (NTO) ruptured on August 24, 1978.[10] An ensuing orange vapor cloud forced 200 rural residents to evacuate the area.[11] A staff sergeant of the maintenance crew was killed while attempting a rescue and a total of twenty were hospitalized.[12] Another site at Potwin, leaked NTO oxidizer in April 1980 with no fatalities,[13] and was later closed. In September 1980, at a Titan II silo (374-7) in Arkansas near Damascus, a technician dropped a 3 lb (1.4 kg) wrench that fell 70 ft (21 m), bounced off a thrust mount, and broke the skin of the missile’s first stage,[14] over eight hours prior to the explosion.[15] The puncture occurred about 6:30 p.m.[16] and when a leak was detected shortly
136.10. NOTES after, the silo was flooded with water and civilian authorities were advised to evacuate the area.[17] As the problem was being attended to at around 3 a.m.,[16] leaking rocket fuel ignited and blew the 8,000 lb (3,630 kg) nuclear warhead out of the silo. It landed harmlessly several hundred feet away.[18][19][20] There was one fatality and 21 were injured,[21] all from the emergency response team from Little Rock AFB.[16][22] The explosion lifted the 740-ton doors off the silo and left a crater 250 feet (76 m) in diameter.[23]
136.7 Retirement The 54 Titan II’s,[24] in Arizona, Arkansas, and Kansas,[21] were replaced in the U.S. arsenal by 50 MX “Peacekeeper” solid-fuel rocket missiles in the mid1980s, the last Titan II silo was deactivated in May 1987.[25] The 54 Titan IIs had been fielded along with a thousand Minuteman missiles from the mid-1960s through the mid-1980s. Most of the decommissioned Titan II ICBMs were refurbished and used for Air Force space launch vehicles, with a perfect launch success record.
493 • Comparison of orbital launchers families • Comparison of orbital launch systems
136.10 Notes [1] Barton, Rusty (2003-11-18). “Titan 1 Chronology”. Titan 1 ICBM History Website. Geocities.com. Archived from the original on 2005-01-23. Retrieved 2005-06-05. [2] Stakem, Patrick H. The History of Spacecraft Computers from the V-2 to the Space Station, 2010, PRB Publishing, ASIN B004L626U6 [3] David K. Stumpf. Titan II: A History of a Cold War Missile Program. University of Arkansas Press, 2000. ISBN 155728-601-9 (cloth). Pages 63-67. [4] Bonds, Ray Editor. The Modern US War Machine: An encyclopedia of American military equipment and strategy. Crown Publishers, New York, New York 1989. ISBN 0517-68802-6. p. 233. [5] Ray, Justin (October 18, 2003). “U.S. weather satellite finally escapes grasp of hard luck”. spaceflightnow.com. Retrieved 2009-10-18.
The high cost of using hydrazine and nitrogen tetrox- [6] Paul O. Larson. “Titan III Inertial Guidance System,” page 4. ide, along with the special care that was needed due to their toxicity, proved too much compared to the higher- [7] A.C. Liang and D.L. Kleinbub. “Navigation of the Titan performance liquid hydrogen or RP-1 (kerosene) fueled IIIC space launch vehicle using the Carousel VB IMU.” vehicles, with a liquid oxygen oxidizer. Lockheed Martin AIAA Guidance and Control Conference, Key Biscayne, FL, 20–22 August 1973. AIAA Paper No. 73-905. decided to extend its Atlas family of rockets instead of its more expensive Titans—along with participating in joint[8] “Escape Route Blocked in Silo Disaster”. Ellensburg ventures to sell launches on the Russian Proton rocket Daily Record. Associated Press. August 13, 1965. p. 1. and the new Boeing-built Delta IV class of medium and Retrieved 2011-01-03. heavy-lift launch vehicles. The Titan IVB was the last Titan rocket to remain in service, making its penultimate [9] “Blast is second serious mishap in 17-year-old U.S. Titan fleet”. Montreal Gazette. September 20, 1980. p. 2. launch from Cape Canaveral on 30 April 2005, followed by its final launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base on [10] “1 killed, 6 injured when fuel line breaks at Kansas Titan 19 October 2005, carrying the USA-186 optical imaging missile site”. St. Petersburg Times. UPI. August 25, 1978. satellite for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). p. 4. Retrieved 2009-10-18. A number of HGM-25A Titan I and LGM-25C Titan II [11] “Thunderhead Of Lethal Vapor Kills Airman At Missile missiles have been distributed as museum displays across Silo”. The Ledger. Associated Press. August 25, 1978. p. the United States. 7. Retrieved 2009-10-18.
136.8 Specifications For the specifications, please see the articles on each variant.
136.9 See also • Titan Missile Museum • List of Titan launches • Haas (rocket)
[12] “Airman at Titan site died attempting rescue”. Lawrence Journal-World. Associated Press. August 26, 1978. p. 2. [13] “Air Force plugs leak in Kansas missile silo”. Lawrence Journal-World. Associated Press. April 23, 1980. p. 16. [14] Colby, Terri (September 19, 1980). “Explosion wrecks Titan missile silo”. Free Lance-Star (Fredericksburg, VA). Associated Press. p. 1. [15] “Warhead apparently moved from Arkansas missile site”. Lewiston (ME) Daily Sun. Associated Press. September 23, 1980. p. 10. [16] “Caution advice disregarded at Titan missile site?". Tuscaloosa News. Washington Post. October 23, 1980. p. 23.
494
[17] Colby, Terri (September 19, 1980). “Missile silo blast hurts 22 workers”. Spokane Daily Chronicle. Associated Press. p. 1. [18] “Light on the Road to Damascus” Time magazine, September 29, 1980. Retrieved 2006-09-12 [19] “Titan warhead is reported lying in Arkansas woods”. St. Petersburg Times. wire services. September 21, 1980. p. 1A. [20] “Did warhead leave its silo?". Eugene Register-Guard. wire services. September 21, 1980. p. 1A. [21] “The Titan controversy”. Spokane Daily Chronicle. Associated Press. September 20, 1980. p. 2. [22] “Warhead blown off in Titan blast”. Tuscaloosa News. Associated Press. p. 1A. [23] “Arkansas recalls missile accident”. Nashua (NH) Telegraph. Associated Press. September 19, 1981. p. 14. [24] Pincus, Walter (September 20, 1980). “Titan II: 54 accidents waiting to happen”. Spokesman-REview. Washington Post. p. 5. [25] Charton, Scott (May 7, 1987). “America’s last Titan 2 nuclear missile is deactivated”. Times-News (Hendersonville, NC). Associated Press. p. 3.
136.11 References • Bonds, Ray Editor. The Modern US War Machine: An encyclopedia of American military equipment and strategy. Crown Publishers, New York, New York 1989. ISBN 0-517-68802-6 • USAF Sheppard Technical Training Center. “Student Study Guide, Missile Launch/Missile Officer (LGM-25).” May 1967. Pages 61–65. Available at WikiMedia Commons: TitanII MGC.pdf • Larson, Paul O. “Titan III Inertial Guidance System,” in AIAA Second Annual Meeting, San Francisco, 26–29 July 1965, pages 1–11. • Liang, A.C. and Kleinbub, D.L. “Navigation of the Titan IIIC space launch vehicle using the Carousel VB IMU”. AIAA Guidance and Control Conference, Key Biscayne, FL, 20–22 August 1973. AIAA Paper No. 73-905. • Stumpf, David K. Titan II: A History of a Cold War Missile Program. The University of Arkansas Press, 2000.
136.12 External links • Video of a Titan I missile launch • Video of a Titan II missile launch
CHAPTER 136. TITAN (ROCKET FAMILY) • Titan III Research and Development - 1967 US Air Force Educational Documentary on YouTube • Photo of the last Titan launch, at the APOD archive. • Titan missiles & variations • Explosion at 374-7 - Details of the September 1980 Arkansas silo explosion Related lists • List of missiles
Chapter 137
HGM-25A Titan I The Martin Marietta SM-68A/HGM-25A Titan I was the United States’ first multistage Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), in use from 1959 until 1965. Incorporating the latest design technology when designed and manufactured, the Titan I provided an additional nuclear deterrent to complement the U.S. Air Force’s SM-65 Atlas missile. It was the first in a series of Titan rockets, but was unique among them in that it used LOX and RP-1 as propellants, while the later Titan ICBM versions all used storeable fuels instead. Though the SM-68A was operational for only three years, it was an important step in building the Air Force’s strategic nuclear forces.
137.1 Origins
guidance system originally intended for the missile was instead eventually deployed in the Atlas E missile. (The Atlas series was intended to be the first generation of American ICBMs and Titan II (as opposed to Titan I) was to be the second generation deployed). An inertial guidance system would have allowed Titan I, once launched, to guide itself independently to a pre-programmed target. It would not have relied upon continuous radio command signals from a ground location, or upon the ability to receive and react to such signals. Titan I also was the first true multi-stage (two or more stages) design. Whereas in Atlas, all rocket engines were ignited at launch (including two small thrust vernier engines) due to the unreliable nature of the engines, Titan I’s second-stage engines were reliable enough to be ignited at altitude, after separation from the first-stage booster; and its fuel tanks, engines, launch interface equipment, and launch pad thrust ring. Titan I’s ability to jettison this mass prior to the ignition of the second stage, meant that Titan I had a much greater total range (and a greater range per pound of second-stage fuel) than Atlas, even if the total fuel load of Atlas had been greater.
The program began in January 1955 and took shape in parallel with the Atlas (SM-65/HGM-16) intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). The Air Force’s goal in launching the Titan program was twofold: one, to serve as a backup should Atlas fail; and two, to develop a large, two-stage missile with a longer range and bigger payload The Titan I had an effective range of 5,500 nautical miles that also could serve as a booster for space flights. (10,200 km). When the first stage had finished consumThe Titan I was initially designated SM-68; it was later ing its propellant, it dropped away, thereby decreasing redesignated HGM-25A. the mass of the vehicle. That made for a more efficient missile, which resulted in increased range and enabled a larger payload.
137.2 Characteristics
The warhead of the Titan I was an AVCO Mk 4 re-entry vehicle containing a W38 thermonuclear bomb with a Produced by the Glenn L. Martin Company (which be- yield of 3.75 megatons which was fuzed for either air came “The Martin Company” in 1957), Titan I was a burst or contact burst. The Mk 4 RV also deployed two-stage, liquid-fueled missile. The first stage delivered penetration aids in the form of mylar balloons which 300,000 pounds (1,330 kN) of thrust, the second stage replicated the radar signature of the Mk 4 RV. 80,000 pounds (356 kN). The fact that Titan I, like Atlas, burned RP-1 and LOX meant that the oxidizer had to be loaded onto the missile just before launch from the underground storage tank, and the missile raised above ground 137.3 Research and development on the enormous elevator system, exposing the missile for some time before launch. The complexity of the system The Titan-1 was tested in a comprehensive test program combined with its relatively slow reaction time – fifteen prior to deployment. From the first successful launch minutes to load, raise and launch the first missile, made on 5 February 1959 with Titan-1 A3 through to 29 Janit a less effective weapon system. uary 1962 Titan-1 M7. There were seven variants of the Titan I utilized radio command guidance. The inertial Titan-1 Research and Development missile: six A-types 495
496
CHAPTER 137. HGM-25A TITAN I
(four launched) seven B-types (two launched), six C- Titan I inventory was simply scrapped.[1] types (five launched), ten G-types (seven launched), 22 Jtypes (22 launched), four V-types (four launched), seven M-types (seven launched). 62 produced (49 launched 137.4 Operational deployment and two exploded). They were tested and launched at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station from Launch ComTitan-1 Strategic Missile (SM) production began during plexes LC15, LC16, LC19 and LC20. the final stages of the Research and Development proThe first four tests of the Titan I (the Lot A missiles) were gram. In total, 101 Titan-1 SMs were produced to be carried out on February 6, February 25, April 3, and May tested from underground silos at Vandenberg Air Force 4, 1959, all with dummy second stages. The success of Base and then stationed in silos in six squadrons of nine these initial flights left launch crews unprepared for the missiles each across America. Fifty-four missiles in silos coming events. On August 14, the first attempt to fly a in total, with one missile as a spare on standby at each Lot B (all-up version with a live second stage) ended in squadron, bringing to 60 in service at any one time. disaster when the missile was released from LC-19 before The Titan I was first American ICBM based in underit had built up sufficient thrust. The pad umbilical sent a ground silos, and it gave USAF managers, contractors shutdown signal to the engines and the Titan fell back onto and missile crews valuable experience building and workthe pad and exploded. ing in vast bunkers containing everything the missiles and In December, the second attempt to launch a complete crews needed for operation and survival. The complexes Titan ended in practically identical fashion when vibra- were composed of a control center, powerhouse, and two tion tripped the range safety destruct package on the first antenna silos for the ATHENA guidance radars. stage of Missile C-3 one second after liftoff, leading to These early silos, however, had certain drawbacks. First, another pad explosion. On February 2, 1960, Missile B-7 the missiles took about 15 minutes to fuel, and then had marked the first successful flight of a Titan with a live upto be lifted to the surface on huge elevators for launchper stage. On February 5, Missile C-4 failed at T+52 secing, which slowed their reaction time. Rapid launchonds when the payload fairing disintegrated, causing the ing was crucial to avoid possible destruction by incomvehicle to pitch down and be destroyed by Range Safety. ing missiles, even though Titan shelters were designed to After a successful test on the 24th, Missile C-1’s second withstand nuclear blasts. Second, the missiles’ placement stage failed to ignite on March 8. A run of successful close together in groups of three—necessary because they launches followed during the spring, but the first attempt shared a single ground-based radio guidance system— at flying a Lot J missile on July 1 went awry when a broken made them vulnerable to nuclear attack. All-inertial guidhydraulic line caused total loss of control within moments ance, which does not depend on ground computers, was of liftoff. The Titan began flying on a near horizontal not yet perfected. plane before Range Safety issued the destruct command at T+11 seconds. The next launch at the end of the month The distance between the antenna silos and the most dissuffered premature first stage shutdown and landed far tant missile silo was between 1,000 and 1,300 feet (400 short of its planned impact point. Missile J-6 on October m). These were by far the most complex, extensive and expensive missile launch facilities ever deployed by the 24 set a record by flying 6100 miles. USAF. Launching a missile required fueling it in its silo, With tests beginning at Vandenberg Air Force Base in and then raising the launcher and missile out of the silo California, an initial attempt to launch a Titan I from a silo on a massive elevator. Before each launch the guidance ended disastrously on December 4 when the missile was radar had to be calibrated by acquiring a special target at hoisted to the firing position. The silo elevator collapsed a precisely known range and bearing. When the missile and the Titan fell down and exploded in a massive fireball. was launched, the guidance radar tracked the missile and Although most of the Titan I’s teething problems were supplied precise velocity range and azimuth data to the worked out by 1961, the missile was already eclipsed not missile’s guidance system. Because of this the complex only by the Atlas, but by its own designated successor, the could only launch and track one missile at a time. Titan II, a bigger, more powerful ICBM with storable hyAlthough Titan I’s two stages gave it true intercontinenpergolic propellants. The launch pads at Cape Canaveral tal range and foreshadowed future multistage rockets, its were quickly converted for the new vehicle and as Vanpropellants were dangerous and hard to handle. Superdenberg lacked actual pads (only silos), the Titan I quickly chilled liquid oxygen oxidizer had to be pumped aboard found itself homeless. After a brief period as an operathe missile just before launch, and complex equipment tional ICBM, it was retired from service in 1965 when was required to store and move this liquid. Kerosene fuel Defense Secretary Robert McNamara made the decision also was pumped aboard just before launch. to phase out all first generation cryogenically fueled missiles in favor of newer hypergolic and solid-fueled mod- In its brief career, six squadrons were equipped with the els. While decommissioned Atlas (and later Titan II) mis- Titan I. Each squadron was deployed in a 3x3 configurasiles were recycled and utilized for space launches, the tion, which meant a total of nine missiles were divided into three launch sites in Colorado, Idaho, California,
137.5. SPECIFICATIONS Washington state and South Dakota. Each missile site had three Titan I ICBM missiles ready to launch at any given time. See squadron article for location of launch sites.
497 • 851st Strategic Missile Squadron February 1961 – March 1965 Beale AFB, California
137.5 Specifications • Liftoff thrust: 1,296 kN Total mass: 105,142 kg • Core diameter: 3.1 m. Total length: 31.0 m • Development cost: $1,643,300,000 in 1960 dollars. • Flyaway cost: $1,500,000 each, in 1962 dollars. • Total production missiles built: 163 Titan 1s; 62 R&D Missiles – 49 launched & 101 Strategic Missiles (SMs) – 17 launched. 568th SMS
• Total deployed Strategic Missiles: 54.
569th SMS
• Titan Base Cost: 2015)[2]
724th SMS 725th SMS
$170,000,000 (US$ 1.36 in
First Stage: • Gross mass: 76,203 kg
850th SMS
• Empty mass: 4,000 kg
851st SMS
• Thrust (vac): 1,467 kN
Map Of HGM-25A Titan I Operational Squadrons
• 568th Strategic Missile Squadron April 1961 – March 1965
• Isp (vac): 290 s (2.84 kN·s/kg) • Isp (sea level): 256 s (2.51 kN·s/kg) • Burn time: 138 s • Diameter: 3.1 m • Span: 3.1 m
Larson AFB, Washington • 569th Strategic Missile Squadron June 1961 – March 1965 Mountain Home AFB, Idaho • 724th Strategic Missile Squadron April 1961 – June 1965
• Length: 16.0 m • Propellants: liquid oxygen (LOX)/kerosene • Number of engines: Two – Aerojet LR-87-3 Second Stage: • Gross mass: 28,939 kg • Empty mass: 1,725 kg • Thrust (vac):356 kN
Lowry AFB, Colorado • 725th Strategic Missile Squadron April 1961 – June 1965 Lowry AFB, Colorado
• Isp (vac): 308 s (3.02 kN·s/kg) • Isp (sea level): 210 s (2.06 kN·s/kg) • Burn time: 225 s • Diameter: 2.3 m • Span: 2.3 m
• 850th Strategic Missile Squadron June 1960 – March 1965 Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota
• Length: 9.8 m • Propellants: liquid oxygen (LOX)/kerosene • Number of engines: One – Aerojet LR-91-3
498
137.6 Service history
CHAPTER 137. HGM-25A TITAN I • Titan-I ICBM SM vehicles being destroyed at Mira Loma AFS for the SALT-1 Treaty
The number of Titan I missiles in service, by year: • 1961 – 1 • 1962 – 62 • 1963 – 63 • 1964 – 56
137.7 Retirement When the storable-fueled Titan II and the solid-fueled Minuteman I were deployed in 1963, the Titan I and Atlas missiles became obsolete. They were retired from service as ICBMs in early 1965. The count as of 5 March 1965 (the final launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB): 17 were launched from VAFB (September 1961 – March 1965); one was destroyed in Beale AFB Site 851-C1 silo explosion 24 May 1962; 54 were based in Silos with SAC by 20 January 1965; 29 were in storage SBAMA (three at VAFB, one at each Base, including an extra at Lowry = 9 and 20 in storage at SBAMA elsewhere), a total of 101 production SM vehicles. The 83 surplus missiles remained in inventory at Mira Loma, AFS. SM-65 Atlas missiles had already been converted to satellite launchers in the early 1960s, and the Titan I’s had about the same payload capacity as an Atlas. It did not make economic sense to refurbish the 83 remaining missiles as launch vehicles. About 33 were distributed to museums, parks and schools as static displays (see list below). The remaining 50 missiles were scrapped at Mira Loma AFS near San Bernardino, CA, the last was broken up in 1972, in accordance with the SALT-I Treaty of 1 February 1972. The official count is 101 Titan I Strategic Missiles produced: 17 Test launched, 1 lost, 50 destroyed Mira Loma, 33 at museum/display (some missing).
137.8 Static displays and articles There should be 33 Static Titan 1 Strategic Missiles and two (plus five possible) Research and Development Missiles to account for (of these 22 have been positively identified by Serial Number, eight known but need to be identified) and three are unaccounted for, missing. • B2 57-2691 Cape Canaveral Air Force Space & Missile Museum, Florida Horizontal Note: May have been at the 14th American Rocket Society meeting at a Wash, DC hotel on 1 Nov 59 • R&D (57–2743) Colorado State Capitol display 1959 (SN belongs to a Bomarc) Vertical • R&D ? City of Lompoc, Lompoc Park (may have been V3 or BH) see below as possible SM. was Vertical, destroyed. • R&D (1 of 2, poss. 6) Was at Patrick AFB Technical Laboratory, Satellite Beach, Florida. Vertical (destr. by Hurr. Erin 8/95) then at Charlie Bell’s junkyard on US-1 Titusville, Fla., now Puerto Rico? (see below) • R&D G-type Science and Technology Museum, Chicago 21 June 1963 Vertical • SM-5 60-3650 Was on display at VAFB Armed Forces Day 1962, is this the Lompoc static? Horizontal • SM-49 60-3694 Cordele, Georgia (west side of Route I-75). Vertical
On 6 September 1985 Strategic Defense Initiative (AKA “Star Wars” program), a scrapped Titan I Second Stage was used in a Missile Defense test. The MIRACL Near Infrared Laser, at White Sands Missile Range, NM was fired at a stationary Titan I second stage that was fixed to ground. The second stage burst and was destroyed by the laser blast. The second stage did not contain any fuel or oxidizer. It was pressurized with nitrogen gas to 60-psi. A follow-up test 6 days later was conducted on a scrapped Thor IRBM, its remnants reside at the SLC-10 Museum at Vandenberg AFB.
• SM-53 60-3698 Site 395-C Museum, Vandenberg AFB, Lompoc, Ca. (from March AFB) Horizontal
• Titan-I ICBM SM vehicles being destroyed at Mira Loma AFS for the SALT-1 Treaty
• SM-65 61-4492 NASA Ames Research Center, Mountain View, California. Horizontal
• Titan-I ICBM SM vehicles being destroyed at Mira Loma AFS for the SALT-1 Treaty
• SM-67 61-4494 Titusville High School, Titusville, Florida (on Route US-1) removed was Horizontal
• SM-54 60-3699 Strategic Air Command Museum, Bellevue, Nebraska (near Omaha). Vertical • SM-61 60-3706 Gotte Park, Kimball, NE (only first stage standing, damaged by winds in ’96?) Vertical (damaged by winds 7/94 ?) • SM-63 60-3708 In storage at Edwards AFB (still there?) Horizontal
137.9. EXTERNAL LINKS • SM-69 61-4496 (full missile) U.S. Space & Rocket Center (formerly Alabama Space and Rocket Center), Huntsville (stored outside, far west corner of center) Horizontal (in trees) • SM-70 61-4497 Veterans Home, Quincy, IL Vertical (removed sent to DMAFB for destruction on May, 2010)
499 • SM- ? ? (stg. 1 only) former Spaceport USA Rocket Garden, Kennedy Space Center, Florida. Vert. (stg 1 mated to stg 1 below) • SM- ? ? (stg. 1 only) former Spaceport USA Rocket Garden, Kennedy Space Center, Florida. Vert. (stg 1 mated to stg 1 above)
• SM-71 61-4498 U.S. Air Force Museum, now AMARC (to go to PIMA Mus.) Horizontal
• SM- ? ? (stg. 1 only) Science Museum, Bayamon, Puerto Rico (PAFB R&D/Bell’s ??) Vert. (stg 1 mated to stg 1 below)
• SM-72 61-4499 Florence Regional Airport Air and Space Museum, Florence, South Carolina. Horizontal
• SM- ? ? (stg. 1 only) Science Museum, Bayamon, Puerto Rico (top half from Bell’s Junkyard) Vert. (stg 1 mated to stg 1 above)
• SM-73 61-4500 former Holiday Motor Lodge, San Bernardino (now missing?). Horizontal
• SM- ? ? (full missile) former Outside main gate of White Sands Missile Range, N.M. false report? Vertical
• SM-79 61-4506 former Oklahoma State Fair Grounds, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 1960s Horizontal
• SM- ? ? (full missile) Spacetec CCAFS Horizontal
Note: Two stacked Titan-1 first stages created a perfect • SM-81 61-4508 Kansas Cosmosphere, Hutchinson, illusion of a Titan-2 Missile for museums above. Kansas. In storage • SM-86 61-4513 Beale AFB (not on display, was horizontal, removed 1994) Horizontal • SM-88 61-4515 (st. 1) Pima Air & Space Museum, outside DM AFB, Tucson, Arizona, now WPAFB Horizontal
137.9 External links [1] http://astronautix.com/lvs/titan1.htm [2] missilebases.com (2011). “History of Missile Bases”. missilebases.com. Retrieved 4 September 2011.
• SM-89 61-4516 (st. 2) Pima Air Museum, outside DM AFB, Tucson, Arizona, now WPAFB Horizontal
• Tri-City Herald article by Kristin Alexander about Titan 1 complexes in Washington State
• SM-92 61-4519 (st. 1) Kansas Cosmosphere, Hutchinson, Kansas. (acq. 11/93 from MCDD) Vertical (st 1 mate to SM-94 st 1)
• Information on “Northern California Triad” of Titan missile bases in Lincoln, California; Chico, California and Live Oak, Sutter County, California (Sutter Buttes)
• SM-93 61-4520 (st. 2) SLC-10 Museum, Vandenberg AFB, Lompoc, Ca. Horizontal (only stage 2)
• Titan 1 Upgrade Project at NASA Moffett Field
• SM-94 61-4521 (st. 1) Kansas Cosmosphere, Hutchinson, Kansas. (acq. 6/93 from MCDD) Vertical (st 1 mate to SM-92 st 1) • SM-96 61-4523 South Dakota Air and Space Museum, Ellsworth AFB, Rapid City, South Dakota. Horizontal • SM-101 61-4528 Estrella Warbirds Museum, Paso Robles, CA (2nd stage damaged) Horizontal • SM- ? ? (full missile) Ingram Park, town of Lompoc, Ca. (with a Nike Target Warhead) was vertical, destroyed • SM- ? ? (stg. 2 only) former SDI laser test target (whereabouts?) is this 4519 & or 4521 stg 1? Horizontal (remnants of stage 1)
137.10 See also Related lists • List of military aircraft of the United States • List of missiles
500
CHAPTER 137. HGM-25A TITAN I
Close-up
137.10. SEE ALSO
LR-87 engine
501
Chapter 138
Trident (missile) 138.1 Development
This article contains technical information about the Trident ballistic missile. For a discussion of the British Trident weapons programme, see UK Trident programme
In 1971, The US Navy began studies of an advanced Undersea Long-range Missile System (ULMS). A Decision Coordinating Paper (DCP) for the ULMS was approved on 14 September 1971. ULMS program outline a longterm modernization plan, which proposed the development of a longer-range missile termed ULMS II, which was to achieve twice the range of the existing POSEIDON (ULMS I) missile. In addition to a longer-range missile, a larger submarine (Ohio-class) was proposed to replace the James Madison and Ben Franklin class SSBNs in 1978. The ULMS II missile system was designed to be retrofitted to the existing SSBNs, while also being fitted to the proposed Ohio-class submarine. In May 1972, the term ULMS II was replaced with TRIDENT. The TRIDENT was to be a larger, higherperformance missile with a range capacity greater than 6000 nm.
A Trident II D-5 missile breaking the surface of the water after being fired from a Royal Navy submarine
Trident I (designated as C4) was deployed in 1979 and retired in 2005.[2] Its objective was to achieve performance similar to Poseidon (C3) but at extended range. Trident II (designated D5) had the objective of improved circular error probable, and was first deployed in 1990, and was planned to be in service for the thirty-year life of the submarines, until 2027.
The Trident missile is a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) equipped with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRV). The Fleet Ballistic Missile (FBM) is armed with thermonuclear warheads and is launched from nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs). Trident missiles are carried by fourteen active US Navy Ohio-class submarines, with US warheads, and four Royal Navy Vanguard-class submarines, with British warheads. The original prime contractor and developer of the missile was Lockheed Martin Space Systems. The missile is named after mythological trident of Neptune.[1]
Trident missiles are provided to the United Kingdom under the terms of the 1963 Polaris Sales Agreement which was modified in 1982 for Trident. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher wrote to President Carter on 10 July 1980, to request that he approve supply of Trident I missiles. However, in 1982 Thatcher wrote to President Reagan to request the United Kingdom be allowed to procure the Trident II system, the procurement of which had been accelerated by the US Navy. This was agreed in March 1982.[3] Under the agreement, the United Kingdom paid an additional 5% of their total procurement cost of 2.5 billion dollars to the US government as a research and development contribution.[4]
502
138.2. DESCRIPTION
138.1.1
503
D5 Life Extension Program
In 2002, the United States Navy announced plans to extend the life of the submarines and the D5 missiles to the year 2040.[5] This requires a D5 Life Extension Program (D5LEP), which is currently underway. The main aim is to replace obsolete components at minimal cost by using commercial off the shelf (COTS) hardware; all the while maintaining the demonstrated performance of the existing Trident II missiles. In 2007, Lockheed Martin was awarded a total of $848 million in contracts to perform this and related work, which also includes upgrading the missiles’ reentry systems.[6] On the same day, Draper Labs was awarded $318 million for upgrade of the guidance system.[6] Then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair was quoted as saying the issue would be fully debated in Parliament prior to a decision being taken.[7] Blair outlined plans in Parliament on 4 December 2006, to build a new generation of submarines to carry existing Trident missiles, and join the D5LE project to refurbish them.[8] The first flight test of a D-5 LE subsystem, the MK 6 Mod 1 guidance system, in Demonstration and Shake- Trident I first launch on 18 January 1977 at Cape Canaveral down Operation (DASO)−23,[9] took place on USS Tennessee (SSBN-734) on 22 February 2012.[10] This was almost exactly 22 years after the first Trident II missile was or 13,600 mph (21,600 km/h). launched from Tennessee in February 1990. The total cost of the Trident program thus far came to The missile attains a temporary low-altitude orbit only a $39.546 billion in 2011, with a cost of $70 million per few minutes after launch. The Guidance System for the missile was developed by the Charles Stark Draper Labmissile.[11] oratory and is maintained by a joint Draper/General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems facility. It is an Inertial Guidance System with an additional Star-Sighting 138.2 Description system (this combination is known as astro-inertial guidance), which is used to correct small position and velocThe launch from the submarine occurs below the ocean ity errors that result from launch condition uncertainties surface. The missiles are ejected from their tubes by ig- due to errors in the submarine navigation system and erniting an explosive charge in a separate container which is rors that may have accumulated in the guidance system separated by seventeen titanium alloy pinnacles activated during the flight due to imperfect instrument calibration. by a double alloy steam system. The energy from the GPS has been used on some test flights but is assumed not blast is directed to a water tank, where the water is flash- to be available for a real mission. The fire control system vaporized to steam. The subsequent pressure spike is was designed and continues to be maintained by General strong enough to eject the missile out of the tube and give Dynamics Advanced Information Systems. it enough momentum to reach and clear the surface of the water. The missile is pressurized with nitrogen to pre- Once the star-sighting has been completed, the “bus” secvent the intrusion of water into any internal spaces, which tion of the missile maneuvers to achieve the various vecould damage the missile or add weight, destabilizing the locity vectors that will send the deployed multiple indemissile. Should the missile fail to breach the surface of pendent reentry vehicles to their individual targets. The the water, there are several safety mechanisms that can ei- downrange and crossrange dispersion of the targets rether deactivate the missile before launch or guide the mis- mains classified. sile through an additional phase of launch. Inertial motion The Trident was built in two variants: the I (C4) UGMsensors are activated upon launch, and when the sensors 96A and II (D5) UGM-133A; however, these two misdetect downward acceleration after being blown out of siles have little in common. While the C4, formerly the water, the first-stage engine ignites. The aerospike, known as EXPO (Extended Range Poseidon), is just an a telescoping outward extension that halves aerodynamic improved version of the Poseidon C-3 missile, the Tridrag, is then deployed, and the boost phase begins. When dent II D-5 has a completely new design (although with the third-stage motor fires, within two minutes of launch, some technologies adopted from the C-4). The C4 and the missile is traveling faster than 20,000 ft/s (6,000 m/s), D5 designations put the missiles within the “family” that
504
CHAPTER 138. TRIDENT (MISSILE)
started in 1960 with Polaris (A1, A2 and A3) and con- D5 missile since 1989, according to a company press tinued with the 1971 Poseidon (C3). Both Trident ver- release.[12] sions are three-stage, solid-propellant, inertially guided missiles, and both guidance systems use a star sighting to improve overall weapons system accuracy. 138.3 Conventional Trident
138.2.1
Trident I (C4) UGM-96A
Main article: UGM-96 Trident I
The Pentagon proposed the Conventional Trident Modification program in 2006 to diversify its strategic options,[13] as part of a broader long-term strategy to develop worldwide rapid strike capabilities, dubbed "Prompt Global Strike".
The first eight Ohio-class submarines were built with the The US$503 million program would have converted exTrident I missiles. Trident were also retrofitted onto 12 isting Trident II missiles (presumably two missiles per SSBNs of the James Madison and Benjamin Franklin submarine) into conventional weapons, by fitting them classes, replacing Poseidon missiles. with modified Mk4 reentry vehicles equipped with GPS for navigation update and a reentry guidance and control (trajectory correction) segment to perform 10 m 138.2.2 Trident II (D5) UGM-133A class impact accuracy. No explosive is said to be used since the reentry vehicle’s mass and hypersonic impact velocity provide sufficient mechanical energy and “effect”. The second conventional warhead version is a fragmentation version that would disperse thousands of tungsten rods which could obliterate an area of 3000 square feet. (approximately 280 square meters).[14] It offered the promise of accurate conventional strikes with little warning and flight time. The primary drawback of using conventionally tipped ballistic missiles is that they are virtually impossible for radar warning systems to distinguish from nuclear-tipped missiles. This leaves open the likelihood that other nuclear-armed countries might mistake it for a nuclear launch which could provoke a counterattack. For that reason among others, this project raised a substantial debate before US Congress for the FY07 Defense budget, but also internationally.[15] Russian President Vladimir Putin, among others, warned that the project would increase the danger of accidental nuclear war. “The launch of such a missile could ... provoke a full-scale counterattack using strategic nuclear forces,” Putin said in May 2006.[16]
A Trident II missile fires its first-stage SRB after an underwater launch from a Royal Navy Vanguard class ballistic missile submarine.
Main article: UGM-133 Trident II The second variant of the Trident is more sophisticated and can carry a heavier payload. It is accurate enough to be a first strike, counterforce, or second strike weapon. All three stages of the Trident II are made of graphite epoxy, making the missile much lighter. The Trident II was the original missile on the British Vanguard-class and American Ohio-class SSBNs from Tennessee on. The D5 missile is currently carried by fourteen Ohio-class and four Vanguard-class SSBNs. Lockheed Martin has carried out 142 consecutive successful test launches of the
138.4 Operators •
United States Navy
•
Royal Navy
138.5 See also • Nuclear weapons and the United States • Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom • British Trident system • British replacement of the Trident system
138.7. EXTERNAL LINKS • ICBM • SLBM • RSM-56 Bulava • R-29RMU2.1 “Layner” • M51 (missile) • M45 (missile) • JL-2 • JL-1
505
[13] “Future Ballistic Missile Projects (United States), Offensive weapons”. Jane’s Strategic Weapon Systems. 27 October 2011. Retrieved 2012-11-23. [14] Shachtman, Noah (4 December 2006). “Hypersonic Cruise Missile:America’{}s New Global Strike Weapon”. Popular Mechanics. Retrieved 2012-11-23. [15] Wood, Sara, Sgt. (2006). “Conventional Missile System to Provide Diverse, Rapid Capabilities”. US Department of Defense. Retrieved 2006-04-10. [16] Rosenberg, Eric (6 October 2006). “Experts warn of an accidental atomic war”. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2006-10-09.
• K Missile family • Agni-VI
138.6 References
138.7 External links • Basic characteristics of Trident II D5 • Strategic Systems Programs Facts as of 08/02/10.
[1] “Trident II D-5”. Atomic Archive. Retrieved 19 March 2015.
• Strategic Systems Programs Chronology as of 08/02/10
[2] Popejoy, Mary (5 November 2005). “USS Alabama Offloads Last of C4 Trident Missiles”. navy.mil. US Navy. Retrieved 2012-05-16.
• Lockheed Martin Trident I (C4) page
[3] “Letter to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of the United Kingdom Confirming the Sale of the Trident II Missile System to the Her Country”. 11 March 1982. Retrieved 2012-11-23.
• Trident II D-5, at Federation of American Scientists website
[4] Ministry of Defence and Property Services Agency: Control and Management of the Trident Programme. National Audit Office. 29 June 1987. Part 4. ISBN 0-10-2027889.
• Lockheed Martin Trident II (D5) page
• Equipment, Features and capabilities of the Trident missile, including explanation of stellar sighting • Picture of the Trident missile compartment on a British Vanguard class submarine
[5] “Navy Awards Lockheed Martin $248 Million Contract for Trident II D5 Missile Production and D5 Service Life Extension” (Press release). Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company. 29 January 2002. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
• Current British Nuclear Weapons at nuclearweapons.org
[6] “Defence.gov: Contracts for Monday 26th November 2007” (Press release). US DoD. 26 November 2007. Retrieved 2010-07-30.
• IEEE Xplore article
[7] “Trident decision 'not yet taken'". BBC News. 21 November 2006. Retrieved 2012-11-23.
• Trident Ploughshares Campaign website
[8] “UK nuclear weapons plan unveiled”. BBC News. 4 December 2006. Retrieved 2012-11-23. [9] “DASO 23 Video”. US Navy. 22 February 2012. Retrieved 2012-12-14.
• Trident I and II, at navysite.de
• Ballistic Missile Submarines
• Time for a nuclear entente cordiale, Lorna Arnold Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, September/October 2005 • UK’s Parliamentary Defence Select Committee: Session 2001/02 Update on weapons programmes
[10] “Back to the Future with Trident Life Extension” (pdf). Undersea Warfare Magazine (US Navy). Spring 2012. Retrieved 2012-12-14.
• US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement (MDA) 1958
[11] “Analysis of the Fiscal Year 2012 Pentagon Spending Request”. Cost of War. 15 February 2011. Retrieved 201211-23.
• HMS Vanguard Trident II test-launch - YouTube video
[12] “Trident D5”. Missiles of the World. missilethreat.com. Retrieved 2012-11-23.
• Video of the Trident being launched.
Chapter 139
UGM-133 Trident II The UGM-133A Trident II, or Trident D5 is a submarine-launched ballistic missile, built by Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Sunnyvale, California, and deployed with the US and Royal Navies. It was first deployed in March 1990,[4] and is still in service. The Trident II Strategic Weapons System is an improved Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile with greater accuracy, payload, and range than the Trident C-4, strengthening U.S. strategic deterrence. The Trident II is considered to be a durable sea-based system capable of engaging many targets. It enhances the U.S. position in strategic arms negotiation with performance and payload flexibility that can accommodate active treaty initiatives (See New START). The TRIDENT II’s increased payload allows nuclear deterrence to be accomplished with fewer submarines.[7]
Studies were conducted to determine whether the moreexpensive Trident II could be constructed similar to the US Air Force’s MX ICBM. This was done primarily to decrease budget costs. It was established that the Trident II would be 83 inches in diameter and 44 ft in length in order to maintain performance with the existing MX ICBM. Modifications to the guidance system, electronics hardening, and external protective coatings were incorporated into the design. While this satisfied the US Naval study requirements, it did not accommodate the US Air Force payload requirements. Propulsion stages were proposed to be used between the first stage and second stage motors, effectively making the Trident II a longer three-stage missile than the C-4. Studies were delayed in 1978 when Congress only approved $5 million of the suggested $15 million for the Naval/Air Force program studies. By December 1978, the US Navy and Air Force studies agreed that the savings made by a similar missile structure would not be effective. It was determined that the US Navy and Air Force maintain and be responsible for their own unique weapon systems. The US Navy continued with their own weapon design of the Trident II.
Trident II missiles are carried by 14 US Ohio and 4 British Vanguard-class submarines, with 24 missiles on each Ohio class and 16 missiles on each Vanguard class. USS Tennessee (SSBN-734) was the first submarine to be armed with Trident IIs, and there have been 150 successful test flights [8] of the D5 missile since 1989, the most recent being from the USS West Virginia (SSBN-736) in June 2014. In March 1980, the US Secretary of Defense proposed It is estimated that 540 missiles will be built by 2013. an increased level of funding for the submarine-launched The Trident D5LE (life-extension) version will remain in ballistic missile modernization. Emphasis was strained service until 2042.[9] for the need of increased accuracy. The House Armed Services Committee (HASC) recommended no funding, while the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) recommended full funding of $97 million. The SASC asked for a plan which incorporates “the fullest pos139.1 History sible competition... (and) should consider competing among contractors for each major component, including The Trident II was designated to be the latest longer-range the integrated missile.” $65 million was awarded for the missile, performing greater than its predecessor (Trident submarine-launched ballistic missile modernization. C-4). In 1972, the US Navy projected an initial operatcalled for the moding capability (IOC) date for the Trident II in 1984. The On 2 October 1981, President Reagan [10] The Defense Deernization of the strategic forces. US Navy continued to advance the IOC date to 1982. On partment directed the Navy to fund all development of 18 October 1973, a Trident program review was adminthe Trident II D5 missile with a December 1989 IOC. istered. On 14 March 1974, the US Deputy Secretary of All research and development effort would be directed Defense disseminated two requirements for the Trident toward “a new development, advanced technology, high program. The first was an accuracy improvement for the accuracy Trident II D5 system.” In December 1982, Trident C-4. The second requirement asked for an alternative to the C-4, or a new Trident II missile with a larger Deputy SECDEF Frank Carlucci advised Secretary of the Navy Caspar Weinberger to include funding for a new first stage motor than the C-4. 506
139.2. DESIGN
507
RV/warhead combination for Trident II. The reentry vehicle was to be designated as the Mk 5, which was to have an increased yield than the Mk 4. The development contract for Trident II was issued in October 1983. On 28 December 1983, the Deputy SECDEF authorized the Navy to proceed with Full Scale Engineering Development of the Trident II D5. The first Trident II launch occurred in January 1987, and the first submarine launch was attempted by Tennessee,[1] the first D-5 ship of the Ohio class, in March 1989. The launch attempt failed because the plume of water following the missile rose to greater height than expected, resulting in water being in the nozzle when the motor ignited. Once the problem was understood, relatively simple changes were quickly made, but the problem delayed the IOC of Trident II until March 1990.[4]
The third-stage hull is also reinforced by Carbon-fiber and Kevlar, but was not originally designed to be.[13]
139.2 Design
139.2.1 Sequence of Operation
Trident II was designed to be more advanced than Trident I (retired in 2005[11] ), and have a greater range and payload capacity. It is accurate enough to be used as a first strike weapon. The Trident II is a three-stage rocket, each stage containing a Solid-fuel rocket motor. The first motor is made by Thiokol and Hercules Inc.. This first stage incorporates a solid propellant motor, parts to ensure first-stage ignition, and a thrust vector control (TVC) system. The first-stage section, compared to the Trident C-4, is slightly larger, allowing increased range and a larger payload. In addition to a larger motor, the D-5 uses an advanced and lighter fuel binder (Polyethylene glycol) than the C-4.[12] This fuel is more commonly known as NEPE-75.[13]
Once the launch command is given, expanding gas within the launch tube forces the missile upward, and out of the submarine. Within seconds, the missile breaches the surface of the water and the first-stage Thrust Vectoring Control (TVC) subsystem ignites. This allows the missile to correct its position prior to first-stage motor ignition. Once the position is corrected, the first-stage motor ignites and burns for approximately 65 seconds until the fuel is expended. When the first-stage motor ceases operation, the second-stage TVC subsystem ignites. The first-stage motor is then ejected by ordnance within the interstage casing.[15][16]
US Navy test firing two Trident II D-5 UGM-133A missiles in the Atlantic Missile Range, on June 02 2014 (DASO 25 SSBN 736).
Once the first stage is cleared, the second-stage motor ignites and burns for approximately 65 seconds. The nose fairing is then jettisoned, separating from the missile. When the nose fairing is cleared of the missile, the third-stage TVC subsystem ignites, and ordnance separates the second-stage motor. The third-stage motor then ignites, pushing the equipment section the remaining distance (approx. 40 seconds) of the flight. When the thirdstage motor reaches the targeted area, the Post Boost Control System (PBCS) ignites, and the third-stage motor is ejected.
Both the first- and second-stage motors are connected by an interstage casing, which contains electronic equipment and ordnance for separation during flight. The second stage also contains a motor made by Thiokol and Hercules Inc., parts to ensure the second-stage ignition, and a TVC system. The first and second stages are both important to the structural integrity of the missile. To ensure that the stages maintain a maximal strength-to-weight ratio, both stages are reinforced by a Carbon-fiber-reinforced The astro-inertial guidance uses star positioning to finepolymer hull.[13] The second- and third-stage sections are connected by tune the accuracy of the inertial guidance system after an integrated equipment/adapter section (ES). The equip- launch. As the accuracy of a missile is dependent upon ment/adapter section is modified to be shorter and more the guidance system knowing the exact position of the compact than the C-4’s adapter section.[12] The D-5’s missile at any given moment during its flight, the fact that equipment section contains critical guidance and flight stars are a fixed reference point from which to calculate control avionics, such as the MK 6 navigation system. that position makes this a potentially very effective means The equipment section also contains the third-stage TVC of improving accuracy. In the Trident system this was system, ordnance for ejecting from the second-stage mo- achieved by a single camera that was trained to spot just tor, and the MIRV platform. The Nose Fairing shields the one star in its expected position, if it was not quite aligned payload of the missile and third-stage motor. Mounted to where it should be then this would indicate that the not precisely on target and a correction within the nose cap (above the nose fairing) is an ex- inertial system was [17] would be made. [14] This aerodynamic tendable Drag-resistant aerospike. spike effectively decreases drag by 50% on the missile. The equipment section, with the MIRV, then aims the
508
CHAPTER 139. UGM-133 TRIDENT II
reentry vehicles (RV) towards earth. The payload is then released from the MIRV platform. To prevent the PBCS correctional thrust from interfering with the RV when released, the equipment section initiates the Plume Avoidance Maneuver (PAM). If the RV will be disrupted by the PBCS nozzle’s thrust, the nearest nozzle will shut off until the RV is away from the MIRV. The PAM is used only when a nozzle’s plume will disrupt the area near an RV. The PAM is a specialized design feature added to the Trident II to increase accuracy.[15]
• West Virginia (SSBN-736) • Kentucky (SSBN-737) • Maryland (SSBN-738) • Nebraska (SSBN-739) • Rhode Island (SSBN-740) • Maine (SSBN-741) • Wyoming (SSBN-742)
139.3 Specifications • Purpose: Seaborne Nuclear Deterrence[1] • Unit Cost: US$ 37.3 million • Range: With full load 7,840 kilometres (4,230 nmi); with reduced load approx. 7,000 mi (11,300 km) (exact is classified)[6] • Maximum speed: Approximately 18,030 mph (29,020 km/h) (Mach 24)[1] (terminal phase) • Guidance system: Astro-inertial guidance. • CEP: Requirement: 90–120 metres (300–390 ft).[4] (Information from flight tests is classified.) • Warhead (in USA usage only): The Mark 5 MIRV can carry up to 14 W88 (475 kt) warheads, while the Mark 4 MIRV can also carry 14 W76 (100 kt) warheads.[18][19] START I reduced this to eight. New START provides for further reductions in deployed launch vehicles, limiting the number of Submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) to 288, and the number of deployed SLBM warheads to a total of 1,152. In 2014, another START Treaty will reduce the number of deployed SLBMs to 240.[20]
139.4 Submarines currently armed with Trident II missiles
• Louisiana (SSBN-743) Royal Navy
• Vanguard • Victorious • Vigilant • Vengeance
139.5 See also • Trident (missile) • RSM-56 Bulava • R-29RMU2 Liner • R-29RMU Sineva • R-29 Vysota • R-39 Rif • M51 (missile) • M45 (missile) • JL-2 • JL-1 • K Missile family
United States Navy
• Henry M. Jackson (SSBN-730) • Alabama (SSBN-731) • Alaska (SSBN-732) • Nevada (SSBN-733) • Tennessee (SSBN-734) • Pennsylvania (SSBN-735)
• Agni-VI
139.6 References [1] Parsch, Andreas. “Trident D-5”. Encyclopedia Astronautica. Retrieved 11 June 2014. [2] “The W88 Warhead, Intermediate yield strategic SLBM MIRV warhead”. Retrieved 12 June 2014. [3] “The W76 Warhead, Intermediate Yield Strategic SLBM MIRV Warhead”. Retrieved 12 June 2014.
139.6. REFERENCES
[4] Parsch, Andreas. “UGM-133”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. Retrieved 2014-06-11. [5] “History Facts 2”. Retrieved June 21, 2014. [6] “DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996 (Senate - August 11, 1995)". Retrieved 13 June 2014. [7] “Trident II (D-5) Sea-Launched Ballistic Missile UGM 133A (Trident II Missile)". Retrieved June 21, 2014. [8] Fisher, Lynn (13 June 2014). “Trident II D5 Missile Reaches 150 Successful Test Flights” (Press release). Lockheed Martin. PR Newswire. [9] “UGM-133 TRIDENT D-5”. Missiles of the World. missilethreat.com. Retrieved 2012-11-23. [10] “Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session With Reporters on the Announcement of the United States Strategic Weapons Program”. National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved 2014-12-24. [11] Popejoy, Mary. “USS Alabama Offloads Last of C4 Trident Missiles”. Retrieved 21 November 2013. [12] “Trident I C-4 FBM / SLBM”. Retrieved June 13, 2014. [13] “Trident II D-5 Fleet Ballistic Missile”. Retrieved June 13, 2014. [14] “TRIDENT II (D5) DIMENSIONS AND JOINTS”. Retrieved June 13, 2014. [15] “Santa Cruz Facility Brochure”. Retrieved June 23, 2014. [16] “Trident II D-5 Fleet Ballistic Missile”. Retrieved June 23, 2014. [17] “Trident II D-5 Fleet Ballistic Missile”. Retrieved June 23, 2014. [18] “Lockheed Martin UGM-133 Trident II”. Retrieved December 12, 2013. [19] “Lockheed UGM-96A Trident I C4/UGM-113A Trident II D5”. Retrieved December 12, 2013. [20] “Fact Sheet on U.S. Nuclear Force Structure under the New START Treaty” (pdf). United States Department of Defense. Retrieved 2014-06-12.
509
Chapter 140
UGM-73 Poseidon The UGM-73 Poseidon missile was the second US Navy nuclear-armed submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) system, powered by a two-stage solid-fuel rocket. It succeeded the UGM-27 Polaris beginning in 1972, bringing major advances in warheads and accuracy. It was followed by Trident I in 1979, and Trident II in 1990.
140.1 Development
1971. It eventually equipped 31 Lafayette-, James Madison-, and Benjamin Franklin-class submarines. Beginning in 1979, 12 Poseidon-equipped SSBNs were refitted with Trident I. By 1992, the Soviet Union had collapsed, 12 Ohio-class submarines had been commissioned, and the START I treaty had gone into effect, so the 31 older Poseidon- and Trident I-armed SSBNs were disarmed, withdrawing Poseidon from service.
140.2 Operators
A development study for a longer range version of the Polaris missile achieved by enlarging it to the maximum possible size allowed by existing launch tubes started in 1963. Tests had already shown that Polaris missiles could be operated without problems in launch tubes that had their fiberglass liners and locating rings removed.
•
United States • United States Navy
140.3 See also
The project was given the title Polaris B3 in November, but the missile was eventually named Poseidon C3 to emphasize the technical advances over its predecessor. The Media related to UGM-73 Poseidon C-3 at Wikimedia C3 was the only version of the missile produced, and it Commons was also given the designation UGM-73A.[1] • List of missiles Slightly longer and considerably wider and heavier than Polaris A3, Poseidon had the same 4,600 kilometres (2,500 nmi) range, greater payload capacity, improved accuracy, and Multiple independently targetable reentry 140.4 References vehicle capability. Poseidon could deliver up to fourteen W68 thermonuclear warheads[2] contained in Mark [1] Poseidon C3 at Spaceline.com 3 reentry vehicles to multiple targets. [2] Poseidon C3 at MissileThreat.com
As with Polaris, starting a rocket motor when the missile was still in the submarine was considered very dangerous. Therefore, the missile was ejected from its launch tube using high pressure steam produced by a solid-fueled boiler. The main rocket motor ignited automatically when the missile had risen approximately 10 metres (33 ft) above the submarine. The first test launch took place on 16 August 1968, the first successful at-sea launch was from a surface ship, the historic USNS Observation Island (from July 1 to December 16, 1969), earning the ship the Meritorious Unit Commendation, and the first test launch from a submarine took place on the USS James Madison on 3 August 1970. The weapon officially entered service on 31 March 510
Chapter 141
UGM-96 Trident I The UGM-96 Trident I, or Trident C4, was an American Submarine-launched ballistic missile, built by Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Sunnyvale, California. First deployed in 1979, the Trident I replaced the Poseidon missile. It was retired in 2005,[2] having been replaced by the Trident II. In 1980, the Royal Navy requested Trident I missiles under the Polaris Sales Agreement, however in 1982, this was changed to Trident IIs. It was the first Trident missile to enter service. The Trident I is a three-stage, solid-fuelled missile. The first eight Ohio-class submarines were armed with Trident I missiles. Twelve James Madison- and Benjamin Franklin-class submarines were also retrofitted with Trident I missiles, which replaced older Poseidon missiles.
141.1 See also Media related to UGM-93A Trident I C-4 at Wikimedia Commons • Trident (missile) • UGM-133 Trident II
141.2 References [1] Parsch, Andreas. “UGM-133”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. Retrieved 2009-02-14. [2] Popejoy, Mary (November 5, 2005). “USS Alabama Offloads Last of C4 Trident Missiles”. navy.mil. US Navy. Retrieved May 16, 2012.
Diagramatic view of a Trident II D5 missile
511
Chapter 142
W21 The W21 was an hydrogen bomb design for the US military. It would have used the physics package of the TX21 bomb. The TX-21 was a weaponized version of the “Shrimp” device tested in the Bravo shot of Operation Castle. A TX-21C was tested as the Navajo shot, Operation Redwing. The TX-21, was a scaled-down version of the Runt device (M-17 hydrogen bomb). Smaller in size and weight to the Mk-17, the Mk-21 was considered as a potential missile warhead. Far more powerful than the TX-13, which was a high-yield atomic bomb developed from the Mk-6 bomb, the XW21 was to replace the XW13 in the weapons pod of the B-58 bomber and for the SM-64 Navaho missile. At the same time the Mk-21 bomb was being developed, the Mk-15 was also being developed. A missile warhead version was developed for the Navajo, Matador and Regulus missiles (a XW29 version was designed for Snark and Redstone). The XW15 design developed into the XW39 which was eventually deployed on Redstone and Snark missiles. The XW21 was cancelled in favor of the much smaller and lighter XW-39 in 1957. Though several hundred Mk21 hydrogen bombs were briefly stockpiled, no W21 warheads were ever constructed. The W21 is an example of how the rapid development of hydrogen bombs in the mid-1950s created many deadend designs which were quickly overtaken by smaller, lighter, and more efficient weapons.
142.1 References • Hansen, Chuck, Swords of Armageddon, Sunnyvale, CA, Chucklea Publications, 1995. • Bullard, John W., History of the Redstone Missile System, Huntsville, AL, Army Missile Command, 1965. • Neal, J. Allen, The Development of the Navajo Guided Missile, Dayton, OH, Wright Air Development Center, 1956.
512
Chapter 143
W41 W41 was the designation of an American nuclear war- Bibliography head, which was investigated during the late 1950s. Intended for use in the SM-64 Navaho cruise missile, the • Cochran, Thomas B.; Arkin, William M.; Hoenig, program was cancelled in 1957. The program was brief, Milton M. (1987). Nuclear Weapons Databook: considered at the same time as the TX-29, WX-15-X1 U.S. nuclear warhead production. Nuclear Weapons and XW-21 warheads. All were eventually replaced as Databook 2. Pensacola, FL: Ballinger Publishing. the proposed Navaho warhead by the W39. The W41 ISBN 978-0-88730-124-7. was an adaptation of the B41 (Mk-41) thermonuclear • Hansen, Chuck (1995). The Swords of Armagedbomb which was produced in large numbers and served don: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Development Since in stockpile for 15 years.[1] 1945 (CD-ROM). Sunnyvale, CA: Chucklea Publications.
143.1 History A warhead version of the B41 thermonuclear bomb, development of the W41 began in November 1956 at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Investigated as a possible warhead for the SM-64 Navaho, a cruise missile then in development,[1] work on the warhead continued through July 1957, when the project was cancelled.[2][3]
143.2 Conspiracy theories Following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, conspiracy theories began that claimed a W41 nuclear bomb would be used to seal the oil well,[4] despite the use of a nuclear weapon in the role having been officially rejected.[5]
143.3 References Citations [1] Hansen 1995 [2] Polmar and Norris 2009, p.53. [3] Cochran et al. 1987, p.10. [4] “The Relief Well is a Cover-Up”. NOLA.com. Retrieved 2011-01-30. [5] Revkin, Andrew C. (3 June 2010). “No Surprise: U.S. Rejects Nuclear Option for Gulf Oil Gusher”. The New York Times Blogs.
513
• Polmar, Norman; Norris, Robert Stan (2009). The U.S. Nuclear Arsenal: A History of Weapons and Delivery Systems Since 1945. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-55750-681-8.
Chapter 144
W42 The W42 was an American nuclear warhead developed in 1957. In December 1957 the Army requested the Atomic Energy Commission to develop a nuclear warhead for the HAWK low- to medium-altitude surface-to-air missile. In July 1958 the military characteristics were approved for the new warhead and the design released. Two months later the requirement for a HAWK with a nuclear warhead was cancelled. It equipped the AIM-47 Falcon long-range air-to-air missile.
144.1 References • Hansen, Chuck; Swords of Armageddon, Sunnyvale, California, Chucklea Publications, 1995.
514
Chapter 145
W60 The W60 is a defunct nuclear weapons system. It was designed to be the very small nuclear warhead of the United States Navy's long range Typhoon LR surface-to-air missile. Development started in 1959, and several fire safety issues delayed the XW-60’s development. The Typhoon itself ran into far more difficult development problems, especially in the size and weight of the acquisition and fire control radars and systems. By late 1963 Typhoon was cancelled, with the XW-60 being terminated in March 1964.
145.1 References • Hansen, Chuck, “Swords of Armageddon,” Sunnyvale, CA, Chucklea Publications, 1995.
515
Chapter 146
W63 The W63 was the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory's entry into a brief competition between Livermore and Los Alamos to design a warhead for the Army’s Lance tactical surface to surface missile. In July 1964 both Livermore Labs and Los Alamos started developing competing warheads for the Lance. The Los Alamos design, the W64, was canceled in September 1964 in favor of Livermore’s W63. In November 1966 W63 was canceled in favor of the W70.
146.1 References • Hansen, Chuck, “Swords of Armageddon,” Sunnyvale, CA, Chucklea Publications, 1995.
516
Chapter 147
W64 This article is about the nuclear weapon. For the audio format, see WAV. The W64 nuclear warhead was the Los Alamos Laboratory's entry into a brief competition between Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and Los Alamos to design an “enhanced-radiation” nuclear warhead (i.e., a "neutron bomb") for the United States Army's MGM-52 Lance tactical surface-to-surface missile. In July 1964, both Livermore Labs and Los Alamos started developing competing warheads for the Lance. The Los Alamos design, the W64, was canceled in September 1964 in favor of Livermore’s W63. In November 1966, the W63 was canceled in favor of the W70, the model that finally entered production.
147.1 References • Hansen, Chuck, Swords of Armageddon, Sunnyvale, CA, Chucklea Publications, 1995.
517
Chapter 148
W65 The W65 was the Lawrence Livermore Lab's competitor for the warhead of the Sprint anti-ballistic missile. Development of the W65 started in October 1965 and was terminated in January 1968 in favor of the Los Alamos W66 design. The W65 was an “enhanced radiation” weapon whose kill mechanism was the neutron flux.
148.1 References • Hansen, Chuck, “Swords of Armageddon,” Sunnyvale, CA, Chucklea Publications, 1995.
518
Chapter 149
W69 W69 is a United States nuclear warhead used in AGM-69 SRAM Short-Range Attack Missiles. It was designed in the early 1970s and produced from 1974 to 1976. It remained in service until 1991, with the last units being retired in 1996. About 1,500 were produced. The W69 design was one of many derived from the B61 nuclear bomb design.
149.1 Specifications The W69 has a diameter of 15 inches and is 30 inches long. It weighed 275 pounds. It has a yield of between 170-200 kilotons. [1]
149.2 See also • List of nuclear weapons • B61 Family
149.3 References [1] List of all US Nuclear Weapons at The Nuclear Weapon Archive. Accessed July 10, 2007
519
Chapter 150
MGM-140 ATACMS The MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System (AT- Army terminated the funding for the BAT-equipped ATacMS) is a surface-to-surface missile (SSM) manufac- ACMS and therefore the MGM-164A never became fully tured by Lockheed Martin. It has a range of over 160 operational.[10] kilometres (100 mi), with solid propellant, and is 4.0 metres (13 ft) high and 610 millimetres (24 in) in diameter. The ATACMS can be fired from multiple rocket launch- 150.1.4 MGM-168 ATacMS – Block IVA ers, including the M270 MLRS, and HIMARS. An ATACMS launch container has a lid patterned with six cir- Originally designated Block IA Unitary (MGM-140E), the new Block IVA variant was designed to carry a cles like a standard MLRS rocket lid. 230 kilograms (500 lb) unitary HE warhead instead of The first use of the ATACMS in a combat capability was the M74 bomblets. It uses the same GPS/INS guidduring Operation Desert Storm, where a total of 32 were ance as the MGM-140B. The development contract was fired from the M270 MLRS.[5] During the Operation placed in December 2000, and flight-testing began in Iraqi Freedom more than 450 missiles were fired.[6] As of April 2001. The first production contract was awarded early 2015, over 560 ATACMS missiles had been fired in in March 2002.[11] The range has been increased to some combat.[1][2] 300 kilometres (190 mi), limited more by the legal provisions of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) than technical considerations.
150.1 Variants 150.1.1
150.2 Operators
MGM-140A – Block I
Previously M39,[7] unguided missile contains 950 M74 anti-personnel/anti-materiel (APAM) submunitions with a range of 128 kilometres (80 mi).[8]
• •
Greece: Hellenic Army is also a known user of the ATACMS.[13]
150.1.2
•
Republic of China: Republic of China Army. On 20 December 2010, Lockheed Martin was awarded a contract for $916 million for 226 'tactical missiles’ and 24 launcher modification kits for the UAE and Taiwan.[14]
•
South Korea: In 2002, the South Korean Army purchased 111 ATACMS Block I and 110 ATACMS Block IA missiles, which were deployed in 2004. An affiliated company of the Hanwha Group of Korea produces munitions for the missile systems under license from Lockheed Martin.[15]
•
Turkey: Turkish Army[16] is also a known user of the ATACMS.[17][18]
•
United Arab Emirates: United Arab Emirates Army. On 20 December 2010, Lockheed Martin
MGM-140B – Block IA
Previously M39A1,[7] missile uses GPS/INS guidance, carries 275 M74 submunitions and has a 165 kilometres (103 mi) range.[8][9] In January 2015, Lockheed Martin received a contract to develop and test new hardware for Block I ATACMS missiles to eliminate the risk of unexploded ordnance by 2016.[1][2]
150.1.3
MGM-164 ATacMS – Block II
A Block II variant (initially designated MGM-140C or, previously, M39A3[7] ) was designed to carry a payload of 13 Brilliant Anti-Tank (BAT) munitions manufactured by Northrop Grumman. However, in late 2003 the U.S. 520
Bahrain: Royal Bahraini Army[12]
150.5. EXTERNAL LINKS was awarded a contract for $916 million for 226 'tactical missiles’ and 24 launcher modification kits for the UAE and Taiwan.[14] •
United States: United States Army
150.3 See also • United States Army Aviation and Missile Command
150.3.1
Comparable missiles
• OTR-21 Tochka • P-12 • Prahaar (missile)
150.4 References [1] U.S. army awards Lockheed Martin $78 million contract for ATACMS guided missile modernization - Armyrecognition.com, 8 January 2015 [2] Lockheed Martin Tactical Missile System Upgrades Armedforces-Int.com, 8 January 2015
521
[15] “ROK: Army Tactical Missile System (Army TACMS)". GlobalSecurity.org. Retrieved 6 October 2011. [16] “Turkey”. Lockheed Martin. Retrieved 6 October 2011. [17] “Lockheed Martin Successfully Validates ATACMS Missile Long-Term Reliability”. Lockheed Martin. 26 February 2009. [18] “MGM-140A Block 1”. MissileThreat.com. Retrieved 6 October 2011.
150.5 External links • ATACMS Long-Range Precision Tactical Missile System Lockheed Martin (2011) • Army Tactical Missile System Block IA Unitary Lockheed Martin. Retrieved 6 October 2011. • Rogers III, Henry T. (16 Jun 2006). “Army Tactical Missile System and Fixed-Wing Aircraft Capabilities in the Joint Time Sensitive Targeting Process”. Master thesis. US Army Command and General Staff College. Retrieved 24 April 2012. • Precision Guided Missiles and Rockets Program Review U.S. Defense Technical Information Center (14 April 2008).
[3] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/ lockheed/data/mfc/pc/atacms-block-1a-unitary/ mfc-atacms-block-1a-unitary-pc.pdf
• ATACMS / ATACMS Block IA Deagel.com. Retrieved 6 October 2011.
[4] http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-140.html
• M39 ATMS GlobalSecurity.org. Retrieved 6 October 2011.
[5] [Source, DoD, Conduct of the Persian Gulf War”, April 1992, p. 753.] [6] “Lockheed Martin - Army Tactical Missile System”. Lockheed Martin. 2006. [7] “MGM-140/−164/−168 ATACMS (M39) (United States), Offensive weapons”. Jane’s Strategic Weapon Systems. Jane’s Information Group. Oct 27, 2011. Retrieved 13 July 2012. [8] South Korea Goes Long – Strategypage.com, October 12, 2012 [9] “Lockheed Martin (LTV) MGM-140 ATACMS”. Designation-Systems.net. Retrieved 6 October 2011. [10] “Lockheed Martin MGM-164 ATACMS II”. Designation-Systems.net. Retrieved 6 October 2011. [11] “Lockheed Martin MGM-168 ATACMS IVA”. Designation-Systems.net. Retrieved 6 October 2011. [12] “Bahrain Purchases Lockheed Martin’s ATACMS Missiles”. Lockheed Martin. 20 December 2000. [13] “Greece”. Lockheed Martin. Retrieved 6 October 2011. [14] “Contracts for Thursday, December 23, 2010”. U.S. Department of Defense. Retrieved 6 October 2011.
Unitary
• M39 Army Tactical Missile System (Army TACMS) Federation of American Scientists | FAS.org. Retrieved 6 October 2011.
Chapter 151
RGM-59 Taurus The RGM-59 Taurus was an American project, conducted by the United States Navy, that was intended to develop a surface-to-surface missile for use as a fire support weapon during amphibious landings, replacing heavycaliber naval guns. Developed during the early 1960s, the project was cancelled before any hardware development was undertaken.
151.1 Design and development In August 1961, the United States Navy issued a requirement for a new type of surface-to-surface missile, called the Landing Force Support Weapon (LFSW),[1] that was intended to replace the battleship and heavy cruiser force - then being retired - in the role of providing fire support of troops conducting amphibious landings.[2][3] The LFSW requirement specified a rocket-powered missile,[3] armed with a conventional warhead, that would have an effective range of at least 34 miles (55 km).[2] The LSFW missile was required to be equally as effective against soft targets as the naval guns and the unguided rockets that it was intended to replace.[2] Studies regarding the guidance system of the LFSW were conducted by the Applied Physics Laboratory, which determined that the ideal solution for the new missile was for it to utilise inertial guidance during the midcourse phase of its flight.[2][4] Terminal guidance would be provided by a tracking beacon, operated by the troops in the battle area. The missile, having locked onto the beacon, would offset from the beacon’s position by an amount specified in the beacon signal, thereby striking the target with a high degree of accuracy.[4]
The Taurus’ guidance system was intended to begin testing, using modified MGM-29 Sergeant missiles, in 1965; one source states that Lockheed had been selected to develop the missile’s airframe.[5] Before any hardware for the project had been constructed, however, the project was cancelled during 1965.[2] With the cancellation of the RGM-59 project, studies turned to a navalised variant of the MGM-52 Lance missile to provide shore landing fire support; in addition, an armed version of the Ryan Firebee drone was proposed to meet the LSFW requirement.[4] Due to funding restrictions, however, nothing would come of these projects as well.[4] In March 1967, the Naval Weapons Center proposed another LFSW missile system, that was intended to have a secondary role of the destruction of enemy air defenses.[6] Intended for launch from existing guided missile cruisers and destroyers, as well as being carried by ballistic missile submarines, the new missile was intended to use terrain reference guidance, and was expected to have accuracy of 200 yards (180 m).[6] However, this project also came to naught,[6] leaving the role of a U.S. Navy ship-to-shore missile unfilled until the arrival of the BGM-109 Tomahawk during the 1980s.[2]
151.3 See also • Naval gunfire support • USS Carronade (IFS-1)
151.4 References Citations
151.2 Cancellation and follow-ups
[1] DOD 4120.15-L (2004), p.84.
Designated ZRGM-59A Taurus in June 1963, the refined design for the LFSW missile specified that it should be capable of utilising the same launchers as the Terrier surface-to-air missile;[4] the missile’s accuracy was projected to be within a range of 30 to 210 yards (27 to 192 m), depending on whether or not the target beacon was operational.[2] 522
[2] Parsch 2002 [3] Morison and Rowe 1975, p.216. [4] Friedman 1982, p.228. [5] Andrade 1979, p.235. [6] Friedman 2002, p.405.
151.5. EXTERNAL LINKS Bibliography • “DOD 4120.15-L: Model Designation of Military Aerospace Vehicles”. Washington, DC: Department of Defense. May 12, 2004. Retrieved 201101-26. • Andrade, John (1979). U.S. Military Aircraft Designations and Serials since 1909. Leicester, UK: Midland Counties Publications. ISBN 0-904597-22-9. Retrieved 2011-01-26. • Friedman, Norman (1982). U.S. Naval Weapons: every gun, missile, mine, and torpedo used by the U.S. Navy from 1883 to the present day. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-0-87021735-7. Retrieved 2011-01-26. • Friedman, Norman (2002). U.S. Amphibious Ships and Craft: An Illustrated Design History. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-55750250-6. Retrieved 2011-01-28. • Morison, Samuel L.; John S. Rowe (1975). The Ships & Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet (10th ed.). Annapolis, MD: United States Naval Institute. ISBN 0-87021-639-2. • Parsch, Andreas (2002). “APL RGM-59 Taurus”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-01-26.
151.5 External links • RGM-59 Taurus, Harpoon HeadQuarters
523
Chapter 152
Ares (missile) The Ares was a proposed intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) derived from the Titan II missile. It was a single-stage rocket with a high-performance engine to increase the rocket’s specific impulse. Both Aerojet and Rocketdyne carried out engine design studies for the project, but Ares was ultimately cancelled in favour of solid-fuel ICBMs, which were safer to store and could be launched with much less notice. Ares would also have been capable of placing a 4,000 kg payload into low Earth orbit as a single-stage to orbit launch vehicle.
524
Chapter 153
MGM-134 Midgetman The MGM-134A Midgetman, also known as the Small Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (SICBM),[1] was an intercontinental ballistic missile developed by the United States of America.
153.1 Overview
launcher. The Midgetman had a range of some 11,000 kilometers (6,800 mi). The warhead comprised a single Mark 21 re-entry vehicle with a 475 kt (1,990 TJ) W871 thermonuclear weapon, also used on the LGM-118 Peacekeeper.
The Midgetman grew out of a requirement expressed in 153.1.2 the mid-1980s by the U.S. Air Force for a small ICBM which could be deployed on road vehicles. Fixed silos are inherently vulnerable to attack, and with the increasing accuracy of submarine-launched ballistic missiles there was a growing threat that the Soviet Union could launch large numbers of missiles from off the coast, destroying most of the U.S. ICBM force before it could be used (first strike). By producing a mobile missile which could not easily be targeted by enemy forces, and thus survive a first strike attempt, the Air Force hoped to negate this possibility (second strike). It was also a response to the Soviet development of SS-24 (rail mobile) and the SS-25 (road mobile) ICBMs. System definition studies for the SICBM (Small Intercontinental Ballistic Missile) commenced in 1984 under an Air Force Program Office, located at Norton AFB CA, with TRW providing System Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA) support. Contracts were awarded by the end of 1986 to Martin Marietta, Thiokol, Hercules, Aerojet, Boeing, General Electric, Rockwell and Logicon and authorization to proceed with full scale development of the MGM-134A Midgetman was granted. The first prototype missile was launched in 1989, but tumbled off course and was destroyed over the Pacific Ocean after about 70 seconds.[1] The first successful test flight took place on April 18, 1991.[2]
153.1.1
Design
In design the XMGM-134A was a three-stage solidfuelled missile. Like the LGM-118 Peacekeeper it used the cold launch system, in which gas pressure was used to eject the missile from the launch canister. The rocket would only ignite once the missile was free of the
Carrier vehicle: HML
Hard Mobile Launcher
The Midgetman was to be carried by a Hard Mobile Launcher (HML) vehicle (see additional pictures at Small ICBM Hard Mobile Launcher). Most of these vehicles would normally remain on bases, only being deployed in times of international crisis when nuclear war was considered more likely. The Hard Mobile Launcher was radiation hardened and had a trailer mounted plow to dig the HML into the earth for additional nuclear blast protection.[3] Early HML model concept testing was performed at Sandia National Laboratory’s “Thundertube”. The “Thundertube” was a conventional explosive shock wave guide which consisted of a steel pipe about 5.8 m (19 ft) in diameter and about 120 m (400 ft) long. Small scale HML design concept models were placed on a soil sample (about 5m x 5m x1.5 m deep) intended to represent Western US desert soils. Soil sample preparation was quality assurance verified using a 1 cm diameter ultra-miniature Cone Penetration Test penetrometer (tip and friction sleeve) developed at the Earth Technology
525
526
CHAPTER 153. MGM-134 MIDGETMAN
Corporation (Long Beach, CA) in 1984. The CPT soil test system and sample preparation (soil surface planner) equipment was designed by Andrew Strutynsky PE,CPT Group Leader at Earth Technology 1982-1985.
153.1.3
Cancellation
With the end of the cold war in the 1990s the U.S. scaled back its development of new nuclear weapons. The Midgetman program was therefore cancelled in January 1992. The legacy of its lighter graphite-wound solid rocket motor technology lived on in the GEM side boosters used on the Delta rockets, and the Orion stages of the Pegasus air-launched rocket. The Soviet equivalent of this missile was the RSS 400 Kuryer which was tested but cancelled in October 1991. This could have filled the role of the more cost effective Topol M road mobile ICBM.
153.2 Specifications • Length : 14 m (46 ft) • Diameter : 1.17 m (3 ft 10 in) • Weight : 13,600 kg (30,000 lb) • Range : 11,000 km (6,800 mi) • Propulsion : Three-stage solid-fuel rocket • Warhead : W87−1 thermonuclear weapon (475 kt (1,990 TJ)) in Mark 21 Re-entry Vehicle
153.3 See also • Nuclear warfare • Nuclear weapon • Intercontinental ballistic missile • List of missiles
153.4 References [1] Unarmed Midgetman Missile a Failure in First Test - New York Times [2] MGM-134A Midgetman / Small ICBM [3] https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/us_hml_01.jpg
153.5 External links • http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-134. html • Interview with Mr. Perle about U.S. - Soviet Arms Control from the Dean Peter Krogh Foreign Affairs Digital Archives
Chapter 154
RTV-A-2 Hiroc The RTV-A-2 Hiroc (High-altitude Rocket) was the United States' first attempt at an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). In 1946, Consolidated-Vultee was given an Army Air Forces research contract and began design and development of the MX-774, which led to Convair’s development of the Atlas ICBM.[1] Although the MX774 itself was cancelled, three prototype launch vehicles were built, designated RTV-A-2. The three rockets were launched in July, September, and December of 1948, all three launches being considered partial successes.[2]
154.1 References and notes [1] York, Herbert Jr (1978). “Race to Oblivion: A Participant’s View of the Arms Race”. Simon and Schuster. p. 56. Retrieved 2008-10-23. [2] Parsch, Andreas (2005). “Convair RTV-A-2 Hiroc”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles - Appendix 1: Early Missiles and Drones. Designation-Systems. Retrieved 2014-04-10.
527
Chapter 155
ArcLight (missile) For other uses, see Arclight (disambiguation). The ArcLight program was a missile development program of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency with the goal of equipping ships like Aegis cruisers with a weapon system capable of striking targets nearly anywhere on the globe, thereby increasing the power of surface ships to a level comparable to that of ballistic missileequipped submarines.[1] According to DARPA, the ArcLight program was to develop a high-tech missile based on the booster stack of the current RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 and equipped with a Hypersonic glide vehicle capable of carrying a 100-200 lb (45-90 kg) warhead.[2] The configuration would allow ships carrying the ArcLight missile to strike targets 2,300 miles (3,700 km) away from the launch point. The missile would replace the aging Tomahawk (missile) and could be fired out of the standard vertical launchers available on many surface ships.[1] Additionally, the ArcLight missile would be capable of launch from air and submarine assets capable of carrying the BGM-109.[2] Dr. Arthur Mabbett was the program manager of the DARPA project,[2] which was to develop and test two different missile designs.[3] In DARPA’s FY 2012 budget, the ArcLight missile program was terminated. The reason was that more development work was needed and they could not yet reach a high enough lift-to-drag ratio system from a non-fixed-wing vehicle. 2011 was spent reassessing technology needs, and no further funding was requested after that. DARPA commented that ArcLight was not part of Prompt Global Strike and was meant as a theater-based system to work with other systems like the Tomahawk cruise missile.[4]
155.1 See also • Prompt Global Strike
155.2 References [1] Hooper, Craig. “New Navy Missile Could Hit Global Targets.” Military.com. N.p., 8 July 2010. Web. 11
528
July 2010.
[2] “DARPA - Tactical Technology Office (TTO).” DARPA. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 July 2010. . [3] ArcLight Industry Day Announcement [4] DARPA Halts High-Speed, Long-Range Weapon Development Program - FabioGhioni.net, 11 April 2011
Chapter 156
Hera (rocket) Hera is a target missile for development testing of mis- to the Missile Defense Agency, beating out three competsile defense systems such as Terminal High Altitude Area ing bidders including Orbital Sciences Corporation and Defense and Patriot PAC-3. In 1992, the United States Lockheed Martin Space Systems. Army Space and Missile Defense Command awarded the Theater Missile Defense (TMD) Targets contract to Coleman Aerospace with Space Vector and Aerotherm as sub156.1 Notes contractors. Coleman developed Hera using the second and third stages of the Minuteman II and the guidance section of the Pershing II. The Rocket Systems Launch [1] Khromov, Gennady (20 November 2000) “The Use of “Hera” Missile Violates the INF Treaty” Center for Arms Program at Detachment 12, USAF Space and Missile Control, Energy and Environmental Studies Systems Center, provided technical program management services involved with removing the liquid injection [2] Webb, Brian (24 March 2009) “Hera missile launch from thrust vector control system from the retired MMII secWhite Sands, NM scheduled for March 25, 7-8 a.m.” ond stages in favor of a flex-seal system enabling robust flight control from launch to burn out. First launch was [3] “Order No. 03-278 and map; Closure area for HERA mison April 24, 1995 at White Sands Missile Range. sile launch” 23 March 2009 Magdalena Ranger District, Cibola National Forest, US Forest Service
Because of its range, Russia claims Hera qualifies as an IRBM and hence violates Item 1, Article 6 of the INF Treaty.[1]
[4] “Abort Aftermath” 2006 Space and Astronomy News
Hera is also used in the USAF Sounding Rocket Program.
[5] “Target Failure Halts THAAD Test” 2009 Space News
There were twelve tests using the Hera missile system launched from Fort Wingate over the Datil Mountains to White Sands Missile Range between 1997 and 2004.[2] In March 2009, the tests were resumed with a thirteenth flight over the Datil Mountains.[3] Other tests using the HERA were conducted entirely within the missile range, such as the aborted 13 September 2006 test of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system.[4]
[6] “MDA Halts Target Buys From Coleman Aerospace” 2010 Aviation Week
During THAAD flight test FTT-11 on December 11, 2009, the Hera target missile failed to ignite following its airborne deployment, subsequently crashing into the ocean.[5] In the wake of this incident, Missile Defense Agency Director LTG Patrick O'Reilly sharply criticized L-3 Coleman Aerospace quality control practices, and in March 2010 suspended further Hera purchases.[6] The suspension was lifted on May 9, 2011[7] when the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center and the Missile Defense Agency were satisfied that Coleman had completed the necessary corrective actions.
[7] “Force Lifts Suspension on Buys From L-3’s Coleman Aerospace” 2011 Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance [8] “L-3 Coleman Nabs MDA Targets Contract”
156.2 References
On October 30, 2013, the Pentagon announced that L3Coleman had won a $74 million contract[8] to continue to develop and supply medium-range ballistic missile targets 529
• Designation Systems: Coleman Hera • Astronautix: Hera • Center for Arms Control, Energy and Environmental Studies: The Use of “Hera” Missile Violates the INF Treaty • People’s Daily: Russia Urges US to End “Hera” Ballistic Missile Development • Вашингтон реанимирует "Першинги" (in Russian)
530
156.3 See also • Hera, the Greek goddess
CHAPTER 156. HERA (ROCKET)
Chapter 157
AGM-45 Shrike AGM-45 Shrike is an American anti-radiation missile designed to home in on hostile anti-aircraft radar. The Shrike was developed by the Naval Weapons Center at China Lake in 1963 by mating a seeker head to the rocket body of an AIM-7 Sparrow. It was phased out by U.S. in 1992[1] and at an unknown time by the Israeli Air Force (the only other major user), and has been superseded by the AGM-88 HARM missile. The Israel Defense Forces developed a version of the Shrike that could be groundlaunched and mounted it on an M4 Sherman chassis as the Kilshon (Hebrew for Trident).[1][3]
157.1 History The Shrike was first employed during the Vietnam War by the Navy in 1965 using A-4 aircraft. The Air Force adopted the weapon the following year using F-105F and G Thunderchief Wild Weasel SEAD aircraft, and later the F-4 Phantom II in the same role. The range was nominally shorter than the SA-2 Guideline missiles that the system was used against, although it was a great improvement over the early method of attacking SAM sites with rockets and bombs from F-100F Super Sabres. A Shrike was typically lofted about 30 degrees above the horizon at a Fan Song radar some 15 miles (25 km) away for a flight time of 50 seconds. Tactics incrementally changed over the campaigns of 1966 and 1967 until the advent of the AGM-78 Standard ARM. This new weapon allowed launches from significantly longer range with a much easier attack profile, as the ARM could be launched up to 180 degrees off target and still expect a hit and its speed allowed it to travel faster than the SA-2. Even after the AGM-78 entered service, the Weasels still carried the Shrike because the ARM cost about $200,000, while a Shrike cost only $7,000. If USAF pilots expended an ARM they would have to fill out a lengthy form during debriefing. A somewhat standard load for the F-105G was a 650 US gal (2,500 L) centerline fuel tank, two AGM-78s on inboard pylons and two Shrikes on the outboards. The mix varied slightly for jamming pods and the occasional AIM-9 Sidewinder but this was the baseline.
for use in the Falklands War of 1982. RAF Shrikes were fitted to modified Vulcan bombers in order to attack Argentinian radar installations during Operation Black Buck. The main target was a Westinghouse AN/TPS43 long range 3D radar that the Argentine Air Force deployed during April to guard the Falklands’ surrounded airspace. The Argentine operators were aware of the antiradar missiles and would simply turn it off during the Vulcan’s approaches. This radar remained intact during the whole conflict. However, air defences remained operational during the attacks and the Shrikes hit two of the less valuable and rapidly replaced secondary fire control radars. Also, following a Vulcan making an emergency landing at Rio de Janeiro, Brazilian authorities confiscated one Shrike which was not returned.[4] About 95 AGM-45s were used in 1991 during Desert Storm against Iraqi air defense, mostly by F-4Gs.[5]
157.2 Variants The Shrike’s limitations are characterized primarily in the fact that subvariants abound, each tuned to a different radar band. Angle gating, used to prioritize targets, was included in every subvariant of the AGM-45A and B after the A-2 and B-2. It was also slow and the lack of punch in the warhead made it difficult for bomb damage assessment, as well as inflicting any damage to the Fan Song Radar vans beyond a shattered radar dish, an easy item to replace or repair. The short range, combined with its lack of speed (compared to the SA-2 SAM) made for a difficult attack. The missile had to be well within the range of the SAM and if a SAM was fired the SAM would get to the aircraft first. Also the missile had few tolerances and had to be launched no more than + or - 3 degrees from the target. Many pilots in Vietnam did not like the Shrike because of its limitations and its success rate of around 25%.
The differences between the AGM-45A and B are in the rocket motor used, and in the warheads capable of being fitted. The AGM-45A used the Rocketdyne Mk 39 Mod 0 (or apparently in some cases the Aerojet Mk 53 Mod 1) Although the Shrike missile did not enter regular service motor, while the AGM-45B used Aerojet Mk 78 Mod 0 with the United Kingdom, it was supplied to the RAF which greatly increased the range of the missile. As for 531
532 warheads, the Mk 5 Mod 0, Mk 86 Mod 0, and WAU-8/B could all be fitted to the AGM-45A and were all blastfragmentation in nature. The AGM-45B made use of the improved Mk 5 Mod 1 and Mk 86 Mod 1 warheads, as well as, the WAU-9/B, again all blast-fragmentation in type. The following table provides information on what radar bands were associated with certain guidance sections, and the subvariant designation.
A Shrike hitting a simulated target.
For unknown reasons, −5 and −8 were not produced.
157.3 See also • International Signal and Control
157.4 References [1] http://www.vectorsite.net/twbomb_09.html#m2 [2] Spencer Tucker, The encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli conflict: a political, social, and military history. A - F, Volume 1, 2008, ABC-CLIO, p. 685 [3] http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/self_ propelled_artillery/kilshon/Kilshon.html [4] http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/OperationBlackBuck. cfm [5] http://www.harpoondatabases.com/encyclopedia/ Entry693.aspx
157.5 External links • The AGM-45 Shrike at Designation Systems.net
CHAPTER 157. AGM-45 SHRIKE
Chapter 158
AGM-78 Standard ARM See also: Standard Missile The AGM-78 Standard ARM was an anti-radiation missile developed by General Dynamics, United States of America.
158.1 Overview Originally developed for the US Navy during the late 1960s, the AGM-78 was created in large part because of the limitations of the AGM-45 Shrike, which suffered from a small warhead, limited range and a poor guidance A 6010th WWS F-105G taking off to North Vietnam, 1971. system. General Dynamics was asked to create an airlaunched ARM by modifying the RIM-66 SM-1 surfaceto-air missile. This use of an “off the shelf” design greatly reduced development costs, and trials of the new weapon begun in 1967 after only a year of development. The first operational missiles were issued in early 1968. The AGM-78 was nicknamed the “starm”, an abbreviation of Standard ARM. The first version of the missile, the A1 Mod 0, was little more than an air-launched RIM-66 with the Shrike’s anti radar seeker head attached to the front. An Aerojet Mark 27 MOD 4 dual-thrust solid-rocket-powered the missile, which was fitted with a blast-fragmentation warhead. Although more capable, the AGM-78 was much more expensive than the AGM45 and the Shrike continued in service for some time. Israeli Keres AGM-78 Standard ARM launcher at IAF Museum. The new missile was carried by the F-105F/G and the A6B/E. produced. This featured a broadband seeker which allowed the missile to be used against a much wider variety of targets without having to select the seeker before the 158.2 Variants mission. A simple memory circuit was also included, allowing the missile to attack a target once it locked on, An inert training version of the AGM-78A was built as even if the radar was shut down. Previous ARMs would ATM-78A. Of equal size, mass and shape, the missile veer off course and miss when they lost a target, and as a lacked a seeker head, warhead, or propulsion systems and result flipping the radar on and off had become a standard was essentially just a dead weight. tactic for missile batteries. An A2 model introduced a bomb damage assessment Some early AGM-78A1s were updated with the new (BDA) capability and an SDU-6/B phosphorus target memory circuit and seeker. These missiles were desigmarker flare to facilitate targeting of the site for follow nated as the AGM-78A4. The AGM-78B was the most up attacks. important version of the missile, and was widely used by In 1969 an improved model called the AGM-78B was the Air Force’s F-4G Phantom II Wild Weasel aircraft. 533
534 A training version of the AGM-78B was created, and was known as the ATM-78B. In the early 1970s the AGM-78C was produced. A US Air Force project, the C model was primarily intended to be more reliable and cheaper to build. It had a SDU29/B white phosphorus target marker. Some older missiles were upgraded to the AGM-78C standard. As before, an ATM-78C training missile was produced. Between 1973 and 1976 the AGM-78D was produced, introducing a new motor. A follow up missile, the AGM78D2, had an active optical fuze, still greater reliability, and a new 100 kg (220 lb) blast-fragmentation warhead. The ATM-78D training missile followed. The RGM-66D shipborne anti-radiation missile used the basic AGM-78 airframe along with features of the RIM66 and AIM-97 Seekbat air-to-air missile. Including all versions, over 3,000 AGM-78 missiles were built. Production stopped in the late 1970s, but the missile continued in service for almost a decade before the last examples were replaced by the AGM-88 HARM in the late 1980s.
158.3 External links • USAF Museum AGM-78 factsheet • Designation-systems.net
CHAPTER 158. AGM-78 STANDARD ARM
Chapter 159
AGM-88 HARM The AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) is a tactical, air-to-surface missile designed to home in on electronic transmissions coming from surfaceto-air radar systems. It was originally developed by Texas Instruments as a replacement for the AGM-45 Shrike and AGM-78 Standard ARM system. Production was later taken over by Raytheon Corporation when it purchased the defense production business of Texas Instruments.
159.1 Description
then saw that the target was the B-52, which was hit. It survived with shrapnel damage to the tail and no casualties. The B-52 was subsequently renamed In HARM’s Way.[5] “Magnum” is spoken over the radio to announce the launch of an AGM-88.[6] During the Gulf War, if an aircraft was illuminated by enemy radar a bogus “Magnum” call on the radio was often enough to convince the operators to power down.[7] This technique would also be employed in Serbia during air operations in 1999. In 2013 President Obama offered the AGM-88 to Israel for the first time.[8]
The AGM-88 can detect, attack and destroy a radar antenna or transmitter with minimal aircrew input. The proportional guidance system that homes in on enemy 159.2.2 radar emissions has a fixed antenna and seeker head in the missile’s nose. A smokeless, solid-propellant, boostersustainer rocket motor propels the missile at speeds over Mach 2. HARM, a U.S. Navy-led program, was initially integrated onto the A-6E, A-7 and F/A-18 and later onto the EA-6B. RDT&E for use on the F-14 was begun, but not completed. The USAF introduced HARM on the F4G Wild Weasel and later on specialized F-16s equipped with the HARM Targeting System (HTS).
AGM-88E AARGM
AGM-88E
159.2 History 159.2.1
Deployment
The HARM missile was approved for full production in March 1983, and then deployed in late 1985 with VA72 and VA-46 aboard the aircraft carrier USS America. It was soon used in combat—in March 1986 against a Libyan SA-5 site in the Gulf of Sidra, and then Operation Eldorado Canyon in April. HARM was used extensively by the United States Navy and the United States Air Force for Operation Desert Storm during the Gulf War of 1991. During the Gulf War, the HARM was involved in a friendly fire incident when the pilot of an F-4G Wild Weasel escorting a B-52 bomber mistook the latter’s tail gun radar for an Iraqi AAA site. (This was after the tail gunner of the B-52 had targeted the F-4G, mistaking it for an Iraqi MiG.) The F-4 pilot launched the missile and
The newest upgrade, the AGM-88E Advanced AntiRadiation Guided Missile (AARGM), features the latest software, enhanced capabilities intended to counter radar shutdown and passive radar using an additional active millimeter wave seeker. It was released in November 2010 and is a joint venture by the US Department of Defense and the Italian Ministry of Defense and is produced by Alliant Techsystems. In November 2005, the Italian Ministry of Defense and the US Department of Defense signed a Memorandum of Agreement on the joint development of the AGM88E AARGM missile. Italy was providing $20 million of developmental funding as well as several millions worth material, equipment and related services. The Italian Air Force was expected to procure up to 250 missiles for its Tornado ECR aircraft. Thus flight test program was set to integrate the AARGM onto Tornado ECR’s weapon system.
535
536
CHAPTER 159. AGM-88 HARM
The Navy demonstrated the AARGM’s capability during Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) in spring 2012 with live firing of 12 missiles. Aircrew and maintenance training with live missiles was completed in June. The Navy authorized Full-Rate Production (FRP) of the AARGM in August 2012, with 72 missiles for the Navy and nine for the Italian Air Force to be delivered in 2013. A U.S. Marine Corps F/A-18 Hornet squadron will be the first forward-deployed unit with the AGM-88E.[9]
•
Taiwan
•
Morocco
•
Turkey
•
United Arab Emirates
•
United States: • United States Navy
It will be initially integrated onto the FA-18C/D, FA18E/F, EA-18G, and Tornado ECR aircraft and later on the F-35.[10] In September 2013, ATK delivered the 100th AARGM to the U.S. Navy. The AGM-88E program is on schedule and on budget, with Full Operational Capability (FOC) planned for September 2014.[11] The Navy’s FY 2016 budget included funding for an extended range AARGM-ER that utilizes the existing guidance system and warhead of the AGM-88E with a solid integrated rocket-ramjet for double the range. Development funding will last to 2020.[12]
• United States Air Force • United States Marine Corps[14]
159.4 See also • Anti-radiation missile • AGM-154 JSOW • ALARM • MAR-1 • Chinese LD-10
159.3 Operators
• List of missiles
159.5 References Notes [1] “AGM-88 HARM (high-speed antiradiation missile) Smart Weapons”. Fas.org. Archived from the original on 10 February 2010. Retrieved 2010-02-16. [2] AGM-88E AARGM / Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile, HDAM [3] Raytheon Company: Miniature Air Launched Decoy (MALD) F-16 carrying an AIM-120 AMRAAM (top), AIM-9 Sidewinder (middle) and AGM-88 HARM
•
Australia: AGM-88E variant ordered; to be used on EA-18G Growlers.[13]
[4] AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile | NAVAIR - U.S. Navy Naval Air Systems Command Navy and Marine Corps Aviation Research, Development, Acquisition, Test and Eva... [5] Lake, Jon (2004). B-52 Stratofortress Units in Operation Desert Storm (1 ed.). Oxford: Osprey. pp. 47–48. ISBN 1-84176-751-4.
•
Egypt
•
Germany
•
Greece
•
Israel
•
Italy: AGM-88E variant.
[7] Lambeth, Benjamin (2000). The Transformation of American Air Power. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. p. 112. ISBN 978-0-8014-3816-5.
•
Kuwait
[8] “Israel seeks $5B in U.S. loans to buy arms.”
•
Saudi Arabia
•
Spain
[9] Navy Approves Full Rate Production for New AntiRadiation Missile - Strategicdefenseintelligence.com, August 30, 2012
[6] “Operational Brevity Words And Terminology”. Fas.org. Retrieved 2010-02-16.
159.6. EXTERNAL LINKS
[10] “ATK Awarded $55 Million Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile Low Rate Initial Production...”. Reuters. 2009-01-21. Retrieved 2011-07-13. [11] ATK Delivers 100th Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) to U.S. Navy - PRNewswire.com, 17 September 2013 [12] F-35Cs Cut Back As U.S. Navy Invests In Standoff Weapons - Aviationweek.com, 3 February 2015 [13] “AGM-88E AARGM Missile: No Place To Hide Down There”. Defense Industry Daily. Retrieved 2013-11-25. [14] “Harpoon Databases: AGM-88 HARM”. Harpoon Da tabases. Retrieved 2013-11-25.
Bibliography • Bonds, Ray and David Miller. “AGM-88 HARM”. Illustrated Directory of Modern American Weapons. Zenith Imprint, 2002. ISBN 0-7603-1346-6.
159.6 External links • AGM-88 data sheet (PDF format) from Raytheon • Information on AGM-88 HARM from FAS • AGM-88 HARM information by Globalsecurity.org • AGM-88@Designation-Systems • AGM-88 HARM by Carlo Kopp
537
Chapter 160
AGM-122 Sidearm • Bonds, Ray and David Miller. Illustrated Directory of Modern American Weapons. Zenith Imprint, 2002. ISBN 0-7603-1346-6.
The AGM-122 Sidearm was an American air-to-surface anti-radiation missile.
160.1 Development
160.4 External links
The AGM-122 Sidearm was produced by the remanufacture of AIM-9C missiles which had been taken out of service. The AIM-9C was a semi-active radar homing variant of the Sidewinder, developed for the US Navy's Vought F-8 Crusader, but used for only a limited period of time. Conceived and developed at China Lake NAWC, the Sidearm was first tested in 1981. In 1984, Motorola was issued a contract to convert and upgrade AIM-9Cs to AGM-122A standard. A total of about 700 units were produced between 1986 and 1990. Existing stocks of Sidearm have been depleted, and the missile is no longer in service. Proposals for new-build missiles, under the designation AGM-122B, have not been proceeded with to date. The AGM-122 was less capable than newer antiradiation missiles like the AGM-88 HARM, but also substantially cheaper, and its lighter weight enabled it to be carried by combat helicopters as well as fighter aircraft and fighter bombers.
160.2 See also • AIM-9 Sidewinder • AGM-87 Focus
160.3 References Notes [1] Andreas, Parsch (8 November 2002). “Motorola AGM122 Sidearm". Designation-Systems.Net. Archived from the original on 23 September 2010. Retrieved 10 August 2010.
Bibliography 538
• FAS • Designation Systems
Chapter 161
AGM-136 Tacit Rainbow producing 310 N (70 lbf) of thrust from the 0.9 m, 22 kg unit. Some sources state that production units would have used a 1,200 N (270 lbf) variant of the Williams International WR-24. Achieved speed and range are uncertain, low subsonic speed is probable and all sources indicate a range much lower than the hoped-for 450 km (280 mi). Each unit was to cost around $200,000, up to thirty would have been loaded in a single B-52.
Northrop AGM-136A Tacit Rainbow in the Cold War Gallery at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force in Dayton, Ohio.
The AGM-136A Tacit Rainbow was a United States military anti-radiation missile program run from 1982 to 1991.
The Naval Research Advisory Committee reported in 1989 that the project was not progressing well. In 1991 a DoD audit found numerous management problems. The program was canceled in 1991 (FY 1992), without any production units and at a total cost of around $4 billion. It was only the second post-Vietnam military project to be canceled after completing testing but before production.
161.1 Survivors
The requirement was for a low-cost air-launchable sys- Below is a list of museums which have a Tacit Rainbow tem to aid in the destruction of enemy air defense net- in their collection: works. The proposed unit would combine elements of • Museum of Aviation, Robins Air Force Base, cruise missiles and UAVs, it would be launched in large Georgia [1] numbers by heavy bombers, fighters, or possibly mass ground launch systems. The missiles would fly in ad• National Museum of the United States Air Force, vance of manned aircraft up to 450 km (280 mi) to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio [2] pre-programmed target zones and patrol there until enemy radar sources were detected which would then be • U.S. Naval Museum of Armament & Technology, destroyed. This extended patrol time on target (“loiter NAWS China Lake, California time”) was the key feature of the new system, a Persistent Anti-radiation Missile (PARM) as opposed to a HARM. The project was started by the DoD in 1982, but moved to the control of the USAF Aeronautical Systems Division in 1984 as a joint Navy/Air Force project. The majority of the system was designed and developed by Northrop with Texas Instruments providing the seek head and Boeing providing a system that allowed it to be launched from B-52 bombers. The first test air-launch was on July 30, 1984.
161.2 References [1] Museum of Aviation Website [2] National Museum of the U.S. Air Force Website
161.3 External links
The unit was 8 ft 4 in (2.54 m) long and 5 ft 2 in (1.575 m) in span with a body diameter of 27 in (686 mm), flight and control surfaces deployed after launch. It massed around 431 lb (195 kg) including the 40 lb (18 kg) warhead. Power was provided by a Williams F121 turbofan, 539
• Global security article • AGM-136 on APA • Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles
Chapter 162
ASM-N-8 Corvus The ASM-N-8 Corvus was an anti-radiation missile developed by Temco Aircraft for the United States Navy.
162.3 Gallery • Artist’s impression of an A4D-2 with two Corvusmissiles
162.1 History
• XASM-N-8 Corvus on an A3D-2.
In April 1955, the U.S. Navy planned the acquisition of a long-range air-to-surface missile armed with a nuclear warhead. This weapon should be carried by the carrierbased North American A3J Vigilante and Douglas A4D Skyhawk. This missile was named ASM-N-8 Raven. Later that year, the project was changed to a nuclear armed anti-radar missile, and renamed Corvus. Temco Aircraft was awarded a development contract in January 1957. The first flight of an XASM-N-8 missile occurred in July 1959. By March 1960, fully guided flights had been made at the Pacific Missile Test Center at Point Mugu, California. However, the program was cancelled in July 1960, when the overall responsibility for longrange nuclear air-to-surface missiles was transferred to the United States Air Force, which had no use for the Corvus missile.
• Planned mission profile for an ASM-N-8 attack.
162.4 See also 162.5 References
162.2 Specifications
The XASM-N-8 had two delta wings and cruciform tailfins for flight stability and control. It was powered by a Thiokol liquid-fueled rocket, which gave it a range of 315 km for high-altitude launches and 185 km for low-altitude launches. Normally the missile would use a passive radar seeker and home on shore-based and ship-based radars. It could also home on non-radiating targets which were illuminated by a radar of the launching aircraft. The Corvus missile was to be armed with a W-40 nuclear warhead of 10 kt yield.[1] 540
[1] http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app1/ asm-n-8.html
Chapter 163
GAM-67 Crossbow The GAM-67 Crossbow was a jet-powered anti-radar missile built by Northrop’s Ventura Division (successor to the Radioplane Company).
163.1 Development In the late 1940s, the Radioplane Company developed a set of prototypes of the Q-1 target series, which used pulsejet or small turbojet engines. Although the Q-1 series was not put into production as a target, it did evolve into the USAF RP-54D / XB-67 / XGAM-67 Crossbow anti-radar missile, which was first flown in 1956. It was also considered as a platform for reconnaissance, electronic countermeasures, and decoy roles. The Crossbow had a cigar-shaped fuselage, straight wings, a straight twin-fin tail, and an engine inlet under the belly. It was powered by a Continental J69 turbojet engine, with 4.41 kN (450 kgf/1,000 lbf) thrust. Two Crossbows could be carried by a Boeing B-50 Superfortress bomber, while four Crossbows could be carried by a Boeing B-47 Stratojet bomber. Only 14 Crossbows were built before the program was cancelled in 1957, in favor of a more sophisticated system that ended up being cancelled in turn. However, it did point the way to the range of missions that would be performed by UAVs in later decades.
163.2 References • This article contains material that originally came from the web article Unmanned Aerial Vehicles by Greg Goebel, which exists in the Public Domain.
541
Chapter 164
ADM-141 TALD 164.1 History In the 1970s, the Brunswick Corp. developed several unpowered radar decoys including the Samson, which was produced for the Israeli Air Force by Israel Military Industries (IMI) in the early 1980s. The Samson proved highly successful, prompting the US Navy to purchase some 2,000 of them during the mid to late 1980s. The first units entered US service in 1987; in 1985, Brunswick was asked to develop an improved Samson named TALD.
IMI TALD and IMI ITALD.
The TALD was an expendable glide vehicle with a square fuselage, flip-out wings, and three tail control surfaces. A digital flight control system could be programmed to conduct various speed or manoeuvering changes during flight. The missile could be launched from 12,200 metres (40,000 ft), at which height it had a range of up to 126 kilometres (78 mi) - a low altitude range reduced this to 26 kilometres (16 mi).
164.2 Variants The TALD was built in different versions.
164.2.1 ADM-141A
F-14 launching a TALD.
The ADM-141A has a passive and active radar enhancers. An IR addon was fielded for a while but was later withdrawn from service.
The ADM-141A/B TALD was an American decoy missile originally built by Brunswick Corporation for the 164.2.2 ADM-141B USAF and the Israeli Air Force. Later it transitioned to joint US/Israeli manufacture with Israeli Military IndusThe ADM-141B carries a 36 kg (80 lb) payload of chaff. tries Advanced Systems Division (IMI-ASD). The Tactical Air Launched Decoy (TALD) was intended to confuse and saturate enemy air defenses, as part of an overall SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses) 164.2.3 ADM-141C strategy thus allowing attacking aircraft and weapons a higher probability of penetrating to the target. The Im- The ADM-141C (ITALD) has the same passive and active radar enhancers as the ADM-141A TALD. proved TALD is a turbojet-powered version. 542
164.5. REFERENCES
543 • Weight : 180 kg (400 lb) • Speed : Up to Mach 0.8 (460 km/h, 250 kn) • Range : 126 km (78 mi) - (Over 300 km (185 mi) for the ADM-141C) • Propulsion : Teledyne CAE J700-CA-400 turbojet, 790 N (177 lbf) on ADM-141C only
164.5 References Article source: Vectorsite’s Unmanned Aerial Vehicles by Greg Goebel.
164.6 See also • List of missiles • ADM-160 MALD
ADM-141 TALDs being loaded on an A-7 Corsair II on Jan. 16,1991.
164.3 Operations The TALD was used with great success in the opening stages of Operation Desert Storm in 1991; more than 100 were launched on the opening night of the war. This prompted the Iraqi air defense to activate many of its radars - most of which were then destroyed by antiradiation missiles. The Improved TALD is powered by a Teledyne CAE Model 312 (J700-CA-400) turbojet. This boosted the range to more than 300 kilometres (190 mi) at high altitude and 185 kilometres (115 mi) at low altitude. This model was also capable of performing a flight profile which resembled that of a real aircraft much more convincingly. Initially twenty TALDs were upgraded to ADM-141C ITALD configuration, with the first flight conducted in 1996. Since then the U.S. Navy has ordered over 200 ADM-141Cs. The major user of the ADM-141 is the F/A-18 Hornet. A single Hornet can carry up to 6 decoys.
164.4 Specifications • Length : 2.34 m (7 ft 8 in) • Wingspan : 1.55 m (5 ft 1 in)
Chapter 165
ADM-144 The ADM-144 was a missile project considered by the United States of America. The ADM-144A designation was reserved for an unspecified missile project in 1989. No formal request for allocation of the designation followed, indicating that the project was cancelled in the very early stages.
165.1 References • http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-144. html
165.2 See also • List of missiles
544
Chapter 166
ADM-160 MALD fortress to the F-117 Nighthawk. The missile has folded wings to allow more compact carriage. On launch the wings unfold and a TJ-50 turbojet propels the missile on a pre-determined course which is composed of up to 100 different waypoints. An inertial navigation system with GPS support keeps the MALD on course. Although pre-programmed before the aircraft leaves the ground, the course can be modified by the pilot at any point up to launch.
166.1.2 New USAF competition An F-16 carrying two Miniature Air-launched decoys (red) during a 1999 test.
In 2002, the USAF renewed its interest in an air-launched decoy and started a new industry-wide competition for a variant with greater endurance.[2] The contract for a new MALD was awarded to Raytheon in Spring 2003.
The ADM-160 MALD (Miniature Air-Launched Decoy) is a decoy missile developed by the United States The Raytheon ADM-160B is similar in configuration to of America. the ADM-160A, but has a trapezoidal fuselage cross section and is larger and heavier. It is powered by a Hamilton Sundstrand TJ-150, a more powerful variant of the TJ-50.
166.1 Overview 166.1.1
DARPA MALD program
The Miniature Air-Launched Decoy (MALD) program was begun in 1995 by DARPA as an effort to develop a small, low cost decoy missile for use in the Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses. Teledyne Ryan (acquired by Northrop Grumman in 1999) was granted a development contract for the ADM-160A in 1996, and the first test flight took place in 1999. The evaluation program was finished by 2001. The US Air Force planned to acquire several thousand of ADM-160A’s, but in 2001 this was reduced to at most 150 for a System Development and Demonstration (SDD) program.[1] In January 2002, the USAF cancelled the program because the drone didn't have enough range and endurance to meet the service’s requirements or to perform other missions.[2]
The first ADM-160B was delivered in Spring 2009.[3] In 2010 an “operationally significant quantity” of the drones were delivered to the Air Force.[4] The USAF currently plans to procure about 1,500. In 2008 a contract for a jamming variant MALD-J was awarded to Raytheon. It made its first freefall test in 2009 and passed its critical design review in early 2010.[5][6] The first MALD-J was delivered to the Air Force on September 6, 2012. On September 24, Raytheon started operational testing, achieving four successful flights out of four launches.[7] In November 2012, Raytheon completed ground verification tests for the MALD and MALD-J for integration onto the MQ-9 Reaper UAV. Integration onto the aircraft is expected sometime in 2013, with the goal for an unmanned suppression of enemy air defenses capability.[8]
In June 2013, Raytheon completed a four-year development program of the MALD, under budget. The MALD The ADM-160A carries a Signature Augmentation Sub- and MALD-J successfully completed all 30 engineering system (SAS) which is composed of various active radar and[9]operational flight tests, with each version completing enhancers which cover a range of frequencies. The SAS 15. can therefore simulate any aircraft, from the B-52 Strato- In May 2014, Raytheon delivered the 1,000th MALD-J 545
546
CHAPTER 166. ADM-160 MALD
to the Air Force as part of the Lot 5 production contract. The MALD program has achieved a perfect 33-for-33 flight test success record over the past two years.[10]
2012.[13] That year, the Air Force ended procurement of the ADM-160B and will only procure MALD-J versions.[17]
In December 2014, a MALD-J was test-flown with a radio data-link to expand situational awareness and allow for in-flight targeting adjustments. While carrying out a 166.2.1 Experimental variants jamming mission, the MALD-J was able to send situation awareness data to the EW Battle Manager, which used the MALI The Miniature Air-Launched Interceptor (MALI) is an armed version of the ADM-160A information to adjust its mission while in-flight.[11] which could be used against cruise missiles. It has a more powerful engine and a more aerodynamic shape for supersonic flight, and can be updated in 166.1.3 US Navy mid flight via a command link to aircraft such as the E-3 SentryAWACS. It completed its development The Naval Surface Warfare Center will place an order for program in 2002.[1] [12] the MALD-J. Systems integration has been announced as of July 6, 2012, by the Raytheon Corp. for the U.S. Navy’s MALD-V Modular payload version that provides space for mission specific payloads, of surveillance gear, F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet. The process will include radio/radar/infrared jammers or other equipment. a series of risk reduction activities and technology This may provide the go-forward architecture, and demonstrations.[13] give the option of turning MALD into a UAV, or even a combination killer-UAV/decoy.[18]
166.1.4
British interest
MASSM Miniature Autonomous Search and Strike Missile, proposed MALD upgrade to hunt transporter erector launchers (TELs). It would be equipped with LIDAR, millimeter wave radar, and an imaging infrared sensor with a small warhead to accommodate fuel and satellite communications. 166.2 Variants Depending on altitude and endurance, one MASSM could search 3,000 km2 (1,200 sq mi) of area. May ADM-160A Original decoy version developed by be recoverable.[19] Teledyne Ryan (acquired by Northrop Grumman) and funded by DARPA. It uses GPS-aided navigation system, and can fly missions with up to (Northrop 256 predefined waypoints. The mission profile is 166.3 Specifications preprogrammed, but can be redefined by the pilot Grumman ADM-160A) of the launching aircraft until immediately before launch.[15] • Length : 2.38 m (7 ft 10 in) The British Ministry of Defence expressed interest on the MALD-V platform at the Paris Airshow in 2009.[14]
ADM-160B Decoy version developed by Raytheon with longer endurance. In use by the USAF.
• Wingspan : 0.65 m (2 ft 2 in) • Diameter : 15 cm (6 in)
ADM-160C “MALD-J” Radar jammer variant of ADM-160B by Raytheon. This variant of the MALD decoy and will be able to operate in both decoy and jammer modes. The decoy and jammer configurations are key enablers supporting the Air Force Global Strike, Global Response, Space and C4ISR, and the Air and Space Expeditionary Force Concepts of Operations. MALD-J will provide stand-in jamming capability for the Airborne Electronic Attack Systems of Systems. It will be launched against a preplanned target and jam specific radars in a stand-in role to degrade or deny the IADS detection of friendly aircraft or munitions.[16] Delivery to the US Armed Forces is to begin in
• Weight : 45 kg (100 lb) • Speed : Mach 0.8 • Ceiling : Over 9,000 m (30,000 ft) • Range : Over 460 km (285 mi) • Endurance : Over 20 min • Propulsion : Hamilton Sundstrand TJ-50 turbojet; 220 N (50 lbf) thrust • Unit cost : US$30,000[5]
166.6. SEE ALSO
166.4 Specifications ADM-160B)
547
(Raytheon
• Length : 2.84 m (9 ft 7 in) • Wingspan : 1.71 m (5 ft 7 in) fully extended • Weight : 115 kg (250 lb) • Speed : Mach 0.91 • Ceiling : Over 12,200 m (40,000 ft) • Range : Approximately 920 km (575 mi) with ability to loiter over target • Endurance : Over 45 min at altitude • Propulsion : Hamilton Sundstrand TJ-150 turbojet • Unit cost : US$120,000 (initial),[5] US$322,000 (as of 2015)[19]
166.5 References [1] designation-systems.net ADM-160 [2] Unmanned Aerial Vehicles 6.0 Decoys [3] U.S. Air Force accepts first delivery of Raytheon Miniature Air Launched Decoy [4] Raytheon Delivers on Miniature Air Launched Decoy Contract [5] Raytheons MALD Decoys Gaining Versatility [6] Raytheon Miniature Air Launched Decoy Jammer Completes Critical Design Review [7] Raytheon MALD-J Decoy Goes 4 for 4 in Operational Flight Tests - Raytheon press release, September 24, 2012 [8] Raytheon and General Atomics team-up to integrate MALD onto Reaper - Flightglobal.com, February 13, 2013 [9] Miniature Air Launched Decoy-Jammer Completes Flight Testing - Deagel.com, 16 June 2013 [10] Raytheon delivers 1000th Miniature Air Launched Decoy- Jammer to US Air Force - WSJ.com, 13 May 2014 [11] Data link-equipped MALD-J flies for the first time - Shephardmedia.com, 11 December 2014 [12] Trimble, Stephen. “Raytheon jammer attracts US Navy interest as roles expand.” Flight International, 27 May 2011. [13] Raytheon Corp. “Raytheon and US Navy begin MALD-J Super Hornet integration”, 'Press Release', 6, July 2012. [14] Craig Holye. “PARIS AIR SHOW: Raytheon advances MALD-J, as UK eyes derivative.” Flight International, 16 May 209.
[15] Andreas Parsch “ADM-160”, 'Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles’, 25, July 2007. [16] US Air Force Appropriation/Budget activity worksheet. Unclassified page 10., February 2010. [17] Miniature Air-Launched Decoy (MALD) and MALDJammer (MALD-J) - Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation. 2014 [18] Defense Industry Daily “Raytheon’s MALD Decoys Gaining Versatility”, 1, December 2011. [19] Stopping Mobile Missiles: Top Picks For Offset Strategy: - Breakingdefense.com, 23 January 2015
This article contains material that originally came from the web article Unmanned Aerial Vehicles by Greg Goebel, which exists in the Public Domain.
166.6 See also • List of missiles
Chapter 167
ADM-20 Quail The McDonnell ADM-20 Quail was a subsonic, jet powered, air-launched decoy cruise missile built by McDonnell Aircraft Corporation. The Quail was designed to be launched by the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress strategic bomber and its original United States Air Force designation was GAM-72 (GAM standing for Guided Aircraft Missile).[1]
167.1 Development In 1955 the USAF started a major effort to construct decoy missiles. The goal of this effort was to improve the ability of strategic bombers to penetrate air-defense systems. The projects initiated under this effort included the MX-2223 which produced the XSM-73 Goose a long range ground-launched jet-powered, decoy cruise missile, MX-2224 which produced the XGAM-71 Buck Duck an air-launched rocket powered decoy missile to equip the Convair B-36. The USAF was at the same time developing the XQ-4 as a supersonic target drone to support the Bomarc Missile Program. A requirement was established by the USAF Power Plant Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base to support follow-on production of the XQ-4. This requirement called for a small jet engine in the 2,000 lbf (8.9 kN) thrust class with a high thrust-to-weight ratio of 10:1. On November 28, 1954 General Electric was awarded a USAF development contract to construct the XJ-85-GE-1. The USAF designated the XJ85 project MX-2273.
The following month on February 1, 1956, the McDonnell Aircraft Corporation was awarded a contract to develop Weapon System 122A which included the GAM72 Green Quail missile. In June 1956 General Electric was selected as the engine contractor for the GAM72. Guidance components were built by Summers Gyroscope and the countermeasures equipment by RamoWooldridge Corporation. The GAM-72 was designed with a high-mounted delta wing and no horizontal stabilizer. A slab-sided fuselage and two sets of vertical stabilizers contributed to the GAM-72s ability to simulate the radar cross section of a bomber. Initially the GAM-72 was powered by a YJ85GE-3. This jet engine produced 2,450 lbf (10.9 kN) of thrust with a thrust-to-weight ratio goal of (6:1). The GAM-72s guidance system could be preprogrammed on the ground to execute two turns and one speed change during a flight time of 45 to 55 minutes. Flight duration depended on altitude. The GAM-72 was designed to operate at altitudes between 35,000 ft (10,668 m) to 50,000 ft (15,240 m) at speeds between Mach 0.75 to Mach 0.9. Range varied between 357 nm and 445 nm (661 to 716 km), also depending on altitude. Two GAM-72s with folded wings and stabilizers were packaged together for mounting in the bomber weapons bay. Before launch the bomber’s radar navigator lowered the GAM-72 using a retractable arm from the airplane’s weapons bay into the slipstream below the aircraft. The wings and stabilizers of the GAM-72 were unfolded, the jet engine was started, and the missile was launched.
During April 1955, the USAF began a program to develop a short range air-launched decoy missile to simulate the radar cross section of a bomber. On January 18, 1956, the USAF released General Operational Requirement (GOR) 139.
Flight testing of the XGAM-72 began in July 1957 at Holloman Air Force Base and the adjacent White Sands Missile Range. Initially testing involved the XGAM-72 being captively carried by a B-52. The first glide flight of the XGAM-72 occurred in November 1957. Three test launches were completed in 1957. The first successful powered flight of the XGAM-72 occurred in August 1958. This flight lasted 14 minutes and covered 103 nau167.2 Design tical miles (191 km). A total of ten test flights occurred in 1958, seventeen flights in 1959, with the final four flights McDonnell Aircraft Corporation submitted a design being completed in 1960. Operational testing then moved which included a cropped-delta-wing decoy constructed to Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, United States where the largely of fiberglass and carried internally within a B-52. 548
167.4. VARIANTS
549
4135th Strategic Wing launched a GAM-72 on June 8, craft. Up to 100 lb (45 kg) of payload could be accom1960. modated internally by the GAM-72. This internal space McDonnell Aircraft received a production contract for could be used to house a radar repeater or a chaff disthe GAM-72A on December 31, 1958. Reliability prob- penser. An infrared burner in the tail could produce inlems encountered during testing resulted in McDonnell tense heat to simulate the heat signature of a bomber. The replacing the J85-GE-3 with the J85-GE-7 engine in the GAM-72 was not armed. production GAM-72A. The GAM-72A was also about 200 lb (90 kg) heavier than the GAM-72. This increase in weight when combined with a slightly smaller wing area reduced the maximum range of the GAM-72A to 402 statute miles (647 km). The first production GAM-72A flight was in March 1960. The final GAM-72A was delivered by McDonnell Aircraft on May 28, 1962. A total of 585 [2] GAM-72A missiles were produced by McDonnell Aircraft. The inventory of GAM-72As in the USAF peaked at 492 in 1963.
Eight GAM-72A decoys could be accommodated in the B-52s weapons bay but the normal decoy load was two.
Ground radar continued to improve, and the effectiveness of the GAM-72B, redesignated in 1963 as the ADM20C, decreased over time. The AGM-69 Short Range Attack Missile (SRAM) allowed bombers to attack airdefense systems from a distance. By 1971, the USAF no longer considered the ADM-20C a credible decoy. The commander of the Strategic Air Command wrote the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force “that During 1963 all remaining GAM-72A missiles were the Quail was only slightly better than nothing.” The last modified to the GAM-72B configuration. A barometric ADM-20C operational test was flown at Eglin Air Force switch for terrain avoidance was added so the GAM-72B Base on July 13, 1972. On June 30, 1978, the last ADMcould operate at lower altitudes. 20C came off alert status. The last ADM-20C was removed from the United States Air Force inventory on DeIn 1963 the GAM-72 was re-designated the ADM-20 cember 15, 1978.
167.3 Operational history
167.4 Variants • GAM-72 – 24 test missiles produced • GAM-72A – 592 missiles produced. • GAM-72B – Upgrade to remaining GAM-72A missiles. • ADM-20A – GAM-72 re-designated in June 1963 • ADM-20B – GAM-72A re-designated in June 1963 • ADM-20C – GAM-72B re-designated in June 1963
B-52 launching a Quail decoy
Although originally planned for deployment with the B47 and the B-52, the GAM-72A was only deployed with the B-52.
167.5 Operator •
United States
The first production GAM-72A was delivered to the • United States Air Force 4135th Strategic Wing, at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida on September 13, 1960. Initial operational capability was reached on February 1, 1961 when the first squadron of The number of GAM-72As in service, by year: the 4135th Strategic Wing was equipped with the GAM72A. On January 1, 1962 B-52 aircraft carried the GAM72A decoy on airborne alert for the first time. Full oper- 167.6 Survivors ational capability was reached when the GAM-72A was deployed with the fourteenth and final B-52 squadron on • ADM-20C S/N 69–700 located in the National April 15, 1962. Museum of the United States Air Force, WrightThe operational version of the GAM-72 carried internal Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio, United radar reflectors facing forward and to each side of the airStates.
550
CHAPTER 167. ADM-20 QUAIL • ADM-20C S/N 61-455 located in the Lone Star Flight Museum, Galveston, Texas, United States. • ADM-20 S/N 64-2573 located in the Museum of Aviation, Robins Air Force Base, Warner Robins, Georgia, United States.
167.7 See also Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era • XSM-74 Buck Duck • BQM-74 Chukar Quail on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force
• ADM-141C ITALD
• ADM-160 MALD • ADM-20 S/N 61-347 located in the Eighth Air Force Museum, Barksdale Air Force Base, Bossier Related lists City, Louisiana, United States. • ADM-20 S/N 60-593 located in the Eighth Air Force Museum, Barksdale Air Force Base. • ADM-20 located in the Aerospace Museum of California, former McClellan Air Force Base, Sacramento, California, United States.
• List of military aircraft of the United States • List of missiles
167.8 References
• ADM-20 S/N 59-2249 located at the Air Force Citations Space & Missile Museum, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, United States.
[1] NASA list of Space Related Acronyms
• ADM-20 S/N 60-505 located at the South Dakota Air and Space Museum, Ellsworth Air Force Base, Rapid City, South Dakota, United States.
[2] http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/usafserials. html (1957, 1959, 1960 & 1961)
• ADM-20 S/N 59-2245 located in the Armed Forces Bibliography and Aerospace Museum, Spokane, Washington, United States. • McDonnell ADM-20 Quail, Fact Sheet from the National Museum of the USAF • ADM-20C S/N 61-633 located in the Hill Aerospace Museum, Hill Air Force Base, Ogden, • McDonald ADM-20 Quail Missile, Strategic-AirUtah, United States. Command.com Website, retrieved October 1, 2007 • ADM-20C located in the Historic Aviation Memorial Museum, Tyler, Texas, United States. • ADM-20C S/N 61-414 located in Gwinn, Michigan, United States. • ADM-20C located at the Pima Air & Space Museum adjacent to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Tucson, Arizona, United States. • ADM-20C S/N 60-374 located in the Oakland Aviation Museum, Oakland, California, United States. • ADM-20C S/N 60-755 located in the Southern Museum of Flight, Birmingham, Alabama, United States.
• McDonnell GAM-72/ADM-20 Quail Missile Data, AMMS ALUMNI Website, retrieved October 2, 2007 • AMMS History, AMMS ALUMNI Website, retrieved October 6, 2007 • McDonnell ADM-20C-40-MC “Quail” Aerial Decoy, Historic Aviation Memorial Museum Website, retrieved October 3, 2007 • “QUAIL” AERIAL DECOY, Hill Air Force Base Website, retrieved October 6, 2007 • 6.0 Decoys, Greg Goebel / In The Public Domain Website, retrieved October 6, 2007
167.8. REFERENCES • Evolution of the Cruise Missile, Kenneth P. Warrell, Air University Press USAF, 1985. • ADM-20 Quail, Web Page by the Federation of American Scientists, retrieved October 6, 2007 • Quail, Historical Essay by Andreas Parsch, Encyclopedia Astronautica website, retrieved October 6, 2007 • Pre-1963 Designations Of U.S. Missiles And Drones, Designations Systems Website, retrieved October 6, 2007 • The History of North American Small Gas Turbine Aircraft Engines, William Fleming and Richard Leyes, AIAA, 1999, ISBN 978-1-56347-332-6
551
Chapter 168
Beechcraft MQM-107 Streaker The MQM-107 Streaker is a reusable, turbojet powered, Streaker.[5] target towing drone primarily used by the United States Army and the United States Air Force for testing and training. The US Army uses the drone for testing var- 168.3 ious surface-to-air missile systems such as the FIM-92 Stinger and the MIM-104 Patriot. The USAF uses them in practice engagements for their air-to-air missiles like the AIM-9 Sidewinder and the AIM-120 AMRAAM.[3]
Variants
168.1 Design and development The MQM-107 was originally developed by Beech Aircraft for the United States Army Aviation and Mis- A F-16 Fighting Falcon flying in formation with a MQM-107E. sile Command's 1972 Variable Speed Training Target (VSTT) requirement. It was announced as the winner in 1975, and the Army took delivery of the original MQM-107A model (the MQM-107A) until 1979.[1] Over the next two • Original model, powered by a Teledyne CAE J402decades, several updated variants of the Streaker were inCA-700 turbojet. The export version of this model troduced with different engines and payloads. was known as the Model 999, with subdesignations The MQM-107 is designed as a high-subsonic target A, D, E, and F for different countries.[2] drone, featuring a slight sweep in the wings and a centerline mounted turbojet engine. The drone is launched MQM-107B from the ground with a rocket booster accelerating it until the jet engine takes over. It can be recovered by parachute • This variant was introduced in 1982 with the more and reused. powerful Microturbo TRI 60-2 turbojet engine, and featured a larger fuselage with a higher payload The Streaker is generally designed to operate as a tow vecapability.[1] This model was exported under the hicle for missile and gun targets. The aircraft can carry Model 999 name again, this time as either the B,L, either radar or infrared tow targets for missile training, or H as versions.[2] as well as a square banner with an enhanced radar signature for gunnery training. Flare and/or chaff pods can be MQM-107C carried as well.[2] • This variant essentially took the fuselage of the MQM-107B and used the engine from the “A” model. This model was built to exhaust the surplus of the J402-CA-700 engines.[1][2]
168.2 Operational history
Production of the MQM-107 ended in 2003, and the current inventory is being phased out in favor of its replace- MQM-107D ment, the BQM-167 Skeeter. In 2012, it was reported that North Korea had acquired several MQM-107D aircraft second-hand from a Middle Eastern country,[4] and the following year revealed an indigenous target drone type believed to be based on the 552
• This variant was introduced in 1987 with another new engine, the J402-CA-702. In 1989 the engine was replaced with a newer version of Microturbo’s TRI 60 engine, the TRI 60-5.[1]
168.5. SPECIFICATIONS (MQM-107B) MQM-107E
553
168.5 Specifications (MQM-107B)
[6] • This variant, first flown in 1992, was a more heavily Data from redesigned model with modified wing and tail sur- General characteristics faces for higher maneuverability. It could utilize either the latest Teledyne CAE J402 engine, or the • Crew: 0 same TRI 60-5 engine used in the “D” variant. Interestingly, the United States Army Aviation and Mis• Length: 18 ft 1 in (5.5 m) sile Command selected BAE Systems to build the • Wingspan: 9 ft 10 in (3 m) “E” model over Raytheon (who had bought this part of Beech at this point).[1][2] • Height: 4 ft 10 in (1.47 m)
• Australia has selected the MQM-107E to replace its GAF Jindivik target drones. It has been designated as the N28 Kalkara in this role.[2] Super-MQM • This variant was an experimental Raytheon version of the MQM-107D with improved thrust and additional payload capabilities.
• Max. takeoff weight: 1464 lb (664 kg) • Powerplant: 1 × Microturbo TRI 60 Turbojet Performance • Maximum speed: 575 mph (925 km/h) • Service ceiling: 40,000 ft (12,192 m) Armament
Raider • Beech proposed this variant of the MQM-107 at the Paris Air Show in 1985. This was to be a tactical UAV that utilized active and passive countermeasures and other decoys to confuse and distract enemies in a combat situation.[1][2]
168.4 Operators
none
168.6 See also Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era • Northrop BQM-74 Chukar
•
Australia (N28 Kalkara AKA MQM-107E)
•
Egypt (999H, 999L)
•
Iran (MQM-107A)
•
Jordan (MQM-107A)
•
North Korea (MQM-107D)[4]
[3] MQM-107 Product Page. Composite Engineering Inc.. Accessed 29 October 2009.
•
South Korea (999D)
[4] “Report: North Korea using old, US-made drones”. Fox news. February 5, 2012. Retrieved 2014-02-18.
•
Singapore
•
Sweden (999A)
•
Taiwan (999F)
•
Turkey (999L)
•
United Arab Emirates (999L)
•
United States (All Variants)
168.7 References [1] MQM 107. Designation Systems. Accessed 29 October 2009. [2] MQM-107 Streaker (2008).Forecast Accessed 29 October 2009.
International.
[5] Majumdar, Dave (March 22, 2013). “North Korea shows off its new drone”. Flightglobal. Retrieved 2014-02-18. [6] MQM-107 Streaker. USAF Factsheet. Accessed 28 October 2009.
Chapter 169
Northrop BQM-74 Chukar The BQM-74 Chukar is a series of aerial target drones produced by Northrop. The Chukar has gone through three major revisions, including the initial MQM-74A Chukar I, the MQM-74C Chukar II, and the BQM74C Chukar III. They are recoverable, remote controlled, subsonic aerial target, capable of speeds up to Mach 0.86 and altitudes from 30 to 40,000 ft (10 to 12,000 m).
169.1 Description
169.2.1 MQM-74A Chukar I The Chukar series began in the early 1960s with a US Navy requirement for a new target drone. The company developed a prototype with the company designation of NV-105 and featuring a delta wing, flying it in 1964. The delta wing didn't work out and was replaced by a straight wing, resulting in the NV-105A, which was first flown in 1965. The NV-105A was accepted by the Navy and went into production as the MQM-74A in 1968.
The BQM-74E is propelled during flight by a single Williams J400 (J400-WR-404) turbojet engine, which produces a maximum thrust of 240 pounds force (1068 N) at sea level. The BQM-74 is launched from a zero length ground launcher utilizing dual Jet Assisted Takeoff (JATO) bottles. When equipped with an air launch kit, the BQM-74 can be air launched from a TA-4J, F-16, Grumman Gulfstream I or DC-130 aircraft. The BQM74 is used primarily as a realistic aerial target, capable of simulating enemy threats for gunnery and missile training exercises. Drones are capable of being recovered following a training exercise. A parachute is deployed by remote control or if the remote control link is severed and a flotation kit can be added for sea-based recovery. If recovery of the drone is required, special telemetry warheads are used on the defensive missile in place of explosives. This telemetry warhead is desirable since it allows for extensive analysis of the performance of the defensive missile, including miss distance information that determines if a real warhead would have damaged the target. A direct hit would likely destroy the drone. Gunnery systems would use nonexplosive dummy munitions. Since gunnery systems are aimed in front of a moving target so it will fly through the blast-fragments, dummy munitions do not have to directly hit a target. Analysis of radar data would determine if actual explosive munitions would have damaged the target drone.
169.2 Development
A U.S. Navy MQM-74A launch, 1972.
The MQM-74A had a neatly tapered cigar-shaped fuselage, straight mid-mounted wings, an underslung jet engine with the intake under the wings, and a conventional tail configuration with the tailplanes set in an inverted vee. It was powered by a Williams International WR24-6 turbojet engine with a thrust of 121 pounds (538 N), and was launched by RATO booster from the ground or a ship. The Navy purchased 1,800 MQM-74A Chukar Is. Several hundred more were purchased in total by NATO for a multinational test range on the island of Crete, as well as the Royal Navy and the Italian Navy. Chukar is the name of an Asian species of partridge, introduced to America and as they are hunted for sport, it seems that Northrop felt that the name was appropriate for an aircraft whose purpose in life is to be shot at. The name Chukar is only formally applied to export versions of the drone, but informally it is used for all variants.
554
169.2. DEVELOPMENT
169.2.2
XBQM-108
Main article: BQM-108
555 lage, in contrast with the tapered fuselage of its predecessors. The BQM-74C incorporates a microprocessor-based autopilot that allows it to be programmed for much more sophisticated flight operations. The BQM-74C can be air launched as well as ground launched. The original engine was the Williams WR24-7A AKA J400-WR-402, with 180 pound (800 N) thrust, but in 1986 production was upgraded to the J400-WR-403 with 240 pound (1070 N) thrust. The BQM-74C is stressed for maneuvers of up to 6Gs. More than 1,600 BQM-74Cs have been built.
In the mid-1970s, the US Naval Weapons Center used the MQM-74A as the basis for an experimental drone designated the XBQM-108, which was to be used to as a demonstrator for a “pogo” or “tailsitter” aircraft that could take off and land straight up and down on its tail. The fuselage, tailfin, radio control system, and parachute recovery system of the MQM-74A were retained, but the drone was fitted with a new wing, a Teledyne CAE Northrop built ten BQM-74C Recce UAVs for tactical J402 engine with a rotating vectored thrust exhaust, fixed reconnaissance for US Navy evaluation, but this variant tricycle landing gear, and additional flight control sys- did not go into production. tems. The demonstrator was completed and was making tethered flights when the program was canceled.
169.2.5 BQM-74E Chukar III 169.2.3
MQM-74C Chukar II
MQM-74C Chukar II floating and being recovered.
The Navy liked the Chukar I but wanted a somewhat faster version, and in the early 1970s Northrop developed the improved experimental MQM-74B, which was followed by the production MQM-74C Chukar II. The Chukar II is difficult to distinguish from the Chukar I, but the Chukar II is slightly scaled up and uses an uprated Williams WR24-7 turbojet with 180 pound (800 N) thrust, giving it a top speed of 590 mph (950 km/h). Like the Chukar I, the Chukar II is ground or ship launched only. At least 1,400 Chukar IIs were built, mostly for the US Navy, but other customers included NATO, the United Kingdom, West Germany, Greece, Iran, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, and Spain.
The BQM-74C has now been replaced in production by the BQM-74E, which is externally all but identical but incorporates the uprated J400-WR-404 engine as standard, and has a third greater range and endurance than its predecessor. On 6 January 2015 PHT, Filipino fishermen recovered a drone of this kind floating off in the waters near Patnanungan, Quezon Province, Philippines. [2] The English newspaper The Daily Mail ran a story[3] with several close-up photos of the drone in orange color. The story included an image showing the model and serial number plate, “MODEL NO. BQM-74E”. The plate also showed an “acceptance date” of 02 September 2008. The US Embassy in Manila said that the drone was actually fired four months earlier during American naval exercises off Guam and was just washed ashore in the Philippines through ocean currents. The country’s Department of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Raul Hernandez appeared to support the US Embassy explanation, adding that at no time was the aerial target drone launched nor did it fly or crash within the Philippine territory. Human rights groups and even left-wing inclined groups/organizations have either condemned, criticized or called for an investigation regarding the incident, saying that drones can be used for surveillance and they can be used for actual combat operations, as well as suggesting it is used on spying on activities of the communist New People’s Army as part of counterinsurgency efforts. However, Maj. Harold Cabunoc, spokesperson of the Philippine Army, denied that drones were taking part in the fight against rebels.[4]
169.2.6 Future versions 169.2.4
BQM-74C Chukar III
In 1978, the US Navy requested a still more sophisticated drone, and Northrop responded with the BQM74C Chukar III. This improved variant is visibly different from its predecessors, featuring a more cylindrical fuse-
In the 1980s, Northrop built a next-generation target, the NV-144, that was substantially bigger and faster than the Chukar III, but the NV-144 did not enter production. Northrop, now part of Northrop Grumman, is now working toward delivery of the improved BQM-74F variant
556 of the Chukar, previously known as Target 2000. The BQM-74F has general configuration along the lines of the BQM-74C, but features swept wings, an empty weight of 600 pounds (270 kilograms), an uprated engine with 300 pound (1.33 kN) thrust, speed of up to Mach 0.93, and a design lifetime of 20 flights. The BQM-74F will be able to simulate a range of different aircraft and cruise missiles. It will also be able to tow targets and decoys, and will be compatible with current Chukar support systems and infrastructure. The Navy awarded Northrop Grumman a development contract in 2002, and initial deliveries are scheduled for 2006.
CHAPTER 169. NORTHROP BQM-74 CHUKAR sures blitz. Iraqi air defenses never recovered from this blow, and though large Allied aircraft losses had been predicted, the Iraqis only succeeded in shooting down 44 manned aircraft. After the war, the 4468th was disbanded, and one of the remaining BQM-74Cs was donated to the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio, where it is now on display.
169.4 USS Chancellorsville accident
On 16 November 2013, a BQM-74E hit and damaged the USS Chancellorsville (CG-62), slightly injuring two sailors and making a hole in the superstructure just above In the 1991 Gulf War, BQM-74Cs were used as decoys the deck. The drone was supposed to turn away more than during the initial air attacks into Iraq. The USAF Big a mile from the cruiser during exercises to test the latest Safari group was put in charge of the decoy effort, which version of the Aegis Combat System, but instead carried was codenamed “Project Scathe Mean”. straight on into the ship.[5]
169.3 Gulf War combat use
The Chukar drones that were available were usually launched from DC-130 director aircraft, and could also be launched from strike aircraft such as F-15s or F-16s. These launch resources were not available, though, so the Navy found twelve ground launchers in their inventory that could be made serviceable, while RATO booster units were found stockpiled in Belgium. Each BQM-74C was fitted with a pair of passive radar enhancement devices to give it a signature similar to that of a strike fighter.
169.5 Specifications
A 40-person team of specialists, obtained from disbanded ground-launched cruise missile units, was assembled in a few days and designated the “4468th Tactical Reconnaissance Group”. The 4468th moved on a fast track, with trucks modified and obtained from a California commercial trucking firm, tool kits purchased from Sears, and field gear bought from war surplus stores. The teams were Diagram of a BQM-74E Chukar given quick training, equipped with 44 Navy BQM-74Cs, General characteristics and sent to Saudi Arabia in two six-launcher teams in about two weeks, arriving near the Iraqi border on 15 Oc• Crew: 0 tober 1990. The northern team was sited to cover Baghdad and large military bases in that area, while the south• Length: 12 ft 11 in (3.94 m) ern team was sited to cover Basra and Kuwait City. • Wingspan: 5 ft 9 in (1.76 m) When the air war began on the night of 17 January 1991, • Height: 2 ft 4 in (0.71 m) Iraq was hit by waves of F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighters and BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles. A group of 38 • Empty weight: 271 lb (123 kg) BQM-74Cs were assigned to be launched as diversion for • Gross weight: 549 lb (249 kg) the second wave of attacks, with the launches generally in groups of three, and 37 were launched successfully in pre• Powerplant: 1 × Williams J400-WR-404 turbojet, cisely timed waves. One group of three was intercepted 240 lbf (1.1 kN) each by Iraqi aircraft, while all the others made it to target. The drones flew over 500 kilometers (310 miles) at 630 Performance km/h (390 mph), then began to circle Baghdad for up to • Maximum speed: 606 mph (972 km/h) 20 minutes. Iraqi air defense radars which probed for the drones were engaged by allied strike aircraft firing • Endurance: 1 hours 8 min high-speed anti-radiation missiles (HARMs). The Navy also launched TALDs to contribute to the countermea• Service ceiling: 40,000 ft (12,000 m)
169.7. REFERENCES
169.6 Related content • History of UAVs decoys Designation sequence: BGM-71 - MIM-72 - UGM-73 - BQM-74 - BGM-75 - AGM-76 - FGM-77
169.7 References Notes [1] "$24M for 60 Aerial Target Drones”, Defense Industry Daily, 29 March 2005 [2] Jonas Cabiles Soltes, “US-made drone falls in Masbate waters”, inquirer.net (Online news site of the Philippine Daily Inquirer), 7 January 2013 [3] Hugo Gye, “Mystery as American drone is found floating off the coast of the Philippines... 1,000 miles away from the nearest U.S. base”, The Daily Mail, 7 January 2013 [4] Tarra Quismundo, Jonas Cabiles Soltes and Mar Arguelles, “DFA backs US claim drone fired in Guam 4 months ago”, inquirer.net (Online news site of the Philippine Daily Inquirer), 8 January 2013 [5] “Navy investigates drone mishap Why did 13-foot drone not turn away from ship, as programmed?". San Diego Union-Tribune. 18 November 2013. |first1= missing |last1= in Authors list (help)
Bibliography • Designation-systems.net • This article contains material that originally came from the web article Unmanned Aerial Vehicles by Greg Goebel, which exists in the Public Domain.
557
Chapter 170
XGAM-71 Buck Duck The Convair XGAM-71 Buck Duck was a decoy missile that was developed by Convair in the late 1950s. It was intended to have the same radar signature as the Strategic Air Command's B-36 bomber, thereby allowing it to disrupt the enemy’s air defenses and dilute their effort to shoot down an incoming bomber fleet.
• Height: 4 ft 3 in (1.3 m) • Gross weight: 1,550 lb (703 kg) • Powerplant: 1 × Aerojet XLR-85-AJ-1 liquid fuel rocket, 90 lbf (0.40 kN) thrust
Convair built the first prototype using their own funds, but Performance received an official development contract from the United States Air Force on 16 August 1954. The project desig• Maximum speed: Mach 0.55 nation was MX-2224. When the Air Force decided to put the project into production, it received the designa• Range: 230 mi (200 nmi; 370 km) tion GAM-71.[1] • Service ceiling: 40,000 ft (12,192 m) As initially envisioned by the Air Force, one B-36 in the typical three-plane attack formation would be filled entirely with GAM-71s, carrying a total of seven. A total 170.2 See also of two decoys could be carried in each bomb bay (except three), and a mixed load was also possible although the • Convair B-36 Peacemaker Air Force did not specify that it intended to use mixed loads. Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era To fit in the bomb bay of a B-36, the GAM-71 was relatively small; its wings were folded when it was stowed in • ADM-20 Quail the bay. To mimic the radar cross-section of the B-36, it carried radar reflectors. • List of military aircraft of the United States In February 1955, glide tests of XGAM-71 prototypes • List of missiles began using a modified B-29 Superfortress as the mothership. However, the program was delayed due to funding issues. Convair also had higher priorities. A total of seven flights were conducted before the program was can- 170.3 References celled in January 1956, an event that Jenkins attributes to the imminent B-36 phase-out.[2] [1] “Convair Development Department Annual Report 1953” (1954-05-27), page 7, and “Convair Development Department Fourth Annual Report” (1955-09-08), page 23. Cited by Jenkins. Both may be found at the Aerospace Education Center, Little Rock, Arkansas.
170.1 Specifications Data from Magnesium Overcast;[3] The Evolution of the Cruise Missile[4] Parsch 2007[5] General characteristics
[2] Werrell, Kenneth P. (September 1985). The Evolution of the Cruise Missile. Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama: Air University Press. pp. 123–124. [3] Jenkins, Dennis R. (September 2002). Magnesium Overcast. North Branch, Minnesota: Specialty Press. p. 142. ISBN 1-58007-042-6.
• Crew: None • Length: 13 ft (4.0 m)
[4] Armstrong, Ferrest E., “From New Technology Development to Operational Usefulness – B-36, B-58, F111/FB/111”, cited by Werrell;
• Wingspan: 14 ft (4.3 m) 558
170.3. REFERENCES
[5] Parsch, Andreas (2007). “Convair GAM-71 Buck Duck”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. Retrieved 2014-05-20.
559
Chapter 171
XSM-73 Goose July 1954 by the United States Air Force under the project designation MX-2223. The Fairchild MX-2223 design called for a non-metallic fuselage with swept wings and a v-tail. Radar reflectors were located in the fuselage and on pods positioned on the wing tips to simulate the radar return of a bomber.
171.2 Design In December 1955, Fairchild was awarded a contract to develop Weapon System 123A which included the XSM-73 being prepared for flight. SM-73 missile. American Machine and Foundry Company was responsible for the ground equipment, RamoThe Fairchild SM-73 (originally Bull Goose) was a sub- Woodridge Corporation was responsible for electronic sonic, jet-powered, ground-launched Decoy Cruise mis- equipment, and Paul Omohundro Co who was responsible for airframe elements. sile. Two engine contracts were awarded by the USAF in November 1954 to minimize development risk.[5]
171.1 Development Starting in December 1952 Fairchild began concept studies for a ground-launched long range decoy missile that could simulate strategic bombers on radar.[1] In March 1953, the United States Air Force released General Operational Requirement (GOR) 16 which called for a long range decoy missile to increase the effectiveness of Strategic Air Command bombers by confusing and saturating an air defense system.[1][2] Multiple SM73 missiles would be ground-launched from Strategic Air Command bases located in the continental United States. Fifty percent of the deployed SM-73 missiles would be launched within the first hour after an alert and the remaining missiles would be launched one hour later.[3] The requirement called for 85 percent of the decoy missiles to arrive at the target area within 115 nm (185 km).[3][4] The SM-73 was to fly 4,000 nm (7,408 km) at speed of at least 0.85 Mach at an operating altitude of 50,000 ft (15,240 m) with a payload of 500 lb (227 kg).[2] After flying 2,500 nm (4,650 km), the SM-73' would simulate the performance of the B-47 Stratojet or B-52 Stratofortress over the final 1,500 nm (2,780 km) of flight.[3]
Each engine was in the 2,450 lbf (10.9 kN) thrust class with a thrust to weight ratio goal of 10:1. General Electric was awarded a contract for the development of the General Electric J85 and Fairchild was awarded a contract for the a competing engine the Fairchild J83. Fairchild proposed a lightweight engine of conventional design.[5] The proposed General Electric engine had a more advanced design, involving more risk, but having a higher thrust to weight ratio. The XSM-73 was powered by the Fairchild J83 on all test flights but was also capable of using the General Electric J85. The Fairchild J83 was operating by early 1957.[5] Like the MX-2223 design, the SM-73 utilized a nonmetallic fiberglass fuselage.[3] The swept wing of the MX-2223 design evolved to a fiberglass 52°delta wing. A Thiokol solid-propellant rocket booster was used to launch the SM-73 to a speed of 300 knots (345 mph). Cruise speed for the SM-73 was 488 knots (562 mph). The SM-73 had a fuel capacity of 803 gal (3,040 L) of JP-4. This fuel was stored in 10 fuselage and six wing tanks.[3]
Study contracts were awarded to Convair and Fairchild in An autopilot used a Rate integrating gyroscope for direc560
171.5. SURVIVORS tional control.[1] The rate integrating gyroscope could be pre-programmed to turn the SM-73. Pitch and roll control were provided by elevons either operating in phase or asymmetrically. Yaw control was provided by a rudder.[3] The control system positioned flight controls by sending electrical signals to hydraulic actuators located at each flight control. The SM-73 was designed to carry radar reflectors and active electronic countermeasures operating in S-band, L-band, and lower frequencies.[3] The SM-73 was not armed.
561
171.5 Survivors • XSM-73 located in the Hagerstown Aviation Museum, Hagerstown, Maryland, United States.[10] • XSM-73 located in the Air Force Space & Missile Museum, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, United States
171.6 See also
Funding issues and problems with the fiberglass wing, the booster rocket, and the Fairchild J83 engine delayed Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era testing.[1] Test and evaluation began in February 1957 with rocket sled tests at Holloman Air Force Base.[2] A B-57 Canberra was modified and used as a flying engine testbed for the Fairchild J83.[5] Testing of the SM-73 then transitioned to Patrick Air Force Base in June 1957. At Patrick Air Force Base, launch complexes 21[6] and 22[7] were constructed near the Cape Canaveral Light[6] to support SM-73 testing. Five dummy booster launches and fifteen test flights were flown between March 1957 and December 1958.[6]
• SM-64 Navaho • XSM-74 • Ground Launched Cruise Missile • BQM-74 Chukar • MGM-1 Matador • AGM-86A Subsonic Cruise Aircraft Decoy
• MGM-13 MACE The United States Air Force planned to purchase 2,328 operational missiles and 53 missiles for test and • ADM-20 QUAIL evaluation.[2] This would have provided enough missiles • ADM-141C ITALD for 10 squadrons.[2] Deployment was planned to start in [2] 1961 and be completed by October 1963. Bull Goose • ADM-160 MALD bases were initially planned at Duluth Municipal Airport, Minnesota and Ethan Allen Air Force Base, Vermont.[8] Construction of Bull Goose missile sites began in August Related lists 1958.[2] • List of military aircraft of the United States In December 1958 the program was canceled because the missile was not able to simulate a B-52 on radar.[2] • List of missiles The Fairchild J83 engine program was also canceled in November 1958.[5] Total program cost at cancellation was $136.5 million U.S. Dollars.
171.7 References
171.3 Variants B-73 Original designation in Bomber sequence XSM-73 Test and Evaluation prototypes. SM-73 Production Missile designation. Gander Proposed surface-to-surface version capable of carrying a 1 Mt warhead 2,000 miles (3,200 km).[9]
171.4 Operator •
United States • United States Air Force
Citations [1] SM-73, Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles - Appendix 1: Early Missiles and Drones, by Andreas Parsch , retrieved November 10, 2007. [2] SM-73 Bull Goose, 1997 Web Page by the Federation of American Scientists, , retrieved November 10, 2007. [3] Fairchild B-73 Bull Goose, Fact Sheet from the National Museum of the USAF, , Retrieved on November 10, 2007. [4] Historical Essay by Andreas Parsch, Goose, , retrieved on November 10, 2007. [5] The History of North American Small Gas Turbine Aircraft Engines, William Fleming and Richard Leyes, AIAA, 1999
562
CHAPTER 171. XSM-73 GOOSE
[6] Encyclopedia Astronautica, Cape Canaveral LC21, retrieved November 10, 2007. [7] Encyclopedia Astronautica, Cape Canaveral LC22, retrieved November 10, 2007. [8] GOOSE (BULL GOOSE) Fact Sheet, Cliff Lethbridge, Spaceline Website, , retrieved November 10, 2007. [9] ""Surface-to-Surface: Aerodynamic Cruise"". Flight 74 (2602): 881. 5 December 1958. [10] List of Hagerstown Aviation Museum Aircraft, , retrieved November 10, 2007
Bibliography • Evolution of the Cruise Missile, Kenneth P. Warrell, Air University Press USAF, 1985. • IDEAS, CONCEPTS, DOCTRINE, Basic Thinking of the United States Air Force 1907-1960, Vol 1, Robert Frank Futrell, Air University Press, 1989 • Interavia, 1992.
International Aeronautic Federation,
• SM-73 Bull Goose, Web Page of Global Security.org • Technology and the Air Force A retrospective Assessment Air Force History and Museums Program, United States Air Force, 1997 • The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Rockets and Missiles, Bill Gunston, Salamander Books Ltd, 1979
Chapter 172
XSM-74 The Convair XSM-74 was a sub-sonic, jet-powered, ground-launched decoy cruise missile.
172.3 Operator •
United States • United States Air Force
172.1 Development
In March 1953, the United States Air Force released General Operational Requirement (GOR) 16 which called for 172.4 See also a long range decoy missile to increase the effectiveness of Strategic Air Command bombers by confusing and satu- Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era rating an air defense system. Multiple XSM-74 missiles would be ground-launched from Strategic Air Command • SM-64 Navaho bases located in the United States. Fifty percent of the • XSM-73 Goose deployed XSM-74 missiles would be launched within the first hour after an alert and the remaining missiles would • Ground Launched Cruise Missile be launched one hour later. The requirement called for 85 percent of the decoy missiles to arrive at the target area • BQM-74 Chukar within 100 nmi (190 km). The XSM-74 was to fly 4,000 • MGM-1 Matador nmi (7,400 km) at speed of at least 0.85 Mach at an operating altitude of 50,000 ft (15,240 m) with a payload • MGM-13 MACE of 500 lb (227 kg). After flying 2,500 nmi (4,600 km), the XSM-74 would simulate the performance of the B-47 • ADM-141C ITALD Stratojet or B-52 Stratofortress over the final 1,500 nmi (2,800 km) of flight. Related lists Study contracts were awarded to Convair and Fairchild in July 1954 by the United States Air Force under the project • List of military aircraft of the United States designation MX-2223. According to USAF records, the • List of missiles designation XSM-74 was proposed for the MX-2223 missile, but never actually approved. The Convair MX-2223 design called for a non-metallic fuselage with swept wings and a v-tail. Radar reflectors were located in the fuselage and on pods positioned on the wing tips to simulate the radar return of a bomber.
172.5 References
Development of the XSM-74 was suspended in December 1955 when Fairchild was awarded a contract by the USAF to develop the XSM-73 Goose.
172.2 Variants • MX-2223: Original U.S. Air Force Project Designator. • XSM-74: Designation reserved for prototypes 563
• SM-74, Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles - Appendix 1: Early Missiles and Drones, by Andreas Parsch
Chapter 173
Cornelius XBG-3 The Cornelius XBG-3 was an American "bomb glider", Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era developed by the Cornelius Aircraft Corporation for the United States Army Air Forces. Using an unconventional • Fletcher BG-1 design that included a forward-swept wing, a single pro• Interstate TDR totype was ordered in 1942; however the contract was cancelled later that year before the aircraft had been con• Mistel structed. • Pratt-Read LBE
173.1 History
Related lists
• List of military aircraft of the United States Early in the Second World War, the United States Army Air Forces initiated research into the possibility that gliders, towed by other, conventional aircraft to the area of a target, then released and guided to impact via radio 173.3 References control, could be a useful weapon of war.[2] Essentially an early form of (very large) guided missile,[2] the con- Citations cept was similar to a Navy project underway at the same time, known as Glomb (from “glider-bomb”),[3] and led [1] Baugher 2011 to the establishment of the 'BG' series of designations, for [2] Gunston 1988, p.28. 'Bomb Glider', in early 1942.[2][3] Among the designs considered for use as a bomb glider [3] Parsch 2009 was an unconventional design submitted by the Cornelius Aircraft Company. Cornelius, having established a rep- [4] Miller 2001, p.297. utation for unconventional aircraft designs,[4] proposed [5] Mondey 1978, p.132. a design that featured a “tail-first” configuration,[2] with [6] Jane’s 1947 canard foreplanes and a radical forward-swept wing.[3] The USAAF considered the design interesting enough to [7] “Gliding Gas Tank May May Refuel Planes On Ocean award a contract to Cornelius for the construction of a sinHops.” Popular Science, August 1944, p. 124. Accessed gle prototype, designated XBG-3.[5] However the project 2011-01-27 was cancelled in late 1942, when the bomb glider concept was abandoned by the USAAF.[3][6] Bibliography An enlarged, tailess, forward-swept wing glider would be built by Cornelius later in the war, acting as a “flying fuel • Baugher, Joe (January 6, 2011). “1942 USAAF Setank” for long-range bombers, as the XFG-1.[7] rial Numbers (42-39758 to 42-50026)". USAASUSAAC-USAAF-USAF Aircraft Serial Numbers−1908 to Present. Retrieved 2011-01-27.
173.2 See also
• Bridgman, Leonard, ed. (1947). Jane’s All The World'S Aircraft 1947. London: S.Low, Marston & Co. ASIN B000RMJ7FU.
• Bat (guided bomb)
• Gunston, Bill (1988). The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft Armament. London: Salamander Books. ISBN 978-0-86101-314-2. Retrieved 2011-01-27.
Related development • Cornelius XFG-1 564
173.3. REFERENCES • Miller, Jay (2001). The X-Planes: X-1 to X-45. Hinckley, England: Midland Publishing. ISBN 9781-85780-109-5. • Mondey, David (1978). The Complete Illustrated Encyclopedia of the World’s Aircraft. New York: A&W Publishers. ASIN B001SLTA1U. • Parsch, Andreas (2008). “BG Series”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles, Appendix 1: Early Missiles and Drones. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-01-27.
565
Chapter 174
Fairchild BQ-3 The Fairchild BQ-3, also known as the Model 79, was an 174.3 Specifications (XBQ-3) early unmanned combat aerial vehicle – referred to at the time as an "assault drone" – developed by Fairchild Air- Data from [1] craft from the company’s AT-21 Gunner advanced trainer during the Second World War for use by the United States General characteristics Army Air Forces. Two examples of the type were built and flight-tested, however the progress of guided missiles • Crew: 1 (optional) rendered the assault drone quickly obsolete, and the type was not produced. • Length: 52 ft 8 in (16.05 m) • Wingspan: 37 ft (11 m)
174.1 Design and development
• Height: 31 ft 1 in (9.47 m)
• Gross weight: 15,300 lb (6,940 kg) Development of the BQ-3 began in October, 1942, under a program for the development of “aerial torpedoes”, later • Powerplant: 2 × Ranger V-770−15 inline piston and more commonly referred to as “assault drones”,[1] engines, 520 hp (390 kW) each that had been instigated in March of that year. Fairchild was awarded a contract for the construction of two XBQ3 prototypes, based largely on the AT-21 Gunner ad- Performance vanced gunnery trainer already in United States Army Air Forces service.[1] • Maximum speed: 220 mph (354 km/h; 191 kn) The XBQ-3 was a twin-engined, low-wing aircraft, fitted with retractable tricycle landing gear and a twin-finned • Range: 1,500 mi (1,303 nmi; 2,414 km) empennage; although the aircraft was intended to be operated by radio control with television assist, a two-seat Armament cockpit was included in the design for testing and ferry [2] flights. Power was provided by two Ranger V-770 inline piston engines, providing 520 horsepower (390 kW) • 4,000 pounds (1,800 kg) warhead each;[3] up to 4,000 pounds (1,800 kg) of bombs could be carried by the aircraft in unmanned configuration.[2]
174.2 Flight testing
174.4 See also
Related development The first flight of the XBQ-3 took place in July 1944;[1] later that month, one of the prototypes was severely dam• Fairchild AT-21 Gunner aged in a forced landing.[4] Despite the accident, flight testing continued; however, the assault drone was determined to have no significant advantage over conven- Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era tional bombers, and advances in the field of guided missiles were rapidly rendering the concept obsolete.[5] As • Fleetwings BQ-2 a result, the program was cancelled towards the end of • Interstate TDR 1944.[1] 566
174.5. REFERENCES
174.5 References Citations [1] Parsch 2003 [2] Jane’s 1947, p.424. [3] Ross 1951, p.117. [4] Werrell 1985, p.30. [5] Craven and Cate 1955, p.254.
Bibliography • Bridgman, Leonard, ed. (1947). Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft 1947. London: MacMillan. ASIN B000RMJ7FU. • Craven, Wesley F & Cate, James L, ed. (1955). The Army Air Forces in World War II. Vol. VI, Men & Planes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. LCCN 48-3657. • Parsch, Andreas (2003). “Fairchild BQ-3”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles, Appendix 1: Early Missiles and Drones. designationsystems.net. Retrieved 2013-01-23. • Ross, Frank (1951). Guided Missiles: Rockets & Torpedoes. New York: Lothrop, Lee & Shepard. ASIN B001LGSGX0. • Werrell, Kenneth P. (1985). The Evolution of the Cruise Missile. Maxwell AFB, Alabama: Air University Press. ISBN 978-1478363057.
567
Chapter 175
Fleetwings BQ-1 • Crew: 1 (optional)
The Fleetwings BQ-1 was an early expendable unmanned aerial vehicle — referred to at the time as an "assault drone" — developed by Fleetwings during the Second World War for use by the United States Army Air Forces. Only a single example of the type was built, the program being cancelled following the crash of the prototype on its first flight.
• Wingspan: 48 ft 7 in (14.81 m) • Gross weight: 7,700 lb (3,493 kg) • Powerplant: 2 × Franklin O-405−7 opposed piston engines, 225 hp (168 kW) each Performance
175.1 Development
• Cruise speed: 225 mph (196 kn; 362 km/h) Development of the BQ-1 began on July 10, 1942, under • Range: 1,717 mi (1,492 nmi; 2,763 km) a program for the development of “aerial torpedoes” - unmanned aircraft carrying internal bombs - that had been instigated in March of that year. Fleetwings was con- Armament tracted to build a single XBQ-1 assault drone,[1] powered by two Franklin O-405−7 opposed piston engines, and fitted with a fixed landing gear in tricycle configuration. • 2,000 pounds (910 kg) warhead The aircraft was optionally piloted; a single-seat cockpit was installed for ferry and training flights; a fairing would replace the cockpit canopy on operational missions.[2] The BQ-1 was intended to carry a 2,000 pounds (910 175.4 See also kg) warhead over a range of 1,717 miles (2,763 km) at 225 miles per hour (362 km/h); the aircraft would be de- Related development stroyed in the act of striking the target.[1] A single BQ-2 was to be constructed as well under the same contract.[1] • Fleetwings BQ-2 Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era
175.2 Flight testing
• Fairchild BQ-3 Following trials of the television-based command guidance system using a PQ-12 target drone, and earlier trials of the XBQ-2A, the XBQ-1 flew in May 1944; however, the aircraft crashed on its maiden flight. Following the loss of the lone prototype BQ-1, the project was cancelled.[1]
• Interstate TDR
175.5 References Notes
175.3 Specifications (XBQ-1)
[1] Werrell 1985, p.30. [2] Parsch 2005
Data from [2] General characteristics
Bibliography 568
175.5. REFERENCES • Parsch, Andreas (2005). “Fleetwings BQ-1/2”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles, Appendix 1: Early Missiles and Drones. designationsystems.net. Retrieved 2013-01-22. • Werrell, Kenneth P. (1985). The Evolution of the Cruise Missile. Maxwell AFB, Alabama: Air University Press. ISBN 978-1478363057.
569
Chapter 176
Fleetwings BQ-2 The Fleetwings BQ-2 was an early expendable unmanned aerial vehicle — referred to at the time as an "assault drone" — developed by Fleetwings during the Second World War for use by the United States Army Air Forces. Only a single example of the type was built; the aircraft was deemed too expensive for service and was cancelled after a brief flight testing career.
176.3 Specifications (XBQ-2A)
176.1 Development Development of the BQ-2 began on July 10, 1942, under a program for the development of “aerial torpedoes” - un- The XBQ-2A. manned flying bombs - that had been instigated in March Data from [2] of that year. Fleetwings was contracted to build a single XBQ-2 assault drone,[1] powered by two Lycoming General characteristics XO-435 opposed piston engines, and fitted with a fixed • Crew: 1 (optional) landing gear in tricycle configuration;[2] the landing gear was jettisonable for better aerodynamics.[1] • Wingspan: 48 ft 7 in (14.81 m) The BQ-2 was optionally piloted; a single-seat cockpit • Gross weight: 7,700 lb (3,493 kg) was installed for ferry and training flights; a fairing would [2] replace the cockpit canopy on operational missions. • Powerplant: 2 × Lycoming R-680−13 radial pisThe BQ-2 was intended to carry a 2,000 pounds (910 ton engines, 280 hp (210 kW) each kg) warhead over a range of 1,717 miles (2,763 km) at 225 miles per hour (362 km/h); the aircraft would be de- Performance stroyed in the act of striking the target.[1] A single BQ-1 was to be constructed as well under the same contract.[1] Armament • 2,000 pounds (910 kg) warhead
176.2 Flight testing 176.4 See also The XO-435 engines were dropped from the design of the XBQ-2 before completion, being replaced by two Related development Lycoming R-680 radial engines, with the aircraft being • Fleetwings BQ-1 redesignated XBQ-2A.[3] Following trials of the television-based command guidAircraft of comparable role, configuration and era ance system using a PQ-12 target drone, the XBQ-2A flew in mid 1943; following flight trials, the design was • Fairchild BQ-3 determined to be too expensive for operational use, and • Interstate TDR the program was cancelled in December of that year.[2] 570
176.5. REFERENCES
176.5 References Notes [1] Werrell 1985, p.30. [2] Parsch 2005 [3] Andrade 1979, p.60.
Bibliography • Andrade, John (1979). U.S. Military Aircraft Designations and Serials since 1909. Leicester, UK: Midland Counties Publications. ISBN 0-904597-22-9. • Parsch, Andreas (2005). “Fleetwings BQ-1/2”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles, Appendix 1: Early Missiles and Drones. designationsystems.net. Retrieved 2013-01-22. • Werrell, Kenneth P. (1985). The Evolution of the Cruise Missile. Maxwell AFB, Alabama: Air University Press. ISBN 978-1478363057.
571
Chapter 177
Gorgon (missile family) The Gorgon was an air-to-air missile powered by a 177.1 Variants turbojet engine and equipped with radio controls and a homing device. Data from:[1] Gorgon IIA Canard layout with single rocket ( may spit out fire at times) KA2N-1 KU2N-1 CTV-4 CTV-N-4 Gorgon IIB Canard layout with single pulse-jet Gorgon IIIA Conventional layout with single rocket KA3N-1 KU3N-1 CTV-6 CTV-N-6 -
PTV-N-2 Gorgon IV in Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center
Gorgon IIIB Gorgon IIIC Conventional layout with twin rockets KA3N-2 KU3N-2 RTV-4 RTV-N-4 Gorgon IV Single ramjet KUM-1 PTV-2 PTV-N-2 -
RTV-N-15 Pollux in Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center
It was developed by the U.S. during World War II, was Gorgon V Derivative of Gorgon IV later expanded into a more general program including ASM-N-5 Gorgon V - proposed chemturbojet, ramjet, pulsejet, and rocket power. Straight ical weapons dispenser variant wing, swept wing, and canard (tail first) air frames were investigated and visual, television, heat-homing, and NADC Plover Drone variant of Gorgon IV three types of radar guidance were looked at for use as KDM-1 possible air-to-air, air-to-surface and surface-to-surface guided missiles and as target drones. NADC Pollux Similar to Gorgon IIC The final development of the series, the ASM-N-5 GorRTV-N-15 gon V, was to be an unpowered chemical weapons dispenser. KGN-1 572
177.3. EXTERNAL LINKS
177.2 References Citations [1] Parsch 2005
Bibliography • Parsch, Andreas (2005). “Martin ASM-N-5 Gorgon V”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles Appendix 1: Early Missiles and Drones. designationsystems.net. Retrieved 2013-01-31.
177.3 External links • “Gorgon IV Sets Records For Ramjets” , February 1949, Popular Sciences • U.S. Naval Aviation Chronology in World War II
573
Chapter 178
Interstate TDR The Interstate TDR was an early unmanned combat TDR-1 was equipped with a fixed tricycle landing gear, aerial vehicle — referred to at the time as an "assault that on operations would be jettisoned following takeoff drone" — developed by the Interstate Aircraft and En- for improved performance.[1] gineering Corporation during the Second World War for use by the United States Navy. Capable of being armed with bombs or torpedoes, 2000 aircraft were ordered, but 178.2 Operational history only around 200 were built. The type saw some service in the Pacific Theater against the Japanese, but continuing developmental issues affecting the aircraft, along with the success of operations using more conventional weapons, led to the decision being made to cancel the assault drone program in October 1944.
178.1 Design and development In 1936, Lieutenant Commander Delmar S. Fahrney proposed that unpiloted, remotely controlled aircraft had potential for use by the United States Navy in combat operations.[1] Due to the limitations of the technology of the time, development of the “assault drone” project was given a low priority, but by the early 1940s the development of the radar altimeter and television made the project more feasible,[1] and following trials using converted manned aircraft, the first operational test of a drone against a naval target was conducted in April 1942.[1] That same month, following trials of the Naval Aircraft Factory TDN assault drone, Interstate Aircraft received a contract from the Navy for two prototype and 100 production aircraft to a simplified and improved design, to be designated TDR-1.[1] Control of the TDR-1 would be conducted from either a control aircraft, usually a TBF Avenger, with the operator viewing a tv screen showing the view from a camera mounted aboard the drone, and with the radar altimeter’s readout also displayed.[1] Powered by two Lycoming O-435 engines of 220 horsepower (160 kW) each, the TDR-1 used a remarkably simple design, with a steel-tube frame constructed by the Schwinn bicycle company covered with a molded wood skin,[2] thus making little use of strategic materials so as not to impede production of higher priority aircraft.[1] Capable of being optionally piloted for test flights, an aerodynamic fairing was used to cover the cockpit area during operational missions.[1] The
Interstate XBQ-4
Under the code-name Operation Option, the Navy projected that up to 18 squadrons of assault drones would be formed, with 162 TBF Avenger control aircraft and 1000 assault drones being ordered.[3] However technical difficulties in the development of the TDR-1, combined with a continued low priority given to the project, saw the contract modified with the order reduced to only around 300 aircraft.[1] A single TDR-1 was tested by the U.S. Army Air Forces as the XBQ-4, however no production contract resulted from this testing.[1] In 1944, under the control of the Special Air Task Force (SATFOR), the TDR-1 was deployed operationally to the South Pacific for operations against the Japanese.[4] TDR1 aircraft equipped a single mixed squadron (Special Air Task Group 1) along with TBM Avenger control aircraft, and the first operational mission took place on September 27, conducting bombing operations against Japanese ships.[4] Despite this success, the assault drone program had already been canceled after the production of 189 TDR-1 aircraft,[1] due to a combination of continued technical problems, the aircraft failing to live up to expectations, and the fact that more conventional weaponry was proving adequate for the defeat of Japan.[1] The final mission was flown on October 27, with 50 drones hav-
574
178.5. SPECIFICATIONS (TDR-1) ing been expended on operations, 31 aircraft successfully striking their targets, without loss to the pilots of STAG1.[4] Following the war, some TDR-1s were converted for operation as private sportsplanes.[2]
178.3 Aircraft on display
575 • XTD3R-2 - Variant of XTD3R-1, one prototype.[1] • TD3R-1 - Production version of XTD3R-1, 40 aircraft ordered but cancelled.[1] United States Army Air Forces • XBQ-4 - Army designation for TDR-1. One aircraft converted from TDR-1.[1] • XBQ-5 - Army designation for XTD2R-1. Designation reserved but no aircraft ordered.[1] • XBQ-6 - Army designation for XTD3R. No aircraft produced.[1] • BQ-6A - Army designation for TD3R-1. No aircraft produced.[1]
Interstate TDR-1 on display at the National Museum of Naval Aviation
178.5 Specifications (TDR-1)
A single example of the TDR-1 survives, and is on display at the U.S. Navy’s National Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola, Florida.[2]
178.4 Variants and operators
Three view of TDR-1
Data from Parsch[1] General characteristics • Crew: 0-1 (optional pilot) • Wingspan: 48 ft (15 m) • Gross weight: 5,900 lb (2,676 kg)
Interstate XTD3R
United States Navy
• Powerplant: 2 × Lycoming O-435−2 opposed piston engines, 220 hp (160 kW) each Performance
• XTDR-1 - Two prototypes.[1]
• Cruise speed: 140 mph (122 kn; 225 km/h)
• TDR-1 - Production version of XTDR-1, 189 aircraft produced.[1]
• Range: 425 mi (369 nmi; 684 km)
• XTD2R-1 - Variant with two Franklin O-805−2 Armament engines, two prototypes ordered, canceled in favor of TD3R.[1] • XTD3R-1 - Variant with Wright R-975 radial engines, three prototypes.[1]
• One 2,000-pound (910 kg) bomb or one aerial torpedo
576
178.6 See also • History of unmanned aerial vehicles Related development • Naval Aircraft Factory TDN Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era • Gorgon (U.S. missile) • Interstate XBDR • LTV-N-2 Loon • McDonnell LBD Gargoyle Related lists • List of unmanned aerial vehicles • List of military aircraft of the United States (naval)
178.7 References Citations [1] Parsch 2005. [2] Goebel 2010 [3] Zaloga 2008, p.8. [4] Newcome 2004, p.68.
Bibliography • Goebel, Greg (2010). “The Aerial Torpedo”. Cruise Missiles. VectorSite. Retrieved 2010-11-18. • Newcome, Lawrence R. (2004). Unmanned Aviation: A Brief History of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Reston, Virginia: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. ISBN 978-1-56347-644-0. Retrieved 2010-11-17. • Parsch, Andreas (2005). “Interstate BQ-4/TDR”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles, Appendix 1: Early Missiles and Drones. designationsystems.net. Retrieved 2010-11-17. • Zaloga, Steven (2008). Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Robotic Air Warfare 1917-2007. New Vanguard 144. New York: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-184603-243-1. Retrieved 2010-11-17. Further reading • Spark, Nick T. (2005). “Unmanned Precision Weapons Aren't New”. Proceedings Magazine (U.S. Naval Institute). Retrieved 2005-02-01.
CHAPTER 178. INTERSTATE TDR
178.8 External links Media related to Interstate TDR at Wikimedia Commons
Chapter 179
Interstate XBDR The Interstate XBDR was a design for an assault drone - an early television-guided missile - powered by two jet engines, that was designed by the Interstate Aircraft and Engineering Corporation during the latter stages of the Second World War for use by the United States Navy. Wind tunnel tests of a scale model were conducted, however no full-scale examples of the aircraft were built before the project was cancelled.
this was resolved the tests were successfully carried out, and a gust factor of 1.22 was recommended for use in the design.[5] Despite the successful testing the Navy decided not to pursue full-scale development of the aircraft, and the order for the two prototypes was cancelled.[4]
179.3 Specifications (XBDR-1)
179.1 Design Referred to at the time as a “assault drone”, and the only aircraft ever designated in the 'BD' series,[1] the XBDR-1 was designed by Interstate in response to a Navy requirement in late 1943 and early 1944. The aircraft featured a tailless design,[2] and was essentially a flying wing with a small vertical stabiliser. The XBDR-1 was intended to be powered by two Westinghouse 19B axial-flow turbojet engines,[3] which were to be buried in the wing near the Artist’s concept of a piloted version of the XBDR-1 wing roots.[2] The planned warload was not detailed, howData from [3][5] ever it was planned that the assault drone would be guided General characteristics to its target via a television link.[1] • Crew: None (UAV)
179.2 Testing and Cancellation
• Wingspan: 51.66 ft (15.75 m) • Wing area: 362 sq ft (33.6 m2 ) • Gross weight: 10,800 lb (4,899 kg) • Powerplant: 2 × Westinghouse 19B turbojets, 1,550 lbf (6.9 kN) thrust each Performance
1/17-scale wind tunnel model of the XBDR-1 with alternative intakes
• Wing loading: 29.8 lb/sq ft (145 kg/m2 )
Two prototypes (BuNos 337635 and 37636) were ordered,[4] and tests of a 1/17-scale model of the XBDR 179.4 See also were conducted in a NACA gust tunnel at Langley Field in 1944. Requested by the Bureau of Aeronautics in an at• History of unmanned aerial vehicles tempt to determine the load factors of the unusually con[5] figured aircraft, these tests initially encountered difficulty with the center of gravity of the model, but once Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era 577
578 • Gorgon (U.S. missile) • Horten Ho 229 • Interstate TDR • LTV-N-2 Loon • McDonnell LBD Gargoyle • Northrop XP-79 Related lists • List of unmanned aerial vehicles • List of military aircraft of the United States (naval)
179.5 References Citations [1] Grossnick 1997, p. 670. [2] Parsch 2003 [3] Leyes and Fleming 1999, p. 38. [4] NAVAIR 00-80P-1: United States Naval Aviation 1910– 1970, Naval Air Systems Command, 1970 [5] Reisert 1944
Bibliography • Grossnick, Roy. “List of Naval Aviation Drones and Missiles”. United States Naval Aviation 19101995. Washington, DC: Naval Historical Center, 1997. ISBN 0-945274-34-3. • Leyes, Richard and William A. Fleming. The History of North American Small Gas Turbine Aircraft Engines. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1999. ISBN 1-56347-332-1. • Parsch, Andreas. (2003) Interstate BDR. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designationsystems.net, accessed 2010-05-15. • Reisert, Thomas. “Tests of a 1/17-Scale Model of the XBDR-1 Airplane in the NACA Gust Tunnel”, NACA Report WR-L-539, 1944
179.6 External links Media related to Interstate XBDR at Wikimedia Commons
CHAPTER 179. INTERSTATE XBDR
Chapter 180
JB-4 The JB-4, also known as MX-607, was an early 180.3 References American air-to-surface missile developed by the United States Army Air Forces during World War II. Using Notes television/radio-command guidance, the JB-4 reached the flight-testing stage before being cancelled at the end [1] Parsch 2005. of the war. [2] Ross 1951, p.115. [3] Ordway and Wakeford 1960, p.186.
180.1 Design and development
[4] Parsch 2003.
Developed under the project code MX-607 at Wright [5] Hanle 2007, p.268. Field in Ohio,[1][2] the JB-4 was a modification of the GB-4 glide bomb,[1][3] which had entered service with [6] Hanle 2007, p.114. the U.S. Army Air Forces in 1944.[4] Powered by a Ford [7] Air Force Magazine, Volume 31. 1948. p.25. PJ31 pulsejet engine, the JB-4 was intended to give an improved standoff range as opposed to its unpowered [8] Gunston 1979, p.33. predecessor.[1] In addition, the addition of an engine made the missile capable of being ground-launched as Bibliography well.[1] However the requirement to carry fuel for the engine meant that the size of the JB-4’s warhead was limited • Gunston, Bill (1979). The Illustrated Encyclopedia to 750 pounds (340 kg),[5] compared to the 2,000 pounds [6] of the World’s Rockets & Missiles. London: Sala(910 kg) bomb that formed the core of the GB-4. mander Books. ASIN B002K4M822. Utilising primarily plywood construction,[5] the JB-4 utilised television/radio-command guidance, with an • Hanle, Donald J. (2007). Near Miss: The Army AN/AXT-2 transmitter broadcasting a television signal Air Forces’ Guided Bomb Program in World War II. from a camera in the missile’s nose to a remote operaLanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. ISBN 978-0-8108tor. The operator, viewing the transmitted picture, would 5776-6. then transmit commands to the missile via radio, correct• Ordway, Frederick Ira; Ronald C. Wakeford (1960). ing the missile’s course to ensure striking the target.[1] International Missile and Spacecraft Guide. New York: McGraw-Hill. ASIN B000MAEGVC.
180.2 Operational history The JB-4 entered the flight testing stage in January 1945.[1][7] The missile demonstrated the ability to cruise at over 400 miles per hour (640 km/h);[8] however, the television-guidance concept suffered from the limitations of the technology of the time, the pictures being difficult to make out in anything except completely clear weather.[4] The missile also suffered from reliability issues; these, combined with the end of World War II in August 1945, resulted in the termination of the project,[1] with none of the JB-4s built seeing operational service.[3] 579
• Parsch, Andreas (2003). “GB Series”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles Appendix 1: Early Missiles and Drones. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-02-02. • Parsch, Andreas (2005). “JB Series”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles Appendix 1: Early Missiles and Drones. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-02-04. • Ross, Frank (1951). Guided Missiles: Rockets & Torpedoes. New York: Lothrop, Lee & Shepard. ASIN B001LGSGX0.
580
180.4 External links • B - Bombs/Bomb Units
CHAPTER 180. JB-4
Chapter 181
KAN Little Joe The Little Joe, also known by the United States Navy designation KAN, was an early American ship-based, short-range surface-to-air missile, the development of which was initiated in 1945 as a response to the Kamikaze tactics used by the Japanese. Although the missile was successfully tested, the end of World War II removed the requirement for the missile had passed, and the project was abandoned in 1946.
181.1 Design and development The development of the Little Joe rocket began in 1945, as the United States Navy sought an effective point defense against Japanese Kamikaze aircraft.[1][2] The definitive surface-to-air missile project, Lark, was expected to take some time to come to fruition, so a simpler missile, based on existing parts, was proposed by the Naval Air Material Unit.[1][3] Named “Little Joe”, and designated KAN-1, the missile was the first SAM developed and tested by the United States.[4] The Little Joe’s fuselage was essentially the same as the standard Aerojet Jet-Assisted TakeOff (JATO) rocket, ordinarily used to provide additional takeoff thrust for heavily-loaded aircraft.[1][3] Cruciform wings and canard control surfaces were fitted to the missile; guidance was provided by a radio command-to-lineof-sight system.[3] Four auxiliary rockets were mounted as boosters to provide for the rapid launch response needed to deal with Kamikaze aircraft.[1] The warhead used was a standard 100 pounds (45 kg) general-purpose aerial bomb. A proximity fuse would cause the warhead to detonate within lethal distance of the target;[1][3] the heavy warhead was expected to ensure the destruction of the attacking aircraft.[5]
181.2 Operational history
A KAN-1 missile at Point Mugu.
troller to keep track of the weapon.[4] In an attempt to deal with the missile’s issues, an improved version of Little Joe, designated KAN-2, was developed. This used a new, less smokey propellant for the sustainer;[1] in addition, flares were installed on the missile’s tail to assist in visual tracking, while two additional boosters, for a total of six, were added to boost performance.[4][5] A total of 15 Little Joe missiles were built and flown during the test program.[1] With the end of World War II having removed the immediate requirement for the missile,[1] in addition to the test program continuing to be problematic,[4][5] the Little Joe program was canceled during 1946.[1]
181.3 References [1]
Initial tests of Little Joe took place in July 1945. Testing showed that the missile’s performance was less than had Citations been anticipated. In addition, smoke from the boosters and the sustainer made it difficult for the missile’s con- [1] Parsch 2003 581
582
[2] Weyl 1949, p.115. [3] Friedman 1982, p.149. [4] Gunston 1979, p.197. [5] Fitzsimons 1969, p.1753.
Bibliograpby • Fitzsimons, Bernard (ed.) (1969). The Illustrated Encyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons and Warfare. London: Salamander Books. • Friedman, Norman (1982). U.S. Naval Weapons: every gun, missile, mine, and torpedo used by the U.S. Navy from 1883 to the present day. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-0-87021735-7. Retrieved 2011-01-26. • Gunston, Bill (1979). The Illustrated Encyclopedia of the World’s Rockets & Missiles. London: Salamander Books. ISBN 0-517-26870-1. • Parsch, Andreas (2003). “NADC KAN Little Joe”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-01-26. • Weyl, A.R. (1949). Guided Missiles. London: Temple Press. Retrieved 2011-01-28.
181.4 External links • “Rocket Built For Warships” , March 1947, Popular Science article and photo middle of page 26 • “Pacific Shooting Gallery” , July 1947, Popular Mechanics photo left-top page 101
CHAPTER 181. KAN LITTLE JOE
Chapter 182
Northrop JB-1 Bat Not to be confused with the US Navy’s 1942-1953 Bat guided bomb. The Northrop JB-1 “Bat” was a United States surfaceto-surface cruise missile that was a prototype jet-powered flying wing. The United States Army Air Forces MX-543 program was initiated in September 1942 to use US versions of Frank Whittle's jet engine[1] (US-named General Electric J31). The Northrop Corporation was contracted in late 1943,[2] and only 10 JB-1 airframes were built.[3] A manned version was towed for the 1st flight on “August 27, 1943”, [sic][4] from Rogers Dry Lake;[5] and a glider version was launched from a rocket-propelled sled and crashed in December 1944.[6] An unmanned JB-1 powered by an improvised General Electric B-1 turbojet with a wing span of 28 feet 4 inches (8.64 m) made its 1st flight from Eglin Field's Santa Rosa Island, Florida, on December 7, 1944, and crashed 400 yards from the rail launcher.[7] With the successful USAAF flights of JB-2 pulsejetpowered copies of the V-1 flying bomb, the older JB1 program was “reoriented towards pulsejet propulsion, and the remaining JB-1s were modified or completed as JB-10 missiles.”[6] Only one of the JB-10 variants was completed by the end of the war (with Ford PJ-31-1 pulsejet engine), and 1945 sled launches using 4 Tiny Tim rockets were at Muroc Field and Eglin.[1] In June 1996, the Western Museum of Flight restored the only remaining airframe as a manned JB-1.[2]
182.1 References [1] Woodridge, E. T (c. 2003). “Northrop: The War Years”. History of the Flying Wing. Century-of-Flight.com. Retrieved 2012-05-23. [2] “Northrop JB-1 “Bat” (MX-543)". WMoF.com (Western Museum of Flight). Retrieved 2012-05-23. [3] Mindling, George; Bolton, Robert (October 1, 2008). U.S. Air Force Tactical Missiles, 1949–1969: The Pioneers (Report). Lulu Press. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-55700029-6. LCCN 2008908364. Retrieved 2012-05-23.
583
[4] Dick Thomas (narrator) (year tbd -- after 1963 footage shown at end of Part 2). Northrop First Flights. “produced by Northrop Corporation". Event occurs at 2:10 of edited YouTube Part I version. Retrieved 2012-05-23. Check date values in: |date= (help) NOTE: The c. 1965 film’s claim of an August 1943 “MX543” flight (the date is restated by the 2007 “First Flights” USAF pdf) is inconsistent with the “late 1943” contract and Woodridge’s claim that the 1st flight was in 1944. [5] First Flights at Edwards Air Force Base (Report). Compiled by History Office, Air Force Flight Test Center. August 2007. Retrieved 2012-05-23. [6] http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app1/jb.html [7] Werrell, Kenneth P. (1998) [1995]. The Evolution of the Cruise Missile. Maxwell Air Force Base: Air University Press. p. 69. Retrieved 2012-05-24.
Chapter 183
Piper LBP The Piper LBP was a glider bomb, or “Glomb”, developed by Piper Aircraft for the United States Navy during World War II. Developed as one of three “Glomb” aircraft, the inherent limitations of the Glomb and the technology of the time, combined with difficulties encountered in testing of the prototype, led to the production contract for the LBP-1 being reduced, then cancelled, with none of the Glomb aircraft ever seeing operational service.
183.1 Design and development
183.2 Operational history Although the initial contract awarded by the Navy called for the production of 100 LBP-1 Glombs, continued trials of the concept indicated that the glider’s inherent low performance, combined with technical issues with the television guidance system, made the concept operationally unworkable. As a result, the LBP-1 production contract was reduced to only 35 aircraft in early 1945.[1] In June of that year, the LBP-1 program was terminated, the aircraft having been determined to have dangerous characteristics when attempting landing at loaded weights.[3]
183.3 Specifications (LBP-1)
During late 1940, a proposal was made to the United Data from [4] States Navy outlining a concept called “Glomb”, for General characteristics “glider bomb”. The Glomb concept called for the construction of inexpensive gliders, that would be remotely • Crew: One (optional) controlled from another aircraft, to carry bombs to a tar[1] get, thus reducing the risk to aircrew. Glomb was in• Length: 28 ft 9 in (8.76 m) tended to be towed by an ordinary carrier-based aircraft to the area of the target, where it would be released; guid• Wingspan: 33 ft (10 m) ance following release would be provided via a TV cam• Wing area: 173 sq ft (16.1 m2 ) era located in the nose of the glider, which would transmit its signal to a piloted aircraft, an operator then using • Gross weight: 6,900 lb (3,130 kg) radio control to steer the Glomb to its target.[2] Following consideration the Glomb concept was deemed to be potentially feasible, the project was given official status by Performance the Bureau of Aeronautics in the April 1941.[1] • Maximum speed: 300 mph (483 km/h; 261 kn) in Initial trials of Glomb involved conversions of existing dive gliders to remotely controlled status; these tests showed that the concept had promise, and following a design competition, three companies were awarded contracts to Armament develop operational “Glomb” aircraft. These contracts were given to Pratt-Read, Taylorcraft, and Piper Aircraft. Piper’s design, designated LBP-1, was a conven• Bombs: 4,000 pounds (1,800 kg) tional high-wing monoplane, fitted with tricycle landing gear, and intended to carry 4,000 pounds (1,800 kg) of bombs. Although the LBP-1 was fully capable of being remotely piloted via its TV-and-radio guidance system, it 183.4 See also retained a cockpit, allowing the aircraft to be flown by a • Bat (guided bomb) pilot on board for training and evalulation.[1][2] 584
183.5. REFERENCES Related development • Pratt-Read LBE • Taylorcraft LBT Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era • Cornelius XBG-3 • Interstate TDR Related lists • List of military aircraft of the United States (naval)
183.5 References Citations [1] Parsch 2005 [2] Naval Aviation News January 1946, p.19. [3] Friedman 1982, p.201. [4] Dryden, Morten and Getting 1946, p.12
Bibliography • “Pilotless Aircraft” (PDF). Naval Aviation News (Bureau of Aeronautics). January 1946. Retrieved 2011-01-29. • Baugher, Joe (September 9, 2009). “US Navy and US Marine Corps BuNos, Third Series (80259 to 90019)". US Navy and US Marine Corps Aircraft Serial Numbers and Bureau Numbers-−1911 to Present. Retrieved 2011-01-29. • Dryden, Hugh L.; G.A. Morton and I.A. Getting (May 1946). Guidance and Homing of Missiles and Pilotless Aircraft (PDF). Dayton, OH: Headquarters Air Material Command. ASIN B0007E4WJE. Retrieved 2011-01-29. • Friedman, Norman (1982). U.S. Naval Weapons: every gun, missile, mine, and torpedo used by the U.S. Navy from 1883 to the present day. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-0-87021735-7. Retrieved 2011-01-26. • Parsch, Andreas (2003). “LB Series”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designationsystems.net. Retrieved 2011-01-29.
585
Chapter 184
Pratt-Read LBE The Pratt-Read LBE-1 was a prototype glider bomb, celled entirely; only four LBE-1s would be completed,[5] or “Glomb”, developed for the United States Navy dur- being used only for evaluation purposes.[1] ing World War II. Although there were high hopes for the concept, the limitations of the Glomb led to the production contract for the LBE-1 being reduced, then can- 184.3 Specifications (LBE-1) celled, and only four examples of the type were ever built. Data from [6]
184.1 Design and development
General characteristics
• Crew: One (optional) Late in 1940, the United States Navy began seriously con• Length: 29 ft 1.5 in (8.877 m) sidering the possibility of developing gliders that would be remotely controlled to carry bombs to a target, reduc• Wingspan: 32 ft 6 in (9.91 m) ing the risk to aircrew.[1] The concept called for the glider • Wing area: 202 sq ft (18.8 m2 ) to be towed by an ordinary carrier-based aircraft to the target area, then released, to be guided via a TV camera • Gross weight: 7,138 lb (3,238 kg) in the glider’s nose which would transmit signals to the carrier aircraft, an operator then using radio control to Performance steer the aircraft to its target.[2] Considered to be feasible, • Maximum speed: 300 mph (483 km/h; 261 kn) in the project, called “Glomb” for “Glider-Bomb”, became dive an official program in the late spring of 1941.[1] Following trials using conversions of existing gliders that Armament proved the concept viable, Pratt-Read was awarded a contract in September 1943 for the development of a purpose-built Glomb, designated by the navy as LBE• Bombs: 2,000 to 4,000 pounds (910 to 1,810 kg) 1.[1][3] Intended to carry between 2,000 and 4,000 pounds (910-1,800 kg) of bombs, the LBE-1 was a fairly conventional low-wing aircraft, fitted with fixed tricycle land- 184.4 See also ing gear and perforated dive brakes of the type used by dive-bombers. In addition to its radio-command guid• Bat (guided bomb) ance, the LBE-1 could be flown by a pilot for training [1][2][4] and evalulation. Related development • Piper LBP
184.2 Operational history
• Taylorcraft LBT
Although the initial contract called for the production Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era of 100 examples of the LBE-1, continued trials of the • Cornelius XBG-3 Glomb showed that the combination of the glider’s low performance and technical issues with the intended tele• Interstate TDR vision guidance system made the concept operationally unworkable; accordingly, the contract was reduced to Related lists only 35 aircraft in early 1945.[1] In August 1945, with the end of World War II, the contract for production was can• List of military aircraft of the United States (naval) 586
184.5. REFERENCES
184.5 References Citations [1] Parsch 2005 [2] Naval Aviation News January 1946, p.19. [3] Ordway and Wakeford 1960, p.180. [4] Kroger 1945, p.7. [5] Friedman 1982, p.201. [6] Dryden, Morten and Getting 1946, p.12
Bibliography • “Pilotless Aircraft” (PDF). Naval Aviation News (Bureau of Aeronautics). January 1946. Retrieved 2011-01-29. • Dryden, Hugh L.; G.A. Morton and I.A. Getting (May 1946). Guidance and Homing of Missiles and Pilotless Aircraft (PDF). Dayton, OH: Headquarters Air Material Command. ASIN B0007E4WJE. Retrieved 2011-01-29. • Friedman, Norman (1982). U.S. Naval Weapons: every gun, missile, mine, and torpedo used by the U.S. Navy from 1883 to the present day. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-0-87021735-7. Retrieved 2011-01-26. • Kroger, William (1945). “Aviation News” 4. McGraw-Hill. Retrieved 2011-01-29. • Ordway, Frederick Ira; Ronald C. Wakeford (1960). International Missile and Spacecraft Guide. New York: McGraw-Hill. ASIN B000MAEGVC. • Parsch, Andreas (2003). “LB Series”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designationsystems.net. Retrieved 2011-01-29.
587
Chapter 185
Taylorcraft LBT The Taylorcraft LBT was a glider designed and built by aircraft on training and evalulation flights.[1][2] Taylorcraft during World War II, in response to a United States Navy requirement for a glider bomb. One of three prototype “Glombs” ordered by the Navy, the LBT suf- 185.2 Operational history fered from technical and performance difficulties, and was cancelled early in production, none of the aircraft The LBT-1 began evaluation by the Navy in April seeing operational service. 1944.[3] The Navy’s contract called for the production of 100 of each type of Glomb; however, by October 1944, trials were beginning to indicate that the low expected 185.1 Design and development performance of the glider bomb was a liability, and the Piper LBP-1 and LBE-1 were considered superior. AcDuring December 1940, the United States Navy began cordingly the LBT contract was cancelled; only 25 examstudies of a proposed “glider bomb”, which was intended ples of the type were constructed, none of which would [1][4] to be an inexpensive, unpowered aircraft, remotely con- see any operational service. trolled from another, conventional aircraft, that would be capable of delivering bombs to an enemy target without putting aircrew at risk to the target’s defenses.[1] The 185.3 Specifications (LBT-1) glider bomb, or “Glomb”, would be towed by an ordinary carrier-based aircraft to the area of its target; guidData from [3][5] ance following release of the glider from its towing aircraft was intended to be provided by a TV camera located General characteristics in the nose of the glider, which would transmit its signal to a piloted aircraft, an operator aboard the control air• Crew: One (optional) craft using radio control to steer the Glomb to its target.[2] • Length: 25 ft 2 in (7.67 m) Following the Navy’s initial evalulation, the Glomb comcept was deemed to be worth developing further, and the • Wingspan: 35 ft (11 m) project was given official status by the Bureau of Aero[1] nautics in April 1941. • Wing area: 181 sq ft (16.8 m2 ) The initial trials of the Glomb concept were conducted • Gross weight: 3,930 lb (1,783 kg) using conversions of existing gliders for unpiloted, remotely controlled flight; these tests seemed to indicate that the concept had promise, and a request for de- Performance signs from industry was issued. Three companies were awarded contracts to develop operational “Glomb” air• Maximum speed: 314 mph (505 km/h; 273 kn) in craft, the contracts being given to Pratt-Read, Piper Airdive craft, and Taylorcraft. The Taylorcraft design, designated LBT-1 by the Navy, was based on the company’s LNT• Cruise speed: 240 mph (209 kn; 386 km/h) tow 1 training glider;[1] two XLNT-1s, converted to remote speed control, had been tested as part of initial Glomb trials.[3] The LBT-1 featured a high, strut-braced wing and tricycle landing gear; the aircraft was designed to carry a Armament 2,000 pounds (910 kg) bomb as a warhead. In addition to its TV-and-radio remote guidance system, the LBT• Bombs: 2,000 pounds (910 kg) 1 retained a cockpit, allowing a pilot on board to fly the 588
185.5. REFERENCES
185.4 See also • Bat (guided bomb) Related development • Piper LBP • Pratt-Read LBE Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era • Cornelius XBG-3 • Interstate TDR Related lists • List of military aircraft of the United States (naval)
185.5 References Citations [1] Parsch 2005 [2] Naval Aviation News January 1946, p.19. [3] Trimble 1990, p.270. [4] Friedman 1982, p.201. [5] Dryden, Morten and Getting 1946, p.12
Bibliography • “Pilotless Aircraft” (PDF). Naval Aviation News (Bureau of Aeronautics). January 1946. Retrieved 2011-01-29. • Dryden, Hugh L.; G.A. Morton and I.A. Getting (May 1946). Guidance and Homing of Missiles and Pilotless Aircraft (PDF). Dayton, OH: Headquarters Air Material Command. ASIN B0007E4WJE. Retrieved 2011-01-29. • Friedman, Norman (1982). U.S. Naval Weapons: every gun, missile, mine, and torpedo used by the U.S. Navy from 1883 to the present day. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-0-87021735-7. Retrieved 2011-01-26. • Parsch, Andreas (2003). “LB Series”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designationsystems.net. Retrieved 2011-01-29. • Trimble, William F. (1990). Wings for the Navy: A History of the Naval Aircraft Factory, 1917-1956. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-087021-663-3. Retrieved 2011-01-29.
589
Chapter 186
ASM-135 ASAT The ASM-135 ASAT is an air-launched anti-satellite multistage missile that was developed by Ling-TemcoVought's LTV Aerospace division. The ASM-135 was carried exclusively by the United States Air Force (USAF)'s F-15 Eagle fighter aircraft.
186.1 Development Starting in the late 1950s, the United States began development of anti-satellite weapons. The first United States anti-satellite weapon was Bold Orion Weapon System 199B. Like the ASM-135, the Bold Orion missile was air-launched; but in this case from a B-47 Stratojet. The Bold Orion was tested in 19 October 1959 against the Explorer 6 satellite.[1] The two-stage Bold Orion missile passed within 4 miles (6.4 km) of Explorer 6. From this distance, only a relatively large yield nuclear warhead would likely have destroyed the target.[2]
a new anti-satellite system.[7] In 1978, the USAF started a new program initially designated the Prototype Miniature Air-Launched Segment (PMALS) and Air Force Systems Command's Space Division established a system program office.[7] The USAF issued a Request for Proposal for the Air-Launched Miniature Vehicle (ALMV). The requirement was for an air-launched missile that could be used against satellites in low Earth orbit. In 1979, the USAF issued a contract to LTV Aerospace to begin work on the ALMV. The LTV Aerospace design featured a multi-stage missile with an infrared homing kinetic energy warhead.[8]
186.2 Design
The ASM-135 was designed to be launched from an F15A in a supersonic zoom climb. The F-15’s mission Starting in 1960 the Department of Defense (DoD) computer and heads-up display were modified to provide started a program called SPIN (SPace INtercept).[1] In steering directions for the pilot.[8] 1962, the United States Navy launched Caleb rockets as part of the Satellite Interceptor Program, with the objec- A modified Boeing AGM-69 SRAM missile with a Lockheed Propulsion Company LPC-415 solid propeltive of developing an anti-satellite weapon.[3][4] lant two pulse rocket engine was used as the first stage of The United States developed direct ascent anti-satellite the ASM-135 ASAT.[9] weapons. A United States Army Nike Zeus missile The LTV Aerospace Altair 3 was used as the second stage armed with a nuclear warhead destroyed an orbiting [10] [5] satellite in May 1963. One missile from this system of the ASM-135. The Altair 3 used the Thiokol FW4S solid propellant rocket engine. The Altair 3 stage known as Project MUDFLAP and later as Project 505 also used as the fourth stage for the Scout rocket [5] was available for launch from 1964 until 1967. A was [10] and had been previously used in both the Bold Orion nuclear-armed Thor anti-satellite system deployed by the and HiHo anti-satellite weapons efforts.[3] The Altair was United States Air Force under Program 437 eventually replaced the Project 505 Nike Zeus in 1967. The Program equipped with Hydrazine fueled thrusters that could be 437 Thor missile system remained in limited deploy- used to point the missile towards the target satellite. ment until 1975.[6] One drawback of nuclear-armed anti- LTV Aerospace also provided the third stage for the satellite weapons was that they could also damage United ASM-135 ASAT. This stage was called Miniature HomStates reconnaissance satellites. As a result, the United ing Vehicle (MHV) interceptor. Prior to being deployed States anti-satellite weapons development efforts were re- the second stage was used to spin the MHV up to approxdirected to develop systems that did not require the use of imately 30 revolutions per second and point the MHV towards the target.[11] nuclear weapons.[5] After the Soviet Union demonstrated an operational co- A Honeywell ring laser gyroscope was used for spin rate orbital anti-satellite system, in 1978, U.S. President determination and to obtain an inertial timing reference Jimmy Carter directed the USAF to develop and deploy before the MHV separated from the second stage.[11] The 590
186.3. TEST LAUNCHES infrared sensor was developed by Hughes Research Laboratories. The sensor utilized a strip detector where four strips of Indium Bismuth were arranged in a cross and four strips were arranged as logarithmic spirals. As the detector was spun, the infrared target’s position could be measured and as it crossed the strips in the sensors field of view. The MHV infrared detector was cooled by liquid helium from a dewar installed in place of the F-15’s gun ammunition drum and from a smaller dewar located in the second stage of the ASM-135. Cryogenic lines from the second stage were retracted prior to the spin up of the MHV.[11]
591 Earlier the U.S. Air Force and NASA had worked together to develop a Scout-launched target vehicle for ASAT experiments. NASA advised the U.S. Air Force on how to conduct the ASAT test to avoid producing long-lived debris. However, congressional restrictions on ASAT tests intervened.[12] In order to complete an ASAT test before an expected Congressional ban took effect (as it did in October 1985), the DoD chose to use the existing Solwind astrophysics satellite as a target.[12]
NASA worked with the DoD to monitor the effects of the tests using two orbital debris telescopes and a reentry The MHV guidance system solely tracked targets in the radar deployed to Alaska.[12] field of view of the infrared sensor, but did not determine altitude, attitude, or range to the target. Direct Pro- NASA assumed the torn metal would be bright. Surportional Line of Sight guidance used information from prisingly, the Solwind pieces turned out to appear so the detector to maneuver and null out any line-of-sight dark as to be almost undetectable. Only two pieces were change. A Bang-bang control system was used to fire 56 seen. NASA Scientists theorized that the unexpected Solfull charge “divert” and lower thrust 8 half charge “end- wind darkening was due to carbonization of organic comgame” solid rocket motors arranged around the circum- pounds in the target satellite; that is, when the kinetic enference of the MHV. The half charge 8 “end-game” mo- ergy of the projectile became heat energy on impact, the tors were used to perform finer trajectory adjustments plastics inside Solwind vaporized and condensed on the [12] just prior to intercepting the target satellite. Four pods metal pieces as soot. at the rear of the MHV contained small attitude control NASA utilized U.S. Air Force infrared telescopes to show rocket motors. These motors were used to damp off cen- that the pieces were warm with heat absorbed from the ter rotation by the MHV.[11] Sun. This added weight to the contention that they were dark with soot and not reflective. The pieces decayed quickly from orbit, implying a large area-to-mass ratio. According to NASA, as of January 1998, 8 of 285 track186.3 Test launches able pieces remained in orbit.[12] On 21 December 1982, an F-15A was used to perform The Solwind test had three important results: the first captive carry ASM-135 test flight from the Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards AFB, California in the • It raised the possibility that the objects optical sysUnited States.[7] tems were detecting were large and dark, not small On 20 August 1985 President Reagan authorized a test and bright as was generally assumed. This had imagainst a satellite. The test was delayed to provide notice plications for the calibration of optical and radar orto the United States Congress. The target was the Solwind bital debris detection systems. P78-1, an orbiting solar observatory that was launched on 24 February 1979.[7] • The test also created a baseline event for researchers On 13 September 1985, Maj. Wilbert D. “Doug” Pearseeking a characteristic signature of a hypervelocity son, flying the “Celestial Eagle” F-15A 76-0084 launched collision in space. an ASM-135 ASAT about 200 miles (322 km) west of Vandenberg Air Force Base and destroyed the Solwind P78-1 satellite flying at an altitude of 345 miles (555 • Awareness was raised about the orbital debris probkm). Prior to the launch the F-15 flying at Mach 1.22 exlem. ecuted a 3.8g zoom climb at an angle of 65 degrees. The ASM-135 ASAT was automatically launched at 38,100 ft while the F-15 was flying at Mach .934.[7] The 30 lb (13.6 kg) MHV collided with the 2,000 lb (907 kg) Sol- In the end, the Solwind ASAT test had few consequences wind P78-1 satellite at closing velocity of 15,000 mph for the planned U.S. space station as station completion was pushed beyond the mid-1990s. The record-high level (24,140 km/h).[9] NASA learned of U.S. Air Force plans for the Solwind of solar activity during the 1989-1991 solar maximum anticiASAT test in July 1985. NASA modeled the effects of the heated and expanded the atmosphere more than [12] pated in 1985, accelerating Solwind debris decay. test. This model determined that debris produced would still be in orbit in the 1990s. It would force NASA to 15 ASM-135 ASAT missiles were produced and 5 misenhance debris shielding for its planned space station.[12] siles were flight tested.[9]
592
CHAPTER 186. ASM-135 ASAT
186.4 Operational history The United States Air Force intended to modify 20 F15A fighters from the 318th Fighter Interceptor Squadron based at McChord Air Force Base in Washington and the 48th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron based at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia for the anti-satellite mission. Both squadrons had airframes modified to support the ASM135 by the time the project was cancelled in 1988.[13] The USAF had planned to deploy an operational force of 112 ASM-135 missiles.[8] The deployment of the ASM-135 was central to a policy debate in the United States over the strategic need for an anti-satellite weapon and the potential for anti-satellite weapon arms control with the Soviet Union. Starting in 1983, the United States Congress starting placing various restrictions on the ASM-135 program.[6] In December 1985, included a ban on testing the ASM-135 on a target in space. This decision was made only a day after the Air Force sent two target satellites into orbit for its next round of tests. The Air Force continued to test the ASAT system in 1986, but stayed within the limits of the ban by not engaging a space-borne target.[14] In the same year the deployment of the ASM-135 was estimated to cost $5.3 billion (US) up from the original $500 million (US) estimate. The USAF scaled back the ASM-135 program by two-thirds in attempt to control costs.[3] The USAF also never strongly supported the program and proposed canceling the program in 1987.[6] In 1988, the Reagan Administration canceled the ASM-135 program because of technical problems, testing delays, and significant cost growth.[3]
National Air and Space Museum (NASM)'s annex at Washington Dulles International Airport in Chantilly, Virginia, United States. • CASM-135 currently in storage at the National Museum of the United States Air Force, WrightPatterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio, United States.
186.5 Variants • ASM-135 - 15 missiles produced.
186.8 Popular culture
• CASM-135 - Captive carry version of ASM-135A with warhead simulator and inert motors.
186.6 Operators United States
• United States Air Force
186.7 Survivors • CASM-135 currently on display at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center, part of the Smithsonian
Retired Maj. Gen. Doug Pearson (left) and Capt. Todd Pearson joke around September 13 prior to Captain Pearson taking off on the Celestial Eagle remembrance flight.
186.11. EXTERNAL LINKS • The ASM-135 features prominently in the Tom Clancy novel Red Storm Rising. Two USSR RORSATs are knocked out by F-15 launched ASATs.
186.9 See also • Bold Orion • High Virgo • NOTS-EV-1 Pilot • NOTS-EV-2 Caleb • Terra-3 Related lists • List of missiles
186.10 References [1] Edited By Bhupendra Jasani, Space Weapons and International Security, A SIPRI Publication, Oxford University Press, 1987. [2] Encyclopedia Astronautica, Bold Orion, , web page retrieved on 3 November 2007. [3] Federation of American Scientists Web Site, FAS Space Policy Project - Military Space Programs, , web page retrieved on 3 November 2007. [4] Aerospace Web.org Website. NOTSNIK, Project Pilot & Project Caleb retrieved on 5 November 2007. [5] Paul B. Stares, The Militarization of Space: U.S. Policy, 1945–1948, Cornell University Press, 1985. [6] Peter L. Hays, Struggling Towards Space Doctrine: U.S. Military Plans, Programs, and Perspectives during the Cold War, Ph.D. dissertation, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, May 1994 [7] Dr. Raymond L. Puffer, The Death of a Satellite, , Retrieved on November 3, 2007. [8] Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. Vought ASM-135 ASAT Accessed on 2 November 2007. [9] Vought Heritage Website ASAT Overview , retrieved on 3 November 2007. [10] Encyclopedia Astronautica. Altair 3. . retrieved on 2 November 2007. [11] Gregory Karambelas, edited by Sven Grahn, The F-15 ASAT Story [12] NASA TP-1999-208856 David S.F. Portree and Joseph P. Loftus Jr. “Orbital Debries: A Chronology”
593
[13] McChord Air Museum Web Site. McDonnell-Douglas F15A Eagle. . Web page accessed 2 November 2007. [14] Union of Concerned Scientists Web Site. A History of ASAT Programs. . retrieved on 4 November 2007.
186.11 External links • The F-15 ASAT story
Chapter 187
MGM-157 EFOGM • XM501 Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System • Polyphem, a similar European project • Type 96 Multi-Purpose Missile System
187.2 References [1] http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-157.html [2] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/ efogm.htm [3] http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/efogm.htm [4] https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/mgm-157.htm [5] http://www.deagel.com/ Anti-Armor-Weapons-and-Missiles/ MGM-157B-EFOGM_a000959001.aspx
YMGM-157B
The Raytheon MGM-157 EFOGM (Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile), was a long range enhanced fibre optic guided missile developed for the U.S. Army during the 1980s and 1990s to test the use of fibre optics in missiles.[1][2] The missile was launched vertically and manually controlled by an operator on the ground by use of a television camera mounted on the nose.[3] The signals from the camera were carried via a thin wire that unspooled the further up the missile reached. The weapon was primarily designed for anti-tank use, or against low flying helicopters.[4][5]
187.1 See also • ALAS • CM-501G • FOG-MPM 594
Chapter 188
AGM-153 The AGM-153 was a missile considered for development by the United States of America.
188.1 Overview The AGM-153 was proposed in 1992 as a new tactical air-to-surface missile. The weapon was to be launched from high and low altitudes against both fixed and mobile targets ranging from bunkers to armoured vehicles. Modular construction was chosen to allow different types of warhead and seeker head to be selected. A two way data link would allow the weapon to be locked on after launch, and controlled all the way to the target. The designations XAGM-153A and XAGM-153B were assigned; the A model was to have a hard target penetrating warhead, the B model a blast-fragmentation warhead - both warheads would have been in the region of 360 kg (800 lb). To distinguish between seeker heads a number suffix was also mooted, with −1 missiles having a TV unit in the nose and −2 missiles an imaging infra-red system, but this was not adopted formally. It was planned to operate the missile initially from the F-16 Fighting Falcon and B-1 Lancer aircraft. Viability studies of the AGM-153 led to the cancellation of the project at an early stage. No final design was settled on and no hardware was produced prior to cancellation. Reasons for the cancellation have not been formally announced, but it is notable that the proposed AGM-153 would have a very similar warhead and guidance package to the AGM-142 Have Nap, and it is possible that the Air Force simply saw no reason to produce a missile that offered nothing new.
188.2 See also • AGM-142 Have Nap • List of missiles
595
Chapter 189
AGM-159 JASSM The AGM-159 was a missile design proposed in 1996 by the Boeing (McDonnell-Douglas) company as a contender in the U.S. Air Force's JASSM project. Development halted after Lockheed Martin's AGM-158 was selected for further development in 1998.
189.1 See also • AGM-158 JASSM • List of missiles
596
Chapter 190
AGM-169 Joint Common Missile The AGM-169 Joint Common Missile (JCM) was a tactical air-to-surface missile developed by the Lockheed Martin corporation from the United States.
190.3 Program status • December 2004 - Pentagon announces cancellation of JCM.[2] • March 2005 - Congressional lobbying to keep the program alive.[3]
190.1 Overview
• September 2005 - Captive JCM test package flown on AH-64D Apache.[4]
The missile was designed to replace the AGM-114 Hellfire and AGM-65 Maverick. Its seeker head used a combination of semi-active laser, millimeter wave, and IR guidance similar to that found on the FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missile. This allows the missile to have a greater fire and forget capability and to operate off all current air platforms. The missile has longer range, a more potent warhead, and a “safing” system, allowing naval aircraft to return to ship without jettisoning the munitions.
• January 2006 - Congress restores $30 million to keep the program in mothballs.[5][6] • September 2006 - U.S. Army includes $150 million for JCM in FY-08 budget request.[7] • May 2007 - The U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Life Cycle Management Command formally instructs Lockheed Martin to cease work on the program and close out the contract by June 15, 2007.
This missile also shares similarities to the MBDA Brimstone missile.
190.4 Operators •
190.2 Development The development of the missile was first halted in December 2004. The program was on schedule and within its budget at that time, according to Lockheed Martin. However, due to the constraints of the war in Iraq, funding was cut. In 2005 and 2006, Congress began looking into reviving the program when it was found that modernizing the Hellfire would yield higher costs and reduced capability.
190.5 See also • AGM-114 Hellfire • PARS 3 LR • Brimstone missile
The JCM is the first missile to reach milestone B decision without a live test. The JCM has been test flown on the AH-64D in a captive test configuration. In May 2007 the U.S. Army formally brought the program to a close and requested that Lockheed Martin cease all development work. It is expected that a follow on program, the Joint Air to Ground Missile (JAGM) will be opened to competitive tender.[1]
United States - The AGM-169 was intended for joint service with the United States Army, United States Navy, and United States Marine Corps.
• Precision Attack Air-to-Surface Missile
190.6 References
597
[1] “Pentagon Plans Industry Day For Joint Air To Ground Missile”. [2] JCM - Joint Common Missile - Defense Update
598
[3] JCM program fired but not forgotten - Defense Industry Daily [4] “LOCKHEED MARTIN'S JOINT COMMON MISSILE FLIES ON AH-64D APACHE LONGBOW”. [5] Joint Common Missile: It Lives! - Defense Industry Daily [6] Congress revives missile killed by DoD - Military.com [7] Joint Common Missile Gets New Life - Military.com
190.7 External links • AGM-169 JCM - Designation-Systems.Net • Joint Common Missile - Global Security
CHAPTER 190. AGM-169 JOINT COMMON MISSILE
Chapter 191
AGM-53 Condor In 1962, the U.S. Navy issued a requirement for a longrange high-precision air-to-surface missile. The missile, named the AGM-53A Condor, was to use a television guidance system with a data link to the launching aircraft similar to the system of the then projected AGM-62 Walleye.
191.3 Operators •
United States: The AGM-53 was cancelled before entering service.
191.4 References 191.1 Development history
• Friedman, Norman (1983). US Naval Weapons. Conway Maritime Press.
Because of numerous problems in the development phase, the first flight of an XAGM-53A missile did not occur before March 1970. The AGM-53 program was cancelled in March 1976. Its long range and potentially high precision made the Condor a very powerful weapon, but it was much more expensive than contemporary tactical air-to-ground weapons. The secure data link contributed a significant portion to total missile cost, and it certainly didn't help that this link was still somewhat unreliable.
• Gunston, Bill (1979). The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Rockets and Missiles. Salamander Books Ltd.
191.2 Description The Condor was to be a long-range missile to be used for high-precision stand-off attacks. The missile was launched by the strike aircraft from a distance of up to 60 nautical miles (110 km; 69 mi) to the general target area. When the AGM-53 approached the expected target position, the image of the TV camera in the missile’s nose was transmitted back to the operator in the launching aircraft. The operator could switch between wide and narrow field-of-view images to find a suitable target. As soon as a target for the missile had been selected, the operator could either fly the missile manually until impact, or lock the Condor on the target and rely on the missile’s capability to home on the final aiming point. The Condor’s linear shaped charge warhead detonated on impact. A variant of the Condor was anticipated to carry the W73 nuclear warhead, a derivative of the B61 nuclear bomb. Details on the W73 are poorly documented, and it never entered production or service. 599
• Pretty, R.T; Archer, D.H.R. (eds.) (1973). Jane’s Weapon Systems 1972–73. Jane’s Information Group. • Pretty, Ronald T. (ed.) (1976). Jane’s Weapon Systems 1977. Jane’s.
Chapter 192
AGM-63 The AGM-63 was a missile design produced by the United States of America. It was conceived in March 1962 when the U.S. Navy issued two requirements for long-range Anti-Radiation Missiles (ARMs) to complement the short-range AGM-45 Shrike. The first was to operate over ranges of up to 50 nm (90 km), while the second would be capable of operating out to 100 nm (180 km). Development of the ARM I was approved in 1963; the missile was given the designation ZAGM-63A. However no funds were made available as other ARM programs such as the improved AGM-45 Shrike, and the development of the AGM-78 Standard ARM and AGM-88 HARM were given a higher priority. The AGM-63 continued on for several years as a purely theoretical missile. No design or configuration was ever settled on, and the project was cancelled in the late 1960s.
192.1 Operators •
United States: The United States Navy cancelled the AGM-63 before any examples were produced.
192.2 External links • AGM-63 - Designation Systems
600
Chapter 193
AGM-64 Hornet The AGM-64 Hornet is a missile produced by the United States of America. The weapon began life in the early 1960s. North American produced a missile design for the U.S. Air Force's Anti-Tank Guided Aircraft Rocket (ATGAR) project. The ATGAR was ultimately not produced, but the Air Force was impressed enough that in 1963 it awarded North American a development contract for the ZAGM64A Hornet missile. The Hornet planned as a battlefield missile for use against armoured vehicles which would mount an electro-optical guidance system. The first test firing of the prototype XAGM-64A occurred in December 1964. It was powered by a fastburning solid rocket motor. The electro-optical guidance system provided a live TV image to the cockpit; the operator would lock the missile onto the desired target before launch and the missile would home in on it automatically. The Air Force ultimately stopped development of the AGM-64, judging that the similar AGM-65 Maverick had more potential. Although not produced as a weapon, the Hornet became a testbed for various guidance systems including different varieties of electro-optical systems and a magnetic guidance system. The program was terminated in 1968. The XAGM-64 was briefly revived in the early 1970s, again to test missile guidance systems. The propulsion system of the missile was upgraded, increasing the range to as much as 2.5 miles (4 km). In this configuration the Hornet tested laser guidance packages, the electro-optical system designed for the GBU-8/B and GBU-9/B Homing Bomb System (HOBOS) glide bombs and the terminal guidance system for the AGM-114 Hellfire anti-tank missile.
193.1 Operators •
United States: The United States Air Force cancelled the AGM-64 before service entry.
601
Chapter 194
AGM-80 Viper AGM-80 Viper is the designation of an American air to surface missile with infrared homing seeker and inertial guidance system. Based upon the AGM-12C Bullpup-B, the AGM-80A Viper was developed by Chrysler at the end of the 60s, but was cancelled in the 1970s.
194.1 Operators •
United States: The AGM-80 was cancelled before entering service.
194.2 External links • “AGM-80 Viper”, Encyclopedia Astronautica, Astronautix. • Guided Air to Surface Missiles (article), Vectors.
602
Chapter 195
AGM-83 Bulldog The AGM-83 Bulldog is a missile produced by the United States of America. The missile has its origins in the AGM-12 Bullpup. This missile used a manual guidance system which required the launching aircraft to continue flying towards the target throughout the missile flight time, making it highly vulnerable to counter-attack. The U.S. Navy and Air Force requested a pilot-independent guidance system for the Bullpup which would let the launching aircraft turn away after firing. In 1970, Texas Instruments was given a Navy contract to create a laser guidance system for the Bullpup. The new missile was designated AGM-83 Bulldog; it was developed in cooperation with the Naval Weapons Center (NWC). The Bulldog was heavily based on the AGM12B Bullpup A, but used a new 113 kg (250 lb) MK 19 blast-fragmentation warhead. It homed in on the reflection of a laser beam which was projected onto the target by ground troops. Firing trials of the AGM-83A took place in 1971-1972, with successful results. The Navy planned to get the Bulldog into service by 1974. A version for ground handling training known as the ATM-83A was also planned. However, in 1972 it was decided that the Navy should instead procure a laser-guided version of the Air Force’s AGM65 Maverick, the AGM-65C—which itself was later cancelled in favour of the AGM-65E.
195.1 Operators •
United States: The United States Navy cancelled the AGM-83 prior to service entry.
603
Chapter 196
AIM-152 AAAM
3658 mm
Concept by Hughes/Raytheon/McDonnell Douglas at the top, GD/Westinghouse at the bottom
The AIM-152 AAAM is a long-range air-to-air missile An ACIMD demonstrator on an F-14 at the NWC China Lake. developed by the United States of America. The program went through a protracted development stage but was never adopted by the United States Navy, due to the ending of the cold war and the reduction in threat of its gine which offered high speeds. The missile would use perceived primary target, Soviet supersonic bombers. an inertial guidance system with terminal guidance provided by active radar - a mode of flight that would later be employed in the AIM-120 AMRAAM. An infrared terminal homing seeker was also planned, which would 196.1 Overview allow the missile to engage without any emissions which would alert the target. The AIM-152 originated in a U.S. Navy requirement The GD/Westinghouse design was even smaller, with a for an advanced air-to-air missile to replace the AIM-54 multiple-pulse pure solid rocket motor. It also had an Phoenix. By the mid-1980s the Phoenix was seen to be inertial guidance system, but midcourse updating was no longer cutting edge, and the Navy wanted a long range provided via a dual-band semi-active radar. Terminal missile to counter the Soviet Tu-22M Backfire and Tu- guidance was via an electro-optical sensor, with a backup 160 Blackjack long-range supersonic bombers. The goal infrared seeker also included. One flaw of semi-active was to produce a weapon which was smaller and lighter radar homing is that the launch aircraft must illuminate than the Phoenix, with equal or better range and a flight the target with its radar during flight, meaning that it must speed of Mach 3 or more. fly towards the enemy and so expose itself to greater danSome of the systems considered for the missile had already been evaluated by the China Lake Naval Weapons Center in the early 1980s as part of the Advanced Common Intercept Missile Demonstration (ACIMD) program. ACIMD missiles had been built but none had flown by the time the project was cancelled. In 1987, Hughes/Raytheon and General Dynamics/Westinghouse were selected to produce competing designs for the AIM152.
ger. GD/Westinghouse planned to avoid this by equipping the launching aircraft with a radar pod which could illuminate the target from both forward and aft, allowing it to turn and escape whilst still providing a target for the missile.
With the fall of the Soviet Union the threat from Russian bombers effectively ended, and since no other nation could match the previous threat the AAAM was left without an enemy to defend against. The project was canThe Hughes/Raytheon design was largely based on the celled in 1992, shortly after the YAIM-152A designation ACIMD missile, with a hybrid ramjet/solid rocket en- had been given to the two prototypes. 604
196.4. EXTERNAL LINKS With the phasing out of the Phoenix missile the US Navy lost its long range AAM capability, relying instead on the medium range AIM-120 AMRAAM. Longer range versions of the AMRAAM are in development to restore some of this capability.
196.2 Specifications (Note that the YAIM-152A missiles were never built, and as a result any specifications are speculative.) Hughes/Raytheon : • Length : 3.66 m (12 ft) • Diameter : 231 mm (9 in) • Weight : Less than 300 kg (660 lb) • Speed : Mach 3+ • Range : 185 km+ (115 miles) • Propulsion : Rocket/ramjet engine • Warhead : 14 to 23 kg (30 to 50 lb) blastfragmentation GD/Westinghouse : • Length : 3.66 m (12 ft) • Diameter : 140 mm (5.5 in) • Weight : 172 kg (380 lb) • Speed : Mach 3+ • Range : > 185 km (100 nm) • Propulsion : Multiple-pulse solid-propellant rocket • Warhead : 14 to 23 kg (30 to 50 lb) blastfragmentation
196.3 References 196.4 External links • AIM-152 AAAM - Designation Systems
605
Chapter 197
AIM-95 Agile lock-on capability capable of being targeted by a Helmet Mounted Sight (HMS), allowing it to be fired at targets which were not directly ahead—thus making it far easier to achieve a firing position. The solid-propellant rocket used thrust vectoring for control giving it superior turning capability over the Sidewinder. The US Air Force was developing the AIM-82 missile to equip the F-15 Eagle at the same time. Since both missiles were more or less identical in their role, it was decided to abandon the AIM-82 in favour of the Agile.
197.2 AIMVAL
U.S. Navy photo of an AIM-95 missile.
The AIM-95 Agile was an air-to-air missile developed by the United States of America. It was developed by the US Navy to equip the F-14 Tomcat, replacing the AIM-9 Sidewinder. Around the same time, the US Air Force was designing the AIM-82 to equip their F-15 Eagle, and later dropped their efforts to join the Agile program. In the end, newer versions of Sidewinder would close the performance gap so much that the Agile program was cancelled.
197.1 Overview
VX-5 F-4 Phantom with prototype Agile seekers
The AIM-95A was developed to a point where flight tests were carried out including test firing at China Lake and inclusion in the ACEVAL/AIMVAL Joint Test & Evaluation conducted with both the F-14 and F-15 at Nellis AFB in 1975-78. AIMVAL analysis results indicating limited utility of higher high boresight capability and high cost resulted in opinion that it was no longer regarded as affordable and the project was cancelled in 1975. Instead an improved version of the Sidewinder was developed for use by both the Air Force and Navy. Although this was intended to be an interim solution, in fact the AIM-9 continues in service today.
The AIM-95 was developed at the China Lake Naval Weapons Center as an advanced replacement for the AIM-9 Sidewinder short range air-to-air missile. The Agile was equipped with an infrared seeker for fire and forget operation. The seeker head had a high off-boresight The Soviet Union did embark on development of an ad606
197.4. EXTERNAL LINKS vanced high boresight SRM with thrust vectoring and subsequently fielded the AA-11/R-73 Archer on the MiG-29 in 1985. NATO learned about their performance due to the German reunification and efforts began to match or exceed the R-73’s performance with the IRIS-T, AIM-9X and MICA IR programs.
197.3 See also • AIM-82 • Hawker Siddeley SRAAM • List of missiles
197.4 External links • http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-95. html
607
Chapter 198
AIM-97 Seekbat The AIM-97 Seekbat is a missile developed by the the sun once the Bomarc went “cold.” Because this was United States of America. misunderstood by engineers, continued efforts to develop the missile guidance systems were undertaken without any effort to correct the drone issues that were causing the targeting malfunctions. Each test missile was hand built 198.1 Overview and very expensive to produce, causing the program to suffer cost overruns. This coupled with new knowledge In the early to mid-1970s the United States was highly of the MiG-25s capabilities and role led to the cancelconcerned by the perceived capabilities of the MiG-25 lation of the program because the missile’s cost did not Foxbat, an aircraft which was known to be capable of justify its procurement. speeds in excess of Mach 3 and which carried long range air-to-air missiles. It was widely claimed that the Foxbat was a new generation “super-fighter”, capable of comfortably outclassing any US or allied aircraft. The US initiated the F-15 Eagle program largely in response to this threat. To equip the F-15 the Air Force initiated development of the AIM-82 short range missile and the AIM-97 Seekbat. The former was a dogfighting missile intended as a replacement for the AIM-9 Sidewinder, the latter was to be a new high-altitude long-range missile designed specifically to shoot down the MiG-25 - hence the name Seekbat, the bat referring to the MiG-25’s “Foxbat” NATO reporting name.
198.2 See also
The Seekbat was based on the AGM-78 Standard ARM. It had a larger propulsion unit and used Semi-active radar homing with an infrared seeker for terminal guidance of the missile. The operational ceiling was 80,000 feet (24,000 m). Test firings began in late 1972, but the Seekbat program did not make a great deal of progress and was cancelled in 1976. During the testing of the Seekbat, CIM-10 Bomarc surface-to-air missiles (SAM) were utilized in the target drone role; the Bomarc missile was used to simulate the high flying Foxbat. The Bomarc would prove to be a poor choice for target drone, due in part to the requirement to operate it in a manner outside its intended operational envelope. In sustained high altitude flight, the Bomarc would roll onto its back and dive when the engines became oxygen starved. This flight characteristic was previously unknown to program officers. When the Bomarc rolled on its back, the wings shielded the engines, causing the Seekbat to unlock from the target during terminal guidance. Instead, the Seekbat test missile IR seeker would chase 608
• Brazo • R-27 (air-to-air missile)
Chapter 199
AQM-127 SLAT The AQM-127 Supersonic Low-Altitude Target (SLAT) was a target drone developed during the 1980s by Martin Marietta for use by the United States Navy. Derived from Martin Marietta’s work on the cancelled ASALM missile, SLAT proved to have severe difficulties in flight testing, and the project was cancelled during 1991.
199.1 Design and development Development of what became the YAQM-127 was initiated in 1983 following the cancellation of the BQM-111 Firebrand. A replacement for the MQM-8 Vandal target drone was still required, and a specification was developed for a target drone, capable of being recovered via parachute and reused, for launch from a variety of aircraft.[1]
ify the missile design, flight testing resumed in November 1990; this test also was a failure, as was a final attempt at a test in May 1991.[1] With the SLAT proving a consistent failure and the cost of the project increasing dramatically, the United States Congress stepped in, and during the summer of 1991 the AQM-127 program was cancelled.[1] The Navy, still requiring a new high-speed target drone to replace the Vandal, would turn to a drone conversion of a Russian missile, the MA-31, as an interim solution. This drone entered service in small numbers during 1999.[3]
199.3 See also • Creative Research On Weapons • GQM-163 Coyote
Bids for the contract were submitted by Martin Mari• Kh-31A etta, Ling-Temco-Vought, and Teledyne Ryan,[1] with the Martin Marietta design being judged the winner of the design competition in September 1984.[2] Derived from 199.4 References the cancelled Advanced Strategic Air-Launched Missile developed by Martin Marietta for the United States Air Force, the missile utilised a Marquardt hybrid rocket- Notes ramjet propulsion system, with a solid rocket booster providing initial thrust, with the rocket’s chamber, following [1] Parsch and Caston 2006 burnout, becoming the combustion chamber for a ramjet [2] Munson 1988, p.206. sustainer.[1] The AQM-127 was designed to fly at speeds of Mach 2.5 at an altitude of 30 feet (9 m), following a [3] Goebel 2010 pre-programmed course on autopilot.[1] The SLAT was to be fitted with radar signature augmentors and a radar Bibliography seeker emulator; initial operational capability was projected for 1991.[1] • Goebel, Greg (2010). “Modern US Target Drones”. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. vectorsite.net. Archived from the original on 27 December 2010. Retrieved 199.2 Operational history 2010-12-31. The first test launch of the fifteen YAQM-127A preproduction test missiles produced was conducted on November 20, 1987. A further five test flights were conducted between then and January 1989; however only one of the six tests proved a success.[1] Following a twentytwo month stand-down to reassess the program and mod609
• Munson, Kenneth (1988). World Unmanned Aircraft. London: Jane’s Information Group. ISBN 978-0-7106-0401-9. • Parsch, Andreas; Craig Caston (2006). “Martin Marietta AQM-127 SLAT”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net.
610
CHAPTER 199. AQM-127 SLAT Archived from the original on 15 December 2010. Retrieved 2010-12-31.
Chapter 200
FGR-17 Viper The FGR-17 Viper was an American one man disposable antitank rocket which had slated in the 1980s to be the replacement for the M72 LAW, but was cancelled shortly after production began due to a major public scandal resulting from massive cost overruns and safety concerns, as well as a mistaken belief by the U.S. Congress and the American public that the term light antitank weapon meant a weapon that could defeat any hostile armored vehicle threat from any firing angle (including frontal shots against the Soviet Union’s new T-64 and T72 main battle tanks).[1][2]
200.1 Program history Viper launcher shown collapsed for carrying
200.1.1
Start of the program
The Viper program began in 1972 as a study to replace the M72 LAW. In 1975, a program designated ILAW (Improved Light Antitank Weapon) issued a request for proposals to the defense industry, and in 1976 after studying the various industry proposals, the U.S. Army designated General Dynamics as the prime contractor, changing the ILAW program name to “Viper”. The main requirements for the ILAW/Viper program was for a disposable weapon in the same weight and size category as the M72 LAW, but with major improvements in accuracy, safety and penetration and without a major increase in cost per round over the M72 LAW which it was to replace.
200.1.2
Poor requirements statement
When the ILAW requirement was first issued, the Army wanted an individual antitank weapon with such a low cost that it would be as common in infantry units as the hand grenade was. All these requirements, which included items contradictory to each other, proved to be too great a hurdle for General Dynamics. This resulted in subsequent issues that led to highly publicized congressional inquires into a classified GAO report which stated that the Viper...barely meets the low end of the Army’s requirement.. and furthermore concluded ...Viper
did not demonstrate any significant superiority over the M72 LAW.
200.1.3 Over-optimistic statements by the prime contractor Journalists soon discovered that when the prime contractor was named in 1976 for the Viper program, General Dynamics had told the Army that when mass production for the Viper was reached, the cost of Viper would only be $78.00 per round before inflation. Despite the negative publicity, the Army decided to continue the Viper program and make improvements. In December 1981, General Dynamics was awarded a $14.4 million contract to start production for 1400 Viper rounds.
200.1.4 Safety issues Shortly after this contract was issued, there were also reports of safety problems with the first production lot during field evaluation tests by the U.S. Army. Test firings had shown Viper rounds to have a safety problem with its fuze system that caused the warhead to explode shortly after launch. One report detailed an accident at Fort Benning, Georgia where a helicopter pallet of Viper rounds were found to be damaged by static electricity.
611
612
200.1.5
CHAPTER 200. FGR-17 VIPER
Scandal and congressional inter- trigger placed flush against the tube to allow the weapon to be stowed in a backpack more easily. Unlike the M72 vention
In February 1982, in a move that took even the strongest supporters of the Army by surprise, the Army issued a second contract worth $83.7 million for 60,000 more Viper rounds. Following the anger caused by the letting of this second contract and because of the earlier GAO report on the Viper, massive cost overruns, and then the safety concerns revealed in the Army’s evaluations, in December 1982 Senator Warren Rudman (R-NH) inserted an amendment into the Army’s funding bill. This amendment deleted 69% of the Viper funding and further mandated testing of available light antitank weapons which were already in production, including non-U.S. models, with a report due back to Congress in 1983.
200.1.6
End of the program
About this time, General Dynamics made the decision not to compete in the tests mandated by Congress, because of the Army’s demand for a fixed price contract on any future Viper production lots that were to include safety improvements. This meant that after the Army had spent over $250 million on a M72 LAW replacement since 1975, the Viper program was at an end. With General Dynamics’s decision to refuse a fixed price contract request, the Army announced in September 1983 that it was canceling all contracts for the FGR-17 Viper. Two months later, the testing mandated by Congress found the Swedish designed AT4 the most suitable off-the-shelf option to replace the M72 LAW. The AT4 did not meet every requirement, but it was the only one to meet most of the requirements. Congress agreed and funded that weapon as the future M72 LAW replacement.[3][4][5]
200.2 Description According to General Dynamics’ brochure, the FGR-17 was intended to be used by front-line troops as opposed to dedicated anti-tank squads, to give these units a last line of defense backed up by the heavier and more specialized TOW, Dragon and Hellfire missile launchers. These launchers, as opposed to the FGR-17, are far more effective against tanks and can strike from longer distances, but require a specialized anti-tank unit whereas the FGR17 has the advantage it could be deployed to all soldiers in large quantities. General Dynamics specifically states that the FGR-17 is best deployed in close quarters against enemy flanks and rears, not against front armor.[6] The launcher of the FGR-17 is made from lightweight fibreglass and resembles many features of its predecessor. It consists of a telescopic tube, much like the M72 LAW it is meant to replace, and the trigger and firing mechanism does not protrude from the launcher itself, with the
LAW however, the tube does not extend back but forwards from the firing mechanism. Covers at the rear and front of the tube protects the missile from environmental effects such as moisture and dust. Only the rear cover needs to be removed before firing. The FGR-17 uses flipdown aperture sights for targeting, protected by a casing. As the missile tube is extended, the sights are released and flip up.[7][8] The missile itself consists of a solid rocket-powered booster [9] and a HEAT warhead. Nine collapsible fins extend in mid-flight to ensure a stable flight path. The missile fires via an impact fuse. After firing, the launcher has to be discarded, it can not be re-used with another missile. The FGR-17 launcher acts as a container for the missile itself and both are meant to be handled as a single unit. The FGR-17, like all weapons of its kind, produces a backblast effect so care for collateral damage must be taken whilst firing.
200.3 References and notes [1] Ludvigsen, Eric C, ed. (1983–84), Army Green Book, p. 307. [2] Shortly after the Viper was canceled, the U.S. Army dropped the term LAW (light antitank weapon) and replaced it with LAAW (light anti-armor weapon) and LMPW (light multi-purpose weapon). [3] Graves, Jim (Fall 1985), “Viper Bites the Dust”, Combat Weapons: 36. [4] Kyle, D; Meyer, D (October 1983), “Interview: General Donald R. Keith”, Armed Forces Journal International: 52. [5] Kyle, D (November 1983), “Viper Dead, Army Picks AT4 Antitank Missile”, Armed Forces Journal International: 21. [6] http://s16.photobucket.com/user/hybenamon/media/ LAND/INFANTRY/VIPER/VIPER1.jpg.html [7] http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b24/hybenamon/ LAND/INFANTRY/VIPER/VIPER2.jpg [8] http://s16.photobucket.com/user/hybenamon/media/ LAND/INFANTRY/VIPER/VIPER3.jpg.html [9] http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/r-17.html
Chapter 201
Have Dash Have Dash was a program conducted by the United pursued.[3] States Air Force for the development of a stealthy air-toair missile. Although the Have Dash II missile appears to have been flight tested, the results of the project remain 201.3 classified and no production is believed to have been undertaken. Notes
References
[1] Popular Mechanics, March 1990
201.1 Have Dash I
[2] “Have Dash II: Development Test and Evaluation of an Advanced Air-To-Air Missile Concept”. Society of Experimental Test Pilots Symposium Proceedings, Volumes 36–37, p. 159. (1992)
Have Dash I was a classified project to develop an airto-air missile for use by stealth aircraft.[1] The concept, developed by the USAF Armament Laboratory between 1985 and 1988,[2] was extensively studied but failed to produce any flying hardware.[3]
201.2 Have Dash II
[3] Parsch 2005 [4] "Have Dash II bank-to-turn technology may be valuable for AMRAAM.” Defense Daily, April 21, 1992.
Bibliography
Have Dash II, initiated in 1990, was a renewed effort to develop a stealthy air-to-air missile, intended to be used by the Advanced Tactical Fighter – the YF-22 and YF-23 – and to replace the AIM-120 AMRAAM in service.[1]
• Dane, Abe, ed. (March 1990). “Tech Update: Hypersonic Air-To-Air Missile”. Popular Mechanics (New York: The Hearst Corporation) 167 (3): 18. ISSN 0032-4558. Retrieved 2010-12-29.
Have Dash II was designed with a composite body, trapezoidal in shape. This was intended both to reduce the missile’s radar-cross-section[3] and to resist heat at hypersonic speeds, as the missile was intended to operate at Mach 5.[1] The body shape also allowed flush external carriage aboard the launching aircraft, and provided aerodynamic lift, making the missile more maneuverable.[3]
• Parsch, Andreas (2005). “Loral (Ford Aeronutronics) HAVE DASH II”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2010-12-29.
The prototype Have Dash II missiles were recoverable,[1] and utilised Rocketdyne Mk 58 solid-fueled rocket motors of the same type used by the AIM-7 Sparrow.[3][4] Production missiles were expected to be powered by a ramjet engine,[1] and would use inertial navigation during the cruise phase of flight, with a dual-mode infrared/active radar seeker head for terminal guidance.[3] Flight testing of the prototype Have Dash II missiles was expected to begin in 1992;[1] it appears that the testing was conducted, with the missile being considered for further testing of advanced air-to-air missile concepts.[2] However, no results of the test firings have been declassified, and the missile’s development was not further 613
Chapter 202
MGM-166 LOSAT The MGM-166 LOSAT (Line-of-Sight Anti-Tank) was a U.S. surface-to-surface missile system designed by Lockheed Martin (originally Vought) to defeat tanks and other individual targets. Instead of using a High Explosive Anti-Tank warhead like other anti-tank missiles, the LOSAT employed a solid steel kinetic energy penetrator to punch through armor. The LOSAT is fairly light; it was designed to be mounted onto a Humvee while allowing the vehicle to remain air-portable. LOSAT eventually emerged on an extended-length heavy-duty Humvee with a hard-top containing four KEMs used by special operations. Although LOSAT never “officially” entered service, it was used for the smaller Compact Kinetic Energy Missile.[1]
202.1 History 202.1.1
HVM
LOSAT developed out on an earlier Vought project, the HVM. HVM was a multi-platform weapon supported by the US Air Force, for their A-10, and by the US Army and US Marine Corps, for helicopters and other vehicles. HVM offered performance similar to existing systems like the AGM-114 Hellfire but offered a semi-fire-andforget operation through the use of FLIR tracking and guidance commands sent to it via a low-power laser. It could be carried on any platform that had FLIR support, with the self-contained command guidance system able to be carried externally, or potentially integrated into existing target designators. With the end of the Cold War, the Air Force pulled out of the project, and development work on HVM appears to have ended in the late 1980s.
tions, but did not offer the needed range and its relatively slow flight speeds (~250 m/s versus 1650 for HVM) left it vulnerable while the missile was in flight. To fill AAWS-H, Vought developed a slightly larger extended-range version of HVM known as KEM (Kinetic Energy Missile), while their partner, Texas Instruments, provided a new FLIR targeting system that they were already working on as a TOW upgrade. Several vehicles were studied to mount the system, including the front-runner M2 Bradley,[3] as well as the M8 Armored Gun System.[4] However, in order to reduce costs and improve air mobility in a post–Cold War world, LOSAT eventually emerged on an extended-length heavy-duty Humvee with a hard-top containing four KEMs ready to fire, along with a trailer containing another eight rounds in two-round packs. The new guidance system could keep two missiles in flight to separate targets, allowing the vehicle to salvo fire its weapons against a tank squadron in a few seconds.[2] Reaching speeds of 5,000 ft/s, LOSAT was in the air from launch to maximum range for under four seconds, making counterfire extremely difficult. The range was beyond that of existing main tank guns, allowing the LOSAT to fire and move before tanks could maneuver into a position to return fire.
The first KEMs were test fired in 1990, and a contract for continued development was placed by the Army. This was much slower in pace, and it was only in 1997 that an Advanced Technology Concept Demonstrator program started to bring the system to production quality. The contract called for 12 LOSAT vehicles and 144 KEMs, to be delivered by 2003. Even before this contract was complete, the Army asked for a production run of another 108 missiles in August 2002.[1] The first of the 12 LOSAT units was delivered in October 2002, and the system began a series of 18 production-qualification test firings in August 2003, at White Sands Missile Range in 202.1.2 AAWS-H New Mexico. By March 2004, 18 KEMs had been fired at targets under a variety of conditions, both during the At about the same time, in 1988, the Army released a new day and night. Another 8 were fired in the summer of requirement for a ground-based anti-tank system, known 2004 at Fort Bliss as part of a user-testing exercise. as Advanced Anti-Tank Weapon System - Heavy, or AAWS-H for short.[2] AAWS-H specified an air-liftable lightweight system with the capability to knock out any existing or near-future tank outside its own gun range. The TOW missile could be guided from concealed loca614
202.3. EXTERNAL LINKS
202.1.3
Cancellation
By the time the test program was finished it was obvious the Army was going to cancel LOSAT after the lowrate initial production (LRIP) batch of about 435 missiles was delivered.[2] By this point the Army had already started work on a system known as the Compact Kinetic Energy Missile (or CKEM), based on the LOSAT concepts but smaller and lighter, more in tune with real-world threats. As it turned out, even the LRIP contract was never funded, and the LOSAT program terminated.
202.2 Notes [1] LOSAT LINE-OF-SIGHT ANTI-TANK WEAPON HIGH MOBILITY MULTI-PURPOSE WHEELED VEHICLE, USA [2] Lockheed Martin MGM-166 LOSAT/KEM - Designation Systems [3] LIGHT AND LETHAL: Line-of-Sight, Anti-Tank (LOSAT) [4] M8 Armored Gun System
202.3 External links • Globalsecurity article on the LOSAT • Video of LOSAT in action
615
Chapter 203
NOTS-EV-2 Caleb “Hi-Ho” redirects here. Hi-Ho/Good Bye.
For the single by hide, see
The NOTS-EV-2 Caleb, also known as NOTS-500, HiHoe and SIP was an expendable launch system, which was later used as a sounding rocket and prototype antisatellite weapon. It was developed by the United States Navy's Naval Ordnance Test Station (NOTS)[1] as a follow-up to the NOTS-EV-1 Pilot, which had been abandoned following ten consecutive launch failures.[2] Two were launched in July and October 1960, before the cancellation of the project.[1] Following cancellation, two leftover Calebs were used in the Satellite Interceptor Program, or SIP, whilst three more were used as sounding rocktets, under the designation Hi-Hoe.[1] These deriva- Hi-Hoe rocket mounted on F4H Phantom II tives flew until July 1962, when the Hi-Hoe made its final flight.
203.2 Operational history 203.1 Development The Caleb was originally designed as a fast-response orbital launch system, to place small reconnaissance satellites, and other military payloads, into orbit at short notice.[3] The orbital configurations were four-stage vehicles, whilst test launches used one- and two-stage configurations. The project was cancelled due to pressure from the United States Air Force, who were responsible for all other orbital launches conducted by the US military, and no attempts to launch the vehicle into orbit were made.[1] Caleb was an air-launched rocket, with its two launches being conducted from F4D Skyray #747, the same aircraft used in the Pilot trials.[4] Hi-Hoe was also airlaunched, however it was released from an F4H Phantom II, which provided greater performance.[3] SIP launches were conducted from a ground launch pad on San Nicolas Island.[5] The aircraft used for the airborne launches took off from Point Arguello, which later became part of Vandenberg Air Force Base.[5]
The Caleb made its maiden flight, in a single-stage test configuration,[4] on 28 July 1960.[6] Its second flight was made on 24 October of the same year,[6] and used a twostage configuration. It was unsuccessful, due to the second stage’s failure to ignite.[4] Both test launches were suborbital.[7] Both SIP launches used the two-stage configuration. The first was conducted on 1 October 1961. It was successful and reached an apogee of 20 kilometres (12 mi). The second test, launched on 5 May 1962 was also successful, and reached the same apogee.[5] The three Hi-Hoe launches were conducted on 5 October 1961, and 26 March and 25 July 1962.[6] On the first two launches the second stage failed to ignite,[4] however the third was successful, and reached an apogee of 1,166 kilometres (725 mi).[5][6] Despite the program’s turn towards success, the project was cancelled soon after the final Hi-Hoe test, the Department of Defense choosing to concentrate on the U.S. Air Force's Blue Scout sounding rocket program.[7]
616
203.5. REFERENCES
617 • List of sounding rockets
203.5 References [1] Scott, Jeff (2006-04-23). “NOTSNIK, Project Pilot & Project Caleb”. Aerospaceweb.org. Retrieved 2009-0604. [2] Wade, Mark. “Project Pilot”. Encyclopedia Astronautica. Retrieved 2009-06-04.
Caleb rocket mounted on F4D Skyray
[3] Parsch, Andreas (2003-10-17). “NOTS NOTS-EV-2 Caleb”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles, Appendix 4. Designation-Systems.Net. Retrieved 200906-04. [4] Krebs, Gunter. “Caleb (NOTS-EV-2)". Gunter’s Space Page. Retrieved 2009-06-04. [5] Wade, Mark. “Caleb”. Encyclopedia Astronautica. Retrieved 2009-06-04. [6] McDowell, Jonathan. “NOTS-500”. Orbital and Suborbital Launch Database. Jonathan’s Space Page. Retrieved 2009-06-04. [7] Comments on “Caleb” by Joel W. Powell and K.W. Gatland. Spaceflight magazine.
A SIP rocket on San Nicolas Island in August 1961, prior to the first launch
203.3 Launch history 203.4 See also • NOTS-EV-1 Pilot • ASM-135 ASAT Related lists
Chapter 204
RIM-101 For the USAF weapon designated AIM-101, see AIM-7 Sparrow.
[1] Parsch 2002 [2] Morison and Rowe 1975, p.216.
RIM-101 was a short-lived project by the United States [3] Andrade 1979, p.235. Navy to develop a surface-to-air missile (SAM) for the [4] Parsch 2007 defense of naval vessels. Developed during the early 1970s, the project, possibly derived from the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow, was cancelled before the start of detailed design Bibliography work. • Andrade, John (1979). U.S. Military Aircraft Designations and Serials since 1909. Leicester, UK: Midland Counties Publications. ISBN 0-904597-22-9. 204.1 Development and cancellaRetrieved 2011-01-26.
tion
• Morison, Samuel L.; John S. Rowe (1975). The Ships & Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet (10th ed.). Annapolis, MD: United States Naval Institute. ISBN 0-87021-639-2.
In the early 1970s, the United States Navy initiated a project for the development of a new surface-to-air missile to act as a defense against air and missile attack against its vessels. The project received the planning designation ZRIM-101A in 1973.[1][2][3] The RIM-101 missile was planned to be a tube-launched weapon, a small ejector charge being used to propel the missile from its launching tube before ignition of a solidfueled rocket sustainer,[2] based on that of the FIM-43 Redeye SAM.[1] Midcourse guidance of the new missile was planned to be of the semi-active radar homing type, using an I-band radar system, while terminal guidance would be provided by an infrared seeker.[2] However, the RIM-101 project was cancelled early in the design-anddevelopment stage, before any hardware had been built.[1]
• Parsch, Andreas (2002). “RIM-101”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designationsystems.net. Retrieved 2011-01-26. • Parsch, Andreas (2007). “Raytheon AIM/RIM-7 Sparrow”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 201101-26.
204.3 External links
It has been speculated that the RIM-101 was intended to be an advanced development of the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missile, then in U.S. Navy service as the Basic Point Defense Missile System.[1] While the basic RIM-7 does not match the description of RIM-101, an advanced development of the RIM-7E would fit the timeframe and description, with RIM-7F being developed following the cancellation of RIM-101.[1][4]
204.2 References Notes 618
• “DOD 4120.15-L: Model Designation of Military Aerospace Vehicles” (PDF).
Chapter 205
RIM-113 The RIM-113 Shipboard Intermediate Range Combat System, or SIRCS, was an advanced surface-to-air missile proposed by the United States Navy in the 1970s. The project failed to be approved for funding and was cancelled in 1979.
of the RIM-113 missile.[3] A proposal was made for joint development of SIRCS with the U.S. Air Force's AMRAAM project;,[2] but this came to naught, and the RIM-113 was cancelled in 1979.[3]
205.3 References 205.1 Concept
Notes
The United States Navy Naval Surface Weapons Center began the development of an advanced surface-to- [1] DOD 4120.15-L (2004), p.95. air missile for defense against cruise missile attack in [2] Dornan 1979, p.238. 1976.[1] Based on the previous Anti-Ship Missile Defense (ASMD) studies and known as the Shipboard Interme- [3] Parsch 2002 diate Range Combat System,[2] the new missile was intended as a replacement for the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow as Bibliography the standard point-defense weapon for U.S. Navy ships,[3] with the specification calling for the capability to engage • “DOD 4120.15-L: Model Designation of Military between four and fourteen independent targets at once, Aerospace Vehicles” (PDF). Department of Dedepending on the size of the launching ship.[2] fense, Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (AT&L) (Defense Systems). May 12, 2004. Retrieved 2011-01-11.
205.2 Development and cancellation The designation XRIM-113A, indicating an experimental ship-launched interceptor missile, was allocated to the SIRCS project in May 1976, and contracts were awarded to three separate teams of contractors RCA/Martin-Marietta, McDonnell Douglas/Sperry, and Raytheon/Lockheed/Univac - for initial studies of the SIRCS missile concept, in anticipation of a competitive evaluation.[3] By 1978, the study phase of development was completed.[3] The McDonnell Douglas/Sperry team had examined the use of the British Aerospace Sea Wolf missile, which failed to meet the full specification, but was the only existing missile that approached the SIRCS requirements.[2] Sea Wolf was anticipated to be able to enter service in 1979 if selected; a newly designed missile would push the expected in-service date to 1983.[2] However, the United States Congress refused to allocate funding for the further development 619
• Dornan, Dr. James E., Jr., ed. (1978). The US War Machine. London: Salamander Books. ISBN 0-517-53543-2. • Parsch, Andreas (2002). “RIM-113 SIRCS”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-01-11.
Chapter 206
RIM-85 • Morison, Samuel L.; John S. Rowe (1975). The Ships & Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet (10th ed.). Annapolis, MD: United States Naval Institute. ISBN 0-87021-639-2.
RIM-85 was a short-lived project by the United States Navy to develop a surface-to-air missile for the defense of naval vessels. Developed during the late 1960s, the project was cancelled before the start of detailed design work.
• Parsch, Andreas (2002). “RIM-85”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designationsystems.net. Retrieved 2011-01-26.
206.1 Development and cancellation During the 1960s, the United States Navy identified a requirement for a new type of surface-to-air missile, capable of defending ships against attack by enemy aircraft and missiles.[1] The resulting specification called for a medium-range missile, capable of being used in all weather conditions;[1][2] in addition to its air defense role, the missile was intended to possess a secondary capability in the surface-to-surface mission for use against enemy ships.[1][2]
• Parsch, Andreas (2009). “Current Designations of U.S. Unmanned Military Aerospace Vehicles”. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-01-26.
206.3 External links
In July 1968, the project was assigned the Mission Designation System designation ZRIM-85A,[1][3] the “Z” indicating a project in the planning stage;[4] however, the program was cancelled later that year, before any significant design work on the missile, or any development of hardware, had been conducted.[1]
206.2 References Notes [1] Parsch 2002 [2] Morison and Rowe 1975, p.216. [3] Andrade 1979, p.235. [4] Parsch 2009
Bibliography • Andrade, John (1979). U.S. Military Aircraft Designations and Serials since 1909. Leicester, UK: Midland Counties Publications. ISBN 0-904597-22-9. Retrieved 2011-01-26. 620
• “DOD 4120.15-L: Model Designation of Military Aerospace Vehicles” (PDF).
Chapter 207
SSM-N-2 Triton The SSM-N-2 Triton was a supersonic nuclear landattack cruise missile project for the United States Navy. It was in development from 1946 to 1957, but probably no prototypes were produced or tested. The Triton program was approved in September 1946, designated SSM-2 a year later, and redesignated SSM-N-2 in early 1948.[1][2] A preliminary design was produced by 1950 as the XSSM-N-2, but was scaled down by 1955 and redesigned again in 1957. Triton was cancelled in 1957, probably as a result of the 1956 decision to focus the Navy’s strategic weapons development on the Polaris submarine-launched ballistic missile.[3] In any case, prototypes of the similar Regulus II missile had already flown, and Triton was redundant, offering only an increase in range from 1,000 nautical miles (1,900 km) to 1,500 nautical miles (2,800 km), which Polaris was about to achieve along with many other advantages. Regulus II was itself cancelled in 1958, although testing of missiles already built continued for several years.[1][2]
207.1 Development History Triton was approved by the US Navy in 1946 and a preliminary design was ready by 1950. The goal was to produce a supersonic land-attack nuclear cruise missile capable of being launched from the same platforms and equipment as the subsonic SSM-N-8 Regulus I, which were surface combatants, submarines, and aircraft carriers via launch rails or catapults.[1][2] One reference cites Triton as an outgrowth of Operation Bumblebee, which produced the Navy’s first production surface-to-air missiles, notably Talos, which had a ramjet sustainer like Triton.[4] An artist’s concept shows the first iteration of Triton with a long ramjet body, two mid-body stub wings, and four solid-fuel boosters clustered around a relatively large cruciform tail. The specifications were a 36,000 pounds (16,000 kg) missile with a range of 2,000 nautical miles (3,700 km) at Mach 2.0 and a nuclear payload of 4,000 pounds (1,800 kg).[1] Since Regulus I weighed under 14,000 pounds (6,400 kg), it’s difficult to see how this version of Triton would be usable by the initial Regulus platforms. Even Regulus II, which occupied about twice
the volume of Regulus I, weighed only 23,000 pounds (10,000 kg). A slimmer design for Triton was produced in 1955, at 27,300 pounds (12,400 kg) with a range of 1,200 nautical miles (2,200 km) and a nuclear payload of 1,500 pounds (680 kg) (nuclear warheads were rapidly getting smaller). This design was approved for further development, with initial operational capability expected by 1965. A 1957 redesign is described in the infobox, apparently a re-expansion to 30,000 pounds (14,000 kg) to achieve a 1,500 nautical miles (2,800 km) range and a perhaps unrealistic speed of Mach 3.5.[1][2] Triton was cancelled that same year in favor of Polaris, which proved to be a wildly successful system despite being produced on a “crash” timeline. At a cost of $19.4 million in 1953 dollars,[1] Triton was a somewhat expensive failure. However, in 1950 it could not be foreseen that the turbojet-powered, supersonic Regulus II would be comparable to a ramjet-powered weapon in just six years, or that a solid-fueled ballistic missile (Polaris) would soon eclipse all of the Navy’s other strategic options, and that it could be developed and deployed by 1961.
207.1.1 Possible platforms Sketch designs were prepared for surface ships and submarines to carry Triton. A submarine capable of carrying four Triton or Regulus II missiles or up to eight Regulus I missiles was sketched in 1956.[5] One of the many proposals for modernizing the Iowa-class battleships came in 1955, featuring Talos surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and one or two launchers for Regulus or Triton. The incomplete Kentucky was proposed for completion to this design.[6][7] Another incomplete ship, the battlecruiser Hawaii, was also proposed for various conversions, including a 1947 sketch with 12 launchers for copies of the V-2 short-range ballistic missile and six Triton launchers (though one reference states these launchers were for Operation Bumblebee's developmental XPM (Experimental Prototype Missile) SAM).[8][9]
621
622
207.2 References [1] Triton missile at Encyclopedia Astronautica [2] Triton missile at Directory of US Rockets and Missiles [3] Friedman Submarines, p. 195 [4] Friedman Submarines, p. 263 [5] Friedman Submarines, p. 183 [6] Friedman Battleships, pp. 398-399 [7] Scarpaci, p. 4 [8] Scarpaci, p. 19 [9] Friedman Cruisers, pp. 373-377
• Friedman, Norman (1994). U.S. Submarines Since 1945: An Illustrated Design History. Annapolis, Maryland: United States Naval Institute. ISBN 155750-260-9. • Friedman, Norman (1985). U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History. Annapolis, Maryland: United States Naval Institute. ISBN 978-0-87021715-9. • Friedman, Norman (1984). U.S. Cruisers: An Illustrated Design History. Annapolis, Maryland: United States Naval Institute. ISBN 0-87021-718-6. • Scarpaci, Wayne (April 2008). Iowa Class Battleships and Alaska Class Large Cruisers Conversion Projects 1942–1964: An Illustrated Technical Reference. Nimble Books LLC. ISBN 1-934840-38-6. • SSM-N-2 Triton on Italian Wikipedia
207.3 Further reading • Friedman, Norman (1983). U.S. Naval Weapons. Annapolis, Maryland: United States Naval Institute. ISBN 0-87021-735-6. • Ordway, Frederick (1960). International Missile and Spacecraft Guide. McGraw-Hill. • Gunston, Bill (1979). The Illustrated Encyclopedia of the World’s Rockets and Missiles. Salamander Books. ISBN 0-86101-029-9. • Werrell, Kenneth P. (1985). The Evolution of the Cruise Missile. Air University Press. ISBN 147836-305-3.
CHAPTER 207. SSM-N-2 TRITON
Chapter 208
UUM-125 Sea Lance manner, being launched from the Mk 41 vertical launching system. When the missile reached the intended area, the payload would separate from the missile and then deploy a parachute to decelerate the warhead or torpedo. Both missiles were initially planned to carry a depth charge with a 200 kiloton W89 thermonuclear warhead. Such a yield would have given the missile a lethal radius against submarines of around 10 kilometers. This massive warhead, combined with the fact that the target would be unable to detect the missile until the payload hit the water, made it virtually impossible for a target to escape. In the mid-1980s, a conventional variant of this missile was proposed which would carry the new Mark 50 torpedo submarine-seeking weapon. This version was dubbed the UUM-125B.
Sea Lance in-service capsule
The UUM-125 Sea Lance, initially known as the Common ASW Standoff Weapon, was authorized in 1980 as a successor to both the UUM-44 SUBROC and RUR-5 ASROC anti-submarine missiles. The Sea Lance was to be available in two versions, known as UUM-125A and RUM-125A. The former would be a submarine-launched version, the latter surface-launched.
A contract for the full-scale development of the Sea Lance was awarded in 1986. In 1988, it was decided to proceed again with the surface-launched RUM-125 version. The nuclear warhead was canceled in favor of a purely conventional missile: ship-based nuclear missiles had been forbidden by international treaty. (For example, the nuclear version of the Tomahawk was removed from service, and only conventional warheads were retained. All nuclear depth charges and nuclear surface-to-air missiles were also removed from service.)
In 1990, the entire program was canceled as a result of the collapse and dismemberment of the Soviet Union. Today the U.S. Navy attack submarines do not have any longIn 1982, Boeing was awarded the main contract to de- range stand-off anti-submarine weapon, while U.S. Navy velop the system, named the Sea Lance. By the following surface warships do have the new, vertical-launch version year, it had become apparent that developing two differ- of the ASROC. ent versions of the missile was too ambitious, and further development of the RUM-125 was suspended. The RUM-139, a vertical-launch model of the ASROC, was 208.2 See also developed as a stopgap weapon in this role.
208.1 Design and development
The Sea Lance was to be housed inside a watertight capsule which could be launched from an ordinary 21 inch torpedo tube. The Mk 117 digital fire-control system provided targeting information to the missile prior to launch. After being fired, the capsule would float to the surface where the rocket would ignite and its fins would flip out. An inertial guidance system would direct the missile to the general location of the target. Initial plans were to have the surface-launched version operate in a similar 623
• RUM-139 VL-ASROC • RUR-5 ASROC • UGM-89 Perseus • UUM-44 SUBROC
624
208.3 Suggested Reading • Polmar, Norman (1993). The Naval Institute Guide to the Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet (15th ed.). Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1557506752.
208.4 External links • Directory of US Military missiles • Global Security
CHAPTER 208. UUM-125 SEA LANCE
Chapter 209
Vought HVM Vought's HVM, short for Hyper-Velocity Missile, was an anti-tank missile developed during the 1980s. The HVM carried no warhead and killed its targets with kinetic energy alone using a metal rod penetrator. Development as an air-launched weapon for the A-10 Thunderbolt II ended sometime in the late 1980s but continued for helicopter use into the 1990s along with ground-launched (HMMWV) as the larger MGM-166 LOSAT. None of these systems was ever deployed operationally.
209.1 References
The HVM was intended as a fairly inexpensive weapon, compared to the AGM-65 Maverick at least, offering the standoff performance while requiring a minimum of support electronics. The target was acquired using a FLIR system on the launch vehicle, and after launch the missile quickly accelerated to 1500 m/s (5000 ft/s, 5400 km/h) and into the view of the FLIR, which tracked both the target and missile from that point on. Corrections to the flight path were sent to the missile via a laser, and the missile included the electronics needed to guide itself back to the correct flight path. The missile was just under 3 meters long and about 10 cm in diameter. The aft portion was flared out in a cone, which gives it some directional stability without requiring fold-out fins. Most of the stabilization was due to spin. Directional control was accomplished via thrust vectoring. The penetrator was housed under an ogive nose cone. The contract was initially sent to Vought Missiles and Space in late 1981, and the first unpowered drop tests were carried out in March 1983. A contract for joint development by the US Air Force, US Army and US Marine Corps followed in October 1984, but the Air Force dropped out of the program sometime in the late 1980s (Janes’ says '87-'89). In 1988, Texas Instruments and Vought teamed up to enter a modified version of the HVM into the Army’s new Advanced Anti-Tank Weapon System – Heavy (AAWS-H) competition, winning it as the MGM-166 LOSAT (or KEM, Kinetic Energy Missile) with a slightly enlarged and finned version of the basic HVM system.
625
• Vought HVM
Chapter 210
3.5-Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket For other rockets with the same acronym, see 5-Inch 210.2 Operational history Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket and Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket. Following expedited development, the weapon, officially designated the 3.5-Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket, The 3.5-Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket, or 3.5- entered operational service with the U.S. Navy late in Inch FFAR, was an American rocket developed during 1943;[1] production of 10,000 rockets per month had World War II to allow aircraft to attack enemy submarines been ordered that August.[6] The FFAR’s first “kill” of at range. The rocket proved an operational success, and an enemy submarine took place 11 January 1944. The spawned several improved versions for use against surface rocket was originally carried by the TBF Avenger torpedo bomber. Excessive drag caused by the original 92” long and land targets. channel-slide launchers was largely eliminated with the introduction of zero length launchers in May 1945.[3] Zero length launchers quickly became standard on most fighters and many light bombers for firing a variety of rockets with 3.25” or 5” diameter rocket motors.
210.1 Design and development
Following trials by the Royal Air Force of rocketpropelled, air-launched weapons for anti-submarine warfare during 1942, the United States Navy launched a highpriority project during the summer of 1943 for the development of an anti-submarine rocket of its own.[1]
Although the rocket’s accuracy was more than sufficient to allow usage against surface targets, the narrow body diameter restricted the size of any explosive warhead that could be fitted.[1] Therefore, for use against ships and land targets, the rocket was given a warhead consisting of a 45 lb re-fused 5” Mark 35 artillery shell, producing the 5Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket, usually shortened to 5” AR.[3][7]
The resulting rocket was a simple design with four tail fins for stabilization at the rear,[1] powered by a rocket motor that had been under development by Caltech since 1943.[2] The warhead contained no explosive. The 210.3 See also rocket’s nose was a solid steel mass, weighing 20 pounds (9.1 kg), that punctured the pressure hull of a target sub• High Velocity Aircraft Rocket marine through the kinetic energy and momentum from its high velocity and mass.[3] The nose of the 3.5” FFAR • Zuni rocket was given a relatively blunt conical shape that had been shown experimentally to give a maximum pitch-up of • List of rockets the nose as the rocket entered the water. This caused the rocket to shoot forward at a shallow depth deadly to submarines that were surfaced or traveling at snorkel or periscope depth.[4] The rockets were launched in a shal- 210.4 References low dive, since entry into the water at too steep an angle would defeat their ability to shoot forward at the re- Citations quired shallow depth. The rocket remained lethal even after passing through up to 130 feet of water, giving the [1] Parsch 2004 pilot a target several times the actual size of the submarine. The sweet spot for targeting was considered to be [2] von Braun and Ordway 1975, p.98. 60 feet in front of the near side of the submarine. Typi[3] Campbell 1985, p.170. cal firing range was about 1500 yards.[5] 626
210.5. EXTERNAL LINKS
[4] C. W. Snyder, Caltech’s Other Rocket Project: Personal Recollections, pp. 7-10, Engineering & Science, Spring 1991 [5] E.W. Price, C.L. Horine, and C.W. Snyder (July 1998). “EATON CANYON, A History of Rocket Motor Research and Development in the CaltechNDRC-Navy Rocket Program, 1941-1946,”. 34th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Cleveland, Ohio. AIAA. [6] Friedman 1982, p.198. [7] Parsch 2006
Bibliography • Campbell, John (1985). Naval Weapons of World War Two. London: Conway Maritime Press. ISBN 0-87021-459-4. Retrieved 2011-01-24. • Friedman, Norman (1982). U.S. Naval Weapons: every gun, missile, mine, and torpedo used by the U.S. Navy from 1883 to the present day. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-0-87021735-7. Retrieved 2011-01-25. • Parsch, Andreas (2004). “Air-Launched 3.5-Inch Rockets”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Archived from the original on 15 December 2010. Retrieved 201101-24. • Parsch, Andreas (2006). “Air-Launched 5-Inch Rockets”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Archived from the original on 15 December 2010. Retrieved 201101-24. • von Braun, Wernher; Frederick Ira Ordway (1975). History of Rocketry & Space Travel. New York: Crowell. ISBN 978-0-690-00588-2. Retrieved 2011-01-24.
210.5 External links Media related to FFAR rockets at Wikimedia Commons
627
Chapter 211
AUM-N-2 Petrel The AUM-N-2 Petrel was an air-to -surface missile pro- were withdrawn from reserve service and converted to duced by the United States of America. Later variants serve as air-launched target drones. were converted into AQM-41A target drones. In 1962, the remaining Petrel drones were re-designated as the Fairchild AQM-41A. They were finally disposed of shortly afterwards.
211.1 Design and development
The origins of the Petrel date back to the 1950s, when the U.S. Navy Bureau of Ordnance (BuOrd) began the Kingfisher program, intending to develop a series of standoff torpedo weapons. The Kingfisher C, later known as the AUM-2 and then as AUM-N-2 (AUM representing Airto-Underwater Missile), was designed as an air-launched jet-powered missile which carried a torpedo warhead. Various different design options were considered for this missile; the final choice was a Mark 21 homing torpedo, with a Fairchild J44 turbojet engine, wooden fins and wings, and a nose housing guidance equipment. On launch the missile dropped to 60 meters (200 feet) above the water and cruised at Mach 0.5 towards the target, using semi-active radar homing. At a range of just under 1,500 meters (4,600 feet) the engine shut down and all wings and fins were jettisoned. The torpedo dropped on a free trajectory into the water and began to home in on the target. The weapon was suitable for use against surface targets only—primarily ships and surfaced submarines. The AUM-2 was usually carried by the Lockheed P-2 Neptune.
211.2 See also • List of missiles
211.3 References 211.4 External links
Tests of the AUM-2 began in 1951. Development was transferred to Fairchild in 1954, with the project becoming operational in 1956. The Petrel was never considered a very high priority by the U.S. Navy, which was far more concerned about the threat from submarines than surface ships. New submarine designs powered by nuclear reactors were beginning to appear in the mid-1950s, vessels which could remain submerged indefinitely. As a result the prospects of catching an enemy submarine on the surface were receding, and more emphasis was being placed on underwater engagements. The use of semi-active guidance also required the launching aircraft to continue closing the target throughout the missile’s flight, exposing it to a far greater danger from enemy defenses. The AUM-N-2 was initially assigned only to reserve units. In 1959 the missiles 628
• Fairchild AUM-N-2/AQM-41 Petrel
Chapter 212
Mousetrap (weapon) 212.1 Statistics • Round weight: 65 lb (29 kg) • Warhead: 33 lb (15 kg) • Range: about 280m • Firing speed: one round every 3 seconds (maximum) • No. of rails: • Mark 20: 4 • Mark 22: 8
212.2 References Citations [1] “Anti-Submarine Projector Mk 20 & 22 (Mousetrap)". Microworks.net. Retrieved 2013-12-12. [2] “CUYAHOGA, 1927”. US Coast Guard. November 2001. Retrieved 2008-10-08.
4-missile launcher “anti-submarine projector Mark 20”
[3] “Submarine Chaser SC-718”. NavSource Naval History.
Mousetrap (ASW Marks 20 and 22) was an anti- Bibliography submarine rocket used mainly during the Second World War by the U.S. Navy[1] and the U.S. Coast Guard.[2] • Fitzsimons, Bernard, ed. “Mousetrap”, in EncycloIts development was begun in 1941 as a replacement pedia of Twentieth Century Weapons and Warfare, for Hedgehog, a British-made projector, which was the Volume 18, pp. 1946–7. London: Phoebus Pubfirst ahead-throwing ASW weapon. These, however, lishing, 1978. were spigot-launched, placing considerable strain on the launching vessel’s deck, whereas Mousetrap was rocketpropelled. As a result, Mousetrap’s four or eight rails for 7.2-inch (183 mm) rockets saved weight and were easier 212.3 External links to install. • http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMUS_ The rockets weighed 65 pounds (29 kg) each, with a 33ASW.htm pound (15 kg) Torpex warhead and contact pistol, exactly • http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/ like Hedgehog. WAMRussian_ASW.htm By the end of the war, over 100 Mousetrap Mark 22s were mounted in U.S. Navy ships, including three each • http://www.microworks.net/pacific/armament/ on 12 destroyers,[1] and submarine chasers (usually two mk20&22_mousetrap.htm sets of rails).[3] 629
Chapter 213
RUM-139 VL-ASROC The RUM-139 VL-ASROC is an anti-submarine missile in the ASROC family, currently built by the Lockheed Martin company for the U.S. Navy. Design and development of the missile began in 1983 when the Goodyear Aerospace company was contracted by the U.S. Navy to develop a ship-launched antisubmarine missile compatible with the new Mark 41 Vertical Launching System. The development of the VLS ASROC underwent many delays, and it was not deployed on any ships until 1993. During this development, Goodyear Aerospace was bought by the Loral aerospace company in 1986, and this defense division was in turn purchased by Lockheed Martin Aerospace in 1995. The first VLS ASROC missile was an RUR-5 ASROC with an upgraded solid-fuel booster section and a digital guidance system. It carries a lightweight Mark 46 homing torpedo that is dropped from the rocket at a precalculated point on its trajectory, and then parachuted into the sea. Beginning in 1996, the missile was replaced by the newer RUM-139A and subsequently the RUM139B. The torpedo has remained the Mark 46, though at one time an improved torpedo called the Mark 50 was proposed and then cancelled. Since October 2004 the RUM-139C is now in production with the Mark 54 torpedo.[2] The vertical-launched missile first became operational in 1993, with more than 450 having been produced by 2007. It is 4.5 meters (15 ft) in length, with a firing range of about 11.8 nm or 22 kilometers (24,000 yd).[1]
213.1 References [1] Thomas, Vincent C. The Almanac of Seapower 1987 Navy League of the United States (1987) ISBN 09610724-8-2 pp.190-191 [2] http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-139.html
630
Chapter 214
RUR-5 ASROC “ASROC” redirects to this page. For the verticallaunch variant, see RUM-139 VL-ASROC.
ASROC launch from USS Joseph Strauss, in 1978.
The destroyer USS Agerholm fires an ASROC with a nuclear depth bomb in the "Swordfish" test in 1962
1990s, and eventually installed on over 200 USN surface ships, specifically cruisers, destroyers, and frigates. The ASROC has been deployed on scores of warships of many other navies, including Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Republic of China, Greece, Pakistan and others.[3]
214.1 History
ASROC 'Matchbox' reload doors are visible in this photograph of the Japanese Asagiri-class destroyer. Asagiri, formerly DD 151, renumbered TV 3516 after reclassification as a training vessel, seen here on 28 July 2008 departing from Portsmouth Naval Base, UK.
The RUR-5 ASROC (for Anti-Submarine ROCket) is an all-weather, all sea-conditions anti-submarine missile system. Developed by the United States Navy in the 1950s, it was deployed in the 1960s, updated in the
ASROC started development as the Rocket Assisted Torpedo (RAT) program by the Naval Ordnance Test Station at China Lake in the early 1950s to develop a surface warship ASW weapon counter to the new post-World War II submarines which ran quieter, at much higher speed and could attack from much longer range with high speed homing torpedoes. In addition, the goal was to take advantage of modern sonars with a much larger detection range. An extended range torpedo delivered by parachute from the air would allow warships the stand-off capability to attack hostile submarines with very little advance notice to the hostile submarine. The RAT program came in three phases:[4] RAT-A, RAT-B and RAT-C. RATA (and its follow-on, RAT-B) were efforts to develop a compact and economical stand-off ASW for smaller warships, but were found to be either unreliable or had too short a range. RAT-C was a program to develop a standoff ASW weapon that used a nuclear depth charge. This would require a range of at least 8,000 yards to escape
631
632 potential damage from the underwater blast. Unlike the original RAT program rockets, the RAT-C was considerably larger to accomplish the extended range needed and was to be fitted to larger warships. With the failure of both the RAT-A and RAT-B programs, RAT-C was redesigned from a stand-off nuclear ASW weapon to one that could use not only a nuclear depth charge but also a homing ASW torpedo. To obtain the accuracy needed, the RAT-C rocket launcher had to be redesigned with larger side fins. This program finally combined reliability and accuracy, along with the necessary stand-off range. However, before RAT-C reached initial operational status in 1960 aboard the large US Navy destroyerleader USS Norfolk, its name was changed to the present ASROC.[5][6]
214.2 Description
CHAPTER 214. RUR-5 ASROC reload system. These had one standard Mark 112 octuple ASROC launcher, located immediately above a reload system holding an additional 16 assembled rounds (two complete reloads of eight missiles apiece). Thus, each Spruance-class destroyer originally carried a maximum total of 24 ASROC.[8] Most other US Navy and allied navy destroyers, destroyer escorts, frigates, and several different classes of cruisers only carried the one ASROC 'matchbox' MK 112 launcher with eight ASROC missiles (although later in service, some of those missiles could be replaced by the Harpoon anti-ship missile). The “matchbox” Mk 112 launchers were capable of carrying a mixture of the two types. Reloads were carried in many classes, either on first level of the superstructure immediately abaft the launcher, or in a separate deckhouse just forward or abaft the Mk 112.
The MK 16 Launching Group also had configurations that supported RGM-84 Harpoon (onboard Knox-class DeAfter a surface ship, patrol plane or anti-submarine he- stroyer Escorts (Frigates)) or a variation of the Tartar mislicopter detects an enemy submarine by using sonar or sile in limited distribution. other sensors, it could relay the sub’s position to an Ships with the Mk 26 GMLS, and late marks of the ASROC-equipped ship for attack. The attacking ship Mk 10 GMLS aboard the Belknap-class cruisers, could would then fire an ASROC missile carrying an acoustic accommodate ASROC in these power-loaded launchers homing torpedo[7] or a Nuclear Depth Bomb (NDB) onto (the Mk 13 GMLS was not able to fire the weapon, as the an unguided ballistic trajectory toward the target. At a launcher rail was too short). pre-determined point on the missile’s trajectory, the payload separates from the missile and deploys a parachute Most Spruance-class destroyers were later modified to into permit splashdown and water entry at a low speed and clude the Mk 41 VLS, these launchers are capable of carwith minimum detectable noise. The water entry acti- rying a mixture of the RUM-139 VL-ASROC, the Tomvates the torpedo, which is guided by its own sonar sys- ahawk TLAM, and other missiles. All of the Spruance tem, and homes in on the target using either active sonar destroyers carried two separate quad Harpoon launchers. Other US ships with the Mk 41 can also accommodate or passive sonar. VL-ASROC. In cases where the ASROC missile carried an NDB, the unguided bomb would sink quickly to a predetermined depth where it would detonate. The nuclear-armed ASROC was never used beyond one or two tests in 1961-62. 214.4 Operators Eventually the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty banning underwater nuclear tests went into effect. The nuclear Brazilian Navy weapon was never used in combat. An ASROC missile could hypothetically carry a 10 kiloton W44 nuclear warhead, although the W44-armed nuclear weapons were reRoyal Canadian Navy tired by 1989, and all types of nuclear depth bombs were - only on Restigouche-class destroyers (after removed from deployment.[3] IRE/DELEX modification.) The first ASROC system using the MK-112 “Matchbox” launcher, was developed in the 1950s and installed in the 1960s. This system was phased out in the 1990s and replaced with the RUM-139 Vertical Launch ASROC, or “VLA”.[3]
214.3 Specific installations The 31 U.S. Navy Spruance-class destroyers were all built with the Mark 16 Mod 7 ASROC Launching Group and MK 4 ASROC Weapons Handling System (AWHS)
German Navy - only on Lütjens-class destroyers Hellenic Navy Marina Militare - only on Italian cruiser Vittorio Veneto using a Mk 10 GMLS launcher (depot for 40 missiles, between RIM-2 Terrier / RIM-67A SM-1ER and ASROC) Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force
214.7. EXTERNAL LINKS
633
Mexican Navy
[6] Norman Friedman U.S. Destroyers Naval Institute Press (April 1982), ISBN 08702-1733X, p. 280
Republic of Korea Navy
[7] “Asroc” in The New Encyclopædia Britannica. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 15th edn., 1992, Vol. 1, p. 639.
Pakistan Navy Spanish Navy Republic of China Navy Royal Thai Navy
[8] US Destroyers - Norman Friedman
214.7 External links • https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/vla.htm • http://www.gyrodynehelicopters.com/asroc.htm • http://designation-systems.net/dusrm/r-5.html
Turkish Navy United States Navy
214.5 See also • Ikara • Hong Sang Eo (Red Shark) rocket-based torpedo (K-ASROC) • Malafon • MILAS • RUM-139 VL-ASROC • Sea Lance • SUBROC • Terasca
214.6 References [1] Jolie, E.W. (15 September 1978). “A Brief History of US Navy Torpedo Development: ASROC Missile”. Retrieved 21 June 2013. [2] Thomas, Vincent C. The Almanac of Seapower 1987 Navy League of the United States (1987) ISBN 09610724-8-2 pp.190-191 [3] Friedman, Norman (May 1997). The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapons Systems, 1997-1998. Annapolis, Maryland USA: United States Naval Institute Press. p. 668. ISBN 1-55750-268-4. [4] “Navy Homing Torpedoes Fights Subs.” Popular Mechanics, April 1958, p. 108. [5] Bill Gunston Rocket & Missiles, Salamander Books Ltd 1979, ISSB 0-517-26870-1
• DiGiulian, Tony Navweaps.com ASROC page
Chapter 215
RUR-4 Weapon Alpha “Weapon Alpha” redirects here. For the Marvel Comics superhero of the same name, see Guardian (Marvel Comics). The RUR-4 “Weapon Alpha” (originally Weapon Able) was an American naval ahead-throwing ASW rocket launcher. It was designed between 1946 to 1950 and was installed on warships from 1951 to 1969. It was designed to attack enemy submarines without requiring the attacking ship to be located directly above the submarine being attacked.
215.1 References [1] Fitzsimons, Bernard, ed. “Depth Charge”, in Encyclopedia of Twentieth Century Weapons and Warfare (London: Phoebus Publishing Co, 1978), Volume 7, p.730.
215.2 Sources • Fitzsimons, Bernard, ed. Encyclopedia of Twentieth Century Weapons and Warfare (London: Phoebus Publishing Co, 1978), “Weapon Alpha”, Volume 24, p. 2589.
Similar to the earlier American Mousetrap, 375mm (14.8”) Swedish Bofors, and 250mm (9.8”) and 300mm (11.8”) Soviet systems, all of which use multiple rockets, Weapon Alpha was developed toward the end of World War II, in response to the German Type XXI U-boat. Begun in a crash program in 1944–5 and put in service before undergoing operational evaluation, it emerged in 1950 as a 227-kg (500 lb) 127mm (5”) rocket with a 113kg (250 lb) warhead that sank at 12 m/s (40 ft/s) (compared to a depth charge, which sank at between 2.7–5 m/s {8.9–16.5 ft/s}[1] ), an influence or time pistol, and a range of 360–730 m (400–800 yd). Coupled to the new SQG-1 depth-finding sonar (for setting the time fuse, rather than the hydrostatic pistol of a depth charge), it was to be fired from a revolving Mark 108 launcher (with 22 rounds of ready ammunition) at up to twelve rounds per minute. The ready-service magazine could not be reloaded while Weapon Alpha was in use. Large, complex, expensive, and unreliable, Weapon Alpha was made obsolete by Soviet Navy submarines (such as the Whiskey-class) that incorporated design features of the advanced Type XXIs, and it was replaced by ASROC. Nonetheless, Weapon Alpha remained in service through the 1960s until supplanted by ASROC (RUR-5).
• Fitzsimons, Bernard, ed. Encyclopedia of Twentieth Century Weapons and Warfare (London: Phoebus Publishing Co, 1978), “Mousetrap”, Volume 19, pp. 1946-7. • Fitzsimons, Bernard, ed. Encyclopedia of Twentieth Century Weapons and Warfare (London: Phoebus Publishing Co, 1978), “Depth Charge”, Volume 7, p. 730. • Parsch, Andreas (2002). “NOTS RUR-4 Weapon Alpha”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-0128. • DiGiulian, Tony Navweaps.com US ASW weapons page
215.3 See also
• A dismounted Mk 108 launcher at the Intrepid SeaAir-Space Museum. • The RUR-4’s rocket round. • RUR-4 launch from USS Wilkinson (DL-5), 1956. 634
Chapter 216
UUM-44 SUBROC “SUBROC” redirects here. For the hip-hop artist, see charge of weapons procurement stated that SUBROC was DJ Subroc. For the video game, see SubRoc-3D. " .. a more difficult technical problem than Polaris.” [3] SUBROC was never used in combat, and all were decommissioned following the end of the Cold War in 1989. The UUM-44 SUBROC (SUBmarine ROCket) was a type of submarine-launched rocket deployed by the Because the nuclear warhead was an integral part of the weapon, SUBROC could not be exported to other navies, United States Navy as an anti-submarine weapon. It carand there is no evidence that any were supplied to other ried a 5 kiloton nuclear warhead.[1] NATO allies under the well-established arrangements for supplying other dual-key nuclear weapons. Towards the end of the 1970s, a planned successor, the UUM-125 Sea 216.1 Development Lance, was frequently delayed due to funding problems and eventually canceled.
216.2 Operation SUBROC could be launched from a 21 inch submarine torpedo tube. After launch, the solid fuel rocket motor fires and SUBROC rises to the surface. The launch angle then changes and SUBROC flies to its destination following a predetermined ballistic trajectory. At a predetermined time in the trajectory, the reentry vehicle (containing the warhead) separates from the solid fuel motor. The warhead, a W55 1 to 5 kiloton[1] nuclear depth bomb, drops into the water, sinking rapidly before exploding in proximity to its target. A direct hit was not necessary.
Subroc launch sequence, 1964.
Subroc in Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center
Development began in 1958, with the technical evaluation being completed in 1963. That year, the US Navy received the first rounds and soon reached Initial Operation Capability (IOC) aboard the attack submarine Permit.[2] When SUBROC reached IOC The US Navy’s admiral in
Technically, its tactical use was as an urgent-attack longrange weapon that could attack time-urgent submarine targets that could not be attacked with any other weapon without betraying the position of the launching submarine by calling for an air-strike, or where the target was too distant to be attacked quickly with a torpedo launched from the submarine. The tactical rationale for SUBROC was similar to that for ASROC or Ikara. An added advantage was that SUBROC’s approach to the target was not detectable by the target in time to take evasive action, although the warhead yield would appear to make evasive maneuvers unrealistic. However, SUBROC was less flexible in its use than Ikara or ASROC: since its only payload was a nuclear warhead, it could not be used to provide stand-off fire in a conventional (i.e., non-nuclear) engagement.
635
636
216.3 See also • RUR-5 ASROC • RUM-139 VL-ASROC • Ikara (missile) • RPK-2 Viyuga • List of nuclear weapons • Sea Lance
216.4 References [1] Nuclear Notebook, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, June 1988 [2] note: ASROC was originally supposed to reach IOC with the attack submarine USS Thresher but sank before any missiles were loaded and tested on it. [3] Bill Gunston Rocket & Missiles, Salamander Books Ltd 1979, ISSB 0-517-26870-1
• Jackson, Robert. Submarines of the World, Pg. 312
216.5 External links • Astronautix article on the UUM-44A
CHAPTER 216. UUM-44 SUBROC
Chapter 217
4.5-Inch Beach Barrage Rocket The 4.5-Inch Beach Barrage Rocket, also known as "Old Faithful",[1] was a 4.5-inch (110 mm) rocket developed and used by the United States Navy during World War II. Originally developed from the "Mousetrap" antisubmarine rocket, it saw widespread use during the war, being replaced by more powerful rockets toward the end of the conflict.
The 4.5-Inch BBR also saw use as an improvised shipto-ship weapon, as well as being launched from groundbased launchers; it is credited with the first ship to be sunk by another purely by rocket attack, occurring near Ormoc in December 1944.[10] Toward the end of the war, the Beach Barrage Rocket was replaced in service by the 5 in (130 mm) High Velocity Spinner Rocket.[3]
217.1 Development
217.3 References
Developed during 1942 by the California Institute of 217.3.1 Citations Technology (Caltech), under the direction of Charles [1] Ordway and Wakeford 1960, p.77. Christian Lauritsen,[2] in response to a requirement by the United States Navy for a rocket capable of being [2] Fowler 1975, p.229. launched from landing craft to provide fire support during amphibious landings, the 4.5-Inch BBR was an im- [3] Rottman 2009, p.19. proved version of the Mousetrap anti-submarine rocket system, using the Mousetrap’s Mk 3 rocket motor mated [4] Parsch 2006 to a 20-pound (9.1 kg) general purpose aerial bomb.[3] An [5] Friedman 1983, p.232. impact fuse was mounted in the nose of the rocket, with an annular fin assembly providing stability.[4] A modified, [6] Rottman 2009, p.20. larger version of the Beach Barrage Rocket, using the Mk 9 rocket motor, was also produced, being introduced into [7] Gruntman 2004, p.181. service in late 1944.[3][4] [8] Burchard 1948, p.129. [9] “Zoom Boats Sock Like Battleships”. Popular Science (New York: Popular Science Publishing Co.) 146 (3): 82–84, 232. March 1945.
217.2 Operational history
[10] Ordway and Wakeford 1960, p.78.
First test fired on June 24, 1942, further tests in August proved sufficiently successful for the Navy Bureau of Ordnance to place an initial order for 3,000 Beach Bar- 217.3.2 Bibliography rage Rockets;[5] the weapon was introduced into combat service that November, during the invasion of northern • Burchard, John Ely (1948). Rockets, Guns and TarAfrica.[3] Fired from 12-round launchers[6] and capable gets: Rockets, Target Information, Erosion Inforof being fitted with either the standard high explosive or mation, and Hypervelocity Guns Developed during a white phosphorus warhead,[3] approximately 1,600,000 World War II by the Office of Scientific Research examples of the BBR were built;[7] although the rocket and Development. Boston: Atlantic Monthly Press. proved inaccurate in service, it was widely used, and was ASIN B007Q9FZ2G. highly regarded by members of the amphibious forces.[8] The effect on the target of the Beach Barrage Rocket was • Fowler, William A. (1975). “Charles Christian described as being equivalent to that of a barrage from Lauritsen”, in Biographical Memoirs. National heavy mortars.[9] Academy of Sciences. ISBN 0-309-02240-1. 637
638 • Friedman, Norman (1983). U.S. Naval Weapons: Every gun, missile, mine, and torpedo used by the U.S. Navy from 1883 to the present day. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-087021-735-7. • Gruntman, Mike (2004). Blazing The Trail: The Early History Of Spacecraft And Rocketry. Reston, Virginia: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. ISBN 978-1-56347-705-8. • Ordway, Frederick Ira; Ronald C. Wakeford (1960). International Missile and Spacecraft Guide. New York: McGraw-Hill. ASIN B000MAEGVC. • Parsch, Andreas (2006). “4.5-Inch BBR”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles Appendix 4: Undesignated Vehicles. Designation-Systems.net. Retrieved 2012-04-08. • Rottman, Gordon L. (2009). Landing Craft, Infantry and Fire Support. New Vanguard 157. Oxford, England: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-184603-435-0.
CHAPTER 217. 4.5-INCH BEACH BARRAGE ROCKET
Chapter 218
7.2-Inch Demolition Rocket The 7.2-Inch Demolition Rocket, also known as the 218.3 References T37, was a 7.2-inch (180 mm) rocket developed and used by the United States military during World War II. De- Citations rived from the "Mousetrap" anti-submarine rocket, it was intended for use in demolishing concrete bunkers and for[1] “U.S. ROCKET, 7.2-IN, DEMOLITION, T37”. ORtifications, and saw use from August 1944. DATA Online. Mine Action Information Center. Retrieved 24 May 2012.
218.1 Development
[2] von Braun, Ordway III and Dooling 1985, p.97.
The 7.2-Inch Demolition Rocket was developed by Section L of the National Defense Research Committee, located at Caltech,[2] in late 1943 as a modification of the existing “mousetrap” (7.2-Inch ASW Rocket) rocket for use against heavily fortified ground targets. Assigned to the United States Navy for development and production in July 1944,[3] two versions of the rocket were produced; the T37 HE Demolition Rocket and the T21 Chemical Warfare Rocket.[4] An additional high-explosive rocket, the T24, was planned, but was dropped in favor of the T37.[5] The rockets utilized a standard 2.25-inch (57 mm) rocket motor, fitted with a larger-diameter warhead; a longer-ranged version utilizing a 3.5-inch (89 mm) motor was also produced.[6]
[3] Hearings of the Committee on Expenditures in the Execuitive Departments. United States House of Representatives. 1947. p. 117. [4] 7.2-Inch Multiple Rocket Launcher M17. Technical Manual. TM9-296. Washington, D.C.: War Department. 9 January 1945. pp. 26–27. [5] Ordnance School Text: Rockets and Launchers, All Types. Aberdeen, Maryland: Ordnance School, Aberdeen Proving Grounds. February 1944. p. 93. [6] “Rocket, Solid Fuel, H.E. (High Explosive), 7.2in.”. National Air and Space Museum. Smithsonian Institution. Retrieved 2012-02-29. [7] Parsch 2006 [8] Baxter 1968, p.114.
218.2 Operational history
[9] Zaloga 2011, pp.35-36
The T37 saw its first operational use during Operation [10] Zaloga 2012, p.16. Dragoon, the invasion of southern France, in August 1944,[7] fired from 120-round “Woofus” launch- [11] TM 5–220: Passage Of Obstacles Other Than Mine Fields. War Department Technical Manual. United States War ers mounted aboard Landing Craft Rocket vessels Department. July 1945. p. 50. offshore.[8] The rocket was also intended to be fired from tanks for the clearing of bunkers and anti-tank obstacles. The Bibliography initial launcher, dubbed “Cowcatcher”, was mounted on the front of M4 Sherman tanks;[9] it was quickly • Baxter, James Phinney (1968). Scientists Against found unsatisfactory, and was replaced by 20-round (T40 Time. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. “Whiz Bang”)[10] and 24-round (“Grand Slam”) launchp. 114. ISBN 978-0-262-52012-6. ers mounted atop the tank’s turret.[7][9] The 20-round • Parsch, Andreas (2006). “Surface-Launched 7.2launcher could fire its entire loadout of rockets in apInch Rockets”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockproximately 10 seconds;[11] however the tank installation was unpopular with crews, as the launcher prevented the ets and Missiles Appendix 4: Undesignated Vehicles. tank’s turret hatches from being opened.[9] Designation-Systems.net. Retrieved 2012-02-29. 639
640 • von Braun, Wernher; Frederick I. Ordway III; Dave Dooling (1985). Space Travel: A History : An Update of History of Rocketry & Space Travel. New York: Harper & Row. ISBN 978-0-06-181898-1. • Zaloga, Stephen (2011). Armored Attack 1944: U.S. Army Tank Combat in the European Theater from D-Day to the Battle of the Bulge. Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania: Stackpole Books. pp. 35–36. ISBN 978-0-8117-0769-5. • Zaloga, Stephen (2012). US Marine Corps Tanks of World War II. New Vanguard 186. New York: Osprey Publishing. p. 16. ISBN 978-1-84908-560-1.
CHAPTER 218. 7.2-INCH DEMOLITION ROCKET
Chapter 219
Lobber The Lobber was a surface-to-surface cargo missile developed during the mid 1950s by Convair for use by the United States Army. Intended to deliver supplies to troops in combat, it was successfully tested, but failed to go into production.
[3] Walker and Powell 2005, p.286. [4] Rottman 2013, p.117. [5] Parsch 2003 [6] Cromley, Ray (December 31, 1958). “Cargo Missiles to Supply Mobile Army”. The Owosso Argus-Press (Owosso, MI). p. 21. Retrieved 2014-05-17.
219.1 History
Inspired by the use of artillery shells to resupply sur- [7] Griswold 1959, p.117. rounded troops during the Battle of the Bulge,[1] a con[8] “In Brief”. Flight and Aircraft Engineer (London: Iliffe tract for the development of a cargo missile was awarded and Sons) 74 (2604): 933. 19 December 1958. Retrieved to Convair in 1958 by the U.S. Army.[2] Developed by 2014-05-17. a team led by Bill Chana,[3] the missile was capable of delivering 50 pounds (23 kg) of cargo over a distance [9] Yenne 2006, p.48. of approximately 8 miles (13 km); once the rocket motor burned out, a parachute was deployed to deliver the [10] “ASW Problems Attacked”. Naval Aviation News (Washington, D.C.: Navy Department, Bureau of Aeronautics) cargo.[2] A portable, mortar-like launcher was used;[4] it 40 (5): 10. May 1959. allowed for a three-man team to transport and fire the [5] missile; Lobber was described as being able to reliably hit a target “within the length of a football field” and was [11] Griswold 1959, p.236. expected to cost less than $1,000 USD per round.[6] It was proposed that modular cargo sections be pre-packaged Bibliography with supplies, with nose and tail sections attached to the needed section just before launch.[7] • Griswold, Wesley S. (April 1959). “America’s SuThe first test launch took place in December 1958 at personic Cargo Rocket”. Popular Science (New Camp Irwin in California.[8] Flight testing proved highly York: Popular Science Publishing Co.) 174 (4). successful, and Convair proposed variants with explosive, chemical, and nuclear warheads;[2] the United States Ma• Rottman, Gordon L. (2013). The Big Book of Gun rine Corps also considered adopting the missile,[9] and it Trivia. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978was also proposed to develop a variant for anti-submarine 1782009504. Retrieved 2014-05-17. warfare usage by the United States Navy.[10] Larger vari• Parsch, Andreas (2003). “Convair Lobber”. Direcants were also proposed, as well as civilian usage for tory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles, Appendix firefighting.[11] However the inherent inaccuracy of the 4: Undesignated Vehicles. designation-systems.net. unguided, solid-fueled rocket,[2] combined with logistical Retrieved 2014-05-17. issues, meant that Lobber was not adopted for service.[5] • Walker, Chuck; Joel Powell (2005). Atlas: The Ultimate Weapon. Burlington, Ontario: Apogee Books. ISBN 978-1894959186.
219.2 References Citations
• Yenne, Bill (2006). Secret Gadgets and Strange Gizmos: High-Tech (and Low-Tech) Innovations of the U.S. Military. Minneapolis, MN: Zenith Press. ISBN 978-0760321157.
[1] Griswold 1959, p.116. [2] Yenne 2006, p.47.
641
642
219.3 External links • Media related to Lobber (missile) at Wikimedia Commons
CHAPTER 219. LOBBER
Chapter 220
M16 (rocket) The M16 was a 4.5-inch (110 mm) spin-stabilized unguided rocket developed by the United States Army during the Second World War. Entering service in April 1945 to replace the earlier fin-stabilised M8 rocket, it was used late in the war and also during the Korean War before being removed from service.
220.1 Development Developed during the latter stages of the Second World War, the M16 was the first 4.5-inch (110 mm) unguided, spin-stabilized rocket to be standardized for production by the United States Army.[1] 31 inches (790 mm) in 4.5 inch rockets fired in Korea length, it could hit targets as far as 5,200 yd (4,800 m) from its launcher.[2] The M16 was launched from T66 “Honeycomb” 24-tube launchers,[3] and could also 220.3 See also be fired from 60-tube “Hornet’s Nest” launchers.[1] The • Multiple rocket launcher United States Marine Corps developed launching systems for the M16 rocket as well, capable of being fitted to • Katyusha rocket launcher standard 3/4 and 2.5-ton trucks.[3] A version of the M16 rocket for single launchers, the M20, was developed as a derivative; practice rounds designated M17 and M21 220.4 References were also manufactured.[4] Citations
220.2 Operational history
[1] Parsch 2006 [2] Comparato 1965, p. 295
A unit of “Honeycombs” was deployed to the European Theater of Operations in May 1945, and saw limited ac- [3] Zaloga 2007, p.19 tion in Czechoslovakia before the end of the war; only [4] Ordnance Committee Minutes 27687, Research and Debeing used in a single engagement.[5] Two of five battalvelopment Service, Office of the Chief of Ordnance. 17 ions equipped with the M16 were deployed to the Pacific May 1945. Theater of Operations, being stationed on Okinawa and in The Philippines, however the war ended before these [5] Bishop 1998, p. 175 units could see combat.[3] The M16 remained in service [6] Turner 1990, p.20 with the U.S. Marine Corps following the war, with a single 18-launcher battery equipping each Marine Division; [7] “The Modern Era: 1950-2000”. Huachuca Illustrated (Fort Huachuca, Arizona: Fort Huachuca Museum) 10: these saw combat service during the Korean War,[6] as [1] 36. 1999. did U.S. Army launchers, the M16 fired from the T66 launcher being considered one of the “principal artillery Bibliography weapons in the Korean War inventory”.[7] 643
644 • Bishop, Chris, ed. (1998). The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II. New York: Orbis. ISBN 1-58663-762-2. • Comparato, Frank (1965). Age of Great Guns: Cannon Kings and Cannoneers Who Forged the Firepower of Artillery. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books. ASIN B001KJR32I. • Parsch, Andreas (2006). “4.5-Inch Barrage Rockets”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles Appendix 4: Undesignated Vehicles. DesignationSystems.net. Retrieved 2012-05-30. • Turner, David J. (1990-03-29). “MLRS": A Rocket System for the Marine Corps. Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War College. AD-A223 182. • Zaloga, Stephen (2007). US Field Artillery of World War II. New Vanguard 131. New York: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84603-061-1.
CHAPTER 220. M16 (ROCKET)
Chapter 221
M8 (rocket) The M8 was a 4.5-inch (110 mm) rocket developed and used by the United States military during World War II. Produced in the millions, it was fired from both airand ground-based launchers; it was replaced by the M16 rocket in 1945.
bat, while the “xylophone”, officially the T27, was carried on a 2½-ton truck’s cargo bed.[1] A 120-round launcher, designated T44, and a 144-round T45 launcher were also developed; these were intended for use by the United States Navy, being mounted on DUKW amphibious vehicles and LST amphibious warfare vessels. Single- and twin-14-round launchers were also developed.[1]
221.1 Development
The M8 showed poor effectiveness against hardened targets;[2] this resulted in the development of the Super The M8 rocket was developed by the National De- M8, which had larger fins, a more powerful rocket and a testfense Research Committee and the Army Ordnance De- more powerful warhead. The Super M8 underwent [2] The M8 was [2] [3] ing in late 1944, but failed to see combat. partment in the early 1940s; at Picatinny Arsenal. replaced by the improved spin-stabilized M16 rocket durGround tests began in 1941, while the first air launch of [1][4] the system was conducted in 1942, from a Curtiss P-40 ing 1945. pursuit aircraft.[2] It was fin stabilized, and had a diameter of 4.5 in (110 mm).[4] The initial production model was given the Army designation of M8; improvements resulted in the M8A3, with a more powerful rocket engine and enlarged fins,[1] and the T22, which had improved reliability and modifications to make the rocket safer.[2]
221.3 See also • Rocket artillery
• RP-3 - British air-launched rocket • Land Mattress, British ground-launched rocket battery based on RP-3
221.2 Operational history 221.4 References Entering service in 1943, the M8 family of rockets saw service with the United States Army, which classified the M8 as a “barrage rocket”.[2] The rocket was also widely used by the United States Army Air Forces.[2] Over 2,500,000 of the M8 type rocket had been produced by the end of the war.[1] Operational service showed some drawbacks in the M8’s performance; ground launch resulted in the rockets’ fin stabilizers proving ineffective,[4] reducing the accuracy of the rocket; despite this, it was considered an effective barrage weapon.[5] Due to the lack of accuracy, when ground-launched, it was being launched from large multiple launchers; the most commonly used being eightand 60-tube launchers, called “xylophones” and “calliopes” respectively.[1][2] The “calliope”, given the official designation T34, was mounted on top of a M4 Sherman tank; once fired, the launcher could be detached and discarded, allowing the tank to be used in conventional com645
[1] Chris Bishop, ed. (1998). The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II. New York: Orbis. p. 175. ISBN 158663-762-2. [2] Parsch, Andreas (2006). “Air-Launched 4.5-Inch Rockets”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles, Appendix 4: Undesignated Vehicles. Designation-Systems. Retrieved 2012-01-19. [3] Lassman, Thomas C. (2008). Sources of Weapon Systems Innovation in the Department of Defense: The Role of In-House Research and Development, 1945-2000. United States Army Center of Military History. p. 22. ISBN 978-1-4609-5845-2. Center of Military History Publication 51-2-1. [4] Parsch, Andreas (2006). “U.S. Army 4.5-Inch Barrage & Bombardment Rockets”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles, Appendix 4: Undesignated Vehicles. Designation-Systems. Retrieved 2012-01-19.
646
[5] van Riper, A. Boudoin (2004). Rockets and Missiles: The Life Story of a Technology. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 44. ISBN 978-0-80188792-5.
221.5 External links • 4.5 inch rocket in Smithsonian collection • War Department Technical Manual 9-395 4.5” Aircraft Rocket Matériel • War Department Technical Manual 9-394 4.5” Ground Rocket Matériel
CHAPTER 221. M8 (ROCKET)
Chapter 222
RTV-A-3 NATIV The RTV-A-3 NATIV was an experimental missile program, developed by North American Aviation for the United States Air Force in the late 1940s to test and evaluate guided missile technologies. Originally given the project number MX-770,[1] NATIV - the North American Test Instrument Vehicle - was influenced by the design of the Wasserfall surface-to-air missile developed in Germany during World War II.[2] Used as a test vehicle for missile technology on behalf of the SM-64 Navaho project,[1] information on the results of the NATIV project are inconsistent. with some sources claiming six successes of 20 launch attempts,[2] while others suggest only one of six launch attempts was a partial success.[3]
222.1 References Notes [1] Jacobs and Whitney 1962, p.118. [2] Parsch 2003 [3] Wade, Mark (ed.) "Nativ". Encyclopedia Astronautica. Accessed 2014-05-08.
Bibliography • Jacobs, Hoarce; Eunice Whitney (1962). Missile and Space Projects Guide: 1962. New York: Plenum Press. ISBN 978-1489969675. • Parsch, Andreas (2003). “RTV-A-3”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designationsystems.net. Retrieved 2014-05-08.
647
Chapter 223
Urban Assault Weapon The Urban Assault Weapon is a U.S. Army program to develop a next-generation shoulder-launched infantry weapon to replace the current M72 LAW, M136 AT-4, and M141 Bunker Defeat Munition.[1]
223.1 See also • FGM-172 SRAW
223.2 References [1] “Urban Assault Weapon (UAW) - PM CCS”.
223.3 External links • Urban Assault Weapon (UAW) - Global Security
648
Chapter 224
Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon The Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon (SMAW) is a shoulder-launched rocket weapon, based on the Israeli B-300, with the primary function of being a portable assault weapon (e.g. bunker buster) and a secondary anti-armor rocket launcher. It was introduced to the United States armed forces in 1984.[1] It has a maximum range of 500 metres (550 yd) against a tank-sized target.
To SMAW”.[3] The contract was awarded to Lockheed Martin and IMI[4] and thus resulted in the enhanced FGM-172 SRAW. In combat operations it was ultimately used to augment rather than to replace existing SMAW inventories.
It can be used to destroy bunkers and other fortifications during assault operations as well as other designated targets with the dual mode rocket and to destroy main battle tanks with the HEAA rocket. Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq saw a thermobaric rocket added (described as NE—"Novel Explosive”), capable of collapsing a building.[2]
224.1.2 SMAW II program
224.1 Service history The SMAW system (launcher, ammunition and logistics support) was fielded in 1984 as a United States Marine Corps–unique system. The Mod-0 demonstrated several shortcomings, resulting in a series of modifications in the mid-2000s. These modifications include a re-sleeving process for bubbled launch tubes, rewriting/drafting operator and technical manuals, and a kit to reduce environmental intrusion into the trigger mechanism. This also includes an optical sight modification to allow the new HEAA rocket to be used effectively against moving armor targets. The U.S. military recently fielded new boresight bracket kits which, when installed, correct the loss of accurate boresight issues between the launch tube and spotting rifle. During Operation Desert Storm 150 launchers and 5,000 rockets were deployed by the United States Army. Since then the Army has shown increased interest in the system.
In 2008 a replacement program was again initiated and titled the SMAW II.[5] Developed in tandem with a round capable of being fired from an enclosed area without ill effects on environment and personnel. It weighs a combined 29.7 pounds (13.5 kg) (11.7 pounds for the launcher, 18 pounds for the rocket) and the contract is worth US$51.7 million providing the U.S. Marine Corps is satisfied with testing and follows through with plans to buy 1,717 new launchers.
224.1.3 SMAW II Serpent
Raytheon under the direction of Nammo-Talley Defense Systems are working in coordination on the SMAW II project to develop the newest launcher. Nammo-Talley Defense Systems is developing the new rounds. The SMAW II launcher is called “Serpent” by the developing companies, and is similar in many respects to the first SMAW launcher, except it replaces the standard SMAW launcher’s spotting gun with a sophisticated fire control electronics built by Raytheon. The sighting unit is enclosed on the launcher in a unique roll-cage to protect it. From videos the roll-cage also serves as a carry handle. Development teams claim that over-all weight is reduced by four and one half pounds from the older SMAW launcher. The “Serpent” fires the same rounds as the stan224.1.1 Follow-On To SMAW dard SMAW and supports new and improved/enhanced In 2002, the Corps began a program to develop a succes- rounds. Raytheon at AUSA 2010 convention stated it sor to the SMAW system, tentatively titled “Follow-On would be ready for deployment by 2012.[6][7] 649
650
CHAPTER 224. SHOULDER-LAUNCHED MULTIPURPOSE ASSAULT WEAPON 90 metres (300 ft). The resultant shock wave can even cause sympathetic detonation of unsecured ammunition. Rounds are under development that would enable a user to fire the rocket from an enclosed building without risk of injury.[9]
Infantrymen from the 15th MEU at Camp Rhino on 25 November 2001.
224.2 Design The Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon has an 83.5mm tube and fires 83-millimetre (3.3 in) rockets. It is a man-portable weapon system consisting of the MK153 launcher, the MK 3 encased HEDP rocket, the MK 6 encased HEAA rocket, and the MK217 spotting rifle cartridge. The launcher consists of a fiberglass launch tube, a 9mm spotting rifle, an electro-mechanical firing mechanism, open battle sights and a mount for the MK42 Day Sight and AN/PVS-17B night sights.
A newer MK153 Mod 2 variant is currently in development. It features a modular ballistic sight (MBS) in place of the 9 mm spotting system. The MBS has a laser range finder and thermal weapon sight to provide a firing solution using a displaced reticle, where crosshairs are adjusted for distance and environmental factors. The MBS is lighter, more reliable, and can be detached from the launcher. While the Mod 0 weighs 16.5 lb, the Mod 2 weighs 13 lb with the MBS attached, and 8.5 lb with the MBS detached. Other improvements include increased pad size on the forward grip and foldable backup sights.[10] Mod 2 improvements are to be ready for fielding by early 2017.[9]
224.2.1 Rockets
The High Explosive, Dual Purpose (HEDP) rocket is effective against bunkers, masonry and concrete walls and light armor. Initiated by a crush switch in its nose the HEDP rocket is able to distinguish between hard and soft targets resulting in greater penetration into soft targets for increased damage potential. The HEDP round is capable The SMAW MK153 Mod 0 launcher, based on Israel of penetrating 20 centimetres (7.9 in) of concrete, 30 cenMilitary Industries' B-300 weapon, consists of the launch timetres (12 in) of brick or up to 210 centimetres (6.9 ft) tube, the spotting rifle, the firing mechanism and mount- of wood-reinforced sandbags. ing brackets. The launch tube is made of fiberglass-epoxy The High Explosive Anti-Armor (HEAA) rocket is efcomposite material with a gelcoat on the bore. The spotfective against current tanks without additional armor and ting rifle, a British design (derived from the LAW 80), utilizes a standoff rod on the detonator, allowing the exis mounted on the right side of the launch tube. The firplosive force to be focused on a small point and for maxiing mechanism mechanically fires the spotting rifle and mum damage against armored targets. The HEAA round uses a magneto to fire the rocket. The mounting brackets is capable of penetrating up to the equivalent of 60 cenconnect the components and provide the means for boretimetres (24 in) of rolled homogeneous steel. sighting the weapon while the encased rockets are loaded at the rear of the launcher. The spotting cartridges are The Novel Explosive (SMAW-NE) rocket is effective against caves and bunkers. The SMAW-NE uses a stored in a magazine in the cap of the encased rocket. thermobaric warhead which produces an overpressure The 9 mm spotting round is ballistically matched to the wave capable of collapsing a lightly constructed buildrocket and serves to increase the gunner’s first-round hit ing. The Naval Surface Warfare Center teamed with the probability. Each round consists of a special 9mm tracer Marine Corps Systems Command, NSWC Indian Head bullet, crimped into a 7.62x51mm NATO casing with a and Talley Defense Systems responded to an urgent U.S. .22 Hornet blank cartridge for propellant.[8] The system Marine Corps need for a shoulder-launched enhancedcan be used in conjunction with the AN/PEQ-4 aiming blast warhead in 2003. It was used in combat during both light in place of the spotting rifle. the First and Second offensives in Fallujah 2004. Training is accomplished with the MK7 Mod 0 encased common practice rocket and the MK213 Mod 0 noise cartridge. At 152.3 decibels, the weapon is one of the 224.3 Users loudest on the battlefield, second only to a mine-clearing line charge. • Pakistan army Like many other rocket weapons, backblast is a significant safety concern. The backblast extends in a 90-meter, 60° • Lebanese Armed Forces cone to the rear of the weapon. The backblast is lethal • Republic of China Marine Corps out to 30 metres (98 ft), and still extremely dangerous to
224.5. REFERENCES •
United States Marine Corps
224.4 See also • IMI Shipon • STRIM • Carl Gustav • Folgore
224.5 References [1] Staff. “United States Marine Corps Weapons & Equipment Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon (SMAW)". About.com. Retrieved 8 May 2014. [2] GlobalSecurity.org [3] “Follow-On To SMAW (FOTS) – Global Security”. [4] “LOCKHEED MARTIN TO DEVELOP FOLLOW-ON TO SHOULDER-LAUNCHED MULTI-PURPOSE ASSAULT WEAPON FOR U.S. MARINE CORPS”. [5] Lamothe, Dan (November 8, 2010). “Redesigned SMAW II set for review”. Marine Corps Times. Retrieved 8 November 2010. [6] DefenseNews video at Association of the US Army 2010 Convention [7] Accurate and Safe Alternative Targeting Solution for Man Portable Rocket Weapon (PDF file) [8] 9 x 51mm SMAW – International Ammunition Association [9] SMAW upgrade will put rounds on targets faster MarineCorpstimes.com, 3 November 2014 [10] “New Modular Ballistic Sight Added to Marine SMAW”. Military.com. DVIDS. 7 August 2013. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
•
This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the United States Marine Corps.
• SMAW – Global Security • SMAW at FAS • SMAW early article
651
Chapter 225
RIM-7 Sea Sparrow RIM-7 Sea Sparrow is a US ship-borne short-range antiaircraft and anti-missile weapon system, primarily intended for defense against anti-ship missiles. The system was developed in the early 1960s from the AIM7 Sparrow air-to-air missile as a lightweight "point defense" weapon that could be retrofitted to existing ships as quickly as possible, often in place of existing gun-based anti-aircraft weapons. In this incarnation it was a very simple system, guided by a manually aimed radar illuminator. Since its introduction, the Sea Sparrow has undergone significant development and now resembles the AIM-7 only in general form; it is larger, faster and includes a new seeker and a launch system suitable for vertical launch from modern warships. Fifty years after its development, the Sea Sparrow remains an important part of a layered air defense system, providing a short/mediumrange component especially useful against sea-skimming missiles.
225.1 History 225.1.1
ance from the launching aircraft and terminal guidance on the missile itself. These systems allowed the aircraft to launch their attacks from outside the range of shipboard anti-aircraft weapons, in relative safety. Only the presence of defensive fighters operating at long ranges from the ships could provide cover against these attacks, by attacking the launch aircraft before they could close on the ships. US Navy doctrine stressed long-range air cover to counter both high-speed aircraft and missiles, and development of newer short range defenses had been largely ignored. While developing expensive long-range fighters like the Douglas F6D Missileer, most ships were left equipped with older weapons, typically Bofors 40 mm guns or Oerlikon 20 mm cannons. By the early 1960s their capability against modern aircraft and missiles was limited; a lack of fast-reacting mounts, gunsight radars of limited accuracy, and long settling times for the fire control systems all meant that the guns were unlikely to be able to respond effectively against high-speed aircraft. The introduction of sea-skimming missiles dramatically increased the threat against these ships. Unlike the earlier generation of anti-ship missiles (ASMs), sea-skimmers approached at low level, like an attack aircraft, hiding themselves until the last moment. The missiles were relatively small and much harder to hit than an attacking aircraft. While the older defences might be considered a credible threat to a large aircraft at low altitude or a missile approaching at higher altitudes, against a sea-skimming missile they were useless. To successfully counter this threat, ships needed new weapons able to attack these targets as soon as they appeared, accurately enough to give them a high first-attempt kill probability there would be little time for a second attempt.
Background
High-speed jet aircraft flying at low altitudes presented a serious threat to naval forces in the late 1950s. Approaching under the local horizon of the ships, the aircraft would suddenly appear at relatively close ranges, giving the ships only seconds to respond before the aircraft dropped their payloads and withdrew. This gave the aircraft an enormous advantage over earlier weapons such as dive bombers or torpedo bombers, whose low speed allowed them to be attacked with some effectiveness by anti-aircraft guns. The advantage was so great that when the Royal Navy was faced by the threat of the new Soviet Sverdlov class cruiser, they responded in a non-linear fashion by introducing the Blackburn Buccaneer aircraft 225.1.2 to attack them.[1] Further improving the capabilities of aircraft against ships were a variety of precision-guided weapons. Early designs were first used in World War II with manually controlled weapons such as the Fritz X, and evolving into semi-autonomous cruise missiles, such as the Raduga KS1 Komet, that relied on a combination of initial guid-
Point defence (PDMS)
missile
system
The US Army faced a similar problem defending against attacks by high-speed jet-powered attack aircraft. In this case the local horizon was generally even more limited, blocked by trees and hills, and engagement times could be measured in seconds. They concluded that a gun-based
652
225.1. HISTORY
653
system was simply unusable in this role; by the time the 225.1.3 radar had locked-on and the gunsight calculated proper “lead” there would be no time to shoot at the target while it was within a gun’s relatively short range. Missiles, on the other hand, could progressively tune their approach while they were flying toward the target, and their proximity fuses meant they only needed to get “close enough”.
Basic point defence missile system (BPDMS)
In 1959 the Army started development of the MIM-46 Mauler, which mounted a new high-speed missile on top of the ubiquitous M113 Armored Personnel Carrier chassis, along with a medium-range search radar and a separate tracking and illumination radar. In order to deal with the quick response times needed, the fire control system was semi-automatic; operators would view targets on the search radar and prioritize them, the fire control system would select ones within attack range and automatically slew the missiles toward them and launch. Since the missile would be operating close to the ground in highly cluttered environments, it used a combination of beam riding along the illumination radar and an infrared seeker in the nose, which allowed tracking as long as either the path in Mark 115 manned director, initially used to guide a Sea Sparrow front or in rear of the missile remained free of obstruc- to its target as a part of BPDMS. tions. Quickly organizing the “Basic Point Defense Missile System”, BPDMS, the then-current AIM-7E from the F-4 Phantom was adapted to shipboard use with surprising speed. The main developments were the new Mark 25 trainable launcher developed from the ASROC launcher, and the Mark 115 manually aimed radar illuminator that looked like two large searchlights. Operation was extremely simple; the operator would be cued to targets via voice commands from the search radar operators, and he then slewed the illuminator onto the target. The relatively wide beam of the radar only needed to be in the general direction of the target, the continuous wave signal being Doppler shifted by the moving target and showing up strongly even if it was not centered in the beam. The The Navy’s confidence in Mauler proved misplaced; by launcher would automatically follow the motions of the 1963 the program had been downgraded to a pure techilluminator, so that when the missile was fired it would nology development effort due to continued problems, immediately see the signal being reflected off the target. and was canceled outright in 1965. All three of the stakeholders, the US Army, US Navy and British Army, In this form the Sea Sparrow was tested on the USS [3] started looking for a replacement. While the British took Bradley starting in February 1967, but this installation a longer-term approach and developed the new Rapier was removed when the Bradley was sent to Vietnam later missile, the US Army and Navy scrambled to find a sys- that year. Testing continued, and between 1971 and 1975 tem that could be deployed as quickly as possible. Facing Sea Sparrow was fitted to 31 ships, DE-1052 to 1069 and the problem of guidance in a cluttered environment, the DE-1071 to 1083. The “missing ship” in the series, USS Army decided to adapt the infrared AIM-9 Sidewinder Downes (DE-1070) was instead used to test an upgraded missile into the MIM-72 Chaparral. This was based on version (see below). the AIM-9D, a tail-chaser, and would be useless for the The Sea Sparrow was far from an ideal weapon. Its rocket Navy where its targets would be approaching head on. engine was designed with the assumption that it would be They required a radar-guided system, and this naturally launched at high speed from an aircraft, and therefore is led to the AIM-7 Sparrow. They also considered Cha- optimized for a long cruise at relatively low power. In the parral for smaller ships due to its much smaller size, but surface-to-air role one would rather have very high acno such fits were ever attempted.[2] celeration in order to allow it to intercept sea-skimming These same basic engagement parameters - high-speed and the associated fleeting sighting times - applied to seaskimming aircraft and missiles as well. The Navy intended to adapt the Mauler to shipboard use by removing its search radar and wiring it into the existing ship-borne radar systems instead. The 9-box launcher and illuminator radar would be retained in a relatively compact mount. Development started in 1960 under the “Point Defense Missile System” (PDMS), the naval version to be known as the “RIM-46A Sea Mauler”. The Navy was so confident in the Sea Mauler that they modified the design of their latest frigates, the Knox class, to incorporate a space on the rear deck for the Sea Mauler launcher.[2]
targets as soon as possible. The power profile is also suitable for cruising in thin air at high altitudes, but at low altitudes it does not produce enough power to overcome
654
CHAPTER 225. RIM-7 SEA SPARROW
drag and dramatically decreases range; some estimates indicate that the Sea Sparrow may be effective only to 10 kilometres (6.2 mi), about one quarter of the range of the air-launched Sparrow. An engine of much higher power would greatly improve performance, in spite of a shorter burning time. Another problem is that the Sparrow is steered with its mid-mounted maneuvering wings. These were used on the Sparrow because they required less energy for basic maneuvers during cruise, but this made the missile less maneuverable overall, which was not well suited to the quick-reaction weapon. Additionally, the powered wings meant that they could not easily be adapted to fold, and therefore the launcher cells were sized to the wings instead of the missile body, taking up much more room than required. Although the Sea Sparrow was meant as a small missile system that could be fit to a wide variety of ships, the launcher was relatively large and was deployed only to larger frigates, destroyers and aircraft carriers. Finally, the manually aimed illuminator was of limited use at night or in bad weather, which was hardly encouraging for a ship-borne weapon where fog was a common occurrence.
225.1.4
Two MK-95 unmanned illumination radars used to guide a Sea Sparrow to its target.
about 50% along the span, with the outer portions rotated back toward the body of the missile. This allowed them to be stored in tighter container tubes in the new Mark 29 launcher, and flip open automatically when they were released from the tube.
The seeker was modified to work with a variety of guidance radars, including those being used with existing European missile systems. Production of the RIM-7H began Improved basic point defense mis- in 1973 as NATO Sea Sparrow Missile System (NSSMS) Block I. For the US Navy’s use the new MK-95 illumisile system (IBPDMS) nator system was also introduced, similar to the original Mark 115 but with automatic guidance that could be used in any weather. The MK-95 formed the basis of the highly automated Mark 91 fire control system.
225.1.5 Missile upgrades
The USS O'Brien (DD-975) launches a Sea Sparrow missile, shown with its mid-wing still folded as it departs a NSSM Mark 29 launcher on November 5, 2003.
In 1972 Raytheon started a Sparrow upgrade program to arm the upcoming F-15 Eagle, producing the AIM-7F. The F model replaced the older analog guidance system with a solid state version that could operate with the F15’s new pulse-doppler radar. The guidance system was much smaller, which allowed the warhead to be moved from its former rear-mounted position to one in front of the mid-mounted wings, and increased in weight to 86 lbs (39 kg). Moving it forward also allowed the rocket engine to be enlarged, so it was replaced by a new dualthrust engine that quickly accelerated the missile to higher speeds, and then settled to a lower thrust for cruise. The new missiles were quickly adapted for the naval role in a fashion similar to the RIM-7H, producing the RIM-7F. The new missile used the lower model designation in spite of the newer technology than the H model.[5]
In 1968, Denmark, Italy, and Norway signed an agreement with the US Navy to use the Sea Sparrow on their ships, and collaborate on improved versions. Over the next few years a number of other countries joined the NATO SEASPARROW Project Office (NSPO), and today it includes 12 member nations.[4] Under this umbrella group, the “Improved Basic Point Defense Missile Sys- Another major upgrade to the AIM-7 followed, the AIMtem” (IBPDMS) program started even while the original 7M. The M included a new monopulse radar seeker that version was being deployed. allowed it to be shot downward from a higher-altitude airIBPDMS emerged as the RIM-7H, which was essentially craft at a target otherwise masked by the ground. The new the RIM-7A with the mid-mounted wings modified to model also included a completely computerized guidance be able to fold.[5] This was done in a fashion similar to system that could be updated in the field, as well as further carrier-based aircraft; the wings were hinged at a point reducing weight for yet another warhead upgrade. The
225.1. HISTORY computerized guidance system also included a simple autopilot that allowed the missile to continue flying toward the last known target location even with the loss of a signal, allowing the launch platform to break lock for short periods while the missile was in flight. All of these modifications also improved performance against low-altitude sea-skimming targets as well.[5] The M model entered US operational service in 1983.[6] The original RIM-7E was capable to fly at about mach 2+, between 30 and 15,000 meters, with a range of 15-22 km (8-12 NM, depending on the target height). The RIM-7F enhanced the performances, but also the proximity fuse vs low flying targets, as the minimum altitude was reduced to 15 meters or less. The RIM-7M was capable to strike down to 8 meters (27 ft), so it was somewhat quite capable vs missiles such the Exocet.[7] While the M model was being worked on, the US Navy also introduced an upgrade for the Mark 91 fire control system, the “Mark 23 Target Acquisition System” (TAS). TAS included a medium-range 2D radar and IFF system that fed information to a new console in the ship’s combat information center. The Mark 23 automatically detected, prioritized and displayed potential targets, greatly improving reaction times of the system as a whole.[8] The Mark 23 is also used to select targets for most other weapons systems, including gunfire and other missile systems. TAS started entering the fleet in 1980.[6]
655 A final upgrade to the Sparrow was the AIM-7P, which replaced the M’s guidance system with an improved model that allowed mid-course upgrades to be sent from the launching platform via new rear-mounted antennas.[5] For air-to-air use this allowed the missile to be “lofted” above the target and then be directed down towards it as it approached; this gives the missile greater range as it spends more time in thinner high-altitude air. This meant that the new version could also be directly guided against surface targets that would otherwise not show up well on radar (which is a function of relative speed), allowing the ship’s more powerful search radars to provide guidance until the missile approached the target and the reflected signal grew stronger. This also gave the Sea Sparrow a very useful secondary anti-shipping role that allows it to attack smaller boats. On 1 October 1992 during NATO exercises in the Aegean Sea the USS Saratoga accidentally launched two Sea Sparrow missiles. These hit the Turkish destroyer TCG Muavenet in the bridge and CIC, killing five of the ship’s officers and injuring twenty-two men. The Muavenet was written off as a result, and the US presented them with the Knox class frigate USS Capodanno as reparations.
225.1.6 Evolved Sea (ESSM)
Sparrow
missile
Main article: RIM-162 ESSM Although the Navy and Air Force initially planned ad-
Evolved Sea Sparrow being lowered into VLS tube
The NSPO also used the M series upgrade as an opportunity to upgrade the system to allow it to be launched from a Vertical Launching System (VLS).[5] This modification uses the “Jet Vane Control” (JVC) package that is added to the bottom of the missile. On launch, a small engine in the JVC boosts the missile up above the launching ship, then uses vanes positioned in its own exhaust to quickly slew the missile into the proper alignment with the target, which is fed to the JVC during launch. As far as the Sea Sparrow is concerned, there is no difference between being launched directly from a trainable launcher or using JVC, in both cases the missile becomes active looking directly at the target.
An ESSM launching. Note the enlarged engine section.
ditional upgrades for the Sparrow, notably the AIM-7R with a combination radar/infrared seeker, these were canceled in favor of the much more advanced AIM-120 AMRAAM in December 1996. With the link between
656
CHAPTER 225. RIM-7 SEA SPARROW
the airborne and shipborne versions of the Sparrow severed, Raytheon proposed a much more extensive set of upgrades to the Sea Sparrow, the RIM-7R Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM). The changes were so extensive that the project was renamed, becoming the RIM162 ESSM.[9] The ESSM takes the existing guidance section from the RIM-7P and fits it to an entirely new rear-section. The new missile is 10 inches in diameter instead of the previous 8 inches, which allows for a much more powerful motor. It also eliminates the mid-mounted wings entirely, replacing them with long fins similar to those on the Standard missile (and practically every other Navy missile since the 1950s) and moves guidance control to the rear fins. The tail-fin based steering of the ESSM uses up more energy but offers considerably higher maneuverability while the engine is still firing. The Mark 25 quad-missile pack was developed during the 1990s to fit four ESSMs into a single Mk 41 VLS cell.[10] For VLS use, ESSMs are fitted with the same JVC system as the earlier versions.
Germany
• German Navy Greece • Hellenic Navy Italy • Italian Navy Japan • Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force Republic of Korea
225.2 Operators
• Republic of Korea Navy
Australia Mexico • Royal Australian Navy Belgium
• Belgian Navy Bulgaria
• Bulgarian Navy Canada
• Royal Canadian Navy Chile • Chilean Navy Denmark • Royal Danish Navy
• Mexican Navy Netherlands • Royal Netherlands Navy New Zealand
• Royal New Zealand Navy Norway • Royal Norwegian Navy Portugal • Portuguese Navy Spain • Spanish Navy
225.4. SEE ALSO
Turkey
• Turkish Naval Forces United States
• United States Navy
225.3 References 225.3.1
Notes
[1] Roger Chesneau, “Aeroguide 30 - Blackburn Buccaneer S Mks 1 and 2”, Ad Hoc Publications, 2005, pp. 5-6. [2] Friedman, p. 360 [3] Friedman, p. 225 [4] NATO SEASPARROW Project Office [5] Andreas Parsch, “AIM/RIM-7”, Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles, 13 April 2007 [6] Polmar, p. 521 [7] War Machine encyclopedia, Limited publishing Ltd, 1983, London (italian version, p.233) [8] “MK 23 Target Acquisition System (TAS)"". Federation of American Scientists. 30 June 1999. Retrieved 201012-12. [9] Andreas Parsch, “RIM-162”, Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles, 27 March 2004 [10] Federation of American Scientists, “MK 41 Vertical Launching System”
225.3.2
Bibliography
• Friedman, Norman (2004). U.S. Destroyers. Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-55750-442-3. • Polmar, Norman (2004). The Naval Institute Guide to the Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet. Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-59114-685-2. (note: this source contains several obvious errors)
225.4 See also • List of missiles • Missile designation
657
Chapter 226
RIM-162 ESSM The RIM-162 Evolved SeaSparrow Missile (ESSM) is a development of the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missile used to protect ships from attacking missiles and aircraft.[7] ESSM is designed to counter supersonic maneuvering anti-ship missiles. ESSM also has the ability to be “quadpacked” in the Mk 41 VLS system, allowing up to four ESSMs to be carried in a single cell.
226.1 Design Compared to the Sea Sparrow, ESSM has a larger, more powerful rocket motor for increased range and agility, as well as upgraded aerodynamics using strakes and skidto-turn. In addition, ESSM takes advantage of the latest missile guidance technology, with different versions for Aegis/AN/SPY-1, Sewaco/APAR, and traditional target illumination all-the-way. The improved ESSM Block II will be fielded by the US Navy from 2020.[8]
226.2 Launchers 226.2.1
226.2.3 Mk 56 The successor of Mk 48 VLS, Mark 56 Guided Missile Vertical Launching System (Mk 56 GMVLS) or simply Mk 56, is latest launcher developed for RIM-162 ESSM. In comparison to its predecessor, Mk 56 utilize greater percentage of composite material, reducing the weight more than 20%. Specifications:
226.3 Operational history
Mk 29
The original launcher is Mark 29 Guided Missile Launching System Mod. 4 & 5 (Mk 29 GMLS Mod 4 & 5), which is developed from earlier models Mk 29 Mod 1/2/3 for Sea Sparrow. Mk 29 launchers provide on-mount stowage and launching capability for firing up to eight missiles in a self-contained environmentally controlled trainable launcher design.
226.2.2
single RIM-7VL (Vertically Launched) Sea Sparrow cell or two RIM-162 ESSM cells, though, with modification, other missiles can also be launched. There are a total of four models in the Mk 48 family, with Mod 0 & 1 housing either 2 RIM-7VL or 4 RIM-162 cells, Mod 2 housing either 16 RIM-7VL or 32 RIM-162 cells. Mod 0/1/2 are usually grouped into either a 16-cell module for RIM7VL or a 32-cell module for RIM-162. Mod 3 fits into the StanFlex modules on Royal Danish Navy ships and can house either 6 RIM-7VL or 12 RIM-162 cells; the Danes now use the latter.
Mk 48
In addition to the Mk 29 GMLS and Mk 41 VLS systems, the other primary launcher is Mk 48 VLS. The 2cell module of Mk-48 makes the system very versatile and enables it to be installed on board in spaces that otherwise cannot be utilized. The weight of a 2-cell module of Mk48 is 1,450 pounds (with empty canisters), 725 pounds for exhaust system, and 800 pounds for ship installation interfaces. Each canister of the Mk-48 VLS houses a
US operational evaluation was conducted in July 2002 aboard USS Shoup (DDG-86). Initial operational capability did not occur until later.[9] In October 2003, at the USN Pacific Missile Range Facility near Hawaii, Australian frigate HMAS Warramunga conducted a successful firing of an ESSM. The firing was also the first operational use of the CEA Technologies CWI for guidance.[10] [11] In November 2003, approximately 200 nautical miles (370 km) from the Azores, the Royal Netherlands Navy (RNLN) frigate HNLMS De Zeven Provinciën conducted a live fire test of a single ESSM. This firing was the first ever live firing involving a full-size shipborne Active electronically scanned array (i.e. the APAR radar) guiding a missile using the Interrupted Continuous Wave Illumination (ICWI) technique in an operational environment.[12] As related by Jane’s Navy International:
658
During the tracking and missile-firing tests,
226.6. EXTERNAL LINKS target profiles were provided by Greek-built EADS/3Sigma Iris PVK medium-range subsonic target drones. [...] According to the RNLN, ... "APAR immediately acquired the missile and maintained track until destruction”. [...] These ground-breaking tests represented the world’s first live verification of the ICWI technique.[13] In August 2004 a German Navy Sachsen class frigate completed a series of live missile firings at the Point Mugu missile launch range off the coast of California that included a total of 11 ESSM missile firings.[13] The tests included firings against target drones such as the Northrup Grumman BQM-74E Chukkar III and Teledyne Ryan BQM-34S Firebee I, as well as against missile targets such as the Beech AQM-37C and air-launched Kormoran 1 anti-ship missiles.[13] Further live firings were performed by the Royal Netherlands Navy frigate HNLMS De Zeven Provinciën in March 2005, again in the Atlantic Ocean approximately 180 nautical miles (330 km) west of the Azores.[13] The tests involved three live-firing events (two of which involved the ESSM) including firing a single SM-2 Block IIIA at an Iris target drone at long range, a single ESSM at an Iris target drone, and a two-salvo launch (with one salvo comprising two SM-2 Block IIIAs and the other comprising two ESSMs) against two incoming Iris target drones.[13]
659
[3] “Raytheon Evolved SeaSparrow program delivers 2,000th missile”. Retrieved 26 October 2014. [4] Raytheon RIM-162 ESSM Designation-Systems.net [5] Raytheon RIM-162 ESSM Designation-Systems.net [6] Raytheon. ESSM MK-29 upgrade fact sheet. (PDF) [7] Raytheon Corporate Communications. “Raytheon ESSM product data sheet”. Retrieved 26 October 2014. [8] Greenert, Admiral Jonathan (18 September 2013). “Statement Before The House Armed Services Committee On Planning For Sequestration In FY 2014 And Perspectives Of The Military Services On The Strategic Choices And Management Review” (pdf). US House of Representatives. Retrieved 21 September 2013. [9] “ESSM completes OPEVAL with 'flying colors’", Seapower, May 2003. [10] “Warramunga’s ESSM firing success”, Navy News [11] “Air Defence Discussion Board - ESSM Question”, Strategy Page [12] Jane’s International Defence Review, February 2004, “Active phased array multifunction radars go live for missile firings” [13] Jane’s Navy International, October 2005, “Live firing tests rewrite the guiding principles” [14] “Stennis First with New ESSM”. US Navy. 2008-10-10. Retrieved 2008-10-10..
All ESSM launches from De Zeven Provinciën class frigates and Sachsen class frigates involved ESSMs quad- [15] ESSM Intercept of High-Diving Threat Proves Expanded Defensive Capability - PRNewswire.com, May 14, 2013 packed in a Mark 41 Vertical Launching System. The first “kill” by the RIM-162D from a United States Navy carrier’s Mk 29 launcher was achieved during a training exercise by the USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74) on 7 October 2008.[14] On 14 May 2013, the ESSM intercepted a high-diving supersonic test target, demonstrating the ability to hit highG maneuvering. No software changes were needed to prove the ESSM’s enhanced capability.[15]
226.6 External links • Designation Systems.net: ESSM
Raytheon RIM-162
• Global Security.org: RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) • NATO SEASPARROW Project Office
226.4 See also • List of missiles
226.5 References [1] “Bird in the hand: NATO gives fresh momentum to ESSM”. Retrieved 26 October 2014. [2] “United States Department Of Defense Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request Program Acquisition Cost By Weapon System” (pdf). Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense (Comptroller)/ Chief Financial Officer. March 2014. p. 62.
• NAMMO Raufoss - Nordic Ammunition Company
Chapter 227
AGM-124 Wasp The AGM-124 Wasp is a missile developed by the United States of America. The Wasp grew out of the 1975 WAAM (Wide-Area Anti-Armour Munitions) program initiated by the US Air Force in order to develop a series of new air-to-ground anti-armour weapons for close-support aircraft. The three-pronged program led to the CBU-92/B ERAM (Extended Range Anti-Armour Munition), the CBU-90/B ACM (Anti-Armour Cluster Munition), and the Wasp anti-armour missile. The Wasp is regarded as the most advanced of these weapons. Development began in 1979, with Boeing and Hughes Aircraft as the primary contractors. The specification called for a small missile which could be carried in large numbers by attack aircraft in multiple dispensers - the A10 was able to carry several 12 round launcher pods. The Boeing design was unsuccessful, and the USAF selected the Hughes Wasp missile. The AGM-124A was a small weapon with folding wings and fins to reduce storage space within the launcher. It was intended to be launched in large numbers - 10 or more missiles launched nearly simultaneously was envisaged for a typical attack; indeed the name Wasp derived from this “swarm” tactic. The missiles would follow a pre-programmed path to the target area before activating a millimeter wave active radar homing to identify and home on a specific target. This high resolution radar was able to distinguish targets even against enemy jamming and high background clutter from the ground. Testing of the radar system began in 1981, and the first prototype AGM-124 took place in 1983. Production was planned for 1987, but in October 1983 the program was cancelled. Most of the other components of the WAAM program were also less than successful, with only the BLU-108/B Skeet submunition in use today.
227.1 Specifications • Length : 1.52 m (5 ft) • Wingspan : 51 cm (20 in) • Diameter : 20 cm (8 in) • Weight : 57 kg (125 lb) 660
• Range : 10 km (6.2 mi) • Propulsion : Solid-fueled rocket motor • Warhead : Shaped charge
Chapter 228
Compact Kinetic Energy Missile The Compact Kinetic Energy Missile (CKEM) was a developmental program to produce a hypersonic antitank guided missile for the U.S. Army. Lockheed Martin was the primary contractor. The program was the third in a series of projects based on kinetic energy missiles that stretches back to 1981s Vought HVM through the 1990s LOSAT and finally to the CKEM. The Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM) developed this program as part of the Army’s Future Combat Systems. This missile was primarily an anti-tank weapon, and could be mounted on land vehicles and low-altitude aircraft. The goal of these weapons was to demonstrate a state-of-theart system for the next-generation. The program has since been cancelled.
• February 2007 – A T-72 tank equipped with Explosive Reactive Armor was successfully engaged using CKEM at a range of 3400 meters. The test took place at Eglin Air Force Base, FL.[4]
228.3 References [1] Wolfram Alpha [2] Lockheed Martin Receives US$21 Million Compact Kinetic Energy Missile Contract — LM press release. [3] Lockheed Martin’s Compact Kinetic Energy Missile Successful in Flight Test Against Reinforced Urban Structure — LM press release. [4] Lockheed Martin’s Compact Kinetic Energy Missile Successful in Final Flight Test — LM press release.
228.1 Specifications These are the specifications for the missile:
• Global Security
• Length: 1.5 metres (4.9 ft)
228.4 External links
• Motor: Solid-fuel rocket • Max range: 10 kilometres (6.2 mi)
• Compact Kinetic Energy Missile, Lockheed Martin
• Max weight: 45 kilograms (99 lb)
• Lockheed Martin CKEM — Designation Systems
• Velocity: Mach 6.5+
• Compact Kinetic Energy Missile (CKEM) — Global Security
• Warhead: Kinetic energy penetrator
• CKEM — Deagel
• Penetrator energy: 10 megajoules (equivalent to that of a 10-ton truck traveling at 100 mph (161 km/hr))[1]
228.2 Program status • October 2003 – Lockheed Martin receives $21.3 million contract for CKEM Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD) phase.[2] • September 2006 – The CKEM was successfully flight tested against a reinforced urban structure.[3] 661
• Compact Kinetic Energy Missile CKEM — Defense Update
Chapter 229
FGM-148 Javelin For the British Javelin missile, see Javelin surface-to-air missile.
229.2 Development
In 1983, the United States Army introduced its AAWSThe FGM-148 Javelin is a United States–made man- M (Advanced Anti-Tank Weapon System—Medium) reportable fire-and-forget anti-tank missile fielded to re- quirement and, in 1985, the AAWS-M was approved for place the M47 Dragon anti-tank missile in US service.[7] development. In August 1986, the Proof-of-Principle (POP) phase of the development began, with a $30 million contract awarded for technical proof demonstrators: Ford Aerospace (laser-beam riding), Hughes Aircraft Missile System Group (imaging infra-red combined with a fiber-optic cable link) and Texas Instruments (imaging infra-red).[9] In late 1988, the POP phase ended and, in June 1989, the full-scale development contract was awarded to a joint venture of Texas Instruments and 229.1 Overview Martin Marietta (now Raytheon and Lockheed-Martin). The AAWS-M received the designation of FGM-148. Javelin is a fire-and-forget missile with lock-on before launch and automatic self-guidance. The system takes a top-attack flight profile against armored vehicles (attacking the top armor, which is generally thinner), but can also take a direct-attack mode for use against buildings. This missile also has the ability to engage helicopters in the direct attack mode.[7] It can reach a peak altitude of 150 m (500 ft) in top-attack mode and 60 m in direct-fire mode. It is equipped with an imaging infrared seeker. The tandem warhead is fitted with two shaped charges: a precursor warhead to detonate any explosive reactive armor and a primary warhead to penetrate base armor. The missile is ejected from the launcher so that it reaches a safe distance from the operator before the main rocket motors ignite; a "soft launch arrangement”.[8] This makes it harder to identify the launcher; however, back-blast from the launch tube still poses a hazard to nearby personnel. Thanks to this “fire and forget” system, the firing team may change their position as soon as the missile has been launched, or prepare to fire on their next target while the first missile is still in the air.[6] The missile system is most often carried by a two man team consisting of a gunner and an ammo bearer, although it can be fired with just one person if necessary. While the gunner aims and fires the missile, the ammo bearer scans for prospective targets, watches for threats such as enemy vehicles and troops, and ensures personnel and obstacles are clear of the missile’s back blast.
In April 1991, the first test-flight of the Javelin succeeded, and in March 1993, the first test-firing from the launcher succeeded. In 1994, low levels of production were authorized,[7] and the first Javelins were deployed with US Army units in 1996.[7]
229.2.1 Test and evaluation Development test and evaluation (DT&E) is conducted to demonstrate that the engineering design and development process is complete. It is used to reduce risk, validate and qualify the design, and ensure that the product is ready for government acceptance. The DT&E results are evaluated to ensure that design risks have been minimized and the system will meet specifications. The results are also used to estimate the system’s military utility when it is introduced into service. DT&E serves a critical purpose in reducing the risks of development by testing selected high-risk components or subsystems. DT&E is the government developing agency tool used to confirm that the system performs as technically specified and that the system is ready for field testing. DT&E is an iterative process of designing, building, testing, identifying deficiencies, fixing, retesting, and repeating. It is performed in the factory, laboratory, and on the proving ground by the contractors and the government. Contractor and government testing is combined into one
662
229.3. COMPONENTS
663
integrated test program and conducted to determine if the vironmental conditions; and CLU PRVT.[11] performance requirements have been met and to provide The All-up-Round Test Sets includes: Extreme temdata to the decision authority. perature testing; Missile tracker testing (Track rate erThe General Accounting Office (GAO) published a re- ror, Tracking sensitivity); Seeker/focal plane array testing port questioning the adequacy of Javelin testing. The re- (Cool-down time, Dead/defective pixels, Seeker identiport, called “Army Acquisition—Javelin Is Not Ready for fication); Pneumatic leakage; Continuity measurements; Multiyear Procurement”, opposed entering into full-rate Ready time; and Guidance sections (Guidance comproduction in 1997 and expressed the need for further mands, Fin movement). operational testing due to the many redesigns undergone. In 1995, Secretary of Defense William Perry had set forth five new operational test initiatives. These included: 1) 229.3 Components getting operational testers involved early in development; 2) use of modeling and simulation; 3) integrating devel- 229.3.1 Missile opment and operational testing; 4) combining testing and training; and 5) applying concepts to demos and acquisi- Warhead tions. The late-phase development of the Javelin retroactively benefited from the then new operational test initiatives set forth by the Secretary of Defense, as well as a further test conducted as a consequence of the Army’s response to the GAO report. Before the Milestone III decision, and before fielding to 3rd Battalion 75th Ranger Regiment at Fort Benning (also Army Rangers, Special Forces, airborne, air assault, and light infantry), the Javelin was subjected to limited parts of the five operational test and evaluation initiatives, as well as a portability operational test program (an additional test phase of the so-called Product Verification Test),[10] which included live firings with Missile components. the full-rate configuration weapon. Per initiatives and as a DT&E function, the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) and the Defense Department’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) became involved in three development test activities, including: 1) reviewing initial operational test and evaluation plans; 2) monitoring initial operational test and evaluation; and 3) structuring follow-on test and evaluation activities. The results of these efforts detected problems (training included) and corrected significant problems which led to modified test plans, savings in test costs, and GAO satisfaction.
229.2.2
Qualification testing
The Javelin Environmental Test System (JETS) is a mobile test set for Javelin All-Up-Round (AUR) and the Command Launch Unit (CLU). It can be configured to functionally test the AUR or the CLU individually or both units in a mated tactical mode. This mobile unit may be repositioned at the various environmental testing facilities. The mobile system is used for all phases of Javelin qualification testing. There is also a non-mobile JETS used for stand-alone CLU testing. This system is equipped with an environmental chamber and is primarily used for Product Verification Testing (PRVT). Capabilities include: Javelin CLU testing; Javelin AUR testing; Javelin Mated Mode testing; Javelin testing in various en-
US Marine carrying a Javelin missile during Operation Moshtarak in Marjeh, Afghanistan 2010
The Javelin missile’s tandem warhead is a HEAT type.[7] This round utilizes an explosive shaped charge to create a stream of superplastically deformed metal formed from trumpet-shaped metallic liners. The result is a narrow high velocity particle stream that can penetrate armor. The Javelin counters the advent of explosive reactive armor (ERA). ERA boxes or tiles lie over a vehicle’s main armor and explode when struck by a warhead. This explosion does not harm the vehicle’s main armor, but causes steel panels to fly across the path of the HEAT round’s narrow particle stream, disrupting its focus leaving it unable to cut through the main armor. The Javelin
664
CHAPTER 229. FGM-148 JAVELIN
uses two shaped-charge warheads in tandem. The weak, smaller diameter HEAT precursor charge pushes through the ERA without setting it off, and punches a channel through it for the much larger diameter HEAT warhead, which then penetrates the target’s primary armor. A two-layered molybdenum liner is used for the precursor and a copper liner for the main warhead. To protect the main charge from the explosive blast, shock, and debris caused by the impact of the missile’s nose and the detonation of the precursor charge, a blast shield is used between the main and precursor charge. This was the first composite material blast shield and the first that had a hole through the middle to provide a jet that is less diffuse. A newer main charge liner produces a higher velocity jet. While making the warhead smaller, this change makes it more effective, leaving more room for propellant for the main rocket motor, and thus increasing the missile’s range. Electronic arming and fusing, called Electronic Safe Arming and Fire (ESAF), is used. The ESAF system enables the firing and arming process to proceed, while imposing a series of safety checks on the missile. ESAF cues the launch motor after the trigger is pulled. When the missile reaches a key acceleration point (indicating that it has cleared the launch tube), the ESAF initiates a second arming signal to fire the flight motor. After another check on missile conditions (target lock check), ESAF initiates final arming to enable the warheads for detonation upon target impact. When the missile strikes the target, ESAF enables the tandem warhead function (provide appropriate time between the detonation of the precursor charge and the detonation of the main charge). Though the Javelin tandem HEAT warhead has proven efficient at destroying tanks, most threats it was employed against in Iraq and Afghanistan were weapon crews and teams, buildings, and lightly armored and unarmored vehicles. To make the Javelin more useful in these scenarios, the Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and Engineering Center developed a multi-purpose warhead (MPWH) for the FGM-148F. While it is still lethal against tanks, the new warhead has a naturally fragmenting steel warhead case that provides double the effectiveness against personnel due to enhanced fragmentation. The MPWH does not add weight or cost and has a lighter composite missile mid-body to enable drop-in replacement to current Javelin tubes.[12][13]
Propulsion
U.S. soldier firing Javelin.
propellant ejects the missile from the launcher, but stops burning before the missile clears the tube. The flight motor is ignited only after a delay to allow for sufficient clearance from the operator. To save weight, the two motors are integrated with a burst disc between them; it is designed to tolerate the pressure of the launch motor from one side, but to easily rupture from the other when the flight motor ignites. Both motors use a common nozzle, with the flight motor’s exhaust flowing through the expended launch motor. Because the launch motor casing remains in place, an unusual annular (ring-shaped) igniter is used to start it; a normal igniter would be blown out the back of the missile when the flight motor ignited and could injure the operator. Since the launch motor uses a standard NATO propellant, the presence of lead betaresorcinol as a burn rate modifier causes an amount of lead and lead oxide to be present in the exhaust; for this reason, gunners are asked to hold their breath after firing. In the event that the launch motor malfunctions and the launch tube is overpressurized—for example, if the rocket gets stuck—the Javelin missile includes a pressure release system to prevent the launcher from exploding. The launch motor is held in place by a set of shear pins, which fracture if the pressure rises too high and allow the motor to be pushed out the back of the tube. Seeker As a fire-and-forget missile, after launch the missile has to be able to track and destroy its target without the gunner. This is done by coupling an on-board imaging IR system (different from CLU imaging system) with an on-board tracking system. The gunner uses the CLU’s IR system to find and identify the target then switches to the missile’s independent IR system to set a track box around the target and establish a lock. The gunner places brackets around the image for locking.
Most rocket launchers require a large clear area behind the gunner to prevent injury from backblast. To address this shortcoming, without increasing recoil to an unacceptable level, the Javelin system uses a soft launch mechanism. A launch motor using conventional rocket The seeker stays focused on the target’s image continuing
229.3. COMPONENTS
665
to track it as the target moves or the missile’s flight path with the target. The wires that connect the seeker with alters or as attack angles change. The seeker has three the rest of the missile are carefully designed to avoid inmain components: focal plane array (FPA), cooling and ducing motion or drag on the seeker platform. calibration and stabilization. Tracker Focal plane array (FPA) Main article: Staring array The seeker assembly is encased in a dome which is transparent to long-wave infrared radiation. The IR radiation passes through the dome and then through lenses that focus the energy. The IR energy is reflected by mirrors on to the FPA. The seeker is a two-dimensional staring FPA of 64x64 MerCad (HgCdTe) detector elements.[14] The FPA processes the signals from the detectors and relays a signal to the missile’s tracker. The staring array is a photo-voltaic device where the inci- Top attack flight profile. dent photons stimulate electrons and are stored, pixel by pixel, in a readout integrated circuits attached at the rear of the detector. These electrons are converted to voltages which are multiplexed out of the ROIC on a frame-byframe basis. Cooling/Calibration The FPA must be cooled and calibrated. The CLU’s IR detectors are cooled using a Dewar flask and a closed-cycle Stirling engine. But there is insufficient space in the missile for a similar solution. So, prior to launch, a cooler mounted on the outside of the launch tube activates the electrical systems in the missile and supplies cold gas from a Joule-Thomson expander to the missile detector assembly while the missile is still in the launch tube. When the missile is fired, this external connection is broken and coolant gas is supplied internally by an onboard argon gas bottle. The gas is held in a small bottle at high pressure and contains enough coolant for the duration of the flight of approximately 19 seconds. The seeker is calibrated using a chopper wheel. This device is a fan of 6 blades: 5 black blades with very low IR emissivity and one semi-reflective blade. These blades spin in front of the seeker optics in a synchronized fashion such that the FPA is continually provided with points of reference in addition to viewing the scene. These reference points allow the FPA to reduce noise introduced by response variations in the detector elements. Stabilization The platform on which the seeker is mounted must be stabilized with respect to the motion of the missile body and the seeker must be moved to stay aligned with the target. The stabilization system must cope with rapid acceleration, up/down and lateral movements. This is done by a gimbal system, accelerometers, spinning-mass gyros (or MEMS), and motors to drive changes in position of the platform. The system is basically an autopilot. Information from the gyros is fed to the guidance electronics which drive a torque motor attached to the seeker platform to keep the seeker aligned
Direct attack flight path.
The tracker is key to guidance/control for an eventual hit. The signals from each of the 4,096 detector elements (64x64 pixel array) in the seeker are passed to the FPA readout integrated circuits which reads then creates a video frame that is sent to the tracker system for processing. By comparing the individual frames the tracker determines the need to correct so as to keep the missile on target. The tracker must be able to determine which portion of the image represents the target. The target is initially defined by the gunner who places a configurable frame around it. The tracker then uses algorithms to compare that region of the frame based on image, geometric, and movement data to the new image frames being sent from the seeker, similar to pattern recognition algorithms. At the end of each frame the reference is updated. The tracker is able to keep track of the target even though the seeker’s point of view can change radically in the course of flight. To guide the missile, the tracker locates the target in the current frame and compares this position with the aim point. If this position is off center, the tracker computes a correction and passes it to the guidance system, which makes the appropriate adjustments to the four movable tail fins, as well as six fixed wings at mid-body. This is an autopilot. To guide the missile, the system has sensors that check that the fins are positioned as requested. If not, the deviation is sent back to the controller for further adjustment. This is a closed-loop controller.
666
CHAPTER 229. FGM-148 JAVELIN
There are three stages in the flight managed by the tracker: 1) an initial phase just after launch; 2) a mid-flight phase that lasts for most of the flight; and 3) a terminal phase in which the tracker selects the sweet spot for the point of impact. With guidance algorithms, the autopilot uses data from the seeker and tracker to determine when to transition the missile from one phase of flight to another. Depending on whether the missile is in top attack or direct attack mode, the profile of the flight can change significantly. The top attack mode requires the missile to climb sharply after launch and cruise at high altitude then dive on the top of the target (curveball). In direct attack mode (fastball), the missile cruises at a lower altitude directly at target. The exact flight path which takes into account CLU after action. the range to the target is calculated by the guidance unit.
229.3.2
Launch Tube Assembly
Both men carry a disposable tube called the Launch Tube Assembly which houses the missile and protects the missile from harsh environments. The tube also has built in electronics and a locking hinge system that makes attachment and detachment of the missile to and from the Command Launch Unit a very quick and simple process.
229.3.3
Command Launch Unit
CLU is the targeting component of the two part system. The CLU has three views which are used to find, target, and fire the missile. The CLU may also be used separately from the missile as a portable thermal sight. Infantry are no longer required to stay in constant contact with armored personnel carriers and tanks with thermal sights. This makes infantry personnel more flexible and able to perceive threats they would not otherwise be able to detect. In 2006, a contract was awarded to Toyon Research Corporation to begin development of an upgrade to the CLU enabling the transmission of target image and GPS location data to other units.[15]
Day Field of View The first view is a 4× magnification day view. It is mainly used to scan areas for light during night operation, because light is not visible in the thermal views. It is also used to scan following sunrise and sunset, when the thermal image is hard to focus due to the natural rapid heating and/or cooling of the Earth.
WFOV (Wide Field of View) The second view is the 4x magnification night view, and shows the gunner a thermal representation of the area viewed. This is also the primary view used due to its ability to detect infrared radiation and find both troops and vehicles otherwise too well hidden to detect. The screen shows a “green scale” view which can be adjusted in both contrast and brightness. The inside of the CLU is cooled by a small refrigeration unit attached to the sight. This greatly increases the sensitivity of the thermal imaging capability since the temperature inside the sight is much lower than that of the objects it detects. Due to the sensitivity this causes, the gunner is able to “focus” the CLU to show a very detailed image of the area beCommand Launch Unit. ing viewed by showing temperature differences of only The gunner carries a reusable Command Launch Unit a few degrees. The gunner operates this view with the (in addition to the Launch Tube Assembly) more com- use of two hand stations similar to the control stick found monly referred to as a CLU (pronounced “clue”). The in modern cockpits. It is from this view that the gunner
229.5. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
667
focuses the image and determines the area that gives the only a rough outline is visible. The soldiers must accombest heat signature on which to lock the missile. plish several timed drills with set standards before being qualified to operate the system in both training and wartime situations. There are also smaller training proNFOV (Narrow Field of View) grams set up on most Army bases that instruct soldiers on the proper use of the system. At these courses, the The third field of view is a 12x thermal sight used to bet- training program might be changed in small ways. This ter identify the target vehicle. Once the CLU has been is most commonly only minor requirements left out due to focused in WFOV, the gunner may switch to NFOV for budget, the amount of soldiers vs. simulation equipment, target recognition before activating Seeker FOV. and available time and resources. Both types of training courses have required proficiency levels that must be met before the soldier can operate the system in training exSeeker Field of View ercises or wartime missions. Once the best target area is chosen, the gunner presses one of the two triggers and is automatically switched to the fourth view; the Seeker FOV, which is a 9x magnifica- 229.5 tion thermal view. This process is similar to the automatic zoom feature on most modern cameras. This view is also available along with the previously mentioned views, all of which may be accessed with press of a button. How- 229.5.1 ever, it is not as popular as a high magnification view takes longer to scan a wide area. This view allows the gunner to further aim the missile and set the guidance system housed inside the actual missile. It is when in this view that information is passed from the CLU, through the connection electronics of the Launch Tube Assembly, and into the missile’s guidance system. If the gunner feels uncomfortable with firing the missile, he can still cycle back to the other views without having to fire the missile. When the gunner is comfortable with the target picture, he pulls the second trigger and establishes a “lock”. The missile launches after a short delay.
Advantages and disadvantages Advantages
Lightweight CLU The U.S. Army is developing a new CLU as an improvement over the Block I version. The new CLU is 70 percent smaller, 40 percent lighter, and has a 50 percent battery life increase. Features of the lightweight CLU are: a long-wave IR sensor; a high-definition display with improved resolution; integrated handgrips; a five megapixel color camera; a laser point that can be seen visibly or through IR; a far target locator using GPS, a laser rangefinder, and a heading sensor; and modernized electronics.[13]
229.4 Training
Javelin’s backblast
The portable system is easy to separate into main components and easy to set up when needed. Compared to more cumbersome anti-tank weapon systems, the difference is noticeable. For example, a TOW requires a heavy tripod stand, a bulky protective case for the thermal sight, a larger, longer launch tube, and requires much more time to assemble and prepare. The Javelin (although still very heavy) is lighter than the other missiles and their necessary parts. Although the CLU’s thermal imaging may hinder aiming, its thermal targeting allows the Javelin to be a fire-andforget system. This gives the firer an opportunity to be out of sight and possibly moving to a new angle of fire, or out of the area, by the time the enemy realizes they are under attack. This is much safer than using a wire-guided system where the firer must stay stationary to guide the missile into the target.
A great familiarity of each control and swift operation needs to be achieved before the unit can be deployed efficiently. American troops are trained on the system at the Infantry School in Fort Benning, Georgia, for two weeks. The soldiers are taught basic care and maintenance, operation and abilities, assembly and disassembly, and the positions it can be fired from. Soldiers are also taught to Another advantage is the Javelin’s power at impact. The distinguish between a variety of vehicle types even when missile’s tandem shaped charge warhead is made to pen-
668
CHAPTER 229. FGM-148 JAVELIN
etrate reactive armor. With the top attack mode, it has COIN operations due to its destructive power, but trained an even greater ability to destroy the tank because it can gunners were able to make precision shots against enemy attack where most tanks are weakest.[7] positions with little collateral damage. The Javelin filled a The soft launch capability of the Javelin allows it to have niche in U.S. weapons systems against DShK heavy maonly a minimal backblast area. In addition to reducing chine guns and B-10 recoilless rifles; weapons like the the visible launch signature from the enemy, this enables AT4 and M203 had good effects but insufficient range, the Javelin to be fired from inside structures with minimal medium and heavy machine guns and grenade launchers preparation, which gives the Javelin advantages in urban had greater range but insufficient effects, and heavy mortars had good range and effects but poor precision. The fighting over the widely used AT4 (which has a very large backblast area, although this is lessened in the AT4 CS). Javelin, as well as the TOW, had enough range, power, and accuracy to counter standoff engagement tactics emA large backblast area would seriously injure personnel if fired from inside an unprepared structure, and may betray ployed by enemy weapons. With good locks, the missile is most effective against vehicles, caves, fortified posithe location of the launch to enemy observers. tions, and individual personnel; if enemies were inside a The missile also has a greater range than the US ATGM cave, a Javelin fired into the mouth of the cave would deit replaces, the M47 Dragon.[7] stroy it from the inside, which was not possible from the outside using heavy mortars. The psychological effect of the sound of a Javelin firing sometimes caused insurgents 229.5.2 Disadvantages to disengage and flee their position. Even when not firing, the Javelin’s CLU was commonly used as a man-portable The main drawback of the complete system (missile, surveillance system.[19] tube, and CLU) is its 49.2 lb (22.3 kg) total weight. The system is designed to be portable by infantry on foot and weighs more than that originally specified by the US 229.7 Users Army requirement.[16] Another drawback of the system is the reliance on a thermal view to acquire targets. The thermal views are not able to operate until the refrigeration component has cooled the system. The manufacturer estimates 30 seconds until this is complete, but depending on the ambient temperature, this process may take much longer. Also, Javelin launchers and missiles are rather expensive. In 2002 a single Javelin command launch unit cost $126,000, and each missile cost around $78,000.[17] The operator of the complex has no opportunity to correct the flight of the rocket after launch (when the target heat contrasts poorly with the terrain, the missile can miss). Javelin, with an effective range of 2,500 m is not able to exceed the range of its international predecessors and competitors; MILAN 3,000 m, Swingfire 4,000 m, TOW 4,200 m and Kornet-EM 8,000 m. This is due to the IIR CLU having difficulties acquiring targets at extended ranges—the missile is capable of reaching 4,750 m.
229.6 Combat history The Javelin was used by US Army and Marine Corps and Australian Special Forces in the 2003 Invasion of Iraq[7] on Iraqi Type 69 and Lion of Babylon tanks. In one short engagement, a platoon of U.S. special forces soldiers equipped with Javelins destroyed two T-55 tanks, eight A Norwegian soldier with the FGM-148 Javelin. armored personnel carriers, and four troop trucks.[18] During the War in Afghanistan, the Javelin was used effectively in counter-insurgency (COIN) operations. Initially, soldiers perceived the weapon as unsuited for
•
Australia: 92 launchers.[20]
•
Bahrain: 13 launchers.[21]
229.8. SEE ALSO
•
Czech Republic: Purchased 3 launchers and 12 missiles for its special forces (intended for use in Afghanistan).[22]
•
Estonia: 120 launchers and 350 missiles will be taken into service by 2016.
•
France: 76 launchers and 260 missiles for use in Afghanistan.[23] Was replacing MILAN anti-tank missile,[24] no follow-on order in favor of the missile moyenne portée (MMP).[25]
•
Georgia[26]
•
Indonesia[27]
•
Ireland; Irish Army, replaced MILAN antitank missile.[28]
•
Jordan: 30 launchers and 116 missiles were received in 2004, and another 162 JAVELIN Command Launch Units (CLUs), 18 Fly-to-Buy Missiles, 1,808 JAVELIN Anti-Tank Guided Missiles and other support equipment was ordered in 2009. The estimated cost is $388 million.[29]
•
Lithuania: 40 launchers.[30]
•
New Zealand: 24 launchers[31]
• • •
• •
•
Norway: 100 launchers and 526 missiles. Delivered from 2006, in use from 2009.[32]
669 problems at military armories and warehouses in 2004 and expressed concerns of weapons falling into enemy hands.[42]
229.7.1 Failed bids •
India: India had planned to buy some of the systems off-the-shelf and a much larger number was to be indigenously manufactured under licensed production.[43] But, the plan to go in for the American FGM-148 Javelin ATGMs had “virtually been shelved” because of Washington’s reluctance to provide full military knowhow—licensed “transfer of technology (ToT)"—to allow India to indigenously manufacture the “tank killers” in large numbers after an initial off-the-shelf purchase.[44] In September 2013, the U.S. proposed co-development of the next version of the Javelin with India as a way to deepen defense ties between the two countries.[45] In 2014 the United States offered to transfer fourthgeneration technology for the missile, an improvement over the previous third generation.[46] However, India chose to buy the Israeli Spike missile in October 2014 instead of the Javelin.[47] Germany Germany Army
229.8 See also
Oman: 30 launchers.[33] Qatar: In March 2013, Qatar requested the sale of 500 Javelin missiles and 50 command launch units.[34] The deal was signed in March 2014.[35] Saudi Arabia Taiwan: In 2002, Taiwan bought 360 Javelin missiles and 40 launcher units for $39 million. The contract also included training devices, logistics support, associated equipment and training.[36] In 2008, the United States issued a congressional notification for the sale of a further 20 launchers and 182 more missiles.[37]
• MBT LAW • Spike (missile) • Type 01 LMAT • 9K115-2 Metis-M • Shershen • HJ-12 • Missile Moyenne Portée (MMP) • List of missiles
United Arab Emirates[38]
•
United Kingdom: In January 2003, the UK 229.9 References Ministry of Defence announced that it had decided to procure Javelin for the Light Forces Anti-Tank Notes Guided Weapon System (LFATGWS) requirement. It entered UK service in 2005 replacing the MILAN [1] “United States Department Of Defense Fiscal Year 2015 and Swingfire systems.[7][39][40] Budget Request Program Acquisition Cost By Weapon
•
United States: In 2003, the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) reported that the Army could not account for 36 Javelin command launch units totaling approximately $2.8 million.[41] The New York Times later reported supply chain
System” (pdf). Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense (Comptroller)/ Chief Financial Officer. March 2014. p. 60. [2] 40,000 Javelin Missiles Delivered and Counting PRNewswire.com, 2 December 2014
670
CHAPTER 229. FGM-148 JAVELIN
[3]
[27] Indonesia & Jordan; Javelin missile order - Dmilt.com, May 26, 2013
[4] “Javelin Portable Anti-Tank Missile - Army Technology”. Retrieved 25 December 2014. [5] Javelin Man-Portable Anti-Tank Missile Demonstrates Extended Range Capability - Deagel.com, February 6, 2013 [6] Javelin Antitank Missile [7] “Javelin Portable Anti-Tank Missile - Army Technology”. army-technology.com. Retrieved 25 December 2014. [8] Javelin Antitank Missile
[28] Jones, Richard D. Jane’s Infantry Weapons 2009/2010. Jane’s Information Group; 35 edition (January 27, 2009). ISBN 978-0-7106-2869-5. [29] Jordan to buy Javelin anti-tank missiles from USA of worth $388 million : Defense news [30] The World Defence Almanac 2010 page 174 ISSN 07223226 Monch Publishing Group [31] The World Defence Almanac 2010 page 423 ISSN 07223226 Monch Publishing Group [32] The World Defence Almanac 2010 page 184 ISSN 07223226 Monch Publishing Group
[9] Jane’s Weapon Systems 1988–1989 page 153 [10] JAVELIN, Redstone Arsenal (archived from http://www. redstone.army.mil/history/systems/JAVELIN.html the original on 2001-02-15) [11] Javelin Environmental Test System (JETS), Redstone Technical Test Center (RTTC) (archived from the original on 2008-01-26) [12] Javelin warhead redesigned for future threats - Theredstonerocket.com, 3 July 2012
[33] The World Defence Almanac 2010 page 286 ISSN 07223226 Monch Publishing Group [34] Qatar Requests Sales of 500 Javelin Anti-Tank Missile Rounds and 50 Launch Units - Deagel.com, March 28, 2013 [35] $23.9B in Deals Announced on Last Day of DIMDEX Defensenews.com, 27 March 2014
[13] http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2013PSAR_13/hicks.pdf
[36] Lockheed Martin press release (archived from the original on 2007-03-27)
[14] 64 × 64 LWIR Focal Plane Assembly (FPA) Highly Linear, Rapid Operation Staring Array, Raytheon. (archived from the original on 2009-02-27)
[37] “Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States – JAVELIN Guided Missile Systems”. DSCA. 2008-10-03. Retrieved 2008-10-05.
[15] “262 Phase I Selections from the 06.2 Solicitation”. Archived from the original on 2007-09-27.
[38] The World Defence Almanac 2010 page 298 ISSN 07223226 Monch Publishing Group
[16] Raytheon/Lockheed Martin FGM-148 Javelin
[39] MOD press release
[17] “Javelin Medium Anti-armor Weapon System”. trieved 25 December 2014.
Re-
[18] THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ: COMBAT; How Green Berets Beat the Odds at an Iraq Alamo By THOM SHANKER Published: September 22, 2003, New York Times [19] Javelin in Afghanistan: The Effective Use of an Anti-Tank Weapon for Counter-Insurgency Operations [20] The World Defence Almanac 2010 page 418 ISSN 07223226 Monch Publishing Group. Australia was one of the first countries that the US government gave “unrestricted” permission for the export of the Javelin. [21] Bahrain Requests 160 Javelins & 60 CLUs [22] A-report (Czech) (archived from the original on 2009-0227) [23] The World Defence Almanac 2010 page 136 ISSN 07223226 Monch Publishing Group [24] France replacing Milan – Strategypage.com [25] France Orders Anti-Tank Missile from MBDA - Defensenews.com, 5 December 2013 [26] Georgia to buy weapons from US: Voice of Russia
[40] Javelin Medium Range Anti-tank Guided Weapon [41] Abate, Tom (2003-05-18). “Military waste under fire / trillion missing – Bush plan targets Pentagon accounting”. The San Francisco Chronicle. [42] Schmitt, Eric; Thompson, Ginger (2007-11-11). “Broken Supply Channel Sent Arms for Iraq Astray”. The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-05-02. [43] Pandit, Rajat (2010-08-17). “India to order large number of Javelin anti-tank missiles from US”. The Times Of India. [44] Pandit, Rajat (2012-11-29). “Israel pips US in anti-tank guided missile supply to India”. The Times Of India. [45] United States and India could start the co-development of new version of Javelin anti-tank missile - Armyrecognition.com, 22 September 2013 [46] RAGHUVANSHI, VIVEK (16 August 2014). “Too Early To Assess Indo-US Defense Ties”. www.defensenews. com (Gannett). Retrieved 16 August 2014. [47] India will purchase 8,000 Israeli Spike anti-tank guided missiles and 300 units of launchers - Armyrecognition.com, 26 October 2014
Bibliography
229.10. EXTERNAL LINKS
229.10 External links • Javelin, Lockheed Martin (archived from the original on 2008-01-20) • Designation Systems • FAS article on Javelin • Javelin tank killer • AAWS-M: from the DRAGON to today’s JAVELIN Story • Javelin Lockheed Martin Anti-tank infrared guided missile on armyrecognition.com
671
Chapter 230
FGM-172 SRAW The FGM-172 SRAW (Short-Range Assault Weapon), also known as the Predator SRAW, is a lightweight, close range missile system produced by Lockheed Martin, developed by Lockheed Martin and Israel Military Industries.[2] It is designed to complement the Javelin antitank missile. The Predator has a longer range and is more powerful than the AT4 that it is designed to replace, but has a shorter range than the Javelin.
for use as an anti-armor weapon. The FGM-172B features a multi-purpose blastfragmentation warhead, and is intended for use as an assault weapon. Also known as the FGM-172B SRAW-MPV
230.2.2 Weapon
The missile system received the FGM-172 designation from the Department of Defense in 2006. Prior to that The Kestrel is a derivative of the Predator for the British Army’s Next-generation Light Anti-tank Weapon it was known as the SRAW MK 40 MOD 0. (NLAW).[1] It failed the NLAW test.[4]
230.1 Features
230.3 Advantages
The Predator is a fire-and-forget weapon utilizing a prelaunch system where the gunner tracks the target three seconds before launch and the internal system measures target speed and direction and is used in conjunction with known missile flight performance to predict where the target will be when the missile is in a position to intercept. The missile’s flight path overflies the target aim point. A dual laser and magnetic sensor detects the target and triggers the detonation of the warhead. The laser sensor locates the positions of the leading and trailing edges of the tank, and the magnetic sensor provides confirmation of the position of the tank. The missile also uses an inertial guidance unit that guides the weapon over the predicted intercept point, compensating for crosswind and launcher motion (the launcher may be mounted on or fired from a vehicle). For direct attacks the missile acts as an unguided, flattened trajectory, line-of-sight weapon and the warhead detonates on impact.[3]
230.2 Variants 230.2.1
The Predator is a useful complement for Javelin since it has a significantly shorter minimum range, especially in direct attack mode where it can be fired window to window across a typical street. It is also much lighter than Javelin which makes carrying one or more additional rounds easier where the situation warrants or allows a lighter and shorter range solution. Additionally, because it utilizes a different guidance mechanism it is more difficult to defeat both threats with a single defense. It can also be carried by every member of the platoon, giving infantry units increased firepower and survivability against enemy armor.
230.4 Operators •
United States Marine Corps
230.5 Predator MPV
Missile
In 2003 the US Army decided not to adopt a version of the USMC Predator as its MPIM/SRAW (MultipurThe missile is produced in two variants, each with a sep- pose Individual Munition - Short Range Assault Weapon) arate weapons payload. candidate and further procurement of the Predator was The FGM-172A features a downward-firing top attack canceled.[5] And as of 2005, all the FGM-172A missiles warhead activated by a dual sensor fuse, and is intended supplied previously to the USMC have been retrofitted 672
230.7. EXTERNAL LINKS with the FGM-172B multi-purpose blast warhead to replace the top attack anti-armor warhead.[6]
230.6 References [1] “Predator Light Anti-Armour Missile, USA”. SPG Media. Retrieved 2008-10-28. [2] “Lockheed Martin to Develop Follow-on to ShoulderLaunched Multi-Purpose Assault Weapon for U.S. Marine Corps”. [3] “Army Technology FGM-172 SRAW”. Retrieved 201205-12. [4] “Lockheed Martin FGM-172 SRAW”. 2006-09-27. Retrieved 2008-10-28. [5] John Antal “Packing a Punch: America’s Man-Portable Antitank Weapons” page 88 Military Technology 3/2010, Monch Publishing [6] Jennifer Allen (2005-05-26). “Lockheed Martin, Responding to U.S. Marine Corps Needs, Converts Anti-Tank Missile for Urban Assault” (press release). Lockheed Martin.
230.7 External links • Lockheed Martin FGM-172 SRAW - Designation Systems • Lockheed Martin video on firing of Predator
673
Chapter 231
Joint Air-to-Ground Missile The Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) is a U.S. military program to develop an air-to-surface missile to replace the current air-launched BGM-71 TOW, AGM114 Hellfire and AGM-65 Maverick missiles.[3] The US Army and Navy plans to buy thousands of JAGMs.[4]
231.4 Timeline • June 2007: US Defense Department releases a draft request for proposals (RFP) launching a competition for the Joint Air to Ground Missile (JAGM) program, schedules industry day.[5] • April 2008: Raytheon and Boeing announce teaming for the Joint Air to Ground Missile (JAGM) program.[7]
231.1 Description The Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) program is a follow-on from the unsuccessful AGM-169 Joint Common Missile program that was cancelled due to budget cuts. JAGM will share basically the same objectives and technologies as JCM but will be developed over a longer time scale.[5]
• September 2008: Lockheed Martin announced that they were awarded a $122 million technology development contract for the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) system. The 27-month contract, awarded by the U.S. Army’s Aviation and Missile Command, with participation by the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, is for a competitive risk-reduction phase.[8]
231.2 Launch platforms
• September 2008: U.S. Army Awards RaytheonBoeing Team $125 million contract for JAGM.[9] • January 2010: Raytheon-Boeing team completes first JAGM captive flight test.[10]
• AH-64 Apache • MQ-1C Gray Eagle[3]
• March 2010: U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM) updates the draft request for proposal (RFP) and releases it.[11]
• MH-60R/S Seahawk • AH-1Z Viper[1]
• March 2010: Lockheed Martin Successfully Tests JAGM Tri-Mode Seeker.[12] • April 2010: Raytheon-Boeing team validates JAGM seeker during captive flight tests.[13]
231.3 Operators United States: The JAGM was intended for joint service with the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Marine Corps by providing a single missile configuration for many platforms. JAGM offered the services increased operational flexibility and reduced logistics support costs.[3] However, in February 2012, the Navy and Marine Corps terminated their investment in the program, saying it was a “manageable risk” to do so. They would instead focus on the GBU-53/B SDB II and continued Hellfire procurement, making the JAGM an Armyonly program. In March 2014, the Navy re-entered the program with documents showing integration of the missile onto Marine AH-1Z helicopters.[6] 674
• April 2010: Lockheed Martin, Aerojet achieve JAGM rocket motor breakthrough.[14] • April 2010: Lockheed Martin’s JAGM successfully completes Limited Dirty Battlefield/Countermeasures testing.[15] • April 2010: JAGM.[16]
Raytheon-Boeing team fires first
• May 2010: Lockheed Martin’s JAGM successfully completes F/A-18 E/F wind tunnel tests.[17] • July 2010: Raytheon-Boeing Team on Target During First Government-Funded Test of JAGM[18]
231.5. SEE ALSO • Aug 2010: Raytheon-Boeing Team on Target During Second Government-Funded Test • Sep 2010: Raytheon-Boeing Team on Target During Third Government-Funded Test • Nov 2010: Lockheed Martin JAGM Hits Target in Multi-Mission Test[19] • Jan 2011: Lockheed Martin JAGM Completes Flying Qualities Test on US Navy Super Hornet[20] Each team submitted its proposal in the spring of 2011, with contract award expected in the first quarter of 2012. However, in September the Army and Navy requested the JAGM program be terminated.[21] • Jan 2012: JAGM survives budget reduction plan with reduced funding.[22] • Aug 17, 2012: Lockheed Martin receives a $64 million contract from the U.S. Army to extend the JAGM technology development program. The 27month extended technology development program will include design, test, and demonstration phases for the JAGM guidance section.[23] • Aug 2012: The Army drops its requirement for a trimode seeker due to budget cutbacks. The current plan is to separate JAGM into increments, with the first adding a low-frequency millimeter wave radar to Hellfire-R model missiles to augment its laser seeker, making it dual-mode. A more expensive trimode seeker adding an imaging infrared sensor is delayed. Lockheed claimed the IR seeker disproportionately drove up costs, while Raytheon claimed it could leverage technology it used for the GBU53/B SDB II to inexpensively keep the tri-mode seeker.[24] • Oct 22, 2012: Raytheon submits its contract proposal to continue the development of its version of the JAGM. The imaging infrared seeker requirement was previously dropped due to cost, but the Raytheon seeker is the same one used on the SDB II, so they continued to develop their system with all three modes.[25] • Oct 23, 2012: Lockheed Martin successfully tested millimeter wave and semi-active laser seeker for missile at maximum range.[26] • Dec 6, 2012: Raytheon receives a $65 million 28month contract to continue development of their JAGM missile and uncooled tri-mode seeker.[27] • April 2013: JAGM in danger of cancellation as part of budget cuts in FY 2014 budget.[28]
675 • July 17, 2013: Army announces they will not award Raytheon a contract for the remainder of the Technology Development (TD) phase and will continue with Lockheed’s contract.[29] • February 2014: Lockheed demonstrates JAGM dual-mode guidance section by engaging a laserdesignated moving target. The seeker features Hellfire semi-active laser and Longbow millimeter wave radar. The rail-mounted guidance section flew 6 km (3.7 mi), engaged its precision-strike, semi-active laser, and hit the target.[30] • July 2014: Lockheed performs a second flight test of their JAGM dual-mode guidance section. The target was initially acquired with its semi-active laser, then engaged its millimeter wave radar, hitting a moving target at 6.2 km (3.9 mi).[31] • February 2015: Army issues RFP for JAGM guidance section upgrade. Lockheed will offer its dualmode laser and millimeter wave radar seeker, and Raytheon may submit its tri-mode seeker which adds imaging infrared if it choses to compete.[32]
231.5 See also • Naval Air Systems Command • List of missiles by country • Brimstone missile • Spike (missile) • Precision Attack Air-to-Surface Missile
231.6 References [1] . [2] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/ data/mfc/photo/tradeshows/ausa-winter-2014/briefings/ mfc-2014-AUSA-Winter-JAGM-briefing.pdf [3] “ARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R2 Exhibit) - PDF”. [4] “VIDEO: Raytheon/Boeing show JAGM direct hit”. Retrieved 2010-08-17. [5] “Pentagon Plans Industry Day For Joint Air To Ground Missile - Defense Daily, Vol. 234, No. 60”. [6] JAGM: Joint Air-Ground Missile Again - Defenseindustrydaily.com [7] “Raytheon News Raytheon.mediaroom.com. 2013-10-06. [8]
Release 2008-04-14.
Archive”. Retrieved
676
CHAPTER 231. JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE
[9] “Raytheon Company : Investor Relations : News Release”. Investor.raytheon.com. 2008-09-22. Retrieved 2013-10-06.
[30] Lockheed Martin Demonstrates JAGM Dual-Mode Guidance Section in Recent Flight Test - Lockheed news release, 20 February 2014
[10] “Raytheon-Boeing Team Completes First Joint Air-toGround Missile Captive Flight Test - Jan 29, 2010”. Raytheon.mediaroom.com. 2010-01-29. Retrieved 2013-10-06.
[31] Lockheed Martin Demonstrates JAGM Dual-Mode Guidance Section in Second Flight Test - Deagel.com, 23 July 2014
[11] “14-Draft Request for Proposal (RFP), number W31P4Q-10-R-A001 for a Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM), System. - W31P4Q-10-R-A001 (Archived) - Federal Business Opportunities: Opportunities”. Fbo.gov. Retrieved 2013-10-06. [12] [13] “Raytheon-Boeing Team Validates Joint Air-to-Ground Missile Seeker During Captive Flight Tests - Apr 15, 2010”. Raytheon.mediaroom.com. 2010-04-15. Retrieved 2013-10-06.
[32] US army seeks upgrades for Hellfire missile guidance system - Flightglobal.com, 6 February 2015
231.7 External links • Army RDT&E 2009 Budget Item Justification (PDF) • Army RDT&E 2010 Budget Item Justification (PDF)
[14]
• U.S. Navy NAVAIR JAGM page
[15]
• Lockheed Martin JAGM page
[16] “Raytheon Company : Investor Relations : News Release”. Investor.raytheon.com. 2010-04-20. Retrieved 2013-10-06.
• 2012 Army Weapon Systems Handbook - JAGM • Raytheon JAGM datasheet
[17] [18] “Raytheon-Boeing Team on Target During First Government-Funded Test of JAGM - Jul 26, 2010”. Raytheon.mediaroom.com. Retrieved 2013-10-06. [19] [20] [21] Sherman, Jason (11 October 2011). “Army, Navy Propose Terminating Joint Air-to-Ground Missile Program”. Inside Defense. Retrieved 5 December 2011. [22] “US budget cuts-Flightglobal-Jan 26, 2012”. Flightglobal.com. 2012-01-26. Retrieved 2013-11-14. [23] Lockheed Martin Awarded $64 Million JAGM Contract For Extended Technology Development. Lockheed press release, Aug. 17, 2012 [24] Army Reduces Scope Of Tri-Mode JAGM - Aviationweek.com, 27 August 2012 [25] Raytheon submits JAGM contact proposal. global.com, October 23, 2012
• Raytheon JAGM page
Flight-
[26] Lockheed Martin Demonstrates JAGM Dual-Mode Seeker. Lockheed press release, October 23, 2012 [27] US Army awards JAGM continued technology development contract - Army-Technology.com, December 6, 2012 [28] Obama plan would end anti-tank missile - Orlandosentinel.com, 14 April 2013 [29] US Army to move ahead with Lockheed Martin JAGM Janes.com, 18 July 2013
• HELLFIRE II Missile
Chapter 232
Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System The APKWS II shares the Distributed Aperture SemiActive Laser Seeker (DASALS) technology with the XM395 mortar round. This system allows a laser seeker to be located in the leading edge of each of the forward control canards, working in unison as if they were a single seeker. This configuration allows existing warheads from the Hydra 70 system to be used without the need for a laser seeker in the missile nose.
232.2.1 Specifications • Diameter: 70 mm • Guidance: Semi-active laser homing. • CEP: <0.5m[3]
APKWS missile
• Motor: Existing Hydra 70 motors.
The Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) is a laser guided missile which is compatible with existing Hydra 70 unguided rocket launchers and components in service.
• Warhead: Existing Hydra 70 warheads. • Unit cost: ~ $28,500 • APKWS is a “plug and play,” “point and shoot” weapon, and is fired like the unguided 2.75-inch rocket. The weapon is easily assembled and can be shot with minimal instruction, as if it were an unguided rocket.
232.1 Development Where possible the system utilizes existing Hydra 70 components such as launchers, rocket motors, warheads and fuzes. The weapon bridges the gap between the Hydra 70 and AGM-114 Hellfire systems and provides a cost-effective method of engaging lightly armored point targets. APKWS is the U.S. government’s only program of record for the semi-active, laser-guided 2.75-inch (70 millimeter) rocket. It converts the Hydra 70 unguided rocket into a precision guided munition through the addition of a mid-body guidance unit developed by BAE Systems.
232.3 Program status • 2002: APKWS development test series begins.[4] • April 2005: General Dynamics APKWS program cancelled due to poor test results.[5] • October 2005: Competition re-opened as APKWS II.[5] • September 2005: Successful flight test of BAE APKWS II.[6]
232.2 Design The winning bidder for the APKWS II contract was the team of BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics,[1] beating out the offerings from Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Systems.[2] 677
• April 2006: BAE Systems selected as prime contractor for the APKWS II program.[7] • February 2007: Funding for program withdrawn in proposed FY2008 budget.[8][9]
678
CHAPTER 232. ADVANCED PRECISION KILL WEAPON SYSTEM
• May 2007: Successful flight test of BAE APKWS II in production-ready configuration.[10] • November 2008: Transfer of contract from US Army to US Navy.[11]
232.3.1
Deployment
• March 2012: APKWS II achieves IOC and is sent to Afghanistan with USMC. Plans are to integrate it onto the MQ-8 Fire Scout.[12] • July 2012: BAE Systems receives full-rate production contract for APKWS from the U.S. Navy. The first FRP deliveries were in October 2012 and the company expected the next FRP option to be awarded by the end of 2012.[13] APKWS is approximately one-third of the cost and one-third of the weight of the current inventory of laser-guided weapons in use by U.S. forces, and a lower yield weapon suitable for tighter spaces. The APKWS takes one quarter of the time for ordnance personnel to use (load and unload the weapon). It has been deployed to Afghanistan and is being successfully used in theatre today by USMC personnel. • September 2012: The Navy awards a contract to officially integrate the APKWS into the Fire Scout.[14]
• October 2013: APKWS successfully fired from an AH-64 Apache. Eight rockets were fired with the helicopter flying at up to 150 kn (170 mph; 280 km/h) and up to 5 km (3.1 mi) from the target. Launch altitudes ranged from 300 ft to 1,500 ft. BAE wants airworthiness qualification on the Apache for international sales to AH-64 operators.[20] • March 2014: LAU-61 G/A Digital Rocket Launcher (DRL) deployed with HSC-15.[21] • July 2014: BAE reveals that the APKWS has reached Early Operational Capability (EOC) with one squadron of MH-60S helicopters. The MH-60R will be outfitted within “12-18 months.”[22] BAE expressed confidence that the US Army would order APKWS in 2015, most likely for its Apaches.[23] • October 2014: APKWS tested on Australian Army Eurocopter Tiger. A helicopter was on the ground and fired seven rockets which successfully hit their targets. The rocket could enter Australian service by early 2015 on army Tigers and navy MH-60R helicopters.[24]
232.4 Export
• October 2012: BAE announces its intention to mod- On 14 April 2014, the U.S. Navy signed an agreement ify the APKWS II to be fired from fixed-wing tacti- with the Jordanian Air Force for the first international sale of the APKWS. The rockets will be used on the CN-235 cal fighter platforms.[15] gunship and begin delivery in 2016.[25] • January 2013: Additional conversion kits ordered. No in flight failures during the 100 combat launches in Afghanistan to date.[16]
232.5 Launch platforms
• February 2013: APKWS launched from an A-10 Thunderbolt II. Three sorties were conducted. The first sortie carried the rocket and launcher, and the second sortie fired an inert, unguided rocket to ensure the weapon would separate from the aircraft. Two armed rockets were fired during the third sortie from 10,000 and 15,000 feet. The second rocket launched into a 70 knot headwind, and both impacted within inches of the target. The Air Force is considering using the APKWS II operationally by 2015 if further testing is successful.[17]
• Current rotary wing:[12][18] • UH-1Y Venom • AH-1W SuperCobra • AH-1Z Viper • Bell 407GT • MH-60S Seahawk • Planned rotary wing[18]
• March 2013: APKWS is integrated onto the Bell 407GT.[18]
• MQ-8 Fire Scout
• April 2013: A UH-1Y Venom fired 10 APKWS rockets at stationary and moving small boat targets, scoring 100 percent accurate hits on single and multiple targets over water. The engagement ranged from 2–4 km using inert warheads, Mk152 high explosive warheads, and MK149 flechette warheads. The UH-1Y had the boats designated by an MH60S.[19]
• OH-58 Kiowa (company funded)
• MH-60R Seahawk • AH-64 Apache (company funded) • V-22 Osprey[26] • Planned fixed-wing[18] • A-10 Thunderbolt II • AV-8B Harrier II
232.8. EXTERNAL LINKS • F/A-18 Hornet[27] • F/A-18 Super Hornet • F-16 Fighting Falcon • CN-235[25]
679
[16] “BAE gets more work for laser-guided missiles.” - Unionleader.com, 15 January 2013 [17] A-10 Fires First-Ever Laser-Guided Rocket - AF.mil, April 3, 2013 [18] BAE’s APKWS rockets integrated on Bell’s new Model 407GT - Flightglobal.com, March 5, 2013
232.6 See also • AASM • Low-Cost Guided Imaging Rocket • Direct Attack Guided Rocket • Guided Advanced Tactical Rocket - Laser • Roketsan Cirit • List of laser articles
232.7 References [1] U.S. ARMY SELECTS BAE SYSTEMS FOR APKWS II CONTRACT - BAE [2] APKWS II: Laser-Guided Hydra Rockets in Production At Last [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INqboBcIVGs [4] APKWS II - Deagel [5] Air-Launched 2.75-Inch Rockets - Designation Systems [6] BAE SYSTEMS 70MM LASER-GUIDED ROCKET ACHIEVES TWO DIRECT HITS - BAE
[19] APKWS Demonstrates Anti-Ship Capability In Maritime Testing - Seapowermagazine.org, April 10, 2013 [20] APKWS Laser-Guided Rocket Successfully Qualified on US Army Apache Helicopters - Deagel.com, 22 October 2013 [21] Scott, Richard (31 March 2014). “USN adds anti-FIAC capability to MH-60S to meet urgent operational need”. www.janes.com. IHS Jane. Retrieved 2 April 2014. [22] Interest grows in APKWS - Shephardmedia.com, 17 July 2014 [23] Stevenson, Beth (21 July 2014). “FARNBOROUGH: BAE bullish about APKWS purchase for US Army”. Flight Daily News. [24] Australia tests BAE’s Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System - UPI.com, 14 October 2014 [25] Jordan Equips CN-235 Gunship with APKWS 2.75″ Guided Rockets - Defense-Update.com, 1 May 2014 [26] Osprey Fires Guided Rockets And Missiles In New Trials - Aviationweek.com, 8 December 2014 [27] U.S. Marines to Retire Harrier Fleet Earlier Than Planned, Extend Life of Hornets - News.USNI.org, 3 November 2014
232.8 External links
[7] APKWS II “Hellfire Jr.” Hydra Rockets Enter SDD Phase [8] Army Proposes Major Weapons Cuts - military.com
• APKWS - BAE
[9] US Army 2008 R&D Budget Request (Page 4)
• Distributed Aperture Semi-Active Laser Seeker (DASALS) - BAE Systems
[10] “BAE SYSTEMS CONDUCTS SUCCESSFUL TEST OF ADVANCED PRECISION KILL WEAPON SYSTEM - BAE PR”. [11] “BAE SYSTEMS PRECISION-TARGETED WEAPON DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM NOW LED BY U.S. NAVY AND MARINE CORPS”.
• Hydra-70 Rockets: From Cutbacks to the Future of Warfare - Defense Industry Daily • Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System - Defense Update
[12] Marine helicopters deploy with laser-guided rocket NAVAIR.Navy.mil, 17 April 2012
• Laser Guided APKWS II Rockets for USMC Harrier, Air Combat Command’s Warthog - DefenseUpdate
[13] Eshel, Tamir. “APKWS Enters Full Rate production.” Defense Update, 13 August 2012.
• Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) - Global Security
[14] BAE Systems to Integrate Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System on MQ-8B Fire Scout UAV - sUASNews.com, September 18, 2012
• BAE Systems’ video of APKWS on YouTube
[15] BAE to demonstrate APKWS on fixed-wing aircraft Flightglobal.com, October 23, 2012
Chapter 233
AGM-87 Focus The AGM-87 Focus is a missile developed by the United States of America.
233.1 Overview The missile was a development of the AIM-9B Sidewinder air-to-air missile, intended for use against ground targets. Development took place at the China Lake Naval Weapons Center during the late 1960s. The infrared guidance method of the Sidewinder was retained, as the missile was to be used against targets which emitted an infrared signature. Typical targets included trucks and other such vehicles. The Focus was used in Vietnam during 1969 and 1970, primarily for night attacks when IR emitters stand out well against the cool background. Although the missile was reportedly quite effective, it was discontinued in favour of other weapons.
233.2 Specifications • Length : 2.83 m (9 ft 3.5 in) • Finspan : 0.56 m (1 ft 10 in) • Diameter : 12.7 cm (5 in) • Weight : 70 kg (155 lb) • Propulsion : Thiokol MK 17 MOD 3 solid-fuel rocket
233.3 External links • General Electric AGM-87 Focus - Designation Systems
680
Chapter 234
AGM-129 ACM The AGM-129 ACM (Advanced Cruise Missile) was a low-observable, subsonic, turbofan-powered, airlaunched cruise missile originally designed and built by General Dynamics and eventually acquired by Raytheon Missile Systems. Prior to its withdrawal from service in 2012, the AGM-129A was carried exclusively by the US Air Force's B-52H Stratofortress bombers.
provided by a Lidar Doppler velocimeter. These changes made the AGM-129A more difficult to detect and allowed the missile to be flown at higher altitude. The newer Williams International F112-WR-100 turbofan engine increased range by about 50%. The newer guidance system, increased accuracy to a quoted figure of between 30 m (100 ft) and 90 m (300 ft). The AGM-129A like the AGM-86B is armed with a W80−1 variable yield nuclear warhead.
234.1 Early development In 1982 the US Air Force began studies for a new cruise missile with low-observable characteristics after it became clear that the AGM-86B cruise missile would have difficulty penetrating future air defense systems. The AGM-86B relied on low-altitude flight to penetrate the Soviet air defense system centered on surface to air missiles. The deployment of the airborne early warning systems, together with the Zaslon PESA radar on Mig-31 and Myech radar on Su-27 interceptors, all three "lookdown/shoot-down" radars, reduced the likelihood that the low-altitude AGM-86B would reach its target. The solution was to incorporate various “low-observable” ('stealth') technologies into a new Advanced Cruise Missile system.
234.2 Design, test and initial production In 1983 General Dynamics Convair Division (GD/C) was awarded a development contract for the AGM-129A (the losing design was Lockheed Corporation's Senior Prom). The AGM-129A incorporated body shaping and forward swept wings to reduce the missile’s radar cross section. The engine air intake was flush mounted on the bottom of the missile to further improve radar cross section. The jet engine exhaust was shielded by the tail and cooled by a diffuser to reduce the infra-red signature of the missile. To reduce electronic emissions from the missile, the radar used in the AGM-86B was replaced with a combination of inertial navigation and terrain contour matching TERCOM enhanced with highly accurate speed updates
The first test missile flew in July 1985 and the first production missiles were delivered to the US Air Force in 1987. The development program experienced some hardware quality control problems and testing mishaps. The flight test program took place during a period of high tension between the machinist’s union and GDC management, with a 3 1/2 week long strike occurring in 1987. US Congressman Les Aspin called the ACM a procurement disaster with the worst problems of any of the eight strategic weapons programs his committee had reviewed. The US Congress zeroed out funding for the ACM program in 1989. Manufacturing quality problems led the US Air Force to stop missile deliveries in 1989 and 1991. McDonnell Douglas was invited to qualify as a second source for missile production. In early 1989, the United States requested and received permission to test the AGM-129A in Canada. Plans called for producing enough missiles to replace the approximately 1,461 AGM-86B’s at a rate of 200 missiles per year after full-rate production was achieved in 1993. In January 1992, the end of the Cold War led US President George H.W. Bush to announce a major cutback in total ACM procurement. The President determined that only 640 missiles were needed. The ACM program was later reduced still further to 460 missiles. In August 1992 General Dynamics sold its missile business to Hughes Aircraft Corporation. Five years later in 1997, Hughes Aircraft Corporation sold its aerospace and defense business to the final production contractor Raytheon. The US Air Force pushed for production of a AGM129B variant for targets for which the AGM-129A was considered ineffective. The US Air Force submitted this requirement in 1985 and proposed to modify 120 missiles into the AGM-129B variant. In 1991 the US Congress
681
682 denied the request and the US Air Force was forced to terminate the program. In 1992, the US Air Force was directed by the US Department of Defense to restart the program, an effort which was opposed by the General Accounting Office of the US Congress. Confusion exists as to precisely how this weapon is different from the original. The Department of Defense document DoD 4120.15-L “Model Designation of Military Aerospace Vehicles” states that the AGM-129B was an AGM-129A “modified with structural and software changes and an alternate nuclear warhead for accomplishing a classified cruise missile mission.” However, Ozu states the AGM129B was intended to be a non-nuclear version of the ACM, much as the nuclear AGM-86B led to the conventional AGM-86C.
234.3 Operational history
CHAPTER 234. AGM-129 ACM AGM-86 ALCMs and 460 AGM-129 ACMs. The B-52 is the only platform for these missiles.[1] The reductions also include all but 528 nuclear-armed ALCMs and are in part a result of the SORT/Moscow Treaty (2002) requirement to get below 2,200 deployed nuclear weapons by 2012, with the ACM chosen because it has reliability issues and higher maintenance costs.[2] In March 2007, despite a Service Life Extension program (SLEP) intended to extend its operational usefulness to 2030, the USAF made the final decision to decommission its entire inventory of AGM-129s with the last missile being destroyed in April 2012.[1]
234.3.1 Handling incident Main article: 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident On August 30, 2007 twelve ACMs loaded on a B-52 were flown across the US from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana for decommissioning. The nuclear warheads which should have been removed before the flight were mistakenly left installed on six of the ACMs. For 36 hours the nuclear weapons were unaccounted for, which led to an official investigation of the incident.[3][4]
234.4 Variants • AGM-129A - 461 missiles produced.[5] AGM-129A cruise missiles being secured on a B-52H bomber
• AGM-129B - Designation was assigned in 1988 for a modified missile with structural and software changes and fitted with a different nuclear warhead.
The B-52H bomber can carry up to six AGM-129A missiles on each of two external pylons for a total of 12 • AGM-129C - Conventional Warhead Variants per aircraft. Originally, an additional 8 ACMs could be carried internally in the B-52 on Common Strategic Rotary Launchers, for a total of 20 per aircraft. The B-1B bomber was also slated to carry the AGM-129A, but that 234.5 Operators plan was ended after the cessation of the Cold War. The AGM-129A provides the B-52H bomber the ability to 234.5.1 Former Operators attack multiple targets without penetrating an air defense system. United States An AGM-129A impacted and damaged two unoccupied trailers, part of a cosmic ray observatory operated by the University of Utah and Tokyo University, located in the “hazardous operations” area of the United States Army 234.6 Survivors Dugway Proving Ground on December 10, 1997. The AGM-129A was released over the Utah Test and Train• AGM-129A located in the National Museum of the ing Range from a B-52H bomber assigned to Minot Air United States Air Force, Wright-Patterson Air Force Force Base, North Dakota. The missile had flown for apBase, Dayton, Ohio proximately 3.5 hours on its planned route and had ful• AGM-129A located in the Strategic Air and Space filled all test objectives prior to the mishap. The missile Museum, Ashland, Nebraska was carrying an inert test payload. Mission planners were unaware of the existence of the trailers. • AGM-129A located at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma The Air Force in 2008 maintained an arsenal of 1,140
(N35 25' 59.69” W07 24' 18.42”)
234.9. EXTERNAL LINKS
683 5. Missile 2000 - Reference Guide to World Missile Systems, Hajime Ozu, Shinkigensha, Tokyo, 2000 (Japanese) 6. 2003-2004 Weapons File, United States Air Force, Eglin Air Force Base, 2003 7. Sandia Engineers test cruise missile to qualify W80-3 in electromagnetic environments”, Sandia Lab News”, April 14, 2006.
An AGM-129 on display at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma.
234.7 See also • Missile of the same class • TAURUS KEPD 350 (Germany/Sweden) • Storm Shadow (France/UK/Italy)
234.8 References 234.8.1
Notes
[1] “Cruise missile career comes to close”. U.S. Air Force. 2012-04-24. Archived from the original on 2013-12-20. Retrieved 2013-09-17. [2] http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/ 2010/February%202010/0210missile.aspx Archived March 15, 2014 at the Wayback Machine [3] Warrick, Joby; Walter Pincus (2007-09-23). “Missteps in the Bunker”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-0924. [4] “Commander Directed Investigation”. Archived from the original on 2012-02-24. Retrieved 2010-04-10. [5] “Gallery of USAF Weapons”, 2008 Almanac, AIR FORCE Magazine, May 2008, p.155.
1. Alleged violations of the Antideficiency Act in the Air Force’s procurement of advanced cruise missiles.FILE B-255831, Office of the General Counsel, United States General Accounting Office. 2. Union Calls for Strike by Convair Machinists, LA Times, 1987 Would Affect 4,000 Workers : Union Calls for Strike by Convair Machinists - Los Angeles Times 3. Machinists’ Accord Ends Convair Strike, LA Times, 1987 Machinists’ Accord Ends Convair Strike - Los Angeles Times 4. Nuclear Weapons of the United States, James N. Gibson, Schiffer Publishing Ltd, Atglen, Pennsylvania, 2000 ISBN 978-0-7643-0063-9
8. ACC releases Advanced Cruise Missile accident investigation report, Air Force News Service, July 10, 1998. 9. AGM-129A Description Board”, National Museum of the Air Force, Aug 18, 2007. 10. The USAF and the Cruise Missile, Technology and the Air Force A Retrospective Assessment, Air Force History and Museums Program, 1997 11. Model Designation of Military Aerospace Vehicles, DoD 4120.15-L, Department of Defense, 2004
234.8.2 Books • Gibson, James N. (2000). Nuclear Weapons of the United States: An Illustrated History. Schiffer Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7643-0063-9.
234.9 External links • AGM-129A Advanced Cruise Missile Air Force Factsheet • Cruise Missile Testing in Canada: The Post-Cold War Debate • Designation Systems
Chapter 235
AGM-130 The AGM-130 is an air-to-surface guided missile developed by the United States of America.
235.2 Variants The upgraded AGM-130 Mid-Course Guidance (MCG) weapon, employs an improved global positioning and inertial navigation system. This allows the weapon to be used with less input from the launch aircraft, freeing the pilot and weapon systems officer for other tasks. The weapon became operational in 1998 when two F15Es from the 335th and 336th Fighter Squadrons at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina, fired one weapon each.
235.1 Overview
The AGM-130 is a powered air-to-surface missile designed for strikes at long range against various targets. It is essentially a rocket-boosted version of the GBU-15 bomb, with the rocket motor increasing the launch range and so giving the launch aircraft protection from whatever defenses may protect the target. Two can be carried The AGM-130LW [lightweight] is designed to be used by by the F-15E. single-seat aircraft such as the F-16C/D. It also has an enThe weapon utilizes inertial navigation aided by the hanced global positioning and inertial navigation system Global Positioning System (GPS). It can be retargeted in capability. The smaller, less powerful warhead used on flight; the guidance head of the weapon provides a visual this weapon allows better control over collateral damage. image of the target to the launch aircraft via the AXQ-14 data link, allowing the controller to steer it to the target (command guidance). The weapon can be retargeted in flight by simply steering it to a new target. Control can be released at any point, allowing the missile to home in on the target by itself. The AGM-130 is highly accurate, and is intended for use against high value targets which are either slow moving or of fixed location.
The AGM-130C employed a 2,000-pound penetrating warhead for use against hardened targets. It was developed, but not put into service.
The Autonomous AGM-130 is a proposed weapon that would incorporate a laser radar (LADAR) seeker, removing any need for the weapon to be steered to the target. The aircraft interface would be based on the JDAM interface; use of the autonomous seeker would greatly reduce The GBU-15 is a modular weapon, and the AGM-130 the mission planning requirements and aircrew workload. continues this concept. It consists of a CCD TV or focal Elimination of the datalink would also reduce the suscepplane array imaging infrared seeker head, a radar altime- tibility to countermeasures. ter, wings, strakes, a Mark 84 or BLU-109 warhead, a control section, and a rocket motor and data link unit. The AGM-130 needs little support on the ground, and can 235.3 Combat history be based in remote “bare base” sites. What support and maintenance is required can be provided by mobile sup- The AGM-130 saw its first operational service on 11 Janport equipment and intermediate level maintenance capa- uary 1999 during Operation Northern Watch, when a pair bility. of AGM-130s were used by F-15Es to destroy two Iraqi [1] Development of the AGM-130A began in 1984 as an im- SAM sites. The AGM-130 was also the weapon used provement to the GBU-15. The first unit became oper- in the April 1999 NATO strike on a railway bridge in ational in 1994. Precise numbers are classified, but the Grdelica, Serbia. US Air Force planned to buy 4,000+ originally. This was reduced to 2,300 units, and in 1995 further reduced to 502. 235.4 Operators Development of the AGM-130 cost $192 million, not including a further $11 million for the AGM-130C. Unit cost of the weapons are an estimated $880,000. 684
•
United States: The United States Air Force is the only operator of the AGM-130
235.6. EXTERNAL LINKS
235.5 References Citations [1] Michael Knights, Cradle of Conflict: Iraq and the Birth of Modern U.S. Military Power, 2005, p.225
Bibliography • Bonds, Ray and David Miller. “Boeing Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche”. Illustrated Directory of Modern American Weapons. Zenith Imprint, 2002. ISBN 0-7603-1346-6.
235.6 External links • Boeing (Rockwell) AGM-130 - Designation Systems • Rockwell AGM-130 on APA
685
Chapter 236
AGM-137 TSSAM • Warhead : 450 kg (1,000 lb)
The Northrop AGM-137 TSSAM (Tri-Service Standoff Attack Missile) was a standoff cruise missile developed for the U.S. military.
• Range : 185 km+ (115 miles+) • Guidance : Inertial/GPS, IIR terminal • Propulsion : Turbofan
236.1 Overview The United States Air Force began developing the TriService Standoff Attack Missile (TSSAM) in 1986; the intent was to produce a family of stealthy missiles for the U.S. Air Force, Navy and United States Army which would be capable of long range, autonomous guidance, automatic target recognition, and sufficient accuracy and warhead power to be capable of destroying well-protected structures either on land or at sea. All versions of the missile would use inertial navigation aided by Global Positioning System (GPS). The Navy and one Air Force version were to use an imaging infrared homing terminal sensor to recognize the target and terminal homing, and would be fitted with a unitary warhead. A second version Army missile would be launched by two booster rockets and carry the Combined Effects Bomblet (CEB) submunition against land targets.
236.3 See also • List of missiles
236.4 References 236.5 External links
It was planned to carry the missile on the B-52H, F16C/D, B-1, B-2, A-6E, and F/A-18C/D; the Army version was to be launched from the MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System) vehicle. The project suffered from budgetary problems, some related to the distribution of the budget between the three services. This resulted in funding shortfalls and delays. The missiles also suffered from technical development issues, pushing the unit cost from the original 1986 figure of $728,000 per missile to $2,062,000 in 1994. The project was canceled as a result. Technology developed for the TSSAM was used in the JASSM program.
236.2 Specifications Specifications are approximate • Length : 4.26 m (14 ft) • Weight : 905 kg (2000 lb) 686
• Northrop AGM/MGM-137 TSSAM - Designation Systems
Chapter 237
AGM-158 JASSM The AGM-158 JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile) is a low observable standoff air-launched cruise missile developed in the United States. It is a large, semi-stealthy long-range weapon of the 2,000 pounds (910 kg) class. The missile’s development began in 1995, but a number of problems during testing delayed its introduction into service until 2009. As of 2014, the JASSM has entered foreign service in Australia and Finland, and been ordered by Poland. An extended range version of the missile, the AGM-158B JASSM-ER (Joint Air-toSurface Standoff Missile-Extended Range), entered service in 2014.
237.1 Program Overview 237.1.1
Origins
237.1.2 Problematic development In 1999, powered flight tests of the missile began. These were successful, and production of the JASSM began in December 2001. The weapon began operational testing and evaluation in 2002. Late that year, two missiles failed tests and the project was delayed for three months before completing development in April 2003. Two more launches failed, this time as a result of launcher and engine problems. In July 2007, a $68 million program to improve JASSM reliability and recertify the missile was approved by the Pentagon.[2] A decision on whether to continue with the program was deferred until Spring 2008.[3] Lockheed agreed to fix the missiles at its own cost and has tightened up its manufacturing processes.[4] On 27 August 2009, David Van Buren, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, said that there would be a production gap for the JASSM while further tests were held.[5] Further tests in 2009 were more successful however, with 15 out of 16 rounds hitting the intended target, well above the 75% benchmark set for the test. As such JASSM is now cleared for service entry.[6] The United States Air Force plans to acquire up to 3,700 AGM-158 missiles. Meanwhile, the United States Navy had originally planned to acquire 450 AGM-158 missiles but pulled out of the program in favor of employing the proven SLAM-ER.[7]
The JASSM project began in 1995 after the cancellation of the AGM-137 TSSAM project. The TSSAM was designed as a high precision stealthy missile for use at standoff ranges, but poor management of the project resulted in rising costs. Since the requirement for such weapons still existed, the military quickly announced a follow-up project with similar goals. Initial contracts for two competing designs were awarded to Lockheed Martin and McDonnell Douglas in 1996, and the missile designations AGM-158A and AGM-159A were allocated to the 237.1.3 Foreign sales two weapons. Lockheed Martin’s AGM-158A won and a contract for further development was awarded in 1998. In 2006 the Australian government announced the selecThe AGM-158A is powered by a Teledyne CAE J402 tion of the Lockheed Martin JASSM to equip the Royal turbojet. Before flight the wings are kept folded to re- Australian Air Force’s F/A-18 Hornet fighters.[8] This anduce size. Upon launch the wings flip out automatically. nouncement came as part of a program to phase out the There is a single vertical tail. Guidance is via inertial nav- RAAFs F-111 strike aircraft, replacing the AGM-142 igation with updating from a global positioning system. Popeye stand off missile and providing a long-range strike Target recognition and terminal homing is via an imaging capability to the Hornets. JASSM was selected over the infrared seeker. A data link allows the missile to trans- SLAM-ER after the European Taurus KEPD 350 withmit its location and status during flight, allowing improved drew its tender offer, despite the KEPD 350 being highly bomb damage assessment. The warhead is a WDU-42/B rated in the earlier RFP process, due to their heavily in450 kg (1000 lb) penetrator. The JASSM will be carried volvement in the series preparation for the German Air by a wide range of aircraft: the F-15E, F-16, F/A-18, Force, their troop trials in South Africa and their final neF/A-18E/F Super Hornet, F-35, B-1B, B-2 and B-52 are gotiations with the Spanish Air Force which finally lead to all intended to carry the weapon. a contract.[9] As of mid-2010 the JASSM is in production 687
688
CHAPTER 237. AGM-158 JASSM
for Australia and will soon enter service.[6] Finland had also previously planned to purchase JASSM missiles for the Finnish Air Force as part of modernization plans of its F/A-18 Hornet fleet. However in February 2007 the United States declined to sell the missiles, while agreeing to proceed as planned with other modernization efforts (the so-called Mid-Life Update 2, or MLU2). This episode led to speculation in the Finnish media on the state of Finnish - American diplomatic relations.[10] However, in October 2011 the US DSCA announced that they had given permission for a possible sale to Finland.[11] An order, valued 178.5 million Euros was placed in March 2012.[12] South Korea has sought the JASSM to boost the South Korean Air Force’s striking capability but were rebuffed by Washington’s unwillingness to sell the missile for strategic reasons. The South Korean government instead turned their attention towards the Taurus KEPD 350 missile.[13][14] In 2014, Poland expected the Congressional green light for the purchase of the AGM-158 JASSM to extend the ground penetration capabilities of their top-of-the-line F16 Block 52+ fighters. Should the US Congress give it a go, the missiles (around 200) should be deployed with the Polish Air Force in 2015.[15] Congress approved the sale in early October, and negotiations concluded in early November 2014. NATO member Poland signed a $250 million contract to upgrade its F-16s and equip the jets with (AGM-158) JASSM advanced cruise missiles in a ceremony at Poznan AB, Poland, on Dec. 11, 2014.[16] The missiles are expected to enter operational service in 2017, and Poland is contemplating an additional purchase for the long-range JASSM-ER version.[17]
237.2 JASSM-Extended (JASSM-ER)
Force B-1 bomber at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. The initial platform for the JASSM-ER is the B-1.[18] While both the original JASSM and the JASSM-ER are several inches too long to be carried in the internal weapons bay of the F-35 Lightning II, the F35 will be able to carry both missiles externally, although this will compromise the aircraft’s stealth features.[19] The JASSM-ER is also the basis for Long Range AntiShip Missile, which is a JASSM-ER with new seeker.[20] The Air Force used the B-1 Lancer to complete a captive carry test of an LRASM to ensure the bomber can carry it, as both missiles use the same airframe. The LRASM was not originally planned be deployed on the B-1, it being intended solely as a technology demonstrator,[21] but in February 2014 the Pentagon authorized the LRASM to be integrated onto air platforms, including the Air Force B-1, as an operational weapon to address the needs of the Navy and Air Force to have a modern anti-ship missile.[22] The JASSM-ER entered service with the USAF in April 2014. Although the B-1 is currently the only aircraft able to deploy it, it will be integrated onto the B-52, F-15E, and F-16.[23] The Air Force approved full-rate production of the JASSM-ER in December 2014.[24]
237.3 Operators
Range
The US Air Force studied various improvements to the AGM-158, resulting in the development of the JASSMExtended Range (JASSM-ER), which received the des- A mock-up display of the AGM-158 JASSM next to an F-35 proignation AGM-158B in 2002. Using a more efficient totype. engine and larger fuel volume in an airframe with the same external dimensions as the JASSM, the JASSMAustralia ER is intended to have a range of over 575 miles (925 km) as compared to the JASSM’s range of about 230 miles (370 km). Other possible improvements were stud• Royal Australian Air Force ied but ultimately not pursued, including a submunition dispenser warhead, new types of homing head, and a Finland new engine giving ranges in excess of 620 miles (1,000 km). The JASSM-ER has 70% hardware commonality and 95% software commonality with the original AGM• Finnish Air Force 158 JASSM.[1] The first flight test of the JASSM-ER occurred on May 18, 2006 when a missile was launched from a U.S. Air
Poland
237.6. REFERENCES • Polish Air Force United States • United States Air Force
689
237.6 References [1] “GAO-13-294SP DEFENSE ACQUISITIONS Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs”. US Government Accountability Office. March 2013. pp. 81–2. Retrieved 26 May 2013. [2] "$68M plan to fix JASSM gets the OK - Air Force Times”.
237.4 Variants
[3] “Pentagon To Announce JASSM Decision In 2008 - Amy Butler/Aerospace Daily & Defense Report”.
237.4.1
[4] Lockheed $6 Billion Missile Program May Be Killed, U.S. Says
AGM-158A (JASSM)
• Length: 4.27 m (14 ft) • Wingspan: 2.4 m (7 ft 11 in) • Weight: 975 kg (2,150 lb) • Speed: Subsonic • Range: 370 km (230 mi)
[5] JASSM Production Gap Manageable, USAF Says [6] Pittaway, Nigel (March 2010). “JASSM introduction to RAAF service”. Defence Today (Amberley: Strike Publications) 8 (2): 11. ISSN 1447-0446. [7] JASSM/ No Ma'am - Which Will It Be? - Defense Industry Daily
• Propulsion: Teledyne CAE J402-CA-100 turbojet; thrust 3.0 kN (680 lbf)
[8] Australia Chooses JASSM Missiles on F-18s for LongRange Strike - Defense Industry Daily
• Fuel:JP10 fuel
[9] ADM: ADF Weapons: Was JASSM the right choice?
• Warhead: 450 kg (1000 lb) WDU-42/B penetrator
[10] United States refuses to sell missiles to Finland - Helsingin Sanomat
• Production unit cost: $850,000
[11] DSCA press release
• Total program cost: $3,000,000,000
[12] Finnish Defence Ministry news bulletin
• Production dates: 1998–present
237.4.2
AGM-158B (JASSM-ER)
• Speed: Subsonic • Range: 1000 km (620 mi) • Production unit cost: $1,327,000 • Propulsion: Williams International F107-WR-105 turbofan • Production dates: 2010–present
237.5 See also • AGM-159 JASSM • AGM-137 TSSAM • Storm Shadow/SCALP EG • KEPD 350 (Taurus missile) • Ra'ad Missile • SOM (missile) • List of missiles
[13] “S.Korea to buy bunker busting missiles from Europe”. www.reuters.com. 4 April 2013. Retrieved 16 November 2013. [14] “Parliament advises review of Taurus, Global Hawk acquisition plan”. www.koreaherald.com. 5 July 2013. Retrieved 16 November 2013. [15] The Aviationist » Why is Poland purchasing Joint Air-toSurface Standoff Missiles for its F-16s? Why not?! :) [16] Air Force Magazine, Daily Report, December 15, 2014 [17] Poland concludes JASSM purchase for F-16 fleet - Flightglobal.com, 5 November 2014 [18] Pappalardo, Joe. “B-1 Pilots Turn Their Bombsights to the Pacific.” Popular Mechanics. April 9, 2012. [19] Croft, John. “USAF sets 2013 entry for extended-range JASSM.” Flight International. 06 Apr 2010. Accessed 09 Dec 2010. [20] Mujumdar, Dave. “Lockheed LRASM completes captive carry tests.” Flight Global. 11 July 2013. Accessed 12 July 2013. [21] B-1 test squadron demonstrates anti-ship missile - Af.mil, 15 July 2013 [22] Majumdar, Dave (13 March 2014). “Navy to Hold Contest for New Anti-Surface Missile”. usni.org. U.S. NAVAL INSTITUTE. Retrieved 13 March 2014.
690
[23] US Air Force Takes Delivery of First Production Lot of the JASSM ER Cruise Missile - Deagel.com, 8 April 2014 [24] US Air Force Approves Full Rate Production for JASSMER Cruise Missile - Deagel.com, 15 December 2014
237.7 External links • Lockheed Martin JASSM Website • Lockheed Martin AGM-158 JASSM - Designation Systems • GlobalSecurity.org • AGM-158 JASSM Images & Info
CHAPTER 237. AGM-158 JASSM
Chapter 238
AGM-176 Griffin The AGM-176 Griffin is a lightweight, precision kinetic effects munition developed by Raytheon.[3] It can be launched from the ground or air as a rocket-powered missile or dropped from the air as a guided bomb. It carries a relatively small warhead, and was designed to be a precision low-collateral damage weapon for irregular warfare. It has been used in combat by the United States military in Afghanistan.
fired from the U.S. Army Remote weapon station, multiround Wedge Launcher, Smart Launcher and Kiowa Warrior manned helicopters. The missile is smaller than the Hellfire typically used by armed UAVs, which reduces the potential for collateral damage. Three Griffins can be carried in place of one Hellfire. The Griffin missile and launch assembly is also lighter than the Hellfire, allowing more to be mounted on the Predator.[9]
In 70 months of production from 2008 to early February 2014, Raytheon delivered 2,000 Griffin missiles.[10] In late February 2014, Raytheon demonstrated the imRaytheon developed Griffin as a low-cost modular sys- proved Griffin Block III missile, hitting static and moving tem, using components from earlier projects, including targets. The Block III includes an improved semi-active the FGM-148 Javelin and the AIM-9X Sidewinder. It laser seeker with better electronics and signal processing was originally designed to be launched from the US Spe- and a new Multi-Effects Warhead System to maximize [11] cial Operations Command's MC-130W Dragon Spear lethality against different targets. gunship.
238.1 Development
It can be guided either by a semi-active laser seeker or guided with GPS. Its precision combined with a relatively 238.1.1 Naval use small 5.9 kg warhead reduces collateral damage.[4] Raytheon developed an extended-range version of the The munition now comes in two versions. Griffin A is an Griffin for integration onto Littoral Combat Ships. The unpowered precision munition that can be dropped from Sea Griffin has a new motor and guidance system to a rear cargo door or a door-mounted launcher that can increase its firing range from an LCS. Raytheon faced drop while the cabin is pressurized.[5] Weighing 15 kg competition in equipping the LCS with a missile, as the and measuring 1.1 metres in length, it is launched from a Navy looked for other vendors. Competition came from 10-tube “Gunslinger” launcher that fits on the rear ramp MBDA with the Sea Spear version of its Brimstone misof a Marine KC-130 tanker/transport or the USAF AC- sile. Both missiles intended to give the LCS protection 130W Stinger II.[6] from small boat swarm attacks.[12] The Navy instead seGriffin Block II B is a short-range, rocket-powered air- lected the AGM-114L Hellfire to equip the LCS. The deto-surface or surface-to-surface missile that can be fired cision was made from the ship’s use of the Saab’s Sea from UAVs as well as helicopters, attack aircraft, U.S. Giraffe radar. While each Griffin requires a semi-active Air Force AC-130W gunships,[6] and USMC KC-130J laser to paint a target, so a volley of them can only entankers.[7] gage one target at a time, the Longbow Hellfire missiles The missile’s folding fins allow it to be launched from a can use the ship’s and their own millimeter wave radar to track and engage multiple targets at the same 140mm tube. It can be set to engage the target with height separately [13] time. of burst, point detonation or fuze delay. The U.S. Navy has tested the Griffin as a shipboard missile guided by laser at fast-moving small boats; they planned to use it on the Littoral Combat Ships.[8] The missile version is less than half the weight of a Hellfire round and includes a 5.9 kg warhead. It has a range of 15 km when air-launched, or 5.5 km when launched from the surface. It has been
In September 2013, Raytheon and the U.S. Navy demonstrated the Griffin missile’s ability to engage fast-moving small boats from various platforms throughout a series of at-sea tests. The MK-60 Patrol Coastal Griffin Missile System was integrated on a Cyclone-class patrol ship, which used it to hit remote-controlled boats simulating
691
692
CHAPTER 238. AGM-176 GRIFFIN
a threat to the ship.[14] The MK-60 Patrol Coastal Griffin Missile System achieved initial operational capability (IOC) with the U.S. Navy in March 2014, which is intended to provide protection for vessels in littoral areas against swarm boat attacks and other threats. The MK-60 includes the Griffin missile, a laser targeting system, a Navy-designed launcher, and a battle management system.[15] Each Mk-60 can launch four missiles, and a patrol ship has two MK-60 launchers on board. The U.S. Navy began installing Griffin missiles on Patrol Craft in 2013; as of May 2014, four were outfitted with Griffin missile systems, with plans to equip ten PCs by 2016. When mounted on a ship, the missile is designated the BGM-176B. Arming PCs with Griffin missiles adds a layer of defense to the ships beyond the range of their 25 mm gun mounts, out to 4.5 km (2.8 mi), and also provides 360-degree coverage; the missiles’ thrust-vectoring engines can move the missile to its target even when launched vertically. Installation onto a PC involves adding the launcher and weapons control system, the BRITE Star II sensor/laser designator, and the Griffin B Block II missile in a process taking one month.[16][17] Raytheon is continuing to fund the development of the Sea Griffin to extend the missile’s range. The Sea Griffin will use a dual-mode seeker with an imaging infrared seeker and semi-active laser guidance, and a data-link to track multiple threats simultaneously and give it a fireand-forget capability. The new seeker and an extendedrange rocket motor, which will add 9.1 kg, will increase the range of the Sea Griffin to 15 km.[16][17] In tests, the Sea Griffin’s new imaging infrared (IIR) seeker has streamed video back to operators through the datalink to provide verification before the missile strikes the target.[18] Its In-Flight Target Update (IFTU) capability allows it to be redirected to a new target in mid-flight, a vital feature against swarming small boats moving between friendly forces and neutral shipping. The Sea Griffin has been renamed the Griffin C.[19]
238.2 Launch platforms
238.3 References [1] http://news.usni.org/2014/03/26/ griffin-missile-reaches-initial-sea-operating-capability [2] “Raytheon’s Griffin Mini-Missiles”. Defense Industry Daily. Retrieved 27 December 2011. [3] AUVSI: Raytheon offers up Griffin for UAS [4] Smaller, Cheaper, Lighter William Matthews, Defense News, 31 May 2010 [5] [6] “The U.S. Air Force’s New AC-130 Gunships are Really Bomb Trucks” [7] “Who paid Raytheon to develop the Griffin missile for Predator UAVs?" Intelfusion. 15 June 2008 [8] Navy Nails Speedboats With Griffin Missiles [9] Efforts Are Underway to Arm Small UAVs Aviation Week. 17 October 2008 [10] Raytheon Marks Delivery of 2000th Griffin Missile – Deagel.com, 5 February 2014 [11] Raytheon Demonstrates Griffin Block III Missile – Deagel.com, 19 February 2014 [12] Raytheon Working on Extending Range of Griffin Missile for LCS – Defensenews.com, 23 June 2013 [13] Navy Axes Griffin Missile In Favor of Longbow Hellfire for LCS – News.USNI.org, 9 April 2014 [14] Griffin Missile Demonstrates Maritime Protection Capabilities – Deagel.com, 27 September 2013 [15] US Navy declares IOC for MK-60 Griffin missile system – Shephardmedia.com, 25 March 2014 [16] Raytheon Developing Longer-Range Griffin Missile – Sea Power magazine, 14 April 2014 [17] Navy Test-Fires Griffin Missiles from PC Boats – Defensetech.org, 8 May 2014 [18] SeaGriffin Completes Guided Flight Test with Dual-mode Seeker – Deagel.com, 14 July 2014
• MQ-1 Predator
[2][20]
• MQ-9 Reaper[2]
[19] Raytheon Griffin™C flight tests demonstrate in-flight retargeting capability - Marketwatch.com, 28 October 2014
• MQ-8B Fire Scout[2]
[20] Warwick, Graham (13 June 2008). “Small Raytheon Missile Deployed On Predator”. Aviation Week.
• A-29 Super Tucano
[21] “Navy boosts Persian Gulf patrol craft force”.
• KC-130J Harvest HAWK[2] • MC-130W Dragon Spear
[2]
• Cyclone-class patrol ship[21] • AC-130J Ghostrider • V-22 Osprey[22]
[22] Osprey Fires Guided Rockets And Missiles In New Trials - Aviationweek.com, 8 December 2014
Chapter 239
AGM-84E Standoff Land Attack Missile The AGM-84E Standoff Land Attack Missile (SLAM) was a subsonic, over-the-horizon air-launched cruise missile that was developed by Boeing Integrated Defense Systems from the McDonnell Douglas Harpoon antiship missile. The SLAM was designed to provide all-weather, day and night, precision attack capabilities against stationary high-value targets.[1] Except for new technologies in the guidance and seeker sections, which included a Global Positioning System receiver, a Walleye optical guidance system, and a newly developed Maverick missile datalink, all of the missile hardware came directly from the Harpoon missile. The SLAM is also equipped with a Tomahawk missile warhead for better destructive force. SLAM missile uses an inertial navigation system, which is supplemented by Global Positioning System (GPS) input, and it also uses Infrared homing terminal guidance.[1]
239.2 References [1] “AGM-84 Harpoon / SLAM [Stand-Off Land Attack Missile.” Military Analysis Network. Federation of American Scientists, 20 July 2013. Web. 20 July 2013. [2] US Navy - Fact File: SLAM-ER Missile
239.3 External links
Developed in only 48 months to meet the emergency requirements of the Persian Gulf War, a number of SLAMs were successfully employed during that war, when it struck Iraqi coastal targets. Also, the SLAM was used successfully in F/A-18 Hornet and A-6 Intruder air strikes during Operation Desert Storm even before official operational testing of the new missile had begun.[2] The SLAM was also used during United Nations air raids in Bosnia before "Operation Joint Endeavor".[1] In the year 2000, the SLAM was replaced in service by the AGM-84H SLAM-ER (Standoff Land Attack Missile Expanded Response), which had numerous new capabilities including increased target penetration and nearly twice the range of the older AGM-84E SLAM.[1]
239.1 See also • AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER • BGM-109 Tomahawk Cruise Missile • AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missile 693
• Boeing (McDonnell-Douglas) AGM/RGM/UGM84 Harpoon, Designation Systems • spec sheet, Time • SLAM-ER, Boeing
Chapter 240
Direct Attack Guided Rocket • Range from Sea Level: Min: 1.5 km Max: 5 km
For the DAGR Defense Advanced GPS Receiver, see Defense Advanced GPS Receiver. The Direct Attack Guided Rocket (DAGR) is a
• Range from 20,000 feet: 12 km.[5] • Motor: Existing Hydra 70 motors. • Warhead: M151 warhead with M423 fuze
240.2 Program status • March 2005 - Program started.[6] • February 2006 - 1st flight test.[7] • October 2008 - 8th flight test and 1st ever 2.75” guided rocket live warhead flight test.[8]
The Direct Attack Guided Rocket (DAGR) in flight over Eglin AFB.
weapons system under development by Lockheed Martin. The program goal is to provide a low cost 2.75 inch (70 mm) precision guided rocket which is compatible with existing Hellfire II systems and launchers in service.[1] The system will use components from the existing Hydra 70 rocket, but differs from other upgrades to the Hydra 70 such as APKWS and LOGIR in that it is designed to be plug-and-play compatible with the Hellfire missile and use the M299 Hellfire launcher, increasing the load-out by up to four times.[2] DAGR also offers a lock-on before launch capability that is not compatible with the electronics in existing Hydra 70 launchers.[3]
• March 2009 - 1st platform flight test - Apache AH64D Attack Helicopter. • July 2009 - 2nd platform flight test - Little Bird AH6: successfully hit the target in two separate trials.[9] • March 2010 - 3rd platform test - Lockheed Martin’s DAGR Guided Rocket Fires Successfully From Kiowa Warrior Helicopter.[10] • May 2012 - DAGR hits a truck target moving 25 mph fired from an AH-64D Apache 3.5 km away.[11] • September 2012 - DAGR successfully hits stationary targets while launched from ground-based mounts. Two missiles flew 3.5 kilometers and hit the target within one foot of the illuminated laser spot.[12] • February 2013 - DAGR is launched from a Lockheed Martin JLTV. It locked onto the laser spot two seconds after launch, flew 5 km (3.1 mi) down range and impacted the target within 1 meter of the laser spot.[13]
240.1 Specifications • Diameter: 2.75 in (70 mm) [4] • Length: 75 in (1.9 m)
• March 2014 - DAGR completed airworthiness tests from the AH-64D Apache, hitting all 16 targets within 1 meter of the laser spot from of 1.5 to 5.1 km (0.93 to 3.17 mi). Over 40 DAGRs had been fired in total since the start of the program.[14]
• Wingspan: 8.75 in (222 mm) • Weight: 35.0 lb (15.8 kg) • Guidance: Semi-active laser homing (SALH). 694
240.6. EXTERNAL LINKS • June 2014 - DAGR and Hellfire II are launched from Lockheed’s Long Range Surveillance and Attack Vehicle (LRSAV) turreted weapon system, which allows targeting and employment of missiles from ground platforms. The Hellfire and DAGR missiles hit targets at 6.4 km (4.0 mi) and 3.5 km (2.2 mi) respectively, with both demonstrating lock-onbefore-launch and lock-on-after-launch capabilities, and one being designated by an AH-64D Apache helicopter.[15]
695
[11] http://www.deagel.com/news/ DAGR-Successfully-Engages-Moving-Target-in-Apache-Helicopter-Demon n000010255.aspx [12] Lockheed Martin’s DAGR Missile Demonstrates Ground Launch Capability In Guided Flight Tests - Lockheed press release, September 25, 2012 [13] Lockheed Martin Demonstrates DAGR Missile Ground Vehicle Launch Capability from JLTV - Lockheed press release, February 21, 2013 [14] DAGR capability as air-launched weapon demo'd - Shephardmedia.com, 19 March 2014
240.3 Export Following the Royal Jordanian Air Force's purchase of Boeing AH-6 helicopters, Lockheed offered to equip them with DAGRs.[16]
240.4 See also • Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System
[15] DAGR and Hellfire II Missiles Score Direct Hits During Ground-Vehicle Launch Tests - Deagel.com, 17 June 2014 [16] Jordanian DAGR - Shephardmedia.com, May 9, 2012
240.6 External links • Others & History
• Low-Cost Guided Imaging Rocket • Guided Advanced Tactical Rocket - Laser • Roketsan Cirit
240.5 References [1] Lockheed Martin Unveils 2.75” Laser Guided Rocket Defense Update [2] New Hellfire-Compatible Guided Rocket Can Defeat Targets In Urban Operations - Space War [3] “Lockheed Martin’s DAGR Missile Demonstrates Ground Launch Capability In Guided Flight Tests.” SPX, 27 September 2012. [4] “Precision-Strike Capability in a 2.75-inch/70mm Guided Rocket”. Lockheed Martin Corporation. 2010. [5] Lockheed Martin digs deep to fund precision-guided rocket - Flight Global [6] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/DAGR/ [7] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gH-MJggzaA [8] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/DAGR/ DAGRPhoto7.html [9] http://www.aviationnews.eu/2009/07/13/ lockheed-martin-dagr-rockets-successfully-fired-from-airborne-ah-6-little-bird-strike-targets [10] Rivera, Janina (March 29, 2010). “Lockheed Martin’s DAGR Guided Rocket Fires Successfully From Kiowa Warrior Helicopter”. Lockheed Martin Corporation.
Chapter 241
Guided Advanced Tactical Rocket – Laser The Guided Advanced Tactical Rocket (GATR) is a weapons systems under development by Alliant Techsystems and Elbit Systems. It is intended to provide a lowcost guided missile compatible with existing unguided 70mm rocket launch platforms such as the Hydra 70.[1]
241.1 History In April 2013, ATK was awarded a $3.2 million contract from the U.S. Special Operations Command to provide GATR precision guided missiles for evaluation.[2]
241.2 Specifications • Diameter: 70mm • Guidance: Semi-active laser homing
241.3 See also • Direct Attack Guided Rocket • Low-Cost Guided Imaging Rocket • Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System • Roketsan Cirit
241.4 References [1] “Elbit Systems and ATK to Develop Laser Guided Advanced Tactical Rocket System”. [2] ATK Receives Award to Provide GATR for Evaluation ATK press release, April 22, 2013
696
Chapter 242
Low-Cost Guided Imaging Rocket The Low-Cost Guided Imaging Rocket is a weapons system under development for the US Navy in a joint program with South Korea.[1] The program aims to provide a precision guided 2.75 inch (70 mm) rocket for use with existing Hydra 70 systems in service, as such it has many similarities with the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System program. The principal difference between the systems is that while APKWS would use terminal laser homing, requiring the target to be 'painted' until impact, LOGIR would home on an image supplied by the launching aircraft, making it possibly less accurate against moving targets, but also a true fire-and-forget weapon.[2]
242.3 References [1] APKWS II “Hellfire Jr.” Hydra Rockets Enter SDD Phase - DID [2] Guided Hydra Rockets and hellfire missiles: Program Halts & New Entries - Defense Industry Daily [3] “ROK Contribution for LOGIR”.
242.4 See also • Direct Attack Guided Rocket • Guided Advanced Tactical Rocket - Laser
242.1 Development
• Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System • Roketsan Cirit
South Korea’s contribution in the LOGIR program are the following:[3]
242.5 External links • Electronics for guidance and control system • Electronics for control actuation system (DSP and PWM inverter board) • Assembly parts for control actuation system (CAS frame and integrated BLDC motor) • Airframe structure and fins (canard fin, CAS skin, seeker skin) • Cruciform tail fins and nozzle assembly • Warhead and fuze attachment improvement
242.2 Specifications • Diameter: 70 mm • Guidance: INS midcourse/Imaging infrared terminal. • Motor: Existing Hydra 70 motors 697
• Air-Launched 2.75-Inch Rockets - Designation Systems
Chapter 243
Precision Attack Air-to-Surface Missile The Precision Attack Air-to-Surface Missile (PAASM) is a weapon system currently under development by Raytheon which is designed to defeat armored vehicles, buildings, hardened bunkers and small naval targets.[1] The missile uses technology developed for the Joint Common Missile (JCM) and Precision Attack Missile (PAM) programs.
243.1 Launch platforms (planned) • AH-64 Apache [2] • AH-1 Super Cobra • MH-60 Pave Hawk
243.2 Specifications • Length: 63-66 in. • Diameter: 7 in. • Weight: 115-120 lb. • Range: 20+ km. • Guidance: Tri-Mode millimeter wave (MMW) active radar homing, imaging infrared (IIR) and semi-active laser (SAL) seeker.[3]
243.3 Program status • December 2005 - Successful test firing from rotarywing UAV.[4][5]
243.4 References [1] PAASM - Defense Update [2] “Precision Attack Air-to-Surface Missile (PDF) Raytheon”. [3] “Precision attack Missiles at AUSA 06 - Defense Update”.
698
[4] “Raytheon’s Precision Attack Air-to-Surface Missile Successfully Fired from Rotary Wing Aircraft - Raytheon PR”. [5] “Raytheon test fires precision missile at White Sands range - Flight Magazine”.
Chapter 244
Small Smart Weapon Small Smart Weapon or Scorpion missile is a new generation small American missile manufactured by Lockheed Martin. It is 21 inches (53 cm) long, weighs 35 pounds (16 kg), is approximately the diameter of a coffee cup and can be fitted with four different types of guidance systems. It is being used by CIA in Drone attacks in Pakistan in an effort to minimize collateral damage.[1]
244.1 See also • Small Diameter Bomb
244.2 References [1] Warrick, Joby; Finn, Peter (April 26, 2010). “Amid outrage over civilian deaths in Pakistan, CIA turns to smaller missiles”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 28 April 2010. [2] “Scorpion Small Smart Weapon”. National Defense Industrial Association. Retrieved 28 April 2010.
244.3 External links • Small Smart Weapon information brochure, Lockheed Martin
699
Chapter 245
2.25-Inch Sub-Caliber Aircraft Rocket The 2.25-Inch Sub-Caliber Aircraft Rocket, or SCAR, was an American unguided rocket developed by the United States Navy during World War II. Capable of simulating the aerial rockets then coming into operational service, the SCAR was used to train pilots in the use of the new type of weapon, and continued in service throughout the 1950s.
245.1 Development
Following development, SCAR entered full-scale production in January 1945; by July, fully half of the U.S. Navy’s rocket production for aircraft use consisted of SCAR rockets.[2] SCAR was widely used during the latter part of World War II as a training round for the FFAR and, later, the High Velocity Aircraft Rocket.[1] Following the end of the war, it remained in production, continuing in operational service throughout the 1950s.[3] Budget cutbacks prior to the outbreak of the Korean War meant that the SCAR was the only rocket used in training by the majority of pilots.[4]
With the introduction of the 3.5-Inch and 5-Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rockets, a need arose to train aircraft pilots in the proper tactics for the use of the new weapons. This requirement resulted in the development of a dedicated training rocket by the U.S. Navy.[1]
Despite its small size, SCAR could be hazardous; in 1957, an injury aboard the aircraft carrier USS Kearsarge was caused by the unintended ignition of a SCAR rocket.[5] As recently as 2004, expended SCAR rockets were still occasionally being found in areas that had been used as [6] Designated 2.25-Inch Sub-Caliber Aircraft Rocket, the bombing ranges during World War II. resulting rocket was a joint project between the Bureau of Ordnance and the National Defense Research Committee.[1] As its name implied, the rocket was designed 245.3 References as a sub-calibre weapon compared to the FFAR, being only 2.25 inches (57 mm) in diameter, but weighted to be Citations ballistically similar to the larger operational weapons.[1] Varying the amount of propellant in the SCAR’s motor could produce accurate simulations of either type of [1] Parsch 2004 FFAR’s flight characteristics.[1] [2] Pearson 1995, p.33.
[3] Aviation Ordnanceman 3&2, Volume 1. U.S. Navy Bureau of Naval Personnel 1955, p.194.
245.2 Operational history
[4] Stewart 1957, p.108. [5] Douda 2009, p.31. [6] “SAFETY - Former Trabuco Bombing Range”. U.S Army Corps of Engineers/Innovative Technical Solutions, Inc. Retrieved 2011-01-25.
Bibliography • Douda, Bernard E. (2009). “Genesis of Infrared Decoy Flares: The early years from 1950 into the 1970s (1st Edition)" (PDF). Crane, IN: Naval Surface Warfare Center. Retrieved 2011-01-25.
SCAR in 1948
700
245.3. REFERENCES • Parsch, Andreas (2004). “2.25-Inch SCAR”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Archived from the original on 15 December 2010. Retrieved 2011-01-25. • Pearson, Lee M. (May–June 1995). “Technical Developments in World War Two” (PDF). Naval Aviation News (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Navy Naval Warfare Division) 77 (4). ISSN 0028-1417. Retrieved 2011-01-25. • Stewart, James T. (1957). Airpower. Flight, its first seventy-five years. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand Company. ISBN 0-405-12204-7. Retrieved 201101-25.
701
Chapter 246
5-Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket For a more recent rocket with the same acronym, see Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket.
[1] Parsch 2004 [2] Parsch 2006
The 5-inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket or FFAR Bibliography was an American rocket developed during World War II for attack from airplanes against ground and ship targets. • Parsch, Andreas (2004). “Air-Launched 3.5-Inch Rockets”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Archived from 246.1 Operational history the original on 15 December 2010. Retrieved 201101-24. The first FFARs were developed by the U.S. Navy and • Parsch, Andreas (2006). “Air-Launched 5-Inch introduced in June 1943. They had a 3.5-inch diameRockets”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and ter and a non-explosive warhead, since they were used Missiles. designation-systems.net. Archived from as an aircraft-launched ASW (Anti-Submarine Warfare) the original on 15 December 2010. Retrieved 2011rocket and worked by puncturing the hull. It was accu01-24. rate enough for use against surface ships and land targets, but these missions required an explosive warhead.[1] A 5inch anti-aircraft shell was attached to the 3.5-inch rocket motor, creating the 5-Inch FFAR, which entered service 246.4 External links in December 1943. Performance was limited because of the increased weight, limiting speed to 780 km/h (485 Media related to FFAR rockets at Wikimedia Commons mph).[2] The High Velocity Aircraft Rocket, or HVAR, was developed to fix this flaw.[2] A list of aircraft that used FFAR: • Douglas SBD Dauntless - dive bomber • Vought F4U Corsair - carrier based fighter
246.2 See also • 3.5-Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket • 2.75 inch FFAR • Zuni rocket • List of rockets
246.3 References Citations 702
Chapter 247
High Velocity Aircraft Rocket The High Velocity Aircraft Rocket, or HVAR, also known by the nickname Holy Moses,[2] was an American unguided rocket developed during World War II to attack targets on the ground from aircraft. It saw extensive use during both World War II and the Korean War.
247.1 Design and development The HVAR was designed by engineers at Caltech during World War II as an improvement on the 5-Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket (FFAR), which had a 5 inch diameter warhead but an underpowered 3.25 inch diameter rocket motor. The desire for improved accuracy from the flatter trajectory of a faster rocket spurred the rapid development. HVAR had a constant 5” diameter for both warhead and rocket motor, increasing propellant from 8.5 lb to 23.9 lb of Ballistite. U.S. Ballistite propellant had a sea level specific impulse of over 200 seconds, compared with about 180 seconds for the British Cordite, German WASAG and Soviet PTP propellants. Hercules Powder Company was the principal U.S. supplier of high performance extruded Ballistite propellants: 51.5% nitrocellulose, 43% nitroglycerine, 3.25% diethyl phthalate, 1.25% potassium sulphate, 1% ethyl centralite, and 0.2% carbon black. The propellant in U.S. 3.25” and 5” rocket motors consisted of a single large X shaped “cruciform” Ballistite grain. This went against the common practice of filling rocket motors with different numbers of smaller same-sized tubular charges, the number depending on motor diameter. The central hole in a tubular charge makes it more difficult to extrude, requiring a softer propellant blend that also yields somewhat lower performance. Rocket ∆V increased from 710 ft/sec for the 5” AR to 1375 ft/sec for HVAR, giving the coveted flat trajectory.[3]
247.2 Operational service Two different versions of the HVAR were built during World War II. The warheads were either 1) Mk 4 general purpose warheads with 7.5 lb of TNT and both nose and base fuses or 2) Mk 25 shaped-charge semi-armor-
F-84E launching rockets.
piercing warheads (having an internal copper cone) with 7.5 lb of Composition B and a base fuse only. HVAR testing was complete by D-Day, 6 June 1944, and airlifted Navy HVAR rockets were soon being loaded on Ninth Air Force P-47Ds to support the break-out at Normandy. Other single-engine delivery aircraft included the F4U Corsair, F6F Hellcat, TBF/TBM Avenger, and SB2C Helldiver. Twin-engine aircraft sometimes armed with HVARs included the P-38 Lightning, PBJ Mitchell bomber and the PV-2 Harpoon bomber. HVAR could penetrate 4 ft of reinforced concrete and was used to sink transports, knock out pillboxes and AA gun emplacements, blow up ammo and oil-storage dumps, and destroy tanks, locomotives, and bunkers. Navy F4U Corsairs and TBF/TBM Avengers made the most extensive use of the rockets in the Pacific theater after the victory in Europe. Over a million HVARs were made during World War II, and production continued until 1955. HVARs remained
703
704
CHAPTER 247. HIGH VELOCITY AIRCRAFT ROCKET
in the Navy’s inventory until the mid-1960s. After World War II, newer versions included a new general purpose type with a proximity fuse, and a new shaped-charge warhead for use against tanks.[4] HVAR was an effective weapon in the hands of skilled, experienced pilots. It was less effective in the hands of average or inexperienced pilots who were accustomed to taking less careful aim and then “walking in” their gunfire to finally engage a target. HVARs could be fired in pairs or a single rapid-fire salvo but required accurate initial alignment and careful attention to range, or at least a good instinctive sense for the range to the target. HVARs were widely used in the Korean War. AD-1 Skyraiders often carried a dozen HVARs, and sometimes an additional pair of much larger but less accurate Tiny Tim 11.75” rockets. Targets included ships, bunkers, pillboxes, coastal defense guns, ammunition dumps, and occasionally even destroyers and major bridges. Numerous F-51D Mustang “Six-Shooters” (six 50 cal machine guns plus six HVARs) and carrier-based F9F Panther jets flew close air support in Korea. Panthers carried 6 HVARs and four 20 mm cannons, while both planes could carry an additional pair of 500 lb bombs, napalm, or fuel tanks. Neil Armstrong and John Glenn were among the Panther pilots. It was in Korea that HVARs and Tiny Tims bridged the gap between prop planes and jets: F-80C, F-84E, F9F Panther, and F-86 Sabre. Jets gave the fighter pilots improved forward visibility. F-84E Thunderjets proved to be the most capable load-lifting fighter/bombers in Korea, demonstrating an ability to loft up to 24 HVARs and 2 Tiny Tims with a combined rocket weight of 5800 pounds. In April of 1945, HVAR rockets were used in Operation Bumblebee in the Navy’s facility on Island Beach, New Jersey. The HVAR rockets launched 6-inch ramjet engines from wooden frames, accelerating the carbon disulfide fuel ramjets to flight speed. On June 13, the ramjets achieved supersonic speed.[5]
247.3 See also • 3.5-Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket • 5-Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket • BOAR (rocket) • Ram (rocket) • Tiny Tim (rocket)
247.4 References [1] National Air & Space Museum HVAR exhibit and specifications display, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Navy rockets on display at Michelson Laboratory, NOTS China Lake. Foreground: 11.75” TINY TIM; left to right on centre stands, 5” HOLY MOSES (HVAR), 5” FFAR, 3.5” FFAR, 2.25” SCAR. Right background on table, 7.2” MOUSETRAP; right foreground on floor, barrage rocket launcher.
[2] Parsch 2006 [3] E.W. Price, C.L. Horine, and C.W. Snyder (July 1998). EATON CANYON, A History of Rocket Motor Research and Development in the Caltech-NDRCNavy Rocket Program, 1941-1946, (PDF). 34th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Cleveland, Ohio. AIAA. [4] Mulvaney’s Ordnance Technical Information System (MOTIS) Ordnance Technical Data Sheet TM 9-1950, Rockets, July 1945 [5] “Flying Stovepipe Developed by APL in 1945”, The News, Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory.
247.5 Bibliography • Parsch, Andreas (2006). “Air-Launched 5-Inch Rockets”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 201101-08.
247.6 External links Media related to HVAR rocket at Wikimedia Commons • “5-inch HVAR”. National Museum of the US Air Force. 11 February 2011.
Chapter 248
Tiny Tim (rocket) The Tiny Tim was an American air to ground rocket used Tim. Like the Richard, it never moved beyond the R&D near the end of the Second World War. One source states stage.[6] it was built in response to a United States Navy requirement for an anti-shipping rocket capable of hitting ships outside of their anti-aircraft range, with a payload capa- 248.1 Gallery ble of sinking heavy shipping.[1] However, according to the China Lake Weapons Digest,[2] the Tiny Tim was • U.S. Navy rockets on display at Michelson Laboratory, NOTS China Lake ... designed by the Caltech-China Lake • Alexis B. Dember with Tiny Tim rocket casing, team as a bunker-buster, Tim was the first large Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, 1953. Noaircraft rocket, and, although it saw only limtice the 24 smaller exhaust nozzles arranged in two ited service in WWII, it helped form the founconcentric circular patterns around the larger center dations of many postwar developments in rockexhaust nozzle. etry. For a warhead, Tiny Tim utilized a 500 lb semi-armorpiercing high explosive bomb. It had a maximum range of 1,500 meters (1,640 yards). They were used by the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps near the end of the war during the battle of Okinawa, and during the Korean War. A problem with the sheer power of the rocket motor causing damage to the firing aircraft was resolved by having the Tiny Tim drop like a bomb, and a lanyard attached to the rocket would snap, causing the rocket to ignite.[3] Common targets included coastal defense guns, bridges, pill boxes, tanks, and shipping.[4] An ambitious operation to use the Tiny Tim against German V-1 sites as part of Operation Crossbow, code-named Project Danny, was planned but cancelled before the squadrons assigned could be deployed to Europe.
248.2 See also • Anti-ship missile • Rocket
248.3 References
Common Tiny Tim delivery aircraft during World War II included the PBJ-1 Mitchell,[5] F4U Corsair, F6F Hellcat, TBM Avenger, and the SB2C Helldiver.[1] After World War II, the United States Navy’s rocket laboratory at Inyokern, California developed an even larger version of the Tiny Tim, called “Richard”, which was 14 inches in diameter and most likely the largest air to surface unguided rocket ever developed for the US military. While tested, it was never placed in production. The United States Navy also experimented with a version of the Tiny Tim which was a two-stage rocket, with another Tiny Tim rocket motor mounted behind a complete Tiny 705
[1] Parsch, Andreas (2004). “CalTech/NOTS Tiny Tim”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles, Appendix 4: Undesignated Vehicles. Designation-Systems.net. Retrieved 2008-11-11. [2] “China Lake Weapons Digest”. [3] Slover, G: “Chapter-11-C, 11C3. Suspension and launching of aircraft rockets”, “Gene Slover”. [4] “Missile, Air-to-Surface, Tiny Tim”. National Air and Space Museum. 2005. [5] Scutts, Jerry (1993). Marine Mitchells in World War 2. [6] “Smash Hits” Popular Mechanics, March 1947.
Chapter 249
AGM-62 Walleye
AGM-62 Walleye loaded on board an aircraft.
The AGM-62 Walleye is a television-guided glide bomb which was produced by Martin Marietta and used by the United States armed forces during the 1960s. Most had a 250 lb (113 kg) high-explosive warhead; some had a nuclear warhead. The designation of the Walleye as an “air-to-ground missile” is a misnomer, as it is an unpowered bomb with guidance avionics, similar to the more modern GBU-15. The Walleye was superseded by the AGM-65 Maverick.
249.1 History
Center) at China Lake, California. One of the engineers, Norman Kay, built televisions in his home as a hobby. Kay built an iconoscope camera in 1958 that could do a “funny thing,” recalled fellow project engineer William H. Woodworth. “It occurred to him that he could build a little circuit into there that would put a little blip in the picture, and he could make the little blip track things that would move in the picture.” The two engineers, soon joined by Dave Livingston, Jack Crawford, George Lewis, Larry Brown, Steve Brugler, Bob (Sam) Cunningham and several others, decided to research the idea further and quickly secured some seed money from the Navy to advance the concept. Adopting some technology from the AIM-9 Sidewinder air-toair missile project and developing other components from scratch, the group developed the bomb in just four years. Among other revolutionary breakthroughs, the group developed the world’s first solid-state television camera with no vacuum tubes and the first zero-input-impedance amplifier. The team worked at nights and on weekends to keep the project on track and convince the Navy of its worth. Woodworth was the electronics expert and went so far as to take a year off from work and attend graduate school at his own expense to gain some additional theoretical knowledge needed for the project. Woodworth and Steve Brugler breadboarded the original tracking circuitry. Brugler then did the detailed analysis and design of the tracker for initial production. Larry Brown worked tirelessly to analyze the bomb’s flight traits, using an analog-computing instrument. Jack Crawford had an amazing “intuitive feel for physical phenomena,” and could envision many of the flying traits of the bomb before it had even been built.[1]
The Walleye was the first of a family of precision-guided munitions designed to hit targets with minimal collateral damage. This “smart bomb” had no propulsion system, but it could be maneuvered via a television assisted guidance system during its glide from an aircraft to the target. As a pilot dove towards a target, a television camera in the nose of the bomb transmitted images to a monitor in the cockpit. Once the pilot acquired a sharp image of the target on his screen, he designated an aim point and released the bomb, which would continue flying toward the designated target on its own. The bomb was a true fireand-forget system because once launched, the plane could immediately turn away from the aim point. The Walleye 249.2 First test and production maneuvered itself using four large fins. Later versions contract employed an extended range data link that let pilots keep flying the weapon after its release, and even change aim points during flight (command guidance). On 29 January 1963, a YA-4B Skyhawk flown by Cdr. J. The idea of a TV guided bomb came out of discussions A. Sickel, dropped the first Walleye at China Lake. The between an eclectic group of civilian engineers at the bomb scored a direct hit. Martin received the first proNaval Ordnance Test Center (later the Naval Weapons duction contract for the Walleye in 1966 and the bomb 706
249.5. OVERALL PERFORMANCE entered service with both the Navy and the U.S. Air Force the following year. The original Walleye I carried a 1,100-pound shaped charge and had a range of 16 nautical miles (30 km).[1] In 1966, the AGM-62 designation was cancelled, the decision having been made not to designate guided bombs in the missile sequence; the AGM-62A was given the new designation Guided Weapon Mk 1 Mod 0, while its training version was Mk 2. Mk 3 was the Walleye ER, featuring extended wings to increase range, while the Mk 4 was also a training round.[2]
249.3 Use during Vietnam War By May 1967, Navy pilots had dropped several bombs in Vietnam with great success. On 19 May 1967, Ho Chi Minh’s 77th birthday, a Navy aircraft from the USS Bon Homme Richard scored a direct hit against the Hanoi power plant with a Walleye. The Navy hit the plant again with the bomb two days later, knocking out Hanoi’s major source of power.
707 cartoon character, officially designated Guided Weapon Mk 5,[2] had an extended range data link and could hit targets up to 45 nautical miles (83 km) from its launch point. On 27 April 1972, a flight of eight Air Force fighters, two carrying 2000-pound laser-guided bombs and two carrying Walleye IIs, attacked the Thanh Hoa Bridge. Cloud cover prevented the LGBs from being used, but five of the Walleyes locked on, causing heavy damage to the bridge, even though failing to bring down a span. On 13 May, the Air Force finally brought down the bridge with 3,000 and 2,000-pound LGBs. The Vietnamese, however, soon repaired the bridge, compelling the Navy and Air Force to fly 13 more missions against the target. On one such mission on 23 October, four A-7 Corsair pilots from the carrier USS America took down the bridge with a combination of Walleye IIs and conventional 2000pound bombs.[1] Guided Weapon Mk 6 was a nuclear version of the Walleye II, using a W72 warhead of 625 tonnes (615 long tons; 689 short tons) yield; no nuclear Walleye IIs are known to have been actually completed.[2] Versions with an extended-range data link were designated in the Mk 20 series.[2]
While softer targets such as power plants proved quite vulnerable to the Walleye, sturdier ones such as North Vietnam’s well-constructed railroad bridges could not be 249.5 Overall performance downed even with a 1,100-pound weapon. Direct hits by the Walleye against the Thanh Hoa Bridge south of Hanoi in 1967 failed to take down even a single span of this no- While Walleyes accounted for less than six percent of the precision-guided munitions employed by the U.S. Armed toriously strong structure.[1] Services during the Vietnam War, the weapons system could achieve excellent results under the right circumstances. The Navy often used the Walleye against the 249.4 Walleye II, “Fat Albert” most important, hardest to kill targets. After the war, the Navy continued to employ upgraded versions of the Walleye through Operation Desert Storm;[1] shortly after the war the Walleye was retired, along with its main carrier aircraft, the Vought A-7 Corsair II.[2]
249.6 See also Related lists • List of military aircraft of the United States • List of missiles
An A-6E Intruder releasing a Walleye II during testing at NAWC Pax River, 1994.
249.7 References
To correct this major deficiency, China Lake devel- Notes oped a 2,000-pound version of the bomb, and deployed it to Vietnam in time for President Richard Nixon’s [1] John Darrell Sherwood, Nixon’s Trident: Naval Power in Linebacker raids against Hanoi and Haiphong. The new Southeast Asia, 1968-1972, (Washington: DC: Naval HisWalleye II, or “Fat Albert” as it was nicknamed after the torical Center, forthcoming).
708
[2] Parsch, Andreas (2002). “Martin Marietta AGM-62 Walleye”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. Designation-Systems. Retrieved 2014-07-09.
Bibliography • Bonds, Ray and David Miller. “AIM-9 Sidewinder”. Illustrated Directory of Modern American Weapons. Zenith Imprint, 2002. ISBN 0-7603-1346-6.
249.8 External links • Designation Systems • Globalsecurity.com detailed account of the Walleye bomb with photos and specifications
CHAPTER 249. AGM-62 WALLEYE
Chapter 250
B28 nuclear bomb For other uses, see B28 (disambiguation). The B28, originally Mark 28, was a thermonuclear
B28RE
Set of four B28FI thermonuclear bombs
equipped six Europe-based Canadian CF-104 squadrons known as the RCAF Nuclear Strike Force. It was also supplied for delivery by UK-based Royal Air Force Valiant and Canberra aircraft[1] assigned to NATO under the command of SACEUR. Also USN carrier based attack aircraft such as the A3D Skywarrior and the A4D Skyhawk were equipped with the MK 28.
250.1 Production history
B28FI as used on a B52 bomber
The Mk 28 was produced from 1958 through 1966. It used the W28 lightweight, Class D warhead (also shared with the TM-76 Mace surface-to-surface missile and the GAM-77 Hound Dog air-launched cruise missile). After 1968 it was redesignated B28.
B28FI being unloaded from a Boeing B-52H in 1984. The 3 ground crew show the size of this weapon
Twenty different versions of the B28 were offered, distinguished by their yield and safety features. The B28 used the “building block” principle, allowing various combinations of components for different aircraft and roles. The B28 had a diameter of about 22 in (58 cm), with a length varying between 96 in (2.44 m) and 170 in (4.32 m) and weight of 1,700 lb (771 kg) to 2,320 lb (1,053 kg), depending on the model type and whether a parachute retard pack was fitted. The principal configurations were as follows:
bomb carried by U.S. tactical fighter bombers and bomber aircraft. From 1962 to 1972 under the NATO nuclear weapons sharing program, American B28s also 709
• B28EX — (EXternal), streamlined externalcarriage version for free-fall delivery (no parachute)
710
CHAPTER 250. B28 NUCLEAR BOMB
• B28RE — (Retarded External) streamlined 250.4 Survivors external-carriage version with a parachute retarder (4 ft. pilot, 28 ft. ribbon chute) Four Mark 28 training variants (BDU-16/E) on their transporter (MHU-7/M) are on display in the Cold War • B28IN — (INternal) unstreamlined internal- Gallery at the National Museum of the United States Air carriage version for free-fall delivery, primarily for Force in Dayton, Ohio.[2] the Republic F-105 Thunderchief • B28RI — (Retarded Internal) unstreamlined internal-carriage version with parachute retarder • B28FI — (full Fusing Internal) unstreamlined internal-carriage version with parachute for laydown delivery; used only by SAC B-47s and B-52s. The FI, for “Full Fuzing Internal” was developed to adapt to new low-level delivery techniques of the Air Force in the 1960s, and is the only model of this bomb equipped for air, ground, and delayed action burst. The range of explosive yields was as follows: • Mod 1 — 1.1 megaton TNT equivalent • Mod 2 — 350 kiloton TNT equivalent • Mod 3 — 70 kiloton • Mod 5 — 1.45 megaton The fuze mechanism on a B28 could be set for an air burst or ground burst detonation. A total of 4,500 B28s were produced. The last examples were retired in 1991.
250.2 Related designs The B28 bomb design has been described as the origin of a series of related nuclear warheads. The nuclear fission first stage or primary, code-named the Python primary, was reused in several subsequent weapons. The B28 was the mainstay of SAC during the Cold War and have yet to be completely dismantled by the Defense Department (as of 2012). Nuclear researcher Chuck Hansen's research indicates that the Python primary was used in the US B28 nuclear bomb and the W28, W40, and W49 nuclear warheads.
250.3 Accidents and incidents • 1966 Palomares B-52 crash • 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash
250.5 See also • Red Snow (a British copy of the B28 warhead) • B83 nuclear bomb • List of nuclear weapons • Python primary
250.6 References [1] B28 Nuclear bomb (United States), Jane’s Information Group, retrieved 2008-11-10 [2] MARK 28 THERMONUCLEAR BOMB // National Museum of the USAF, 8/16/2012: “The artifacts on exhibit are BDU-16/E training variants of the Mk-28 and are displayed on an MHU-7/M Bomb Lift Trailer... return to the Cold War Gallery.”
250.7 External links • Complete List of All U.S. Nuclear Weapons, The Nuclear Weapon Archive
Chapter 251
B41 nuclear bomb (Mt), and weighing in at 4,850 kg (10,690 lb). It remains the highest yield-to-weight ratio of any weapon created. The US claimed in 1963 that it could produce a 35 Mt fusion bomb, and put it on a Titan II (3,700 kg [8,200 lb] payload), almost doubling the yield-to-weight ratio of the B-41. The B-41 was of the usual long cylindrical shape. The nuclear fusion warhead was of the Teller-Ulam type and used a 40–100 kiloton implosion type nuclear fission primary (reportedly based on the Smokey TX-41 shot of The casing of a B-41 thermonuclear bomb. Operation Plumbbob)[2] fueled by HEU to trigger the lithium-6 deuteride fusion fuel. Between 500 and 1,000 The B-41 (also known as Mk-41) was a thermonuclear kg (1,100 and 2,200 lb) of lithium deuteride was used and weapon deployed by the United States Strategic Air Com- was contained in a cylinder of natural uranium (U-238) mand in the early 1960s. It was the most powerful nu- with an inner casing of U-235. clear bomb ever developed by the United States, with a maximum yield of 25 megatons. The B-41 was the only The B-41 was an example of a fission-fusion-fusionthree-stage thermonuclear weapon fielded by the U.S.[1] fission type thermonuclear weapon, or tertiary stage bomb. The additional tertiary fusion stage, compressed by a previous fusion stage, could be used to make a bomb with yields as large as desired (see Tsar Bomba, a Soviet 251.1 Development three-stage bomb and the highest-yield nuclear weapon ever built or tested). The development of the B-41 began in 1955 with a USAF requirement for a Class B (high-yield, over 10,000 lb or 4,500 kg) weapon. It was based on the “Fagotti (bassoon)" test device first fired in the Redwing Zuni test of 251.3 Physical characteristics 27 May 1956. An ICBM warhead version of the weapon was cancelled in 1957. The weapon was 12 ft 4 in (3.76 m) long, with a body diameter of 4 ft 4 in (1.32 m). It weighed 10,670 lb (4,840 kg). It was carried only by the B-52 Stratofortress and 251.2 Composition B-47 Stratojet. It could be deployed in free-fall or aerial (parachute) configuration, and could be set for airburst, The B-41 was the only three-stage thermonuclear weapon groundburst, or laydown delivery. fielded by the U.S. It had a deuterium-tritium boosted primary, probably with lithium-6-enriched deuteride fuel for the fusion reaction in the secondary stage. This was followed by a yet-larger third fusion stage, the tertiary stage, 251.4 Service life compressed by the secondary stage. Finally, there was a fission jacket. The B-41 (designated Mk-41 until 1968) entered service Two versions were deployed, Y1, a “dirty” version with a tertiary stage encased with U-238 (natural uranium), and Y2, a “clean” version with a lead-encased tertiary. It was the highest-yield nuclear weapon ever deployed by the United States, with a maximum yield of 25 megatons
in 1961. About 500 of these weapons were manufactured between September 1960 and June 1962. The B-41 was progressively phased out of service from 1963 in favor of the B53 nuclear bomb. The last B-41s were retired in July 1976.
711
712
251.5 Efficiency During its operation, the B-41 was the most efficient known thermonuclear weapon in terms of yield to actual weight, with a 5.2 Megaton/tonne ratio (based on a 25 Mt yield). Its blast yield was 25 to 50% that of the AN602 Tsar Bomba, which delivered a blast of 50 or 100 megatons of TNT, depending on its own configuration as a “clean” (lead encased) or dirty (uranium encased) bomb. However even at the Tsar Bomba’s theoretical maximum yield of 100 megatons, it would still only achieve a yield to weight ratio of ~ 3.7 Megaton/tonne, thus the B-41 is the most efficient, highest yield to weight ratio, weapon ever created.[3][2] However, since neither full yield versions of the B-41 nor “Tsar Bomba” were ever demonstrably tested, and thus the B-41’s high efficiency is but a calculated “paper performance”, the most efficient demonstrated nuclear physics package is the W56.
251.6 Effects If detonated at optimal height, the B-41 would generate a fireball approximately 4 miles (6.4 km) in diameter. It would have been able to destroy reinforced concrete buildings 8 miles (13 km) from ground zero and would have been able to destroy most residential structures 15 miles (24 km) from ground zero. It could produce third degree burns 32 miles (51 km) from ground zero. In the case of a surface burst, the fallout’s maximum downwind cloud distance could possibly reach 658 miles (1,059 km) from ground zero.
251.7 See also • List of nuclear weapons • Nuclear weapon yield
251.8 References [1] “The B-41 (Mk-41) Bomb,” Nuclear Weapon Archive, . (accessed April 8, 2015). [2] Carey Sublette, “Operation Plumbbob,” Nuclear Weapon http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/ Archive, Plumbob.html. (accessed December 27, 2006). [3] The B-41 was ...the most efficient bomb or warhead actually deployed by any country during the Cold War and afterwards. http://www.ieri.be/fr/publications/ierinews/ 2011/juillet/fission-fusion-and-staging.
CHAPTER 251. B41 NUCLEAR BOMB
Chapter 252
B43 nuclear bomb
The B43 nuclear bomb
The B43 was a United States air-dropped variable yield nuclear weapon used by a wide variety of fighter bomber and bomber aircraft. The B43 was developed from 1956 by Los Alamos National Laboratory, entering production in 1959. It en- West German F-104G with a ZELL-Verfahren rocket booster tered service in April 1961. Total production was 2,000 and a B-43 nuclear bomb at Gatow, Germany. weapons, ending in 1965. Some variants were parachuteretarded and featured a ribbon parachute. con and the F/A-18 Hornet. The B-1B Lancer was also The B43 was built in two variants, Mod 1 and Mod intended to carry the B43, though it remains unclear 2, each with five yield options. Depending on version, whether this particular aircraft was ever type-approved the B43 was 18 inches (45 cm) in diameter, and length to carry the B43 prior to the B-1’s reassignment to conwas between 12 ft 6 in and 13 ft 8 in (3.81 m and 4.15 ventional strike roles. The B43 was also supplied for dem). The various versions weighed between 2,060 lb and livery by Royal Air Force Canberra and Valiant aircraft 2,125 lb (935 kg to 960 kg). It could be delivered at alassigned to NATO under the command of SACEUR. titudes as low as 300 ft (90 m), with fuzing options for airburst, ground burst, free fall, contact, or laydown delivery. Explosive yield varied from 70 kilotons of TNT 252.2 Broken Arrow to 1 megaton of TNT. The B43 used the Tsetse primary design for its fission Main article: 1965 Philippine Sea A-4 incident stage, as did several mid- and late-1950s designs. The B43 was one of four thermonuclear gravity bombs carried by Canadian CF-104 jets while serving in Ger- The B43 was never used in combat, but it was involved in a nuclear accident when an A-4E Skyhawk, BuNo many between June of 1964 and 1972.[1] 151022, of the USS Ticonderoga (CVA-14) (from Attack Squadron VA-56), was lost off the coast of Japan on 5 December 1965 when it rolled off an elevator,[2] in 252.1 Delivery systems 16,000 feet of water in the Pacific Ocean, 80 miles from one of the Ryukyu Islands, Okinawa.[3][4] The Skyhawk Carrier aircraft included most USAF, USN and USMC was being rolled from the number 2 hangar bay to the fighters, bombers and attack aircraft, including the A-3 number 2 elevator when it was lost.[5] The pilot LTJG D. Skywarrior, A-4 Skyhawk, A-5 Vigilante, A-6 Intruder, M. Webster, airframe, and the bomb were never found.[6] A-7 Corsair II, B-47 Stratojet, B-52 Stratofortress, B- No public mention was made of the incident at the time 58A Hustler, F-100 Super Sabre, F-105 Thunderchief, and it would not come to light until a 1981 Pentagon reF-4 Phantom II, F-104 Starfighter, FB-111A strategic port revealed that a one-megaton bomb had been lost.[7] bomber variant, F-15E Strike Eagle, F-16 Fighting Fal- Japan then asked for details of the incident.[8] 713
714
252.3 Withdrawn The B43 was phased out in the 1980s, and the last B43 weapons were retired in 1991 in favor of the newer B61 and B83 weapons.
252.4 See also • B83 nuclear bomb • B61 nuclear bomb • List of nuclear weapons • Tsetse primary
252.5 References [1] Clearwater, John, “Canadian Nuclear Weapons: The Untold Story of Canada’s Cold War Arsenal”, Dundurn Press, 1998, ISBN 1-55002-299-7, Chapter 3 [2] Maggelet, Michael H., and Oskins, James C., “Broken Arrow: The Declassified History of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Accidents”, Lulu Publishing, www.lulu.com, 2007, ISBN 978-1-4357-0361-2, chapter 29, page 217. [3] Gibson, James N. Nuclear Weapons of the United States – An Illustrated History . Atglen, Pennsylvania.: Schiffer Publishing Ltd., 1996, Library of Congress card no. 9667282, ISBN 0-7643-0063-6, page 130. [4] Winchester, Jim, Douglas A-4 Skyhawk: Heineman’s Hot Rod. Barnsley, Yorkshire, United Kingdom: Pen & Sword Books, 2005, ISBN 1-84415-085-2, page 199. [5] http://a4skyhawk.org/3e/va56/webster-va56.htm [6] Broken Arrows at www.atomicarchive.com. Accessed Aug 24, 2007. [7] Washington, D.C.: Washington Post, Reuter, "U.S. Confirms '65 Loss of H-Bomb Near Japanese Islands", Tuesday, 9 May 1989, page A-27. [8] Washington, D.C.: Washington Post, "Japan Asks Details On Lost H-Bomb", Wednesday, 10 May 1989, page A-35.
252.6 External links • Allbombs.html data page at nuclearweaponarchive.org • Video showing shipboard handling procedures for the B43 bomb
CHAPTER 252. B43 NUCLEAR BOMB
Chapter 253
B46 nuclear bomb The B46 nuclear bomb (or Mk-46) was a tested but never deployed American high-yield thermonuclear bomb which was designed and tested in the late 1950s. Though originally intended to be a production design, the B46 ended up being only an intermediate prototype which was test fired several times. These prototypes were known as TX-46 units (Test/Experimental).
253.2 External links
The B46 design roughly weighed 8,120 pounds and was about 37 inches in diameter. It was intended to have a 9 megaton yield. The design history of the B46 apparently derives most immediately from the older, larger Mark 21 nuclear bomb design, which was a design derivative of the Shrimp design which was the first US solid fueled thermonuclear bomb test fired in the Castle Bravo test. The B46 was test fired in Operation Hardtack I in 1958; the fission primary (see Teller-Ulam design) was test fired by itself in Hardtack Butternut with 81 kiloton estimated yield, the full weapon test fired in Hardtack Yellowwood and fizzled with only 330 kiloton yield, and was fired again in Hardtack Oak to full 8.9 megaton yield. The B46 design concepts were taken forwards into a new weapon design in 1959, the TX-53, which was redesignated the B53 nuclear bomb and W53 warhead. 50 B53 bombs were in US inactive reserves from 1997 to 2011, though none were actively deployed during that period.
253.1 See also • B53 nuclear bomb • Mark 21 nuclear bomb • Castle Bravo • Operation Hardtack I tests including Butternut, Yellowwood, and Oak • List of nuclear weapons 715
• B53 design and design history including B46 at [nuclearweaponarchive.org] • Allbombs.html list of all US nuclear weapon designs at [nuclearweaponarchive.org]
Chapter 254
B53 nuclear bomb The Mk/B53 was a high-yield bunker buster thermonuclear weapon developed by the United States during the Cold War. Deployed on Strategic Air Command bombers, the B53, with a yield of 9 megatons, was the most powerful weapon in the U.S. nuclear arsenal after the last B41 nuclear bombs were retired in 1976. The B53 was the basis of the W-53 warhead carried by the Titan II Missile, which was decommissioned in 1987. Although not in active service for many years before 2010, fifty B53s were retained during that time as part of the “Hedge” portion[3] of the Enduring Stockpile until its complete dismantling in 2011. The last B53 was disassembled on 25 October 2011, a year ahead of schedule.[4][5] With its retirement, the largest bomb currently in service in the U.S. nuclear arsenal is the B83, with a maximum yield of 1.2 megatons.[6] The B53 was replaced in the bunker-busting role by a variant of the two-stage B61 nuclear bomb.
254.1 History
five tons, megaton-range) bomb to replace the earlier Mk 41.[2] A revised version of the Mk 46 became the TX-53 in 1959. The development TX-53 warhead was apparently never tested, although an experimental TX-46 predecessor design was detonated 28 June 1958 as Hardtack Oak, which detonated at a yield of 8.9 Megatons. The Mk 53 entered production in 1962 and was built through June 1965.[2] About 340 bombs were built. It entered service aboard B-47 Stratojet, B-52G Stratofortress,[1] and B-58 Hustler bomber aircraft in the mid1960s. From 1968 it was redesignated B53. Some early versions of the bomb were dismantled beginning in 1967. About 50 bomb and 54 Titan warhead versions were in service through 1980. After the Titan II program ended, the remaining W-53s were retired in the late 1980s. The B53 was also intended to be retired in the 1980s, but 50 units remained in the active stockpile until the deployment of the B61-11 in 1997. At that point the obsolete B53s were slated for immediate disassembly; however, the process of disassembling the units was greatly hampered by safety concerns as well as a lack of resources.[7] In 2010 authorization was given to disassemble the 50 bombs at the Pantex plant in Texas.[8] The process of dismantling the last remaining B53 bomb in the stockpile commenced on 25 October 2011 and was completed soon afterwards.[9]
254.2 Specifications
Hardtack Oak nuclear weapon test.
The B53 was 12 feet 4 inches (3.76 m) long with a diameter of 50 inches (4.17 ft; 1.27 m). It weighed 8,850 pounds (4,010 kg), including the 800-to-900 lb (360-to410 kg) parachute system and the honeycomb aluminum nose cone to enable the bomb to survive laydown delivery. It had five parachutes:[1] one 5-foot (1.52 m) pilot chute, one 16-foot (4.88 m) extractor chute, and three 48-foot (14.63 m) main chutes. Chute deployment depends on delivery mode, with the main chutes used only for laydown delivery. For free-fall delivery, the entire system was jettisoned.
Development of the weapon began in 1955 by Los Alamos National Laboratory, based on the earlier Mk 21 and Mk 46 weapons. In March 1958 the Strategic Air The warhead of the B53 used oralloy (highly enriched Command issued a request for a new Class C (less than uranium) instead of plutonium for fission, with a mix of 716
254.5. EFFECTS
717
lithium−6 deuteride fuel for fusion. The explosive lens comprised a mixture of RDX and TNT, which was not insensitive. Two variants were made: the B53-Y1, a “dirty” weapon using a U-238-encased secondary, and the B53-Y2 “clean” version with a non-fissile (lead or tungsten) secondary casing. Explosive yield was approximately nine megatons.
254.3 Role It was intended as a bunker buster weapon, using a surface blast after laydown deployment to transmit a shock wave through the earth to collapse its target. Attacks against the Soviet deep underground leadership shelters in the Chekhov/Sharapovo area south of Moscow envisaged multiple B53/W53 exploding at ground level. It has since been supplanted in such roles by the earth-penetrating B61 Mod 11, a bomb that penetrates the surface to deliver much more of its explosive energy into the ground, and therefore needs a much smaller yield to produce the same effects. The B53 was intended to be retired in the 1980s, but 50 units remained in the active stockpile until the deployment of the B61-11 in 1997. At that point the obsolete B53s were slated for immediate disassembly; however, the process of disassembling the units was greatly hampered by safety concerns as well as a lack of resources.[7][8] The last remaining B53 bomb began the disassembly processes on Tuesday, 25 October 2011 at the Energy Department’s Pantex Plant.[5] An April 2014 GAO report notes that the NNSA is retaining canned subassemblies (CSAs) " associated with a certain warhead indicated as excess in the 2012 Production and Planning Directive are being retained in an indeterminate state pending a senior-level government evaluation of their use in planetary defense against earthbound asteroids.”[10] In its FY2015 budget request, the NNSA noted that the B53 component disassembly was “delayed”, leading some observers to conclude they might be the warhead CSAs being retained for potential planetary defense purposes.[11]
W53 physics package
head ever deployed on a US missile. About 65 W53 warheads were constructed between December 1962 and December 1963.[12] On 19 September 1980 a fuel leak caused a Titan II to explode within its silo in Arkansas, throwing the W53 warhead some distance away. Due to the safety measures built into the weapon, it did not explode or release any radioactive material.[13] 52 active missiles were deployed in silos prior to the beginning of the retirement program in October 1982.[12] With the retirement of the Titan fleet, disassembly of the W53 warheads was completed by about 1988.
254.5 Effects
254.4 W53 The W53 warhead of the Titan II ICBM used the same physics package as the B53, without the air drop-specific components like the parachute system, reducing its mass to about 6,200 lb (2,800 kg).[12] The 8,140-pound (3,690 kg) Mark-6 re-entry vehicle containing the W53 warhead was about 123 inches (10.3 ft; 3.1 m) long, 7.5 feet (2.3 m) in diameter and was mounted atop a spacer which was 8.3 feet (2.5 m) in diameter at the missile interface (compared to the missile’s core diameter of 10 feet [3.0 m]). With a yield of 9 megatons, it was the highest yield war-
B53 on display at the Atomic Testing Museum
Assuming a detonation at optimum height, a 9 megaton blast would result in a fireball with an approximate 2.9 to 3.4 mi (4.7 to 5.5 km) diameter.[14] The radiated heat would be sufficient to cause lethal burns to any unprotected person within a 20-mile (32 km) radius (1,250 sq mi or 3,200 km2 ). Blast effects would be sufficient to collapse most residential and industrial structures within
718
CHAPTER 254. B53 NUCLEAR BOMB
a 9 mi (14 km) radius (254 sq mi or 660 km2 ); within [9] Watson, Leon (25 October 2011). “Dismantling the mega-nuke: America begins to take apart B53 that was 3.65 mi (5.87 km) (42 sq mi or 110 km2 ) virtually all 600 times more powerful than bomb that flattened Hiabove-ground structures would be destroyed and blast efroshima”. The Daily Mail. Retrieved 25 October 2011. fects would inflict near 100% fatalities. Within 2.25 mi (3.62 km) a 500 rem dose of ionizing radiation would be [10] ""Actions Needed by NNSA to Clarify Dismantlement received by the average person, sufficient to cause a 50% Performance Goal”, Report to the Subcommittee on Ento 90% casualty rate independent of thermal or blast efergy and Water Development, Committee on Approprifects at this distance.[15] ations, U.S. Senate, United States Government Accountability Office,”. April 2014. Retrieved 4 August 2014.
254.6 Artifacts • B53 on display in the free introduction exhibit room at the Atomic Testing Museum, Las Vegas, Nevada • B53 on display at the Wings Over the Rockies Air and Space Museum, Denver, Colorado • Mark 53 casing is on display in the Cold War Gallery at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio
[11] “Department of Energy FY 2015 Congressional Budget Request for the National Nuclear Security Administration”. March 2014. Retrieved 4 August 2014. [12] Cochran 1989, p. 59 [13] “Titan II at Little Rock AFB”. The Military Standard. Retrieved 27 October 2011. [14] Walker, John (June 2005). “Nuclear Bomb Effects Computer”. Fourmilab. Retrieved 2009-11-22. [15] Wellerstein, Alex (2012–2014). NukeMap. Retrieved 2014-07-28.
“NukeMap v2.42”.
• B53 casing in display yard of The National Museum Bibliography of Nuclear Science & History, Albuquerque, New Mexico • Cochran, Thomas B. (1989). “US Nuclear Stockpile”. Nuclear Weapons Databook: United States Nuclear Forces and Capabilities 1. Ballinger Pub 254.7 References Co. pp. 58–59. ISBN 978-0-88730-043-1. Retrieved 26 October 2011. Notes • Hansen, Chuck (1988). US Nuclear Weapons: The Secret History. Arlington, Texas: Aerofax. ISBN [1] Cochran 1989, p. 58 978-0-517-56740-1. [2] Hansen 1988, pp. 162–163 [3] “Hedge stockpile": fully operational, but kept in storage; available within minutes or hours; not connected to delivery systems, but delivery systems are available (i.e. missile and bomb stockpiles kept at various Air Force bases) [4] Blaney, Betsy (25 October 2011). “US’s most powerful nuclear bomb being dismantled”. The Associated Press. Retrieved 25 October 2011. [5] Ackerman, Spencer (23 October 2011). “Last Nuclear ‘Monster Weapon’ Gets Dismantled”. Wired. Retrieved 23 October 2011. [6] Betsy, Blaney (25 October 2011). “Most powerful US nuclear bomb dismantled”. MSNBC. Retrieved 26 October 2011. [7] Johnston, William Robert (6 April 2009). “Multimegaton Weapons: The Largest Nuclear Weapons”. Retrieved 27 October 2011. [8] Walter Pincus (19 October 2010). “The Story Of The B53 'Bunker Buster' Offers A Lesson In Managing Nuclear Weapons”. The Washington Post. p. 13. Retrieved 19 October 2010.
254.8 External links • The B-53 (Mk-53) Bomb
Chapter 255
B57 nuclear bomb retired in June 1993. The B57 could be deployed by most U.S. fighter, bomber and Navy antisubmarine warfare and patrol aircraft (S3 Viking and P-3 Orion), and by some U.S. Navy helicopters including the SH-3 Sea King. The B57 was also deployed with Canada’s CF-104s in Germany, and the Royal Air Force's Nimrod from RAF St Mawgan and RAF Kinloss in the UK and Malta in the Mediterranean.
255.1 See also • Tsetse primary
B57 nuclear bomb
• List of nuclear weapons The B57 nuclear bomb was a tactical nuclear weapon developed by the United States during the Cold War. Entering production in 1963 as the Mk 57, the bomb was designed to be dropped from high-speed tactical aircraft. It had a streamlined casing to withstand supersonic flight. It was 3 m (9 ft 10 in) long, with a diameter of about 37.5 cm (14.75 in). Basic weight was approximately 227 kilograms (500 lbs).
255.2 External links
Some versions of the B57 were equipped with a parachute retarder (a 3.8 m/12.5 ft diameter nylon/kevlar ribbon parachute) to slow the weapon’s descent, allowing the aircraft to escape the blast (or to allow the weapon to survive impact with the ground in laydown mode) at altitudes as low as 15 m (50 ft). Various fuzing modes were available, including a hydrostatic fuze for use as a depth charge for anti-submarine use. The B57 was produced in six versions (mods) with explosive yields ranging from 5 to 20 kilotons. Mod 0 was 5 kt, Mod 1 and Mod 2 were 10 kt, Mod 3 and Mod 4 were 15 kt, and Mod 5 was 20 kt. The depth bomb version of the B57, for the U.S. Navy, replaced the Mk 101 Lulu and had selectable yield up to 10 kt. The B57 used the Tsetse primary design for its core design, shared with several other mid- and late-1950s designs. The B57 was produced from 1963 to 1967. After 1968, the weapon became known as the B57 rather than the Mk 57. 3,100 weapons were built, the last of which was 719
• Allbombs.html list of all US nuclear weapons at nuclearweaponarchive.org • Beware the old story by Chuck Hansen, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March/April 2001 pp. 52–55 (vol. 57, no. 02) • A guide to British nuclear weapons by Brian Burnell • Video showing shipboard handling procedures for the B57 bomb
Chapter 256
B77 nuclear bomb The B77 was a nuclear bomb designed to match the delivery capabilities of the B-1A bomber. This included the ability to be dropped from supersonic speeds at altitudes of 60,000 feet, or in a laydown delivery at high subsonic speeds at altitudes as low as 100 feet. Meant to replace the Mk 28 and Mk 43 in the strategic role, the program was cancelled in December 1977 due to rising costs and the cancellation of the bomber it had been designed to serve. Many components of the B77 including its already tested physics package (the actual bomb core) were incorporated in the B83 which was developed in its place. The specifications for the B77 required Full Fusing Options (FUFO) and the ability for a low altitude, transonic laydown delivery, as well as a free fall from supersonic speeds and altitudes of 60,000 feet delivery. To achieve the low-level delivery capability, the B77 employed a gas generator for roll control and a lifting parachute as the initial part of a two-stage parachute system. This combination would actually lift the bomb from a drop altitude of 100 feet to 300 feet for main parachute opening. The roll control/parachute system was tested at Mach 2.2. From a delivery altitude of 100 feet at mach 2.2, the B77 could be slowed to 40 mph allowing the delivery aircraft to be 2.3 miles past ground zero. Actual detonation time could be varied after the laydown had occurred.
256.1 See also • List of nuclear weapons
256.2 References • Hansen, Chuck. U.S. Nuclear Weapons. Arlington, Texas, Areofax, Inc., 1988. ISBN 0-517-56740-7. • Hansen, Chuck, “Swords of Armageddon,” Sunnyvale, CA, Chucklea Publications, 1995.
720
Chapter 257
B83 nuclear bomb • Anvil Fontina – 12 February 1976, 900 kilotonnes of TNT (3,800 TJ) • Anvil Colby – 14 May 1976, 800 kilotonnes of TNT (3,300 TJ)[2] The B83 nuclear components have been attributed as the same as the earlier B77. The B83 replaced several earlier weapons, including the B28, B43, and to some extent the ultra-high-yield B53. It was the first U.S. nuclear weapon designed from the start to avoid accidental detonation, with the use of “insensitive explosives” in the trigger lens system. Its layout is similar to that of the smaller B61, with the warhead mounted in the forward part of the weapon to make the bomb noseheavy. It was intended for high-speed carriage (up to Mach 2.0) and delivery at high or low altitude. For the latter role, it is equipped with a parachute retardation system, with a 14-meter (46 ft) Kevlar ribbon parachute capable of rapid deceleration. It can be employed in freefall, retarded, contact, and laydown modes, for air-burst or ground-burst detonation. Security features include next-generation permissive action link (PAL) and a command disablement system (CDS), rendering the weapon tactically useless without a nuclear yield.
A B83 casing.
The B83 thermonuclear weapon is a variable-yield gravity bomb developed by the United States in the late 1970s, entering service in 1983. With a maximum yield of 1.2 megatonnes of TNT (5.0 PJ) (75 times the yield of the atomic bomb "Little Boy" dropped on Hiroshima on 6 August 1945, which had a yield of 16 kilotonnes of TNT (67 TJ)), it is the most powerful nuclear free-fall weapon in the United States arsenal.[1] It was designed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and the first underground test detonation of the production B83 took place on 15 December 1984.[2] The B83 was reportedly test fired in the Grenadier Tierra nuclear weapon test on 15 December 1984, at a reduced yield of 80 kilotonnes due to the Threshold Test Ban Treaty.
257.1 History
The B83 was based partly on the earlier B77 program, which was terminated because of cost overruns. The B77 was designed with an active attitude control and lifting parachute system for supersonic low-altitude delivery from the B-1A bomber. B77 nuclear component test firings were attributed to the Operation Anvil (Nuclear test) series in 1975 and 1976, specifically the “Cheese” test shots in Anvil:
257.2 Design
The bomb is 3.7 meters (12 ft) long, with a diameter of 460 millimeters (18 in); the actual nuclear explosive package, judging from published drawings, occupies some 0.91 to 1.22 m (3 to 4 ft) in the forward part of the bomb case. The bomb weighs approximately 1,100 kilograms (2,400 lb); the location of the lifting lugs shows that the greater part of the total mass is contained in the • Anvil Kasseri – 28 October 1975, 1,200 kilotonnes nuclear explosive. It has a variable yield: the destructive of TNT (5,000 TJ) (B77/B83 full yield) power is adjustable from somewhere in the low kiloton range up to a maximum of 1.2 megatons (1.2 million • Anvil Muenster – 3 January 1976, 800 kilotonnes of tons of TNT). The weapon is protected by a Category TNT (3,300 TJ) “D” PAL 721
722 About 650 B83s were built, and the weapon remains in service as part of the United States "Enduring Stockpile".
CHAPTER 257. B83 NUCLEAR BOMB • In the strategy game World in Conflict, a B83 is considered the last resort if the US Army failed to retake Seattle from the Soviet Union before the arrival of the PLA naval forces.
257.3 Aircraft capable of carrying the B83
• In the 2007 film Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem, one B83 bomb is used to destroy a city.
The following aircraft are (or were in the case of retired aircraft such as the A-6 Intruder) capable of launching an attack using the B83 bomb:
• In the Charles Stross alternate-history fiction The Revolution Trade, a version of the post-911 USA carpet-bombs a trans-dimensional enemy state using B83s.
• B-52 • B-1 Lancer
257.6 See also
• B-2
• B61 nuclear bomb
• F-16
• List of nuclear weapons
• F/A-18 • FB-111 • A-6 Intruder • A-7 Corsair • AV-8B Harrier II Nuclear capability was removed from B-1B. Though was tested along with B-61 nuclear bomb in mid 1980s. As well as ACM, Advanced Cruise Missile (now being retired). All A-6, and A-7 aircraft have been withdrawn from service, and retired.
257.4 Novel uses The B83 is one of the weapons considered for use in the "Nuclear Bunker Buster" project, which for a time was known as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, or RNEP. While most efforts have focused on the smaller B61-11 nuclear bomb, Los Alamos National Laboratory was also analyzing the use of the B83 in this role. The physics package contained within the B83 has been studied for use in Asteroid impact avoidance strategies against any seriously threatening near earth asteroids. Six such warheads, configured for the maximum 1.2 Mt yield, would be deployed by maneuvering space vehicles to “knock” an asteroid off course, should it pose a risk to the Earth.[3]
257.5 In popular culture • In the 1996 film Broken Arrow, two B83 bombs are stolen.
257.7 References [1] Blaney, Betsy (26 October 2011). “End of an Era: Last of Big Atomic Bombs dismantled”. San Francisco Chronicle. [2] Sublette, Carey. “Nuclear Weapons Archive - B83”. Retrieved 2013-12-23. [3] “NASA plans 'Armageddon' spacecraft to blast asteroid” article at Flightglobal.com
257.8 External links • B83 Information Site • B83 page at nuclearweaponarchive.org • NASA proposal to attack asteroids
Chapter 258
B90 nuclear bomb The B90 was an American thermonuclear bomb designed in the mid-to-late 1980s and cancelled prior to introduction into military service due to the end of the Cold War making further nuclear weapon development unnecessary. The B90 design was intended for use as a naval aircraft weapon, for use as a nuclear depth bomb and as a land attack strike bomb. It was intended to replace the B57 nuclear bomb used by the Navy. The B90 bomb design entered Phase 3 development engineering and was assigned its numerical designation in June 1988. The B90 was 13.3 inches in diameter and 118 inches long, and weighed 780 pounds. The B90 had a design yield of 200 kilotons. The B90 was cancelled in September 1991 along with the W89 and W91 nuclear warheads and AGM-131 SRAM II and SRAM-T missile models. No B90 production models were built, though test units may have been; US nuclear weapon testing continued until 1992.
258.1 See also • List of nuclear weapons
258.2 External links • University of California 1989 nuclear weapons labs status report • Allbombs.html at the Nuclear Weapon Archive at nuclearweaponarchive.org
723
Chapter 259
Bigeye bomb The Bigeye bomb was a proposed U.S. binary chemical weapon. The Bigeye was a glide bomb designed under the auspices of the U.S. Navy. Initially approved by the Carter administration, the program persisted into the early 1990s.
259.1 Background As the stockpile of unitary chemical weapons began to leak in the 1970s the Department of Defense was acutely aware of the public backlash this created.[1] With this in mind the Pentagon insisted it needed a binary chemical weapons program to counter and deter a Soviet or third-world chemical attack.[2] The U.S. Army’s Chemical Corps was reactivated in 1976 and with it came the increased desire for the Army to acquire a retaliatory chemical capability in the form of that binary chemical weapons program.[3] Initially, the United States was in arms control talks with the Soviet Union and thenPresident Jimmy Carter rejected Army requests for authorization of the binary chemical weapons program.[3] The talks deteriorated and Carter eventually granted the request.[3] However, at the last minute Carter pulled the provision from the budget, this action left the decision on a retaliatory binary chemical weapons program to Ronald Reagan.[3]
259.2 History Bigeye was the codename for the BLU-80, a concept conceived during 1959.[1] During the 1970s at Pine Bluff Arsenal around 200 test articles were produced.[1] Initial contracts for the Bigeye were awarded in June 1988, to the Marquardt Company, the project’s primary contractor.[4] The original timeline for the U.S. binary chemical weapons program called for the Bigeye to be deployed by September 1988.[5] Reagan authorized the spending of more than $59 million in 1986 ($127 million in present-day terms[6] ) to revive the chemical weapons program, under the original timeline, the Bigeye was to be the first of these weapons produced.[7] After a General Accounting Office (GAO) report pointed out numerous
flaws in the program the U.S. Senate moved to effectively kill the binary chemical weapons program, including the Bigeye bomb.[1] In 1989 President George H.W. Bush announced that the U.S. would retain the option to produce such binary weapons even after the Chemical Weapons Convention took effect.[2] At the time of his announcement, 1992 was the earliest date Bigeyes were expected to be produced.[2]
259.3 Specifications The Bigeye was a roughly 500-pound (230 kg) bomb delivered by plane.[1] It consisted of two separate canisters of chemical weapons which were combined just before flight. It was the separation that was meant to make handling the weapons simpler by increasing their shelf life and decreasing the amount of maintenance they required.[1] The bomb was a U.S. Navy weapon designed to spray VX nerve agent over a target area by gliding through the air over it.[1][3] Inside the weapon two compounds, non-toxic by themselves, sulfur and QL, were combined to create VX.[1] The Bigeye bomb would have weighed 595 lb (270 kg); 180 lb (82 kg) would have been chemical agent, VX in this case.[1] It was to have a length of 7 ft 6 in (2.29 m) and a diameter of 13.25 in (337 mm). The glide bomb had a wingspan of 1 ft 5.25 in (438.1 mm). The Bigeye was not planned to have any guidance, propulsion or autopilot systems.[4]
259.4 Problems and issues The 14 year plus, on again off again, Bigeye bomb program was plagued with problems and controversy from its outset. The Chemical Corps was accused of interest in binary chemical weapons only to enhance its recent reactivation; critics also charged the Army was opposed to arms control talks.[3] Also criticized was the entire idea of a modern American chemical weapons program.[3] Such a program, the argument went, would actually encourage others to develop chemical weapons, as opposed to acting
724
259.6. NOTES as a deterrent.[2] The testing, which had dismal results, presented its own set of problems. In 1987 the Navy conducted 58 tests, results were “very inconsistent”.[5] Problems the Navy encountered with the Bigeye included excessive pressure build-up, questions about the lethality of the chemical mixture, unpredictable agent burning, and overall performance concerns.[5] Scientists debated the efficacy of the binary weapons program, especially since the Bigeye had only been tested using simulants.[3] This led to speculation that the binary weapons might be inferior to those unitary weapons they were replacing.[3] The GAO repeatedly backed these assertions, maintaining that the Bigeye was not adequately tested and that it had encountered major technical issues.[2]
259.5 See also • Weteye bomb
259.6 Notes [1] Croddy, Eric and Wirtz, James J. Weapons of Mass Destruction: An Encyclopedia of Worldwide Policy, Technology, and History, (Google Books), ABC-CLIO, 2005, p. 40–42, (ISBN 1851094903), accessed November 11, 2008. [2] Gordon, Michael R. "Bush Keeping Chemical Arms Option", The New York Times, October 15, 1989, accessed November 11, 2008. [3] Mauroni, Albert J. Chemical and Biological Warfare: A Reference Handbook, (Google Books), ABC-CLIO, 2003, p. 38–39, (ISBN 1851094822). [4] "BLU-80/B Bigeye", Federation of American Scientists, updated February 5, 1998, accessed November 11, 2008. [5] Mauroni, Albert J. Chemical Demilitarization: Public Policy Aspects, (Google Books), Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003, p. 109, (ISBN 027597796X,). [6] Consumer Price Index (estimate) 1800–2014. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Retrieved February 27, 2014. [7] Raloff, Janet. "Controversy ignites over chemical bomb - Bigeye bomb", Science News, June 21, 1986, via FindArticles.com, accessed November 11, 2008.
725
Chapter 260
BLU-14 The BLU-14/B was a 347 kg (766 lb) ground-penetrating anti-vehicle mine for release by low-flying [down to 11 m (35 ft) altitude] aircraft.[1] It was a derivative of the MLU10/B 750 lb. land mine,[2] and therefore essentially identical in shape and weight to the BLU-31/B anti-vehicle demolition mine and bomb.[3] The BLU-14/B has a low, stable ricochet trajectory that is predictable within close limits. It will penetrate into the ground at an angle that is less than half that required by an M117 bomb.[4] The BLU-14/B and MLU-10/B differ only in regard to their respective fusing.[5] All three weapons (BLU-14, MLU-10, and MLU-31) have a blunt flat front end of 2 1/2 inch thickness.[6] The designation “BLU” stands for Bomb Live Unit, as opposed to “BDU” (Bomb Dummy Units) used for practice.
260.1 Specifications Data for BLU-31/B: Length: 2.40 m (8.0 ft) Diameter: 28.6 cm (11.25 in) Finspan: 38.4 cm (15.1 in) Weight: 347 kg (766 lb) Explosive: 107 kg (236 lb) Destex
260.2 References [1] http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/asetds/u-b. html [2] http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/asetds/ u-m.html#_MLU [3] http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/asetds/u-b. html [4] Offen, George R., 1st Lieutenant, USAF, Project Engineer, “Engineering Evaluation of M117 Bomb with Blunt Nose”, Technical Documentary Report No. APGCTDR-64-51, APGC Project 0157W, Munitions Test
726
Directorate, Deputy for Test Operations, Air Proving Ground Center, Air Force Systems Command, USAF, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, August 1964, Section 1 - Introduction, page 1. [5] Offen, George R., 1st Lieutenant, USAF, Project Engineer, “Engineering Evaluation of M117 Bomb with Blunt Nose”, Technical Documentary Report No. APGCTDR-64-51, APGC Project 0157W, Munitions Test Directorate, Deputy for Test Operations, Air Proving Ground Center, Air Force Systems Command, USAF, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, August 1964, Section 1 - Introduction, page 2. [6] Offen, George R., 1st Lieutenant, USAF, Project Engineer, “Engineering Evaluation of M117 Bomb with Blunt Nose”, Technical Documentary Report No. APGCTDR-64-51, APGC Project 0157W, Munitions Test Directorate, Deputy for Test Operations, Air Proving Ground Center, Air Force Systems Command, USAF, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, August 1964, Section 4 - Discussion, page 27.
Chapter 261
BLU-3 Pineapple • Weight: 1.75 pounds (794 g) • Warhead: 0.35 pounds (160 g) Cyclotol embedded with 200 steel pellets.
261.2 External links • Designation systems.net list of US bomb systems
A BLU-3 cluster bomblet at the Imperial War Museum, London.
BLU-3 Pineapple was a cluster bomblet, 360 were deployed from the CBU-2A cluster bomb. It was used extensively in the Vietnam War by American forces. It was named "Pineapple" because of its appearance. The BLU-3/B 'Pineapple' was a fragmentation bomblet for use against personnel and unarmored targets. After release from the aerial dispenser, the bomblet was stabilized by six pop-out drag vanes. It detonated on impact, and dispersed 250 high-velocity steel pellets.
261.1 Specifications • Length: 3.75 inches (95 mm); with vanes extended: 6.7 inches (170 mm) • Diameter: 2.75 inches (70 mm) 727
Chapter 262
BLU-82 The BLU-82B/C-130 weapon system, known under program "Commando Vault" and nicknamed "daisy cutter" in Vietnam and in Afghanistan for its ability to flatten a forest into a helicopter landing zone, is a 15,000 pound (6,800 kg) conventional bomb, delivered from either a C-130 or an MC-130 transport aircraft. There were 225 constructed.[1] The BLU-82 was retired in 2008 and replaced with the more powerful MOAB.
262.1 Overview
A 15,000 lb BLU-82/B on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force
Originally designed to create an instant clearing in the jungles of Vietnam, the BLU-82B/C-130 was testdropped there from a CH-54 Tarhe “Flying crane” helicopter. Later it was used in Afghanistan as an antipersonnel weapon and as an intimidation weapon because of its very large blast radius (variously reported as 5000 to 5500 feet/1500 to 1700 meters) combined with a visible flash and audible sound at long distances. It is one of the largest conventional weapons ever to be used, outweighed only by a few earth quake bombs, thermobaric bombs, and demolition (bunker buster) bombs. Some of these include the Grand Slam and T12 earthquake bombs of late World War II, and more currently, the Russian Air Force FOAB and USAF GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb, and the Massive Ordnance Penetrator.
The designation “BLU” stands for Bomb Live Unit, as opAn MC-130E from the 711th Special Operations posed to “BDU” (Bomb Dummy Units) used for practice. Squadron, 919th Special Operations Wing, drops the last operational BLU-82 bomb at the Utah Test and Training Range on July 15, 2008.
262.2 Specifications
The BLU-82 uses ammonium nitrate and aluminum (cf. ammonal).[2] The warhead contains 12,600 pounds (5,700 kg) of low-cost GSX slurry (ammonium nitrate, aluminum powder and polystyrene)
Detonation of the last BLU-82
The Daisy Cutter has sometimes been incorrectly reported as a fuel-air explosive device (FAE). FAE devices consist of a flammable liquid and a dispersing mechanism, and take their oxidizers from the oxygen in the air. FAEs generally run between 500 and 2,000 pounds (225 and 900 kg). Making an FAE the size of a Daisy Cutter 728
262.5. SEE ALSO
729
would be difficult because the correct uniform mixture of Wing dropped the last operational BLU-82 at the Utah the flammable agent with the ambient air would be diffi- Test and Training Range.[9] cult to maintain if the agent were so widely dispersed. A conventional explosive is much more reliable in that regard, particularly if there is significant wind or thermal 262.5 See also gradient. The BLU-82 produces an overpressure of 1,000 pounds per square inch (psi) (7 MPa) near ground zero, tapering off as distance increases. It is detonated just above ground by a 38-inch (965 mm) fuze extender. This results in a maximum destruction at ground level without digging a crater.
• GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) • T-12 Cloudmaker • Thermobaric weapon
262.6 References 262.3 Guidance This system depends upon the accurate positioning of the aircraft by either a fixed ground radar or on-board navigation equipment. The ground radar controller, or aircrew navigator if applicable, is responsible for positioning the aircraft prior to final countdown and release. Primary aircrew considerations include accurate ballistic and wind computations provided by the navigator, and precision instrument flying with strict adherence to controller instructions. Due to its extremely powerful blast effects, the minimum safe altitude for releasing this weapon is 6,000 feet (1,800 m) above ground level (AGL).
262.4 Operations The BLU-82 was originally designed to clear helicopter landing zones and artillery emplacements in Vietnam. South Vietnamese VNAF aircraft dropped BLU82 bombs on NVA positions in desperation to support ARVN troops in the Battle of Xuân Lộc in the last days of the Vietnam War. During the Mayaguez incident, a Lockheed MC-130 dropped a single BLU-82 to assist U.S. Marine forces attempting to extract themselves from Koh Tang island.[3] Eleven BLU-82Bs were palletized and dropped in five night missions during the 1991 Gulf War, all from Special Operations MC-130 Combat Talons.[4] The initial drop tested the ability of the bomb to clear or breach mine fields;[5] however, no reliable assessments of mine clearing effectiveness are publicly available. Later, bombs were dropped as much for their psychological effect as for their anti-personnel effects.[6] The U.S. Air Force dropped several BLU-82s during the campaign to destroy Taliban and al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan to attack and demoralize personnel and to destroy underground and cave complexes.[4] American forces began using the bomb in November 2001[7] and again a month later during the Battle of Tora Bora.[8] On 15 July 2008, airmen from the Duke Field 711th Special Operations Squadron, 919th Special Operations
[1] London, U.K.: Aeroplane, Fricker, John, "Crosswind", October 2006, Volume 34, Number 10, No. 402, page 120. [2] Independent Online, Taliban downs US chopper, killing four, November 6, 2001 [3] Grandolini, Albert. “Cambodia, Part Two; 1954-1999”. ACIG.org. Retrieved 6 February 2013. [4] Pike, John. "BLU-82B.” Federation of American Scientists, 24 March 2004. [5] Craib, J. A. "Occasional Paper Series 1: Survey of Mine Clearance Technology.” BARIC (Consultants) Ltd., September 1994. [6] Wolfowitz, Paul; Stufflebeem, John D. "September 11, 2001: Attack on America.” Department of Defense News Briefing, 10 December 2001. [7] U.S. using mammoth 'Daisy Cutter' bomb [8] Daisy-cutter deployed after bin Laden sighting [9] Nichols, Patrick (Captain, 919th Operations Group). "Duke Field Airmen Drop Last 15,000-Pound Bomb.” Air Force Link (U.S. Air Force), 21 July 2008.
262.7 External links • "Bomb Live Unit (BLU-82/B).” U.S. Air Force National Museum. • Pike, John. "BLU-82B.” Federation of American Scientists, 24 March 2004. • "Daisy Cutter.” 3D Animated Short Film by Enrique Garcia & Ruben Salazar ( SILVERSPACE ).
Chapter 263
BOLT-117 The Texas Instruments BOLT-117 (BOmb, Laser unguided bombs. Terminal-117), retrospectively redesignated as the GBU1/B (Guided Bomb Unit)[1] was the world’s first laserguided bomb (LGB). It consisted of a standard M117 263.1 See also 750-pound bomb case with a KMU-342 laser guidance and control kit. This consisted of a gimballed laser seeker • Precision-guided munition on the front of the bomb and tail and control fins to guide the bomb to the target. These latter used the bangbang method of control where each control surface was either straight or fully deflected. This was inefficient 263.2 References aerodynamically, but reduced costs and minimized de[1] Texas Instruments Paveway I & Pave Storm - Designation mands on the primitive on-board electronics. Systems
263.3 External links • BOLT-117 (BOmb, Laser Terminal-117) - Global Security • Texas Instruments Paveway I & Pave Storm - Designation Systems • Modern glide bombs on Vectorsite • BOLT-117 at nd.edu A 497th TFS F-4D with two BOLT-117s at Ubon Royal Thai Air Force Base, 1971.
It was commissioned by the United States Air Force in 1967 and successfully completed a combat evaluation in 1968. The Weapon System Officer in the back seat of a F-4 Phantom II fighter bomber used a hand-held Airborne Laser Designator to guide the bombs, but half of the LGBs hit their targets despite the difficulties inherent in keeping the laser on the target. Placement of the control surfaces on the rear of the bomb proved to be less than ideal as it limited the ability of the fins to control the bomb’s trajectory. Only a limited number of BOLT117 bombs were produced before it was discontinued in favour of the more accurate Paveway I family of guidance kits that moved the control fins to the front of the bomb. The impact of the BOLT-117 on aerial warfare was revolutionary. Laser guidance kits turned standard “dumb” ordnance into “smart bombs,” yielding a 100fold increase in effectiveness compared with free-falling, 730
Chapter 264
CBU-100 Cluster Bomb
A CBU-99, foreground, along with an AGM-12B and an AGM12C. The CBU-99 and CBU-100 are nearly identical.
The CBU-100 Cluster Bomb (also called the Mk-20 Rockeye II) is an American cluster bomb which is employed primarily in an anti-tank mode. It weighs 490 pounds and carries 247 Mk 118 Mod 1 bomblets.
A US naval F/A-18C Hornet launches from USS Nimitz to a mission in Southern Iraq. Among other weapons, the plane carries CBU-100 Rockeye cluster bombs
264.2 Deployments
The anti-tank cluster bomb is an air-launched, convenThe CBUs are delivered to the fleet as completely astional free-fall weapon. The Mk 20, CBU-99, and CBUsembled all-up-rounds (AURs). Fuzes, suspension lugs, 100 are used against armored vehicles. arming wires, wire extractors, and all other necessary components are installed. The information on configuration, functional description, and shipping and storage containers of the Mk 7 bomb dispenser and its associated components can be found in NAVAIR 11-5A-3, also information on decanning, preparation for use, and 264.1 Design recanning procedures are found in NAVAIR 11-140-9. MK 20 MODS/CBU-99/CBU-100, BOMB CLUSTER When the Mk 20 bomb cluster is released from the air- CONFIGURATIONS The configurations of the Mk 20 craft, the arming wires (primary and/or optional arming) Mods/ CBU-99/CBU-100 are listed in the table below. are pulled sufficiently to arm the Mk 339 fuze (and re- Mk 7 and Mods Bomb Dispenser The cargo section of cently the FMU-140 fuze) and release the fins. The pos- the Mk 7 bomb dispenser is the main structure of the itive armed fin release arming wire frees the fin release weapon and contains the bombs/bomblets. A nose fairband, and the movable fins snap open by spring-force. ing is attached to the forward end of the cargo section Functioning of the fuze initiates the linear shaped charges for aerodynamics and fuze installation. It has an observain the dispenser which cut the dispenser case in half and tion window for viewing the safe/arm indicator on the indisperse the bombs/bomblets. When the Mk 339 Mod 1 stalled fuze. The dispenser has two linear-shaped charges primary fuse arming wire is pulled, the fuze will function secured longitudinally inside the walls. When initiated, 1.2 seconds after the arming wire has been extracted. If these shaped charges cut the dispenser in half, from front the pilot selects the option time (4.0 seconds), both the to rear, and the bombs/bomblets spread in free-fall traprimary and option arming wires must be pulled. If the jectories. pilot selects the option time and the primary arming wire To stabilize the weapon after release from the aircraft, is not pulled, the fuze will fail to function and be a dud. a tail cone assembly is attached to the aft end of the 731
732
CHAPTER 264. CBU-100 CLUSTER BOMB
264.4 External links • Cluster Bombs at www.ordnance.org
A Rockeye immediately after opening, showing the 247 bomblets.
cargo section. The tail cone assembly houses four, springactuated folding fins. The fins are spring-loaded to the open position and secured in the closed position during ground handling by a fin release-band assembly. The fin release band is secured in the closed position by a safety cotter pin and by the fin release wire. A yellow band around the forward end of the cargo section indicates the explosive content of the weapon. The Mk 7 Mods 3, 4, and 6 bomb dispensers have the Mk 339 Mod 1 fuze, which provides the pilot with in-flight selection of the fuze function time. The Mk 7 Mod 4 bomb dispenser differs from the Mk 7 Mod 3 by modifying the dispenser and giving interface capabilities with a wider range of military aircraft. The Mk 7 Mod 6 bomb dispenser is the same as the Mk 7 Mod 3 except that the outside of the Mod 6 cargo section is coated with a thermal protective coating and has an additional yellow band around the forward end of the cargo section. The addition of the thermal coating increases the overall weight of the Mod 6 to 505 pounds Each bomblet weighs 1.32 pounds (600 g) and has a 0.4-pound (180 g) shaped-charge warhead of high explosives, which produces up to 250,000 psi (1.7 GPa) at the point of impact, allowing penetration of approximately 7.5 inches (190 mm) of armor. Rockeye is most efficiently used against area targets requiring penetration to kill. Fielded in 1968, the Rockeye dispenser is also used in the Gator air-delivered mine system. During Desert Storm US Marines used the weapon extensively, dropping 15,828 of the 27,987 total Rockeyes against armor, artillery, and personnel targets. The remainder were dropped by Air Force (5,346) and Navy (6,813) aircraft.[1] According to a test report conducted by the United States Navy’s Weapon System Explosives Safety Review Board (WSESRB) established in the wake of the tragic 1967 USS Forrestal fire, the cooking off time for a Rockeye CBU is approximately 1 minute 13 seconds.
264.3 References [1] "Military-Systems-Munitions-Mk.20" Globalsecurity.org
Chapter 265
CBU-55 The CBU-55 was a cluster bomb Fuel Air Explosive that was developed during the Vietnam War, by the United States Army, and was used only infrequently in that conflict. Unlike most incendiaries, which contained napalm or phosphorus, the 750 pound CBU-55 was fueled primarily by propane. Described as a “the most powerful non-nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal,”[1] the device was one of the more powerful conventional weapons designed for warfare.
265.1 Design The device had three main compartments, with propane, a blend of other gases, perhaps chlorine triphospate, or another oxidizing agent, and an explosive. The CBU-55 had two variations. The CBU-55/B consisted of 3 BLU-73A/B fuel-air explosive sub-munitions in a SUU-49/B Tactical Munitions Dispenser, and the CBU-55A/B had 3 BLU-73A/B sub-munitions in a SUU49A/B dispenser).[2] The SUU-49/B dispenser could be carried only by helicopters or low-speed aircraft, whereas the SUU-49A/B was redesigned with a strongback and folding tailfins, so that they could also be delivered by high-speed aircraft as well.
Eglin team write up the test results, which were overall not positive. The unusual deployment sequence for the three propane canisters, and the fact that they fell under small parachutes highly susceptible to significant wind drift, made deliver accuracy and aircraft survivability (when releasing low enough to minimize that wind drift) questionable. Also, the very high drag characteristics of the CBU-55 canister, with its flat back end, severely limited the Skyraider’s ability to carry other bombs, rockets, and CBU, a further negative issue. Although the Air Force chose, based on the Bien Hoa and NKP tests, not to deploy the weapon to the two combat units in theater, an inventory of the canisters was kept. By April 21, 1975, South Vietnam had largely been conquered by the military from the north. Earlier in the month, a single CBU-55 had been flown from Thailand to the Bien Hoa airbase. The senior military officer in Vietnam, Major General Homer Smith, cleared the way for the Saigon government to use the weapon against the North Vietnamese Army. A Vietnamese C-130 transport plane circled Xuan Loc at 20,000 feet (6,100 m), then dropped the bomb. The contents exploded in a fireball over a 4-acre (16,000 m2 ) area. Experts estimated that 250 soldiers had been killed, primarily by the immediate depletion of oxygen rather than from burns. The CBU55 was never used again in the war, and South Vietnam’s government surrendered on April 30.[1]
A second generation of the CBU-55 (and CBU-72) fuelair weapons entered the United States military arsenal after the Vietnam War, and were used by the United States The first generation of the CBU-55 was used during the in Iraq during Operation Desert Storm.[3] Vietnam War, but only in a test mode by US forces. In 1971, a team from the Air Force Weapons Center at Eglin A foreign policy issue flared in the mid-1970s when the Air Force Base brought test versions of the CBU-55 to Israeli government sought to acquire from the US the Southeast Asia for testing on two lower speed attack air- small unused inventory of the original CBU-55 municraft, the A-37 and the A-1. In late 1971, the team tions. The debate was one of “inhumane” weapons, with worked with the 604th Special Operations Squadron A- the opponents of the transfer arguing that somehow, there 37 pilots at Bien Hoa, SVN to fly a handful of combat was a distinction, in a very negative way, between ustest missions. In December of that year, that same team ing CBU-55 compared to HE bombs, other cluster municame to Nahkon Phanom Royal Thai Air Base (NKP) to tions, napalm, etc. do the same tests with the 1st SOS Hobos, flying the Douglas A-1 Skyraider. On Dec 2nd, 5th, and 8th, three two ship Skyraider sorties were flown, carrying four each of 265.3 See also the CBU-55. The NKP test project officer and flight lead • List of Cluster Bombs for these three missions, Capt. Randy Jayne, helped the
265.2 History
733
734
265.4 References [1] Spencer C. Tucker, Vietnam, UCL Press, 1999, p.185 [2] SBU/SBK to SXU - Equipment Listing [3] CBU-72 / BLU-73/B Fuel/Air Explosive (FAE) - Dumb Bombs
CHAPTER 265. CBU-55
Chapter 266
CBU-72 The CBU-72 was a 550-pound American fuel-air cluster bomb used by the United States Military until 1996. It was very effective against armored vehicles, aircraft parked in the open, bunkers, and minefields.
266.4 References [1] CBU-72 / BLU-73/B Fuel/Air Explosive (FAE) - Dumb Bombs [2] CBU-72 / BLU-73/B Fuel/Air Explosive (FAE) - Dumb Bombs
266.1 Design The CBU-72 consisted of three fuel-air explosive (FAE) submunitions. Each submunition weighed about 100 pounds and dispensed a cloud approximately 60 feet in diameter and 8 feet thick composed of its 75 pounds of ethylene oxide aerosol fuel across the target area, with air-burst fusing set for 30 feet.[1] An embedded detonator ignited the cloud as it descended to the ground to produce a massive explosion. The high-pressure of the rapidly expanding wave front flattened all objects within close proximity of the epicenter of the fuel cloud, as well as causing debilitating damage well beyond it. Like other FAE using ethylene oxide, in the event of non-ignition, it functions as a chemical weapon, due to the highly toxic nature of this gas.
266.2 History of use First-generation CBU-55 and CBU-72 fuel-air weapons were used in the Vietnam War. A second generation of FAE weapons were based on those, and were used by the United States in Iraq during Operation Desert Storm.[2] A total of 254 CBU-72s were dropped by the United States Marine Corps, mostly from A-6Es. They were targeted against mine fields and personnel in trenches, but were more useful as a psychological weapon. After Desert Storm, the United States Navy and the Marines removed their remaining FAE weapons from service, and by 1996, they had been transferred for demilitarization. By the middle of 2001, only a few hundred remained in existence, awaiting demilitarization.
266.3 See also • List of cluster bombs 735
Chapter 267
CBU-75 The CBU-75 Sadeye was a United States cluster bomb used during the Vietnam War. It could hold 1,800 one pound BLU-26 anti-personnel bomblets, each of which containing 0.7 pound of explosives with impact or time delay fuzes that would produce around 600 fragments. [1] [2]
267.1 References [1] CBU-75 Sadeye - Dumb Bombs [2] CBU-75 Sadeye - Dumb Bombs
736
Chapter 268
E133 cluster bomb The E133 cluster bomb was a U.S. biological weapon developed during the Cold War.
268.1 History The U.S. E133 cluster bomb was developed prior to Richard M. Nixon's 1969 declaration that ended the U.S. biological weapons program.[1] At the time of Nixon’s declaration the E133 was considered the most likely candidate in the U.S. biological arsenal to actually be used in a combat situation.[1]
268.2 Specifications The E133 cluster weighed 750 pounds.[2] It held between 536[3][1] and 544[2] E61 bomblets, which when dropped would detonate on impact dispersing an aerosol of biological agent,[3] usually anthrax.
268.3 See also • Operation Polka Dot
268.4 References [1] Cirincione, Joseph, et al. Deadly Arsenals: Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Threats, (Google Books), Carnegie Endowment, 2005, p. 60, (ISBN 087003216X). [2] Chauhan, Sharad S. Biological Weapons, (Google Books), APH Publishing Corporation, 2004, p. 197, (ISBN 8176487325). [3] Cirincione, Joseph. "Defending America", Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, Winter/Spring 2002, via Commonwealth Institute, accessed January 4, 2009.
737
Chapter 269
E48 particulate bomb The E48 particulate bomb was a U.S. biological submunition designed during the 1950s for use with the E96 cluster bomb.
269.1 History In February 1950 a U.S. Army report prepared by William Creasy, a colonel within the U.S. bio-weapons program, noted that the E48 particulate bomb was in its final stages of development.[1] Creasy also reported that the E48 had been successfully tested in three field trials.[2]
269.2 Specifications The E48 particulate bomb was a 4-pound (2 kg) submunition meant to be clustered in the E38 type cluster adapter, together the E48 and E38 constituted the E96 cluster bomb.[1] In practice, the E96 and its payload of E48 sub-munitions was intended to be air-dropped from 35,000 feet (11,000 m).[1] The weapon could generate an elliptical aerosol agent cloud from this altitude that had major axes of 3,000 and 8,000 feet (910 and 2,440 m).[1] Some of the agents considered for use with the E48 included, B. suis, anthrax, and botulin.[1]
269.3 Tests involving the E48 The E48 sub-munition was utilized in tests at Dugway Proving Ground in July and August 1950.[3] The July tests released Bacillus globigii from the E48 using air-dropped cluster bombs.[3] The August tests utilized the bacteria Serratia marcescens, and involved E48s which dispersed the agent statically, from the ground.[3]
269.4 References [1] Whitby, Simon. Biological Warfare Against Crops, (Google Books), Macmillan, 2002, pp. 106-07, (ISBN 0333920856).
738
[2] Endicott, Stephen and Hagerman, Edward. The United States and Biological Warfare: Secrets from the Early Cold War and Korea, (Google Books), Indiana University Press, 1998, pp. 67-68, (ISBN 0253334721). [3] Subcommittee on Zinc Cadmium Sulfide, U.S. National Research Council. Toxicologic Assessment of the Army’s Zinc Cadmium Sulfide Dispersion, (Google Books), National Academies Press, 1997, pp. 285-88, (ISBN 0309057833).
Chapter 270
E86 cluster bomb The E86 cluster bomb was an American biological cluster bomb first developed in 1951. Though the U.S. military intended to procure 6,000 E86s, the program was halted in the first half of the 1950s.
270.4 References [1] Whitby, Simon M. Biological Warfare Against Crops, (Google Books), Macmillan, 2002, pp. 167-69, (ISBN 0333920856). [2] Wheelis, Mark, et al. Deadly Cultures: Biological Weapons Since 1945, (Google Books), Harvard University Press, 2006, p. 218, (ISBN 0674016998).
270.1 History The E86 cluster bomb was developed as a biological weapon by the United States Army Chemical Corps and the United States Air Force beginning in October 1951.[1] The Ralph M. Parsons Company was contracted to produce the E86 in October 1952.[1] In 1953 procurement began for 6,000 E86 cluster bombs, with their production expected no earlier than 1958.[2] When U.S. military munition requirements were reviewed in the first half of the 1950s, production and further development of the E86 was halted.[2] The E86 cluster bomb supplanted technologies such as the E77 balloon bomb.[2]
270.2 Specifications The E86 was similar to the M115 biological bomb, except it was larger. While the M115 weighed 500 pounds (227 kg), the E86 was a 750-pound (340 kg) weapon.[1] Regardless, operationally, the E86 was similar to the M115.[1] It was designed as an anti-crop weapon;[1] the U.S. biological weapons program produced three anti crop agents, wheat and rye stem rust and rice blast.[3] The weapon was in a steel case and intended to be dropped from the exterior of an aircraft such as the B47 or B-52.[1] Sub-munitions included the E14 munition;[4] the sub-munition was originally intended as anticrop weapons as well, but was later altered and used in testing as the U.S. pursued an entomological warfare program.[4]
270.3 See also • M33 cluster bomb 739
[3] Zilinskas, Raymond A. Biological Warfare: Modern Offense and Defense, (Google Books), Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, Colorado: 2000, p. 68, (ISBN 1555877613). [4] Kirby, Reid. "Using the flea as weapon", (Web version via findarticles.com), Army Chemical Review, July 2005, accessed December 28, 2008.
Chapter 271
Lazy Dog (bomb)
Two designs of the Lazy Dog bomb. (Top: early forged steel design, Bottom: later lathe-turned steel design.)
A Mk 44 Lazy Dog cluster adapter.
means to deliver “Lazy Dog” projectiles.
271.1 Development AD-5N Skyraider, BuNo 132521, Lazy Dog dispenser, China Lake, 13 Apr 1961. Official U.S. Navy photo.
Lazy dog bombs were descended from projectiles of almost identical design and appearance that were originally developed early in World War II as early as 1941. The Lazy Dog “bombs” (sometimes called Red Dot Bombs Korean War-era and Vietnam War-era “Lazy Dog” was or Yellow Dog Bombs) were small, unguided kinetic further developed, tested and deployed into the 1950s and missiles, each measuring 1.75 inches (44 mm) in length, 1960s. 0.5 inches (13 mm) in diameter, and weighing 207 grains, Originally an Armament Laboratory program codenamed about 0.47 ounces (13 g). LAZY DOG, the weapon’s development involved Delco The weapons were designed to be dispersed over the battlefield with Mark 44 cluster adapters. Lazy dog bombs were technically not bombs because they used no explosive, but were in many ways equally destructive. Mark 44 cluster adapters were one of many possible
Products Corporation, F&F Mold and Die Works, Inc., Haines Designed Products, and Master Vibrator Company of Dayton. The project objective was to design and test free-fall missiles and their dispensing units for use in bombers and fighters. LAZY DOG anti-personnel
740
271.3. REFERENCES missiles were designed to spray enemy troops with small projectiles with three times the force of standard airburst bombs. The Armament Laboratory worked with the Flight Test Laboratory to conduct wind tunnel tests of a number of bomb shapes which design studies indicated to be the most efficient for stowage and release from high performance aircraft.
741 Regardless of how they were released into the air, each “Lazy Dog” projectile would develop an incredible amount of kinetic energy as it fell, penetrating nearly any material upon hitting the ground. Some reports say that their speeds often exceeded 500 mph before impact.
A variant version of the “Lazy Dog” projectile was developed for the recoilless rifle. However, development was Experimental LAZY DOG projectiles of various shapes suspended because another kind of flechette solution was and sizes were tested at Air Proving Ground, Eglin AFB, used for the recoilless rifle instead. Florida, in late 1951 and early 1952. An F-84 flying at 400 knots and 75 feet above the ground served as the test bed while a jeep and a B-24 were the targets. The result 271.3 References was eight hits per square yard. Tests revealed Shapes 2 and 5 to be the most effective. Shape 5, an improved basic • DEVELOPMENT TO COMBAT: Additional TechnoLAZY DOG slug, had the force of a .50 caliber bullet and logical Developments could penetrate 24 inches of packed sand. Shape 2 could penetrate 12 inches of sand — twice as much as a .45 caliber slug fired point blank.
271.2 Deployment The Shape 2 projectile was sent to the Far East Air Force (FEAF) for combat use by mid-1952. FEAF immediately ordered 16,000 Lazy Dog weapon systems. An Air Force Lieutenant Colonel named Haile attached to the Armament Laboratory spent 90 days in Japan to set up local manufacture of the Lazy Dog weapons and train crew members in their use. Project LAZY DOG continued throughout 1952 to determine the optimum characteristics for stable dispersion containers and the feasibility of substituting a LAZY DOG warhead for the explosive nose of the Matador. The LAZY DOG program was still ongoing in the late 1950s. The rationale for using lazy dogs in the Vietnam War was because they were highly effective against enemy troops hidden beneath the jungle canopy. The munitions were also cheap and easy to scatter over large areas. Like many other weapons, however, their effects were often gruesome and indiscriminate. “Lazy Dog” projectiles were also referred to by other names such as "lawn darts" or "buzz bombs" because of their similar shape to both those objects. Lazy Dog projectiles were dropped in very large numbers, and usable with almost any kind of flying vehicle. They could be hurled from buckets, dropped by hand, thrown in their small shipping bags made of paper, or placed in a Mark 44 cluster adapter—a simple hinged casing with bins built in to hold the projectiles, opened by a mechanical time delay fuse as shown. The adapters themselves were 69.9 inches long and 14.18 inches in diameter. They would be shipped empty, then filled by hand. Depending on how many projectiles could be packed in, loaded weight varied between 560 and 625 pounds, with the theoretical maximum number of projectiles listed as 17,500.
Chapter 272
Little Boy For other uses, see Little boy (disambiguation).
272.1 Naming
Little Boy was the codename for the type of atomic bomb dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 by the Boeing B-29 Superfortress Enola Gay, piloted by Colonel Paul W. Tibbets, Jr., commander of the 509th Composite Group of the United States Army Air Forces. It was the first atomic bomb to be used in warfare. The Hiroshima bombing was the second artificial nuclear explosion in history, after the Trinity test, and the first uranium-based detonation. Approximately 600 to 860 milligrams (9.3 to 13.3 grains) of matter in the bomb were converted into the energy of heat and radiation. It exploded with an energy of approximately 15 kilotons of TNT (63 TJ).[1]
The names for all three atomic bomb design projects during World War II, Fat Man, Thin Man, and Little Boy, were created by Robert Serber, a former student of Los Alamos Laboratory director Robert Oppenheimer who worked on the Manhattan Project. According to Serber, he chose them based on their design shapes. The “Thin Man” was a long device, and the name came from the Dashiell Hammett detective novel and series of movies by the same name. The “Fat Man” was round and fat, and was named after Sydney Greenstreet's “Kasper Gutman” character in The Maltese Falcon. Little Boy would come last and was named after Elisha Cook, Jr.'s character in the same film, as referred to by Humphrey Bogart.[2]
Little Boy was developed by Lieutenant Commander Francis Birch's group of Captain William S. Parsons's Ordnance (O) Division at the Manhattan Project's Los Alamos Laboratory during World War II. Parsons flew on the Hiroshima mission as weaponeer. The Little Boy was a development of the unsuccessful Thin Man nuclear bomb. Like Thin Man, it was a gun-type fission weapon, but derived its explosive power from the nuclear fission of uranium-235. This was accomplished by shooting a hollow cylinder of uranium over another hollow enriched uranium cylinder by means of a charge of nitrocellulose propellant powder. It contained 64 kg (141 lb) of enriched uranium, of which less than a kilogram underwent nuclear fission. Its components were fabricated at three different plants so that no one would have a copy of the complete design. After the war ended, it was not expected that the inefficient Little Boy design would ever again be required, and many plans and diagrams were destroyed, but by mid1946 the Hanford Site reactors were suffering badly from the Wigner effect, so six Little Boy assemblies were produced at Sandia Base. The Navy Bureau of Ordnance built another 25 Little Boy assemblies in 1947 for use by the nuclear-capable Lockheed P2V Neptune aircraft carrier aircraft. All the Little Boy units were withdrawn from service by the end of January 1951.
272.2 Development Main article: Manhattan Project Because uranium-235 was known to be fissionable, it was the first approach to bomb development pursued. The vast majority of the work came in the form of the isotope enrichment of the uranium necessary for the weapon, since uranium-235 makes up only 1 part in 140 of natural uranium.[3] Enrichment was performed at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where the electromagnetic separation plant, known as Y-12, became fully operational in March 1944.[4] The first shipments of highly enriched uranium were sent to the Los Alamos Laboratory in June 1944.[5] Most of the uranium necessary for the production of the bomb came from the Shinkolobwe mine and was made available thanks to the foresight of the CEO of the High Katanga Mining Union, Edgar Sengier, who had 1,000 long tons (1,000 t) of uranium ore transported to a New York warehouse in 1939.[6] At least part of the 1,200 long tons (1,200 t) of uranium ore and uranium oxide captured by the Alsos Mission in 1944 and 1945 was used in the bomb.[7] The design was a development of the original Thin Man, a gun-type fission weapon 17 feet (5.2 m) long. Like the Fat Man, it was designed for plutonium but would have
742
272.3. DESIGN
743 D.C.; the target case and some other components were by the Naval Ordnance Plant in Center Line, Michigan; and the tail fairing and mounting brackets by the Expert Tool and Die Company in Detroit, Michigan.[11] The bomb, except for the uranium payload, was ready at the beginning of May 1945.[12] The uranium 235 projectile was completed on June 15, and the target on July 24.[13] The target and bomb pre-assemblies (partly assembled bombs without the fissile components) left Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, California, on July 16 aboard the cruiser USS Indianapolis, arriving July 26.[14] The target inserts followed by air on July 30.[13]
As part of Project Alberta, Commander A. Francis Birch (left) assembles the bomb while physicist Norman Ramsey watches. This is one of the rare photos where the inside of the bomb can be seen.
worked with enriched uranium as well. The Thin Man design was abandoned after experiments by Emilio G. Segrè and his P-5 Group at Los Alamos on the newly reactorproduced plutonium from Oak Ridge and the Hanford site showed that it contained impurities in the form of the isotope plutonium-240. This has a far higher spontaneous fission rate and radioactivity than the cyclotronproduced plutonium on which the original measurements had been made, and its inclusion in reactor-bred plutonium appeared unavoidable. This meant that the background fission rate of the plutonium was so high that it would be highly likely the plutonium would predetonate and blow itself apart in the initial forming of a critical mass.[8] In July 1944, almost all research at Los Alamos was reorganised redirected to the implosion-type plutonium weapon. Overall, responsibility for the uranium gun-type weapon was assigned to Captain William S. Parsons's Ordnance (O) Division. All the design, development and technical work at Los Alamos was consolidated under Lieutenant Commander Francis Birch's group.[9] In contrast to the plutonium implosion-type nuclear weapon, the uranium gun-type weapon was straightforward if not trivial to design. The concept was pursued so that in case of a failure to develop a plutonium bomb, it would still be possible to use the gun principle. The guntype design henceforth had to work with enriched uranium only, and this allowed the Thin Man design to be greatly simplified. A high velocity gun was no longer required, and a simpler weapon could be substituted. This greatly shortened the weapon, so that it would fit into a B-29 bomb bay.[10] The design specifications were completed in February 1945, and contracts were let to build the components. Three different plants were used so that no one would have a copy of the complete design. The gun and breech were made by the Naval Gun Factory in Washington,
While testing of the components was conducted,[13] no full test of a gun-type nuclear weapon occurred before the Little Boy was dropped over Hiroshima. The only test explosion of a nuclear weapon concept had been of an implosion-type device employing plutonium as its fissile material, and took place on July 16, 1945 at the Trinity nuclear test. There were several reasons for not testing a Little Boy type of device. Primarily, there was little uranium-235 as compared with the relatively large amount of plutonium which, it was expected, could be produced by the Hanford Site reactors.[15] Additionally, the weapon design was simple enough that it was only deemed necessary to do laboratory tests with the gun-type assembly. Unlike the implosion design, which required sophisticated coordination of shaped explosive charges, the gun-type design was considered almost certain to work.[16] The danger of accidental detonation made safety a concern. Little Boy incorporated basic safety mechanisms, but an accidental detonation could still occur. Tests were conducted to see if a crash could drive the hollow “bullet” onto the “target” cylinder resulting in a massive release of radiation, or possibly nuclear detonation. These showed that this required an impact of 500 times that of gravity, which made it highly unlikely.[17] There was still concern that a crash and a fire could trigger the explosives.[18] If immersed in water, the uranium halves were subject to a neutron moderator effect. While this would not have caused an explosion, it could have created widespread radioactive contamination. For this reason, pilots were advised to crash on land rather than at sea.[17]
272.3 Design The Little Boy was 120 inches (300 cm) in length, 28 inches (71 cm) in diameter and weighed approximately 9,700 pounds (4,400 kg).[19] The design used the gun method to explosively force a hollow sub-critical mass of uranium-235 and a solid target cylinder together into a super-critical mass, initiating a nuclear chain reaction. This was accomplished by shooting one piece of the uranium onto the other by means of four cylindrical silk bags of nitrocellulose powder. The bomb contained 64 kg (141 lb) of enriched uranium. Most was enriched to 89% but
744
CHAPTER 272. LITTLE BOY
Conventional explosive
Gun barrel
Hollow uranium "bullet"
Cylinder target
The “gun” assembly method. When the hollow uranium projectile was driven onto the target cylinder, a nuclear explosion resulted.
some was only 50% uranium-235, for an average enrichment of 80%.[20] Less than a kilogram of Uranium underwent nuclear fission, and of this mass only 0.6 g (0.021 272.3.2 Counter-intuitive design oz) was transformed into a different type of energy, initially kinetic energy, then heat and radiation.[21] For the first fifty years after 1945, every published description and drawing of the Little Boy mechanism assumed that a small, solid projectile was fired into the center of a larger, stationary target.[26] However, critical mass considerations dictated that in Little Boy the larger, 272.3.1 Assembly details hollow piece would be the projectile. The assembled fisInside the weapon, the uranium-235 material was divided sile core had more than two critical masses of uranium into two parts, following the gun principle: the “projec- 235. This required one of the two pieces to have more tile” and the “target”. The projectile was a hollow cylin- than one critical mass, with the larger piece avoiding critder with 60% of the total mass (38.5 kg (85 lb)). It con- icality prior to assembly by means of shape and minimal sisted of a stack of 9 uranium rings, each 6.25-inch (159 contact with the neutron-reflecting tungsten carbide tammm) in diameter with a 4-inch (100 mm) bore in the cen- per. ter, and a total length of 7 inches (180 mm), pressed together into the front end of a thin-walled projectile 16.25 inches (413 mm) long. Filling in the remainder of the space behind these rings in the projectile was a tungsten carbide disc with a steel back. At ignition, the projectile slug was pushed 42 inches (1,100 mm) along the 72inch (1,800 mm) long, 6.5-inch (170 mm) smooth-bore gun barrel. The slug “insert” was a 4 inches (100 mm) cylinder, 7 inches (180 mm) in length with a 1 inch (25 mm) axial hole. The slug comprised 40% of the total fissile mass (25.6 kg or 56 lb). The insert was a stack of 6 washer-like uranium discs somewhat thicker than the projectile rings that were slid over a 1 inch (25 mm) rod. This rod then extended forward through the tungsten carbide tamper plug, impact-absorbing anvil, and nose plug backstop eventually protruding out the front of the bomb casing. This entire target assembly was secured at both ends with locknuts.[22][23] When the hollow-front projectile reached the target and slid over the target insert, the assembled super-critical mass of uranium would be completely surrounded by a tamper and neutron reflector of tungsten carbide and steel, both materials having a combined mass of 2,300 kg (5,100 lb).[24] Neutron initiators at the base of the projectile were activated by the impact.[25]
A hole in the center of the larger piece dispersed the mass and increased the surface area, allowing more fission neutrons to escape, thus preventing a premature chain reaction.[27] But for this larger, hollow piece to have minimal contact with the tamper it must be the projectile, since only the projectile’s back end was in contact with the tamper prior to detonation. The rest of the tungsten carbide surrounded the sub-critical mass target cylinder (called the “insert” by the designers) with air space between it and the insert. This arrangement packs the maximum amount of fissile material into a gun-assembly design.[27]
272.3.3 Fuse system The bomb employed a fusing system that was designed to detonate the bomb at the most destructive altitude. Calculations showed that for the largest destructive effect, the bomb should explode at an altitude of 580 metres (1,900 ft). The resultant fuse design was a three-stage interlock system:[28] • A timer ensured that the bomb would not explode until at least fifteen seconds after release, one-
272.4. REHEARSALS
745
272.4 Rehearsals
Arming plugs for a Little Boy type atomic bomb on display at the National Air and Space Museum's Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center.
quarter of the predicted fall time, to ensure safety of the aircraft. The timer was activated when the electrical pull-out plugs connecting it to the airplane pulled loose as the bomb fell, switching it to internal (24V battery) power and starting the timer. At the end of the 15 seconds the radar altimeters were powLittle Boy in the bomb pit on Tinian island, before being loaded ered up and responsibility was passed to the baro- into Enola Gay's bomb bay. A section of the bomb bay door is [28] metric stage. visible on the top right. • The purpose of the barometric stage was to delay activating the radar altimeter firing command circuit until near detonation altitude. A thin metallic membrane enclosing a vacuum chamber (a similar design is still used today in old-fashioned wall barometers) was gradually deformed as ambient air pressure increased during descent. The barometric fuse was not considered accurate enough to detonate the bomb at the precise ignition height, because air pressure varies with local conditions. When the bomb reached the design height for this stage (reportedly 2,000 metres, 6,600 ft) the membrane closed a circuit, activating the radar altimeters. The barometric stage was added because of a worry that external radar signals might detonate the bomb too early.[28]
The Little Boy pre-assemblies were designated L-1, L-2, L-3, L-4, L-5, L-6, L-7 and L-11. L-1, L-2, L-5 and L-6 were expended in test drops. The first drop test was conducted with L-1 on July 23, 1945. It was dropped over the sea near Tinian in order to test the radar altimeter by the B-29 later known as Big Stink, piloted by Colonel Paul W. Tibbets, the commander of the 509th Composite Group. Two more drop tests over the sea were made on July 24 and 25, using the L-2 and L-5 units in order to test all components. Tibbets was the pilot for both missions, but this time the bomber used was the one subsequently known as Jabit. L-6 was used as a dress rehearsal on July 29. The B-29 Next Objective, piloted by Major Charles W. Sweeney, flew to Iwo Jima, where emergency procedures for loading the bomb onto a standby aircraft were • Two or more redundant radar altimeters were used practiced. This rehearsal was repeated on July 31, but this to reliably detect final altitude. When the altimeters time L-6 was reloaded onto a different B-29, Enola Gay, sensed the correct height, the firing switch closed, piloted by Tibbets, and the bomb was test dropped near igniting the three BuOrd Mk15, Mod 1 Navy gun Tinian. L-11 was the assembly used for the Hiroshima [29][30] primers in the breech plug, which set off the charge bomb. consisting of four silk powder bags each containing two pounds of WM slotted-tube cordite. This launched the uranium projectile towards the oppo- 272.5 Bombing of Hiroshima site end of the gun barrel at an eventual muzzle velocity of 300 metres per second (980 ft/s). Approximately 10 milliseconds later the chain reac- Main article: Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and tion occurred, lasting less than 1 microsecond. The Nagasaki radar altimeters used were modified U.S. Army Air Corps APS-13 fighter tail warning radars, nick- Parsons, the Enola Gay's weaponeer, was concerned named “Archie”, to warn a pilot of another plane about the possibility of an accidental detonation if the approaching from behind.[28] plane crashed in takeoff, so he decided not to load the four
746 cordite powder bags into the gun breech until the aircraft was in flight. Parsons and his assistant, Second Lieutenant Morris R. Jeppson, made their way into the bomb bay along the narrow catwalk on the port side. Jeppson held a flashlight while Parsons disconnected the primer wires, removed the breech plug, inserted the powder bags, replaced the breech plug, and reconnected the wires. Before climbing to altitude on approach to the target, Jeppson switched the three safety plugs between the electrical connectors of the internal battery and the firing mechanism from green to red. The bomb was then fully armed. Jeppson monitored the bomb’s circuits.[31]
CHAPTER 272. LITTLE BOY rounded up to 20 kilotons. Further discussion was then suppressed, for fear of lessening the impact of the bomb on the Japanese. Data had been collected by Luis Alvarez, Harold Agnew and Lawrence H. Johnston on the instrument plane The Great Artiste but this was not used to calculate the yield at the time.[34] After hostilities ended, a survey team from the Manhattan Project that included William Penney, Robert Serber and George T. Reynolds was sent to Hiroshima to evaluate the effects of the blast. From evaluating the effects on objects and structures, Penney concluded that the yield was 12 ± 1 kilotons.[35] Later calculations based on charring pointed to a yield of 13 to 14 kilotons.[36] In 1953, Frederick Reines calculated that the yield as 13 kilotons.[34] This figure became the official yield.[1]
272.5.1 Project Ichiban In 1962, scientists at Los Alamos created a mockup of Little Boy known as “Project Ichiban” in order to answer some of the unanswered questions, but it failed to clear up all the issues. In 1982, Los Alamos created a replica Little Boy from the original drawings and specifications. This was then tested with enriched uranium but in a safe configuration that would not cause a nuclear explosion. A hydraulic lift was used to move the projectile, and experiments were run to assess neutron emission.[37] Based on this and the data from The Great Artiste, the yield was estimated at 16.6 ± 0.3 kilotons.[38] After considering many estimation methods, a 1985 report concluded that the yield was 15 kilotons ± 20%.[1] When 1 pound (0.45 kg) of uranium-235 undergoes complete fission, the yield is 8 kilotons. The 16 kiloton yield The mushroom cloud over Hiroshima after the dropping of Little of the Little Boy bomb was therefore produced by the fission of no more than 2 pounds (0.91 kg) of uranium-235, Boy out of the 141 pounds (64 kg) in the pit. The remaining 139 pounds (63 kg), 98.5% of the total, contributed The bomb was dropped at approximately 08:15 (JST) Aunothing to the energy yield.[39] gust 6, 1945. After falling for 44.4 seconds, the time and barometric triggers started the firing mechanism. The detonation happened at an altitude of 1,968 ± 50 feet (600 ± 15 m). It was less powerful than the Fat Man, 272.6 Physical effects of the bomb which was dropped on Nagasaki, but the damage and the number of victims at Hiroshima were much higher, as After being selected in April 1945, Hiroshima was spared Hiroshima was on flat terrain, while the hypocenter of conventional bombing to serve as a pristine target, where Nagasaki lay in a small valley. According to figures pub- the effects of a nuclear bomb on an undamaged city could lished in 1945, 66,000 people were killed as a direct result be observed.[40] While damage could be studied later, the of the Hiroshima blast, and 69,000 were injured to vary- energy yield of the untested Little Boy design could be ing degrees.[32] Of those deaths, 20,000 were members determined only at the moment of detonation, using instruments dropped by parachute from a plane flying in of the Imperial Japanese Army.[33] The exact measurement of the yield was problematic, formation with the one that dropped the bomb. Radiosince the weapon had never been tested. President Harry transmitted data from[1]these instruments indicated a yield S. Truman officially announced that the yield was 20 kilo- of about 15 kilotons. tons of TNT (84 TJ). This was based on Parsons’s visual assessment that the blast was greater than what he had seen at the Trinity nuclear test. Since that had been estimated at 18 kilotons of TNT (75 TJ), speech writers
Comparing this yield to the observed damage produced a rule of thumb called the 5 psi lethal area rule. Approximately 100% of people inside the area where the shock wave carries an overpressure of 5 psi or greater would be
272.6. PHYSICAL EFFECTS OF THE BOMB
747 gutted, with their windows, doors, sashes, and frames ripped out.[46] The perimeter of severe blast damage approximately followed the 5 psi contour at 1.8 kilometres (1.1 mi). Later test explosions of nuclear weapons with houses and other test structures nearby confirmed the 5 psi overpressure threshold. Ordinary urban buildings experiencing it will be crushed, toppled, or gutted by the force of air pressure. The picture at right shows the effects of a nuclearbomb-generated 5 psi pressure wave on a test structure in Nevada in 1953.[47]
The General Effects of the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a US Air Force film.
killed.[41] At Hiroshima, that area was 3.5 kilometres (2.2 mi) in diameter.[42] The damage came from three main effects: blast, fire, and radiation.[43]
272.6.1
Blast
The blast from a nuclear bomb is the result of X-rayheated air (the fireball) sending a shock/pressure wave in all directions, initially at a velocity greater than the speed of sound,[44] analogous to thunder generated by lightning. Knowledge about urban blast destruction is based largely on studies of Little Boy at Hiroshima. Nagasaki buildings suffered similar damage at similar distances, but the Nagasaki bomb detonated 3.2 kilometres (2.0 mi) from the city center over hilly terrain that was partially bare of buildings.[45]
A major effect of this kind of structural damage was that it created fuel for fires that were started simultaneously throughout the severe destruction region.
272.6.2 Fire The first effect of the explosion was blinding light, accompanied by radiant heat from the fireball. The Hiroshima fireball was 370 metres (1,200 ft) in diameter, with a surface temperature of 6,000 °C (10,830 °F).[48] Near ground zero, everything flammable burst into flame. One famous, anonymous Hiroshima victim, sitting on stone steps 260 metres (850 ft) from the hypocenter, left only a shadow, having absorbed the fireball heat that permanently bleached the surrounding stone.[49] Simultaneous fires were started throughout the blast-damaged area by fireball heat and by overturned stoves and furnaces, electrical shorts, etc. Twenty minutes after the detonation, these fires had merged into a firestorm, pulling in surface air from all directions to feed an inferno which consumed everything flammable.[50]
Frame house in 1953 nuclear test, 5 psi overpressure
In Hiroshima almost everything within 1.6 kilometres (1.0 mi) of the point directly under the explosion was completely destroyed, except for about 50 heavily reinforced, earthquake-resistant concrete buildings, only the shells of which remained standing. Most were completely
Hiroshima blast and fire damage, U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey map
The Hiroshima firestorm was roughly 3.2 kilometres (2.0 mi) in diameter, corresponding closely to the severe blast damage zone. (See the USSBS[51] map, right.) Blast-
748
CHAPTER 272. LITTLE BOY
damaged buildings provided fuel for the fire. Structural lumber and furniture were splintered and scattered about. Debris-choked roads obstructed fire fighters. Broken gas pipes fueled the fire, and broken water pipes rendered hydrants useless.[50] At Nagasaki, the fires failed to merge into a single firestorm, and the fire-damaged area was only one fourth as great as at Hiroshima, due in part to a southwest wind that pushed the fires away from the city.[52]
caused by only 2,100 tons of conventional bombs: “220 B-29s carrying 1,200 tons of incendiary bombs, 400 tons of high-explosive bombs, and 500 tons of anti-personnel fragmentation bombs.”[61] Since the target was spread across a two-dimensional plane, the vertical component of a single spherical nuclear explosion was largely wasted. A cluster bomb pattern of smaller explosions would have been a more energy-efficient match to the target.[61]
As the map shows, the Hiroshima firestorm jumped natural firebreaks (river channels), as well as prepared firebreaks. The spread of fire stopped only when it reached 272.7 Post-war the edge of the blast-damaged area, encountering less available fuel.[53] When the war ended, it was not expected that the ineffiAccurate casualty figures are impossible to determine, be- cient Little Boy design would ever again be required, and cause many victims were cremated by the firestorm, along many plans and diagrams were destroyed. However, by with all record of their existence. The Manhattan Project mid-1946 the Hanford Site reactors were suffering badly report on Hiroshima estimated that 60% of immediate from the Wigner effect. Faced with the prospect of no deaths were caused by fire, but with the caveat that “many more plutonium for new cores and no more polonium for persons near the center of explosion suffered fatal injuries the initiators for the cores that had already been produced, from more than one of the bomb effects.”[54] In particu- Groves ordered that a number of Little Boys be prepared lar, many fire victims also received lethal doses of nuclear as an interim measure until a cure could be found. No Little Boy assemblies were available, and no comprehenradiation. sive set of diagrams of the Little Boy could be found, although there were drawings of the various components, and stocks of spare parts.[62][63] 272.6.3 Radiation At Sandia Base, three Army officers, Captains Albert Bethel, Richard Meyer and Bobbie Griffin attempted to re-create the Little Boy. They were supervised by Harlow W. Russ, an expert on Little Boy who served with Project Alberta on Tinian, and was now leader of the Z-11 Group of the Los Alamos Laboratory’s Z Division at Sandia. Gradually, they managed to locate the correct drawings and parts, and figured out how they went together. Eventually, they built six Little Boy assemblies. While the casings, barrels and components were tested, no enriched However, a burst of intense neutron and gamma radia- uranium was supplied for the bombs. By early 1947, the tion came directly from the fireball. Its lethal radius was problems caused by the Wigner effect was on its way to [62][63] 1.3 kilometres (0.8 mi),[42] covering about half of the solution, and the three officers were reassigned. firestorm area. An estimated 30% of immediate fatali- The Navy Bureau of Ordnance built 25 Little Boy assemties were people who received lethal doses of this direct blies in 1947 for use by the nuclear-capable Lockheed radiation, but died in the firestorm before their radia- P2V Neptune aircraft carrier aircraft. Components were tion injuries would have become apparent. Over 6,000 produced by the Naval Ordnance Plants in Pocatello, people survived the blast and fire, but died of radiation Idaho, and Louisville, Kentucky. Enough fissionable mainjuries.[54] Among injured survivors, 30% had radiation terial was available by 1948 to build ten projectiles and injuries[56] from which they recovered, but with a lifelong targets, although there were only enough initiators for increase in cancer risk.[57] To date, no radiation-related six.[64] All the Little Boy units were withdrawn from serevidence of heritable diseases has been observed among vice by the end of January 1951.[65] the survivors’ children.[58][59][60] Local fallout is dust and ash from a bomb crater, contaminated with radioactive fission products. It falls to earth downwind of the crater and can produce, with radiation alone, a lethal area much larger than that from blast and fire. With an air burst, the fission products rise into the stratosphere, where they dissipate and become part of the global environment. Because Little Boy was an air burst 580 metres (1,900 ft) above the ground, there was no bomb crater and no local radioactive fallout.[55]
272.6.4
Conventional weapon equivalent
See also: Operation Meetinghouse
272.8 Notes [1] Malik 1985, p. 1. [2] Serber & Crease 1998, p. 104.
Although Little Boy exploded with the energy equivalent of 16,000 tons of TNT, the Strategic Bombing Survey estimated that the same blast and fire effect could have been
[3] Jones 1985, p. 9. [4] Jones 1985, p. 138.
272.8. NOTES
[5] Jones 1985, p. 143. [6] Jones 1985, p. 25. [7] Rhodes 1995, pp. 160–161. [8] Hoddeson et al. 1993, p. 228. [9] Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 245–249. [10] Rhodes 1986, p. 541. [11] Hoddeson et al. 1993, p. 257. [12] Hoddeson et al. 1993, p. 262. [13] Hoddeson et al. 1993, p. 265.
749
[40] Groves 1962, p. 267, “To enable us to assess accurately the effects of the [nuclear] bomb, the targets should not have been previously damaged by air raids.” Four cities were chosen, including Hiroshima and Kyoto. War Secretary Stimson vetoed Kyoto, and Nagasaki was substituted. p. 275, “When our target cities were first selected, an order was sent to the Army Air Force in Guam not to bomb them without special authority from the War Department.”. [41] Glasstone 1962, p. 629. [42] Glasstone & Dolan 1977, p. Nuclear Bomb Effects Computer. [43] Glasstone & Dolan 1977, p. 1.
[14] Coster-Mullen 2012, p. 30.
[44] Diacon 1984, p. 18.
[15] Hansen 1995, pp. 111–112.
[45] Glasstone & Dolan 1977, pp. 300, 301.
[16] Hoddeson et al. 1993, p. 293. [17] Hansen 1995, p. 113.
[46] The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1946, p. 14.
[18] Hoddeson et al. 1993, p. 333.
[47] Glasstone & Dolan 1977, p. 179.
[19] Gosling 1999, p. 51. [20] Coster-Mullen 2012, p. 18. [21] Glasstone & Dolan 1977, p. 12. [22] Sublette, Carey. Nuclear Weapons Frequently Asked Questions “Section 8.0 The First Nuclear Weapons”. Retrieved August 29, 2013. [23] Coster-Mullen 2012, pp. 18–19, 27. [24] Bernstein 2007, p. 133. [25] Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 263–265. [26] Samuels 2008. [27] Coster-Mullen 2012, pp. 23–24. [28] Hansen 1995a, pp. 2–5. [29] Campbell 2005, pp. 46, 80. [30] Coster-Mullen 2012, pp. 100–101. [31] Coster-Mullen 2012, pp. 34–35. [32] The Manhattan Engineer District (June 29, 1945). “The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki”. Project Gutenberg Ebook. docstoc.com. p. 3. [33] Alan Axelrod (May 6, 2008). The Real History of World War II: A New Look at the Past. Sterling. p. 350.
[48] Nuclear Weapon Thermal Effects 1998. [49] Human Shadow Etched in Stone. [50] Glasstone & Dolan 1977, pp. 300-304. [51] D'Olier 1946, pp. 22–25. [52] Glasstone & Dolan 1977, p. 304. [53] The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1946, pp. 21-23. [54] The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1946, p. 21. [55] Glasstone & Dolan 1977, p. 409 “An air burst, by definition, is one taking place at such a height above the earth that no appreciable quantities of surface material are taken up into the fireball. . . the deposition of early fallout from an air burst will generally not be significant. An air burst, however, may produce some induced radioactive contamination in the general vicinity of ground zero as a result of neutron capture by elements in the soil.” p. 36, “at Hiroshima . . . injuries due to fallout were completely absent.”. [56] Glasstone & Dolan 1977, pp. 545, 546. [57] Richardson RR 2009. [58] Genetic Effects. [59] Izumi BJC 2003.
[34] Hoddeson et al. 1993, p. 393.
[60] Izumi IJC 2003.
[35] Malik 1985, pp. 18–20.
[61] D'Olier 1946, p. 24.
[36] Malik 1985, p. 21.
[62] Coster-Mullen 2012, p. 85.
[37] Coster-Mullen 2012, pp. 86–87.
[63] Abrahamson & Carew 2002, pp. 41–42.
[38] Malik 1985, p. 16.
[64] Hansen 1995, pp. 116–118.
[39] Glasstone & Dolan 1977, pp. 5, 6.
[65] Hansen 1995, p. 3.
750
272.9 References • Abrahamson, James L.; Carew, Paul H. (2002). Vanguard of American Atomic Deterrence. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger. ISBN 0-275-97819-2. OCLC 49859889. • “The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki”. The Manhattan Engineer District. Jun 29, 1946. Retrieved 2013-11-06. This report can also be found here and here. • Bernstein, Jeremy (2007). Nuclear Weapons: What You Need to Know. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-88408-X. • Campbell, Richard H. (2005). The Silverplate Bombers: A History and Registry of the Enola Gay and Other B-29s Configured to Carry Atomic Bombs. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. ISBN 0-7864-2139-8. OCLC 58554961. • Coster-Mullen, John (2012). Atom Bombs: The Top Secret Inside Story of Little Boy and Fat Man. Waukesha, Wisconsin: J. Coster-Mullen. OCLC 298514167. • Diacon, Diane (1984). Residential Housing and Nuclear Attack. London: Croom Helm. ISBN 978-07099-0868-5. • D'Olier, Franklin, ed. (1946). United States Strategic Bombing Survey, Summary Report (Pacific War). Washington: United States Government Printing Office. Retrieved November 6, 2013. This report can also be found here. • “Genetic Effects: Question #7”. Radiation Effects Research Foundation. Retrieved 2013-11-06. • Glasstone, Samuel (1962). The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, Revised Edition. United States: United States Department of Defense and United States Atomic Energy Commission. ISBN 9781258793555. • Glasstone, Samuel; Dolan, Philip J. (1977). The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, Third Edition. United States: United States Department of Defense and United States Department of Energy. ISBN 9781603220163. • Gosling, F. G. (1999). The Manhattan Project: Making the Atomic Bomb. Diane Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7881-7880-1. • Groves, Leslie R. (1962). Now it Can Be Told: the Story of the Manhattan Project. New York: Da Capo Press (1975 reprint). ISBN 0-306-70738-1.
CHAPTER 272. LITTLE BOY • Hansen, Chuck (1995). Volume V: US Nuclear Weapons Histories. Swords of Armageddon: US Nuclear Weapons Development since 1945. Sunnyvale, California: Chukelea Publications. ISBN 9780-9791915-0-3. OCLC 231585284. • Hansen, Chuck (1995a). Volume VII: The Development of US Nuclear Weapons. Swords of Armageddon: US Nuclear Weapons Development since 1945. Sunnyvale, California: Chukelea Publications. ISBN 978-0-9791915-7-2. OCLC 231585284. • Hoddeson, Lillian; Henriksen, Paul W.; Meade, Roger A.; Westfall, Catherine L. (1993). Critical Assembly: A Technical History of Los Alamos During the Oppenheimer Years, 1943–1945. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-44132-3. OCLC 26764320. • “Human Shadow Etched in Stone”. Photographic Display. Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. Retrieved 2013-11-06. • Izumi S, Koyama K, Soda M, Suyama A (November 2003). “Cancer incidence in children and young adults did not increase relative to parental exposure to atomic bombs”. British Journal of Cancer 89 (9): 1709–13. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6601322. PMC 2394417. PMID 14583774. • Izumi S, Suyama A, Koyama K (November 2003). “Radiation-related mortality among offspring of atomic bomb survivors: a half-century of followup”. International Journal of Cancer 107 (2): 292– 7. doi:10.1667/RR1801.1. PMID 12949810. • Jones, Vincent (1985). Manhattan: The Army and the Atomic Bomb. Washington, D.C.: United States Army Center of Military History. OCLC 10913875. Retrieved 25 August 2013. • Malik, John S. (1985). “The yields of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear explosions”. Los Alamos National Laboratory report number LA-8819. Retrieved Nov 6, 2013. • “Nuclear Weapon Thermal Effects”. Special Weapons Primer, Weapons of Mass Destruction. Federation of American Scientists. 1998. Retrieved 2013-11-05. • Rhodes, Richard (1986). The Making of the Atomic Bomb. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-68481378-5. OCLC 13793436. • Rhodes, Richard (1995). Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb. New York: Touchstone. ISBN 0-684-82414-0. • Richardson, David et al. (September 2009). “Ionizing Radiation and Leukemia Mortality
272.10. EXTERNAL LINKS among Japanese Atomic Bomb Survivors, 1950– 2000”. Radiation Research 172 (3): 368–382. doi:10.1667/RR1801.1. PMID 12949810. • Samuels, David (December 15, 2008). “Atomic John: A truck driver uncovers secrets about the first nuclear bombs”. The New Yorker. Retrieved August 30, 2013. • Serber, Robert; Crease, Robert P. (1998). Peace & War: Reminiscences of a Life on the Frontiers of Science. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 9780231105460. OCLC 37631186.
272.10 External links • Footage of Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Attack • Little Boy description at Carey Sublette’s NuclearWeaponArchive.org • Nuclear Files.org Definition and explanation of 'Little Boy' • The Nuclear Weapon Archive • Little Boy 3D Model • Hiroshima & Nagasaki Remembered information about preparation and dropping the Little Boy bomb
751
Chapter 273
M-121 (bomb) The M121 bomb was a very large air dropped bomb used by the U.S. military during the Vietnam War. Originally developed from the British world war II era Tallboy bomb to be dropped from the Convair B-36 bomber, it weighed 10,000 lb (4,500 kg) and contained an 8,050 lb (3,650 kg) Tritonal warhead. Production of the M121 ceased in 1955, but stockpiles were retained until the Vietnam War.
273.2 Notes [1] Frankum, Roland Bruce. Like rolling thunder: the air war in Vietnam, 1964-1975. Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. ISBN 978-0-7425-4302-7. [2] Thigpen, Jerry L. The Praetorian STARShip: the untold story of the Combat Talon. DIANE Publishing, 2001. ISBN 978-1-4289-9043-2
273.3 References 273.1 Vietnam War
• http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/ factsheet.asp?id=1013
In December 1967, the U.S. Air Force began a testing program to use large bombs for explosively clearing jungle areas for landing of helicopters. After tests in the United States, the U.S. Army began dropping the bombs using CH-54 helicopters. Use of the helicopters was expensive, time consuming and inefficient due to the CH54’s limited range. In October 1968, a C-130 crew from the 29th Tactical Airlift Squadron of the 463rd Tactical Airlift Wing flew a series of test drops while under the guidance of MSQ-77 radar controllers; additional test drops were made in December. In March 1969, the 463rd commenced Project Commando Vault and bomb drops became a regular occurrence. Besides clearing the jungle and preventing the ambush of helicopters that were approaching the landing zone (the M121’s blast diameter was 60 meters), the explosion also stunned the NVA or Viet Cong personnel within 500 meters and revealed or destroyed booby traps in the landing area.[1] Use of the M121 to clear a jungle zone was a technical success, but the weapon did not satisfy MACV's command requirement to clear a jungle area for 5 helicopters at the same time.[2] Despite this, the United States continued to use the M121 to clear helicopter landing zones in the jungle until stockpiles were depleted while a more powerful bomb was developed for jungle clearing purposes. The new BLU-82, developed in 1969, entered service later in the Commando Vault program. Unlike the M121, which used TNT, the BLU-82 used a slurry mixture of ammonium nitrate and powdered aluminum. It had a slightly bigger blast diameter (80 meters).[1] 752
• http://members.aol.com/samc130/bc130.html • Commando Vault report at University of Texas Vietnam War archive
Chapter 274
M115 bomb 274.3 Tests involving the M115
For other uses, see M115 (disambiguation).
The M115 anti-crop bomb, also known as the feather According to a 1950 military report the M115 was tested bomb or the E73 bomb,[1] was a U.S. biological cluster in an area 11 miles (18 km) long and 1.5 miles (2.4 km) wide. The area consisted of 7.5 acres (30,000 m2 ) bomb designed to deliver wheat stem rust. plots sown with the Overland variety of oats, susceptible to the test agent, Puccinia graminis avenae, but not to other strains of cereal rust.[3] The test drops of the M115 showed that, from an altitude of 4,000 feet (1,200 m), feathers could be spread over an area of 12 square miles 274.1 History (31 km2 ). Three M115 feather bombs were dropped 1 mile (1.6 km) upwind from the target area, which was then monitored for any changes. Estimates showed about Mass production of the M115 bomb began in 1953.[2] a 30% reduction in yield from the infected area.[3] The weapon was a modified M16A1 cluster bomb, which was normally used to distribute airborne leaflet propaganda or fragmentation weapons.[3] The U.S. Air Force 274.4 See also first pointed out the need for an anti-crop weapon in September 1947. In October 1950 the Air Force be• E77 balloon bomb gan procuring 4,800 M115 bombs.[1] By 1954, with the biological agents causing wheat and rye rust standard• M33 cluster bomb ized in laboratory culture, the U.S. Air Force prepared [4] to transfer the agent to some 4,800 of the M115s. The deployment of the M115 represented the United States’ first, though limited, anti-crop biological warfare 274.5 References (BW) capability.[4] Though the weapon was tested at Fort Detrick, in Frederick, Maryland, it was never used in [1] Wheelis, Mark, et al. Deadly Cultures: Biological Weapons Since 1945, (Google Books), Harvard Univercombat.[5] sity Press, 2006, pp. 217-18, (ISBN 0674016998). [2] Smart, Jeffery K. Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological Warfare: Chapter 2 - History of Chemical and Biological Warfare: An American Perspective, (PDF: p. 51), Borden Institute, Textbooks of Military Medicine, PDF via Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base, accessed November 16, 2008.
274.2 Specifications The M115 was a 500-pound (227 kg) bomb that was converted from a leaflet bomb and to be used to deliver wheat stem rust.[2][6] Wheat stem rust culture consisted of a dry particulate matter which was adhered to a light-weight vector, usually feathers. Because of its method of dissemination, the bomb was commonly referred to as the “feather bomb”.[2] The feathers would fall over a wide area when released.[5] The M115 was shown to establish 100,000 foci of infection over a 50-square-mile (130 km2 ) area.[4] 753
[3] Russell, Alan and Vogler, John. The International Politics of Biotechnology: Investigating Global Futures, (Google Books), Manchester University Press, 2000, pp. 173-74, (ISBN 0719058686). [4] Whitby, Simon M. Biological Warfare Against Crops, (Google Books), Macmillan, 2002, pp. 156-57, (ISBN 0333920856). [5] Link, Kurt. Understanding New, Resurgent, and Resistant Diseases: How Man and Globalization Create and Spread
754
CHAPTER 274. M115 BOMB
Illness, (Google Books), Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007, p. 90, (ISBN 0275991261). [6] Endicott, Stephen and Hagerman, Edward. "United States Biological Warfare during the Korean War: rhetoric and reality" York University, June 2002, accessed November 16, 2008.
Chapter 275
M117 bomb 275.2 Variants M117R The M117R (R - Retarded) uses a special fin assembly providing either high-drag or low-drag release options. For low altitude deliveries, the tail assembly opens four large drag plates which rapidly slow the bomb and allow the aircraft to escape its blast.[1] MAU-103/MAU-91 An F-100D of the 308th TFS, being loaded with Mk 117 750 lb bombs at Tuy Hoa, South Vietnam, in early 1966.
The M117 is an air-dropped general-purpose bomb used by United States military forces. It dates back to the time of the Korean War of the early 1950s. Although it has a nominal weight of 750 pounds (340 kg), its actual weight, depending on fuze and retardation options, is around 820 pounds (372 kg). Its explosive content is typically 403 pounds (183 kg) of Minol 2 or Tritonal. It can also be configured with a low-drag tail fin for medium and highaltitude deliveries.[1]
The M117Rs that are fitted with tail units, are the MAU-103 low drag tail and the MAU-91 high drag tail, respectively.[3] M117D The M117D (D - Destructor) looks similar to the M117R but uses a magnetic influence fuze, which enables the bomb to function as an mine. The M117D is released in a high-drag configuration for ground implant or shallow water mining. It detonates when an object passing near the bomb triggers the fuze.[1] MC-1
275.1 History
The M117 was the basis of the MC-1 chemical warfare bomb, which had the body cavity filled with sarin nerve gas. The MC-1 was never used by the U.S. in combat and In the 1950s through the early 1970s the M117 was a stanwas eliminated from the U.S. stockpile in June, 2006.[4] dard aircraft weapon, carried by the F-100 Super Sabre, F-104 Starfighter, F-105 Thunderchief, F-111, and F-4 Phantom. The M117 series was used extensively during the Vietnam War, and B-52G Stratofortress aircraft dropped 44,600 M117 and M117R bombs during Operation Desert Storm.[1][2]
275.3 References
At present it is used only by the B-52 Stratofortress, tactical aircraft now tend to use the Mark 80-series bombs in particularly the Mark 82 (500 pounds (227 kg)) or Mark 84 (2,000 pounds (907 kg)) bombs and their guided equivalents. 755
[1] USAF Museum: M117 Bomb [2] Janes Air Launched Weapons Issue 36. ISBN 0-71060866-7. [3] Janes.com: MAU-10 Low Drag Bomb [4] “Depot and Disposal Facility reach significant milestones” (PDF). June 12, 2006. Retrieved 2007-09-22.
756 • Arsenal of Democracy II, Tom Gervasi, ISBN 0394-17662-6 • Janes Air Launched Weapons Issue 36, ISBN 07106-0866-7
275.4 External links • OAI.DTIC.mil: Finned/Retared BLU-1B/C Version Tested • VectorSite.net: Smart Bombs and Dumb DBombs
CHAPTER 275. M117 BOMB
Chapter 276
M47 bomb The M47 bomb was a chemical bomb designed during World War II for use by the U.S. Army Air Forces.[1]
276.1 Design The bomb was designed for aerial bombardment and maximum efficiency after being dropped. Therefore, the bomb had a very thin metal sheet as its only cover, as little as 1/32 of an inch.[1] The bomb is approximately 8 inches in diameter, with a nose the shape of a hemisphere.[1] The M108 bomb fuse at the nose of the bomb detonated the weapon, allowing for the release of the contents inside. The bomb is designed to carry either White Phosphorus (WP) or a Mustard agent (H).[1] However, the H bomb filler was found to leak from the bomb when loaded, and the M47 and its variant M47A1 were not allowed to be loaded.[1] This was due to the thin steel walls on the weapon. In storage and handling, both corrosion and rough handling were found to cause the bomb to leak.[1] When the bomb is loaded with the chemical filler H, it weighs approximately 93 pounds, 73 of which are from H.[1]
276.2 Variants The M47A1 was designed to replace the M47. It has a thicker steel cover that is about 1/16 of inch thick and an acid resistant corrosion cover inside.[1] The M47A2 was designed to fix the leaking problems of the M47 when the agent H was carried.[1] On the inside it was coated with a special oil that protected against corrosion from the agent H.[1]
276.3 References
The M47 bomb can also be used as an incendiary device as well.[2] [McArthur, Charles W. Operations Analysis in the U.S. Army Eighth Air Force in World War II, (Google Books), American Mathematical Society, 1990, p. 65, (ISBN 0821801589).] A mixture of rubber and gasoline can be used in the field to produce a crude incendiary bomb.[1] A mixture of white phosphorus and jelled gasoline also produces a flammable mixture.[2] Other mixtures include: LA-60 in which crude latex is combined with caustic soda, coconut oil, and water, crepe rubber (CR) in which crude latex reduced to a solid by precipitation and kneading, LA-100 in which crude latex is dried until it is 100 percent solid, smoked rubber sheets (SR) in which crude latex that has been dried over a fire until it is 100 percent solid.[1] When used with these fillers, the bomb uses a 1-pound black powder charge to ignite and scatter the incendiary materials.[1] The bomb typically weighs about 85 pounds when the incendiary fillers are used.[1] 757
[1] BOMB, CHEMICAL, 100-POUND M47 SERIES, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District, accessed January 3, 2009. [2] Morgan, Stephen L. Chemical Warfare: History and Chemistry", University of South Carolina, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, accessed January 3, 2009.
Chapter 277
Mark 4 nuclear bomb The Mark 4 nuclear bomb was an American nuclear 277.1 W4 missile warhead bomb design produced starting in 1949 and in use until 1953. A variant called the W4 (Warhead 4), intended for use on The Mark 4 was based on the earlier Mark 3 Fat Man the Snark missile, was designed but never built. The W4 design, used in the Trinity test and the bombing of Na- design was cancelled in 1951. gasaki. The Mark 3 design was essentially handmade and designed as an emergency wartime expedient design; the Mark 4 utilized essentially the same basic design (mate- 277.2 See also rials, dimensions of the nuclear core and explosive components) but reengineered the whole design to be safer • 1950 British Columbia B-36 crash (a Mark 4 was and easier to produce. The basic idea was to “GI-proof” on-board) otherwise sensitive nuclear weapons. • List of nuclear weapons The Mark 4 was 60 inches (1.5 m) in diameter and 128 inches (3.3 m) long, the same basic dimensions as Mark • Mark 3 Fat Man 3. It weighed slightly more at 10,800 to 10,900 pounds • SM-62 Snark missile (4,900 to 4,940 kg) depending on the specific Mark 4 version (Mark 3 weighed 10,200 lb or 4,630 kg). • Mark 6 nuclear bomb In addition to being easier to manufacture, the Mark 4 introduced the concept of in flight insertion or IFI, a weapons safety concept which was used for a number of 277.3 References years. An IFI bomb has either manual or mechanical assembly which keeps the nuclear core stored outside the [1] Hansen, Charles (2007) [1995]. Swords of Armaggedon: bomb until close to the point that it may be dropped. To Volume V. Sunnyvale, CA: Chukelea Productions. pp. arm the bomb, the fissile nuclear materials are inserted V180, V179. ISBN 978-0-9791915-5-8. into the bomb core through a removable segment of the explosive lens assembly, which is then replaced and the [2] http://hpschapters.org/snv/Taschner%2520Talk% 2520Part%25201.pdf weapon closed and armed. Mark 4 models used composite uranium and plutonium fissile pits. The exact pit assemblies were common with several other US nuclear weapons, the Type C and Type D pit assemblies.
277.4 External links
Along with being composite cores, the device was the first weapon to rely upon levitated-pit implosion. These early weapons with a levitated pit had a removable pit, called an open pit. It was stored separately, in a special capsule called a birdcage.[2] Various versions of the Mark 4 had explosive yields of 1, 3.5, 8, 14, 21, 22, and 31 kilotons (4 to 130 TJ). A total of 550 Mark 4 nuclear weapons were produced and was succeeded by the Mk6, which was generally similar but much improved.
758
• Allbombs.html list of all US nuclear warheads at nuclearweaponarchive.org
Chapter 278
Mark 5 nuclear bomb Man nuclear bomb design first used in 1945, down to 39 inches (99.1 cm) diameter. The Mark 5 design used a 92-point implosion system (see Nuclear weapon design) and a composite Uranium/Plutonium fissile material core or pit. The Mark 5 core and W5 warhead were 39 inches (99.1 cm) in diameter and 76 inches (193 cm) long; the total Mark 5 bomb was 44 inches (111.8 cm) diameter and 129 to 132 inches (327.7 cm to 335.3 cm) long. The different versions of Mark 5 weighed 3,025 to 3,175 pounds (1,372.1 kg to 1,440.2 kg); the W5 versions weighed 2,405 to 2,650 pounds (1,090.9 to 1,202.0 kg). The Mark 5 nuclear bomb (open doors at front are for insertion of nuclear core)
The Mark 5 and W5 were pure fission weapons. There were at least four basic models of core design used, and sub-variants with yields of 6, 16, 55, 60, 100, and 120 kilotons have been reported.
The Mark 5 nuclear bomb and W5 nuclear warhead were As with many early US nuclear weapon designs, the fissile a common core nuclear weapon design, designed in the material or pit could be kept separately from the bomb early 1950s and which saw service from 1952 to 1963. and assembled into it prior to flight. This technology is known as In Flight Insertion or IFI. The Mark 5 had an automatic IFI mechanism which could insert the pit into the center of the explosive assembly from a storage position in the bomb nose. The image here shows the doors to that nose compartment open.
278.2 History The Mark 5 was in service from 1952 to 1963. The W5 saw service from 1954 to 1963. Approximately 72 Mark 5 weapons were carried by RAF bombers but under US control, under the auspices of Project E.[1] View looking into the nose of a Mark 5, where the fissile pit and final explosive charge segment would be inserted.
A boosted Mark 5 was used as the primary fission trigger used in Ivy Mike, the first thermonuclear device (leading to the hydrogen bomb) in history.
278.1 Description
278.3 See also
The Mark 5 design was the first production American nuclear weapon which was significantly smaller than the 60 inch (150 cm) diameter implosion system of the Fat 759
• List of nuclear weapons • Nuclear weapon design
760
278.4 References [1] RAF Nuclear Deterrent Forces. The Stationery Office. 1996. pp. 262–263. ISBN 0-11-772833-0.
278.5 External links • Allbombs.html list of all US nuclear warheads at nuclearweaponarchive.org
CHAPTER 278. MARK 5 NUCLEAR BOMB
Chapter 279
Mark 6 nuclear bomb 279.2 Variants 279.2.1 Mark 13 The Mark 13 nuclear bomb and W13 missile warhead were developed as higher efficiency Mark 6 successors, the same size and basic configuration as the Mark 6 but utilizing an improved 92-point implosion system. Because of its dangers, the Mark 13 was cancelled in August 1954 and the W13 cancelled September 1954, in both cases without ever seeing production service.
279.2.2 Mark 18 A Mark 6 nuclear bomb
The Mark 6 nuclear bomb was an American nuclear bomb based on the earlier Mark 4 nuclear bomb and its predecessor, the Mark 3 Fat Man nuclear bomb design. The Mark 6 was in production from 1951-1955 and saw service until 1962. Seven variants and versions were produced, with a total production run of all models of 1100 bombs. The basic Mark 6 design was 61 inches in diameter and 128 inches long, the same basic dimensions as the Mark 4 and close to the Mark 3. Various models weighed 7,600 to 8,500 pounds. Early models of the Mark 6 utilized the same 32-point implosion system design concept as the earlier Mark 4 and Mark 3; the Mark 6 Mod 2 and later used a different, 60-point implosion system.
The Mark 18 nuclear bomb was a follow-on to the Mark 6 and Mark 13, utilizing a fissile pit assembly with around 60 kilograms of HEU and delivering a yield of 500 kilotons, the largest pure fission (non-thermonuclear) bomb design ever developed by the US. Mark 18 bombs were eventually recycled into Mark 6 Mod 6 bombs after thermonuclear weapons were deployed in quantity. The Mark 18 was tested once in Operation Ivy King.
279.3 See also • List of nuclear weapons
279.4 External links
Various models and pit options gave nuclear yields of 8, 26, 80, 154, and 160 kilotons for Mark 6 models.
279.1 Survivors A Mark 6 casing is on display in the Cold War Gallery of the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio. 761
• Allbombs.html list of all US nuclear warheads at nuclearweaponarchive.org
Chapter 280
Mark 7 nuclear bomb 280.2 Specifications • Length: 15.2 ft (4.6 m) • Diameter: 2.5 ft (0.8 m) • Weight: 1680 lb (764 kg) • Fuzing: airburst or contact • Yield: variable yield between 8 and 61 kilotons • Implosion nuclear weapon[2] Mark 7 nuclear bomb at USAF Museum
280.3 Users
Mark 7 "Thor" (or Mk-7'[1] ) was the first tactical fission bomb adopted by US armed forces. It was also the first weapon to be delivered using the toss method with the help of the low-altitude bombing system (LABS). The weapon was tested in Operation Buster-Jangle. To facilitate external carry by fighter-bomber aircraft, Mark 7 was fitted with retractable stabilizer fins. Mark 7 was a diala-yield capsule-type weapon with fissile (or fissionable) elements (uranium 235) stored in a separate container. The Mark 7 warhead (W7) also formed the basis of the 30.5 inch (77.5 cm) BOAR rocket, the Mark 90 Betty nuclear depth charge, and MGR-1 Honest John rocket and MGM-5 Corporal ballistic missile. It was also supplied for delivery by Royal Air Force Canberra aircraft assigned to NATO in Germany under the command of SACEUR. This was done under the auspices of Project A Douglas A4D-2 carrying a Mk 7 bomb on the USS Saratoga E - an agreement between the USA and the UK on the in the early 1960s. RAF carriage of US nuclear weapons. The Mark 7 was in service from 1952 to 1968 with 1700-1800 having been built. • English Electric Canberra (Royal Air Force) • Douglas F3D-2B Skyknight • Douglas A-1 Skyraider • Douglas A-3 Skywarrior
280.1 Survivors
• Douglas A-4 Skyhawk A Mark 7 casing is on display in the Cold War hangar at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio. 762
• Martin B-57 Canberra • McDonnell F2H Banshee
280.6. EXTERNAL LINKS • McDonnell F3H Demon • McDonnell F-101 Voodoo • North American FJ Fury • North American B-45 Tornado • North American F-100 Super Sabre • Republic F-84 Thunderjet
280.4 See also • List of nuclear weapons
280.5 References [1] USAF Museum: Mk 7 nuclear bomb [2] FISSION WEAPONS from Department of Energy (DOE) OpenNet documents
280.6 External links • SAC: Nuclear Weapons
763
Chapter 281
Mark 8 nuclear bomb service from 1952 to 1957.
281.1 Description The Mark 8 was a gun-type nuclear bomb, which rapidly assembles several critical masses of fissile nuclear material by firing a fissile projectile or “bullet” into a hollow opening in a larger fissile “target”, using a system which closely resembles a medium-sized cannon barrel and propellant.
A Mark 8 nuclear bomb
The Mark 8 was an early earth-penetrating bomb (see nuclear bunker buster), intended to dig into the earth some distance prior to detonating. According to one government source, the Mark 8 could penetrate 22 feet (6.7 m) of reinforced concrete, 90 feet (27 m) of hard sand, 120 feet (37 m) feet of clay, or 5 inches (13 cm) of hardened armor-plate steel. [1] The Mark 8 was 14.5 inches (37 cm) in diameter across its body and 116 to 132 inches (290 to 340 cm) long depending on submodel. It weighed 3,230 to 3,280 pounds (1,470 to 1,490 kg), and had a yield of 25-30 kilotons. A total of 40 Mark 8 bombs were produced. Closeup of the nose of a Mark 8
The Mark 8 was succeeded by an improved variant, the Mark 11 nuclear bomb.
281.2 Variants The Mark 8 was considered as a cratering warhead for the SSM-N-8 Regulus cruise missile. This W8 variant was cancelled in 1955. A lighter Mark 8 variant, the Mark 10 nuclear bomb, was developed as a lightweight airburst (surface target) bomb. The Mark 10 project was cancelled prior to introduction into service, replaced by the much more fissile-materialefficient Mark 12 nuclear bomb implosion design. Closeup of the tail of a Mark 8
281.3 See also
The Mark 8 nuclear bomb was a nuclear bomb, designed in the late 1940s and early 1950s, which was in 764
• List of nuclear weapons
281.5. EXTERNAL LINKS • Mark 1 Little Boy nuclear bomb
281.4 References [1] Weapon Design: We've done a lot but we can't say much by Carson Mark, Raymond E. Hunter, and Jacob E. Weschler, Los Alamos Science, Winter/Spring 1983, pp 159.
281.5 External links • Allbombs.html list of all US nuclear warheads at nuclearweaponarchive.org
765
Chapter 282
Mark 10 nuclear bomb The Mark 10 nuclear bomb was a proposed American nuclear bomb based on the earlier Mark 8 nuclear bomb design. The Mark 10, like the Mark 8, is a Gun-type nuclear weapon, which rapidly assembles several critical masses of fissile nuclear material by firing a fissile projectile or “bullet” into a hollow opening in a larger fissile “target”, using a system which closely resembles a medium sized cannon barrel and propellant. The Mark 10 was intended to be a general purpose airburst nuclear weapon, unlike the Mark 8 which was intended to penetrate into the ground as a Nuclear bunker buster. The Mark 10 was nicknamed the “Airburst Elsie"; the Mark 8 had been nicknamed the LC or Light Casing bomb, which was then expanded to “Elsie”. The Mark 10 was 12 inches in diameter and weighed 1,500 or 1,750 pounds. It had a design yield of 12 to 15 kilotons. The Mark 10 design was cancelled in 1952, replaced by the implosion-type Mark 12 nuclear bomb which was lighter and used considerably less fissile nuclear material.
282.1 See also • List of nuclear weapons • Mark 1 Little Boy nuclear bomb • Mark 8 nuclear bomb
282.2 External links • Allbombs.html list of all US nuclear warheads at nuclearweaponarchive.org
766
Chapter 283
Mark 11 nuclear bomb The Mark 11 nuclear bomb was an American nuclear bomb developed from the earlier Mark 8 nuclear bomb in the mid-1950s. Like the Mark 8, the Mark 11 was an earth-penetrating weapon, also known as a nuclear bunker buster bomb.
91 had variable yields by changing the target rings. A major difference over the MK-8 was that the MK-91 had an electric operated actuator as a safety device that would rotate a spline ring to prevent the projectle from being fired into the target rings. The MK-8 had NO! safety devices. Upon release from the delivery aircraft detonation would occur after the black powder fuzes burned 90-110 seconds. The MK-91 was a deep penetrating weapon in many surface materials. A “PHOEBE” polonium initiator increased the nuclear detonation efficiency.
283.2 See also • List of nuclear weapons • Mark 8 nuclear bomb • Mark 1 Little Boy nuclear bomb The Mk-11 nuclear bomb
283.3 External links • Allbombs.html list of all US nuclear warheads at nuclearweaponarchive.org
283.1 Description As with the Mark 8, the Mark 11 was a gun-type nuclear bomb (see also Nuclear weapon design#Gun-type assembly weapon). It used a fixed large target assembly of highly enriched uranium or HEU, a gun-like barrel, and a powder charge and uranium bullet or projectile fired up the barrel into the target. The Mark 11 was first produced in 1956, and was in service until 1960. A total of 40 were produced, replacing but not expanding the quantity of Mark 8 bombs. It was 14 inches in diameter and 147 inches long, with a weight of 3,210 to 3,500 pounds. Yield was reportedly the same as the Mark 8, 25 to 30 kilotons. The two bombs reportedly used the same basic fissile weapon design, but the Mark 11 had a much more modern external casing designed to penetrate further and more reliably into the ground. The Mark 8 had a flat nose, much like a torpedo. The Mark 11 nose was a pointed ogive shape. The MK-11 also known as the MK767
Chapter 284
Mark 118 bomb The M118 is an air-dropped general-purpose or demolition bomb used by United States military forces. It dates back to the time of the Korean War of the early 1950s. Although it has a nominal weight of 3,000 lb (1,350 kg), its actual weight, depending on fuse and retardation options, is somewhat higher. A typical non-retarded configuration has a total weight of 3,049 lb (1,383 kg) with an explosive content of 1,975 lb (895 kg) of Tritonal. This is a higher percentage than in the more recent American Mark 80 series bombs thus perhaps the designation as a demolition bomb. In the late 1950s through the early 1970s it was a standard aircraft weapon, carried by the F-100 Super Sabre, F104 Starfighter, F-105 Thunderchief, and F-4 Phantom. Some apparently remain in the USAF inventory, although they are rarely used today. It was a component of the GBU-9/B version of the Rockwell electro-optically guided Homing Bomb System (HOBOS). This weapon consisted of a M-118 fitted with a KMU-390/B guidance kit with an image contrast seeker, strakes and cruciform tail fins to guide the bomb to its target. It was also used in the Texas Instruments Paveway I series of laser-guided bombs as the GBU-11 when it was fitted with the KMU-388 seeker head, MAU157 Computer Control Group and the MXU-602 Airfoil Group. This latter consisted of four fixed cruciform fins and 4 moveable canards to control the bomb’s trajectory. It was also fitted with an AIM-9B Sidewinder infra-red seeker and an AGM-45 Shrike nose cone during 1967 tests at the Naval Ordnance Test Station China Lake, presumably in an attempt to create an infra-red guided bomb.[1] This was called the Bombwinder.
284.1 Notes [1] “China Lake 1967 Photo Gallery”. Retrieved 2009-0103.
284.2 References • Arsenal of Democracy II, Tom Gervasi, ISBN 0394-17662-6 768
• webpage on the HOBOS • webpage on the Paveway I family of laser-guided bombs
Chapter 285
Mark 12 nuclear bomb
Mark-12 nuclear bomb
The Mark-12 nuclear bomb was a lightweight nuclear bomb designed and manufactured by the United States An FJ-4B carrying a Mk 12 bomb (shape) over China Lake. of America which was built starting in 1954 and which saw service from then until 1962. The Mark-12 was notable for being significantly smaller in both size and weight compared to prior implosion-type nuclear weapons. For example, the overall diameter was only 22 inches (56 cm), compared to the immediately prior Mark-7 which had a 30 inches (76 cm) diameter, and the volume of the implosion assembly was only 40% the size of the Mark-7’s.
285.3 In popular culture
Though the weapon went out of service in 1962, it resurfaced in a fictional role in Tom Clancy's 1991 book The Sum of All Fears and the 2002 film, where the plot included an Israeli copy of the Mark-12 being lost by accident in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War in southern Syria near the Golan Heights, and then recovered by a There was a planned W-12 warhead variant which would terrorist organization. have been used with the RIM-8 Talos missile, but it was cancelled prior to introduction into service.
285.4 See also 285.1 Specifications
• Nuclear weapon design • Mark 7 nuclear bomb
The complete Mark-12 bomb was 22 inches in diameter, 155 inches (3.94 m) long, and weighed 1,100 to 1,200 pounds (500 to 540 kg). It had a yield of 12 to 14 kilotons.
• The Sum of All Fears • The Sum of All Fears (film)
285.2 Features
285.5 External links
The Mark-12 has been speculated to have been the first deployed nuclear weapon to have used beryllium as a reflector-tamper inside the implosion assembly (see nuclear weapon design). It is believed to have used a spherical implosion assembly, levitated pit, and 92-point detonation. 769
• allbombs.html list at nuclearweaponarchive.org • Historical nuclear bombs list at globalsecurity.org
Chapter 286
Mark 13 nuclear bomb The Mark 13 nuclear bomb and its variant, the W-13 286.4 Variants nuclear warhead, were experimental nuclear weapons developed by the United States from 1951 to 1954. The 286.4.1 Mark 18 Mark 13 design was based on the earlier Mark 6 nuclear bomb design, which was in turn based on the Mark 4 nuThe Mark 18 nuclear bomb also known as the Super clear bomb and the Mark 3 nuclear bomb used at the end Oralloy Bomb (or its initials SOB) utilized the 92-point of World War II. Mark 13 implosion system, but a different fissile core with around 60 kilograms of highly enriched uranium (Oralloy). This was the largest pure fission nuclear bomb ever tested, with a yield of nearly 500 kilotons. The Mark 286.1 Description 18 was produced in moderate quantities (90 units) and in The Mark 13 bomb was nearly the same size as the Mark service from 1953 to 1956. 6 nuclear bomb it was developed from; 61 inches in diameter and 128 inches long (150 cm by 320 cm), weigh286.4.2 Mark 20 ing 7,400 lb (3,300 kg). The W-13 warhead was somewhat smaller, being roughly 58 inches in diameter and The Mark 20 nuclear bomb was a planned successor 100 inches long, with a 6,000 to 6,500 lb weight (145 cm to the Mark 13 incorporating some improvements in its by 250 cm, 2,700 kg to 2,900 kg). [1] design. Research was halted at the same time as the Mark The Mark 13 design used a 92-point nuclear implosion 13. system (see Nuclear weapon design). A similar 92-point The Mark 20 was the same size as the Mark 13, but system was used in later variants of the Mark 6 weapon. weighed only 6,400 lb.
286.2 Testing
286.5 See also
The Mark 13 nuclear bomb design was tested at least once, in the Operation Upshot-Knothole Harry test shot conducted on May 19, 1953. The estimated yield of this test was 32 kilotons.
• List of nuclear weapons • Mark 18 nuclear bomb • Mark 6 nuclear bomb • Mark 4 nuclear bomb
286.3 Deployment
• Fat Man Mark 3 nuclear bomb
As the Mark 13 neared production, advances in thermonuclear weapon design, particularly the Ivy Mike thermonuclear test in November 1952, made the Mark 13 obsolete. Development continued for research purposes (the Upshot-Knothole Harry test shot came months after the first thermonuclear test in Ivy Mike), and in two variant designs, but the Mark 13 proper was never deployed. The Mark 13 bomb version was cancelled in August 1953, and the W-13 warhead version was cancelled in September 1953.
286.6 References
770
[1] Complete list of all US nuclear weapons, Carey Sublette, at the nuclearweaponarchive.org website. Accessed April 17, 2007.
Chapter 287
Mark 14 nuclear bomb the Sloika in the Soviet Union. The fusion fuel used by the bomb was 95% enriched Lithium isotope 6 lithium deuteride, which at the time was a scarce resource and chiefly responsible for its limited deployment. The Castle Bravo test showed that unenriched Lithium isotope 7 functioned as well for nuclear fusion reactions as isotope 6. The Mk-14 bomb had a diameter of 61.4 inches (1.56 m) and a length of 222 inches (5.64 m). They weighed between 28,950 and 31,000 pounds (13,100 and 14,100 kg), and used a 64 feet (20 m) parachute.[1] The version tested at Castle Union used a RACER IV primary, and had 5 Mt of its total yield due to fission, making it a very “dirty” weapon.[2]
Mark 14 nuclear bomb.
By 1956, the components of all of the five produced Mk14 bombs had been recycled into Mark 17s.
287.1 See also • List of nuclear weapons
287.2 References Citations [1] List of All U.S. Nuclear Weapons at NuclearWeaponArchive.org The Castle Union test of the Mark 14 design. [2]
• Operation Castle at NuclearWeaponArchive.org
For the Sinclair Research Ltd. SC/MP based computer sysFurther reading tem see MK14. For the torpedo see Mark 14 torpedo. The Mark 14 nuclear bomb was a 1950s Strategic thermonuclear weapon, the first solid-fuel staged hydrogen bomb. It was an experimental design, and only five units were produced in early 1954. It was tested in April 1954 during the Castle Union nuclear test and had a yield of 6.9 Mt. The bomb is often listed as the TX-14 (for “experimental”) or EC-14 (for “Emergency Capability”). It has also been referred to as the “Alarm Clock” device though it has nothing to do with the design by the same name proposed earlier by Edward Teller and known as 771
• Hansen, Chuck, “Swords of Armageddon,” Sunnyvale, CA, Chucklea Publications, 1995.
Chapter 288
Mark 15 nuclear bomb tampers, and neutrons from the fusion would fission some of the tamper, but the primary energy release (50% or more) was from the fusion reaction. The HEU secondary tamper concept may have been used in the most modern nuclear weapons, where compact size and weight were highly valued, including the W88 and W87 Mod 1 weapons.
288.2 Specifications All three models were generally physically similar; weight of around 7,600 lb / 3,450 kg, diameter of 34.4 to 35 inches, length of 136 to 140 inches. [1]
Mark 15 bomb
The Mark 15 nuclear bomb, or Mk-15, was a 1950s American thermonuclear bomb, the first relatively lightweight (7,600 lb / 3450 kg) thermonuclear bomb created by the United States.
288.3 Models
The Mark 15 was first produced in 1955, and a total of The Mod 1 corresponds to the Castle Nectar test of the 1,200 units were made before production ended in 1957. Zombie weapon prototype. This test had a yield of 1.69 The Mark 15 design was in service from 1955 to 1965. megatons.[2][3] There were three production variants of the Mark 15 The Mod 2 corresponds to the Redwing Cherokee nuclear bomb, the Mod 1, Mod 2, and Mod 3. test of the TX-15-X1 test model, and had a yield of 3.8 megatons. Redwing Cherokee was the first US thermonuclear bomb airdrop test.[4]
288.1 Transitional design
The Mod 3 also appears to have had a 3.8 megaton yield.
The Mark 15 is widely described as a transitional design between fission and thermonuclear weapons. The Mark 15 was a staged weapon (see Teller-Ulam design), using radiation implosion from a fission nuclear primary (Cobra) to implode a secondary stage. Unlike most modern thermonuclear bombs, the Mark 15 used a secondary which was primarily HEU (highly enriched uranium), which generated most of its energy from nuclear fission reactions once the primary imploded it. There was a thermonuclear core which underwent fusion reactions, but most of the energy came from the HEU fissioning. The HEU fission was enhanced by fusion stage neutrons, but would have generated a very significant fission yield by itself.
288.3.1 W15 A missile warhead variant of the Mark 15, the W15 Warhead, was an ongoing project in the mid 1950s. It was canceled in early 1957. Before cancellation, it had been intended for use on the SM-62 Snark missile. Instead, the Snark ended up using the W39 (see below).
288.4 Derivatives
The W39 nuclear warhead and B39 nuclear bomb used a common nuclear physics package which was derived from Some later bombs used depleted uranium fusion stage the Mark 15. The experimental W39 devices were ini772
288.8. EXTERNAL LINKS tially tested as the TX-15-X3 (which is identical to the W39 Mod 0 design).
288.5 Dropped and Lost Main article: 1958 Tybee Island B-47 crash On 5 February 1958, during a training mission flown by a B-47, a Mk 15 nuclear bomb was lost off the coast of Georgia near Savannah.
288.6 See also • List of nuclear weapons • Operation Castle • Operation Redwing • Tybee Bomb
288.7 References [1] Allbombs.html list of all US nuclear warheads at nuclearweaponarchive.org, Accessed 2005-05-06 [2] Operation Castle at nuclearweaponarchive.org, Accessed 2005-05-06 [3] Historical Nuclear Weapons at globalsecurity.org, Accessed 2005-05-06 [4] Operation Redwing at nuclearweaponarchive.org, Accessed 2005-05-06
288.8 External links • Allbombs.html list of all US nuclear warheads at nuclearweaponarchive.org • tybeebomb.com—information regarding lost nuclear bombs
773
Chapter 289
Mark 16 nuclear bomb The Mark 16 nuclear bomb was a large thermonuclear bomb (hydrogen bomb), based on the design of the Ivy Mike, the first thermonuclear device ever test fired. The Mark 16 is more properly designated TX-16/EC-16 as it only existed in Experimental/Emergency Capability (EC) versions.
cessfully. These solid fuel thermonuclear bombs were far easier to handle, requiring no cryogenic temperature materials or cooling system. It was replaced with the five EC-14 weapons brought up to an acceptable standard as the TX-14 and production Mark 17 nuclear bombs in mid-1954.[1]
The TX-16 was notable because it was the only deployed thermonuclear bomb which used a cryogenic liquid deuterium fusion fuel, the same fuel used in the Ivy Mike test device. The TX-16 was in fact a weaponized version of the Ivy Mike design. This required both a considerable reduction in weight of the explosive package and the replacement of the elaborate cryogenic system with Dewar flasks for replenishing boiled-off deuterium. The carrier aircraft was to be the B-36 as modified under Operation Barroom. Only one B-36 was so modified. The TX-16 shared common forward and aft casing sections with the TX-14 and TX-17/24 and in the emergency capability (EC-16) version was almost indistinguishable from the EC-14. A small number of EC-16s were produced to provide a stop-gap thermonuclear weapon capability in response to the Russian nuclear weapons program. The TX-16 was scheduled to be tested as the Castle Yankee “Jughead” device until the overwhelming success of the Castle Bravo “Shrimp” test device rendered it obsolete.
The planned test of the TX-16 bomb in the Castle Yankee test of Operation Castle was canceled due to the spectacular success of the “Shrimp” device in the Castle Bravo test.
289.3 See also • List of nuclear weapons
289.4 References [1] Allbombs.html at the Nuclear Weapon Archive, accessed 2 October 2006 [2] Historical United States Nuclear Weapons at Globalsecurity.org (see also Globalsecurity.org), accessed 2 October 2006
• Hansen, Chuck, “Swords of Armageddon,” Sunnyvale, CA, Chucklea Publications, 1995.
289.1 Specifications The TX-16 bomb was 5 ft 1.4 in (1.56 m) in diameter, 24 ft 8.7 in (7.54 m) in length, and weighed 39,000 to 42,000 lb (17,690 to 19,050 kg). Design yield was 6-8 megatons of TNT. [1] [2]
289.2 Manufacture and service Five units were manufactured in January 1954, and deployed in an interim “emergency capability” role with the designation EC-16. By April 1954 they were all retired, as the alternative solid-fueled thermonuclear weapons had been tested suc774
• O'Keefe, Bernard J. “Nuclear Hostages,” Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983, ISBN 0-39534072-1.
Chapter 290
Mark 17 nuclear bomb m) parachute to allow the delivery aircraft to escape. With the addition of IFI of the Primary capsule to prevent a nuclear explosion in case of an accident, the weapons were upgraded to the Mod 1 standard. The inclusion of a contact fuse upgraded some bombs to the Mod 2 version, allowing the bombs to be used against “soft” targets (air burst), or buried targets such as command bunkers (contact burst). Due to the introduction of smaller and lighter weapons such as the Mk 15, as well as the pending retirement of the only aircraft capable of carrying them, the B-36, the Mk 24s were withdrawn by October 1956, with the Mk17s withdrawn by August 1957. The Mark 17
The Mark 17 and Mark 24 were the first mass-produced hydrogen bombs deployed by the United States. The two differed in their “primary” stages. The MK 17/24 bombs were 24 feet 8 inches (7.52 m) long, 61.4 inches (1.56 m) diameter. They weighed 21 tons. The Mark 17 had a yield in the range of 10 to 15 megatons TNT equivalent. Total production of Mk 17s was 200, and there were 105 Mk 24s produced, all between October 1954 and November 1955. Design and development originated when Los Alamos National Laboratory proposed that a bomb design using lithium deuteride with non-enriched lithium was possible. The new design was designated TX-17 on February 24, 1953. The TX-17 and 24 were tested as the “Runt” (Castle Romeo shot) device during Operation Castle in 1954. After the successful tests, basic versions of the Mk-17 and 24 were deployed as part of the “Emergency Capability” program. A total of 5 EC 17 and 10 EC 24 bombs were rushed into stockpile between April and October 1954. The EC weapons lacked parachutes to delay the time between release and their detonation, ensuring the delivery aircraft would be destroyed with the target. Other safety features such as In Flight Insertion (IFI) and safe arming and fusing devices were also omitted to ensure a quick thermonuclear capability.
A Mark 17 on display at the Strategic Air Command Memorial in Naval Air Station Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base at Carswell Field in Fort Worth, Texas
On May 27, 1957 a Mark 17 was unintentionally jettisoned from a B-36 just south of Albuquerque, NM’s Kirtland AFB. The device fell through the closed bomb bay doors of the bomber, which was approaching Kirtland at an altitude of 1,700 feet. The device’s conventional explosives destroyed it on impact, leaving a crater 25 ft in diameter and 12 ft deep.[1] Though a chain reaction was impossible because the plutonium pits were stored separately on the plane, the incident spread radioactive contamination and debris over a mile-wide area. Although The EC weapons were quickly replaced with MK 17 Mod the military cleaned up the site in secret, a few fragments 0 and Mk-24 Mod 0 bombs in October and November of the bomb - some radioactive still - may be found in the 1954. Those weapons included a 64-foot-diameter (20 area. It is one of more than 30 known "Broken Arrow" 775
776
CHAPTER 290. MARK 17 NUCLEAR BOMB • Gibson, James N. “Nuclear Weapons of the United States,” Altglen, PA, Schiffer Publishing, 1996, ISBN 0-7643-0063-6. • Cochran, Thomas, Arkin, William, Hoenig, Milton “Nuclear Weapons Databook, Volume I, U.S. Nuclear Forces and Capabilities,” Cambridge, Massachusetts, Ballinger Pub. Co., 1984, ISBN 088410-173-8. • Hansen, Chuck, “Swords of Armageddon,” Sunnyvale, CA, Chucklea Publications, 1995.
A Mark 17 on display at the Castle Air Museum
290.4 External links
incidents involving the accidental loss or destruction of a Media related to Mark 17 nuclear bomb at Wikimedia nuclear weapon. Commons
290.1 Survivors Five MK 17/24 casings are on display to the public: • National Atomic Museum located at Albuquerque, New Mexico. • The Strategic Air Command Memorial at Naval Air Station Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base at Carswell Field in Fort Worth, Texas. • The National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio has a Mk 17/24 casing on display in its Cold War Hangar. • The Strategic Air and Space Museum in Ashland, Nebraska. • Castle Air Museum, Atwater, Ca
290.2 See also • List of nuclear weapons • Castle Bravo • Teller-Ulam design
290.3 References [1] “Accident Revealed After 29 Years: H-Bomb Fell Near Albuquerque in 1957”. Los Angeles Times. Associated Press. August 27, 1986. Retrieved 31 August 2014.
• Hansen, Chuck. U.S. Nuclear Weapons. Arlington, Texas, Areofax, Inc., 1988. ISBN 0-517-56740-7.
Chapter 291
Mark 18 nuclear bomb The Mark 18 nuclear bomb, also known as the SOB or last steps of the arming sequence.[1][2] Super Oralloy Bomb, was an American nuclear bomb design which was the highest yield fission bomb produced by the US. The Mark 18 had a design yield of 500 291.2 Deployment kilotons. Noted nuclear weapon designer Ted Taylor was the lead designer for the Mark 18. Beginning in March 1953, the United States deployed a number of Mark 18 bombs. A total of 90 were manufactured and placed in service. The weapon had a short lifetime, and was replaced by thermonuclear weapons in the mid-1950s. The Mark 18 weapons were all modified into lower yield Mark 6 nuclear bomb variants in 1956.
291.3 See also • List of nuclear weapons • Ivy King • Nuclear weapon design The Ivy King test firing of the Mark 18 SOB design
• Mark 13 nuclear bomb
The Mark 18 was tested once, in the Ivy King nuclear test at the Enewetak atoll in the Pacific Ocean. The test was a complete success at full yield.
• Mark 6 nuclear bomb • Mark 4 nuclear bomb • Fat Man Mark 3 nuclear bomb
291.1 Description 291.4 References The Mark 18 bomb design used an advanced 92-point implosion system, derived from the Mark 13 nuclear bomb and its ancestors the Mark 6 nuclear bomb, Mark 4 nuclear bomb, and Fat Man Mark 3 nuclear bomb of World War II. Its normal mixed uranium/plutonium fissile core (“pit”) was replaced with over 60 kg of pure highly enriched uranium or HEU. With a natural uranium tamper layer, the bomb had over four critical masses of fissile material in the core, and was unsafe: the accidental detonation of even one of the detonator triggers, would likely cause a significant (many kilotons of energy yield) explosion. An aluminum/boron chain designed to absorb neutrons was placed in the fissile pit to reduce the risk of accidental high yield detonation, and removed during the 777
[1] Allbombs.html list of all US nuclear warheads at nuclearweaponarchive.org. Accessed April 16, 2007. [2] Historical US nuclear weapons at Globalsecurity.org, accessed April 17, 2007
Chapter 292
Mark 21 nuclear bomb The Mark 21 nuclear bomb was a United States nuclear gravity bomb first produced in 1955. It was based on the TX-21 “Shrimp” prototype that had been detonated during the Castle Bravo test in March 1954. While most of the Operation Castle tests were intended to evaluate weapons intended for immediate stockpile, or which were already available for use as part of the Emergency Capability Program, Castle Bravo was intended to test a design which would drastically reduce the size and costs of the first generation of air-droppable atomic weapons (the Mk 14, Mk 17 & Mk 24). At 12 feet 6 inches (3.81 m) long, 56 inches (1.42 m) in diameter, and weighing 15,000 pounds (6,800 kg), the Mk-21 was half the length and one-third the weight of the Mk-17/24 weapons it replaced. Its minimum yield was specified at four megatons. Quantity production of the Mk-21 started in December 1955 and ran until July 1956. Three marks were produced; the Mk-21C was proof tested as the Operation Redwing Navajo shot, with a yield of 4.5 megatons. Starting in June 1957 all Mk-21 bombs were converted to the more powerful Mk-36, which was removed from service in 1962.[1]
292.1 References [1] Nuclear Weapon Archive: List of All U.S. Nuclear Weapons
• Hansen, Chuck. U.S. Nuclear Weapons,” Arlington, Texas, Areofax, Inc., 1988. ISBN 0-517-56740-7. • O'Keefe, Bernard J. “Nuclear Hostages,” Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983, ISBN 0-39534072-1.
778
Chapter 293
Mark 24 nuclear bomb The Mark 24 nuclear bomb was an American thermonuclear bomb design, based on the third American thermonuclear bomb test, Castle Yankee. The Mark 24 bomb was tied as the largest weight and size nuclear bomb ever deployed by the United States, with the same size and weight as the Mark 17 nuclear bomb which used a very similar design concept but unenriched Lithium. The Castle Yankee thermonuclear test was the first bomb to use enriched Lithium-6 isotope, up to perhaps 40% enrichment. The device tested was called the Runt II design; it was reportedly very similar to the Runt design tested in Castle Romeo, other than the enrichment level. Castle Yankee had a demonstrated yield of 13.5 megatons. The yield for the weaponized Mark 24 was predicted to be 10–15 megatons. The EC24 bomb was a limited production run of the Castle Yankee test device, with 10 produced and stockpiled through 1954. The EC24 was 61 by 255 inches (1.55 by 6.48 m) and weighed 39,600 pounds (18,000 kg). The EC24 was a purely free-fall bomb design. The production model Mark 24 nuclear bomb was 61.4 by 296 inches (1.56 by 7.52 m) long, with a weight between 41,000 and 42,000 pounds (18,600 and 19,100 kg). It was in service between 1954 and 1956, with a total of 105 units produced. The Mark 24 included a 64-footdiameter (20 m) parachute to slow its descent.
293.1 See also • List of nuclear weapons • Nuclear weapon design • Teller-Ulam design • Mark 17 nuclear bomb • Castle Yankee
293.2 References • Allbombs.html list of all US nuclear warheads at nuclearweaponarchive.org 779
• Chuck Hansen, U. S. Nuclear Weapons: The Secret History (Arlington: AeroFax, 1988)
Chapter 294
Mark 27 nuclear bomb The Mark 27 nuclear bomb and closely related W27 warhead were two American thermonuclear bomb designs from the late 1950s. The Mark 27 was designed by the University of California Radiation Laboratory (UCRL; now Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) starting in the mid-1950s. The Mark 27 and W27 were produced from 1958; both were retired by 1965. The basic design concept was competing with the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (LASL; now Los Alamos National Laboratory) design that would become the Mark 28 / B28 nuclear bomb and W28 warhead. The Mark 27 was roughly twice as heavy as the Mark W28 family and had a yield of 2 megatons versus the 1 to 1.5 megatons of the Mark W28 bombs. The W27 warhead was 31 inches in diameter by 75 inches long, and weighed 2,800 pounds. 20 W27 warheads were produced for the United States Navy SSM-N-8 Regulus cruise missiles. The Mark 27 bomb was 30 inches in diameter by 124 to 142 inches long, depending on specific version. The three versions weighed 3,150 to 3,300 pounds. 700 Mark 27 bombs were produced.
294.1 See also • List of nuclear weapons • SSM-N-8 Regulus
294.2 External links • Allbombs.html list of all US nuclear warheads at nuclearweaponarchive.org
780
Chapter 295
Mark 36 nuclear bomb 295.2 Survivors A Mark 36 casing is on display in the Cold War Gallery at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio. A Mark 36 casing can be found at the Strategic Air and Space Museum near Ashland, Nebraska.
295.3 Specifications The Mark 36 bomb was 56.2 to 59 inches in diameter, depending on version, and 150 inches long. It weighed 17,500 or 17,700 pounds depending on version.
The Mark 36 nuclear bomb
The Mark 36 was a heavy high-yield United States nuclear bomb designed in the 1950s. It was a thermonuclear bomb, using a multi-stage fusion secondary system to generate yields up to about 10 megatons.
295.1 History The Mark 36 was a more advanced version of the earlier Mark 21 nuclear bomb, which was a weaponized version of the “Shrimp” design, the first “dry” (lithium deuteride) fuel thermonuclear bomb the United States tested, in the Castle Bravo thermonuclear test in 1954.[1] The Mark 21 bomb was developed and deployed immediately after Castle Bravo, in 1955. The Mark 21 design continued to be improved and the Mark 36 device started production in April 1956.[2] In 1957, all older Mark 21 bombs were converted to Mark 36 Y1 Mod 1 bombs. A total of 920 Mark 36 bombs were produced as new build or converted from the 275 Mark 21 bombs produced earlier.
There were 2 major variants, a “clean” and “dirty” variant. The clean variant used an inert fusion stage tamperpusher assembly (see Teller-Ulam Design) such as lead or tungsten. The “dirty” variant used a depleted uranium or U-238 tamper-pusher which would undergo fission during the second stage fusion burn, doubling the weapon yield. Chuck Hansen wrote in Swords of Armageddon (1995) that Mark 36 nuclear bomb was produced in two yield versions, clean and dirty. He stated that clean version of Mark 36 had a yield of 6 megatons and that dirty version of Mark 36 had a design of maximum yield of 19 megatons.
295.4 See also • List of nuclear weapons • Teller-Ulam design • Mark 21 nuclear bomb
295.5 References
All Mark 36 nuclear bombs were retired between August 1961 and January 1962, replaced by the higher yield B41 nuclear bomb 781
[1] “Nuclear Weapon Archive”. Retrieved 2008-05-02. [2] “List of all US Nuclear Weapons”. Retrieved 2008-05-02.
Chapter 296
Mark 39 nuclear bomb Two Mark 39 nuclear bombs were carried by a B-52 Stratofortress that broke up in the air and crashed near Goldsboro, North Carolina on January 24, 1961. According to Parker F. Jones, a supervisor of nuclear safety at Sandia National Laboratories, in a 1969 report that was declassified in 2013, the Mark 39 bomb had four safety mechanisms, one of which was not effective in the air. On one of the bombs involved, two more safety mechanisms were “rendered ineffective by aircraft breakup.” As a result, Jones noted that the bomb was prevented from detonating only by the fourth mechanism, a simple “readysafe” electric switch.[1]
296.1 Survivors • A Mark 39 casing is on display in the Cold War Gallery of the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio. The bomb was received from the National Atomic Museum at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M., in 1993.
296.2 See also • List of nuclear weapons A Mark 39 bomb as discovered following the 1961 Goldsboro B-52 crash
296.3 References [1] Pilkington, Ed (September 20, 2013). “US nearly detonated atomic bomb over North Carolina – secret document”. The Guardian (London). Retrieved September 20, 2013.
The Mark 39 nuclear bomb and W39 nuclear warhead were versions of an American thermonuclear weapon, which were in service from 1957 to 1966. The Mark 39 design was a thermonuclear bomb (see Teller-Ulam design) and had a yield of 3.8 megatons. The design is an improved Mark 15 nuclear bomb design (the TX-15-X3 design and Mark 39 Mod 0 were the same design). The Mark 15 was the first lightweight US thermonuclear bomb.
296.4 External links
The W39 warhead is 35 inches in diameter and 106 inches long, with a weight of 6,230 to 6,400 pounds. It was used on the SM-62 Snark missile, Redstone IRBM missile, and in the B-58 Hustler weapons pod. 782
• Allbombs.html list of all US nuclear weapons at nuclearweaponarchive.org
Chapter 297
Mark 77 bomb bombs was the Mark 47.[3] Use of aerial incendiary bombs against civilian populations, including against military targets in civilian areas, was banned in the 1980 United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Protocol III. However the United States reserved the right to use incendiary weapons against military objectives located in concentrations of civilians where it is judged that such use would cause fewer casualties and/or less collateral damage than alternative weapons.[4]
297.1 Use in Iraq and Afghanistan MK-77s were used by the United States Marine Corps during Operation Desert Storm[5] and Operation Iraqi Freedom.[6] Approximately 500 were dropped, reportedly mostly on Iraqi-constructed oil filled trenches. They were also used at Tora Bora, in Afghanistan.[2] At least thirty MK-77s were also used by Marine Corps aviators over a three-day period during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, according to a June 2005 letter from the UK Ministry of Defence to former Labour MP Alice Mahon. This letter stated:
A Mark 77 bomb being loaded on an F/A-18 Hornet, 1993.
The Mark 77 bomb (MK-77) is a U.S. 750-pound (340 kg) air-dropped incendiary bomb carrying 110 U.S. gallons (416 L; 92 imp gal) of a fuel gel mix which is the direct successor to napalm.
“The U.S. destroyed its remaining Vietnam era napalm in 2001 but, according to the reports for I Marine Expeditionary Force (I MEF) serving in Iraq in 2003, they used a total of 30 MK 77 weapons in Iraq between 31 March and 2 April 2003, against military targets away from civilian areas. The MK 77 firebomb does not have the same composition as napalm, although it has similar destructive characteristics. The Pentagon has told us that owing to the limited accuracy of the MK 77, it is not generally used in urban terrain or in areas where civilians are congregated.”[7]
The MK-77 is the primary incendiary weapon currently in use by the United States military. Instead of the gasoline, polystyrene, and benzene mixture used in napalm bombs, the MK-77 uses kerosene-based fuel with a lower concentration of benzene. The Pentagon has claimed that the MK-77 has less impact on the environment than napalm. The mixture reportedly also contains This confirmed previous reports by U.S. Marine pilots an oxidizing agent, making it more difficult to put out and their commanders saying they had used Mark 77 fireonce ignited, as well as white phosphorus.[1][2] bombs on military targets: The effects of MK-77 bombs are similar to those of napalm. The official designation of Vietnam-era napalm Then the Marine howitzers, with a range 783
784
CHAPTER 297. MARK 77 BOMB of 30 kilometers [18½ mi], opened a sustained barrage over the next eight hours. They were supported by U.S. Navy aircraft which dropped 40,000 pounds [18,000 kg] of explosives and napalm, a U.S. officer told the Herald. “We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches,” said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Aircraft Group 11. “Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the cockpit video. They were Iraqi soldiers.”
According to the Italian public service broadcaster RAI's documentary, MK 77 had been used in Baghdad in 2003 in civilian-populated areas. However, there were never any confirmed reports of the use of incendiaries specifically against civilians. In some cases where journalists reported that the U.S. military has used napalm, military spokesmen denied the use of “napalm” without making it clear that MK-77 bombs had actually been deployed instead.[2][8] U.S. officials incorrectly informed U.K. Ministry of Defence officials that MK-77s had not been used by the U.S. in Iraq, leading to Defence Minister Adam Ingram making inaccurate statements to the U.K. Parliament in January 2005.[9] Later both Adam Ingram and Secretary of State for Defence John Reid apologized for these inaccurate statements being made to Members of Parliament.
• Mk 78 - 750 lb (340 kg) total weight with 110 U.S. gallons (416 L; 92 imp gal) of petroleum oil. No longer in service. • Mk 79 - 1,000 lb (450 kg) total weight with 112 U.S. gallons (424 L; 93 imp gal) of napalm and petrol. No longer in service.
297.3 References • Army Regulations 600-8-27 dated 2006 [1] RAI documentary, English, Italian, Arabic [2] MK-77, GlobalSecurity.org [3] MK-77 - Dumb Bombs [4] “CCW Protocol III 1980 - United States of America reservation text”. www.icrc.org. Retrieved 2009-06-20. [5] AR 600-8-27 p. 26 paragraph 9-14 & p. 28 [6] Napalm [7] UK Ministry of Defence letter to Alice Mahon (document) [8] U.S. acknowledgment of use of “napalm” (i.e. MK-77) and white phosphorus [9] UK Parliament 10 Jan 2005 UK Parliament 11 Jan 2005
297.4 End notes 297.2 Variants Later variants of the bomb were modified to carry a reduced load of 75 U.S. gallons (284 L; 62 imp gal) of fuel, which resulted in the total weight decreasing to around 552 pounds (250 kg). • Mk 77 Mod 0 - 750 lb (340 kg) total weight with 110 U.S. gallons (416 L; 92 imp gal) of petroleum oil. • Mk 77 Mod 1 - 500 lb (230 kg) total weight with 75 U.S. gallons (284 L; 62 imp gal) of petroleum oil. • Mk 77 Mod 2
• MK-77 Dumb Bombs, Federation of American Scientists • Lennox, Duncan (1994). Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons 2005-2006. ISBN 978-0-7106-0866-6.
297.5 See also • Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre • Mark 7 nuclear bomb • Mark 81 bomb • Mark 82 bomb
• Mk 77 Mod 3
• Mark 83 bomb
• Mk 77 Mod 4 - Approx 507 lb (230 kg) total weight with 75 U.S. gallons (284 L; 62 imp gal) of fuel (Used during the 1991 Gulf War)
• Mark 84 bomb
• Mk 77 Mod 5 - Approx 507 lb (230 kg) total weight with 75 U.S. gallons (284 L; 62 imp gal) of JP-4/JP5 fuel and thickener (Used during the 2003 invasion of Iraq)
• Mark 118 bomb
• Mark 117 bomb
• Napalm • White phosphorus
297.5. SEE ALSO
297.5.1
Use in Iraq
• 'Dead bodies are everywhere', Sydney Morning Herald, 22 March 2003 - probably the first published report on Mk 77 use in Iraq • Napalm by another name: Pentagon denial goes up in flames, Sydney Morning Herald, 9 August 2003 • US State Department Response to Illegal Weapon Allegations, 27 January 2005 • US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war, The Independent, 17 June 2005 • Parliament misled over firebomb use, Daily Telegraph, 20 June 2005 • The Hidden Massacre by Sigfrido Ranucci, Video documentary shows actual chemical bombing on civilians in Fallujah with testimony of interviewed U.S. soldiers - English, Italian and Arabic, Rai News 24, 8 November 2005 • US forces 'used chemical weapons’ during assault on city of Fallujah, The Independent, 9 November 2005
785
Chapter 298
Mark 81 bomb • Mark 83 bomb
The Mark 81 (Mk 81) 250 lb (113 kg) general purpose bomb (nicknamed "Firecracker") is the smallest of the Mark 80 series of low-drag general-purpose bombs.
• Mark 84 bomb
298.4 References
298.1 Development & deployment
Notes Developed for United States military forces in the 1950s, it was first used during the Vietnam War. The bomb consists of a cast steel case with 96 lb (44 kg) of Composition [1] “GBU-29 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM)". GlobalSecurity.org. Retrieved 13 October 2010. H6, Minol or Tritonal explosive. The power of the Mk 81 was found to be inadequate for U.S. military tactical use, and it was quickly discontinued, although license- Bibliography built copies or duplicates of this weapon remain in service with various other nations. • Tom, Gervasi (1981). Arsenal of Democracy II: American military power in the 1980s and the oriDevelopment of a precision guided variant of the Mk 81 gins of the new cold war with a survey of American bomb (GBU-29) was started due to its potential to reweapons and arms exports. Volume 2 (Paperback duce collateral damage compared to larger bombs, but ed.). London, United Kingdom: The Book Service this program has now been cancelled[1] in favor of the (TBS) Ltd. ISBN 978-0-394-17662-8. Small Diameter Bomb.
298.5 External links
298.2 Variants • Mark 81 Snakeye fitted with a Mark 14 TRD (Tail Retarding Device) to increase the bomb’s drag after release. The bomb’s increased air-time, coupled with its (relatively) forgiving safe drop envelope, allowed for very low-level bombing runs at slower speed. Used commonly in the close air support role in Vietnam (prior to wider availability of GBUseries precision ordnance). Nicknamed “snake”, as in the typical Vietnam support loadout of “snake and nape” (250-lb. Mk-81 Snakeye bombs and 500-lb. M-47 napalm canisters). • GBU-29 Joint Direct Attack Munition, a precision guided version of the Mark 81 (cancelled).[1]
298.3 See also • Mark 82 bomb 786
• Mk81 GP Bomb • Mk81 General Purpose Bomb • DUMB BOMBS, FUZES, AND ASSOCIATED COMPONENTS
Chapter 299
Mark 82 bomb The Mark 82 (Mk 82) is an unguided, low-drag general- bombs and for the GBU-38 JDAM. purpose bomb, part of the U.S. Mark 80 series. The ex- Currently only the General Dynamics plant in Garland, plosive filling is tritonal. Texas is Department Of Defense-certified to manufacture bombs for the US Armed Forces.
299.1 Development ment
and
deploy-
The Mk 82 is currently undergoing a minor redesign to allow it to meet the insensitive munitions requirements set by Congress.
Mk. 82 bomb with Tail Retarding Device – this photograph shows an unfuzed, museum display Mk 82 with its usual combat paint scheme. For display purposes, the optional high-drag “Snakeye” tailfins used for low-altitude release are shown.
According to a test report conducted by the United States Navy's Weapon System Explosives Safety Review Board (WSESRB) established in the wake of the 1967 USS Forrestal fire, the cooking off time for a Mk 82 is approximately 2 minutes 30 seconds. A B-2 Spirit dropping Mk 82 bombs into the Pacific Ocean in a 1994 training exercise off Point Mugu, California.
With a nominal weight of 500 lb (227 kg), it is the one of the smallest in current service, and one of the most common air-dropped weapons in the world. Although the Mk 82’s nominal weight is 500 lb (227 kg), its actual weight varies considerably depending on its configuration, from 510 lb (232 kg) to 570 lb (259 kg). It is a streamlined steel casing containing 192 lb (89 kg) of Tritonal high explosive. The Mk 82 is offered with a variety of fin kits, fuzes, and retarders for different purposes.
More than 4,500 GBU-12/Mk 82 laser-guided bombs were dropped on Iraq during the Persian Gulf War.[2]
299.2 Low-level delivery
In low-level bombing, it is easy for the delivering aircraft to sustain damage from the blast and fragmentation effects of its own munitions because the aircraft and ordnance arrive at the target at very close to the same time. To combat this, the standard Mk-82 General Purpose bomb can be fitted with a special high-drag tail fin unit. In this The Mk 82 is the warhead for the GBU-12 laser-guided configuration, it is referred to as the Mk-82 Snakeye.[3] 787
788
CHAPTER 299. MARK 82 BOMB
The tail unit has 4 folded fins which spring open into a cruciform shape when the bomb is released. The fins increase the drag of the bomb, slowing its forward progress and allowing the delivery aircraft to safely pass over the target before the bomb explodes.
[6] “Equipment Listing”. www.designation-systems.net. [7] Little Bang – p.38, Aviation Week & Space TechnologyJanuary 29, 2007 [8] Jenkins, Dennis R. B-1 Lancer, The Most Complicated Warplane Ever Developed, p. 159. New York: McGrawHill, 1999. ISBN 0-07-134694-5.
299.3 Variants • BLU-111/B – Mk 82 loaded with PBXN-109 (vs H-6); item weighs 480 lbs.[4] PBXN-109 is a less sensitive explosive filler.[5] The BLU-111/B also is the warhead of the A-1 version of the Joint StandOff Weapon JSOW. • BLU-111A/B – Used by the U.S. Navy,[6] this is the BLU-111/B with a thermal-protective coating added[5] to reduce cook-off in (fuel-related) fires. • BLU-126/B – Designed following a U.S. Navy request to lower collateral damage in air strikes. Delivery of this type started in March of 2007. Also known as the Low Collateral Damage Bomb (LCDB), it is a BLU-111 with a smaller explosive charge. Non-explosive filler is added to retain the weight of the BLU-111 so as to give it the same trajectory when dropped.[7] • Mark 62 Quickstrike mine – A naval mine, which is a conversion of Mark 82 bomb.[8]
299.4 See also • Mark 81 bomb • Mark 83 bomb • Mark 84 bomb • Paveway IV • FAB-250 - Soviet counterpart
299.5 References Notes [1] “Air Force Munitions Acquisition Costs”. About.comUS Military. [2] Friedman, Norman (1997). The Naval Institute guide to world naval weapons systems, 1997-1998. Naval Institute Press. p. 249. ISBN 978-1-55750-268-1. [3] “Bombs and components”. www.ordnance.org/gpb.htm. [4] “China Lake, Naval Warfare Center”. chinalakealumni.org.
[5] “BLU-111/B”. Federation of American Scientists.
www.
299.6 External links • Mk82 General Purpose Bomb • Bombs, Fuzes, and associated Components
Chapter 300
Mark 83 bomb The Mark 83 is part of the Mark 80 series of low-drag general-purpose bombs in United States service.
300.2 See also • Mark 81 bomb • Mark 82 bomb • Mark 84 bomb
300.1 Development & deployment
300.3 References Notes [1] “FMU-152/B ELECTRONIC BOMB FUZE”. Integrated Publishing. Retrieved 13 October 2010. [2] “Mk83 General Purpose Bomb”. Federation of American Scientists. 23 April 2000. Retrieved 13 October 2010.
300.4 External links • Mk83 General Purpose Bomb • BOMBS, FUZES, AND ASSOCIATED COMPONENTS
Ten Mark 83 bombs aboard a US Navy F/A-18E.
The nominal weight of the bomb is 1,000 lb (454 kg), although its actual weight varies between 985 lb (447 kg) and 1,030 lb (468 kg), depending on fuze options,[1] and fin configuration.[2] The Mk 83 is a streamlined steel casing containing 445 lb (202 kg) of Tritonal high explosive. When filled with PBXN-109 thermally insensitive explosive, the bomb is designated BLU-110. The Mk 83/BLU-110 is used as the warhead for a variety of precision-guided weapons, including the GBU16 Paveway laser-guided bombs, the GBU-32 JDAM and Quickstrike sea mines. This bomb is most typically used by the United States Navy. According to a test report conducted by the United States Navy’s Weapon System Explosives Safety Review Board (WSESRB) established in the wake of the tragic 1967 USS Forrestal fire, the cooking off time for a Mk 83 is approximately 8 minutes 40 seconds. 789
Chapter 301
Mark 84 bomb The Mark 84 or BLU-117[2] is an American generalpurpose bomb, it is also the largest of the Mark 80 series of weapons. Entering service during the Vietnam War, it became a commonly used US heavy unguided bomb (due to the amount of high-explosive content packed inside) to be dropped, second only to the 15,000 pounds (6,803.9 kg) BLU-82 “Daisy Cutter” then in service and presently third only to the 22,600 lb (10,251.2 kg) GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb (MOAB) currently in service. Pilots flying the F-117 Nighthawk over Iraq during the first gulf war nicknamed it the “Hammer”[3] (albeit fitted with the GBU-27 Paveway III kit for use specially by the Nighthawks), for its considerable destructive power and blast radius.[3]
301.1 Development
Sailors remove hoisting sling from a crate containing a pair of Mark 84 bomb bodies. Tailfins and fuzes have not yet been fitted
and causes lethal fragmentation to a radius of 400 yards (365.8 m).[3] Many Mark 84s have been retrofitted with stabilizing and retarding devices to provide precision guidance capabilities. They serve as the warhead of a variety of precisionguided munitions, including the GBU-10/GBU-24/GBU27 Paveway laser-guided bombs, GBU-15 electro-optical bomb, GBU-31 JDAM and Quickstrike sea mines.[4] According to a test report conducted by the United States Navy’s Weapon System Explosives Safety Review Board (WSESRB) established in the wake of the 1967 USS Forrestal fire, the cooking off time for a Mk 84 is approximately 8 minutes 40 seconds.
An aviation ordnance technician handling the bomb body of a “thermally protected” (insulated to slow cook-off time in case of fire) Mark 84 aboard the USS George Washington
301.2 GPS/INS Conversion Kits by Tubitak of Turkey
The Mark 84 has a nominal weight of 2,000 lb (907.2 kg), but its actual weight varies depending on its fin, fuze options, and retardation configuration, from 1,972 to 2,083 lb (894.5 to 944.8 kg). It is a streamlined steel casing filled with 945 lb (428.6 kg) of Tritonal high explosive.[1]
The Hassas Güdüm Kiti, HGK, developed by TÜBİTAKSAGE, Turkey’s scientific research council, converts 2000-lb Mark 84 bombs into GPS/INS guided missiles with flap out wings.[5]
The Mark 84 is capable of forming a crater 50 feet (15.2 The HGK guidance kits adds the following to the Mark m) wide and 36 ft (11.0 m) deep. It can penetrate up to 84 bomb: 15 inches (381.0 mm) of metal or 11 ft (3.4 m) of con• Ability to Re-target during captive flight crete, depending on the height from which it is dropped, 790
301.5. EXTERNAL LINKS
791
[3] Don, Holloway (March 1996). “STEALTH SECRETS OF THE F-117 NIGHTHAWK: Its development was kept under wraps for 14 years, but by 1991, the F-117 nighthawk had become a household word.”. Aviation History (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Cowles Magazines). ISSN 1076-8858. [4] “Mk 65 Quick Strike Mine”. Federation of American Scientists. 8 December 1998. Retrieved 1 September 2010. [5] http://www.sage.tubitak.gov.tr/en/urunler/ precision-guidance-kit-hgk
Mk 84 exploding in North Vietnam, 1972
301.5 External links
• Jam resistance
• Mk65 Quick Strike Mine
• All weather mission capability
• Mk84 General Purpose Bomb
• 1760 Compliance
• DUMB BOMBS, FUZES, AND ASSOCIATED COMPONENTS
• Fewer number of bombs, sorties and crews per mission • Minimum logistics footprint • Minimum collateral damage • High Accuracy • Integrated GPS/INS support with hot start allows HGK to hit the targets below a CEP of 6 meters in all weather conditions. • Capable of reaching rangers over 12 nautical miles (when released from medium altitudes). A maximum range of 15 nautical miles from high altitudes. • UAI compliant interfaces, HGK has been added to JSF inventory as a part of Block-4 weapon integration and certification list.
301.3 See also • BLU-109 bomb • BLU-116 • Mark 81 bomb • Mark 82 bomb • Mark 83 bomb
301.4 References [1] “Mk84 General Purpose Bomb”. Federation of American Scientists. 23 April 2000. Retrieved 1 September 2010. [2] “Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Estimate Procurement of Ammunition”. US Air Force. Retrieved 29 December 2011.
Chapter 302
MC-1 bomb the F-16.[3]
302.3 Demilitarization operations Umatilla Chemical Depot stored about 2,400 MC-1 bombs until the final one was demilitarized and destroyed on June 9, 2006.[4] Another 3,047 MC-1s were stored at Johnston Atoll when demilitarization operations began there in 1990.[5] Those weapons were destroyed during the ensuing decade and operations at Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System ended in 2000.[5][6]
302.4 Test involving the MC-1 Tests were conducted using the MC-1 from JulyNovember 1971 at Dugway Proving Ground in Utah.[7] [8] The MC-1 bomb was the first U.S. non-clustered air- The aim of these tests, which were part of Project 112, dropped chemical munition. The 750-pound (340 kg) was twofold. One goal was to determine hazards associMC-1 was first produced in 1959 and carried the nerve ated with the accidental release or damage from hostile fire of the MC-1 during takeoff or landing.[7] A second agent sarin. goal was to determine if leak suppressant and disposal procedures for damaged bombs were adequate.[7] For the purpose of the tests the MC-1 was filled with water and 302.1 History a sarin simulant, di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP).[7] The bombs were dropped from an F-4 during the tests.[7] The MC-1 chemical bomb was first brought into regular mass-production in 1959.[1] A modified general purpose demolition bomb, the MC-1 was the first non-clustered chemical munition in the U.S. arsenal.[1] The MC-1 was 302.5 See also designed to be delivered via U.S. Air Force aircraft.[2] The MC-1 was never used against enemy targets. • M117 bomb The 750 pound MC-1 sarin bomb
302.2 Specifications
302.6 References
The MC-1 was a 750-pound (340 kg) munition.[1][2] The weapon had a diameter of 16 inches (41 cm) and a length of 50 inches (127 cm).[2] The MC-1 was filled with about 220 pounds (100 kg) of sarin (GB) nerve agent.[2] The MC-1 was designed to be air-dropped via the F-4 Phantom II and was unable to fit that aircraft’s replacement, 792
[1] Smart, Jeffery K. Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological Warfare: Chapter 2 - History of Chemical and Biological Warfare: An American Perspective, (PDF: p. 59), Borden Institute, Textbooks of Military Medicine, PDF via Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base, accessed December 29, 2008.
302.6. REFERENCES
[2] Mauroni, Albert J. Chemical Demilitarization: Public Policy Aspects, (Google Books), Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003 pp. 18-19, (ISBN 027597796X). [3] Duke, Simon (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute). United States Military Forces and Installations in Europe, (Google Books), Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. 84-85, (ISBN 0198291329). [4] Hendrickson, Bruce. "Depot and Disposal Facility reach significant milestones", (Press release), Umatilla Chemical Depot, U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency, June 12, 2006, accessed December 29, 2008. [5] Cashman, John R. Emergency Response Handbook for Chemical and Biological Agents and Weapons, (Google 107-08, (ISBN Books), CRC Press, 2008, pp. 1420052659). [6] "Chemical Weapons Destruction Complete on Johnston Atoll", (Press release), U.S. Department of Defense, November 30, 2000, accessed December 29, 2008. [7] "Fact Sheet — DTC Test 69-14", Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs), Deployment Health Support Directorate, accessed November 12, 2008. [8] "Project 112/SHAD Fact Sheets", Force Health Protection & Readiness Policy & Programs, The ChemicalBiological Warfare Exposures Site, accessed December 29, 2008.
793
Chapter 303
T-12 Cloudmaker For other uses, see T12 (disambiguation). The T-12 (also known as Cloudmaker) demolition bomb was developed by the United States from 1944 to 1948. It was one of a small class of bombs designed to attack targets invulnerable to conventional “soft” bombs, such as bunkers and viaducts. It achieved this by having an extremely thick hardened nose section, which was designed to penetrate deeply into hardened concrete structures and then detonate inside the target after a short time delay. This generated an "earthquake effect". The T-12 was a further development of the concept initiated with the United Kingdom's Tallboy and Grand Slam weapons developed by the British aeronautical engineer Barnes Wallis during the Second World War: a hardened, highly aerodynamic bomb of the greatest possible weight designed to be dropped from the highest possible altitude. Penetrating deeply in the earth before exploding, the resulting shock wave was transmitted through the earth into structures. The resulting camouflet could also undermine structures. The bomb could also be used against hardened targets. These types of bombs can reach supersonic speeds and have tail fins designed to spin the bomb for greater accuracy. Originally designed to meet a 42,000 lb (19,000 kg) target weight (the maximum payload for the Convair B-36 “Peacemaker” bomber), the original design with its hardened case was slightly less than 43,000 pounds. The final T-12 weighed 43,600 lb (nearly 20 metric tons). This was twice the size of the United States’ previous largest bomb, the Bomb, GP, 22,000-lb, M110 (T-14), the Americanbuilt version of the British Grand Slam. The T-12 was not a simple scale up of the M110, but incorporated modifications based on testing and calculations. The B-36 was redesigned so it could carry the T12, although a converted B-29 Superfortress was used for testing.
303.1 Similar US Weapons Weapons of comparable size to the T-12, such as the BLU-82 and GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast T-12 casing at the United States Army Ordnance Museum, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Aberdeen, Maryland. bombs (MOAB), were developed as latter-day United States superbombs, but their utility is limited outside the realm of psychological weapons and demolition. Only the 794
303.3. EXTERNAL LINKS GBU-43/B remains in the inventory. It is not hardened and lacks the hard target capability of the T-12 and its cousins. The 14 metric ton mass Massive Ordnance Penetrator, roughly intermediate between the British Grand Slam and American Cloudmaker bombs in mass, has been recently developed just past the dawn of the 21st century in light of unsatisfactory penetration by existing 2000 lb and 5000 lb class weapons.
303.2 See also • Massive Ordnance Penetrator • Nuclear bunker buster • Grand Slam bomb • MOAB • BLU-82 • Aviation Thermobaric Bomb of Increased Power
303.3 External links • “Big Bomb Tight Fit In B-29 Bomb Bays” , October 1951, Popular Science photo showing T-12 being fitted to B-29 bomb bay • “The USA’s 30,000 Pound Bomb,” Defense Industry Daily Article on the new Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), has history of earlier systems. • “The Extra-Super Blockbuster” by Dr. William S. Coker Air University Review, March-April 1967.
795
Chapter 304
Weteye bomb there was consideration of repurposing the Weteye design to deliver firefighting chemicals to extinguish oil well fires set by retreating Iraqi forces. In 1963, the supercarrier USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) (SBC-127C) was intended to contain 100 Weteyes as part of its magazine load.[3] In 1969 the entire arsenal of US Weteye bombs were stored at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Colorado.[2] Most Weteye bombs stored at Rocky Mountain Arsenal were demilitarized and destroyed in 1977; however, approximately 900 Weteye bombs were not destroyed at this time.[2] Weteye, Mk116 Mod 0
304.2 Specifications
The Weteye bomb was a U.S. chemical weapon designed for the U.S. Navy and meant to deliver the nerve agent sarin. The Weteye held 160 kg (350 lb) of liquid sarin and was officially known as the Mk 116 (Mark 116). Stockpiles of Weteyes were transferred to Utah in the 1980s amidst controversy and protest.
The interior of the Weteye was divided into three sections.[2] The Weteye body was composed of thin aluminum alloy. It had fins which deployed after the bomb was released.[2] The 240 kilogram Weteye held about 160 kg (350 lb) of liquid sarin nerve agent.[2]
304.1 History
304.3 Nomenclature
The Weteye bomb was developed for the United States Navy during the early 1960s.[1][2] The US Navy at China Lake, California attempted to develop a massive chemical bomb with a high fill efficiency (~70%). At the same time the US Army Chemical Center worked with the EDO corporation to develop the EX 38, a 500 lb (230 kg) chemical bomb with unique design features: 1) thin seamless hydrospun aluminum body, 2) weighted nose, 3) large plastic fins, and 4) a system of internal baffles to keep the 10% minimum void captured in the tail section of the bomb. The prototype Weteye design, with its shaped internal burster and folding fins, was combined with the EX38 design features to create the production model of the Weteye. The Weteye was originally developed for delivery of GB Weteye bomb and VX nerve agents. Production was limited to filling with double-distilled GB. The VX variants were not pro- Officially, the Weteye was known as the Mark 116, or duced. During the Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm) Mk-116 bomb.[1] While this was the official military 796
304.6. SEE ALSO
797
nomenclature for the weapon, early in its production it acquired the nickname “Weteye”.[1] Weteye was derived from the fact that the weapon was filled with a liquid nerve agent, sarin, thus the “wet” portion of the name.[2] The “eye” portion of the name was associated with it being developed by the US Navy at China Lake as part of its eye-series weapon program (bombs guided by the “Mark 1 eyeball”), a program intended to improve air-delivered munitions.
Other issues to surface during disposal operations were high levels of mercury contamination and the tendency of the aluminum casing to explode inside the decontamination furnace.[2] Molten aluminum and water presents a potential explosion hazard and because the Weteye contained a liquid nerve agent the potential for an interaction of molten aluminum and the liquid agent existed.[6] These issues combined to make the Weteye sufficiently difficult to dispose of that it required special handling.[2]
304.4 Transfer to Utah
304.6 See also
Demilitarization operations at Rocky Mountain Arsenal left exactly 888 Weteye bombs intact and in storage in Colorado.[1][4] In 1981 the U.S. Department of Defense sought to relocate the weapons to the Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility at the Deseret Chemical Depot.[1] This move was opposed by many residents of Utah and the state’s governor at the time Scott M. Matheson.[1][5] The transfer was controversial and Matheson continued to fight it until the U.S. Senate passed a bill which included an amendment sponsored by then-U.S. Senator Gary Hart (D-CO) requiring the weapons be moved out of Colorado.[1] Matheson’s concern stemmed from the fact that some of the thin-shelled Weteyes stored in Colorado were leaking nerve agent.[1] After rounds of protests and legal action that went to the U.S. District Court the transfer went ahead.[1] An Air Force C-141 jet carried the initial transfer of 64 Weteye bombs on August 12, 1981 to an air field at Dugway Proving Ground. The event was heavily covered by the media.[1] The moves continued for the next three weeks and Weteyes were moved to the south area of the Tooele Army Depot, which became known as the Deseret Chemical Depot.[1] In 1996, the Deseret Chemical Depot began destruction operations of general chemical weapons.[1] In the spring of 2001 destruction and demilitarization of the Weteyes began and the operation ended in December 2001 with the destruction of the last of 888 Weteyes.[1]
304.5 Disposal and transfer issues Public relations officials for the Deseret Chemical Depot asserted at the time that during the 2001 disposal operations there were “no problems”.[1] However, Eric Croddy reported in his 2005 book Weapons of Mass Destruction: An Encyclopedia of Worldwide Policy, Technology, and History that a number of issues came up during the destruction operations.[2] One of those issues, that of leaking munitions,[2] was an issue long before the weapons arrived at Deseret and the primary reason that Gov. Matheson and many Utah residents were opposed to the weapons transfer in the first place.[1][4][5]
• Bigeye bomb
304.7 References [1] Bauman, Joe. "Final goodbye for the 'Weteye'", Deseret News (Salt Lake City), December 26, 2001, accessed December 17, 2008. [2] Croddy, Eric (2005). Weapons of Mass Destruction: An Encyclopedia of Worldwide Policy, Technology, and History. ABC-CLIO. p. 325. ISBN 1-85109-490-3. Retrieved 18 December 2008. [3] Friedman, Norman (1983). U.S. Aircraft Carriers: An Illustrated Design History. Naval Institute Press. p. 387. ISBN 0-87021-739-9. Retrieved 18 December 2008. [4] Staff. "Minute Amount of Nerve Gas Is Found in Bomb Container", The New York Times, August 26, 1981, accessed December 17, 2008. [5] "GOVERNOR (1977-1985 : MATHESON): Weteye Nerve Gas Bomb Records 1960-1982", Utah State Archives and Records Service, Series 19410, accessed December 17, 2008. [6] Committee on Review and Evaluation of the Army Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program, U.S. National Research Council. Review of Systemization of the Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility, (Google Books), National Academies Press, 1996, p. 62, (ISBN 0309054869).
304.8 Further reading • "Attachment 14: Demilitarization Miscellaneous Treatment Units", Utah Department of Environmental Equality, Hazardous Waste Branch: Chemical Demilitarization Section, August 2005, accessed December 21, 2008.
Chapter 305
BLU-108 The BLU-108 is an air-delivered submunition, containing four further smart “Skeet” submunitions. The system is manufactured by Textron Defense Systems.
305.5 External links • BLU-108 - Textron Defense Systems • BLU-108/B Submunition - Global Security
305.1 BLU-108/B specifications • Length: 78.8 cm (31.0 in) [1] • Diameter: 13.3 cm (5.25 in) • Maximum lateral dimension: 18.4 cm (7.25 in) • Weight: 29.5 kg (65 lb)
305.2 Skeet specifications • Height: 9.5 cm (3.75 in). • Diameter: 12.7 cm (5.0 in). • Weight: 3.4 kg (7.5 lb). • Seeker: Dual-mode active (laser) and passive (infrared) sensors. • Explosive: 945 g (2.08 lb) Octol. • Kill mechanism: Explosively formed penetrator and fragmentation.
305.3 Weapon systems • CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon • AGM-154B Joint Standoff Weapon • U-ADD (Universal aerial delivery dispenser)
305.4 References [1] BLU108 - Designation Systems
798
Chapter 306
BLU-109 bomb The BLU-109/B is a hardened penetration bomb used by the United States Air Force (BLU is an acronym for Bomb Live Unit). As with other "bunker busters", it is intended to smash through concrete shelters and other hardened structures before exploding. In addition to the US, it is part of the armament of the air force of Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom and United Arab Emirates.[1]
306.4 References [1] Forecast International (2004). BLU-116/B, page 4. Accessed 12 May 2011. [2] “BLU-109 / I-2000 / HAVE VOID”. globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 15 March 2014. [3] “Small Diameter Bomb”. Boeing. Retrieved 15 March 2014. [4] “BLU-118/B Thermobaric Weapon”. GlobalSecurity.org. Retrieved 2013-12-06.
306.1 Design
[5] Little, Robert. “A race to get a new bomb for cave war”. The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 5 April 2014.
The BLU-109/B has a steel casing about 1 inch (25.4 mm) thick, filled with 530 lb (240 kg) of Tritonal. It has a delayed-action tail-fuze. The BLU-109 entered service in 1985. It is also used as the warhead of some marks of the GBU-15 electro-optically guided bomb, the GBU27 Paveway III laser-guided bomb, and the AGM-130 rocket-boosted weapon. This weapon can penetrate 4-6 feet of reinforced concrete,[2] which is greater than the 3 foot capability of the Small Diameter Bomb.[3] The BLU109 is not likely to be retired anytime soon, due to the much larger blast capable from its warhead.
306.5 External links
306.2 Variants The BLU-118 is reportedly a thermobaric explosive filler variation on the BLU-109 casing and basic bomb design.[4] It contains PBXIH-135, a traditional explosive.[5]
306.3 See also • BLU-116 • GBU-24 Paveway III 799
• BLU-109 / I-2000 / HAVE VOID description, at GlobalSecurity.org • BLU-109-B development (abstract), at Jane’s AirLaunched Weapons 2009 • BLU-109/B Hard-target Warhead fact sheet, at Hill AFB website, US air Force
Chapter 307
BLU-116 The BLU-116 is a United States Air Force bomb, designed as an enhanced Bunker buster penetration weapon, designed to penetrate deep into rock or concrete and destroy hard targets.[1] The BLU-116 is the same shape, size, and weight (1,927 lb / 874 kg) as the BLU-109 penetration bomb first deployed in the 1980s. The BLU-116 has a lightweight outer shell around a dense, heavy metal penetrator core. The shape and size mean that the BLU-116 could be used by unmodified existing aircraft and bomb guidance units such as the GPS guided GBU-31 Joint Direct Attack Munition and GBU-24 Paveway III laser-guided bomb.
[2] BLU-116 Advanced Unitary Penetrator (AUP) GBU-24 C/B (USAF) / GBU-24 D/B (Navy) Specifications, accessed Oct 2, 2007 [3] nucnews.net, accessed Oct 2, 2007 [4] Patent 6,389,977 Shrouded Aerial Bomb, accessed Oct 2, 2007 [5] https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/gbu-24.htm
307.4 External links • Raytheon Paveway Bomb Datasheet
307.1 Specifications From:[2] • Length: 2.4 m • Width: 0.37 m • Weight: 874 kg • Explosives: 109 kg PBXN
307.2 Controversy Some organizations have linked the BLU-116 design to Depleted uranium,[3] with references to a DU penetrator option in US Patent 6,389,977 “Shrouded Aerial Bomb” [4] which describes a weapon similar to the BLU-116. Two of the claims make reference to the use of tungsten or depleted uranium to make the casing of the bomb, however there is no evidence that either material was used in the actual weapon and specifications indicate use of a nickel-cobalt steel alloy.[5]
307.3 References [1] BLU-116 Advanced Unitary Penetrator (AUP) GBU-24 C/B (USAF) / GBU-24 D/B (Navy), accessed Oct 2, 2007
800
Chapter 308
CBU-24 targets within the target area.
CBU-24 cluster bombs being carried by a US Air Force F-105 Wild Weasel. One half of an SA-2 Surface to Air missile site being hit with
The CBU-24 (Cluster Bomb Unit-24) is an unguided, air- cluster bombs dropped from F-105 Wild Weasels. craft delivered anti-personnel and anti-materiel weapon developed by the United States. Because it is an unguided weapon, the CBU-24 can be carried and dropped by any aircraft capable of carrying standard “dumb” or “iron” 308.1 References bombs.
[1] , http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/asetds/ u-c.html#_CBU
The CBU-24 cluster bomb consists of a SUU-30 dispenser unit containing a payload of 665 tennis ball-sized BLU-26 or BLU-36 fragmentation submunitions, also known as bomblets.[1] Once dropped from the delivery aircraft, the CBU-24 casing breaks open in-flight and releases the individual submunitions, scattering them over a large area. Each submunition is designed to detonate and damage or destroy targets within the weapon’s footprint by explosion, concussion and fragmentation effects. While most BLU-26 submunitions explode on impact, they can also be set for air-burst or fixed-period delayed detonation.[2] The BLU-36 submunition has a random time-delay fuse and will detonate at some point after impact.[3]
[2] , http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/asetds/ u-b.html#_BLU26 [3] , http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/asetds/ u-b.html#_BLU36
308.2 External links
The time-delay function of the submunitions is designed to continue to deny the area to the enemy for some time after the initial attack and hamper clean up and casualty recovery operations. While primarily designed as an anti-personnel weapon, the bomblets can also damage structures and soft vehicle 801
• Designation Systems • Technical analysis of cluster munitions
Chapter 309
CBU-87 Combined Effects Munition Depending on the rate of spin and the altitude at which the canister opens, it can cover an area between 20x20 meters (low release altitude and a slow rate of spin) to 120x240 meters (high release altitude and a high rate of spin). CBU-87
The CBU-87 Combined Effects Munition is a cluster bomb used by the United States Air Force, developed by Aerojet General/Honeywell and introduced in 1986 to replace the earlier cluster bombs used in the Vietnam War. CBU stands for Cluster Bomb Unit. When the CBU-87 is used in conjunction with the Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD) guidance tail kit, it becomes a precision-guided weapon, designated CBU-103.[1] The CBU-87 without WCMD is designed to be dropped from an aircraft at any altitude and any air speed. It is a free-falling bomb and relies on the aircraft to aim it before it drops; once dropped it needs no further instruction, as opposed to guided munitions or smart bombs. The bomb can be dropped by a variety of modern-day aircraft. It is 7 feet, 7 inches (2.33 meters) long, has a diameter of 16 inches (40 centimeters), and weighs roughly 950 pounds (430 kg). The price is US$14,000 per bomb. Each CBU-87 consists of an SUU-65B canister, a fuze with 12 time delay options and 202 submunitions (or bomblets) designated BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bomb (CEB). Each bomblet is a yellow cylinder with a length of 20 centimeters and a diameter of 6 centimeters. The BLU-97/B bomblets are designed to be used against armour, personnel and softskin targets and consist of a shaped charge, a scored steel fragmentation case and a zirconium ring for incendiary effects. The CBU-87 can also be equipped with an optional FZU-39/B proximity sensor with 10 altitude selections. When dropped from an aircraft, the bomb starts spinning. There are 6 speeds that can adjust the bomb’s rate of spin. After it drops to a certain altitude, the canister breaks open and the submunitions are released. Each bomblet has a ring of tabs at the tail end, these orient the bomblet and deploy an inflatable decelerator to decrease the falling speed of the bomblet. When the submunitions hit the ground, they will cover a large area and the CBU87 can be adjusted so it can cover a smaller or wider area.
Manufacturers and the Department of Defense have claimed that the failure rate for each bomb is about 5%.[2] This would mean that of the 202 bomblets dropped, about 10 will not explode on impact. Landmine Action has claimed the failure rate of the BLU-97/Bs used in the Kosovo campaign was higher, between 7 and 8 percent.[3]
309.1 Operational use During Operation Desert Storm, the US Air Force dropped 10,035 CBU-87s. During Operation Allied Force, the US dropped about 1,100 cluster bombs, mostly CBU-87s. On May 7, 1999, a CBU-87 was used in one of the most serious incidents involving civilian deaths and cluster bombs, the cluster bombing of Niš.
309.2 References [1] Lockheed Martin WCMD (Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser) - Designation Systems [2] DoD News Briefing, Tuesday, June 22, 1999 [3] “Cluster munitions in Kosovo: Analysis of use, contamination and casualties”. Landmine Action. February 2007.
309.3 Bibliography
802
• “Equipment guide.” Military.com. 25 Mar 2007 • Vipers in the Storm, “Weapons Bunker.” 25 Mar 2007
309.4. EXTERNAL LINKS
309.4 External links • CBU-87/B Combined Effects Munitions (CEM) Global Security
803
Chapter 310
CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon
Model of the SFW displayed at the Textron Defense Systems booth, Singapore Airshow 2008
The CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon is a United States Air Force 1,000-pound (450 kg)-class non-guided (freefall) Cluster Bomb Unit (CBU). It was developed and produced by Textron Defense Systems. The CBU-97 in conjunction with the Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser guidance tail kit, which converts it to a precisionguided weapon, is designated CBU-105.[1]
310.1 Overview The CBU-97 consists of an SUU-66/B tactical munition dispenser that contains 10 BLU-108 submunitions. Each submunition contains four hockey-puck-shaped sensorfused projectiles called Skeets. These detect target vehicles, such as tanks, armored personnel carriers, trucks and other support vehicles, and fire a kinetic energy penetrator downwards at them. (15 m) above the ground; if this fails, a back-up timer disables the Skeet. These features are intended to avoid later civilian casualties from unexploded munitions, and result in an unexploded-ordnance rate of less than 1%.
310.2 Operation The 40 Skeets scan an area of 1,500 by 500 feet (460 m × 150 m) using infrared and laser sensors, seeking targets by pattern-matching. When a Skeet finds a target it fires an explosively-formed penetrator to destroy it. If a Skeet fails to find a target, it self-destructs 50 feet
As the CBU-97 approaches its designated aim-point, the dispenser skin is severed into three panels by an explosive cutting charge. The slipstream peels away these panels, exposing the 10 BLU-108 submunitions. An airbag ejects the forward five submunitions, then five in the aft
804
310.5. SEE ALSO
805
bay. Following a preset timeline, the submunitions deploy parachutes so that they are spaced about 100 feet (30 m) apart. Then each submunition releases its chute, fires a rocket motor that stops its descent and spins it on its longitudinal axis, and releases Skeets 90 degrees apart, in pairs. Each spinning Skeet makes a coning motion that allows it to scan a circular area on the ground. The laser sensor detects changes in apparent terrain height such as the contour of a vehicle. At the same time, infrared sensors detect heat signatures, such as those emitted by the engine of a vehicle. When the combination of height contours and heat signatures indicative of a target are detected, the Skeet detonates, firing an explosively formed penetrator (EFP), a kinetic energy penetrator, down into the target at high speed, sufficient to penetrate armor plating and destroy what is protected by it. Even well-armored vehicles such as main battle tanks, while having massive armor protection on the front and sides, are only lightly armored above,[2] and relatively easily penetrated. Each bomb can spread penetrators over an area of 15 acres (61,000 square metres) or more. According to an ABC News consultant, an attack by this bomb would basically stop an armored convoy moving down a road. While the bomb was designed during the Cold War for fighter-bombers flying at low altitude below radar cover to attack Soviet tanks, a single B-52 high altitude heavy bomber can destroy an entire armored division with these bombs, where in the past dozens of aircraft would have had to drop hundreds of bombs for the same effect.[3] The CBU-97, or CBU-105 version, is deployed by tactical aircraft from altitudes of 200 to 20,000 feet (60 to 6,100 m) Above Ground Level (AGL) at speeds of 250 to 650 knots (460 to 1,200 km/h).[4] The weapon was first deployed, but not used, during Operation Allied Force when NATO entered the Kosovo War. Sensor-fused weapons were first fired in combat during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In 2010 the US government announced the sale to India of 512 CBU-105 Sensor Fuzed Weapons.[2] The expected platform is the SEPECAT Jaguar.[5] Saudi Arabia has also requested the CBU-105.[6]
310.3 Operators
[4]
310.4 General characteristics • Weight: 927 pounds (420 kg)
• Length: 92 inches (234 cm) • Diameter: 15.6 inches (40 cm) • Dispenser: SW-65 tactical dispenser • Bomblets: 10 × BLU-108/B • Warhead: Armour Piercing • Unit Cost: $360,000 - baseline [$ FY90]
310.5 See also • CBU-107 Passive Attack Weapon, WCMD guided bomb which drops non-explosive metal rods
310.6 References [1] Lockheed Martin WCMD (Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser) [2] ABC: United States announced the sale to India-based 521 CBU-105 cluster bombs, 2011-08-30 [3] ABC News; Targeting Tanks with Smart Cluster Bombs [4] CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon - GlobalSecurity.org [5] Hoyle, Craig. “AERO INDIA: Textron launches production of CBU-105 sensor fuzed weapon for India.” Flight Magazine. February 10, 2011. [6] Hoyle, Craig. "" Flight Magazine. June 15, 2011. [7] Hockey Pucks From Hell - Strategypage.com, 13 September 2013
310.7 External links • Sensor Fuzed Weapon (SFW) - Textron Defense Systems • Federation of American Scientists article about SFW’s • GlobalSecurity.org: CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon
In addition to the United States, the CBU-105 has been ordered by India, Oman, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates.[7]
• Type: Freefall bomb
• Name: CBU-97 Sensor Fused Weapon (SFW)
• GlobalSecurity.org: CBU-105 Wind Corrected Munition Dispenser (WCMD) • GlobalSecurity.org: BLU-108/B Submunition • Animated Video of SFW Deployment • Live exercise / Field test of CBU-97
Chapter 311
GATOR mine system The GATOR mine system is a US system of airdropped anti-tank and anti-personnel mines developed in the 1980s to be compatible with existing cluster dispensers. It is used with two dispenser systems—the Navy 230 kg (500 lb) CBU-78/B and the Air Force 450 kg (1,000 lb) CBU-89/B. Additionally the mines are used with the land- and helicopter-based Volcano mine system.
311.1 Airforce CBU-89/B
The Airforce CBU-89/B is a 450-kilogram (1,000 lb) cluster munition containing 72 antitank and 22 antipersonnel mines, consists of an SUU-64 Tactical Munitions Dispenser with an optional FZU-39 proximity sensor. The TMD is the same general configuration used for the In use the bombs are dropped from aircraft flying at CBU-87/B Combined Effects Munition. This commonspeeds between 370 and 1,300 km/h (200 and 700 kn), ality allows for high-rate, low-cost production of the disand at altitudes of between 100 and 1,200 meters. An penser. FMU-140/B fuze controls the opening of the dispenser When the CBU-89 is used in conjunction with the Wind at one of 10 predetermined altitudes between 90 m and Corrected Munitions Dispenser guidance tail kit, it be900 m using a doppler ranging radar or alternatively a come a precision-guided munition designated as CBU1.2 second time fuse. Mine arming begins when the dis- 104.[1] penser opens with the activation of the mines’ vanadium pentoxide batteries. The circular mines have a rectangular plastic “aeroballistic” adaptor. Once the mines reach 311.2 Navy CBU-78/B the ground they arm in between 1.2 and 10 seconds. The mines self-destruct after a preset time which can be set to 4 hours, 15 hours or 15 days. Any that do not will become disabled after 40 days when the batteries discharge fully. The self-destruct time is set just prior to aircraft takeoff using a simple selector switch on the dispenser. During the Gulf War the dud rate for this system was significant, in one of seven Kuwati battlefield sectors there were 205 BLU-91 and 841 BLU-92 duds. Given that 89,235 BLU-91 and 27,535 BLU-92 mines were used during the Gulf War, this represents a dud rate of somewhere between 0.5 to 2% for the BLU-91 and to 6 to 21% for the BLU-92 . Additionally, CMS mine field clearing personnel reported dud GATOR mines detonating with no apparent triggering event, and speculated that the extreme heat of the Kuwait desert may have triggered detonation.
The Navy CBU-78/B is a 230-kilogram (500 lb) cluster munition containing 45 antitank and 15 antipersonnel mines. It uses the same dispenser as the Mk7 Rockeye.
311.3 Mines 311.3.1 BLU-91/B anti-tank mine
The BLU-91 /B AT mine is a low flat cylinder with a rectangular aeroballistic shell. A magnetic sensor in the mine detects targets, when it detects a suitable target and the target reaches the most vulnerable approach point it detonates the mine. The mine is also triggered if the mine is moved, or if the battery reaches a certain low voltage The GATOR system provides a means to emplace point. minefields on the ground rapidly using high-speed tactical aircraft. A typical GATOR minefield is 650 m long and Once the fuse is triggered, a small clearing charge is fired 200 m wide and contains 432 anti-tank mines and 132 that clears any debris that may be on top of the mine. A anti-personnel mines. The minefields are used for area second larger charge is triggered 30 ms later, creating an denial, diversion of moving ground forces, or to immo- Explosively Formed Penetrator capable of penetrating 70 bilize targets to supplement other direct attack weapons. mm of armour, using the Misznay-Schardin effect. The In the 1991 Gulf War the US Air Force employed 1,105 charge is capable of penetrating the most armoured vehiCBU-89s. One reported task was to hamper the move- cles from below. ments of Iraqi Scud missile launchers. The mine weighs 1.95 kilograms and is 127 millimeters 806
311.5. SEE ALSO in diameter, with 580 grams of an RDX/Estane explosive mix.
311.3.2
BLU-92/B anti-personnel mine
After the mine reaches the ground, and the arming delay has passed, a squib is fired launching eight tripwires from the mine. Tension on any of the wires triggers the mine electronically; it also has an anti-handling “ball and can” switch. The mine has an effective fragmentation radius of about 20 meters. The mine is approximately 127 millimeters in diameter and weighs 1.68 kilograms. The mine’s main charge consists of 420 grams of Composition B-4. It is found unexploded in Iraq and Kuwait after US military usage in the Gulf War.
311.4 References [1] Lockheed Martin WCMD (Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser)
311.5 See also • BLU-91/B anti-tank mine at ORDATA • BLU-92/B anti-personnel mine at ORDATA • Family of Scatterable Mines (FASCAM)
807
Chapter 312
GBU-53/B The GBU-53/B Small Diameter Bomb II is an Ameri- tor or the F-35 Lightning II (even the STOVL F-35B).[8] can air-launched, guided bomb. However, the F-35 will not be able to operate the bomb Development was started in 2006 for a 250 pounds until it receives the Block 4A software package in 2022. The SDB II bomb rack was found to not fit inside the (113 kg) class bomb that can identify and strike mobile targets from standoff distances in all weather con- smaller F-35B weapons bay, although modifications to fix this will be put off to coincide with the software package ditions. It will be integrated on the F-15E and F-35 Joint [9] Strike Fighter.[5] Its first flight was announced on May 1, so it will be able to deploy the weapon once remedied. 2009.[6]
The bomb is being tested using F-15E aircraft and a UH-1 The bomb is being developed by Raytheon. A Boe- helicopter. ing/Lockheed Martin team attempted to develop it but lost in a U.S. Air Force competition. Boeing won the original competition but the project was on hold for sev- 312.1.1 Export eral years due to a corruption scandal involving Darleen Druyun. The competition was reopened in September Raytheon is offering the SDB II to the United Kingdom for their Spear Capability 3 requirement to arm the Royal 2005.[7] Air Force Eurofighter Typhoon and Royal Navy F-35B. Deliveries could potentially begin by 2017. Raytheon is competing against the MBDA for supplying a weapon for the Spear Capability 3 requirement.[10] 312.1 Usage The bomb uses GPS/INS system to guide itself into the general vicinity of a moving target during the initial search phase, with any necessary course correction updates provided using a Link 16 or UHF data link. The bomb has three modes of target acquisition: millimeterwave radar, Infrared homing based on uncooled imaging infrared, and semi-active laser. The weapon is capable of fusing the information from the sensors to classify the target and can prioritize certain types of targets as desired when used in semi-autonomous mode.
312.2 History
The original Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) was developed by Boeing and made for non-moving targets. The SDB II is designed to destroy moving targets in dust and bad weather. The Raytheon version was deployed successfully in 26 missions over 21 days. Raytheon was awarded the contract in August, 2010.[11] The North American division of MBDA continues to produce the wings.[12] The The shaped charge warhead in the bomb has both blast Raytheon contract is worth US$450 million. Boeing anand fragmentation effects, which makes it effective nounced that it would not protest the Raytheon award. against infantry, armor (including MBTs), unhardened structures and buildings, as well as patrol craft sized boats and other soft targets. The bomb would be the first 312.2.1 Testing purpose-built no-drive zone enforcement weapon. The use of uncooled imaging infrared has been cited as On July 17, 2012, the SDB II successfully engaged and innovative and effective in reducing costs. An impor- hit a moving target during a flight test at the White Sands tant feature of the new weapon is the maximization of Missile Range. The bomb was dropped from an F-15E the number of the bombs carried by the strike aircraft. A Strike Eagle, then acquired, tracked, and guided itself target using its tri-mode seeker, scoring total of 28 GBU-53/B can be carried by the F-15E Strike onto a moving [13] a direct hit. Eagle utilizing 7 BRU-61/A suspension units, each carrying 4 bombs, and eight bombs along with two AIM-120 In January 2013, four SDB IIs were loaded into the AMRAAM missiles in the weapons bay of the F-22 Rap- weapons bay of an F-35 Lightning II alongside an AIM808
312.5. REFERENCES
809
120 AMRAAM missile. The successful fit check vali- [11] “Raytheon wins USA GBU-53/B small diameter bomb competition”. Defense Industry Daily. dated that the SDB II was compatible with the F-35 and gave adequate clearance in sweeps of inboard and out[12] MBDA US Division Corporate board bay doors.[14] Two SDB IIs successfully conducted live fire tests against [13] Small Diameter Bomb II Successfully Hits Moving Target on the Ground - Deagel.com, July 19, 2012 moving targets, one in September 2014 and the other in February 2015. Successful live fire tests qualifies the [14] Small Diameter Bomb II Fit Check on F-35 Aircraft weapon for the Air Force to make a Milestone C decision, Airforce-Technology.com, January 23, 2013 leading to entering low-rate initial production (LRIP), [15] SDB II undergoes live fire testing on F-15E - Flightlikely to occur in summer 2015.[15] global.com, 19 February 2015
312.3 Planned deployment The United States Air Force plans to use the bomb on the F-15E Strike Eagles as a no-drive zone enforcement weapon. The U.S. Navy and U.S. Marines plan to use it on their versions of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Delivery for the first batch is planned for late 2014. Government requirements specify a 2016 delivery date.
312.4 See also • Mark 81 bomb - 250lb general purpose bomb • Brimstone (missile) - 100lb class air to surface missile
312.5 References [1] . [2] “GAO-13-294SP DEFENSE ACQUISITIONS Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs”. US Government Accountability Office. March 2013. pp. 101–2. Retrieved 26 May 2013. [3] Small Diameter Bomb II Completes Live Fire Test Destroying T-72 Tank - Military.com, 25 February 2015 [4] http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/sdbii/ [5] “Air Force picks small diameter bomb”. United Press International. [6] “Raytheon GBU-53/B Small Diameter Bomb II Completes First Flight”. Space. [7] “Raytheon Wins USAs GBU-53 Small Diameter Bomb Competition”. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ Defense Industry Daily. [8] “Small Diameter Bomb II - GBU-53/B”. Defense Update. [9] F-35 Will Not Reach Full Close-Air-Support Potential Until 2022 - DoDBuzz.com, 10 March 2015 [10] Raytheon takes aim at UK Spear deal with SDB II - Flightglobal.com, 23 July 2014
Chapter 313
M-69 incendiary The M-69 incendiary cluster bomb was used to bomb Japanese cities during World War II. They were nicknamed “Tokyo calling cards”.[1] The M-69 was a plain steel pipe with a hexagonal cross section 3 inches (7.6 cm) in diameter and 20 inches (51 cm) long. It weighed about 6 pounds (2.7 kg).[2]
313.2 References
The bomb used napalm (jelled gasoline) as an incendiary filler, improving on earlier designs which used thermite or magnesium fillers that burned more intensely but were less energy and weight efficient and were easier to put out.[3] In Germany they were filled with jellied oil and dropped in clusters of 36 in the non-aerodynamic M-19 bomb.[4] Over Japan they were used in clusters of 38 as part of the finned E-46 'aimable cluster', which opened up at about 2,000 ft (610 m). After separation, each of the 38 M-69s would release a 3-foot (1 m) cotton streamer to orient its fuze downward.[5][6] Upon hitting a building or the ground, the timing fuze burned for three to five seconds and then a white phosphorus charge ignited and propelled the incendiary filling up to 100 feet (30 m) in several flaming globs, instantly starting multiple intense fires.[2] It was tested against typical German and Japanese residential structures at Japanese Village and German Village, constructed at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, in 1943.[7] The M-69 was the most successful incendiary in the tests.[2]
[1] 180 Degrees Out: The Change in U.S. Strategic Bombing Applications, 1935-1955- Dissertation of John M. Curatola, DPhil University of Kansas (2008). Quoting “Tokyo Calling Cards”, Collier’s Magazine, April 1945, 44 and 58. [2] Ross, Stewart Halsey (2002). Strategic Bombing by the United States in World War II: The Myths and the Facts. McFarland. pp. 107–108. ISBN 9780786414123. [3] Science: Incendiary Jelly, Time, Apr. 02, 1945 [4] Sion, Edward M. (2008). Through Blue Skies to Hell: America’s Bloody 100th in the Air War Over Germany. Casemate Publishers. p. 20. ISBN 9781935149965. [5] Bradley, F.J. (1999). No Strategic Targets Left. Turner Publishing. p. 33. ISBN 9781563114830. [6] http://www.468thbombgroup.org/LinkClick.aspx? fileticket=I8gpYUK3Bhg%3D&tabid=36&mid=467 [7] http://www.dugway.army.mil/index.php/index/content/ id/208 [8] World Battlefronts: BATTLE OF THE PACIFIC: Firebirds’ Flight, Time, Mar. 19, 1945 [9] http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/V/AAF-V-20. html
Against Japan, the M-69 was carried in the bomb bay [10] World Battlefronts: Ten-Day Wonder, Time, Mar. 26, 1945 of the Boeing B-29 Superfortress, with a typical load containing 40 cluster bombs, a total of 1520 M-69 bomblets.[2] The bombs were very effective in setting fire to Japanese cities in mass firebombing raids starting in February 1945 against Kobe.[8] In the first ten days of March 1945, raids with the M-69 and M-47,[9] extensive damage was done to Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, and Kobe.[10]
313.1 See also • Mark 77 bomb 810
Chapter 314
PDU-5B dispenser unit The PDU-5/B is an aircraft-deployed leaflet dispenser unit. It is derived from the CBU-100 “Rockeye” Cluster Bomb, developed by the US Air Force circa 1999. It was used successfully in Afghanistan and Iraq to distribute leaflets.
314.1 External links • Designationsystems.net • Lackland Tailspinner - Article mentioning PDU5/B; Page 9 of 22 • Many variants of leaflet bombs; Pages 5-12 of 20 • Psywarrior.com “Psyop Leaflet Dissemination”
811
Chapter 315
Perseus (munition) Perseus is a 900 kg (2,000 lb) thermobaric bomb made in Greece.[1][2]
315.1 References [1] “The calibration of destruction”. The Economist. January 28, 2010. Retrieved 2010-02-01. [2] Benjamin Sutherland. Modern Warfare, Intelligence and Deterrence. Retrieved 2013-02-19.
812
Chapter 316
Tomahawk (missile) • BGM-109D Tomahawk Land Attack Missile – Dispenser (TLAM-D) with cluster munitions.
For the sounding rocket, see TE-416 Tomahawk. The Tomahawk (US /ˈtɑːməhɔːk/ or UK /ˈtɒməhɔːk/) is a long-range, all-weather, subsonic cruise missile named after the Native American axe. Introduced by McDonnell Douglas in the 1970s, it was initially designed as a medium to long-range, low-altitude missile that could be launched from a surface platform. It has been improved several times, and due to corporate divestitures and acquisitions, is now made by Raytheon. Some Tomahawks were also manufactured by General Dynamics (now Boeing Defense, Space & Security).[3][4]
• RGM/UGM-109E Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM Block IV) – improved version of the TLAM-C. • BGM-109G Ground Launched Cruise Missile (GLCM) – with a W84 nuclear warhead; withdrawn from service in 1987. • AGM-109H/L Medium Range Air to Surface Missile (MRASM) – a shorter range, turbojet powered ASM with cluster munitions ; never entered service, cost US$569,000 (1999).[5]
316.1 Description The Tomahawk missile family consists of a number of subsonic, jet engine-powered missiles designed to attack a variety of surface targets. Although a number of launch platforms have been deployed or envisaged, only sea (both surface ship and submarine) launched variants are currently in service. Tomahawk has a modular design, allowing a wide variety of warhead, guidance, and range capabilities.
316.2 Variants There have been several variants of the BGM-109 Tomahawk employing various types of warheads. • BGM-109A Tomahawk Land Attack Missile – Nuclear (TLAM-A) with a W80 thermonuclear weapon. Retired from service sometime between 2010 and 2013.[2] • RGM/UGM-109B Tomahawk Anti Ship Missile (TASM) – active radar homing anti-ship missile variant; withdrawn from service in the 1990s. • BGM-109C Tomahawk Land Attack Missile – Conventional (TLAM-C) with a unitary warhead. This was initially a modified Bullpup warhead.
Ground-launched cruise missiles (GLCM) and their truck-like launch vehicles were employed at bases in Europe; they were withdrawn from service to comply with the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Many of the anti-ship versions were converted into TLAMs at the end of the Cold War. The Block III TLAMs that entered service in 1993 can fly farther and use Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers to strike more precisely. Block III TLAM-Cs retain the DSMAC II navigation system, allowing GPS only missions, which allow for rapid mission planning, with some reduced accuracy, DSMAC only missions, which take longer to plan but terminal accuracy is somewhat better, and GPS aided missions which combine both DSMAC II and GPS navigation which provides the greatest accuracy. Block IV TLAMs are completely redesigned with an improved turbofan engine. The F107-402 engine provided the new BLK III with a throttle control, allowing in-flight speed changes. This engine also provided better fuel economy. The Block IV TLAMs have enhanced deep-strike capabilities and are equipped with a real-time targeting system for striking fleeting targets. Additionally, the BLOCK IV missiles have the capabilities to be re-targeted inflight, and the ability to transmit, via satcom, an image immediately prior to impact to assist in determining if the missile was attacking the target and the likely damage from the attack.
813
814
316.3 Upgrades
CHAPTER 316. TOMAHAWK (MISSILE) cern with its ability to clearly discriminate between targets from a long distance, which would be more reliable with the new seeker’s passive detection and active millimeter-wave radar;[10] the Tomahawk would likely compete against a version of the Lockheed Martin Long Range Anti-Ship Missile for ship-launched needs.[11] Raytheon is planning to offer to perform the upgrades as the older Block IVs are brought back to the factory for recertification around 2018.[12]
UGM-109 Tomahawk missile detonates above a test target, 1986
A supersonic version of the Tomahawk is under consideration for development with a ramjet to increase its speed to Mach 3. A limiting factor to this is the dimensions of shipboard launch tubes. Instead of modifying every ship able to carry cruise missiles, the ramjet-powered Tomahawk would still have to fit within a 21-inch diameter and 20-foot long tube.[9]
A major improvement to the Tomahawk is networkcentric warfare-capabilities, using data from multiple sensors (aircraft, UAVs, satellites, foot soldiers, tanks, ships) to find its target. It will also be able to send data from its 316.4 Launch systems sensors to these platforms. It will be a part of the networked force being implemented by the Pentagon. Each missile is stored and launched from a pressurized canister[13] that protects it during transportation and storThe “Tactical Tomahawk” takes advantage of a loitering feature in the missile’s flight path and allows commanders age and acts as a launch tube. These canisters were racked in Armored Box Launchers (ABL), which were installed to redirect the missile to an alternative target, if required. It can be reprogrammed in-flight to attack predesignated on the re-activated Iowa class battleships USS Iowa, USS New Jersey, USS Missouri, and USS Wisconsin. The targets with GPS coordinates stored in its memory or to ABLs were also installed on eight Spruance class destroyany other GPS coordinates. Also, the missile can send ers, the four Virginia class cruisers, and the USS Long data about its status back to the commander. It entered service with the US Navy in late 2004. The Tactical Tom- Beach. These canisters are also in Vertical launching sysahawk Weapons Control System (TTWCS) added the ca- tems (VLS) in other surface ships, Capsule Launch Syspability for limited mission planning on board the firing tems (CLS) in the later Los Angeles class submarines, and in submarines’ torpedo tubes. All ABL equipped ships unit (FRU). have been decommissioned. In 2012, the USN studied applying Advanced AntiRadiation Guided Missile (AARGM) technology into the For submarine-launched missiles (called UGM-109s), after being ejected by gas pressure (vertically via the VLS) Tactical Tomahawk.[6] or by water impulse (horizontally via the torpedo tube), In February 2014, the U.S. Navy began working on a the missile exits the water and a solid-fuel booster is igbunker-busting warhead for the Tomahawk. Called the nited for the first few seconds of airborne flight until tranJoint Multi-Effects Warhead System (JMEWS), it would sition to cruise. weigh 3,500 lb (1,600 kg) and be compatible with existAfter achieving flight, the missile’s wings are unfolded ing Block IV missiles.[7] for lift, the airscoop is exposed and the turbofan engine In 2014, Raytheon began testing Block IV improvements is employed for cruise flight. Over water, the Tomahawk to attack sea and moving land targets.[8] The new passive uses inertial guidance or GPS to follow a preset course; radar seeker will passively pick up the electromagnetic once over land, the missile’s guidance system is aided by radar signature of a target and follow it, and actively send Terrain Contour Matching (TERCOM). Terminal guidout a signal to bounce off potential targets before impact ance is provided by the Digital Scene Matching Area Corto discriminate its legitimacy before impact.[7] Mounting relation (DSMAC) system or GPS, producing a claimed the multi-mode sensor on the missile’s nose would re- Circular error probable of about 10 meters. move fuel space, but company officials believe the Navy would be willing to give up space for the sensor’s new The Tomahawk Weapon System consists of the missile, technologies.[9] The new seeker could make the Toma- Theater Mission Planning Center (TMPC)/Afloat Planhawk a candidate for the U.S. Navy’s Offensive Anti- ning System, and either the Tomahawk Weapon Control Surface Warfare (OASuW) Increment II requirement. System (on surface ships) or Combat Control System (for The previous Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile, retired over submarines). a decade ago, was equipped with inertial guidance and Several versions of control systems have been used, inthe seeker of the Harpoon (missile) and there was con- cluding:
316.6. OPERATORS • v2 TWCS – Tomahawk Weapon Control System (1983), also known as “green screens,” was based on an old tank computing system. • v3 ATWCS – Advanced Tomahawk Weapon Control System (1994), first Commercial Off the Shelf, uses HP-UX.
815 • Total program cost: $US 11,210,000,000[16]
316.6 Operators
• v4 TTWCS – Tactical Tomahawk Weapon Control System, (2003). • v5 TTWCS – Next Generation Tactical Tomahawk Weapon Control System. (2006) • Launch of a Tactical Tomahawk cruise missile from the USS Stethem. • The USS Missouri launching a Tomahawk missile.
Tomahawk operators
• Submarine launch from USS Florida. • Launch trajectory from an Arleigh Burke class destroyer.
316.5 Navigation and other details The TLAM-D contains 166 sub-munitions in 24 canisters; 22 canisters of seven each, and two canisters of six each to conform to the dimensions of the airframe. The sub-munitions are the same type of Combined Effects Munition bomblet used in large quantities by the U.S. Air Force with the CBU-87 Combined Effects Munition. The sub-munitions canisters are dispensed two at a time, one per side. The missile can perform up to five separate target segments which enables it to attack multiple targets. However, in order to achieve a sufficient density of coverage typically all 24 canisters are dispensed sequentially from back to front. TERCOM – Terrain Contour Matching. A digital representation of an area of terrain is mapped based on digital terrain elevation data or stereo imagery. This map is then inserted into a TLAM mission which is then loaded on to the missile. When the missile is in flight it compares the stored map data with radar altimeter data collected as the missile overflies the map. Based on comparison results the missile’s inertial navigation system is updated and the missile corrects its course. TERCOM was based on, and was a significant improvement on, “Fingerprint,” a technology developed in 1964 for the SLAM.[14] On July 26, 2014 it was announced that 196 additional Block IV missiles had been purchased.[15] DSMAC – Digital Scene Matching Area Correlation. A digitized image of an area is mapped and then inserted into a TLAM mission. During the flight the missile will verify that the images that it has stored correlates with the image it sees below itself. Based on comparison results the missile’s inertial navigation system is updated and the missile corrects its course.
Remnants of a shot down Tomahawk from Operation Allied Force, showing the turbofan engine at the Museum of Aviation in Belgrade, Serbia.
316.6.1 United States Navy • In the 1991 Gulf War, 288 Tomahawks were launched. The first salvo was fired by the cruiser USS San Jacinto on January 17, 1991. The attack submarines USS Pittsburgh and USS Louisville followed. • On 26 June 1993, 23 Tomahawks were fired at the Iraqi Intelligence Service’s command and control center.
816 • On 10 September 1995, the USS Normandy launched 13 Tomahawk missiles from the central Adriatic Sea against a key air defense radio relay tower in Bosnian Serb territory during Operation Deliberate Force. • On 3 September 1996, 44 cruise missiles between UGM-109 and B-52 launched AGM-86s, were fired at air defence targets in Southern Iraq.
CHAPTER 316. TOMAHAWK (MISSILE) • The United States Navy has a stockpile of around 3,500 Tomahawk cruise missiles of all variants, with a combined worth of approximately US $2.6 billion. • Tomahawk production for the United States Navy is scheduled to end in Fiscal Year 2015,[26] with a replacement entering service a decade later.[27]
316.6.2 Royal Navy
• On 20 August 1998, around 75 Tomahawk missiles were fired simultaneously to two separate target ar- In 1995 the US agreed to sell 65 Tomahawks to the UK eas in Afghanistan and Sudan in retaliation to the for torpedo-launch from her nuclear submarines. The first missiles were acquired and test-fired in November 1998; bombings of American embassies by Al-Qaeda. all Royal Navy fleet submarines are now Tomahawk ca• On 16 December 1998, Tomahawk missiles were pable, including the new Astute-class.[28][29][30][31] The fired at key Iraqi targets in during Operation Desert Kosovo War in 1999 saw the Swiftsure-class HMS Splendid become the first British submarine to fire the TomaFox. hawk in combat. It has been reported that seventeen of • In spring 1999, 218 Tomahawk missiles were the twenty Tomahawks fired by the British during that fired by US ships and a British submarine during conflict hit their targets accurately; the UK subsequently Operation Allied Force against key targets in Serbia bought 20 more Block III to replenish stocks.[32] The and Montenegro. Royal Navy has since fired Tomahawks during the 2000s Afghanistan War, in Operation Telic as the British con• In October 2001, approximately 50 Tomahawk mis- tribution to the 2003 Iraq War, and during Operation Elsiles struck targets in Afghanistan in the opening lamy in Libya in 2011. hours of Operation Enduring Freedom. In April 2004, the UK and US governments reached an • During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, more than 802 agreement for the British to buy 64 of the new genertomahawk missiles were fired at key Iraqi targets.[17] ation of Tomahawk missile—the Block IV or TacTom missile.[33] It entered service with the Royal Navy on 27 • On 17 December 2009, two Tomahawk missiles March 2008, three months ahead of schedule.[34] In July were fired at targets in Yemen.[18] One of the tar- 2014 the US approved the sale to the UK of a further 65 gets was hit by a TLAM-D missile. The target was submarine-launched Block IV’s at a cost of US$140m indescribed as an 'alleged Al-Qaeda training camp' cluding spares and support;[35] as of 2011 the Block III in al-Ma’jalah in al-Mahfad a region of the Abyan missiles were on Britain’s books at £1.1m and the Block governorate of Yemen. Amnesty International re- IV at £0.87m including VAT.[36] ported that 55 people were killed in the attack, inThe Sylver Vertical Launching System on the new Type cluding 41 civilians (21 children, 14 women, and six 45 destroyer is claimed by its manufacturers to have men). The US and Yemen governments refused to the capability to fire the Tomahawk, although the A50 confirm or deny involvement, but diplomatic cables launcher carried by Type 45 is too short for the weapon released as part of United States diplomatic cables (the longer A70 silo would be required). Nevertheless, leak later confirmed the missile was fired by a US Type 45 has been designed with weight and space mar[19] Navy ship. gin for a strike-length Mk41 or Sylver A70 silo to be • On 19 March 2011, 124 Tomahawk missiles[20] retrofitted, allowing Type 45 to use TLAM Block IV if were fired by U.S. and British forces (112 US, 12 required, and the new Type 26 frigates will have strikeBritish)[21] against at least 20 Libyan targets around length VLS tubes. SYLVER user France is developing Tripoli and Misrata.[22] As of 22 March 2011, 159 MdCN, a version of the Storm Shadow/Scalp cruise misUGM-109 were fired by US and UK ships against sile that has a shorter range but a higher speed than Tomahawk and can be launched from the SYLVER system. Libyan targets.[23] • On 23 September 2014, 47 Tomahawk missiles were fired by the United States from the USS Arleigh Burke and USS Phillipine Sea, which were operating from international waters in the Red Sea and Persian Gulf, against ISIL targets in Syria in the vicinity of Ar-Raqqah, Deir ez-Zor, Al-Hasakah and AlBukamal,[24] and against Khorasan group targets in Syria west of Aleppo.[25]
316.6.3 United States Air Force Main article: BGM-109G Ground Launched Cruise Missile The USAF is a former operator of the nuclear-armed version of the Tomahawk, the BGM-109G Gryphon.
316.8. SEE ALSO
316.6.4
Other users
The Netherlands (2005) and Spain (2002 and 2005) were interested in acquiring the Tomahawk system, but the orders were later cancelled in 2007 and 2009 respectively.[37][38] In 2009 the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States stated that Japan would be concerned if the TLAM-N were retired, but the government of Japan has denied that it had expressed any such view.[39] It is believed that the SLCM version of the Popeye was developed by Israel after the US Clinton administration refused an Israeli request in 2000 to purchase Tomahawk SLCM’s because of international MTCR proliferation rules.[40] As of March 12, 2015 Poland has expressed interest in purchasing long-range Tomahawk missiles for its future submarines.[41]
316.7 Replacement
817
316.8 See also • List of missiles • RK-55 • 3M-54 Klub • Raduga Kh-55 • Nirbhay • AGM-129 ACM • Hyunmoo-3 • DH-10 • Babur (cruise missile) • UGM-89 Perseus • ArcLight (missile) • Scalp Naval (missile)
316.9 References [1] “United States Department Of Defense Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request Program Acquisition Cost By Weapon System” (pdf). Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense (Comptroller)/ Chief Financial Officer. March 2014. p. 65. [2] Kristensen, Hans M. (March 18, 2013). “US Navy In-
struction Confirms Retirement of Nuclear Tomahawk As of 2014, the U.S. Navy is seeking a replacement Cruise Missile”. Strategic Security. Federation of Amerifor the Tomahawk, the Next-Generation Land Attack can Scientists. Retrieved July 9, 2014. Weapon, which shall have increased lethality and survivability; options include Tomahawk improvements or a [3] "McDonnell Douglas: History — New Markets,” Boeing history website. new weapon. The Navy is developing a surface-launched version of the air-launched Long Range Anti-Ship Mis[4] "Raytheon Tomahawk Cruise Missile,” Raytheon Tomasile, aiming to defeat enemy air defenses using sensors hawk Evolution Handout. and autonomous flight. A future version of the LRASM may include several vendors, but Lockheed Martin has [5] The US Navy - Fact File been the principal developer and is investing funds to de[6] “Viability Study associated with Advanced Antivelop and test an LRASM that can be launched from verRadiation Guided Missile.” [42] tical launch systems on Navy ships. The Navy believes its inventory of 4,000 Tomahawk missiles are sufficient [7] Navy Wants Its Tomahawks to Bust More Bunkers - Defensetech.org, 14 February 2014 for future scenarios, so production is planned to end after 2016, relying on stocks until the next-generation land[8] “Swim, Rocket, Fly and Hunt: Navy’s Morphing Missile attack weapon is developed; Raytheon opposes this acGets New Abilities.” tion, claiming that Tomahawk production takes over 100 suppliers in 24 US states, and that restarting production [9] Facing End of Tomahawk Production, Raytheon Plays Industrial Base Card - Nationaldefensemagazine.org, 2 could take two years and increase costs. It could take up April 2014 to a decade for a replacement to be fielded, during which [43] time Tomahawk stocks may potentially be depleted. [10] New Seeker Could Put Tomahawk In Long-Range AntiThe Navy’s FY 2016 budget supports a new Next GenerShip Missile Race - Aviationweek.com, 12 November ation Strike Capability (NGSC) effort, which combines 2014 the Next-Generation Land Attack Weapon with the Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) Increment II ef- [11] Arming New Platforms Will Push Up Value Of Missiles Market - Aviationweek.com, 5 January 2015 fort to procure a new anti-ship missile. NGSC could either be a common weapon or a family of weapons, but [12] MEHTA, AARON (16 July 2014). “Raytheon Targeting the goal is to use technologies “across multiple mission Tomahawk of the Future”. www.defensenews.com (Gannett Government Media). Retrieved 18 July 2014. areas.”[44]
818
[13] GAO (October 1997). Test and evaluation impact of DOD. DIANE Publishing. ISBN 978-1428979291. Retrieved 2013-08-30. [14] “SLAM Supersonic Low-Altitude Missile”. GlobalSecurity.org. Retrieved January 25, 2014. [15] http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/07/26/ the-us-military-just-doubled-its-purchases-of-toma. aspx
CHAPTER 316. TOMAHAWK (MISSILE)
[34] Royal Navy - World-Class Missile Achieves In-Service Date [35] “United Kingdom - Tomahawk Block IV Torpedo Launched Land-Attack Missiles”. Defense Security Cooperation Agency. 1 July 2014. [36] “Daily Hansard - Written Answers to Questions”. UK Parliament. 17 May 2011. [37] No Tomahawks for defence, jets up for sale - New Europe
[16] FAS - BGM-109 Tomahawk [38] [17] BGM-109 Tomahawk - Smart Weapons [18] Cruise Missiles Strike Yemen - ABC News. Abcnews.go.com (2009-12-18). Retrieved on 2013-08-16.
[39] Japanese Government Rejects TLAM/N Claim [40]
[19] “Landmine monitor, US 2011 report”.
[41]
[20] “Live blog: allied airstrikes continue against Gadhafi forces”. CNN. 2011-03-20.
[42] Navy Seeks Next Generation Tomahawk - DoDBuzz.com, 27 March 2014
[21] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/ africaandindianocean/libya/8400079/ Libya-Navy-running-short-of-Tomahawk-missiles.html
[43] Proposed halt of Tomahawk missile buys raises concerns at Raytheon - Azstarnet.com, 13 April 2014
[22] “U.S. launches first missiles against Gadhafi forces”. CNN. 2011-03-19. [23] “U.S. aviators rescued; Gadhafi remains defiant”. CNN. 11 May 2011. [24] “Sept. 23: U.S. Military, Partner Nations Conduct Airstrikes Against ISIL in Syria”. http://www.centcom. mil/en''. 23 Sep 2014. Retrieved 23 Sep 2014. [25] “Al-Qaeda Khorasan cell in Syria attack 'was imminent'". http://www.bbc.com/news/''. 23 Sep 2014. Retrieved 23 Sep 2014. [26] “Obama to kill Navy’s Tomahawk, Hellfire missile programs in budget decimation newsurl=http: //p.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/25/ obama-kill-navys-tomahawk-hellfire-missile-program/". [27] McGrath, Bryan (March 25, 2014). “This is What Assumption of Additional Risk Looks Like”. www. informationdissemination.net. Retrieved 27 March 2014. [28] “Astute Class Submarines”. BAE Systems Maritime – Submarines. BAE Systems. Retrieved 12 November 2013. [29] “New Royal Navy Submarine Fires First Tomahawk Missiles Across North American Skies”. Royal Navy/MOD. Retrieved 12 November 2013. [30] “Awesome Astute “surpassed every expectation” on her toughest test yet”. Royal Navy/MOD. Retrieved 12 November 2013. [31] “Astute on show in the world’s biggest naval base”. Royal Navy/MOD. Retrieved 12 November 2013. [32] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/ cmhansrd/vo991102/text/91102w07.htm#91102w07. htm_sbhd3 [33] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/ cmhansrd/vo040421/wmstext/40421m01.htm
[44] F-35Cs Cut Back As U.S. Navy Invests In Standoff Weapons - Aviationweek.com, 3 February 2015
316.10 External links • Raytheon Official site for the Tomahawk missile
Chapter 317
FIM-92 Stinger The FIM-92 Stinger is a personal portable infrared homing surface-to-air missile (SAM), which can be adapted to fire from ground vehicles or helicopters (as an AAM), developed in the United States and entered into service in 1981. Used by the militaries of the United States and by 29 other countries, it is manufactured by Raytheon Missile Systems, under license by EADS in Germany and by Roketsan in Turkey with 70,000 missiles produced. It is classified as a Man-Portable Air-Defense System (MANPADS).
317.1 Description Light to carry and easy to operate, the FIM-92 Stinger is a passive surface-to-air missile, that can be shoulderfired by a single operator (although standard military procedure calls for two operators, spotter and gunner). The FIM-92B missile can also be fired from the M-1097 Avenger and the M6 Linebacker. The missile is also capable of being deployed from a Humvee Stinger rack, and can be used by airborne troops. A helicopter launched version exists called Air-to-Air Stinger (ATAS). The missile is 5.0 ft (1.52 m) long and 2.8 in (70 mm) in diameter with 10 cm fins. The missile itself weighs 22 lb (10.1 kg), while the missile with launcher weighs approximately 34 lb (15.2 kg). The Stinger is launched by a small ejection motor that pushes it a safe distance from the operator before engaging the main two-stage solidfuel sustainer, which accelerates it to a maximum speed of Mach 2.54 (750 m/s). The warhead is a 3 kg penetrating hit-to-kill warhead type with an impact fuze and a selfdestruct timer.
that directs the missile towards the target airframe instead of its exhaust plume. There are three main variants in use: the Stinger basic, STINGER-Passive Optical Seeker Technique (POST), and STINGER-Reprogrammable Microprocessor (RMP). These correspond to the FIM-92A, FIM-92B, and FIM-92C and later variants respectively. The POST has a dual-detector seeker: IR and UV. This allows it to distinguish targets from countermeasures much better than the Redeye and FIM-92A, which have IR-only. While modern flares can have an IR signature that is closely matched to the launching aircraft’s engine exhaust, there is a readily distinguishable difference in UV signature between flares and jet engines.[2] The Stinger-RMP is so-called because of its ability to load a new set of software via ROM chip inserted in the grip at the depot. If this download to the missile fails during power-up, basic functionality runs off the on-board ROM. The four-processor RMP has 4 KB of RAM for each processor. Since the downloaded code runs from RAM, there is little space to spare, particularly for processors dedicated to seeker input processing and target analysis.
317.2 History
To fire the missile, a BCU (Battery Coolant Unit) is inserted into the handguard. This shoots a stream of argon gas into the system, as well as a chemical energy charge that enables the acquisition indicators and missile to get power. The batteries are somewhat sensitive to abuse, with a limited amount of gas. Over time, and without proper maintenance, they can become unservice- New Mexico Army National Guard soldiers train with a Stinger able. The IFF system receives power from a recharge- missile launcher in 1999. able battery. Guidance to the target is initially through proportional navigation, then switches to another mode Initial work on the missile was begun by General Dynam819
820
CHAPTER 317. FIM-92 STINGER
317.3 Variants • FIM-92A, Stinger Basic: The basic model.[3] • FIM-92B, Stinger POST: In this version, the infrared seeker head was replaced by a combined IR/UV seeker that utilized rosette scanning. This resulted in achieving significantly higher resistance to enemy countermeasures (Flares) and natural disturbances. Production ran from 1981 to 1987, a total of 600 missiles were produced.[3]
A U.S. Marine fires an FIM-92A Stinger missile during a July 2009 training exercise in California.
ics in 1967 as the Redeye II. It was accepted for further development by the U.S. Army in 1971 and designated FIM-92; the Stinger appellation was chosen in 1972. Because of technical difficulties that dogged testing, the first shoulder launch was not until mid-1975. Production of the FIM-92A began in 1978 to replace the FIM-43 Redeye. An improved Stinger with a new seeker, the FIM92B, was produced from 1983 alongside the FIM-92A. Production of both the A and B types ended in 1987 with around 16,000 missiles produced. The replacement FIM-92C had been developed from 1984 and production began in 1987. The first examples were delivered to front-line units in 1989. C-type missiles were fitted with a reprogrammable electronics system to allow for upgrades. The missiles which received a counter-measures upgrade were designated D and later upgrades to the D were designated G. The FIM-92E or Block I was developed from 1992 and delivered from 1995 (certain sources state that the FIM92D is also part of the Block I development). The main changes were again in the sensor and the software, improving the missile’s performance against smaller and low-signature targets. A software upgrade in 2001 was designated F. Block II development began in 1996 using a new focal plane array sensor to improve the missile’s effectiveness in “high clutter” environments and increase the engagement range to about 25,000 feet (7,600 m). Production was scheduled for 2004, but Jane’s reports that this may be on hold. Since 1984 the Stinger has been issued to many U.S. Navy warships for point defense, particularly in Middle Eastern waters, with a three-man team that can perform other duties when not conducting Stinger training or maintenance. Until it was decommissioned in September 1993, the U.S. Navy had at least one Stinger Gunnery Detachment attached to Beachmaster Unit Two in Little Creek Virginia. The sailors of this detachment would deploy to carrier battlegroups in teams of two to four sailors per ship as requested by Battle Group Commanders.
• FIM-92C, Stinger RMP: The resistance to interference was increased again by adding more powerful digital computer components. Moreover, the software of the missile could now be reconfigured in a short time in order to respond quickly and efficiently to new types of countermeasures. Until 1991, some 20,000 units were produced for the U.S. Army alone.[3] • FIM-92D: Various modifications were continued with this version in order to increase the resistance to interference.[3] • FIM-92E: Stinger - RMP Block I: By adding a new rollover sensor and revised control software, the flight behavior was significantly improved. Additionally, the performance against small targets such as drones, cruise missiles and light reconnaissance helicopters was improved. The first deliveries began in 1995. Almost the entire stock of U.S. Stinger missiles was replaced by this version.[3] • FIM-92F: A further improvement of the E-version and the current production version.[3] • FIM-92G: An unspecified upgrade for the D variant.[3] • FIM-92H: Indicates a D-variant that has been upgraded to the E standard.[3] • FIM-92?, Stinger - RMP Block II: This variant was a planned developed based on the E version. The improvements included an imaging infrared seeker head from the AIM-9X. With this modification, the detection distance and the resistance to jamming was to be greatly increased . Changes to the airframe would furthermore enable a significant increase in range. Although the missile reached the testing phase, the program was dropped in 2002 for budgetary reasons.[3] • FIM-92J, Block 1 missile upgrade to replace aging components to extend service life and additional 10 years. The warhead is also equipped with a proximity fuse to increase effectiveness against unmanned aerial vehicles.[4] • ADSM, Air Defence Missile Suppression: A variant with an additional passive radar seeker, this variant can also be used against radar wave transmitters.[3]
317.5. SERVICE
317.4 Comparison chart to other MANPADS
821 the SAS, in the vicinity of Mount Kent. Six National Gendarmerie Special Forces were killed and eight more wounded.[10] The main MANPADS used by both sides during the Falklands War was the Blowpipe missile.
317.5 Service 317.5.2 Soviet War in Afghanistan See also: List of Soviet aircraft losses in Afghanistan The story of the Stingers in Afghanistan was popularly told in the media by western sources primarily, notably in the references written in Charlie Wilson’s War by George Crile, and Ghost Wars by Steve Coll.
U.S. Army soldiers from the 11th Air Defense Artillery Brigade stand next to a FIM-92A Stinger portable missile launcher during the Persian Gulf War.
In late 1985, several groups, such as Free the Eagle, began arguing the CIA was not doing enough to support the Mujahideen in the Soviet-Afghan war. Michael Pillsbury, Vincent Cannistraro, and others put enormous bureaucratic pressure on the CIA to begin providing the Stinger to the rebels. The idea was controversial because up to that point, the CIA had been operating with the pretense that the United States was not involved in the war directly, for various reasons. All weapons supplied at that point were non-U.S. made weapons, like Type 56 rifles purchased from China,[11] and AK-47 and AKM AK derivatives purchased from Egypt. The final say-so came down to President General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq of Pakistan, through whom the CIA had to pass all of its funding and weapons to the Mujahideen. President Zia constantly had to gauge how much he could “make the pot boil” in Afghanistan without provoking a Soviet invasion of his own country. According to George Crile III, U.S. congressman Charlie Wilson's relationship with Zia was instrumental in the final go-ahead for the Stinger introduction.[11]
A Stinger missile being launched from a U.S. Marine Corps AN/TWQ-1 Avenger in April 2000.
317.5.1
Falklands War
The Stinger’s combat debut occurred during the Falklands War fought between Britain and Argentina. At the onset of the conflict soldiers of the British Army's Special Air Service had been clandestinely equipped with six missiles, although they had received little instruction in their use. The sole SAS trooper who had received training on the system, and was due to train other troops, was killed in a helicopter crash on 19 May.[8] Nonetheless, on 21 May 1982 an SAS soldier engaged and shot down an Argentine Pucará ground attack aircraft with a Stinger.[9] On 30 May, at about 11.00 a.m., an Aerospatiale SA-330 Puma helicopter was brought down by another missile, also fired by
Wilson and his associates at first viewed the Stinger as “just adding another component to the lethal mix we were building”.[11] Their increasingly successful Afghanistan strategy, formed largely by Michael G. Vickers, was based on a broad mix of weapons, tactics, and logistics, not a 'silver bullet solution' of a single weapon. Furthermore the previous attempts to provide MANPADs to the Mujahideen, namely the SA7 and Blowpipe, hadn't worked very well.[11] Engineer Ghaffar of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Hezb-iIslami, brought down the first Hind gunship with a Stinger on September 25, 1986 near Jalalabad.[11][12][13] The Central Intelligence Agency eventually supplied nearly 500 Stingers (some sources claim 1,500–2,000) to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan as part of Operation Cyclone.[14] with the supply of 250 launchers.[15] The impact of the Stinger on the outcome of the war is contested, particularly in the translation between the impact on the tactical/battlefield to the strategic level withdrawal, and the influence the first had on the second.[16] While Fort Leavenworth's Dr. Robert F. Baumann de-
822
CHAPTER 317. FIM-92 STINGER
scribes its impact on “Soviet tactical operations” as “unmistakable” in Compound warfare that fatal knot,[17][18] an opinion similarly supported by Yossef Bodansky’s Sams in Afghanistan: assessing the impact published in a 1987 issue of Jane’s Defence Weekly.[19][20] Soviet, and later, Russian, accounts give little significance to the Stinger for strategically ending the war.[14][21][22] According to a 1993 US Air Defense Artillery publication, the Muhajideen gunners used the supplied Stingers to score approximately 269 total aircraft kills in about 340 engagements, a 79-percent kill ratio.[23] Which if accurate, would make it responsible for over half of the 451 Soviet aircraft losses in Afghanistan if they only engaged Soviet aircraft, however as the Afghan occupation was fought both by Soviet and Afghan government aircraft, a large number of kills inflicted by the Stinger was on aircraft operated by those of the Afghan government, who were increasingly sent on the more dangerous missions by the Soviets.[20] An analysis of the Stinger’s role in the withdrawal of the Soviet Union, the statistics supporting the Stinger’s unusually high kill ratio and the chronology leading up to the decision to deploy the weapon, was made in 1999.[20]
missiles after the end of hostilities proved incomplete. The battery of a Stinger lasts for four or five years, so any weapons supplied in the 1980s would now be inoperative.[32]
317.5.4 Libyan invasion of Chad The Chadian government received Stinger missiles from the United States, when Libya invaded the northern part of the African country. On 8 October 1987, a Libyan Su-22MK was shot down by a FIM-92A fired by Chadian forces. The pilot, Capt. Diya al-Din, ejected and was captured. He was later granted political asylum by the French government. During the recovery operation, a Libyan MiG-23MS was shot down by a FIM-92A.[33]
317.5.5 Tajik civil war
Tajik Islamist opposition forces operating from Afghanistan during the 1992–97 Tajik civil war encountered a heavy air campaign launched by Russia and Uzbekistan to prop up the government in Dushanbe that According to Crile, who includes information from included border and cross-border raids. During one of Alexander Prokhanov, the Stinger was a “turning these operations, a Sukhoi Su-24M was shot down on 3 point”.[11] Milt Bearden saw it as a "force multiplier" and May 1993 with an Stinger fired by fundamentalists. Both morale booster.[11] Charlie Wilson, the congressman be- Russian pilots were rescued.[34][35][36] hind the United States’ Operation Cyclone, described the first Stinger Mi-24 shootdowns in 1986 as one of the three crucial moments of his experience in the war, saying “we 317.5.6 Chechen War never really won a set piece battle before September 26, and then we never lost one afterwards”.[24][25] He was Russian officials claimed several times the presence of given the first spent Stinger tube as a gift and kept it on US-made Stinger missiles in the hands of the Chechen militia and insurgents. They attributed few of their aerial his office wall.[11][25] losses to the American MANPADS. The presence of such The last Stingers were supplied in 1988 after increasing missiles was confirmed by photo evidence even if it is not reports of fighters selling them to Iran and thawing reclear their actual number nor their origin.[37] [13][26] lations with Moscow. After the 1989 Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the U.S. attempted to buy back It is believed one Sukhoi Su-24 was shot down by a the Stinger missiles, with a $55 million program launched Stinger missile during the Second Chechen War.[38] in 1990 to buy back around 300 missiles (US$183,300 each).[27] The U.S. government collected most of the Stingers it had delivered, but by 1996 around 600 were 317.5.7 Sri Lankan Civil War unaccounted for and some found their way into Croatia, Iran, Sri Lanka, Qatar and North Korea.[28][29] Accord- The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam also managed to ing to the CIA, already in August 1988 the U.S. had acquire one or several Stingers, possibly from former Mudemanded from Qatar the return of Stinger missiles.[30] jahideen stocks, and used at least one to down a Sri Lanka Wilson later told CBS he “lived in terror” that a civilian Air Force Mi-24 on November 10, 1997.[29][39] airliner would be shot down by a Stinger, but he did not have misgivings about having provided Stingers to defeat 317.5.8 Operation Enduring Freedom the Soviets.[25]
317.5.3
Angolan Civil War
See also: List of aviation accidents and incidents in the War in Afghanistan
The Reagan administration provided 310 Stingers to Some of the Stingers that the U.S. supplied starting from Jonas Savimbi's UNITA movement in Angola between 1987, could have been used during the U.S. interven1986 and 1989.[31] As in Afghanistan, efforts to recover tion in Afghanistan. Due to political reasons, U.S. and
317.7. SEE ALSO coalition forces generally play down or even deny any MANPADS involvement in the Afghan War by Afghan insurgents, attributing the attacks to unguided RPGs. However it became clear that coalition aircraft came under attack by different types of MANPADS in different instances.[40][41]
317.5.9
During the 1980s, the Stinger was used to support different US-aligned guerrilla forces, notably the Afghan Mujahidins, the Chad government against the Libyan invasion and the Angolan UNITA. The Nicaraguan contras were not provided with Stingers due to the lack of fixed wing aircraft of the Sandinista government, as such the previous generation FIM-43 Redeye was considered adequate.[21]
317.5.10
Syrian civil war
In the Syrian civil war, Turkey reportedly helped to transport to the anti-government rebels a limited amount of FIM-92 Stingers.[44][45]
317.6 Operators •
Angola[3]
•
Bangladesh[3]
•
Bosnia and Herzegovina[3]
•
Croatia[3]
•
Chad
•
Chile[3]
•
Denmark[3]
•
Egypt[3]
• • •
•
Iraq[3]
•
Israel[3]
•
India[3]
•
United States
The current U.S. inventory contains 13,400 missiles. The total cost of the program is $7,281,000,000.[42] It is rumored that the United States Secret Service has Stinger missiles to defend the President, a notion that has never been dispelled; however, U.S. Secret Service plans favor moving the President to a safer place in the event of an attack rather than shooting down the plane, lest the missile (or the wreckage of the target aircraft) hit innocents.[43]
•
823
[3]
Italy 150 launchers, 450 FIM-92A missiles delivered in 1986–1988 for 51 million dollars, 50 missiles delivered in 2000–2002 for 10 million dollars to operate from A-129 Mangusta and 200 missiles delivered in 2003–2004 (SIPRI).[3]
•
Japan[3]
•
Lithuania[3]
•
Netherlands[3]
•
Norway[3]
• • •
Pakistan: 350 in service with the Pakistan Army.[48][49] Portugal[3] Republic of China (Taiwan): Republic of China Marine Corps, Republic of China Army[50]
•
Slovenia[3]
•
Spain[3]
• •
Switzerland[3] Turkey: Roketsan.[51]
Stingers made under license by
•
UNITA[31]
•
United Kingdom[3]
•
United States[3]
317.7 See also • Grom – a man-portable air-defence system produced in Poland • 9K38 Igla (SA-18 “Grouse”) – the Soviet Union's equivalent missile during the Cold War • QW-1 Vanguard – the Chinese equivalent
[46]
Finland
[3]
Georgia
Germany: Stingers made under license by EADS.[47] Greece[3]
• AIM-92 Stinger • Anza (missile) • Anti-aircraft warfare • List of crew served weapons of the U.S. Armed Forces • Mistral missile • Starstreak – a British MANPADS • United States Army Aviation and Missile Command
824
CHAPTER 317. FIM-92 STINGER
317.8 References
[23] Air Defense Artillery Yearbook 1993 ADA, Blair Case, Lisa B. Henry. pg 20. PDF
[1] http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/stinger.htm
[24] A conversation with Charlie Wilson, Charlie Rose, PBS, April 24, 2008, via charlierose.com
[2] Globalsecurity.org [3] Raytheon [4] Army Upgrades Stinger Missiles - Kitup.Military.com, 6 November 2014 [5] http://dziennikzbrojny.pl/artykuly/art,5, 22,18,wojska-ladowe,bron-rakietowa, przeciwlotniczy-zestaw-rakietowy-ppzr-grom-i-piorun [6] https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/default/files/asset/ document/STARStreak_05_12.pdf [7] http://defencejournal.com/jan99/starstreak.htm
[25] Charlie Did It, CBS News, 60 minutes. December 19, 2007 9:51 AM, From March 13, 2001: Former Rep. Charlie Wilson looks back on his efforts to arm the Mujahedeen against the Soviet Union back in the 1980s. Mike Wallace reports. [26] http://www.psywarrior.com/Herbafghan02.html [27] Weiner, Tim (24 July 1993). “U.S. Increases Fund To Outbid Terrorists For Afghan Missiles”. The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-01-12. [28] Stinger missile system
[8] One of their aircraft is missing – Britain’s Small Wars [29] http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/28/The_ Taliban_Doesn%E2%80%99t_Have_Stingers
[9] San Carlos Air Battles – Falklands War 1982 [10] Argentine Puma Shot Down By American “Stinger” Missile [11] Charlie Wilson’s Grove/Atlantic.
War,
George
Crile,
2003,
[12] Military engineer recounts role in Soviet-Afghan war, By Michael Gisick, Stars and Stripes, Published: September 11, 2008
[30] “Middle East brief (deleted) for 2 August 1988: In brief: x—Qatar” (pdf). Central Intelligence Agency. 1988-0802. p. 3. Retrieved 2010-11-14. [31] “Trade Registers”. Armstrade.sipri.org. Retrieved 201306-20. [32] "Stingers, Stingers, Who’s Got the Stingers?, Slate.
[33] http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_360.shtml [13] http://www.homeland1.com/air-traffic/articles/ 879393-Successful-surface-to-air-missile-attack-shows-threat-to-airliners/ [34] http://www.skywar.ru/oldussr.html [14] Malley, William (2002) The Afghanistan wars. Palgrave [35] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/ Macmillan, p. 80. ISBN 0-333-80290-X centralasia/uzbek-airforce.htm [15] Hilali, A. Z. (2005). US-Pakistan relationship: Soviet in[36] Human Rights in Tajikistan: In the Wake of Civil War By vasion of Afghanistan. p. 169. ISBN 0-7546-4220-8 Escrito por Rachel Denber, Barnett R. Rubin, Jeri Laber. [16] The Stinger missile and U.S. intervention in Afghanistan, Google Books. THIS DOCUMENT IS A CASE STUDY IN COVERTACTION DECISION MAKING, Alan J. Kuperman, Po- [37] http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php? litical Science Quarterly 30248-chechen-terrorists-with-a-stinger [17] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/ 2001/soviet-afghan_compound-warfare.htm [18] Compound warfare that fatal knot, Thomas M. Huber editor, Fort Leavenworth, pg 296 [19] Yossef Bodansky’s Sams in Afghanistan: assessing the impact Jane’s defence weekly, vol. 8, no. 03, 1987 PP. 153154 [20] The Stinger missile and U.S. intervention in Afghanistan, THIS DOCUMENT IS A CASE STUDY IN COVERTACTION DECISION MAKING, Alan J. Kuperman, Political Science Quarterly, pg 13,14 [21] CUSHMAN Jr, JOHN H. (17 January 1988). “THE WORLD: The Stinger Missile; HELPING TO CHANGE THE COURSE OF A WAR”. The New York Times. [22] Scott, Peter (2003). Drugs, oil, and war: the United States in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Indochina. Rowman & Littlefield, p. 5. ISBN 0-7425-2522-8
[38] Pashin, Alexander. “Russian Army Operations and Weaponry During Second Military Campaign in Chechnya”. Moscow Defense Brief. Retrieved 8 March 2014. [39] http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=141721 [40] Walsh, Declan (25 July 2010). “Afghanistan war logs: US covered up fatal Taliban missile strike on Chinook”. The Guardian (London). [41] “Afghanistan: The war logs,Afghanistan (News),World news,WikiLeaks,The war logs”. The Guardian (London). 25 July 2010. [42] FIM-92A Stinger Weapons System – Federation of American Scientists [43] Stephen Labaton (September 13, 1994). “Crash at the White House: The defenses; Pilot’s Exploit Rattles White House Officials”. The New York Times. Retrieved 200809-08.
317.10. EXTERNAL LINKS
[44] “Clinton: Chemical warfare is planned for. Rebels get first anti-air Stingers”. Debka.com. 11 August 2012. Retrieved 13 August 2012. [45] “Syrian Rebels Claim to Have Brought Down a Jet”. New York Times. 13 August 2012. Retrieved 13 August 2012. [46] Yle News [47] Tiger Attack Helicopter, Europe. Retrieved on October 24, 2008. [48] Singh, R.S.N. (2005). Asian Strategic And Military Perspective. Lancer Publishers. p. 238. ISBN 9788170622451. [49] Sumit Ganguly & S. Paul Kapur (2008). Nuclear Proliferation in South Asia: Crisis Behaviour and the Bomb. Routledge. p. 174. ISBN 978-0-203-89286-2. [50] Defpro.com [51] Official Roketsan Stinger Page. Retrieved on October 23, 2008.
317.9 Further reading • O'Halloran James C., and Christopher F. Foss (eds.). Jane’s Land-Based Air Defence 2005–2006. Couldson, Surrey: Jane’s Information Group, 2005. ISBN 0-7106-2697-5.
317.10 External links • FIM-92 Stinger MANPADS man-portable surfaceto-air missile system(Army Recognition) • Raytheon (General Dynamics) FIM-92 Stinger – Designation Systems • Defense Update: Stinger VSHORAD Missile • Stinger missiles in Syrian Civil War on YouTube
825
Chapter 318
AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon The AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) is the product of a joint venture between the United States Navy and Air Force to deploy a standardized medium range precision guided weapon, especially for engagement of defended targets from outside the range of standard antiaircraft defenses, thereby increasing aircraft survivability and minimizing friendly losses.
318.1 Development The AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon or JSOW is cur- An F-16C releases an AGM-154 JSOW over the Utah Test and rently in the fleet and in use by the US Navy. Foreign Mil- Training Range itary Sales (FMS) cases have been signed with Poland and Turkey for use with their F-16 fighters. Finland, Greece and Singapore are pursuing FMS cases at this time.[1][2] The AGM-154 is intended to provide a low cost, highly lethal glide weapon with a standoff capability. The JSOW family of air-to-surface glide weapons are 450 kilograms (1,000 lb) class weapons that provide standoff capabilities from 28 km (15 nmi) low altitude launch and up to 110 km (60 nmi)[3] high altitude launch. The JSOW can be used against a variety of land targets and operates from ranges outside enemy point defenses. The JSOW is a launch and leave weapon that employs a tightly coupled Global Positioning System (GPS)/Inertial Navigation System (INS), and is capable of day/night and adverse weather operations. The AGM-154A (JSOW A) uses GPS/INS for terminal guidance, while the AGM- An expended sub-munition AGM-154 JSOW used during 154C (JSOW C) uses an infra-red seeker for terminal Operation Allied Force, on display at the Belgrade Aviation Muguidance. seum in Serbia. The JSOW is just over 410 centimetres (160 in) in length and weighs about 450 kilograms (1,000 lb). The JSOW was originally to be delivered in three variants, each of which uses a common air vehicle, or truck, while substituting various payloads. The AGM-154A (JSOW-A) entered service in 1999. The US Navy and Air Force developed the AGM-154B (JSOW B) up until Multi-Service Operational Test & Evaluation (MOT&E) but the Navy decided not to procure the weapon when the Air Force left the program. The AGM-154C (JSOW BROACH) entered service in February 2005.
of the most successful development programs in DOD history.[4] The system was introduced to operational use a year ahead of schedule. Unlike most guided weapons and aircraft, the system never had a weight management problem, and was deployed at its target weight. The system introduced a new type of fuse, but was able to obtain authority from an independent safety review in record time. Many observers credited these accomplishments to the management style chosen by the DOD and Texas Instruments. After a competitive selection, the program staff During the 1990s JSOW was considered to be one was organized into integrated product teams with mem826
318.3. COMBAT HISTORY bers from the government, the prime Texas Instruments and subcontractors. In one case, the prime determined that the best-in-class supplier for a design service was the government, and gave part of its funding back. JSOW was recognized in 1996 with a Laurels Award from Aviation Week & Space Technology. It is notable for a guided weapon to receive this award, which is normally reserved for much larger systems. Because of this history, JSOW has been used as a case study for development programs, and for Integrated Product Teams, and is sometimes cited in academic research on program management.
318.1.1
AGM-154A (baseline JSOW)
The warhead of the AGM-154A consists of 145 BLU97/B Combined Effects Bomb (CEB) submunitions. These bomblets have a shaped charge for armor defeating capability, a fragmenting case for material destruction, and a zirconium ring for incendiary effects.
318.1.2
AGM-154B (anti-armor)
The warhead for the AGM-154B is the BLU-108/B from the Air Force’s Sensor Fuzed Weapon (SFW) program. The JSOW B was to carry six BLU-108/B submunitions. Each submunition releases four projectiles (total of 24 per weapon) that use infrared sensors to detect targets. When a submunition detects that it is aligned with a target, it fires, creating an explosively formed penetrator capable of defeating vehicle armor. This program concluded development but the Navy decided not to procure the weapon when the Air Force started to.
827 The JSOW contains a modular control and deployment interface that allows future enhancement and additional configurations since it is likely that additional variants will emerge. The basic airframe is advertised as a “truck” and the JSOW-as-a-truck capability is widely advertised. Raytheon has placed a tremendous investment in the JSOW program and will certainly try to extend the Department of Defense contracts for as long as possible with system upgrades and repackagings for new missions and targets.
318.2.1 JSOW Block III (JSOW-C1) Raytheon was as of 2005 under contract to develop the JSOW Block III, which adds a Link-16 weapon data link and moving maritime target capability to the AGM154C. It was scheduled to be produced in 2009.[5] The first three launches were conducted in August 2011 from an F/A-18F.[6] The JSOW-C1 completed integrated test and evaluations in January 2015, moving on to operational tests. The C1 version is slated for delivery in 2016.[7]
318.2.2 AGM-154A-1 (JSOW-A1) In addition, the AGM-154A-1 configuration is under development by Raytheon for FMS sales. This version replaces the submunition payload of the AGM-154A with a BLU-111 warhead to enhance blast-fragmentation effects without the unexploded ordnance (UXO) concerns with the BLU-97/B payload.
318.2.3 Powered JSOW (JSOW-ER) 318.1.3
AGM-154C (unitary variant)
The AGM-154C uses an Imaging Infrared (IIR) terminal seeker with autonomous guidance. The AGM-154C carries the BROACH warhead. This two stage warhead is made up from a WDU-44 shaped augmenting warhead and a WDU-45 follow through bomb. The weapon is designed to attack hardened targets. It entered service with the US Navy in February 2005.
318.2 Production and upgrades Full rate production started on December 29, 1999. In June 2000 Raytheon was contracted to develop an enhanced electronics package for the JSOW to prevent electronic spoofing of GPS signals. This ultimately resulted in the JSOW Block II weapon, incorporating multiple cost reduction initiatives in addition to the Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM) capability. JSOW Block II was scheduled to begin production in March 2007.
A Hamilton-Sundstrand TJ-150 turbojet engine for a powered JSOW is being tested. The powered variant name is JSOW-ER, where “ER” is for “extended range”. JSOW-ER will increase range from 130 to 560 kilometres (70 to 300 nmi).[8][9][10]
318.3 Combat history The AGM-154A was the first variant to be used in combat. The AGM-154A traditionally is used for SEAD missions. Initial deployment testing occurred aboard USS Nimitz and later aboard the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower. The first combat deployment of the JSOW occurred over southern Iraq on December 17, 1998 when launched by a single F/A-18C from the “Checkerboards” of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 312, Carrier Air Wing 3 embarked aboard USS Enterprise during Operation Desert Fox. The glide range of the JSOW allowed the weapon to strike a target located in the southern suburbs of Baghdad. This weapon enjoyed success since its early use.
828
CHAPTER 318. AGM-154 JOINT STANDOFF WEAPON 1. USAF terminated production of JSOW in FY 2005, leaving the USN and USMC as the only U.S. services obtaining new JSOWs.[19] 2. According to a test report conducted by the United States Navy’s Weapon System Explosives Safety Review Board (WSESRB) established in the wake of the tragic 1967 USS Forrestal fire, the cooking off time for a JSOW is approximately 2 minutes 11 seconds.
AGM-154 being brought to the flight deck of an aircraft carrier
318.5 General characteristics
One adverse event occurred in February 2001, when a strike of F/A-18s from the USS Harry S. Truman battle group launched a massive attack on Iraqi air-defense sites, nearly every weapon missed the target. The cause of the miss was reported as a software problem. This problem was solved soon afterward.[11] Since 1998, at least 400 of the JSOW weapons have been used in the following conflicts: Operation Desert Fox, Operation Southern Watch, NATO Operation Allied Force, Operation EndurOutline drawing of the AGM-154A JSOW ing Freedom, and Operation Iraqi Freedom.[12] • Primary Function: Air-to-surface Standoff from Point Defense (SOPD) weapon, for use against a variety of targets.
318.4 Operators •
Australia[13] – AGM-154C upgraded to Block [14]
III •
Canada[15]
•
Greece[16]
•
Finland
• Contractor: Raytheon Co. • Guidance: GPS/INS (Global Position/Inertial), Terminal infrared homing Seeker (unique to 'C' model)
(operational
approximately
in
2015)[17]
• Length: 410 centimetres (160 in) • Diameter: box shaped 33 centimetres (13 in) on a side / other source 40.6 x 51.9 cm
•
Poland
•
Saudi Arabia[18] (on order)
• Weight: From 483 to 497 kilograms (1,065 to 1,095 lb)
•
Singapore
• Wingspan: 270 centimetres (106 in)
•
Turkey
•
United Arab Emirates[18] (on order)
•
United States
•
Netherlands
The Dutch government announced on 7 Nov 2007 that it is starting an evaluation before equipping its F-16s with the JSOW. Side notes
• Aircraft Compatibility: • Navy: F/A-18C/D, F/A-18E/F • Air Force: F-16 Block 40/50, B-1B, B-2A, B52H, F-15E, F-35A • Range: • Low altitude launch - 12 nmi (22 km) • High altitude launch - 70 nmi (130 km) • Warhead(s): • BLU-97/B - Combined Effects Bomblets (JSOW A)
318.8. EXTERNAL LINKS • BLU-111/B - Unitary warhead (JSOW-A1) • BLU-108 - Sensor fused weapon (JSOW B now cancelled) • BROACH multi-stage warhead (JSOW C) • Unit Cost: • AUPP AGM-154A, $282,000. Total program cost: $3,327,000. • AGM-154B, $484,167. Total program cost: $2,033,500. • AGM-154C, $719,012. Total program cost: $5,608,000. • Date Deployed: January 1999[20]
318.6 See also
829
[11] Pacific Ranges and Facilities (JSOW strong on fleet support-July 19, 2001) [12] Raytheon JSOW Product Sheet (PDF file) [13] Raytheon Delivers First Joint Standoff Weapon C To Australia [14] Pittaway, Nigel (March 2009). “F-111 makes way for Super Hornet”. Defence Today. p. 12. Retrieved 30 May 2012. [15] “Air Weapons: JSOW Cripples JASSM”. page.com. Retrieved 22 January 2015.
strategy-
[16] “First JSOW-C and JDAM delivered to the HAF”. [17] “Ilmavoimat testaa MLU2 -päivityksiä (Finnish Air Force Testing Improvements of Mid Life Upgrade 2)". [18] “Washington Beef up the Gulf States with 10,000 Strike Weapons Worth US$10 Billion”. Defense Update. 17 October 2013. Retrieved 21 October 2013.
• Standoff (missile)
[19] Defense Industry Daily
• AGM-158 JASSM
[20] U.S. Navy Fact File - AGM-154
• Storm Shadow/SCALP EG • Bombkapsel 90 • KEPD 350 • HOPE/HOSBO
318.8 External links • AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon - GlobalSecurity.org • Raytheon: Joint Stand Off Weapon
318.7 References
• Raytheon (Texas Instruments) AGM-154 JSOW Designation Systems
Notes
• Airborne Tactical and Defence Missiles
[1] [2] Raytheon Makes First International Joint Standoff Weapon Sale to Turkey - Raytheon press release [3] http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/jsow/ [4] http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ agm154-jsow-wins-us-dod-acquisition-award-01942/ [5] “Raytheon Delivers 2,000th Joint Standoff Weapon”. [6] http://flot.com/news/navy/index.php?ELEMENT_ID= 87123 [7] US Navy’s JSOW C-1 set for operational testing - Shephardmedia.com, 15 January 2015 [8] Raytheon Demonstrates Engine for Powered Joint Standoff Weapon February 20, 2007 [9] Raytheon Completes Free Flight of Joint Standoff Weapon Extended Range Nov 02, 2009 [10] VIDEO: Raytheon Demo-Flies Powered JSOW Oct 30, 2009
Chapter 319
ASM-A-1 Tarzon The ASM-A-1 Tarzon, also known as VB-13, was a guided bomb developed by the United States Army Air Forces during the late 1940s. Mating the guidance system of the earlier Razon radio-controlled weapon with a British Tallboy 12,000-pound (5,400 kg) bomb, the ASM-A-1 saw brief operational service in the Korean War before being withdrawn from service in 1951.
319.1 Design and development Development of the VB-13 Tarzon began in February 1945, with Bell Aircraft being awarded a contract by the United States Army Air Forces for the development of a very large guided bomb.[1][2] The VB-13 was a combination of a radio-command guidance system as used on the smaller VB-3 Razon ('Range And azimuth only') guided bomb with the British-developed Tallboy 12,000-pound (5,400 kg) “earthquake” bomb,[1][3] known to the USAAF as M112.[4] The 'Tarzon' name was a portmanteau, combining Tallboy, range and azimuth only, describing the weapon and guidance system;[4][5] and was pronounced similarly to that of "Tarzan", the popular “apeman” fictional character.[6] The VB-13, redesignated ASM-A-1 in 1948,[1] was developed under the project code MX-674.[2][7] It had an annular wing around the midsection of its body, mounted near the weapon’s center of gravity.[3] At the rear of the bomb was an octagonal tail surface containing the Razon control surfaces.[1][3] Intended to be carryed by the Boeing B-29 Superfortress bomber,[N 1] the Tarzon bomb used the combination of AN/ARW-38 [Joint Army Navy, Piloted Aircraft, Radio, Automatic Flight or Remote Control][9] command link transmitter on the B-29 and an AN/URW-2 [Joint Army Navy, Utility, Radio, Automatic Flight or Remote Control] receiver on the Tarzon to provide manual command guidance of range and azimuth. This was done with visual tracking of the bomb’s course, aided by a flare mounted in the tail of the weapon.[1][3] Gyroscopes on board the ASM-A-1 aided in stabilisation, while a pneumatic system drove the bomb’s control surfaces.[3] The guidance system was considered effective; Tarzon proved in testing to have an accuracy of 280 feet (85 m).[7]
In addition to the 12,000 pounds (5,400 kg) nominal weight of the Tallboy it was based on, the annular wing and control surfaces boosted the weight of Tarzon by an additional 1,100 pounds (500 kg).[3] As a result, the size and weight of the ASM-A-1 were such that the weapon would not fit inside the bomb bay of a Superfortress; instead, the weapon was carried in a semi-recessed mounting, half the weapon being exposed to the airstream. This increased drag on the carrying aircraft, in addition to causing turbulent airflow that could affect the handling of the B-29.[7]
319.2 Operational history
Tarzon being loaded on a B-29 of the 19th Bomb Group
Although the VB-13 project had not reached the testing stage by the end of World War II, it avoided being cancelled, proceeding as a low-priority project.[1] Limited testing was conducted during 1948 and 1949;[4] additional testing at Alamogordo, New Mexico in 1950 led to the Tarzon being approved for operational service in the Korean War.[10] Tarzon saw its first combat use in December 1950,[1] the ASM-A-1 replacing the Razon in operational service; the smaller weapon had been determined to be too small for effective use against bridges and other hardened targets.[7][11] Used solely by the 19th Bomb Group, which had previously conducted the Razon’s combat missions,[11] the first Tarzon drop in combat took
830
319.4. REFERENCES
831
place on December 14, 1950.[11] The largest bomb used in combat during the war,[7] Tarzon was used in strikes against North Korean bridges and other hardened targets, the Tarzon’s improved accuracy over conventional 'dumb bombs’ led to the confirmed destruction of at least six high-priority targets during approximately six months of combat use;[N 2] these included a hydroelectric plant, proving the effectiveness of guided weapons against conventional targets as well as bridges.[1][11] Thirty Tarzon missions were flown between December 1950 and March 1951;[11] the weapon’s success led to a contract for the production of 1,000 additional ASMA-1 missiles.[12] On March 29, 1951, however, a Tarzon Tarzon on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force strike against Sinuiju went awry; the group commander’s aircraft was destroyed as a result of the premature detonation of the bomb when, the aircraft suffering mechani- [1] Some sources state that eighteen Convair B-36 Peacecal difficulties, the weapon was jettisoned in preparation maker heavy bombers were converted to carry two Tarzons each.[8] for ditching.[1][12][13] The thirtieth, and as it proved final, mission, three weeks following the Sinuiju mission, [2] Most sources state six targets hit; the National Museum also suffered an unintentional detonation of a jettisoned, of the United States Air Force, however, gives a total “safed” bomb, although this time without the loss of the of eleven targets hit, with six bridges destroyed and one [12] aircraft. damaged.[5] An investigation proved that the fault lay in the construc[3] While this was unacceptable given the cost of Tarzon, it tion of the bomb’s tail; breaking up on impact, a 'safed' was ten times better than the results achieved by convenbomb would have its arming wire removed, rendering it tional bombs.[15] 'unsafe' and detonating the weapon.[12][13] Modifications were made to solve the problem, but the damage had Citations been done; the safety issues,[14] increased maintenance [1] costs compared to conventional bombs, the fact that the bomb’s guidance system required clear-day use only, [1] Parsch 2003 rendering the bombers vulnerable to enemy fighters, and [2] Stumpf 1998, p.13. required that the weapon be released at a prime altitude for the aircraft to be in danger from enemy flak.[14] These [3] Schmitt 2002, p.45. combined with the weapon’s poor reliability – only six of [4] Gillepsie 2006, p.54. twenty-eight bombs dropped successfully destroyed their [14][N 3] targets – to result in the production order being [5] NMUSAF Fact Sheet: VB-13 Tarzon Bomb canceled by the USAF; following this, the Tarzon pro[6] "Bomb With A Brain". British Pathé newsreel 52/51A, gram as a whole was terminated in August 1951.[1][5][14] June 23, 1952. Accessed 2013-03-22.
[7] Dorr 2003, p.31.
319.3 See also • Azon • Bat (guided bomb) • Fritz X
[8] Polmar and Norris 2009, p.93. [9] “Designations Of U.S. Military Electronic And Communications Equipment”. [10] Schmitt 2002, p.46. [11] Gillepsie 2006, p.58. [12] Gillepsie 2006, p.59.
• Grand Slam (bomb)
[13] Steadfast and Courageous, pp.33–34. [14] Gillepsie 2006, p.60.
319.4 References
[15] Dunnigan 1996, p.127.
Notes
Bibliography
832 • Dorr, Robert F. (2003). B-29 Superfortress Units of the Korean War. Osprey Combat Aircraft 42. Oxford, England: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1-84176654-2. Retrieved 2011-02-04. • Dunnigan, James F. (1996). Digital Soldiers: The Evolution of High-Tech Weaponry and Tomorrow’s Brave New Battlefield. New York: St. Martin’s Press. ISBN 0-312-30007-7. Retrieved 2011-0205. • Gillepsie, Paul G. (2006). Weapons of Choice: The Development of Precision Guided Munitions. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. ISBN 978-0-8173-1532-0. Retrieved 2011-02-04. • Parsch, Andreas (2003). “Bell VB-13/ASM-A-1 Tarzon”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles Appendix 1: Early Missiles and Drones. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-01-31. • Polmar, Norman; Robert Stan Norris (2009). The U.S. Nuclear Arsenal: A History of Weapons and Delivery Systems Since 1945. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-55750-681-8. Retrieved 2011-02-04. • Schmitt, Vernon R. (2002). Controlled Bombs and Guided Missiles of the World War II and Cold War Eras: An Inside Story of Research and Development Programs. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers. ISBN 0-7680-0913-8. Retrieved 201102-04. • Steadfast and Courageous: FEAF Bomber Command and the Air War in Korea, 1950–1953. Air Force History and Museums Program. Washington, D.C.: Department of the Air Force. 2000. ISBN 978-016-050374-0. Retrieved 2011-02-04. • Stumpf, David K. (1998). Air Force Missileers. Paducah, KY: Turner Publishing. ISBN 1-56311-4550. Retrieved 2011-02-04. • “VB-13 Tarzon Bomb”. Factsheets. National Museum of the United States Air Force. Archived from the original on 25 December 2010. Retrieved 201102-04.
319.5 External links Media related to ASM-A-1 Tarzon at Wikimedia Commons
CHAPTER 319. ASM-A-1 TARZON
Chapter 320
Azon AZON ("azimuth only”) was one of the world’s first smart bombs, deployed by the Allies and contemporary with the German Fritz X.
320.1 Azon operations
Officially designated VB-1 (“Vertical Bomb 1”), it was invented by Major Henry J. Rand and Thomas J. O'Donnell during the latter stages of World War II, as the answer to the difficult problem of destroying the narrow wooden bridges that supported much of the Burma Railway. AZON was essentially a 1,000 lb (450 kg) generalpurpose bomb with a quadrilateral 4-fin style radio controlled tail fin design as part of a “tail package” to give the half-short ton ordnance the desired guidance capability, allowing adjustment of the vertical trajectory in the yaw axis only, giving the Azon unit a laterally steerable capability and mandating the continued need to accurately release it with a bombsight to ensure it could not fall short of or beyond the target. There were gyroscopes mounted in the bomb’s added tail package that made it an Azon unit, to autonomously stabilize it in the roll axis via operating a pair of ailerons,[1] and a radio control system to operate the proportionally-functioning rudders, to directly control the bomb’s direction of lateral aim, with the antennas for the tail-mounted receiver unit built into the diagonal support struts of the tail surface assembly.[1] The bomb’s receiver and control system were powered by a battery which had around three minutes of battery life. The entire setup in the added “tail package” was sufficient to guide the weapon from a 5,000-foot (1,500 m) drop Components of Azon height to the target. Situated on the tail of the bomb was a 600,000-candela flare which also left behind a noticeable smoke trail, to enable the bombardier to observe and con- 320.2 See also trol it from the control aircraft. When used in combat, it was dropped from a modified Consolidated B-24 Libera• Bat (U.S. Navy radar-guided bomb) tor, with earlier development test drops of the Azon in the United States sometimes using the B-17 Flying Fortress • Fritz X as the platform.[1] Some ten crews, of the 458th Bom• Razon bardment Group, based at RAF Horsham St Faith, were trained to drop the device for use in the European theater. • GB-8 The 493rd Bomb Squadron[2] also dropped Azon bombs in Burma in early 1945 from similarly-modified B-24s, based at Pandaveswar Airfield, India, with considerable success, fulfilling the designers’ original purpose for the ordnance.
• List of anti-ship missiles
320.3 References Footnotes
833
834
[1] United States Office of Strategic Services (1943). WW2: Azon (1943) Radio-Controlled Dive Bomb (YouTube). The Digital Implosion. Retrieved 21 July 2013. [2] Marion. “Old China Hands, Tales & Stories - The Azon Bomb”. oldchinahands. Retrieved March 20, 2012. [3] “8th Air Force 1944 Chronicles”. Retrieved 2007-05-25. June , July, August, September [4] 8th Air Force Historical Society
Bibliography
320.4 External links • Official 1943 USAAF film describing the AZON bomb • USAAF and USN guided air-to-surface ordnance of World War II • The Dawn of the Smart Bomb • Guided weapons of World War II • GB series weapons • Account of AZON Bomb Use by the 458th Bomb Group in ETO • Account of AZON Bomb Use by the 493rd Bomb Squadron in CBI Theater • Video account of AZON Use Against the Burma Railway bridges • WW II video of AZON Bomb Drop over Burma • Another video of AZONs in action over Burma
CHAPTER 320. AZON
Chapter 321
CBU-107 Passive Attack Weapon • Payload:
The CBU-107 Passive Attack Weapon is an airdropped guided bomb containing metal penetrator rods of various sizes. It was designed to attack targets where an explosive effect may be undesirable, such as fuel storage tanks or chemical weapon stockpiles[1] in civilian areas.[2]
321.1 Overview
• 350 14-inch tungsten rods • 1,000 7-inch tungsten rods • 2,400 2-inch steel rods
321.4 See also
The weapon consists of a Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser-equipped SUU-66/B Tactical Munitions Dispenser containing 3,750 non-explosive steel and tungsten penetrator rods of various sizes. There is no other version of the CBU-107. The weapon is notable for the speed with which it was developed and fielded, a total of 98 days.[3] This was to meet an urgent operation requirement and earned the development team several awards.[4] The CBU-107 is designed to perform effects based warfare, where a strategically valuable battlefield “effect” is achieved without having to damage large portions of the infrastructure in the attacked area. The penetrating rods range in size from several inches to over a foot long and can disable targets like fuel tanks, antennas, or even a helicopter without harming nearby people. The effect of a PAW rod impacting is similar to that of an armorpiercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot penetrator fired from a tank gun; if they are released from a high enough altitude to reach terminal velocity, they release a large amount of heat in a confined area extremely fast that vaporizes and melts through the small area.[1]
• CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon, which drops explosively formed kinetic-energy anti-armor penetrators
321.5 References [1] Air Force Developed Bombs Capable of Destroying Syria’s Chemical Weapons - Defensetech.org, 30 August 2013 [2] “CBU-107 Passive Attack Weapon (WCMD) - Global Security”. [3] “Crash program at Eglin produced non-explosive weapon used in Iraq”. [4] “LOCKHEED MARTIN JOINS TEAM IN CELEBRATING PRESTIGIOUS PACKARD AND WELCH ACQUISITION AWARDS”. [5] “Off Target: The Conduct of the War and Civilian Casualties in Iraq: II. CONDUCT OF THE AIR WAR”.
321.6 External links
321.2 Combat history The CBU-107 was first used in an attack on the Iraqi Ministry of Information on March 28, 2003, during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The targets were two antenna arrays, which were both destroyed with little damage to the MOI or adjacent buildings.[5]
321.3 Specifications • Guidance: INS 835
• Lockheed Martin WCMD (Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser) - Designation Systems
Chapter 322
GB-4 GB-4 was a precision guided munition developed by the United States during World War II . It was one of the precursors of modern anti-ship missiles.
• GB-8
Following German success with the Hs-293 and Fritz-X, the U.S. began developing several similar weapons, such as Felix, Bat, Gargoyle, GB-8, and GB-4.
• Razon
GB-4’s development began in 1944 as a clear-weather, good-visibility weapon to attack heavily defended targets; it was only useful against objectives readily identifiable on the crude CRT screens of the period. It featured a plywood airframe with twin booms and fins with a single elevator. The warhead was a 2,000 pounds (910 kg) general-purpose (GP) bomb.
• List of anti-ship missiles
• Azon
• VB-6 Felix
322.4 External links
The target was acquired by a television camera beneath the warhead, with a field of view 18° high and 14° wide, and the bomb was steered by radio command guidance, the operator tracking it by means of flares in the tail. It was intended to be carried externally, under the wing of a Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress or North American B-25 Mitchell. Release was at about 175 miles per hour (280 km/h) and 15,000 feet (4,600 m)) altitude, giving a range of 17 miles (27 km), with an average flight time of four minutes. Its accuracy was 200 feet (61 m). The Pacific War ended before it entered combat. A derivative, the GB-9, was intended to use a “dive-andglide” trajectory for attacking targets like submarine pens from the side, but also did not see combat.
322.1 References 322.2 Sources • Fitzsimons, Bernard, ed. (1978). The Illustrated Encyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons and Warfare 10. London: Phoebus Publishing. p. 1,101.
322.3 See also • Fritz X 836
• Allied & German guided weapons of WW2 • The Dawn of the Smart Bomb • Guided weapons of WW2 • GB series weapons
Chapter 323
GB-8 GB-8 was a precision guided munition developed by the United States during World War II. It was one of the precursors of modern anti-ship missiles.
323.3 External links • Allied & German guided weapons of WW2
Following German success with the Hs-293 and Fritz-X, the U.S. began developing several similar weapons, such as Felix, Azon, Gargoyle, GB-4, and GB-8.
• The Dawn of the Smart Bomb
GB-8 was intended as a clear-weather, good-visibility weapon to attack heavily defended targets. It featured a plywood airframe with twin booms and fins with a single elevator. The warhead was a 2,000 pounds (910 kg) general-purpose (GP) bomb.
• GB series weapons
The bomb was steered by radio command guidance, the operator tracking it by means of red and white flares in the booms. It was intended to be carried externally, under the wing of a B-17 or B-25. Release was at about 281 kilometres per hour (175 mph) and between 10,000–15,000 feet (3,000–4,600 m) altitude, giving a range of 17 mi (27 km), with an average flight time of four minutes. The Pacific War ended before it entered combat.
323.1 Sources • Fitzsimons, Bernard, editor. “GB-8”, in The Illustrated Encyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons and Warfare. Volume 10, p. 1101. London: Phoebus Publishing, 1978.
323.2 See also • Fritz X • Azon • Razon • GB-4 • VB-6 Felix • Bat • LBD-1 Gargoyle • List of anti-ship missiles 837
• Guided weapons of WW2
Chapter 324
GBU-10 Paveway II American Paveway-series laser-guided bomb, based on So far, Raytheon-built Paveway II EGBUs have only been the Mk 84 general-purpose bomb, but with laser seeker produced for export, and have been used in combat by the and wings for guidance. Introduced into service c. 1976. British Royal Air Force over Afghanistan and Iraq. Used by USAF, US Navy, US Marine Corps, RAAF and various NATO air forces. The GBU-10 has been built in more than a half-dozen variants with different wing and fuse combinations. Weight depends on the specific configuration, ranging from 2,055 lb (934 kg) to 2,103 lb (956 kg). GBU-10 bombs (along with the balance of the Paveway series) are produced by defense contractors Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. Raytheon began production after purchasing the product line from Texas Instruments. Lockheed Martin was awarded a contract to compete with Raytheon when there was a break in production caused by transferring manufacturing out of Texas.
324.1 References [1] Davies, Steve (2005). F-15E Strike Eagle Units In Combat 1990–2005. London: Osprey Publishing. pp. 29–30. ISBN 1-84176-909-6.
324.2 External links
Raytheon production of the Paveway II is centered in Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico. Lockheed Martin production is centered in Pennsylvania. Laser-guided bombs are often labeled as "smart bombs", despite requiring external input in the form of laser designation of the intended target. According to Raytheon’s fact sheet for the Paveway 2, 99 deliveries of guided munitions will yield a circular error probable (CEP) of only 3.6 feet (1.1 m), compared to a CEP of 310 feet (94 m) for 99 unguided bombs dropped under similar conditions. On 14 February 1991, an air-to-air kill was scored by a GBU-10 when an F-15E Strike Eagle of the 335th Tactical Fighter Squadron hit an Iraqi Air Force Mil Mi-24 Hind. 30 seconds after firing, the F-15E crew thought the bomb had missed and was about to fire an AIM9 Sidewinder air-to-air missile when the helicopter suddenly exploded.[1] Both Lockheed Martin and Raytheon have developed GPS-guided versions of the GBU-10. Lockheed Martin calls its version the DMLGB (Dual-Mode LGB) GPS/INS, and the U.S. Navy issued Lockheed Martin a contract in 2005 for further development of the weapon system. The GPS/INS-equipped version of the GBU-10 produced by Raytheon is the GBU-50/B, also informally also known as the EGBU-10 (GPS/INS-enabled LGBs are frequently referred to as Enhanced GBUs or EGBUs).
838
• Raytheon’s official Paveway fact page • Globalsecurity.org Paveway fact page • Lockheed Martin Paveway fact page • Designation-Systems.net Paveway II fact page
Chapter 325
GBU-12 Paveway II when laser designation of the intended target is undertaken. According to Raytheon’s fact sheet for the Paveway 2, 99 deliveries of guided munitions will yield a circular error probable (CEP) of only 3.6 feet, versus a CEP of 310 feet for 99 unguided bombs dropped under similar conditions.
U.S. Navy crewmen loading GBU-12s onto an F-14
The GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bomb is an American aerial bomb, based on the Mk 82 500-pound general-purpose bomb, but with the addition of a nosemounted laser seeker and fins for guidance. A member of the Paveway series of weapons, Paveway II entered into service c. 1976. It is currently in service with U.S. Air Force, US Navy, US Marine Corps, Royal Canadian Air Force, Colombian Air Force, Swedish Air Force, and various NATO air forces.
Paveway II laser-guided bombs use what is known as "bang bang" guidance. This means the bomb’s fins deflect fully, rather than proportionally when it is attempting to guide to the laser spot. For example, if it sees the laser spot and determines that it should make a change it deflects its fins until it has over-corrected and then it deflects back the opposite direction, creating a sinusoidal type of flight path. This type of guidance may be less efficient at times.
325.1 References [1] “Munitions Acquisitions cost”.
325.2 External links
GBU-12 bombs (along with the balance of the Paveway series) are produced by defense contractors Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. Raytheon began production after purchasing the product line from Texas Instruments. Lockheed Martin was awarded a contract to compete with Raytheon when there was a break in production caused by transferring manufacturing out of Texas. “Paveway II” refers specifically to the guidance kit, rather than to the weapon itself. See also GBU-16 Paveway II, where the same guidance unit is fitted to a Mk 83 1,000-lb bomb. The US Department of Defense has upgraded GBU12 production versions to include GPS guidance modes. Lockheed Martin is the sole source for US Navy purchases of this version. Raytheon sells upgraded GBU-12s to the US Government and other nations. Raytheon production of the GBU-12 is centered in Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico. Lockheed Martin production is centered in Pennsylvania. Laser-guided bombs are often labeled "smart bombs" because they are able to follow a non-ballistic trajectory 839
• Raytheon’s official Paveway fact page • Globalsecurity.org Paveway fact page • Lockheed Martin Paveway fact page
Chapter 326
GBU-15 Guided Bomb Unit 15 is an unpowered, glide weapon used to destroy high-value enemy targets. It was designed for use with F-15E Strike Eagle, F-111 'Aardvark' and F4 Phantom II aircraft. The GBU-15 has long-range maritime anti-ship capability with the B-52 Stratofortress.[1] Rockwell International is the prime contractor for this weapon system.
326.2 Uses
326.1 Overview
This highly maneuverable weapon has an optimal, lowto-medium altitude delivery capability with pinpoint accuracy. It also has a standoff capability. During Desert Storm, all 71 GBU-15 modular glide bombs used were dropped from F-111F aircraft. Most notably, EGBU-15s were the munitions used for destroying the oil manifolds on the storage tanks to stop oil from spilling into the Gulf. These EGBU-15s sealed flaming oil pipeline manifolds sabotaged by Saddam Hussein's troops.
The weapon consists of modular components that are attached to either a general purpose Mark 84 bomb or a penetrating-warhead BLU-109 bomb. Each weapon has five components—a forward guidance section, warhead adapter section, control module, airfoil components, and a weapon data link. The guidance section is attached to the nose of the weapon and contains either a television guidance system for daytime or an imaging infrared system for night or limited, adverse weather operations. A data link in the tail section sends guidance updates to the control aircraft that enables the weapon systems operator to guide the bomb by remote control to its target. An external electrical conduit extends the length of the warhead which attaches the guidance adapter and control unit. The conduit carries electrical signals between the guidance and control sections. The umbilical receptacle passes guidance and control data between cockpit control systems of the launching aircraft and the weapon prior to launch. The rear control section consists of four wings that are in an “X"-like arrangement with trailing edge flap control surfaces for flight maneuvering. The control module contains the autopilot, which collects steering data from the guidance section and converts the information into signals that move the wing control surfaces to change the weapon’s flight path.
The GBU-15 may be used in either a direct or an indirect attack. In a direct attack, the pilot selects a target before launch, locks the weapon guidance system onto it and launches the weapon. The weapon automatically guides itself to the target, enabling the pilot to leave the area. In an indirect attack, the weapon is guided by remote control after launch. The pilot releases the weapon and, via remote control, searches for the target. Once the target is acquired, the weapon can be locked to the target or manually guided via the Hughes Aircraft AN/AXQ-14 data-link system.
The Air Force Development Test Center, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, began developing the GBU-15 in 1974. The Air Force originally asked for the missile designations AGM-112A and AGM-112B for two versions of the system. This was declined because the weapon was an unpowered glide bomb and GBU designation was allotted instead. The M-112 designation remains unassigned as a result.[2] It was a product improvement of the early guided bomb used during the Vietnam War called the GBU-8 HOBOS. The GBU-8 could not be controlled after the bomb was released. Instead, the aircraft was forced to fly very close to the target so the WSO could acquire it. Once locked on, the weapon could be released and the aircraft could return to base. Flight testing of the weapon began in 1975. The GBU-15 with television guidance, completed full-scale operational test and evaluation in November 1983. In February 1985, initial operational test and evaluation was completed on the imaging infrared guidance seeker. In December 1987, the program management responsi-
840
326.4. EXTERNAL LINKS
A 3rd TFW F-4E dropping a GBU-15(V)1/B, in 1985.
bility for the GBU-15 weapon system transferred from the Air Force Systems Command to the Air Force Logistics Command. The commands merged to become the Air Force Materiel Command in 1992. Eight of these weapons were also deployed against Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 to halt its nuclear production as well. During the integrated weapons system management process, AGM-130 and GBU-15 were determined to be a family of weapons because of the commonality of the two systems. The Precision Strike Program Office at Eglin AFB became the single manager for the GBU-15, with the Air Logistics Center at Hill Air Force Base, Utah providing sustainment support.
326.3 Notes [1] Caldwell, Hamlin A., Jr. “Air Force Maritime Missions” United States Naval Institute Proceedings October 1978 p.31 [2] Parsch, Andreas (2004). “Rockwell GBU-15(V)/B”. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designationsystems.net. Retrieved 2011-01-10.
326.4 External links • GBU-15 CWW - APA
841
Chapter 327
GBU-16 Paveway II The GBU-16 Paveway II is an American Paveway-series laser-guided bomb, based on the Mk 83 general-purpose bomb, but with laser seeker and wings for guidance. It was introduced into service around 1976. It is used by USAF, US Navy, US Marine Corps, and various NATO air forces. It uses a 1,000 pound general purpose warhead. The bomb in the GBU-16 Paveway II is a 1,000 pound Mk 83 bomb. GBU-16 bombs (along with the balance of the PAVEWAY series) are produced by defense giants Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. Raytheon began production after purchasing the product line from Texas Instruments. Lockheed Martin was awarded a contract to compete with Raytheon when there was a break in production caused by transferring manufacturing out of Texas. Raytheon production of the GBU-16 is centered in Arizona, Texas and New Mexico. Lockheed Martin production is centered in Pennsylvania. Laser Guided Bombs are often labeled as "smart bombs" despite requiring external input in the form of laser designation of the intended target. According to Raytheon’s fact sheet for the PAVEWAY 2, 99 deliveries of guided munitions will yield a circular error probable(CEP) of only 3.6 feet, versus a CEP of 310 feet for 99 unguided bombs dropped under similar conditions.
327.1 External links • Raytheon’s official Paveway fact page • Globalsecurity.org Paveway fact page •
842
Chapter 328
GBU-24 Paveway III GBU-24 Paveway III or simply GBU-24 is a family of laser-guided bombs, a sub-group of the larger Raytheon Paveway III family of weapons. The Paveway guidance package consists of a seeker package attached to the nose of the weapon, and a wing kit attached to the rear to provide stability and greater range. Warhead options consist of: • Mk. 84 – 910 kilograms (2,000 lb) General Purpose • BLU-109 – 910 kilograms (2,000 lb) Penetrator
the bomb’s ability to hit the impact point. The GBU-24 is cleared on aircraft such as the F-15E, F-16A MLU, F-16C Block 40/42, F-16C Block 50/52 CCIP, F-16C+ Block 30 SCU8, F/A-18, Panavia Tornado, Eurofighter Typhoon, Mirage 2000, Rafale, F-14 Tomcat (prior to the Tomcat’s retirement from US Navy service), F-111C AUP and the Predator C UAVs.[1]
328.1 References [1] Raytheon Paveway
• BLU-116 – Advanced Unitary Penetrator • CPE-800 – Used in the BPG-2000, a similar, indigenous Spanish weapon Compared to the GBU-10 family, or the Paveway II family, the GBU-24 glides farther as a result of more efficient guidance technology. The Paveway III guidance kit is more expensive, however, making the GBU-24 suitable against well-defended, high-value targets. It was introduced into service c. 1983. This weapon is in service with the USAF, US Navy, US Marine Corps, and various NATO air forces. The bomb requires a spot of pulse-coded laser energy to home on; this can be supplied by the delivery aircraft, another aircraft (Buddy Lasing), or by a Ground Laser Designator. After release from the delivery aircraft, the thermal battery for the Guidance Computer Group fires to supply power; the arming wire for the fuze is withdrawn; the wings are released; and depending on the configuration, either the turbine generator or the safety switch (to power the fuze) is activated. Once this has happened, the seeker guides the bomb toward the designated impact point. If the laser illumination is lost, the bomb stops guiding and follows a roughly ballistic path, although interference from the guidance kit can lead to the weapon wandering off course. While the GBU-24 is guided, it is not a powered weapon—i.e., it has no propulsion. Its range, therefore, depends on aircraft speed, altitude, wind speed, etc. The GBU-24 is precise enough to be able to fly down ventilation shafts into hardened targets, although accuracy is usually dependent on the ability to point the laser correctly rather than 843
844
A laser-guided GBU-24 (BLU-109 warhead variant) strikes its target.
CHAPTER 328. GBU-24 PAVEWAY III
Chapter 329
GBU-27 Paveway III The GBU-27 Paveway III (Guided Bomb Unit) is a 329.3 References laser-guided bomb with bunker buster capabilities, it is a GBU-24 Paveway III (fitted on the warhead of the BLU- Notes 109 bomb body) that has been redesigned to be used by the F-117A Nighthawk stealth ground attack aircraft. [1] Don, Holloway (March 1996). “STEALTH SECRETS The pilots flying over Iraq during the first gulf war nickOF THE F-117 NIGHTHAWK: Its development was named it the “Hammer”,[1] for its considerable destruckept under wraps for 14 years, but by 1991, the F-117 tive power and blast radius.[1] nighthawk had become a household word.”. Aviation History (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Cowles Magazines). ISSN 1076-8858.
329.1 Combat history The GBU-27 was used in Operation Desert Storm. It was the weapon used in the February 13, 1991 attack on the Amiriyah shelter, which resulted in the deaths of more than 400 Iraqi civilians. It was also used in a series of strikes on the Muthanna State Enterprise site during February 1991.[2]
[2] William Winkenwerder, Jr., MD, Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense, "The Gulf War Air Campaign - Possible Chemical Warfare Agent Release at Al Muthanna, February 8, 1991", November 15, 2001. [3] NY Times [4] Anton La Guardia - Israel challenges Iran’s nuclear ambitions, September 22, 2004 [5] www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13589783.
The first foreign sale of the GBU-27 was the acquisition by Israel of 500 units equipped with BLU-109 penetratBibliography ing warheads, authorized in September 2004. (Raas and Long 2006) Delivery of such precision guided weaponry • Whitney Raas and Austin Long, Osirak Redux? was accelerated at the request of Israel in July 2006, Assessing Israeli Capabilities to Destroy Iranian though the exact munition were not specified. Israeli Nuclear Facilities, MIT Security Studies Program Defense Forces officials state that other precision-guided Working Paper, April 2006. munitions have been used to attack Hezbollah facilities in [3] the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. However, the bunker busting technology in the GBU-27 could be directed, according Israeli military sources, at Iran or possibly 329.4 External links Syria.[4] • FAS As of 2011 the UK’s RAF have also ordered the GBU-27 for use in Libya.[5]
• Raytheon (Texas Instruments) Paveway III - Designation Systems
329.2 See also • Paveway • JDAM • BLU-109 845
Chapter 330
GBU-28 The Guided Bomb Unit 28 (GBU-28) is a 5,000-pound (2,268 kg) laser-guided "bunker busting" bomb nicknamed “Deep Throat” (and unofficially nicknamed “The Saddamizer” by a design team worker, alluding to its initial purpose of bombing a bunker believed to be thenoccupied by Saddam Hussein during Operation Desert Storm) produced originally by the Watervliet Arsenal, Watervliet, New York. It was designed, manufactured, and deployed in less than three weeks due to an urgent need during Operation Desert Storm to penetrate hardened Iraqi command centers located deep underground. Only two of the weapons were dropped in Desert Storm, both by F-111Fs.[1]
The operator illuminates a target with a laser designator and the munition guides itself to the spot of laser light reflected from the target.
The bomb underwent testing at the Tonopah Test Range, Nevada, a test facility for United States Department of Energy funded weapon programs. An F-111F of the 431st TES (Test & Evaluation Squadron) based at McClellan AFB in California dropped the first GBU-28 at Tonopah. It proved capable of penetrating over 30 meters (100 ft) of earth or 6 meters (20 ft) of solid concrete; this was demonstrated when a test bomb, bolted to a rocket sled, smashed through 22 ft (6.7 m) of reinforced concrete and still retained enough kinetic energy to travel a The Enhanced GBU-28 augments the laser-guidance mile downrange.[7][8] The GBU-28 is unique in that the with Inertial navigation and GPS guidance systems.[2] total development time from conception to the first drop test took only two weeks, and the weapon went into active service after only one test drop,[9] at Eglin AFB, Florida on 19 February 1991.[10]
330.1 Design and development
In August 1990, the U.S. military began planning an air offensive campaign against Iraq. Planners noticed that a few command and control bunkers in Baghdad were located deep underground to withstand heavy fire. Doubts were raised about the ability of the BLU-109/B to penetrate such fortified structures, so the USAF Air Armament Division at Eglin AFB, Florida, was asked to create a weapon that could, and engineer Al Weimorts sketched improved BLU-109 variants. By January 1991, as the Persian Gulf War was well underway, it was determined that the BLU-109/B-equipped laser-guided bombs (LGB) would be unable to penetrate fortified bunkers deep underground.[3] The initial batch of GBU-28s was built from modified 8 inch/203 mm artillery barrels (principally from deactivated M110 howitzers), but later examples are purposebuilt[4] with the BLU-113 bomb body made by National Forge of Irvine, Pennsylvania.[2] They weigh 4,700 pounds (2132 kg) and contain 630 pounds (286 kg) of high explosive.
330.2 Operational history
An F-15E of the 492d FS, 48th FW, releasing a GBU-28.
On the night of 27/28 February 1991, within hours of the ceasefire, two General Dynamics F-111Fs, loaded with one GBU-28 each, headed towards a target on the outskirts of Baghdad. The al-Taji Airbase, located 15 mi The GBU-28 C/B version uses the 4450 pound BLU-122 (27.4 km) northwest of the Iraqi capital, had been hit at bomb body, which contains AFX-757 explosive in a 3500 least three times by GBU-27/Bs from F-117 Nighthawks, pound casing machined from a single piece of ES-1 Eglin “digging up the rose garden”.[11] The first GBU-28 was steel alloy.[5][6] dropped off-target due to target misidentification. The 846
330.5. EXTERNAL LINKS second GBU-28 was a direct hit and penetrated the thick reinforced concrete before detonating, killing everyone inside. The bomb was used during Operations Enduring Freedom in 2002 and Iraqi Freedom in 2003 by USAF F15Es.
847
[9] Raytheon GBU-28 Bunker Buster, A US Air Power, retrieved 14 July 2011 [10] “History Eglin Heritage Briefing” (PDF). Nwfdailynews.com. Retrieved 16 July 2011. [11] Clancy 1995, p. 157.
The first foreign sale of the GBU-28 was the acquisition [12] US Wants to Sell Israel 'Bunker-Buster' Bombs, Commondreams.org, retrieved 14 July 2011 of 100 units by Israel, authorized in April 2005.[12] Delivery of the weapons was accelerated at the request of Israel [13] “US embassy cables: Israel seeks to block US planes for in July 2006. Delivery was described as “upcoming” in SaudiUS embassy cables: Israel seeks to block US planes a cable dated November 2009 which suggested that the for Saudi”. The Guardian. 28 November 2010. weapon could be used against Iran’s nuclear facilities.[13] Fifty-five GBU-28’s were delivered to Israel in 2009.[14] [14] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/09/23/ In June 2009 United States agreed to sell the GBU-28s to South Korea, following the nuclear test conducted on 25 May 2009 by North Korea. The bombs were to be delivered between 2010 and 2014.[15]
president-obama-secretly-approved-transfer-of-bunker-buster-bombs-to-isr html
[15] “US to sell 'bunker-buster' bombs to SKorea: official”. AFP. 2 June 2009. Retrieved 22 December 2011.
According to the Jerusalem Post on 23 December 2011 [16] www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=250992. the US Justice Department announced that it had reached a settlement with Kaman Corp. which allegedly substi- Bibliography tuted a fuse in four lots of fuses made for the bombs. Under the settlement, Kaman Corp. will pay the gov• Clancy, Tom. “Ordnance: How Bombs Got ernment $4.75 million. Israel is concerned it had also 'Smart'". Fighter Wing. London: HarperCollins, received GBU-28 bombs fused to prematurely detonate 1995. ISBN 0-00-255527-1. before penetration or at other times.[16] • Kopp, Carlo. “The GBU-28 Bunker Buster”. Ausairpower.net, June 2011 (last updated).
330.3 See also • HOPE/HOSBO
330.4 References Notes [1] Report to Congress on the Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, Es.rice.edu, retrieved 14 July 2011 [2] “PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION”. USAF. Retrieved 29 January 2012. [3] Clancy 1995, p. 154. [4] Raytheon (Texas Instruments) Paveway III, Designationsystems.net, 21 August 2008, retrieved 14 July 2011 [5] “BLU-122/B Penetrator”. General Dynamics. Retrieved 14 March 2014. [6] “Manufacture of Bomb Live Unit-122 (BLU-122), a 5000 pound Class of penetrator warhead case.”. Federal Business Opportunities. Retrieved 14 March 2014. [7] Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) Bunker Buster — Smart Weapons, FAS.org, retrieved 14 July 2011 [8] Clancy 1995, p. 155.
330.5 External links • Raas, Whitney; Long, Austin (April 2006), Osirak Redux? Assessing Israeli Capabilities to Destroy Iranian Nuclear Facilities, Security Studies Program Working Paper (PDF), MIT
Chapter 331
GBU-37 GPS-Aided Munition The GBU-37 (Guided Bomb Unit-37) Global Positioning System Aided Munition (GAM) was developed for use with the B-2 Bomber. The bomb can penetrate hardened targets or targets buried deep underground. The first all-weather precision-guided bunker buster, it became operational in 1997.[1][2] It has been replaced on the B-2 by the 5000-pound GPS-aided/INS-guided GBU-28.
331.1 References [1] “Global Positioning System Aided Munition (GAM) GBU-36/B & GBU-37/B”. Smart Weapons. GlobalSecurity.org. Retrieved 29 January 2012. [2] “PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION”. USAF. Retrieved 29 January 2012.
331.2 External links • Northrop Grumman GAM (GPS-Aided Munition) - Designation Systems
848
Chapter 332
GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast “MOAB” redirects here. (disambiguation).
For other uses, see Moab use MOAB as an anti-personnel weapon, as part of the "shock and awe" strategy integral to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[5]
The GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB pronounced /ˈmoʊ.æb/, commonly known as the Mother of All Bombs) is a large-yield conventional (non-nuclear) bomb, developed for the United States military by Albert L. Weimorts, Jr. of the Air Force Research Laboratory.[1] At the time of development, it was touted as the most powerful non-nuclear weapon ever designed.[2] The bomb was designed to be delivered by a C-130 Hercules, primarily the MC-130E Combat Talon I or MC130H Combat Talon II variants. Since then, Russia has tested its "Father of All Bombs", which is claimed to be four times as powerful as the MOAB.[3]
The MOAB is not a penetrator weapon and is primarily intended for soft to medium surface targets covering extended areas and targets in a contained environment such as a deep canyon or within a cave system. However, multiple strikes with lower yield ordnance may be more effective and can be delivered by fighter/bombers such as the F-16 with greater stand-off capability than the C-130 and C-17. High altitude carpet-bombing with much smaller 230 to 910 kilograms (500 to 2,000 lb) bombs delivered via heavy bombers such as the B-52 or B-2 is also highly effective at covering large areas.[6] • GBU-43/B on display at the Air Force Armament Museum, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. Note the grid fins.
332.1 Operational history MOAB was first tested with the explosive tritonal on 11 March 2003, on Range 70 located at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. It was again tested on 21 November 2003.[2] Aside from two test articles, the only known production is of 15 units at the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant in 2003 in support of the Iraq War. A single MOAB was moved to the Persian Gulf area in April 2003 but it was never used.[4] Since none of those is known to have been used as of early 2007, the U.S. inventory of GBU-43/B presumably remains at approximately 15.
• Al Weimorts (left), the creator of the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb, and Joseph Fellenz, lead model maker, look over the prototype before it was painted and tested. • Prototype MOAB an instant before impact on Eglin AFB’s Range 70.
332.3 See also 332.4 References Notes
332.2 Evaluations The basic operational concept bears some similarity to the BLU-82 Daisy Cutter, which was used to clear heavily wooded areas in the Vietnam War and in Iraq to clear mines and later as a psychological weapon against the Iraqi military. After witnessing the psychological impact of the BLU-82 on enemy soldiers, and not having any BLU-82 weapons remaining, the MOAB was developed partly to continue the role of intimidating the Iraqi soldiers. Pentagon officials had suggested their intention to
849
[1] Times Wire Services (27 December 2005). “Albert L. Weimorts Jr. 67; Engineer Created 'Bunker Buster' Bombs”. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 8 July 2010. [2] GBU-43/B / “Mother Of All Bombs” / Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb [3] Luke Harding (12 September 2007). “Russia unveils the 'father of all bombs’". The Guardian. Retrieved 12 September 2007. [4] MOAB bomb moved to Iraq war region
850
CHAPTER 332. GBU-43/B MASSIVE ORDNANCE AIR BLAST
[5] “Enter Moab”. National Review Online. 2003. Retrieved 9 December 2011. [6] “United States Military Weapons of War”. about.com. 2007. Retrieved 9 December 2007.
332.5 External links • AFRL GBU-43/B MOAB—Designation Systems • MOAB - Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb— GlobalSecurity.org • DoD News Briefing 11 March 2003 - Test of a MOAB (RTSP stream) • Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb Test Video • Five years later, it’s still known as 'Mother of all bombs’—af.mil
Chapter 333
GBU-44/B Viper Strike The GBU-44/B Viper Strike glide bomb is a GPS-aided laser-guided variant of the Northrop Grumman Brilliant Anti-Tank (BAT) munition which originally had a combination acoustic and infrared homing seeker. The system was initially intended for use from UAVs, and it has also been integrated with the Lockheed AC-130 gunship, giving that aircraft a precision stand-off capability.[1] The Viper Strike is now produced by MBDA.
On September 1, 2009, it was reported that the Hunter had successfully completed testing of the new GPSguided Viper Strike weapons system and that it would soon deploy to theater.[6] On June 2, 2010, Northrop announced that the Viper Strike would be added to the United States Marine Corps' KC-130J refueling and cargo aircraft. Northrop delivered 65 munitions.[7]
On December 12, 2011, MBDA Inc. purchased Northrop Grumman’s Viper Strike munitions business lo333.1 History cated in Huntsville, Alabama. The purchase was the company’s first acquisition in the U.S. as part of their growth strategy to position MBDA as a leading precision muni333.1.1 Testing tions firm and give them a stronger capability in the growThe Viper Strike bomb first underwent testing in 2003. ing market to create and produce new weapons for un[8] On March 29 and 30, Viper Strikes released from an RQ- manned aerial vehicles. 5 Hunter UAV scored 7 out of 10 direct hits at White On April 16, 2012, Viper Strike bombs scored multiple Sands Missile Range. The other three bombs missed direct hits from a KC-130J Harvest Hawk at the Naval their targets by a few feet but still inflicted measurable Air Warfare Center’s China Lake, California Weapons damage. The objective of the tests was to validate the Station. The munitions were dropped from the new presconcept of the Viper Strike and the operational feasi- surized “derringer door,” which uses a side door in the bility of Viper Strike integrated on the Hunter UAV.[2] fuselage that enables the aircraft to launch and reload muIn June 2005, Northrop integrated the Global Position- nitions while the aircraft remains pressurized.[9] ing System (GPS) into the laser-guided munition to proIn August 2012, MBDA announced that Viper Strike muvide highly accurate midcourse guidance. This allowed nitions scored direct hits against high speed vehicles durthe weapon to be launched from much greater altitude ing a two-day test. Viper Strikes successfully hit eight and standoff range. During tests, an unarmed weapon vehicles travelling at “extremely high speeds” in varying successfully acquired GPS data after dispensing from an realistic scenarios.[10][11] aircraft and flew to pre-assigned GPS waypoints. Following an extended, nearly horizontal midcourse flight, the GPS-enhanced munition switched over to the semiactive laser seeker once it entered the target area to detect 333.2 Launch platforms and track the laser-designated target.[3] In January 2007, • Current: Viper Strikes successfully destroyed a series of moving and stationary targets in testing at the White Sands Mis• MQ-5 Hunter [12] sile Range. They were guided to their targets by the • KC-130J Harvest Hawk [13] Hunter UAV’s laser targeting system.[4] • AC-130W Stinger II [14]
333.1.2
• Planned:
Deployment and Continued Tests
The GBU-44/B Viper Strike was first used in combat in September 2007. An MQ-5A Hunter UAV used one to kill two men who were setting up a roadside bomb.[5] 851
• AC-130J Ghostrider [15] • AC-27J Stinger • MH-6 Little Bird
852
CHAPTER 333. GBU-44/B VIPER STRIKE • MQ-1 Predator • MQ-1C Gray Eagle • MQ-8 Fire Scout
333.3 Specifications
[10] MBDA’S Viper Strike Munition Scores Direct Hits Against High Speed Targets - MBDA press release, September 4, 2012 [11] MBDA demonstrates Viper Strike against faster ground targets - Janes.com, 4 September 2012 [12] “Northrop Grumman (TRW/IAI) BQM-155/RQ-5/MQ5 Hunter”.
• Length: 0.9 m (36 in).[16]
[13] “Northrop Grumman press release”.
• Weight: 20 kg (42 lb).
[14] “The U.S. Air Force’s New AC-130 Gunships are Really Bomb Trucks”
• Diameter: 14 cm (5.5 in). • Wingspan: 0.9 m (36 in).
[15] “The U.S. Air Force’s New AC-130 Gunships are Really Bomb Trucks”
• Glide ratio: 10:1 [16]
[16] “Viper Strike Overview (PDF) - dtic.mil”.
• Guidance: ing.[17][18]
[17] “Viper Strike”. Deagel. Retrieved 2013-01-20.
GPS-midcourse/terminal laser hom-
• Accuracy: < 1 m CEP. • Warhead: 1.05 kg (2.3 lb) (HEAT).[16]
[18] “Northrop Grumman Demonstrates Viper Strike Precision Munition Enhanced with GPS”.
333.6 External links
333.4 See also
• Northrop Grumman BAT / GBU-44/B Viper Strike - Designation Systems
• AGM-175 Griffin
• GBU-44 Viper Strike: Death From Above - Defense Industry Daily
• MQ-9 Reaper
• GBU-44/B Viper Strike - MBDA
333.5 References [1] “Viper Strike Laser Guided Weapon for UAVs”. Defense Update. 2005-09-25. Retrieved 2013-01-20. [2] Viper Strike Scores Direct Hits in US Army-Northrop Tests - Deagel.com, April 9, 2003 [3] Greater Launch Altitude for Viper Strike - Deagel.com, June 15, 2005 [4] Hunter-Viper Strike Completes Testing at White Sands Missile Range - Deagel.com, February 28, 2007 [5] Viper Strike in service - Strategypage.com, April 7, 2009 [6] Hunter Unmanned Air System Successfully Completes GPS-guided Viper Strike Testing - Deagel.com, September 1, 2009 [7] Viper Strike Being Added to US Marines KC-130J Aircraft Arsenal - Deagel.com, June 2, 2010 [8] MBDA Incorporated Purchases Northrop Grumman’s Viper Strike Munitions - MBDA press release, December 12, 2011 [9] VIPER STRIKE SCORES MULTIPLE DIRECT HITS FROM USMC'S KC-130J HARVEST HAWK - MBDA press release, April 16, 2012
Chapter 334
Joint Direct Attack Munition The Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) is a guidance kit that converts unguided bombs, or “dumb bombs” into all-weather “smart” munitions. JDAM-equipped bombs are guided by an integrated inertial guidance system coupled to a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver, giving them a published range of up to 15 nautical miles (28 km). JDAM-equipped bombs range from 500 pounds (227 kg) to 2,000 pounds (907 kg).[1] When installed on a bomb, the JDAM kit is given a GBU (Guided Bomb Unit) nomenclature, superseding the Mark 80 or BLU (Bomb, Live Unit) nomenclature of the bomb to which it is attached. The JDAM is not a stand-alone weapon, rather it is a “bolt-on” guidance package that converts unguided gravity bombs into Precision-Guided Munitions, or PGMs. The key components of the system consist of a tail section with aerodynamic control surfaces, a (body) strake kit, and a combined inertial guidance system and GPS guidance control unit. The JDAM was meant to improve upon laser-guided bomb and imaging infrared technology, which can be hindered by bad ground and weather conditions. Laser seekers are now being fitted to some JDAMs.[2] From 1998 to August 20, 2013, Boeing delivered 250,000 JDAM kits, producing over 40 guidance kits per day.[3]
334.1 Etymology The JDAM’s guidance system was jointly developed by the United States Air Force and United States Navy, hence the “joint” in JDAM.[4]
334.2 History 334.2.1
Development
U.S. Navy sailors attach a JDAM kit aboard the USS Constellation (CV-64), in March 2003.
function regardless of environmental factors. Laser guidance packages on bombs proved exceptionally accurate in clear conditions, but with significant amounts of airborne dust, smoke, fog, or cloud cover, the guidance packages had difficulty maintaining “lock” on the laser designation. Research, development, testing and evaluation (RDT&E) of an “adverse weather precision guided munition” began in 1992. Several proposals were considered, including a radical concept that used GPS. At the time, there were few GPS satellites and the idea of using satellite navigation for real-time weapon guidance was untested and controversial. To identify the technical risk associated with an INS/GPS guided weapon, the Air Force created in early 1992 a rapid-response High Gear program called the “JDAM Operational Concept Demonstration” (OCD) at Eglin Air Force Base. Honeywell, Interstate Electronics Corporation, Sverdrup Technology, and McDonnell Douglas were hired to help the USAF 46th Test Wing demonstrate the feasibility of a GPS weapon within one year. The OCD program fitted a GBU-15 guided bomb with an INS/GPS guidance kit and on 10 February 1993, dropped the first INS/GPS weapon from an F-16 on a target 88,000 feet (27 km) downrange. Five more tests were run in various weather conditions, altitudes, and ranges.[5] The OCD program demonstrated an 11-meter Circular Error Probable (CEP).
The U.S. Air Force’s bombing campaign during the Persian Gulf War's Operation Desert Storm was less ef- The first JDAM kits were delivered in 1997, with opfective than initially reported, due in part to the lack of erational testing conducted in 1998 and 1999. During a precision guidance package for its bombs that would testing, over 450 JDAMs were dropped achieving a sys853
854
CHAPTER 334. JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION
JDAMs loaded under the left wing of a F-16 Fighting Falcon with a LITENING II Targeting Pod visible beneath the fuselage OCD First Flight Test of the first GPS guided weapon, a direct hit on the target, Eglin Air Force Base, on February 10, 1993.
tem reliability in excess of 95% with a published accuracy under 10 metres (33 ft) CEP.[6] In addition to controlled parameter drops, the testing and evaluation of the JDAM also included “operationally representative tests” consisting of drops through clouds, rain and snow with no decrease in accuracy from clear weather tests. In addition, there have been tests involving multiple weapon drops with each weapon being individually targeted.[7] JDAM and the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber made their combat debuts during Operation Allied Force. The B-2s, flying 30-hour, nonstop, round-trip flights from Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, delivered more than 650 JDAMs during Allied Force. An article published in a military acquisition journal in 2002 cites that “during Operation Allied Force ... B-2s launched 651 JDAMs with 96% reliability and hit 87% of intended targets...”[8] Due to the operational success of the original JDAM, the program expanded to the 500 pounds (227 kg) Mark 82 and 1,000 pounds (454 kg) Mark 83, beginning development in late 1999. As a result of lessons learned during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, both the US Navy and US Air Force pursued enhancements to the kits such as improved GPS accuracy as well as a precision seeker for terminal guidance for use against moving targets. JDAM bombs are inexpensive compared to alternatives such as cruise missiles. The original cost estimate was $40,000 each for the tail kits; however, after competitive bidding, contracts were signed with McDonnell Douglas (later Boeing) for delivery at $18,000 each. Unit costs have since increased to $21,000 in 2004 and $27,000 by 2011.[9] For comparison, the newest Tomahawk cruise missile, dubbed the Tactical Tomahawk, costs nearly $730,000.[10][11]
334.2.2
Operational use
Guidance is facilitated through a tail control system and a GPS-aided inertial navigation system (INS). The naviga-
tion system is initialized by transfer alignment from the aircraft that provides position and velocity vectors from the aircraft systems. Once released from the aircraft, the JDAM autonomously navigates to the designated target coordinates. Target coordinates can be loaded into the aircraft before takeoff, manually altered by the aircrew in flight prior to weapon release, or entered by a datalink from onboard targeting equipment, such as the LITENING II or “Sniper” targeting pods. In its most accurate mode, the JDAM system will provide a minimum weapon accuracy CEP of five meters or less when a GPS signal is available. If the GPS signal is jammed or lost, the JDAM can still achieve a 30 meter CEP or less for free flight times up to 100 seconds.[4] The introduction of GPS guidance to weapons brought several improvements to air-to-ground warfare. The first is a real all-weather capability since GPS is not affected by rain, clouds, fog, smoke, or man-made obscurants. Previous precision guided weapons relied on seekers using infrared, visual light, or a reflected laser spot to “see” the ground target. These seekers were not effective when the target was obscured by fog and low altitude clouds and rain (as encountered in Kosovo), or by dust and smoke (as encountered in Desert Storm). The second advantage is an expanded launch acceptance region (LAR). The LAR defines the region that the aircraft must be within to launch the weapon and hit the target. Non-GPS based precision guided weapons using seekers to guide to the target have significant restrictions on the launch envelope due to the seeker field of view. Some of these systems (such as the Paveway I, II, and III) must be launched so that the target remains in the seeker field of view throughout the weapon trajectory (or for lock-on-after-launch engagements, the weapon must be launched so that the target is in the field of view during the terminal flight). This requires the aircraft to fly generally straight at the target when launching the weapon. This restriction is eased in some other systems (such as the GBU-15 and the AGM-130) through the ability of a Weapon System Operator (WSO) in the aircraft to manually steer the weapon to the target. Using a WSO requires
334.2. HISTORY
855
a data link between the weapon and the controlling aircraft and requires the controlling aircraft to remain in the area (and possibly vulnerable to defensive fire) as long as the weapon is under manual control. Since GPS-based flight control systems know the weapon’s current location and the target location, these weapons can autonomously adjust the trajectory to hit the target. This allows the launch aircraft to release the weapon at very large offaxis angles including releasing weapons to attack targets behind the aircraft.
JDAMs prior to being loaded for operations over Iraq, 2003
nearly overwhelming them. The SF commander requested Close Air Support (CAS) to strike the Taliban positions in an effort to stop their advance. A JDAM was subsequently dropped, but instead of striking the Taliban positions, it struck the Afghan/American position, killing three and injuring 20. An investigation of the incident determined that the U.S. Air Force Tactical Control Party (TACP) attached to the Special Forces team had changed the battery in the GPS receiver at some point during the GBU-38 explosions in Iraq in 2008. battle, thereby causing the device to return to “default” The third advantage is a true “fire-and-forget” capabil- and “display its own coordinates.” Not realizing that this relayed his own coordinates to ity in which the weapon does not require any support af- had occurred, the TACP [12][13] the delivery aircraft. ter being launched. This allows the launching aircraft to leave the target area and proceed to its next mission immediately after launching the GPS guided weapon.
334.2.3 Upgrades
Another important capability provided by GPS-based guidance is the ability to completely tailor a flight trajectory to meet criteria other than simply hitting a target. Weapon trajectories can be controlled so that a target can be impacted at precise headings and vertical angles. This provides the ability to impact perpendicular to a target surface and minimize the angle of attack (maximizing penetration), detonate the warhead at the optimum angle to maximize the warhead effectiveness, or have the weapon fly into the target area from a different heading than the launch aircraft (decreasing the risk of detection of the aircraft). GPS also provides an accurate time source common to all systems; this allows multiple weapons to loiter and impact targets at preplanned times DSU-33 Airburst sensor (right) and intervals. In recognition of these advantages, most weapons including the Paveway, GBU-15, and the AGM-130 have been upgraded with a GPS capability. This enhancement combines the flexibility of GPS with the superior accuracy of seeker guidance. Despite their precision, JDAM employment has risks. On 5 December 2001, a JDAM dropped by a B-52 in Afghanistan nearly killed Hamid Karzai, while he was leading anti-Taliban forces near Sayd Alim Kalay alongside a US Army Special Forces (SF) team. A large force of Taliban soldiers had engaged the combined force of Karzai’s men and their American SF counterparts,
Experience during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom led US air power planners to seek additional capabilities in one package, resulting in ongoing program upgrades to place a precision terminal guidance seeker in the JDAM kit.[14] The Laser JDAM (LJDAM), as this upgrade is known, adds a laser seeker to the nose of a JDAM equipped bomb, giving the ability to engage moving targets to the JDAM. The Laser Seeker is a cooperative development between Boeing's Defense, Space and Security unit and Israel’s Elbit Systems.[15] It is called Precision Laser Guidance Set (PLGS) by Boeing and consists of the Laser Seeker itself, now known
856 as DSU-38/B, and a wire harness fixed under the bomb body to connect the DSU-38/B with the tail kit. During FY2004, Boeing and the U.S. Air Force began testing of the laser guidance capability for JDAM, with these tests demonstrating that the system is capable of targeting and destroying moving targets.[16] This dual guidance system retains the ability to operate on GPS/INS alone, if laser guidance is unavailable, with the same accuracy of the earlier JDAM.
CHAPTER 334. JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION The GBU-54 LJDAM made its combat debut on August 12, 2008 in Iraq when a F-16 from the 77th Fighter Squadron engaged a moving vehicle in Diyala province.[20] Furthermore, the GBU-54 LJDAM made its combat debut in the Afghan theater by the 510th Fighter Squadron in October 2010.[21] In September 2012, Boeing began full-rate production of Laser JDAM for US Navy and received a contract for more than 2,300 bomb kits.[22] On July 24, 2008 Germany signed a contract with Boeing to become the first international customer of LJDAM. Deliveries for the German Air Force began in mid-2009. The order also includes the option for further kits in 2009.[23] In November 2014, the U.S. Air Force began development of a version of the GBU-31 JDAM intended to track and attack sources of electronic warfare jamming directed to disrupt the munitions’ guidance. The Homeon-Jam seeker works similar to the AGM-88 HARM to follow the source of a radio-frequency jammer to destroy it.[24]
334.2.4 JDAM Extended Range In 2006, the Australian Defence Science and Technology Organisation in conjunction with Boeing Australia successfully tested extended range JDAM variants at Woomera Test Range.[25] In 2009, Boeing announced that it will jointly develop the Joint Direct Attack Munition Extended Range (JDAMER) with South Korea.[26] The guidance kit will triple the range of JDAM to 80 km for the same accuracy, and will cost $10,000 per unit.[27] The first prototypes are to be completed in 2010 or 2011. The wing kits of Australia’s JDAM-ER weapons will be built by Ferra Engineering. First tests are to be conducted [28] On June 11, 2007, Boeing announced that it had been in 2013 with production orders in 2015. awarded a $28 million contract by the U.S. Air Force to deliver 600 laser seekers (400 to the air force and 200 to the navy) by June 2009.[17] According to the Boeing 334.3 Integration Corporation, in tests at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcons and F-15E Strike Ea334.3.1 Current gles dropped twelve (12) 500 pounds (227 kg) LJDAMs that successfully struck high-speed moving targets. UsJDAM is currently compatible with: ing onboard targeting equipment, the launch aircraft selfdesignated, and self-guided their bombs to impact on • A-4 Skyhawk the targets. In addition to the LJDAM kits, Boeing is also testing under a navy development contract, an anti• AV-8B Harrier II jamming system for the JDAM, with development expected to be completed during 2007, with deliveries to • A-10 Thunderbolt II commence in 2008.[18] The system is known as the Inte• AMX International AMX grated GPS Anti-Jam System (IGAS). GBU-54 laser seeker.
Boeing announced on September 15, 2008 that it had conducted demonstration flights with the LJDAM loaded aboard a B-52H.[19]
• B-1B Lancer • B-2A Spirit
334.4. OPERATORS
857
334.3.2 Past JDAM was compatible with the following aircraft: • F-14A/B/D Tomcat – retired • F-117 Nighthawk – retired • S-3 Viking – retired
334.4 Operators JDAMs loaded onto a Heavy Stores Adaptor Beam (HSAB) under the wing of a B-52H Stratofortress
Apart from being used by its main user—the United States military—the U.S. government has also approved the JDAM for export sale under the Arms Export Control Act, though in limited numbers to only a few countries.
334.4.1 Export customers •
Australia[30]
•
Belgium
•
Canada: The Royal Canadian Air Force used their first JDAM during Operation Mobile in 2011.[31]
•
Chile
•
Denmark
•
Egypt
• B-52H Stratofortress
•
Finland[32][33]
• F-15E Strike Eagle
•
2000lb GBU-31s ripple drop in Afghanistan by two F-15Es, 2009.
• F-16C Fighting Falcon • CF-18 Hornet • F/A-18A+/A++/C/D Hornet • F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
•
Greece[34]
•
Indonesia
•
Israel[35]
•
• F-22 Raptor • F-35 Lightning II
Germany: first international customer of LJDAM
Italy:[36] Between 900 and 1000 GBU-31s and GBU-32s were produced in Italy for the Aeronautica Militare by Oto Melara
•
Japan: + LJDAM[37]
•
Malaysia[38]
•
Morocco [39]
•
Netherlands[40]
• Mirage F-1
•
Norway[41]
• Saab JAS 39 Gripen
•
Oman
• A-29 Super Tucano[29]
•
Poland
• KAI FA-50
•
Portugal
• MQ-9 Reaper • Mitsubishi F-2 • Panavia Tornado
858
CHAPTER 334. JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION
•
Saudi Arabia[42]
•
Singapore
•
South Korea
•
Spain:[43] Spanish Naval Air Arm EAV-8B+ (only GBU-38)
•
Thailand
•
Turkey
•
United Arab Emirates
334.5 General characteristics • Primary function: Guided air-to-surface weapon • Contractor: Boeing • Length: (JDAM and warhead) GBU-31 (v) 1/B: 152.7 inches (3,880 mm); GBU-31 (v) 3/B: 148.6 inches (3,770 mm); GBU-32 (v) 1/B: 119.5 inches (3,040 mm) • Launch weight: (JDAM and warhead) GBU-31 (v) 1/B: 2,036 pounds (924 kg); GBU-31 (v) 3/B: 2,115 pounds (959 kg); GBU-32 (v) 1/B: 1,013 lb 1,013 pounds (459 kg) • Wingspan: GBU-31: 25 inches (640 mm); GBU32: 19.6 inches (500 mm) • Range: Up to 15 nautical miles (28 km) • Ceiling: 45,000 feet (14,000 m) • Guidance system: GPS/INS • Unit cost: Approximately $22,000 per tailkit (FY 07 dollars)[4] • Date deployed: 1999 • Inventory: The tailkit is in full-rate production. Projected inventory is approximately 240,000 total, 158,000 for the US Air Force and 82,000 for the US Navy. (As of October 2005)
USAF artist rendering of JDAM kits fitted to Mk 84, BLU-109, Mk 83, and Mk 82 unguided bombs.
• GBU-32(V)1/B (USAF) Mk-83 • GBU-32(V)2/B (USN/USMC) Mk-83 • GBU-35(V)1/B (USN/USMC) BLU-110 • 500 lb (225 kg) nominal weight • GBU-38/B (USAF) Mk-82,(USN/USMC) Mk-82 and BLU-111 • GBU-54/B LaserJDAM (MK-82)
334.7 Similar systems • HGK (bomb) designed and developed by Turkish Defence Institute TUBITAK-SAGE[44][45] • Spice (munition) - guidance kit developed by Rafael for the Israeli Air Force • SMKB - Brazilian guidance kit developed by Mectron and Britanite
334.8 See also • GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb • HOPE/HOSBO • AASM
334.6 Variants • 2,000 lb (900 kg) nominal weight • GBU-31(V)1/B (USAF) Mk-84 • GBU-31(V)2/B (USN/USMC) Mk-84 • GBU-31(V)3/B (USAF) BLU-109 • GBU-31(V)4/B (USN/USMC) BLU-109 • 1,000 lb (450 kg) nominal weight
• JSOW
334.9 References [1] “JDAM continues to be warfighter’s weapon of choice”. Archived from the original on 2012-07-22. Retrieved 2007-07-27. [2] “Laser Guided JDAM Debuts in Iraq”. Defense Update. Retrieved 2010-10-05.
334.9. REFERENCES
859
[3] JDAM Weapon Program Reaches 250,000-Kit Milestone - Deagel.com, 20 August 2013
[22] Boeing Begins Full-Rate Production of Laser JDAM for US Navy - Defense-Aerospace.com, September 25, 2012
[4] “Joint Direct Attack Munition GBU- 31/32/38”. USAF. June 18, 2003. Retrieved 1 April 2014.
[23] Germany becomes the first international customer of LDJAM, Boeing.com
[5] INS/GPS Operational Concept Demonstration (OCD) High Gear Program, IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine, 8 August 1994.
[24] Air Force to enable smart weapons to track and kill sources of electronic warfare (EW) jamming - Militaryaerospace.com, 13 November 2014
[6] “JDAM: The Kosovo Experience and DPAS” (PDF). The Boeing Company, Charles H. Davis. 19 April 2000. Retrieved 2007-09-01.
[25] TESTS OF EXTENDED RANGE ‘SMART’ BOMBS Australian Department of Defence, 12 September 2009
[7] “U.S. Air Force B-2 Bomber Drops 80 JDAMS in Historic Test” (Press release). The Boeing Company. 17 September 2003. Retrieved 2007-09-02. [8] Myers, Dominique (2002). “Acquisition Reform-Inside The Silver Bullet” (PDF). Acquisition Review Journal. IX, no. 2 (Fall 2002): 312–322. Archived from the original on 2007-09-26. Retrieved 2007-09-01. [9] “Air Force Justification Book Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force”. Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 Budget Estimates. US Air Force. Retrieved 29 December 2011. [10] “The JDAM Revolution” article by Peter Grier in Air Force Online, the journal of the Air Force Association, September, 2006. [11] “BGM-109 Tomahawk: Variants”. Retrieved 2007-0727.(p 52) [12] Mark Burgess (June 12, 2002). “Killing Your Own: The Problem of Friendly Fire During the Afghan Campaign”. CDI. Retrieved 2010-10-05. [13] uni-bielefeld.de Why–because analysis (p. 9). [14] “Dual Mode Guided Bomb”. Deagel.com. Retrieved 2010-10-05. [15] U.S. Backs Israeli Munitions Upgrades, Defence News, May 3 2010. [16] “Boeing Scores Direct Hit in Laser JDAM Moving Target Test”. The Boeing Company. July 11, 2006. Retrieved 2010-10-05. [17] “Boeing Awarded Laser JDAM Contract” (Press release). The Boeing Company. June 11, 2007. Retrieved 201010-05. [18] “Boeing Completes JDAM Anti-Jamming Developmental Flight Test Program” (Press release). The Boeing Company. June 18, 2007. Retrieved 2010-10-05. [19] Boeing Press Release, 15 September 2008.
[26] Boeing Partners with Times Aerospace Korea to Develop Smart Bomb. Aerospace-Technology [27] James M. Hasik (2008). Arms and Innovation: Entrepreneurship and Alliances in the Twenty-First Century Defense Industry. ISBN 978-0-226-31886-8. [28] “Australia’s Ferra Engineering to produce JDAM-ER wing kits.” [29] “Bringing Back Counter-Insurgency: AT-6B vs. A-29B” Defence Talk, 10 September 2011. Retrieved: 15 January 2012. [30] “boeing.com Boeing JDAM Wins Australian Competition”. Archived from the original on 2007-04-11. Retrieved 2007-07-27. [31] “CF-188 Hornets on Op MOBILE drop first JDAM bombs”. Retrieved 2011-10-27. [32] “FMS: Third Phase of Finnish F/A-18 MLU”. Retrieved 2007-07-27. [33] DoD [34] http://hellenicdefencenews.blogspot.com/search/label/ JDAM [35] “First International JDAM Sale: Boeing to Integrate Weapon on Israeli Aircraft”. Retrieved 2007-07-27. [36] “global security.org”. Retrieved 2007-07-27. [37]
2008-12 P118
[38] “SIPRI arms transfer database”. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Information generated in 6 November 2013. Check date values in: |date= (help) [39] [40] “Dutch secretary of defense details plan for purchase of JDAM’s”. Retrieved 2007-07-27. [41] “Norway Signs Contract for Boeing JDAM”. Retrieved 2007-07-27.
[20] “Air Force employs first combat use of laser joint direct attack munition in Iraq”. Media release. Joint Base Balad Public Affairs. 2008-08-27. Retrieved 27 March 2012.
[42] “Gates says Washington to sell smart bombs to Saudi Arabia”. Retrieved 2007-07-27.
[21] Nystrom, Tech. Sgt. Drew (10/1/2010). “Vultures make impact with first GBU-54 combat drop in Afghanistan”. Media release. 455th Air Expeditionary Wing Public Affairs Office. Retrieved 27 March 2012. Check date values in: |date= (help)
[44] “Komutanlar Anadolu Kartali'nda (In Turkish)". trieved 2010-10-05.
[43] “armada.mde.es”. Retrieved 2013-05-25. Re-
[45] “Anadolu Kartali'na Yerli Bilim Katkisi (In Turkish)". Retrieved 2010-10-05.
860
334.10 Bibliography • Bonds, Ray and David Miller (2002-08-05). Illustrated Directory of Modern American Weapons. Zenith Imprint, 2002. ISBN 0-7603-1346-6. • US Department of Defense. “Kosovo/Operation Allied Force After Action Report” (PDF). • JDAM Press releases
334.11 External links • Boeing: Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) • Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) JDAM - Designation Systems • Product Update: JDAM • Precision Strike Weapons • Diamond Back Range Extension Kit • How Smart Bombs Work • DAMASK Overview • Safeguarding GPS 14 April 2003 Scientific American • Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) • Boeing JDAM gallery • Video of a JDAM explosion on YouTube • JDAM Matures (Australian Aviation) • JDAM-ER (Extended Range) 15 October 2008 Defence Science and Technology Organisation
CHAPTER 334. JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION
Chapter 335
Massive Ordnance Penetrator The GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) is a U.S. Air Force, precision-guided, 30,000pound (13,608 kg) "bunker buster" bomb.[2] This is substantially larger than the deepest penetrating bunker busters previously available, the 5,000-pound (2,268 kg) GBU-28 and GBU-37.
U.S. Congress to shift funding in order to accelerate the project.[8][9] It was later announced by the U.S. military that “funding delays and enhancements to the planned test schedule” meant the bomb would not be deployable until December 2010, six months later than the original availability date.[10]
335.1 Development
The project has had at least one successful Flight Test MOP launch.[11] The final testing will be completed in 2012.[3]
In 2002, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin were working on the development of a 30,000-lb (13,600 kg) earth-penetrating weapon, said to be known as “Big BLU". But funding and technical difficulties resulted in the development work being abandoned. Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, analysis of sites that had been attacked with bunker-buster bombs revealed poor penetration and inadequate levels of destruction. This renewed interest in the development of a super-large bunkerbuster, and the MOP project was initiated by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to fulfill a long-standing Air Force requirement.[3] The U.S. Air Force has not officially recognized specific military requirement for an ultra-large bomb, but it does have a concept for a collection of massively sized penetrator and blast weapons, the so-called “Big BLU” collection, which includes the MOAB (Massive Ordnance Air Burst) bomb. Development of the MOP was performed at the Air Force Research Laboratory, Munitions Directorate, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida with design and testing work performed by Boeing. It is intended that the bomb will be deployed on the B-2 bomber, and will be guided by the use of GPS.[4][5]
The Air Force took delivery of 20 bombs, designed to be delivered by the B-2 bomber, in September 2011. In February 2012, Congress approved $81.6 million to further develop and improve the weapon.[12]
335.1.1 Recent development On 7 April 2011, the USAF ordered eight MOPs plus supporting equipment for $28 million.[13] On 14 November 2011, Bloomberg reported that the Air Force Global Strike Command started receiving the Massive Ordnance Penetrator and that the deliveries “will meet requirements for the current operational need”.[14] The Air Force now has received delivery of 16 MOPs as of November 2011.[15] And as of March 2012, there is an “operational stockpile” at Whiteman Air Force Base.[16] In 2012, the Pentagon requested $82 million to develop greater penetration power for the existing weapon.[1] A 2013 report stated that the development had been a success,[17] and B-2 integration testing began that year.[18]
Northrop Grumman announced a $2.5-million stealthbomber refit contract on 19 July 2007. Each of the U.S. Air Force’s B-2s is to be able to carry two 14-ton MOPs.[6][7] The initial explosive test of MOP took place on 14 March 2007 in a tunnel belonging to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) at the White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. On 6 October 2009, ABC News reported that the Pentagon had requested and obtained permission from the 861
• MOP being offloaded in preparation for its first explosive test, 2007. • MOP underground at White Sands Missile Range before its first explosive test, 2007. • Mock up of MOP inside a bomb bay of a B-2 simulator, 2007.[1] • B-52 releases a MOP during a weapons test, 2009. 1. ^ Cite error: The named reference WLT was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
862
CHAPTER 335. MASSIVE ORDNANCE PENETRATOR
335.2 Next-generation Penetrator 335.5 References Munition On 25 June 2010, USAF Lt. Gen. Phillip Breedlove said that the Next-generation Penetrator Munition should be about a third the size of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator so it could be carried by affordable aircraft.[19] In December 2010, the USAF had a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) for the Next Generation Penetrator (NGP).[20] Global Strike Command has indicated that one of the objectives for the Next-Generation Bomber is for it to carry a weapon with the effects of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator. This would either be with the same weapon or a smaller weapon that uses rocket power to reach sufficient speed to match the penetrating power of the larger weapon.[21] One of the current limitations of the MOP is that it lacks a void-sensing fuze and will therefore detonate after it has come to a stop, even if it passed by the target area.[22]
[1] Adam Entous; Julian E. Barnes (28 January 2012). “Pentagon Seeks Mightier Bomb vs. Iran”. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 15 December 2013. [2] B-2/Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) GBU-57A/B. FedBizOpps [3] “MASSIVE ORDNANCE PENETRATOR fact sheet”. US Air Force. 2011-11-18. Retrieved 2 January 2012. [4] GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) / Direct Strike Hard Target Weapon / Big BLU [5] Military & Aerospace Electronics, “Air Force ready to deploy 30,000-pound 'super bomb' on stealthy B-2 jet” [6] Feature—30,000-pound bomb reaches milestone. US Air Force [7] Northrop Grumman Begins Work to Equip B-2 Bomber with Massive Penetrator Weapon (NYSE:NOC) [8] Is the U.S. Preparing to bomb Iran? - ABC News
335.3 Specifications • Length: 20.5 feet (6.2 m)[23] • Diameter: 31.5 inches (0.8 m)[23] • Weight: 30,000 pounds (14 tonnes) • Warhead: 5,300 pounds (2.4 tonnes) high explosive • Penetration: 200 ft (61 m)[6]
335.4 See also
[9] http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/reprogramming_ memo_091006.pdf [10] Wolf, Jim (18 December 2009). “Exclusive: Pentagon delays new “bunker buster” bomb”. Reuters. [11] Team Edwards wins two safety awards [12] Capaccio, Tony, “Bunker-Buster Bomb Improvements Sought By Pentagon Win Approval”, Bloomberg L.P., 9 February 2012. [13] Reed, John. “USAF Getting More Penetrating Power.” DoD Buzz, 8 April 2011. [14] Capaccio, Tony. “30,000-Pound Bunker Buster Bomb Now Ready”. Bloomberg, 14 November 2011.
• Bunker buster
[15] “The Air Force now has the MOP”.
• Earthquake bomb
[16] Thompson, Mark. “Key Point: Bunker-Busters Come In Both Small and Large Sizes”. Time. 9 March 2012.
• Thermobaric weapon Specific large bombs
[17] Capaccio, Tony (15 January 2013). “Boeing’s 30,000pound bunker-buster bomb improved, Pentagon says”. Seattle Times. Retrieved 29 March 2013.
• BLU-82 Daisy Cutter bomb
[18] “Northrop, USAF Explore Diverse B-2 Weapons Options.”
• Father of All Bombs (FOAB)
[19] Daily Report AirForce Magazine, 25 June 2010.
• GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb (MOAB)
[20] “Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) - Next Generation Penetrator (NGP)"
• Grand Slam bomb
[21] Trimble, Stephen. “Penetrate faster, harder with new AFRL weapon.” Flightglobal, 20 February 2011.
• T-12 Cloudmaker
[22] “USAF Focuses On Next-Gen Hard-Target Killer.”
• Tallboy bomb
[23] Massive Ordnance Penetrator Fact Sheet
335.6. EXTERNAL LINKS
863
335.6 External links • Massive Ordnance Penetrator Fact Sheet—dtra.mil • First Massive Ordnance Penetrator Explosive Test Successful—dtra.mil • Boeing-Developed Massive Ordnance Penetrator Successfully Completes Static Lethality Test— Boeing • 'Bunker busters’ may grow to 30,000 pounds—CNN • Massive bomb to MOP up deeply buried targets— Jane’s Defence Weekly • A different kind of smart: weapons becoming autonomous and precise—Jane’s • Massive Ordnance GlobalSecurity.org
Penetrator
(MOP)—
• U.S. Outfitting B-2’s with Monster Bunker Buster Bombs - Iran May Be Target—NewsMax • MOPping Up: The USA’s 30,000 Pound Bomb • Kennedy-Feinstein Amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill on the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) • Rare image of a B-2 stealth bomber and its Massive Ordnance Penetrator bunker buster bomb
Chapter 336
Paveway
Top to bottom: A Paveway 2 computer control group, an Enhanced GBU-12, and a Laser-Guided Training Round, at the Paris Air Show 2007
A Paveway III seeker head, at the RAF Museum in Hendon, London.
Pave Spike, Pave Tack and Pave Knife, and for specialized military aircraft, such as AC-130U Pave Spectre, MH-53 Pave Low, and HH-60 Pave Hawk.
336.1 History The Paveway series of laser-guided bombs was developed by Texas Instruments starting in 1964. The program was conducted on a shoestring budget, but the resultant emphasis on simplicity and economical engineering proved to be a benefit, and a major advantage over other more complex guided weapons. The first test weapon, using a M117 bomb as the warhead, took place in April 1965. Prototype weapons were sent to Vietnam for combat testing starting in 1968.
Paveway III at ILA airshow 2006
Paveway is a trademark of Raytheon for laser-guided bombs and related goods and services, also used by Lockheed Martin for specific products under license.[1] Pave or PAVE is sometimes used as an acronym for precision avionics vectoring equipment; literally, electronics for controlling the speed and direction of aircraft. Laser guidance is a form of Pave.
In January 1967 the Air Force authorized Project 3169 as the formal engineering program for development of precision guided munitions, renewing its contract with TI in March to redesign the M117 kit, with a very aggressive timeline, projecting deployment to Vietnam for combat testing in one year. Direction of the program was assigned to the Guided Bomb Program Office at WrightPatterson Air Force Base in August, and flight testing begun in November at Eglin Air Force Base under the direction of an interagency organization called the Pave Way Task Force. At that time the program had three divisions:
Pave, paired with other words, also names laser systems that designate targets for LGBs, for example Pave Penny, 864
• Paveway 1 – laser-guided munitions • Paveway 2 – an electro-optical guidance (TV) mu-
336.1. HISTORY
865
nition developed by Rockwell International designated HOBO ("Homing Bomb”), of which 4,000 were eventually produced and 500 launched in combat, and
Existing LGBs in US service can be upgraded to Dual Mode Laser Guided Bombs (DMLGB) by adding GPS receivers which enable all weather employment. Lockheed Martin won the initial contract to provide DMLGBs to the US Navy (USN) in 2005, however • Paveway 3 – an infrared homing stem that was never subsequent-year money has been “zeroed” in favor of deployed. a follow-on Direct Attack Moving Target Capability (DAMTC) program. Raytheon’s version, the “Enhanced • Paveway 4 – dual mode GPS/Inertial guidance Paveway II”, has been contracted both within the US and abroad. Because Paveway 2, although considerably more accurate and capable, was four to five times more expensive per copy and much less applicable to most targeting situations in Vietnam, Paveway 1 became the emphasis of the program. Paveway kits attach to a variety of warheads, and consist of a semi-active laser (SAL) seeker, a computer control group (CCG) containing guidance and control electronics, thermal battery, and pneumatic control augmentation system (CAS). There are front control canards and rear wings for stability. The weapon guides on reflected laser energy: the seeker detects the reflected light (“sparkle”) of the designating laser, and actuates the canards to guide the bomb toward the designated point. The original Paveway series, retroactively named Paveway I, gave way in the early 1970s to the improved Paveway II, which had a simplified, more reliable seeker and pop-out rear wings to improve the weapon’s glide performance. Both Paveway I and Paveway II use a simple 'bang-bang' control system, where the CAS commands large canard deflections to make course corrections, resulting in a noticeable wobble. This had relatively little effect on accuracy, but expends energy quickly, limiting effective range. As a consequence, most users release Paveway I and II weapons in a ballistic trajectory, activating the laser designator only late in the weapon’s flight to refine the impact point. In 1976, the USAF issued a requirement for a new generation, dubbed Paveway III, that finally entered service in 1986. The Paveway III system used a much more sophisticated seeker with a wider field of view and proportional guidance, minimizing the energy loss of course corrections. Paveway III has a considerably longer glide range and greater accuracy than Paveway II, but it is substantially more expensive, limiting its use to high-value targets. Although Paveway III kits were developed for the smaller Mk 82 weapons, limited effectiveness caused the USAF to adopt the kit only for the larger 2,000 lb-class weapons (the Mk 84 and BLU-109). Paveway III guidance kits were also used on the GBU-28/B penetration bomb fielded at the close of the 1991 Gulf War. The Paveway III system was also used during the Indian offensive in the Kargil War of 1999 by the Indian Air Force with the Mirage 2000 as a launch platform. Raytheon, the sole provider of Paveway III variants, is currently delivering both standard and enhanced versions to the US Government and foreign customers.
Raytheon’s advanced Paveway IV 500 lb bomb has been in service since 2008 with Britain’s RAF, but it appears that the USAF remains committed to the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb program. The Paveway series of bombs includes: • GBU-10 Paveway II – Mk 84 or BLU-109 2,000 lb (907 kg) bomb • GBU-12 Paveway II – Mk 82 500 lb (227 kg) bomb • GBU-16 Paveway II – Mk 83 1,000 lb (454 kg) bomb • GBU-58 Paveway II – Mk 81 250 lb (113.4 kg) bomb • GBU-22 Paveway III – Mk 82 500 lb (227 kg) bomb. Developed at the same time as GBU-24, with some limited export success, but was not adopted by USA as it was felt to be too small a warhead for the desired effects at the time. • GBU-24 Paveway III – Mk 84/BLU-109 2,000 lb (907 kg) class bomb • GBU-27 Paveway III – BLU-109 2,000 lb (907 kg) bomb with penetration warhead, specially designed for F-117 because the large fins of GBU-24 couldn't fit into the bomb bay of F-117. • GBU-28 Paveway III – During the Gulf War, the deepest and most hardened Iraqi bunkers could not be defeated by the BLU-109/B penetrator warhead, so a much more powerful “bunker buster” GBU28 was developed. The latest warhead used in the GBU-28/B series is the BLU-122/B, a development of earlier BLU-113 on early GBU-28s. • Paveway IV – 500 lb (227 kg) bomb • GBU-48 Enhanced Paveway II – Mk 83 1,000 lb (454 kg) bomb. Raytheon’s Enhanced dual-mode GPS and Laser guided version of the laser-only GBU-16. • GBU-49 Enhanced Paveway II – BLU-133 500 lb (227 kg) bomb. Raytheon’s Enhanced dual-mode GPS and Laser guided version of the laser-only GBU-12.
866 • GBU-50 Enhanced Paveway II – Mk 84 or BLU-109 2,000 lb (907 kg) bomb. Raytheon’s Enhanced dualmode GPS and Laser guided version of the laseronly GBU-10. • GBU-59 Enhanced Paveway II – Mk 81 250 lb (113.4 kg) bomb. Raytheon’s Enhanced dual-mode GPS and Laser guided version of the laser-only GBU-58. Although GBU-48 etc. are the formal designation for the versions with GPS/INS, they are widely referred to as EGBU-16 etc. (“Enhanced GBU-16”).[2]
336.2 Assembly • • • •
336.3 Trademark Lockheed Martin and Raytheon compete to supply LGBs to the United States Air Force, and others. Raytheon claimed the exclusive right to use Paveway as a trademark for selling LGB-related products. Lockheed Martin claimed Paveway is a generic term in the defense industry. Lockheed objected to Raytheon’s registration of Paveway in opposition proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.[3] On September 27, 2011, the USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decided that Paveway is a generic term, in the United States, for LGBs.[4] Raytheon subsequently sued Lockheed Martin in Arizona federal court alleging trademark infringement, Lockheed filed counterclaims in the suit. In September, 2014 the companies agreed that Raytheon is the exclusive owner of “paveway” for laser-guided bombs and related goods and services and that “paveway” is a protectable trademark, but that Raytheon will license the mark to Lockheed for use in connection with single-mode laser-guided bomb kits.[5]
336.4 See also • Laser designator • Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) – a GPS guidance package for a standard iron bomb, built by the Boeing • SCALPEL
CHAPTER 336. PAVEWAY
336.5 References [1] , retrieved on October 8, 2014. [2] http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app5/ paveway-2.html [3] ttabvue.uspto.gov, , retrieved on July 4, 2009. [4] ttabvue.uspto.gov, , retrieved on October 3, 2011. [5] http://www.law360.com/articles/579498/ raytheon-lockheed-end-ip-war-over-paveway-bombs, retrieved on October 8, 2014.
336.6 External links • Paveway - Designation Systems
Chapter 337
Paveway IV Paveway IV is a dual mode GPS/INS and laser- discarding shroud design. A penetrating 500 lb Paveway guided bomb manufactured by Raytheon UK (formerly IV would replace the RAF’s previous 2,000 lb Paveway Raytheon Systems Limited).[1] It is the latest iteration of III bunker buster.[7] the Paveway series. The weapon is a guidance kit based on the existing Enhanced Paveway II Enhanced Computer Control Group (ECCG) added to a modified Mk 82 general-purpose bomb with increased penetration performance. The new ECCG contains a Height of Burst (HOB) sensor enabling air burst fusing options, and a SAASM (Selective Availability Anti Spoofing Module) compliant GPS receiver. It can be launched either IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit) only, given sufficiently good Transfer Alignment, or using GPS guidance. Terminal laser guidance is available in either navigation mode.
337.1 Operators •
United Kingdom Royal Air Force
•
337.2 References
The Paveway IV entered service with the Royal Air Force in 2008.[2] It has yet to be accepted into service with the United States, which has pursued the development of the Laser-JDAM and dual mode Small-Diameter Bomb (SDB).
[1] “Paveway IV”. Royal Air Force. Retrieved 7 January 2015. [2] “Paveway IV Smart Bomb Enters Service with Royal Navy and Royal Air Force”. Deagel.com. 10 December 2008. Retrieved 7 January 2015.
The Paveway IV’s first export sale was to the Royal Saudi Air Force in a deal worth approximately £150 million (US $247 million).[3] The deal had been delayed for several years by the U.S. State Department which had to authorise the bomb’s sale due to its use of American components. A contract was signed in December 2013 with Congressional approval given two months later, with deliveries to begin within 18 months.[4] The Paveway IV was first used operationally by the Royal Air Force during Operation Herrick in Afghanistan. It was later used operationally during Operation Ellamy in Libya.[1] In September 2014, a Tornado GR4 of the Royal Air Force dropped a Paveway IV bomb on a heavy weapon position operated by Islamic State militants in northwest Iraq, marking the first engagement of the British military against IS targets.[5] Eurofighter Typhoons of the Royal Saudi Air Force have also dropped Paveway IV’s on ISIL targets in Syria.[6]
Saudi Arabia[3] Royal Saudi Air Force
[3] “Saudi Arabia becomes first Paveway IV export customer”. IHS Jane’s. 25 March 2014. Retrieved 7 January 2015. [4] “Raytheon Secures First Export for Paveway IV”. Defense News. 25 March 2014. Retrieved 7 January 2015. [5] RAF Tornados strike first Islamic State targets - Flightglobal.com, 30 September 2014 [6] “Saudi Typhoons Use Paveway IV Bombs on ISIS”. Defense News. 25 February 2015. Retrieved 25 February 2015. [7] RAF To Be Equipped With Bunker Busting Version of Paveway IV - Defensenews.com, 18 November 2014
337.3 External links
Raytheon UK is conducting preparatory work to equip the Paveway IV with a bunker-busting warhead as part of the Selective Precision Effects At Range (Spear) Capability 1 program. The compact penetrator has the same outer mold line and mass of the regular Paveway IV and uses a 867
• RAF Tornados lock on latest guided munition
Chapter 338
Pyros (bomb) The Pyros, previously referred to as the Small Tactical Munition (STM), is a weapon developed by Raytheon, designed to be used by UAVs.[1][2][3]
[8] AUVSI: Raytheon completes end-to-end testing of Pyros bomb - Flightglobal.com, August 7, 2012 [9] Raytheon Small Tactical Munition Scores Direct Hit In
Raytheon successfully conducted flight tests in OctoFirst Guided Flight Test - Reuters.com, August 7, 2012 ber 2010, and it may be used to arm the AAI RQ-7 [10] Tiny Guided Bomb Scores a Direct Hit on Arizona Test Shadow.[4] Range - Raytheon news release, 21 August 2014
It weighs 13 pounds (5.9 kg), and originally had a 7 lb (3.2 kg) warhead.[5] On April 18, 2011, Raytheon successfully [11] Raytheon promotes Pyros for Middle East UAV operators - Flightglobal.com, 17 November 2013 tested a new 5 lb (2.3 kg) warhead. Though lighter, the new warhead had a significantly improved blast-fragment capability.[6] In July 2012, Raytheon claimed the STM could be “months” away from fielding.[7] In early August 2012, Raytheon renamed the munition Pyros and completed the first end-to-end test of the bomb.[8] The test validated the weapon’s guidance modes, height-of-burst sensor, electronic safe and arm device, and multi-effects warhead.[9]
338.2 External links
On 18 July 2014, Raytheon conducted the first live-fire test of the Pyros. The munition targeted a simulated group of insurgents planting a roadside bomb and used its height-of-burst sensor to detonate several feet above the ground.[10] Dropped from an altitude of 10,000 feet (3,000 m), the Pyros takes 35-40 seconds to reach the ground.[11]
338.1 References [1] “STM / Small Tactical Munition”. Retrieved 2010-12-19. [2] “Raytheon tests Small Tactical Munition for UAV’s”. Frontier India Defense News. Retrieved 2010-12-19. [3] “AUVSI: Raytheon designing UAV-specific weapons”. Retrieved 2010-12-19. [4] “USMC seeks to arm Shadow, fast and without US Army help”. Retrieved 2010-12-19. [5] “Raytheon Company: AUSA 2010: Griffin and Small Tactical Munition”. Retrieved 2010-12-19. [6] New Warhead Reduces Size of Small Tactical Munition Deagel.com, April 19, 2011 [7] Tiny 2-Foot Missile Could Be ‘Months’ Away From Drone War - Wired.com, July 13, 2012
868
• Pyros - Raytheon.com
Chapter 339
SCALPEL SCALPEL (Small Contained-Area Laser Precision Energetic Load) is a laser-guided bomb produced by Lockheed Martin. The weapon is being developed from the Enhanced Laser Guided Training Round (E-LGTR) which is the training version of the Paveway II series of bombs. The rationale behind the system is to provide a light, low-collateral damage weapon which can utilise the infrastructure and platform integration already in place for the E-LGTR system. On 14 March 2010, the US Navy announced its intention to purchase Scalpel. [1]
339.5 External links
339.1 Specifications • Weight: 100 lbs (45.3 kg) • Length: 75 in (1905 mm) • Diameter: 4 in (102 mm) • Guidance: Semi-active laser homing.
339.2 Program status • May 2008 - Three inert weapons successfully carried and released by AV-8B Harriers.[2]
339.3 See also • List of laser articles
339.4 References [1] “Lockheed’s Scalpel bomb finds first customer”. Flight Global. 2010. Retrieved 2010-05-19. [2] “Lockheed Martin Successful in First SCALPEL Flight Test”.
869
• SCALPEL | Lockheed Martin • Another Hundred Pound Wonder Weapon - Strategy Page
Chapter 340
Small Diameter Bomb fore the maximum range. Its size and accuracy allow for an effective munition with less collateral damage.[10] • Warhead penetration: 3 feet (0.91 m) of steel reinforced concrete [11] • Fuze: Electronic safe and fire (ESAF) cockpit selectable functions, including air burst and delayed options. The GBU-39 has a circular error probable (CEP) of 5– 8 meters,[10] which means it has a 50% probability of hitting within that distance of its intended target. CEP is reduced by updating differential GPS offsets prior to weapon release. These offsets are calculated using an GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb SDB Accuracy Support Infrastructure, consisting of three or more GPS receivers at fixed locations transmitting calThe GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) is a 250 lb culated location to a correlation station at the theatre Air (110 kg) precision-guided glide bomb that is intended to Operations Center. The corrections are then transmitted provide aircraft with the ability to carry a higher number by Link 16 to SDB-equipped aircraft. of bombs. Most US Air Force aircraft will be able to carry (using the BRU-61/A rack) a pack of four SDBs in place of a single 2,000 lb (907 kg) bomb.[7] 340.2 Development The Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB-II) / GBU-53/B scheduled to enter production in January 2014 will add a tri-mode seeker (radar, infrared homing, and semiactive laser guidance) to the INS and GPS guidance of the original SDB.[8]
340.1 Description The original SDB is equipped with a GPS-aided inertial navigation system to attack fixed/stationary targets such as fuel depots, bunkers etc. The second variant (Boeing’s GBU-40 or Raytheon’s GBU-53 (SDB II)) will include a thermal seeker and radar with automatic target recognition features for striking mobile targets such as tanks, vehicles, and mobile command posts.[9] The small size of the bomb allows a single strike aircraft to carry more of the munitions than is possible utilizing currently available bomb units. The SDB carries approximately 38 pounds (17 kg) of AFX-757 high explosive. It also has integrated “DiamondBack” type wings which deploy after release, increasing the glide time and there-
In 2002, while Boeing and Lockheed Martin were competing to develop the Small Diameter Bomb, Darleen A. Druyun—at that time Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition and Management— deleted the requirement for moving target engagement, which favored Boeing. She was later convicted of violating a conflict of interest statute.[12][13] On May 1, 2009, Raytheon announced that it had completed its first test flight of the GBU-53/B Small Diameter Bomb II, which has a data link and a tri-mode seeker built with technology developed for the Precision Attack Missile.[14] And on August 10, 2010 the U.S. Air Force awarded a $450 million contract for engineering and development.[15] Although unit costs were somewhat uncertain as of 2006, the estimated cost for the INS/GPS version was around US$70,000. Boeing and the Italian firm Oto Melara have signed a contract covering the license production of 500 GBU-39s (INS/GPS) and 50 BRU-61/a racks for the Aeronautica Militare, at a cost of nearly US$34 million. US$317m was spent on R&D and spares for SDB
870
340.4. VARIANTS II in FY13/14, with US$148.5m requested in these categories for FY15, the total budget split roughly 70:30 between USAF and USN.[2] SDB II production began in FY14 with 144 bombs for the USAF at a unit cost of US$250,000.[2] The FY15 budget requested 246 bombs at a cost of US$287,000 each.[2]
340.2.1
Timeline
• October 2001 – Boeing is awarded the SDB contract.[16]
871
340.4.1 SDB Focused Lethality Munition (FLM) Under a contract awarded in September 2006, Boeing is developing a version of the SDB I which replaces the steel casing with a lightweight composite casing and the warhead with a focused-blast explosive such as Dense Inert Metal Explosive (DIME). This should further reduce collateral damage when using the weapon for pin-point strikes in urban areas.[25] On 28 February 2008, Boeing celebrated the delivery of the first 50 FLM weapons.[26]
• September 2005 – Small Diameter Bomb certified The USAF intends to use the same FLM casing on a for operational test, evaluation.[17] weapon of 500 pounds (227 kg).[27] • September 2006 – SDB team deliver the first SDBs to the USAF.[18]
In December 2013, Boeing delivered the last of the 500 FLMs under contract.[28]
• October 2006 – Initial Operational Capability de340.4.2 clared for SDB on the F15E.[19] • October 2006 – First use in combat.[20] • February 2008 – 1,000th SDB I and first 50 FLM delivered.[21] • September 2008 – Israel receives approval from the US Congress to purchase 1,000 bombs.[22] • December 2008 – Reportedly used against Hamas facilities in the Gaza Strip, including underground rocket launchers.[22] • January 2009 – Unnamed Boeing official stated that they have yet to deliver any SDBs to Israel.[23] • August 2010 – U.S. Air Force selects Raytheon’s GBU-53/B for Small Diameter Bomb II Program.[24]
340.3 Aircraft
Ground-launched SDB
Boeing is modifying the Small Diameter Bomb with a rocket motor to be launched from ground-based missile systems such as the M270 MLRS. With the Army demilitarizing cluster munitions from M26 rockets, the company says a special adapter case could reuse the rocket to launch the SDB. After the motor launches it to a high enough altitude and speed, the wings will deploy and glide the bomb to its target. The company believes it can fill a gap for long-range precision fires while using its smaller warhead to save larger rocket munitions for strategic targets. While typical MLRS systems follow a ballistic trajectory, the rocket-launched SDB can be launched to an altitude and glide on a selected trajectory.[29][30] Boeing and Saab Group conducted three successful GLSDB tests in February 2015. The system is cost-effective, utilizing an existing weapon paired with a stockpiled rocket motor, while maintaining the loadout on a rocket artillery system. Unlike other artillery weapons, the GLSDB offers 360-degree coverage for high and low angles of attack, flying around terrain to hit targets on the back of mountains, or circling back around to a target behind the launch vehicle. The GLSDB has a range of 150 km (93 mi), and can also hit targets 70 km (43 mi) behind it.[31]
The SDB is currently integrated on the F-15E Strike Eagle, Panavia Tornado, and AC-130W. Future integration is planned for the F-16 Fighting Falcon, F-22 Raptor, F35 Lightning II, A-10 Thunderbolt II, B-1 Lancer, B-2 340.4.3 Laser SDB Spirit, and the B-52 Stratofortress. Other aircraft, includIn mid-2012, the U.S. Senate recommended zeroing out ing UCAVs, may also receive the necessary upgrades. funding for the SDB II due to fielding delays with the FGBU-39 began separation tests on the F-22 in early 35 Lightning II. With the delay in SDB II fielding, Boeing September 2007 after more than a year of sometimes dif- recommended an upgrade to their SDB as a temporary ficult work to integrate the weapon in the weapons bay gap-filler to get desired performance at a fraction of the and carry out airborne captive carry tests. cost. Called the Laser Small Diameter Bomb (LSDB), it integrates the laser used on the JDAM to enable the bomb to strike moving targets. Boeing began testing the LSDB in 2011 and successfully hit targets traveling 30–50 mph 340.4 Variants (48–80 km/h).[32] In June 2013, the Air Force announced
872 it would award Boeing a contract to develop and test the LSDB; the contract is for phase one part two engineering, integration and test, and production support and an LSDB Weapon Simulator. Boeing says the LSDB can be built at a lower cost than the planned Raytheon SDB II, as it will use the same semi-active laser sensor as the JDAM to hit moving and maritime targets. However, Boeing admits that it does not have the capability to engage targets in zero-visibility weather, as it lacks the SDB II’s millimeter wave radar.[33]
CHAPTER 340. SMALL DIAMETER BOMB
[20] GBU-39/B Makes Combat Debut in Iraq - USAF press release [21] Boeing Celebrates Small Diameter Bomb Delivery Milestones [22] Katz, Yaakov (2008-12-29). “IAF uses new US-supplied smart bomb”. Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 2008-12-29. [23] Butler, Amy (2009-01-16). “Mystery SDB”. Ares Blog. Aviation Week. Retrieved 23 December 2011. [24] http://investor.raytheon.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=84193& p=RssLanding&cat=news&id=1458290
340.5 References
[25] “Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) - Defense Update”.
[1] http://archive.is/20120716104202/http://www.af.mil/ information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=4500
[26] “Boeing Celebrates Small Diameter Bomb Delivery Milestones”.
[2] “United States Department Of Defense Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request Program Acquisition Cost By Weapon System” (pdf). Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense (Comptroller)/ Chief Financial Officer. March 2014. p. 59.
[27] USAF Eyes Low-Yield Munitions
[3] Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) - Boeing IDS [4] Boeing Small Diameter Bomb Increment I (SDB I) [5] Boeing SDB Focused Lethality Munition [6] http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/sdbii/ [7] Boeing / Lockheed Martin SDB (Small Diameter Bomb) - Designation Systems [8] “GAO-13-294SP DEFENSE ACQUISITIONS Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs”. US Government Accountability Office. March 2013. pp. 101–2. Retrieved 26 May 2013. [9] Boeing Small Diameter Bomb II Successfully Engages Target in Flight Test
[28] Richardson, Doug (13 January 2014). “Boeing delivers final Focused Lethality Munition to USAF”. www.janes. com. IHS Jane’s Missiles & Rockets. Retrieved 14 January 2014. [29] Boeing furthers Ground-Launched SDB - Shephardmedia.com, May 24, 2013 [30] Boeing Developing Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb - Defensenews.com, 22 October 2013 [31] Boeing, Saab Unveil Ground Launched SDB - Defensenews.com, 10 March 2015 [32] Boeing: Laser Small Diameter Bomb Could Fill Gap Defensenews.com, 9 August 2012 [33] USAF to award Boeing Laser SDB contract - Flightglobal.com, 28 June 2013
340.6 External links
[10] SDB - Global Security [11] Boeing: Small Diameter Bomb [12] GBU-40 Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II) [13] Comptroller General of the United States on Lockheed Martin Corporation--Costs [14] Raytheon’s GBU-53/B Small Diameter Bomb II Completes First Flight [15] Air Force picks small diameter bomb [16] Boeing Awarded Small Diameter Bomb Contract - Boeing press release [17] Small Diameter Bomb certified for operational test, evaluation, Air Force Print News [18] Small Diameter Bomb I delivered ahead of schedule, Air Force Print News [19] ACC declares IOC for Small Diameter Bomb - Air Combat Command
• GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb / Small Smart Bomb - Global Security • Small Diameter Bomb SDB Focused Lethality Munition (FLM) - Global Security • GBU-39/40/42/B Small Diameter Bomb I/II
Chapter 341
VB-6 Felix The VB-6 Felix was a precision-guided munition developed by the United States during World War II. It was one of the precursors of modern anti-ship missiles. Created by the National Defense Research Committee, Felix relied on infrared to detect and home on targets, in clear weather, especially ships at sea at night. It was this property which earned the weapon its name, after the ability of cats to see in the dark. Felix was a 1000 pound (454 kg) general purpose (GP) bomb with an infrared seeker in the nose and octagonal guidance fins in the tail. Unlike other weapons, such as the German Fritz X, Felix was autonomous (what a later generation would call fire-and-forget), though there was a flare in the tail for tracking. Successful trials led to Felix being put in production in 1945, but the Pacific War ended before it entered combat.
341.1 Sources • Fitzsimons, Bernard, editor. “Felix”, in The Illustrated Encyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons and Warfare. Volume 9, p. 926. London: Phoebus Publishing, 1978.
341.2 See also • Fritz X • Azon • Razon • GB-4 • Bat • LBD-1 Gargoyle • List of anti-ship missiles
873
Chapter 342
Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser The Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser system is a US tail kit for use with the TMD (Tactical Munitions Dispenser) family of cluster bombs to convert them to precision-guided munitions. In 1997 the United States Air Force issued contracts to complete development and begin production of the WCMD, planning to modify 40,000 tactical munitions dispensers at a cost of US$8,937 per unit.[1] The CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon when fitted with the WCMD is known as the CBU-105; this anti-armor weapon was deployed but not used during Operation Allied Force in the Kosovo War, and fired in combat during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
342.3 References [1] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ munitions/wcmd.htm [2] “Lockheed Martin WCMD (Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser) - Designation Systems”. [3] “USAF terminates WCMD-ER contract”.
342.4 External links • WCMD-ER - Deagel
342.1 Variants 342.1.1
WCMD
• Guidance: INS updated with GPS data from launch platform before release.[2] • Range: 16 km (9.9 mi). • Accuracy: 26 m (85 ft) CEP.
342.1.2
WCMD-ER
• Guidance: INS combined with integral GPS. • Range: Wing kit extends range to 40–65 km (30–40 miles). • Accuracy: 26 m (85 ft) CEP. The WCMD-ER program was cancelled in August 2006 due to poor test results and budgetary pressures.[3]
342.2 See also • CBU-87 Combined Effects Munition • GATOR mine system • CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon • CBU-107 Passive Attack Weapon 874
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
875
342.5 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses 342.5.1
Text
• MGR-1 Honest John Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGR-1%20Honest%20John?oldid=652697980 Contributors: Rmhermen, Rlandmann, Fastfission, Herbee, TomViza, Hammersfan, Brianhe, Vsmith, Joshbaumgartner, Rwendland, Dhartung, Gene Nygaard, Bubba73, FlaBot, Catsmeat, YurikBot, Xihr, Georgewilliamherbert, Mikael GRizzly, Reid Kirby, Jedwards05, SmackBot, Peter Isotalo, Hmains, Cabe6403, Hibernian, Gravitate, John, MilborneOne, KarlM, Iridescent, Fl295, SithiR, Calvacadeofcats, Sadorsch, Chris Henniker, Aldis90, Trseaman, Sherbrooke, BilCat, IvoShandor, Tilla, Blotto adrift, Balmung0731, Eve Hall, Andy Dingley, Soccersmith3, SieBot, Meltonkt, WTucker, Binksternet, Masterblooregard, Alexbot, Sturmvogel 66, Polly, Thingg, SgtTanner, Good Olfactory, Addbot, Rcaf777, Polemarchus, The Bushranger, Brian in denver, VX, GrouchoBot, RCAMUSDIR, FrescoBot, NikeHercules, PigFlu Oink, Mistress of Awesome, Symplectic Map, NorthnBound, EmausBot, AManWithNoPlan, Jderricknc, Magneticlifeform, Frietjes, Mvjusef, BG19bot, Mogism, SteenthIWbot, Eddyfinnso, Spinedork and Anonymous: 51 • MIM-3 Nike Ajax Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-3%20Nike%20Ajax?oldid=655513266 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Xanzzibar, Arado, Chris the speller, Jprg1966, Dl2000, Courcelles, Buckshot06, BilCat, Squids and Chips, Afernand74, Deanlaw, The Bushranger, AnomieBOT, INeverCry, FrescoBot, Dewritech, Conedodger, Cyberbot II, Khazar2, Mogism, Jodosma, YiFeiBot, Kevin94122 and Anonymous: 15 • MIM-14 Nike Hercules Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-14%20Nike%20Hercules?oldid=652865428 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Gabbe, Bobby D. Bryant, Angela, Rlandmann, Kurtbw, GCarty, Mulad, Finlay McWalter, Robbot, Dmadeo, Yosri, Gidonb, Greyengine5, Gzornenplatz, Bobblewik, Smalljim, Rwendland, Cal 1234, Gene Nygaard, Strongbow, Nvinen, Tabletop, Xiong Chiamiov, GraemeLeggett, BD2412, Rjwilmsi, Wiarthurhu, Dangerous Angel, Kolbasz, Chobot, YurikBot, Noclador, Arado, Ozabluda, Hydrargyrum, Megapixie, Ospalh, Georgewilliamherbert, Mikeroetto, Jsplegge, Airconswitch, Gray62, SmackBot, Mangoe, VigilancePrime, Apartmento, Mike McGregor (Can), Hmains, KD5TVI, Chris the speller, Bluebot, June Ger, Jprg1966, Davidmpye, Basalisk, Sadads, Open-box, Jumping cheese, WonRyong, Ken keisel, Grumpy444grumpy, Sujay85, X15, Vanisaac, CmdrObot, Fl295, Cydebot, Cancun771, Aldis90, Memty Bot, Nick Number, OuroborosCobra, Rees11, Barneyg, NE2, .anacondabot, Acroterion, Two way time, Diego bf109, Dulciana, The Anomebot2, BilCat, LorenzoB, R'n'B, CommonsDelinker, Dispenser, MarcoLittel, Stan Flouride, Jessepdx, Squids and Chips, RJASE1, Nigel Ish, Balmung0731, TXiKiBoT, Danbush, Raryel, Bcappel, Arda Xi, Mozt, Afernand74, Rockfang, HexaChord, Area1970, Addbot, Fyrael, Edgy01, CLDWARHIST, Neodarkshadow, The Bushranger, Yobot, Sooe, Ntudreamer, Xqbot, Butch2, FrescoBot, Aerillious, Zorin09, NikeHercules, Pinethicket, Hillarin, RedBot, John of Reading, Lucas hamster, ZéroBot, Rallyone, FDLeyda, ClueBot NG, Morgan Riley, Bonafide2004, Johnvr4, Palisadepeak and Anonymous: 80 • Project Nike Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project%20Nike?oldid=649695712 Contributors: WojPob, Zundark, Alex.tan, Rmhermen, Maury Markowitz, Ixfd64, Delirium, Rlandmann, Kurtbw, GCarty, ²¹², Mulad, Crissov, David Newton, Maximus Rex, Cabalamat, Robbot, Kristof vt, Flauto Dolce, Wereon, DocWatson42, Tom harrison, Fastfission, Jonabbey, Bobblewik, Tagishsimon, Gadfium, Calm, ConradPino, Beland, Eregli bob, SimonArlott, Scott Burley, User2004, Ponder, ChuckEntz, Adambro, Bobo192, Smalljim, John Fader, Octoferret, Ignatzmous, Wdfarmer, Bart133, Sumergocognito, Gene Nygaard, Japanese Searobin, TShilo12, Kelly Martin, Woohookitty, Nvinen, Tabletop, Bchan, Triddle, Rjwilmsi, Lkoziarz, Ptdecker, ZDanimal, Mark Sublette, Kolbasz, Russavia, CaptainAmerica, RussBot, Arado, DanMS, Gaius Cornelius, Shaddack, Megapixie, Ospalh, Rayc, Cuzuco, Eptin, That Guy, From That Show!, SmackBot, Renegadeviking, Cdogsimmons, Hydrogen Iodide, Sea diver, Mrmewe, Tnkr111, Ohnoitsjamie, Danct4, Chris the speller, Bluebot, DocKrin, Sadads, Namangwari, Dual Freq, WDGraham, Trekphiler, AP1787, KaiserbBot, MJCdetroit, Master Scott Hall, Ken keisel, Tdrss, Jidanni, Bwmoll3, Accurizer, Shattered, JWaters, Bkd, Kvng, Dl2000, Iridescent, X15, Courcelles, Bzzh8c, Byteboy, Tawkerbot2, Howdybob, CmdrObot, Paulc206, Fl295, CMG, Mmoyer, Necessary Evil, ChardingLLNL, Crowish, Gnfnrf, Ebyabe, Rosswi88, BetacommandBot, Thijs!bot, Kubanczyk, Memty Bot, Einbierbitte, JustAGal, Uruiamme, J Clear, Fru1tbat, Arch dude, Stuart Slade, PolluxSJ, Jjacobsmeyer, Two way time, Soulbot, The Anomebot2, BilCat, LorenzoB, Brucelipe, TVRJomar, Jonwiener, SquidSK, R'n'B, ArcAngel, Uncle Dick, Extransit, Naniwako, Youngjim, Tatrgel, Gpaetz, Petebutt, Jbirt2, Kilmer-san, LanceBarber, Elnok, Mugs2109, SieBot, Almccon, Chris Light, Lightmouse, AMCKen, Kumioko (renamed), Anchor Link Bot, Weird NJ, Chris G Bot, Martarius, Sfan00 IMG, ClueBot, Loginnowplease, Niceguyedc, Ktr101, Peteex, Rhatsa26X, Marcric, Iohannes Animosus, David Spangler, Chaosdruid, ChrisBoulden, Life of Riley, XLinkBot, Addbot, Fyrael, Tassedethe, Undermineder, Lightbot, Jim1pennino, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, ParrotRob, Yobot, Edoe, Troymacgill, Brian in denver, Pohick2, AnomieBOT, Wxjeremy, Slant6guy, RadioBroadcast, Eumolpo, LilHelpa, Srich32977, RibotBOT, Dvmphd, Originalwana, Abda60, Acsterne, ScottJasonYoung, Jackehammond, Look2See1, Dewritech, Solarra, Thecheesykid, Timwaite, ClueBot NG, Mrharborguy, Helpful Pixie Bot, Planetary Chaos Redux, Russianspy33, NorthBySouthBaranof, Nosenugget, Chipperdude15, James M. Harrop, ForLoveForEver, LeendertS and Anonymous: 156 • MGM-5 Corporal Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-5%20Corporal?oldid=649073221 Contributors: Rlandmann, Andrewa, Night Gyr, Terriem, Weyes, DonPMitchell, GraemeLeggett, JIP, RxS, MauriceJFox3, Bubba73, Arado, JAFM, Petri Krohn, Erudy, Colonies Chris, Dual Freq, Will Beback, Jozecuervo, Fl295, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, Maximilian Schönherr, WinBot, BilCat, VolkovBot, Balmung0731, Sdsds, TXiKiBoT, Flopster2, Andy Dingley, Lightmouse, Auntof6, PixelBot, Sturmvogel 66, Addbot, Delta 51, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Troymacgill, Brian in denver, AnomieBOT, High Contrast, RadioBroadcast, LilHelpa, Diwas, Thinking of England, ZéroBot, Hertzair, Mark Arsten, YFdyh-bot, Simon Jump and Anonymous: 13 • PGM-11 Redstone Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGM-11%20Redstone?oldid=650010185 Contributors: Bryan Derksen, Olivier, Patrick, Paul A, Ahoerstemeier, Rlandmann, LouI, Pebecker, PaulinSaudi, Audin, Wik, Dimadick, Rhombus, SpellBott, Jasenlee, Reubenbarton, Greyengine5, Wolfkeeper, Alison, Bobblewik, GeneralPatton, Grm wnr, Rich Farmbrough, Night Gyr, Alereon, Shenme, Giraffedata, Raymond, Evil Monkey, Simone, Wyatts, Gene Nygaard, Dan100, Crosbiesmith, PoccilScript, ToddFincannon, Josh Parris, Rjwilmsi, Jake Wartenberg, Bubba73, FlaBot, JdforresterBot, Kolbasz, Chobot, Cornellrockey, Pile0nades, RussBot, Arado, Hellbus, Hydrargyrum, Dijxtra, Sliggy, Gadget850, Elkman, Cassius1213, Petri Krohn, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Hux, Anastrophe, Davert, WDGraham, Stephowrs, Andy120290, Radagast83, The PIPE, BillFlis, Dragos muresan, CmdrObot, N2e, Ken Gallager, Fl295, Cydebot, Ebyabe, Thijs!bot, Alphachimpbot, .anacondabot, Appraiser, Father Goose, BilCat, R'n'B, J.delanoy, Ohms law, Tatrgel, Georgemorgan, VolkovBot, Sdsds, Anynobody, Petebutt, Nibios, Tomalak geretkal, Meltonkt, Rockstone35, TrufflesTheLamb, Dravecky, Magicmahka, MBK004, Matrek, Enenn, Xyzzy529, Easphi, Alexbot, Eeekster, Abrech, Estirabot, Sansumaria, Redstonesoldier, Sturmvogel 66, DumZiBoT, Ladsgroup, SilvonenBot, Good Olfactory, Jim Sweeney, Addbot, LatitudeBot, WikiDreamer Bot, The Bushranger, Yobot, Amirobot, AnomieBOT, RadioBroadcast, Ckruschke, RibotBOT, StoneProphet, Redrose64, HRoestBot, DexDor, Beyond My Ken, Bomazi, ClueBot NG, Nateho, Corpusfury, BattyBot, Khazar2, Lugia2453, 123456POKEMON, Tjneale, Someone656162, Monkbot and Anonymous: 47
876
CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
• MGM-18 Lacrosse Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-18%20Lacrosse?oldid=646950148 Contributors: Rlandmann, PaulinSaudi, Gene Nygaard, Fleetham, Rjwilmsi, Kolbasz, Manxruler, NawlinWiki, Taco325i, Bdmcmahon, SmackBot, Earthworm Makarov, Nobunaga24, CmdrObot, Yarnalgo, Cydebot, Alaibot, Thijs!bot, Groogokk, BilCat, Wiki Raja, Balmung0731, Sdsds, TXiKiBoT, GimmeBot, Lucasbfrbot, Niceguyedc, Addbot, The Bushranger, Troymacgill, AnomieBOT, Tokyotown8, Anotherclown, 2Supermann3, Rich.beckett3, ClueBot NG, Mattise135, BattyBot, Stamptrader, Monkbot and Anonymous: 3 • MGR-3 Little John Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGR-3%20Little%20John?oldid=639419047 Contributors: Btphelps, FlaBot, BilCat, TXiKiBoT, Andy Dingley, Meltonkt, Good Olfactory, Addbot, The Bushranger, Amirobot, Troymacgill, Tokyotown8, DexDor and Anonymous: 5 • PGM-19 Jupiter Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGM-19%20Jupiter?oldid=653107074 Contributors: Rmhermen, Maury Markowitz, Patrick, Llywrch, Rlandmann, PaulinSaudi, Audin, Dimadick, Ke4roh, Auric, Reubenbarton, Wolfkeeper, AlistairMcMillan, Bobblewik, Btphelps, Sam Hocevar, Tomwalden, Karl Dickman, Grm wnr, DMG413, N328KF, Rich Farmbrough, Blake8086, Cap'n Refsmmat, Mbini, Tritium6, Error 404, A2Kafir, Joshbaumgartner, Sobolewski, XB-70, Gene Nygaard, Adrian.benko, SmthManly, Crosbiesmith, Woohookitty, Kralizec!, Adam B. Traver, Bruce1ee, Bubba73, Ian Dunster, SchuminWeb, BjKa, Wongm, Adoniscik, WriterHound, Arado, Van der Hoorn, Voidxor, Torneco, User27091, Capt Jim, Open2universe, Petri Krohn, Jbenson964, Curpsbot-unicodify, SmackBot, Chris the speller, Jprg1966, Redline, WDGraham, Stepho-wrs, Chcknwnm, Ken keisel, Tdrss, John, Bwmoll3, Uwe W., Thomas81, R. E. Mixer, CmdrObot, Cydebot, RichyRich, J Clear, Buckshot06, Kachik, BilCat, Baristarim, Pomte, NewEnglandYankee, Ndunruh, Ohms law, Olegwiki, STBotD, Funandtrvl, Sdsds, GimmeBot, Petebutt, Broadbot, Seaoneil, Death Bredon, MBK004, FieldMarine, Ktr101, 51edb, Sturmvogel 66, Versus22, SilvonenBot, Good Olfactory, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Troymacgill, Brian in denver, JackieBot, RadioBroadcast, ArthurBot, LilHelpa, Winged Brick, Heroicrelics, Sunnyspringday, RedBot, Full-date unlinking bot, DexDor, Mmeijeri, ZéroBot, ChuispastonBot, BattyBot, Khazar2, GeorgeLSmith, DadswellDND, Trackteur, Peylaade and Anonymous: 59 • MGM-31 Pershing Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-31%20Pershing?oldid=652874454 Contributors: The Epopt, WojPob, Bryan Derksen, Edward, Patrick, Paul A, Rlandmann, Ghewgill, RadicalBender, Naddy, Jsonitsac, Hcheney, Oberiko, Comatose51, Oneiros, Balcer, Jkliff, 11d, Mtnerd, N328KF, Ulflarsen, Avriette, Michael Zimmermann, CanisRufus, Shenme, Joshbaumgartner, Andrew Gray, Pouya, Mlessard, Gene Nygaard, Tabletop, BlaiseFEgan, BD2412, Rjwilmsi, FlaBot, Kolbasz, MoRsE, C.Koltzenburg, Straker, Noclador, RussBot, Arado, Xihr, Zlobny, Gaius Cornelius, Gadget850, Georgewilliamherbert, Anclation, Bluezy, Benandorsqueaks, Nick-D, That Guy, From That Show!, SmackBot, Brammers, Jeffreykopp, Eskimbot, Chris the speller, (boxed), Grumpyoldgeek, Tdrss, Harryboyles, John, Craigboy, Amniarix, CmdrObot, CMG, Necessary Evil, Hydraton31, Crowish, Dipics, Aldis90, Smiteri, Thijs!bot, John Walker (fourmilab.ch), Darklilac, Supertheman, Igodard, Russianmissile, Buckshot06, The Anomebot2, Avicennasis, BilCat, LorenzoB, Observer 144, R'n'B, Nono64, BJ Axel, Wa3frp, Fiachra10003, Olegwiki, Widders, Rekinser, Tourbillon, Balmung0731, Cg1923, SieBot, Meltonkt, 4wajzkd02, Flyer22, Rulatir, WacoJacko, WikipedianMarlith, ClueBot, Mild Bill Hiccup, Niceguyedc, Jmdeur, Geodyde, Ktr101, Alexbot, Chaosdruid, SilvonenBot, Addbot, KBQR, DOI bot, Download, Debresser, Tassedethe, Lightbot, BlackMarlin, The Bushranger, Yobot, Troymacgill, Megan Reyes, Brian in denver, AnomieBOT, ArthurBot, LilHelpa, Xqbot, Notwej, Citation bot 1, LittleWink, Jonesey95, RedBot, NortyNort, RjwilmsiBot, EmausBot, John of Reading, Dewritech, Captain Charlie Dreyer, Eyadhamid, H3llBot, Chesipiero, Frietjes, Lekrecteurmasque, Zedshort, Mrt3366, Hmainsbot1, Z07x10, CsDix, Sol1, Monkbot and Anonymous: 61 • MIM-23 Hawk Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-23%20Hawk?oldid=651457274 Contributors: Rlandmann, GCarty, Gidonb, DocWatson42, Bobblewik, Beland, Eranb, Klemen Kocjancic, Mike Rosoft, Naryathegreat, Avriette, Bobo192, Cmdrjameson, Get It, Alansohn, Cdc, Gene Nygaard, Yuriybrisk, Anty, Rjwilmsi, Pjetter, Wiarthurhu, FlaBot, Soup man, Kyriakos, CarolGray, Russavia, MoRsE, Chobot, YurikBot, Noclador, Kafziel, RussBot, Gaius Cornelius, Los688, Manxruler, JEnnoE, Skritek, Megapixie, Adamrush, Witger, American2, KNHaw, SmackBot, Sam8, Schmiteye, Chris the speller, Bluebot, Avin, Jprg1966, Sadads, Dual Freq, Il palazzo, Lyta79, Fuhghettaboutit, TechPurism, A.R., Breno, Nobunaga24, Octane, CmdrObot, Cydebot, SAWGunner89, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, Kubanczyk, LionFlyer, Tashtastic, CombatWombat42, Two way time, VoABot II, BilCat, Archolman, Shuppiluliuma, KTo288, MarcoLittel, C1010, YoavD, DorganBot, Nigel Ish, Sam Blacketer, VolkovBot, Sporti, ABF, Holme053, W. B. Wilson, Kakoui, ArnoldPettybone, Seraphim, Immortals, Eurocopter, Pknicker, SieBot, Meltonkt, Unregistered.coward, Naco-Taco, CaptSquid, Klass, Stefanomencarelli, Masterblooregard, Ridge Runner, Socrates2008, Muhandes, GB-UK-BI, CAVincent, BOTarate, Chaosdruid, One last pharaoh, Johnkatz1972, Common Good, Dave1185, Area1970, Addbot, OCTopus-en, Herr Gruber, ماني, The Bushranger, Troymacgill, Nallimbot, Tonyrex, Rubinbot, RadioBroadcast, OCTopus, LilHelpa, Xqbot, Kajowi, Ashrf1979, Sophus Bie, Miguelito0292, Fortdj33, John-Greece, Reverant, Skyraider1, FoxBot, Desagwan, DexDor, EmausBot, John of Reading, Dewritech, EleferenBot, ZéroBot, Aspahbod, ClueBot NG, Tlai1977, Cuneyt1980, America789, Spital8katz, F4fluids, Wotchit, Hammerfrog, Lworden911, Tamlinwah, Jerryntcjc, Bluewavedragon, ScrabbleZ, Grisepik, Romdwolf and Anonymous: 96 • MGM-29 Sergeant Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-29%20Sergeant?oldid=629463732 Contributors: Rlandmann, Lupin, Bobblewik, Apyule, Alex '05, MarkusHagenlocher, Rjwilmsi, Deepsix, FlaBot, Kolbasz, Reid Kirby, SmackBot, Bluebot, Dual Freq, Cydebot, Monkeybait, Nabokov, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, BilCat, Balmung0731, Sdsds, TXiKiBoT, Andy Dingley, Meltonkt, ClueBot, Lastdingo, Sturmvogel 66, Addbot, LaaknorBot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Xqbot, Heroicrelics, TortallArm, John of Reading, ZéroBot, Corpusfury, ChrisGualtieri and Anonymous: 14 • MIM-46 Mauler Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-46%20Mauler?oldid=654191135 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Rlandmann, Tabletop, GraemeLeggett, ZZ9pluralZalpha, BorgQueen, Chris the speller, CumbiaDude, Cydebot, Aldis90, Buckshot06, Meltonkt, Socrates2008, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, AnomieBOT, High Contrast, John of Reading, Friday83260 and Anonymous: 8 • MGM-52 Lance Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-52%20Lance?oldid=649073381 Contributors: Rlandmann, Bukvoed, Rwendland, Dziban303, Kolbasz, Chobot, Noclador, Arado, Hydrargyrum, Closedmouth, Anclation, Chris the speller, Dual Freq, Tdrss, IronGargoyle, Octane, Yaris678, Nabokov, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, Woody, Trseaman, Escarbot, LeedsKing, Magioladitis, BilCat, TXiKiBoT, GimmeBot, Jackfork, PipepBot, Lastdingo, Iohannes Animosus, Sturmvogel 66, Shamrox75, Avmarle, Good Olfactory, Addbot, Orihara, Nohomers48, The Bushranger, Yobot, TaBOT-zerem, Toniks123, Xqbot, Garshgrang, Grand-Duc, RedBot, Jesse V., El Mayimbe, RjwilmsiBot, DexDor, ZéroBot, ClueBot NG, DBigXray, Mattise135, Corpusfury, Hallows AG, O8447, Klilidiplomus, KingQueenPrince, Monkbot and Anonymous: 35 • MIM-72 Chaparral Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-72%20Chaparral?oldid=655083515 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Rlandmann, Jiang, GCarty, Mackensen, User2004, Arthena, Bukvoed, Daranz, Zotel, Sus scrofa, Megapixie, Jhamner, Sailboatd2, SmackBot, Deon Steyn, Ikip, Jprg1966, Nobunaga24, Requen, CmdrObot, Fnlayson, CMarshall, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, Two way time, Puddhe, BilCat, Nono64, VolkovBot, Balmung0731, Mdyank, Rdfox 76, LanceBarber, John Nevard, Ramisses, Ad-4n, Dave1185, Addbot, Rainbowfive, Nohomers48, OlEnglish, Delta 51, The Bushranger, AnomieBOT, Rubinbot, Xqbot, Blazeriprock, Mark Schierbecker, Sarcastic
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
877
ShockwaveLover, Jonathon A H, LucienBOT, Ripchip Bot, Tom120, ZéroBot, Suborbital, Will Beback Auto, Tlai1977, America789, Aweelies and Anonymous: 43 • MIM-104 Patriot Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104%20Patriot?oldid=654137707 Contributors: Magnus Manske, TwoOneTwo, Bryan Derksen, Andre Engels, SimonP, Maury Markowitz, Imran, Graft, Edward, Patrick, Kchishol1970, JohnOwens, GABaker, Delirium, Rlandmann, Kurtbw, Mxn, Jogloran, Motor, Bevo, Stormie, Jamesday, David.Monniaux, Finlay McWalter, RadicalBender, Riddley, Sjorford, Robbot, Ke4roh, Korath, Modulatum, Auric, Gidonb, Rhombus, Alerante, DocWatson42, Greyengine5, MathKnight, Finn-Zoltan, Apsio, Pascal666, Bobblewik, Nova77, Sohailstyle, Geni, H1523702, Kusunose, Oneiros, Whitfield Larrabee, Aaron Einstein, DmitryKo, ChrisRuvolo, Imroy, Rich Farmbrough, Guanabot, Pjacobi, Xezbeth, Jasonq, Sarrica, Sf, Bobo192, Zupi, Russ3Z, Sludge, Tritium6, Haham hanuka, Hooperbloob, Kazuaki Shimazaki, Eleland, LtNOWIS, Arthena, Bukvoed, Equinoxe, Ahruman, SHIMONSHA, Jeroen94704, Rwendland, Movax, TaintedMustard, Sumergocognito, Wyatts, Gene Nygaard, Alai, Axeman89, Tobyc75, Bobrayner, Novacatz, Woohookitty, Pauley2483, Nvinen, Isnow, BlaiseFEgan, , Anty, Rjwilmsi, Angusmclellan, Wiarthurhu, Dangerous Angel, Mitrebox, Keimzelle, FlaBot, Ground Zero, Intersofia, Nemo5576, CarolGray, Mark83, RobyWayne, Chobot, Knife Knut, Bgwhite, Roboto de Ajvol, YurikBot, Noclador, Jimp, RussBot, Arado, Supasheep, Epolk, Ksyrie, Los688, Dysmorodrepanis, Kvn8907, Arima, Witger, Misza13, Mieciu K, Tullie, WAS 4.250, Mikeroetto, American2, NorsemanII, Arthur Rubin, Petri Krohn, Rocketrye12, El T, Staxringold, John Broughton, Diagraph01, MaeseLeon, Tinlv7, SmackBot, Mangoe, Robotbeat, TestPilot, VigilancePrime, WookieInHeat, Sam8, Julian Diamond, Mmaurin, Chris the speller, Bluebot, Jprg1966, Rmt2m, McNeight, Sadads, Solomania2006, Dual Freq, Tewfik, Duckhunter6424, John Hyams, Ammar shaker, TheGerm, Chulk90, Supersoldier71, Txinviolet, DéRahier, SuperDeng, Chlewbot, OrphanBot, Lyta79, Joema, Jonrev, Jumping cheese, Bcomnes, Wirbelwind, A.R., MetroStar, The PIPE, Giancarlo Rossi, ChaChaFut, Whitneygh, Jirnsum, MilborneOne, Zarniwoot, Nobunaga24, Publicus, 2T, Dammit, JoeBot, Woodshed, Tintenammae, SuperTank17, DangerousPanda, CmdrObot, Masterkd, Salmagnone, LCpl, Fl295, AndrewHowse, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Gogo Dodo, Whiskey Pete, Clc12, Aldis90, Kirk Hilliard, Thijs!bot, Krakia, Faigl.ladislav, NIIRS zero, Pavel from Russia, OrenBochman, OuroborosCobra, Natalie Erin, Escarbot, Darklilac, Jeroenm, DagosNavy, JAnDbot, Lan Di, Msaroff, Balbers, Ryan4314, Wasell, Magioladitis, VoABot II, Flayer, Armyreco, BilCat, Rettetast, Ultraviolet scissor flame, CommonsDelinker, Wiki Raja, Sindresolberg, J.delanoy, PC78, Gzkn, Tatrgel, Bogdan, Orthopraxia, Matej1234, Squids and Chips, Veloman, VolkovBot, Thomas.W, TXiKiBoT, Hm23, Someguy1221, Buffs, Synthebot, Kuruzahtah, Hughey, Pknicker, Qbk711, Neobeatnik, Vantey, PraetorianD, Patriot rules, Anchor Link Bot, MenoBot, MBK004, Matrek, Firebeyer, Topsecrete, Masterblooregard, Desert termite, Ktr101, PixelBot, Winston365, Iohannes Animosus, Holothurion, Diaa abdelmoneim, Romatt, Mb nl, Tabunoki, Serpenttail115, Thingg, ShipFan, DumZiBoT, XLinkBot, Hsiverts, Dave1185, Addbot, Oldmountains, Maslen, SpBot, Aunva6, Angry Shoplifter, Angryhobo13, Lightbot, Zaphodia, The Bushranger, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Ptbotgourou, Kadrun, Brian in denver, KamikazeBot, AnomieBOT, Felipe P, 1exec1, Seo luke, High Contrast, Stanislao Avogadro, ArthurBot, Quebec99, Xqbot, Luke85, Nasnema, Nasa-verve, Parabellum101, RibotBOT, Brutaldeluxe, Jonathon A H, Paulioetc, Vanished user aqpoi4u3tijsrfi, VilePig, Elgreco77, John-Greece, Haeinous, MGA73bot, Maverick9711, Mistress of Awesome, Yin61289, Poliocretes, Tupsumato, MKFI, Klyde-M, Obsidian Soul, Radekstepan, RjwilmsiBot, DexDor, Gejunot, Ripchip Bot, John of Reading, WikitanvirBot, Babak902003, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, Liamwillco, Wikipelli, Righteous9000, Stephen.neece, Illegitimate Barrister, Kiefferfx18, Anir1uph, Charley sf, H3llBot, Brandmeister, KazekageTR, Castro8280, Whoop whoop pull up, ClueBot NG, Heaney555z, Jmgartner, MilitaryFacts, BG19bot, Corpusfury, Codepage, Dainomite, Vr6serdal, TheJML, Tlai1977, America789, Jeremy.kagan, Cyberbot II, Adnan bogi, MathKnight-at-TAU, Speakingsh, SPC Real, Dexbot, Irondome, DelamontagneNL, Cerabot, Ahsanhmd44, 93, VoRo1ze, GFService, Flashthunder920, Al Khazar, Shkvoz, Haminoon, Stu1970, Le Grand Bleu, Jerryntcjc, UnbiasedVictory, , Jimmie.mann, ScrabbleZ, NineLegs, Brovich and Anonymous: 391 • Roland (missile) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland%20(missile)?oldid=646761656 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Edward, Rlandmann, Riddley, PBP, Klemen Kocjancic, Rama, Atlant, Apoc2400, Sylvain Mielot, GraemeLeggett, Miq, Tfine80, Mieciu K, Oliverdl, Jsnx, SmackBot, Reedy, Chris the speller, Bluebot, Jprg1966, Hibernian, GoodDay, Sct72, Joffeloff, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Tec15, Nabokov, Aldis90, Woody, DagosNavy, BilCat, Pax:Vobiscum, CommonsDelinker, Duch, VolkovBot, McM.bot, AlleborgoBot, SieBot, Kernel Saunters, De Grasse, EoGuy, Kos93, Suradnik13, PixelBot, Muro Bot, DumZiBoT, Avmarle, Addbot, Nohomers48, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Drpickem, AnomieBOT, ArthurBot, LilHelpa, GrouchoBot, Бисмарк, Rbrausse, CHawc, RedBot, Edurcastro28, Demiurge1000, Helpful Pixie Bot, Cyberbot II, Khazar2, Wotchit, Itc editor2 and Anonymous: 38 • Terminal High Altitude Area Defense Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal%20High%20Altitude%20Area%20Defense? oldid=655316923 Contributors: SimonP, Maury Markowitz, Frecklefoot, Patrick, Mcarling, Ciphergoth, Gymnos, RickK, Sarrazip, Finlay McWalter, Cyrius, Geni, Poccil, Wk muriithi, Roo72, Remuel, R. S. Shaw, Cwolfsheep, Presnell, Wendell, Alansohn, Jeroen94704, BDD, Alai, BlaiseFEgan, Mark83, Chobot, Arado, John Smith’s, Witan, Gaius Cornelius, Corey415, Ormondroyd, Jeffreymcmanus, Deepdraft, SmackBot, Sagie, Lamjus, Bluebot, Dual Freq, Frap, Fahadinc, Sayhar, Lyta79, Joema, Regan123, Publicus, PRRfan, JoeBot, Torlek, CmdrObot, Fl295, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Thijs!bot, Ep9206, Hcobb, Mentifisto, KuwarOnline, Flayer, Mgroop, BilCat, Oren0, Hans Dunkelberg, LordAnubisBOT, !Darkfire!6'28'14, OriEri, Matej1234, Fdonck, Tesscass, Sniperz11, Pknicker, FrisB33, WereSpielChequers, Unregistered.coward, KGyST, Martarius, ClueBot, Campion1581, Darthveda, CounterVandalismBot, Arjayay, Citicrab, Chaosdruid, JCDenton2052, Smolov.Ilya, Addbot, Nohomers48, Aunva6, Lightbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Brian in denver, Eric-Wester, AnomieBOT, Seo luke, E235, LemonairePaides, GVilKa, RedBot, ZéroBot, Utar, SBaker43, ClueBot NG, MilitaryFacts, Jjoy3646, AnomalousGuy, Codepage, Pritishp333, NobodyMinus, BattyBot, Memodellocos, America789, Cyberbot II, Kbog, Photoloop, Tommyfoots2, GabeIglesia, UnbiasedVictory, How Shuan Shi and Anonymous: 91 • HIMARS Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIMARS?oldid=654867750 Contributors: Lir, GABaker, Kimiko, PaulinSaudi, Dcoetzee, Riddley, Bobblewik, Mzajac, Mecanismo, ArnoldReinhold, User2004, Night Gyr, Bender235, Bobo192, Rackham, Cwolfsheep, GK, Anthony Appleyard, Hohum, Velella, Kelly Martin, MiG, Rjwilmsi, Noclador, Arado, Tony1, Nick-D, SmackBot, Looper5920, ERcheck, Chris the speller, Jprg1966, Lordvolt, Highspeed, Whaiaun, SkyWalker, Cydebot, Thijs!bot, Parsecboy, Mikemagan, BilCat, Thucydides411, TXiKiBoT, Falcon8765, Tharskjold, Drtoews, Son of Zealandia, TabooTikiGod, ClueBot, Ialleinad, EoGuy, Masterblooregard, Eeekster, Jrowlandstuart, Jellyfish dave, Neutrino 1, Addbot, Planenut, Tassedethe, Arbitrarily0, Ddcorkum, Jimderkaisser, Edoe, Brian in denver, AnomieBOT, Wikieditoroftoday, Mfa06, Mark Schierbecker, Foxhound66, TexianPolitico, DexDor, TGCP, Babak902003, Strange Passerby, Illegitimate Barrister, Plinio Cayo Cilesio, Dainomite, America789, Cyberbot II, Adnan bogi, Redalert2fan, Shkvoz, Tamlinwah, UnbiasedVictory, How Shuan Shi, Narutzy, Milfandcookies69 and Anonymous: 93 • Medium Extended Air Defense System Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium%20Extended%20Air%20Defense%20System? oldid=654374542 Contributors: Rlandmann, Thue, Riddley, Oneiros, Wk muriithi, Cwolfsheep, Giraffedata, Pearle, Wendell, TheParanoidOne, Joriki, Graham87, JubalHarshaw, FlaBot, Zotel, MoRsE, Bgwhite, Noclador, Arado, John Smith’s, Gaius Cornelius, Los688, Caerwine, Sandstein, Garion96, Deepdraft, SmackBot, Sonoma-rich, Robotbeat, Mdd4696, Bluebot, Jprg1966, Wybot, MilesVorkosigan, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Aldis90, Hcobb, OuroborosCobra, CommonsDelinker, Rebell18190, Plovassy, Casonsnow, Gt6pilot, MenoBot, Matrek, WikHead, Grautbakken, Addbot, Yobot, High Contrast, MauritsBot, RightCowLeftCoast, FrescoBot, Rbruma, RjwilmsiBot, DexDor,
878
CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, Monty12345, Pokbot, ProtoFire, America789, Cyberbot II, BlevintronBot, Comm2007, Cheerioswithmilk, Monkbot, Bobgocom and Anonymous: 26 • Bazooka Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bazooka?oldid=654811335 Contributors: Bryan Derksen, Jagged, Maury Markowitz, Patrick, Infrogmation, CORNELIUSSEON, CatherineMunro, Tristanb, Harris7, Andrewman327, DJ Clayworth, Raul654, Finlay McWalter, Riddley, Robbot, AlainV, Pibwl, Modeha, Michael Snow, Lupo, DocWatson42, Oberiko, Lupin, MathKnight, Finn-Zoltan, Bobblewik, Josquius, Yossarian, Gscshoyru, Pm215, Jh51681, Trevor MacInnis, Grstain, Mike Rosoft, Ulflarsen, DaveMcLain, Discospinster, Rama, ESkog, Pink18, El C, Cap'n Refsmmat, Kross, Bobo192, Tronno, King nothing, Nsaa, Thatguy96, Storm Rider, Alansohn, Gary, Eleland, LtNOWIS, PatrickFisher, Joshbaumgartner, Bukvoed, Riana, Cal 1234, Dragunova, Sleigh, Gene Nygaard, Nuno Tavares, Before My Ken, WadeSimMiser, GraemeLeggett, Mandarax, Rjwilmsi, Miserlou, MWAK, FlaBot, Musical Linguist, SuperDude115, TheDJ, Chobot, Jcarkeys, Cactus.man, Digitalme, PainMan, Sus scrofa, Hairy Dude, Kencaesi, Jimp, RussBot, Theredstarswl, Fabartus, Hydrargyrum, Bullzeye, NawlinWiki, ENeville, Journalist, Spartan5, RUL3R, Flapeyre, Asams10, Nlu, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Theda, Gunman47, Nothlit, QmunkE, Groyolo, DVD R W, Yvwv, Crystallina, SmackBot, KnowledgeOfSelf, Bradtcordeiro, Ozone77, Jab843, Frymaster, Kintetsubuffalo, HalfShadow, Alex earlier account, Hmains, Amatulic, Chris the speller, Thumperward, MalafayaBot, RayAYang, Xaxxon, DHN-bot, Ado, Veggies, Trekphiler, Yaf, Derekbridges, Metarhyme, Akulkis, The PIPE, Buidinhthiem, Bejnar, Kuru, 3Jane, J 1982, Hotspur23, LWF, AllStarZ, KarlM, BillFlis, Grandpafootsoldier, Courcelles, Túrelio, Flubeca, Ehistory, CmdrObot, Jim101, Lmcelhiney, KnightLago, Djfly, Cydebot, Kevin23, Teratornis, RottweilerCS, Nabokov, Rspeed, Aldis90, Epbr123, N5iln, Tbonge, James086, AntiVandalBot, SummerPhD, Prolog, Jj137, SadanYagci, Corella, HanzoHattori, Sjlain, Desertsky85451, RebelRobot, Makron1n, Iulus, Breuben, Acroterion, Geniac, VoABot II, Askari Mark, Ordnanceferret, Nat495, KConWiki, Bleh999, Cyktsui, BilCat, MartinBot, FlieGerFaUstMe262, El0i, J.delanoy, AAA!, Richiekim, Uncle Dick, Ginsengbomb, Textangel, I Play Poker, Linuxmatt, Fountains of Bryn Mawr, Tascha96, Juliancolton, Петър Петров, Cometstyles, Smitykidy, Ja 62, CA387, Zazzer, Lights, MBlue2020, VolkovBot, Thomas.W, Vandervahn, DOHC Holiday, Magnet For Knowledge, Philip Trueman, TXiKiBoT, Marskuzz, A4bot, Dj stone, Anna Lincoln, Lradrama, Wiikipedian, Martin451, Seb26, Slysplace, RandomXYZb, SQL, Koalorka, Sealman, Jimmi Hugh, Trey, UnneededAplomb, HonestMan67, Dogah, Dreamafter, BonesBrigade, Jauerback, Flyer22, Oda Mari, Oxymoron83, Freecake, Ilhanli, Skinny87, Hoyiu, Dino246, Abraham, B.S., Jbgreen, Witchkraut, Dust Filter, ClueBot, Plastikspork, Mgreason, Juhotheman, Foofbun, Nerite, Piledhigheranddeeper, Excirial, Jusdafax, Asmaybe, Sarge0900, UltimateDestroyerOfWorlds, ChrisHodgesUK, Berean Hunter, Qwfp, GPS73, Pgerckn, Amaelking, Docswerve, Wikiuser100, JimmyPowell323, Addbot, FernandoFHC, Nohomers48, Tiago Morbus Sá, Joeboe1998, CanadianLinuxUser, Wikimedian2radf, Roux, Favonian, Fireaxe888, Numbo3-bot, Tide rolls, Lightbot, CountryBot, KEN, The Bushranger, Luckasbot, Yobot, Kadrun, Evans1982, PMLawrence, Brian in denver, Eric-Wester, 5infBrig, AnomieBOT, Piano non troppo, Ulric1313, Materialscientist, Theoprakt, Jpablo2, Xqbot, Capricorn42, Winkpolve, Dellant, WotWeiller, Pajeron, GrouchoBot, Riotrocket8676, Amaury, AustralianRupert, KVLG, Nnvincent, Blah blan, JovanCormac, Grr82, VI, Kwiki, Xtrooper, DrilBot, Iwillmodifythispage!, Degen Earthfast, Tinton5, Pikiwyn, Borusmat12, Jeangabin, Trappist the monk, Yadayadayaday, MFIreland, Diannaa, Tbhotch, NameIsRon, Jackehammond, DASHBot, Nascentguruism, Dachtorstrange, Werieth, Sam1945, Hyperboy3096, DASHBotAV, Romeofiveten, ClueBot NG, Nateho, This lousy T-shirt, Primergrey, Helpful Pixie Bot, Abock, Gunnai, MoD Research, GargleBlaster9467, Dr. Whooves, CitationCleanerBot, OldHickory120, Tyranitar Man, BattyBot, Tkbx, Spital8katz, Ajaxfiore, S1D3winder016, Irondome, Antraman, Wotchit, Vintovka Dragunova, Rs0wner301, Bluebonnet122, ArmbrustBot, Vinny Lam, Perfect Orange Sphere, Monkbot, Andy.W25215, Qwertyabc12398, Mathwew95067, Smithquick, Cutiriarteesuntitan, Elmasmelih, Thydoctor311 and Anonymous: 388 • M47 Dragon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M47%20Dragon?oldid=630448030 Contributors: Michael Hardy, GABaker, Rlandmann, Riddley, Bobblewik, Maclyn611, CanisRufus, Cap'n Refsmmat, Kross, PatrickFisher, Joshbaumgartner, Gene Nygaard, Woohookitty, YurikBot, Anders.Warga, Los688, Nick-D, Ominae, Jprg1966, Il palazzo, Scott 110, John, Saxbryn, Tigey, Cydebot, Aldis90, Rettetast, R'n'B, Notreallydavid, W. B. Wilson, Koalorka, Dreamafter, Jmp98251, JL-Bot, Ridge Runner, Arjayay, Another Believer, XLinkBot, Bernie Brown, Hueydoc, SJSA, MatthewVanitas, Milstuffxyz, Dave1185, Addbot, Lightbot, Luckas-bot, Ptbotgourou, Digre 90, Brian in denver, WotWeiller, GrouchoBot, Ashrf1979, LucienBOT, D'ohBot, Redrose64, Full-date unlinking bot, ROG5728, Jackehammond, EmausBot, ZéroBot, Illegitimate Barrister, Reallyfastcar, Takahara Osaka, Cyberbot II, Mogism, JPhebus, Wotchit, MarkusContagia and Anonymous: 29 • BGM-71 TOW Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-71%20TOW?oldid=654867403 Contributors: Patrick, GUllman, Cyde, Delirium, Ahoerstemeier, Jniemenmaa, Rlandmann, GCarty, JidGom, RadicalBender, Riddley, Nurg, Liotier, DocWatson42, Oberiko, MathKnight, Srittau, Urhixidur, Klemen Kocjancic, Mormegil, Rich Farmbrough, MaxMad, Night Gyr, Bender235, Aranel, El C, Rackham, Roy da Vinci, Thatguy96, Joshbaumgartner, Sandstig, Bukvoed, Mace, Oghmoir, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Alanmak, SDC, GraemeLeggett, Rjwilmsi, FlaBot, Nimur, Chobot, YurikBot, Noclador, Arado, John Smith’s, Hede2000, Gaius Cornelius, Los688, Mmccalpin, Zouden, Phichanad, Nick-D, Victor falk, SmackBot, Looper5920, Theman50554, Stretch 135, Ominae, Deon Steyn, KocjoBot, Michael Dorosh, Mike McGregor (Can), Tnkr111, Gilliam, Chris the speller, Jprg1966, The1exile, Modest Genius, Snowmanradio, The PIPE, Ugur Basak Bot, Ohconfucius, Pinecone, Lunarbunny, Akubra, Zahid Abdassabur, Hotspur23, LWF, BillFlis, Carrellk, Kythri, Andrwsc, Dl2000, Octane, Dp462090, WeggeBot, JBDRanger, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Vanished user 4ii389ddjjf3, Monkeybait, Tototom, Jiterati, Aldis90, Smiteri, Thijs!bot, Sulaimandaud, Luna Santin, CombatWombat42, CosineKitty, Avaya1, Meeowow, Parsecboy, VoABot II, Arz1969, BilCat, Red Sunset, Homeboy88, Nono64, Zorakoid, Notreallydavid, Trumpet marietta 45750, SirBob42, Halmstad, Tourbillon, Kyle the bot, Dreddmoto, CobraDragoon, Arc.spirit, LanceBarber, GeeTeeBee, Abd897, LarsHolmberg, Dreamafter, Smsarmad, VTLouie456, Dino246, Drmies, Masterblooregard, CAVincent, Sturmvogel 66, Staygyro, PN79, Dana boomer, DumZiBoT, Terry J. Carter, Hueydoc, Dave1185, Addbot, EZ1234, AkhtaBot, Angry Shoplifter, Zorrobot, The Bushranger, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Ptbotgourou, Brian in denver, AnomieBOT, Ulric1313, ArthurBot, Xqbot, Luke85, Smiththr, GrouchoBot, Mark Schierbecker, GiW, Gire 3pich2005, BasilioC, Unmotivate, RedBot, YOUCLEEMAN, Tim1357, Diannaa, Sparrish88, Jackehammond, Stochtastic, Mztourist, John of Reading, ZxxZxxZ, TeeTylerToe, Illegitimate Barrister, Josve05a, L1A1 FAL, KazekageTR, MelbourneStar, David O. Johnson, Bowiechen, DBigXray, BG19bot, Jigben, Lightning Ace1995, Mark Arsten, Glevum, Zackmann08, America789, Cyberbot II, Adnan bogi, Shady190, Irondome, Redalert2fan, Z07x10, Wotchit, Maxx786, Crock81, Al Khazar, Fduchello, ArmbrustBot, Wareditor2013, Varixai, Ulemzii, TheEpTic, FA18 Super Bug, Zigel and Anonymous: 154 • XM70E2 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM70E2?oldid=608185803 Contributors: Bearcat, Malcolma, Aldis90, AnomieBOT, Clark358, L1A1 FAL, The Determinator and Jon.jeckell • M72 LAW Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M72%20LAW?oldid=647727311 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Jdlh, Patrick, Darrell Greenwood, Julesd, Evercat, PaulinSaudi, Tempshill, Wernher, Riddley, Yosri, Profoss, DocWatson42, MathKnight, Everyking, Zinnmann, Bobblewik, Mzajac, Mikko Paananen, Klemen Kocjancic, TRS-80, Chepry, Solitude, Rich Farmbrough, Night Gyr, ZeroOne, Aqua008, El C, Tronno, Haham hanuka, Thatguy96, Apocal, Gene Nygaard, Admiral Valdemar, Dan100, Kelly Martin, D.E. Watters, Michaelkvance, Tabletop, GraemeLeggett, FlaBot, Nemo5576, MoRsE, YurikBot, RussBot, Gaius Cornelius, Alex Bakharev, Lavenderbunny, Manxruler, Arima, Alex43223, Mieciu K, Wknight94, Petri Krohn, GraemeL, Bagheera, Tierce, Nick-D, SmackBot, McGeddon,
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
879
Mike McGregor (Can), Chris the speller, Jprg1966, Colonies Chris, Emurphy42, Derekbridges, Britmax, Nakon, Hotspur23, Svartkell, Shattered, Nobunaga24, Boreas74, Randroide, Cydebot, Normfromga, Rifleman 82, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, SkonesMickLoud, DotDarkCloud, Signaleer, StalinOS, AntiVandalBot, Dybdal, Avaya1, Tengriteg, Magioladitis, Puddhe, Wnewbury, BilCat, Zombastic, Biggyniner, Rettetast, J.delanoy, LordAnubisBOT, McSly, Ndunruh, Juliancolton, Gothbag, Tourbillon, Thomas.W, Vandervahn, DOHC Holiday, W. B. Wilson, LeilaniLad, Simon9, Khutuck, Zaher1988, Andy Dingley, Koalorka, Crserrano, Blackshod, Dreamafter, Kernel Saunters, Bachcell, VVVBot, Buttons, ZH Evers, Jt, ClueBot, Binksternet, Kliu1, Zach4636, Mild Bill Hiccup, Arjayay, Creeping Death 1982, Chaosdruid, Berean Hunter, GPS73, Peter spinale, Chanakal, WikHead, Hueydoc, Addbot, Nath1991, The Bushranger, Drpickem, Luckas-bot, MileyDavidA, Yobot, Brian in denver, AnomieBOT, Metalhead94, MChoate67, LilHelpa, Obersachsebot, Adser, Capricorn42, WotWeiller, AdmiralProudmore, Mark Schierbecker, AK85, Owltalon1111, GVilKa, Jonathon A H, Highfield1730, FrescoBot, CaptainFugu, Thomphson, MKFI, Marbito11, Full-date unlinking bot, TangoSixZero, Heymslove, ROG5728, Raymond C. Watson, Jr., DexDor, Jackehammond, WikitanvirBot, JCRules, Illegitimate Barrister, Ὁ οἶστρος, L1A1 FAL, KazekageTR, Whoop whoop pull up, ClueBot NG, Sonertje80, Helpful Pixie Bot, Reallyfastcar, Dainomite, Glevum, Sean-is-over-there, Katangais, Takahara Osaka, Zackmann08, Muffin Wizard, America789, Khazar2, Shady190, EagerToddler39, MidnightRequestLine, Rs0wner301, Albert777MAX, Nastunye1991, Shkvoz, ArmbrustBot, Nhuagra, Brad Dyer, HoodsCZ, Smbash, Addinqaisara and Anonymous: 202 • M55 (rocket) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M55%20(rocket)?oldid=634466685 Contributors: Reid Kirby, IvoShandor, Keith D, SalineBrain, JEN9841, The Bushranger, Brian in denver, VX, Brutaldeluxe and Anonymous: 4 • AT4 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT4?oldid=650768332 Contributors: Leandrod, Charles Matthews, PaulinSaudi, Riddley, Sappe, DocWatson42, YanA, Bradeos Graphon, One Salient Oversight, Blue387, Rich Farmbrough, Rama, Night Gyr, TerraFrost, Mwanner, Rackham, La goutte de pluie, Zelda, Hooperbloob, Interiot, Hohum, Ravenhull, Kenyon, Fred26, Woohookitty, Mindmatrix, GraemeLeggett, BD2412, MZMcBride, Nemo5576, YurikBot, Jimp, Fabartus, Grubber, Gaius Cornelius, Ve3, Dahlis, Aeon1006, Jor70, Phichanad, Hayden120, GMan552, Nick-D, SmackBot, Looper5920, Ominae, Deon Steyn, Skickahit10, Jonathan Karlsson, Mike McGregor (Can), ERcheck, Bluebot, Stratosphere, Hibernian, Sadads, Htra0497, Derekbridges, Ohconfucius, IgWannA, LWF, Andrwsc, RekishiEJ, CapitalR, ShelfSkewed, Orca1 9904, Cydebot, Rifleman 82, TenthEagle, Nabokov, Lpwa, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, DPdH, USMA, Faffe, Meeowow, Magioladitis, Puddhe, Gwern, CommonsDelinker, Mange01, Schmee1 2, Fordtrucksrule88, Ndunruh, Tatrgel, DanMP5, STBotD, Spellcast, Ariobarzan, Gothbag, Thomas.W, W. B. Wilson, TXiKiBoT, Zaher1988, Damërung, Gamer416, Bahamut0013, Koalorka, Dreamafter, BotMultichill, Tonylam85, Natlava, Phe-bot, Dabloodz, Oxymoron83, Afernand74, Kumioko, Ken123BOT, Msjayhawk, Pyroflash, Plastikspork, Asmaybe, DumZiBoT, Editorofthewiki, Bobfran, SJSA, Addbot, EZ1234, Nohomers48, Ginosbot, Lightbot, ShadowOps, JEN9841, Yobot, PMLawrence, AnomieBOT, Quebec99, Sandip90, Xqbot, GrouchoBot, Mark Schierbecker, FrescoBot, Mrzeppolainen22, RedBot, Plasticspork, ROG5728, RjwilmsiBot, Ripchip Bot, Jackehammond, Beyond My Ken, KS3259, EmausBot, Illegitimate Barrister, Doddy Wuid, BartekJerzy, HupHollandHup, Armcav, DogFoxen, Romeofiveten, ClueBot NG, Ninja of Tao, Diaments 7.0, Chrome1453, Helpful Pixie Bot, Mastanerfma2117, Dainomite, Glevum, Andriel duran, Jwimbrow, DavidLovesGrammar, Irondome, Rs0wner301, Shkvoz, Bosnian Control, , Crow, Polanksy kolbe, RestyBohol61, Pointro and Anonymous: 169 • M141 Bunker Defeat Munition Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M141%20Bunker%20Defeat%20Munition?oldid=647971766 Contributors: Riddley, DocWatson42, Thatguy96, PaulHanson, Firsfron, SmackBot, Chris the speller, Aldis90, W. B. Wilson, Kumioko (renamed), EoGuy, Leofric1, The Bushranger, DexDor, Jackehammond, Babak902003, Chrome1453, PhnomPencil, Smbash and Anonymous: 5 • M24 mine Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M24%20mine?oldid=655217601 Contributors: Avocado, Nemo5576, RussBot, Megapixie, SmackBot, Deon Steyn, Eassin, CmdrObot, Sam Blacketer, Addbot, Smile4Chomsky, User0529, Brian in denver, Laodah and Anonymous: 1 • FIM-43 Redeye Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-43%20Redeye?oldid=649080819 Contributors: AxelBoldt, Ixfd64, Rlandmann, GCarty, Riddley, Rich Farmbrough, Haham hanuka, Hooperbloob, A2Kafir, Ashley Pomeroy, Sleigh, Gene Nygaard, CruiserBob, Mindmatrix, Anty, Zambani, FlaBot, Zotel, MoRsE, Sus scrofa, Megapixie, Groyolo, SmackBot, Ominae, KelleyCook, LWF, Nobunaga24, OnBeyondZebrax, JoeBot, CmdrObot, Tec15, Nabokov, Aldis90, BokicaK, Two way time, BilCat, LorenzoB, Spellmaster, CommonsDelinker, Rjswr, DOHC Holiday, Balmung0731, Dtom, Lucasbfrbot, Kumioko (renamed), Martarius, The Thing That Should Not Be, AN OLD MAN, Jopsach, Chaosdruid, Addbot, Nohomers48, LatitudeBot, Fluffernutter, Lightbot, Luckas Blade, O Fenian, Brian in denver, Miguelito0292, The red power12, HRoestBot, Yanaphop, Antemister, Dewritech, Wingman4l7, KazekageTR, Csp77, Will Beback Auto, Ramaksoud2000, Zackmann08, Khazar2, ArmbrustBot, Ballistametalcraft, Bill Fortin and Anonymous: 43 • AGM-114 Hellfire Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114%20Hellfire?oldid=655562769 Contributors: The Epopt, Mav, Bryan Derksen, Infrogmation, Rambot, Rlandmann, Daniel Quinlan, Echoray, Wernher, Oaktree b, David.Monniaux, Riddley, Altenmann, Profoss, DocWatson42, Oberiko, Greyengine5, There is no spoon, Leonard G., Bobblewik, Mustafaa, Mzajac, Michael Rowe, Pettifogger, Cynical, Blue387, Zigmar, Acad Ronin, Mtnerd, N328KF, Rich Farmbrough, Guanabot, StoneColdCrazy, Ivan Bajlo, Night Gyr, WegianWarrior, ZeroOne, Loren36, Harald Hansen, Tronno, Cwolfsheep, Thatguy96, Joshbaumgartner, Wtmitchell, TaintedMustard, Bradipus, Wyatts, Drbreznjev, Ahseaton, Bobrayner, Mindmatrix, Trevorparsons, BlaiseFEgan, Wayward, GraemeLeggett, Dovid, Ashmoo, Demonuk, MatthewDBA, Rjwilmsi, Erebus555, Supersteve1440, Chobot, Ahpook, YurikBot, Arado, Hydrargyrum, Manxruler, Megapixie, TDogg310, 21655, Arthur Rubin, Cassini83, Orcaborealis, Curpsbot-unicodify, Diagraph01, Nick-D, Groyolo, SaveTheWhales, SmackBot, Looper5920, Emoscopes, Deon Steyn, Pgk, Fallsend, Lonelymiesarchie, Chris the speller, Thumperward, Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, The1exile, Htra0497, TheGerm, Quartermaster, OrphanBot, MJCdetroit, A.R., John, MilborneOne, Spartanfox86, Butko, Joffeloff, Micoolio101, Stevebritgimp, Publicus, Lorikeet, Chillin1248, Tufftoon, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Hydraton31, Msnicki, Nabokov, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, Wikid77, Woody, Carloseduardo, Grahamdubya, Miller17CU94, Hcobb, Kaaveh Ahangar, Heroeswithmetaphors, BokicaK, Waerloeg, 3R1C, Born2flie, DagosNavy, JAnDbot, Epeefleche, Schon, PhilKnight, .anacondabot, C d h, Puddhe, BilCat, LorenzoB, E104421, DerHexer, Edward321, TazMage, Raza0007, STBot, CommonsDelinker, Numbo3, Clarkcol, KylieTastic, STBotD, DorganBot, Num1dgen, Enryū6473, Tourbillon, Zaher1988, Ng.j, Damërung, Nickpullar, Andy Dingley, Falcon8765, Eurocopter, Koalorka, Verox, SieBot, Loudoggie, OKBot, ZH Evers, ClueBot, Mild Bill Hiccup, Scorpene, DragonBot, Ktr101, Wilsone9, The Founders Intent, VsevolodKrolikov, Staygyro, Chaosdruid, DumZiBoT, Grautbakken, Dave1185, Addbot, Some jerk on the Internet, EZ1234, ContiAWB, Hardwarefreak, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Vendettanjm, Tangopaso, Nallimbot, KamikazeBot, 8ung3st, AnomieBOT, Archon 2488, Asok71, Rubinbot, 1exec1, Materialscientist, GB fan, Simultaneous movement, MauritsBot, Xqbot, Tomdo08, Abce2, Mark Schierbecker, SassoBot, Mastermafiozi, Misortie, FrescoBot, Kyteto, Tavernsenses, Armigo, 1976reds, AstaBOTh15, SiPlus, Enemenemu, MCQknight, DadOfBeanAndBug, Reaper Eternal, Tumna, RjwilmsiBot, Ankurbhageria, EmausBot, Babak902003, SingleIntegral, Sp33dyphil, Anirudh Emani, Righteous9000, Gplav, Illegitimate Barrister, Ebrambot, BP OMowe, Bob drobbs, WarHeroZ, Iron Archer, Ready, NADIN2, ChuispastonBot, Masc80, Cgt, ClueBot NG, Jack Greenmaven, Catlemur, Doh5678, Blade-of-the-South, Mesoderm, Helpful Pixie Bot, Mbedway, BG19bot, SlimRindy, Tlai1977, BattyBot, Jafder, America789, Irul 901, عميد طاهر, Faizan, Aftabbanoori, FISH MAN C, Kbd201214, Fabwiki88, Monkbot, ByronLove12, TredBear, Faraz092, Tjdunn1979, FlorentPirot and Anonymous: 237
880
CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
• M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M270%20Multiple%20Launch%20Rocket%20System? oldid=655340040 Contributors: Rlandmann, David Newton, Riddley, Demerzel, Profoss, DocWatson42, MathKnight, Bobblewik, Mzajac, Blue387, Willhsmit, Cmcapellan, Klemen Kocjancic, Rob cowie, N328KF, Rama, ZeroOne, El C, Func, Cwolfsheep, King nothing, Thatguy96, Andrew Gray, Bukvoed, Hohum, Cal 1234, TheAznSensation, Gene Nygaard, Alai, Dziban303, SDC, GraemeLeggett, Rjwilmsi, Vegaswikian, MoRsE, Chobot, Mmx1, Chwyatt, BramvR, YurikBot, Noclador, Andynormancx, Arado, Witan, Los688, Manxruler, Pyrotec, Tony1, Mieciu K, Rfsmit, Nikkimaria, Modify, Attilios, SmackBot, Eskimbot, Jprg1966, Hibernian, Namangwari, Ammar shaker, Decltype, A.R., Derek R Bullamore, John, LWF, Cowbert, PRRfan, Highspeed, Van helsing, Cydebot, Argus fin, Daniel J. Leivick, Profhobby, Thijs!bot, Dogaroon, Deathbunny, Marek69, Hcobb, Mathieu121, Bjenks, YK Times, Basilicum, Parsecboy, Puddhe, BilCat, Sam ware, Ultraviolet scissor flame, Rebell18190, Realman208, STBotD, Orthopraxia, Jetwave Dave, RaptorR3d, Tourbillon, Lalicea, Imperator3733, SpaceyHopper, Pvt. Green, Koalorka, Tharskjold, Kernel Saunters, Idsnowdog, Son of Zealandia, TabooTikiGod, ClueBot, Lastdingo, Tonitrum, Ktr101, Saə, Jellyfish dave, DumZiBoT, Killkola, Neutrino 1, Dave1185, Addbot, Nohomers48, Chamal N, Paddyboot, Lightbot, Zorrobot, Yobot, Worm That Turned, Brian in denver, AnomieBOT, Piano non troppo, Eumolpo, Xqbot, Gpadilla81, Mark Schierbecker, SassoBot, WikiDudeia, Ojoc, FrescoBot, John-Greece, LittleWink, Lovetravel86, Vinie007, Xiglofre, Rolen47, TobeBot, SansPedes, Lordrichie, DexDor, Jackehammond, Tom120, Illegitimate Barrister, L1A1 FAL, Rcsprinter123, Kevinmax07, Phd8511, Dainomite, Glevum, Alvin Lee, EdwardH, BattyBot, America789, Cyberbot II, Njf001, Irondome, Llamapoth, Black houk, Shkvoz, RabeaMalah, YiFeiBot, Aubmn, Dbsseven, Mohammedbahaa11 and Anonymous: 160 • Hydra 70 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra%2070?oldid=651306003 Contributors: Magnus Manske, The Epopt, Ted Longstaffe, Leandrod, Patrick, Rlandmann, Echoray, RayKiddy, Riddley, Pibwl, Vfrickey, Greyengine5, Bobblewik, Ericg, Rich Farmbrough, Rama, Neurophyre, Thatguy96, LtNOWIS, Joshbaumgartner, Trjumpet, Wyatts, Gene Nygaard, TomTheHand, BD2412, MZMcBride, FlaBot, Bgwhite, Arado, Epolk, Gaius Cornelius, Lavenderbunny, SEWilcoBot, Kvn8907, IDude 101, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Deon Steyn, Jprg1966, Htra0497, Pkk, Ligulembot, Jimvin, Beetstra, Dammit, Sir Vicious, MarsRover, Orca1 9904, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, Corella, Born2flie, Magioladitis, JeffJonez, BilCat, JaGa, Tgeairn, 72Dino, Reedy Bot, Youngjim, Assassin3577, Banality, Bedwyr, ClueBot, Masterblooregard, Jellyfish dave, Addbot, Pigr8, LaaknorBot, Numbo3-bot, Tide rolls, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Airborne1228, Metalhead94, Twix2247, FrescoBot, Dinamik-bot, Underlying lk, PleaseStand, DexDor, EmausBot, John of Reading, Dudy001, Righteous9000, ZéroBot, Anir1uph, Smufforz, Helpful Pixie Bot, KShiger, Enigmatum, BattyBot, Justincheng12345-bot, America789, Cyberbot II, Albert777MAX, Ruzzel01, Samhpes, Strorm, HWClifton, Mongoose Army and Anonymous: 57 • M202 FLASH Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M202%20FLASH?oldid=634518178 Contributors: Riddley, DocWatson42, Thatguy96, Alansohn, Anthony Appleyard, Hohum, Marasmusine, GregorB, Coolhawks88, Awiseman, SmackBot, Cla68, Ocatecir, Wilhelm Wiesel, Daniel J. Leivick, Aldis90, Groogokk, L0b0t, Dave gross, JamesBWatson, Milo03, Theconster, Dispenser, W. B. Wilson, Vipinhari, Lamro, AlleborgoBot, Trey, Dwane E Anderson, Martarius, Ktr101, EpicDream86, CapnZapp, Addbot, Nohomers48, LaaknorBot, Akyoyo94, Cod4master9, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Brian in denver, 5infBrig, Mark Schierbecker, Hellomichael2000, Surv1v4l1st, LucienBOT, Yadayadayaday, Smoerble, Archtimmy, Sdafhgh, Subtropical-man, TheEvanCat, Wingman4l7, Skrunyak, ClueBot NG, Jdcollins13, Roko121, Makecat-bot, Faizan, Everybodyswillyisaspeedboat and Anonymous: 35 • M139 bomblet Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M139%20bomblet?oldid=629761038 Contributors: Julesd, Rwendland, RussBot, Crism, Ospalh, BorgQueen, Nabokov, Lklundin, IvoShandor, VX, Chribba, Schr75 and Anonymous: 7 • Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding-Fin%20Aerial%20Rocket?oldid=653410368 Contributors: The Anome, Rlandmann, Oberiko, Roo72, CanisRufus, Cap'n Refsmmat, Sietse Snel, Thatguy96, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, Woohookitty, Uncle G, GraemeLeggett, JdforresterBot, Megapixie, Snarius, Asams10, HoratioVitero, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Thatnewguy, The PIPE, Vgy7ujm, Joffeloff, Dammit, Cydebot, Aldis90, Bearpatch, PhilKnight, BilCat, Satyen Akolkar, W. B. Wilson, Abu America, Sturmvogel 66, Jellyfish dave, Dave1185, Magus732, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Yobot, EVCM, SargethePoet, FrescoBot, LucienBOT, Jackehammond, Dewritech, ZéroBot, H3llBot, TitaniumCarbide, KLBot2, Samf4u and Anonymous: 16 • T34 Calliope Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T34%20Calliope?oldid=645287732 Contributors: Mzajac, Sole Soul, Pacifier, King nothing, Hohum, Axeman89, Woohookitty, GraemeLeggett, BD2412, Sus scrofa, RussBot, Arado, Mieciu K, Cambion, SmackBot, Hmains, The PIPE, Robofish, Like tears in rain, Nobunaga24, Feureau, MrDolomite, SuperTank17, Cydebot, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, FlieGerFaUstMe262, LordAnubisBOT, Instantnematode, Esagsoz, Dreamafter, Alexbot, DumZiBoT, XLinkBot, Alansplodge, MystBot, Addbot, Magus732, DutchDevil, Delta 51, Tartarus, Luckas-bot, Brian in denver, Xqbot, FrescoBot, Kondi, MusikAnimal, Reallyfastcar, 93, Nonsenseferret, OurLordMonty, Supereditor69 and Anonymous: 33 • AIR-2 Genie Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2%20Genie?oldid=653197445 Contributors: Bryan Derksen, Leandrod, Cyde, Rlandmann, Lommer, Vanished user 5zariu3jisj0j4irj, Riddley, Bearcat, Jphieffer, Danceswithzerglings, Oberiko, Leonard G., Bobblewik, Plasma east, Ericg, Brianhe, Rich Farmbrough, LindsayH, Night Gyr, CanisRufus, RazorChicken, ArgentLA, Gunter.krebs, 119, Joshbaumgartner, Rwendland, Hohum, GraemeLeggett, BD2412, FlaBot, Turbinator, Zotel, Arado, Gaius Cornelius, Ospalh, Asams10, PTSE, Groyolo, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Mike McGregor (Can), Jumping cheese, Aspade, Valfontis, Calvados, John, Bel air, Fl295, Cydebot, Jros83, Nabokov, Thijs!bot, JAnDbot, OhanaUnited, Dricherby, Trottsky, Avicennasis, A75, BilCat, LorenzoB, R'n'B, Nono64, Zipzipzip, Notreallydavid, Cobi, Spiesr, Banjodog, WarddrBOT, Billabbott, Mtdhryk, Andy Dingley, Trailblazer2004, SieBot, Cobatfor, Adam1not, Binksternet, Boneyard90, Ktr101, Alexbot, Chaosdruid, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Jimderkaisser, Ulric1313, FreeRangeFrog, צנטוריון, Chicohutch, Citation bot 1, Cnwilliams, Gbarbee, RjwilmsiBot, EmausBot, Lucas hamster, AvicBot, ZéroBot, Redhanker, Cymru.lass, BrokenAnchorBot, Bomazi, Whoop whoop pull up, Braincricket, ChrisGualtieri, Mar044, Limnalid and Anonymous: 44 • BOAR Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOAR?oldid=641745708 Contributors: Brammers, Cs-wolves, KimChee, ShelfSkewed, Memphisto, BilCat, Andy Dingley, Cobatfor, Dpmuk, Addbot, The Bushranger, LucienBOT, Mono, GoingBatty, Helpful Pixie Bot, PhnomPencil, Monkbot and Anonymous: 4 • Hopi (missile) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopi%20(missile)?oldid=641747881 Contributors: Stone, Chris the speller, Cydebot, BilCat, Andy Dingley, YSSYguy, The Bushranger, Helpful Pixie Bot, PhnomPencil, CitationCleanerBot and Monkbot • AGM-76 Falcon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-76%20Falcon?oldid=596546145 Contributors: Rlandmann, N328KF, Joshbaumgartner, FlaBot, Kolbasz, Gaius Cornelius, Pirate2000, SmackBot, Cydebot, Aldis90, Sturmvogel 66, MystBot, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Erik9bot and Causa83 • ASALM Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASALM?oldid=629472217 Contributors: Woohookitty, Johna, Slashme, Cydebot, Nick Number, WeeWillieWiki, BilCat, The Bushranger, DASHBot, Helpful Pixie Bot, Seergenius and Anonymous: 2
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
881
• Diamondback (missile) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamondback%20(missile)?oldid=641745004 Contributors: Mgiganteus1, ShelfSkewed, Cydebot, Acroterion, BilCat, Andy Dingley, EoGuy, ChrisHodgesUK, The Bushranger, DexDor, Michaelmas1957, Helpful Pixie Bot, CitationCleanerBot, Monkbot and Anonymous: 2 • Sky Scorcher Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky%20Scorcher?oldid=641757223 Contributors: Delirium, Ahunt, Cydebot, BilCat, Panicpgh, The Bushranger and Anonymous: 1 • Wagtail (missile) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagtail%20(missile)?oldid=629472248 Contributors: Dale Arnett, SmackBot, Cydebot, Doc Tropics, Smartse, BilCat, Piledhigheranddeeper, The Bushranger, ClueBot NG, Darrenbreeden, Helpful Pixie Bot and Anonymous: 4 • ADR-8 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADR-8?oldid=654205221 Contributors: The Bushranger, John of Reading, Preternat and Anonymous: 1 • AGR-14 ZAP Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGR-14%20ZAP?oldid=597232079 Contributors: Hydrargyrum, RASAM, Faizhaider, BilCat, Addbot, Leszek Jańczuk, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Trappist the monk, DASHBot, GoingBatty and Anonymous: 1 • MQR-13 BMTS Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQR-13%20BMTS?oldid=572982248 Contributors: BilCat, The Bushranger, Materialscientist, Demiurge1000, CitationCleanerBot and Anonymous: 1 • MQR-16 Gunrunner Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQR-16%20Gunrunner?oldid=572982543 Contributors: Wavelength, Chris the speller, KimChee, Optimist on the run, BilCat, Boneyard90, The Bushranger, Helpful Pixie Bot and Khazar2 • Ram (rocket) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram%20(rocket)?oldid=647868739 Contributors: Leandrod, Arado, Hellbus, James086, BilCat, Dave1185, The Bushranger, EmausBot, Magneticlifeform, Helpful Pixie Bot, BG19bot, PhnomPencil and Anonymous: 1 • LOCAT Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOCAT?oldid=653410479 Contributors: Bushranger and Anonymous: 1
DVdm, Kollision, Cydebot, BilCat, The
• LTV-N-4 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTV-N-4?oldid=607703959 Contributors: Cobatfor and The Bushranger • Gimlet (rocket) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimlet%20(rocket)?oldid=641748092 Contributors: Andrew Gray, Jehochman, SmackBot, Brammers, CmdrObot, Cydebot, BilCat, Mild Bill Hiccup, Sturmvogel 66, The Bushranger, Wcoole, AustralianRupert, Helpful Pixie Bot, PhnomPencil and Anonymous: 2 • Zuni (rocket) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuni%20(rocket)?oldid=647244298 Contributors: Riddley, DocWatson42, Thomas Ludwig, Hammersfan, Master Of Ninja, Rama, Hektor, Countakeshi, Karl Andrews, Ageekgal, Victor falk, SpLoT, Drakkenfyre, Emt147, Dual Freq, WDGraham, Trekphiler, Cowbert, CzarB, CmdrObot, Srajan01, Pi3832, Aldis90, Honeplus, Matthew Proctor, Corella, Endie, Albany NY, BilCat, Fanra, Cobatfor, Kumioko (renamed), XLinkBot, Dave1185, Addbot, Fireaxe888, Bbfreakr0x, BrianKnez, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Citation bot, Xqbot, Colubedy, Full-date unlinking bot, RjwilmsiBot, Mztourist, WikitanvirBot, Discussdefense, Sp33dyphil, ZéroBot, Ari-69, Defensefacthelper and Anonymous: 13 • Shavetail Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shavetail?oldid=608776772 Contributors: Chris the speller, The Bushranger and Rpmichel • BGM-109G Ground Launched Cruise Missile Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-109G%20Ground%20Launched% 20Cruise%20Missile?oldid=649790338 Contributors: Katana0182, Finlay McWalter, Riddley, Comatose51, Chowbok, Rich Farmbrough, Xezbeth, Sole Soul, Shenme, KBi, PaulHanson, Joshbaumgartner, Andrew Gray, LunarLander, Deacon of Pndapetzim, Woohookitty, Strongbow, BD2412, Ketiltrout, Rjwilmsi, Feydey, SchuminWeb, Kolbasz, Chwyatt, Noclador, Arado, Gadget850, Arthur Rubin, Nick-D, Sacxpert, SmackBot, Chris the speller, Bluebot, Colonies Chris, Ligulembot, Tdrss, Bwmoll3, Azvoleff, Cydebot, Malcolmcraig, Woody, CommonsDelinker, Nono64, Ndunruh, D-Kuru, UncleNat, TXiKiBoT, Universaladdress, WacoJacko, Kumioko (renamed), MBK004, Matrek, Darthveda, Niceguyedc, Pointillist, Lineagegeek, 51edb, Addbot, DOI bot, Xenobot, Yobot, Edoe, AnomieBOT, Citation bot, ArthurBot, I dream of horses, RedBot, John of Reading, Babak902003, Dewritech, ChrisGualtieri, GoMinU, Glcm1 and Anonymous: 25 • SM-64 Navaho Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-64%20Navaho?oldid=654868489 Contributors: The Anome, Maury Markowitz, Rlandmann, Dcoetzee, DocWatson42, Wolfkeeper, Miya, Utcursch, Karl Dickman, Grm wnr, Trevor MacInnis, Brianhe, David Schaich, Bender235, Jeodesic, Joshbaumgartner, DonPMitchell, Scriberius, Bricktop, Marudubshinki, Rjwilmsi, Vary, Mark Sublette, Los688, Lao Wai, Emersoni, Maxamegalon2000, SmackBot, Chris the speller, ThreeBlindMice, Skulvar, Fl295, Cydebot, DMeyering, Dawkeye, Bzuk, Desertsky85451, RegIP, Brucelipe, GoldenKnight, Nono64, Youngjim, Wsacul, Warut, Ndunruh, D-Kuru, VolkovBot, Sdsds, GimmeBot, Petebutt, Slysplace, LanceBarber, Thunderbird2, AMCKen, Ath55ena, Lilyu, Addbot, LaaknorBot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Xosema, Xqbot, Heroicrelics, LucienBOT, RedBot, , Helpful Pixie Bot, Zedshort, Khazar2 and Anonymous: 14 • SM-62 Snark Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-62%20Snark?oldid=654358023 Contributors: TwoOneTwo, Michel.SLM, Rlandmann, Topbanana, RedWolf, Oberiko, Greyengine5, Bobblewik, Quadell, Scottperry, Dabarkey, Karl Dickman, Moki80, Relihanl, CanisRufus, Sortior, R. S. Shaw, Sasquatch, Alansohn, Joshbaumgartner, Andrew Gray, ליאור, Wdfarmer, Gene Nygaard, Woohookitty, Bricktop, Edison, Rillian, FlaBot, Ground Zero, Mark Sublette, Arado, Hydrargyrum, Los688, Kah13, Ospalh, Knotnic, Curpsbotunicodify, Sacxpert, SmackBot, Jim62sch, Jprg1966, Trekphiler, Greg5030, Bwmoll3, R. E. Mixer, ThreeBlindMice, Fl295, Cydebot, Crowish, Nabokov, Aldis90, Bzuk, BilCat, LorenzoB, Brucelipe, Archolman, Tdadamemd, Youngjim, Wsacul, Ndunruh, VolkovBot, Sdsds, TXiKiBoT, GimmeBot, Unregistered.coward, AMCKen, Treekids, Nimbus227, Ktr101, Lineagegeek, Sturmvogel 66, Anticipation of a New Lover’s Arrival, The, Addbot, Idiophonist, The Bushranger, Yobot, Troymacgill, JackieBot, Joshjet182, Unitsquarehead, FrescoBot, Surv1v4l1st, LucienBOT, Reactordrone, Jackehammond, Digger554, Helpful Pixie Bot, Zedshort, Mogism and Anonymous: 31 • SSM-N-8 Regulus Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSM-N-8%20Regulus?oldid=640154454 Contributors: TwoOneTwo, The Epopt, Derek Ross, Edward, Eurleif, Minesweeper, Stan Shebs, Rlandmann, Pibwl, Oberiko, Greyengine5, Hokanomono, Bobblewik, Chowbok, Karl Dickman, Brianhe, Rich Farmbrough, Avriette, CanisRufus, Walkiped, Joshbaumgartner, Primalchaos, Marudubshinki, FlaBot, Mark Sublette, Sus scrofa, Fabartus, Hydrargyrum, Gaius Cornelius, Saberwyn, Ospalh, Georgewilliamherbert, Groyolo, Philip Morten, SmackBot, Chris the speller, Florian Adler, Tsca.bot, Ntspark, Suitmonster, Shawn D., Fl295, Cydebot, Nabokov, Mdhennessey, Woody, Dawkeye, Arch dude, Georgewienbarg, BilCat, R'n'B, Marcd30319, LordAnubisBOT, MarcoLittel, D-Kuru, TXiKiBoT, Petebutt, LanceBarber, Work permit, Cobatfor, Lightmouse, Maralia, MBK004, NiD.29, DumZiBoT, Dave1185, Addbot, The Bushranger, Luckasbot, Troymacgill, FrescoBot, Oracleofottawa, Jackehammond, ZéroBot, BattyBot, Khazar2, RobDuch, Llammakey and Anonymous: 19
882
CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
• MGM-13 Mace Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-13%20Mace?oldid=649424348 Contributors: Rlandmann, Bobblewik, Karl Dickman, Joshbaumgartner, Asav, Mark Sublette, RussBot, Arado, Hydrargyrum, Groyolo, SmackBot, InverseHypercube, Bluebot, Emt147, Ken keisel, Dreadstar, Bwmoll3, Fl295, Cydebot, Elmschrat, Buckshot06, BilCat, Ndunruh, Piddlepaddler, Nigel Ish, Balmung0731, GimmeBot, VNCCC, Thunderbird2, SieBot, BB-61, Infofellow, PixelBot, Dana boomer, Addbot, Wreston, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Ulric1313, HRoestBot, Trappist the monk, Jethwarp, 777sms, GoingBatty, FlugKerl, Chesipiero, Leandrogfcdutra and Anonymous: 22 • MGM-1 Matador Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-1%20Matador?oldid=649429064 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Rlandmann, Jll, Topbanana, DocWatson42, Bobblewik, Chowbok, Karl Dickman, Rich Farmbrough, MeltBanana, Michael Zimmermann, Srbauer, Cmdrjameson, Patrickske, Joshbaumgartner, Malo, Firsfron, Robert K S, Kosher Fan, Bricktop, GraemeLeggett, Boris Alexeev, Mark Sublette, MoRsE, Arado, Xihr, RadioFan, Hydrargyrum, Gaius Cornelius, Lao Wai, Gadget850, SmackBot, Athaler, Hmains, Emt147, WDGraham, Will Beback, Tdrss, MrDolomite, Haus, MrBoo, Fl295, Cydebot, Sadorsch, Thijs!bot, Woody, Darklilac, Bernd vdB, BilCat, Brucelipe, Ndunruh, Balmung0731, GimmeBot, SieBot, Lightmouse, Wuhwuzdat, Sfan00 IMG, Sv1xv, Alexbot, Lineagegeek, Sturmvogel 66, Polly, Addbot, Wreston, LaaknorBot, SpBot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, AnomieBOT, Kirbert, Ulric1313, Neurolysis, LucienBOT, RedBot, Full-date unlinking bot, CHESTICULAR-FORTITUDE, Jackehammond, Digger554, Wingman4l7, One.Ouch.Zero, BG19bot, BattyBot, Aarrowsmith, Leandrogfcdutra and Anonymous: 25 • Republic-Ford JB-2 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic-Ford%20JB-2?oldid=655397446 Contributors: Rlandmann, Chowbok, Rich Farmbrough, Firsfron, GraemeLeggett, Rjwilmsi, Mark Sublette, Bgwhite, RussBot, Hydrargyrum, Joel7687, Nick-D, Chris the speller, Trekphiler, The PIPE, MilborneOne, Bwmoll3, Cydebot, J Clear, Gavia immer, BilCat, CommonsDelinker, Fiachra10003, Piddlepaddler, VolkovBot, TXiKiBoT, Petebutt, Andy Dingley, 4wajzkd02, Lightmouse, Maralia, Nimbus227, Marc James Small, Addbot, Meggymoo10, SpBot, Jaydec, The Bushranger, Yobot, JackieBot, Auranor, LilHelpa, Elliottwolf, Anotherclown, FrescoBot, Lzbthhrn, MaxDel, Full-date unlinking bot, Kowalskiwalt, ZéroBot, Lakenjr, Helpful Pixie Bot, Makecat-bot, XXzoonamiXX, Leandrogfcdutra, RobDuch and Anonymous: 17 • Alpha Draco Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha%20Draco?oldid=651480521 Contributors: GraemeLeggett, SatuSuro, Arado, BilCat, Boneyard90, The Bushranger, Grondemar, DASHBot, John of Reading and Stamptrader • Crow (missile) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow%20(missile)?oldid=641746387 Contributors: SatuSuro, BilCat, Adavidb, Mild Bill Hiccup, Sturmvogel 66, The Bushranger, PhnomPencil, BattyBot and Monkbot • MGM-51 Shillelagh Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-51%20Shillelagh?oldid=639746890 Contributors: AxelBoldt, The Epopt, Koyaanis Qatsi, Maury Markowitz, Hephaestos, Sannse, Rlandmann, JidGom, Wik, Riddley, Altenmann, Naddy, Oberiko, Greyengine5, Bobblewik, Burgundavia, CanisRufus, Joshbaumgartner, Ashley Pomeroy, Bart133, Hohum, Gene Nygaard, Miq, Yakolev, Kolbasz, MoRsE, Bagheera, Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, Ways, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, Deathbunny, RebelRobot, Rettetast, KTo288, Boston, Spacehusky, Notreallydavid, MarcoLittel, Merceris, Balmung0731, Dreamafter, Bachcell, Tumbleweed1954, Piledhigheranddeeper, One last pharaoh, Addbot, Shattered Wikiglass, Nohomers48, LaaknorBot, Delta 51, The Bushranger, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Allocer, SCΛRECROW, Fallschirmjägergewehr 42, Helpful Pixie Bot, Sovngard, Sky3wire and Anonymous: 23 • PGM-17 Thor Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGM-17%20Thor?oldid=653115521 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Patrick, Mic, Minesweeper, Ahoerstemeier, Docu, Rlandmann, EdH, Jikester, Audin, Dimadick, Rholton, Modeha, Reubenbarton, Greyengine5, Wolfkeeper, Curps, Bobblewik, Wmahan, Karl Dickman, Grm wnr, YUL89YYZ, Murtasa, Kbh3rd, A2Kafir, Joshbaumgartner, Andrew Gray, Rwendland, Sobolewski, Evil Monkey, Gene Nygaard, Adrian.benko, Crosbiesmith, Woohookitty, Bricktop, GraemeLeggett, Marudubshinki, Isaac Rabinovitch, Jivecat, Bubba73, Michael Slone, Schol-R-LEA, Hellbus, Van der Hoorn, Gaius Cornelius, Los688, Ospalh, Nicolaiplum, Lynbarn, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, WSpaceport, Gjs238, Bluebot, Emt147, Snori, CSWarren, Redline, WDGraham, Trekphiler, Richsage, Tdrss, Bwmoll3, Minna Sora no Shita, Brady1984, Neddyseagoon, R. E. Mixer, ThreeBlindMice, N2e, Acabtp, Cydebot, Hydraton31, Nabokov, Cancun771, Thijs!bot, Lord Hawk, WinBot, JAnDbot, Charles01, Buckshot06, Avicennasis, LorenzoB, Reihe, Subspace1250, Mark Lincoln, Ndunruh, ColdCase, Sdsds, GimmeBot, Petebutt, Colwing, Dirk P Broer, Johnboyes, MBK004, Nimbus227, Reedjr5746, Sturmvogel 66, WikHead, SilvonenBot, Good Olfactory, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, AnomieBOT, JackieBot, RadioBroadcast, MastiBot, Full-date unlinking bot, Trapzor, Overjive, DexDor, Pouyana, ZéroBot, LostCause231, Magneticlifeform, Cgruda, BendelacBOT, Royalcourtier and Anonymous: 42 • SM-65 Atlas Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-65%20Atlas?oldid=654574865 Contributors: AxelBoldt, Lee Daniel Crocker, Brion VIBBER, Bryan Derksen, Zundark, Gareth Owen, Rmhermen, Roadrunner, Maury Markowitz, Lir, Patrick, Stewacide, Ellywa, Ahoerstemeier, Stan Shebs, Susan Mason, Rlandmann, Andrewa, Salsa Shark, Seth ze, Wikiborg, Audin, Wik, Roachmeister, Rei, Pollinator, Aliekens, Carlossuarez46, Shantavira, Dimadick, Jmabel, Hadal, Wikibot, Hartze11, Reubenbarton, DocWatson42, Rs2, Oberiko, Greyengine5, Wolfkeeper, Netoholic, Fleminra, Alison, Bobblewik, Bumm13, Dabarkey, Karl Dickman, Rich Farmbrough, Aranel, Evand, Tom, Gershwinrb, Duk, Cwolfsheep, Apyule, Nev, Interiot, Joshbaumgartner, Ashley Pomeroy, Hunter1084, Sobolewski, Gene Nygaard, Firsfron, Bricktop, Arru, Graham87, Jivecat, Bubba73, Margosbot, BjKa, Kolbasz, YurikBot, Angus Lepper, Jimp, Arado, Gaius Cornelius, Ksyrie, Pstakem, Quadbox, Ospalh, Pil56, Petri Krohn, Curpsbot-unicodify, Mikus, GrinBot, MaeseLeon, Hmains, Chris the speller, Icaro, Emt147, SeanWillard, Redline, WDGraham, Trekphiler, Chlewbot, PieRRoMaN, Ken keisel, Nakon, Dreadstar, BiggKwell, NeilFraser, Glacier109, Tdrss, John, Bwmoll3, Minna Sora no Shita, Nobunaga24, RandomCritic, Buckboard, Novangelis, Pjbflynn, Harold f, R. E. Mixer, Fl295, Necessary Evil, Cydebot, Hydraton31, SpaceyD, Crowish, Nabokov, JayW, Thijs!bot, Nick Number, Barneyg, Fru1tbat, JAnDbot, Avaya1, Jatkins, BilCat, LorenzoB, Brucelipe, Mark Lincoln, R'n'B, CommonsDelinker, Tdadamemd, Ndunruh, Ohms law, Saltysailor, Donrayt, Atlasicbmman, DorganBot, Flyingidiot, Sdsds, GimmeBot, Cootiequits, Bcappel, Pmoir, Dirkbb, SQL, Falcon8765, Pubdog, GrouchoPython, MBK004, Matrek, Scottinmesa, Chech Explorer, Easphi, Lineagegeek, Sturmvogel 66, DumZiBoT, AlanM1, Good Olfactory, Wilder, EjsBot, Reedmalloy, Kinamand, The Bushranger, Yobot, AnomieBOT, RadioBroadcast, Ckruschke, ArthurBot, Heroicrelics, Griffinofwales, Prari, LloydS38, Full-date unlinking bot, Lotje, Gisegre, EricDBier, DexDor, EmausBot, John of Reading, JustinTime55, Mmeijeri, Solomonfromfinland, Artvill, Magneticlifeform, Whoop whoop pull up, Snotbot, Helpful Pixie Bot, H.b.sh, Atlasmissile, Purdygb, Khazar2, N6mz, Anythingcouldhappen, Red15 and Anonymous: 80 • SM-68 Titan Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-68%20Titan?oldid=594636190 Contributors: DocWatson42, Rich Farmbrough, BD2412, RussBot, WDGraham, Cydebot, Ndunruh, Addbot, GDK, FrescoBot, DexDor, ZéroBot, Khazar2 and Anonymous: 2 • SSM-A-5 Boojum Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSM-A-5%20Boojum?oldid=654365723 Contributors: Cydebot, Parsecboy, BilCat, Adavidb, The Bushranger, Helpful Pixie Bot, Zedshort, Monkbot and Anonymous: 2 • Supersonic Low Altitude Missile Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic%20Low%20Altitude%20Missile?oldid=643147471 Contributors: Liftarn, GCarty, Oberiko, Clarknova, Squash, CanisRufus, Sam Korn, Joshbaumgartner, Pauli133, Admiral Valdemar, Drift-
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
•
• • •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
883
woodzebulin, Arado, Hellbus, Shaddack, Bullzeye, Curpsbot-unicodify, Groyolo, SmackBot, Chris the speller, Autarch, John, Will Pittenger, Cydebot, Profhobby, BilCat, CommonsDelinker, Thaurisil, 806f0F, Sdsds, John Nevard, His Manliness, TheWatcherREME, The Bushranger, Bomazi, Snotbot, Irondome and Anonymous: 14 AAM-A-1 Firebird Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAM-A-1%20Firebird?oldid=641749220 Contributors: WHRupp, Cydebot, BilCat, Jackfork, Bob1960evens, Addbot, The Bushranger, Trappist the monk, DexDor, Jackehammond, Helpful Pixie Bot, CitationCleanerBot, Лукас Фокс, Mddkpp, JurgenNL and Anonymous: 1 AAM-N-4 Oriole Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAM-N-4%20Oriole?oldid=648059244 Contributors: Arado, CmdrObot, BilCat, Thewellman, The Bushranger and DexDor AAM-N-5 Meteor Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAM-N-5%20Meteor?oldid=641749018 Contributors: BilCat, The Bushranger, Trappist the monk and DexDor AIM-26 Falcon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-26%20Falcon?oldid=644708374 Contributors: Rlandmann, GCarty, Topbanana, Oberiko, Jrquinlisk, Avriette, Night Gyr, Marblespire, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, Tabletop, YurikBot, Arado, Omniwolf, Rwalker, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Florian Adler, John, Fl295, Cydebot, Hebrides, Highonhendrix, Sherbrooke, .anacondabot, T96 grh, BilCat, Safir91, Nono64, Balmung0731, Sfan00 IMG, Jmdeur, Sv1xv, Ktr101, Perkeleperkele, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Yobot, Veijuh, Ulric1313, DexDor, EmausBot and Anonymous: 11 AIM-47 Falcon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-47%20Falcon?oldid=644085453 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Rlandmann, GCarty, Stewartadcock, DocWatson42, Oberiko, Mboverload, Sam Hocevar, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, Arado, Megapixie, Engineer Bob, Sardanaphalus, Bluebot, Florian Adler, Cydebot, Kubanczyk, J Clear, LorenzoB, Steve8675309, Balmung0731, TXiKiBoT, Coimbra68, Lightmouse, Addbot, The Bushranger, Xqbot, FrescoBot, Darkstar8799, DexDor, Mikechou2, ChrisGualtieri and Anonymous: 6 AIM-54 Phoenix Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-54%20Phoenix?oldid=654986555 Contributors: William Avery, Maury Markowitz, Leandrod, Rlandmann, GCarty, David Newton, Cabalamat, Jamesday, RadicalBender, Riddley, Altenmann, Ancheta Wis, DocWatson42, Ike, Oberiko, Mat-C, Greyengine5, Iceberg3k, Bobblewik, Wmahan, N328KF, Rich Farmbrough, Avriette, Guanabot, Giraffedata, ArgentLA, Arthena, ExpatEgghead, Joshbaumgartner, ASK, Ashley Pomeroy, Pouya, Goldom, RJFJR, Brettr, Gene Nygaard, Bobrayner, Woohookitty, Nvinen, The Wordsmith, Grendel-B, Isnow, M412k, Wisq, Wiarthurhu, MZMcBride, FlaBot, SchuminWeb, Russavia, Chobot, Mmx1, YurikBot, Arado, Gaius Cornelius, DavidConrad, Megapixie, Gadget850, Asams10, Chesnok, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Diagraph01, SmackBot, Reedy, Prodego, Bjelleklang, YMB29, Chris the speller, Dual Freq, Snowmanradio, A.R., Bogsat, Tdrss, John, MilborneOne, Joffeloff, Dale101usa, Therealhazel, MrDolomite, Siebrand, Hagman1983, Henrickson, FleetCommand, CmdrObot, Orca1 9904, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Hebrides, Sempai, CMarshall, Nabokov, Cancun771, Kubanczyk, Oldwildbill, DulcetTone, Woody, Asaba, JustAGal, Hcobb, CharlotteWebb, J Clear, Escarbot, Tashtastic, CombatWombat42, Nathanjp, RebelRobot, .anacondabot, Vordabois, JimGoose, BilCat, LorenzoB, Oleg Str, CommonsDelinker, Reedy Bot, Bclough, Idunno271828, SenorBeef, DorganBot, Nigel Ish, VolkovBot, HJ32, Dreddmoto, GimmeBot, Java7837, Liko81, Raryel, Sb67filippini, Kermanshahi, Thunderbird2, SieBot, Coimbra68, Cobatfor, Bbolen, Lightmouse, OKBot, Hamiltondaniel, ClueBot, Mt hg, GabbarSingh93, Jwkozak91, Rhododendrites, DumZiBoT, Nukes4Tots, Gtoffoletto, Dave1185, Addbot, EZ1234, Nohomers48, AndersBot, LinkFA-Bot, Lightbot, Zorrobot, The Bushranger, Legobot, Luckas-bot, AadaamS, Yobot, Ptbotgourou, Edoe, AnomieBOT, Erik9bot, FrescoBot, Gire 3pich2005, Elite501st, MastiBot, RaptorF22, Pilot850, DexDor, Agsftw, DASHBot, EmausBot, John of Reading, Sp33dyphil, Illegitimate Barrister, H3llBot, Heaney555z, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, SojerPL, , Farzam1370, BattyBot, Spital8katz, Dexbot, Hmainsbot1, Shortstar, GravRidr and Anonymous: 113 AIM-68 Big Q Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-68%20Big%20Q?oldid=644709789 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Rlandmann, GCarty, Riddley, Galaxiaad, BD2412, Kolbasz, Arado, The Literate Engineer, Pirate2000, Dual Freq, Snowmanradio, Cydebot, Barneyg, Aeroweanie, PixelBot, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, MaxDel, DexDor, EricEnfermero, EvergreenFir, Adam and Eve (your ancients) and Anonymous: 2 AIM-82 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-82?oldid=594278708 Contributors: Rlandmann, GCarty, Karl Dickman, Joshbaumgartner, Galaxiaad, Engineer Bob, Pirate2000, SmackBot, Hmains, Fairsing, Cydebot, STBotD, PixelBot, Addbot, The Bushranger, Erik9bot, MaxDel, DexDor and Anonymous: 3 AIM-4 Falcon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-4%20Falcon?oldid=648071987 Contributors: Ahoerstemeier, Rlandmann, GCarty, Camerong, Jphieffer, Oberiko, Iceberg3k, Bobblewik, Klemen Kocjancic, Ericg, J-Star, Cavrdg, ArgentLA, FrancisTyers, Kurmis, Nvinen, Darkwand, Wiarthurhu, Orborde, Turbinator, Arado, Bill-on-the-Hill, Rwalker, Engineer Bob, SmackBot, MrDrBob, Jprg1966, Emt147, VMS Mosaic, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Crowish, Argus fin, Aldis90, Woody, MichaelMaggs, F l a n k e r, Sherbrooke, Barneyg, JAnDbot, GurchBot, T96 grh, KConWiki, BilCat, Safir91, DorganBot, Tourbillon, Amikake3, HJ32, Ng.j, Dreamafter, Cobatfor, Kumioko, Anyeverybody, MBK004, Staygyro, Dave1185, Addbot, Magus732, Reedmalloy, Lightbot, Zorrobot, The Bushranger, Yobot, Eumolpo, Tokyotown8, GrouchoBot, N419BH, RedBot, DexDor, ZéroBot, Xvr11, Helpful Pixie Bot and Anonymous: 31 AIM-7 Sparrow Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-7%20Sparrow?oldid=654871008 Contributors: The Epopt, Maury Markowitz, Cyde, Markonen, Rlandmann, GCarty, David Newton, Cabalamat, RadicalBender, Jphieffer, Pibwl, Costello, Oberiko, Philwelch, Greyengine5, Fleminra, Leonard G., Iceberg3k, Bobblewik, Chowbok, Zancarius, Ericg, Rich Farmbrough, Mecanismo, Bender235, ArgentLA, Interiot, Joshbaumgartner, ASK, Ashley Pomeroy, Mac Davis, Hohum, Gene Nygaard, Drbreznjev, Dan100, Firsfron, Woohookitty, Blackeagle, GraemeLeggett, Deansfa, Rjwilmsi, Vegaswikian, Wsk, Chobot, Bartleby, YurikBot, Arado, Gaius Cornelius, Ksyrie, Los688, Cerejota, Searchme, Phichanad, Curpsbot-unicodify, Alureiter, GrinBot, Nick-D, Sardanaphalus, Attilios, Reedy, DHNbot, Dual Freq, TheGerm, Battlecry, Jumping cheese, Fireswordfight, John, Buckboard, CmdrObot, ThreeBlindMice, Jsmaye, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, Wikid77, Mongreldog, Barneyg, Adeptitus, CombatWombat42, Nikevich, KConWiki, BilCat, Dx87, Steve8675309, Ndunruh, Muchclag, Nigel Ish, VolkovBot, HJ32, TXiKiBoT, Lorddragyn, Raryel, LanceBarber, Bear and Dragon, AVKent882, Coimbra68, Dbryant 94560, Cobatfor, Lightmouse, Kumioko, Kanonkas, ABBenzin, Holothurion, ViperNerd, Kour6, Dave1185, EZ1234, Chris19910, LC-130, Oldmountains, The Bushranger, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Mackin90, Prari, Elite501st, LittleWink, Quantificator, Jiujitsuguy, RjwilmsiBot, DexDor, Jackehammond, WikitanvirBot, Sp33dyphil, Werieth, Illegitimate Barrister, Dolovis, KuduIO, ClueBot NG, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, SojerPL, AhMedRMaaty, Lightning Ace1995, CitationCleanerBot, Tlai1977, ChrisGualtieri, TheJJJunk, Z07x10, Wotchit, ArmbrustBot, Irtequa N. Ahmed, HWClifton and Anonymous: 81 AIM-9 Sidewinder Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9%20Sidewinder?oldid=655404314 Contributors: The Epopt, Derek Ross, Lorax, Roadrunner, Maury Markowitz, Hephaestos, Stevertigo, Frecklefoot, Stan Shebs, William M. Connolley, BigFatBuddha, Rlandmann, GCarty, Roadmr, Kierant, Echoray, Wernher, Shizhao, Cabalamat, AnonMoos, David.Monniaux, Riddley, Robbot, Jphieffer, Auric, Rhombus, Hartze11, Profoss, Ryanrs, YanA, Oberiko, Philwelch, Greyengine5, Wolfkeeper, Tom harrison, Orpheus, Wwoods, Fleminra, Leonard G., Elmindreda, Bobblewik, Comatose51, Quadell, Acad Ronin, Ericg, Mjuarez, Rich Farmbrough, Avriette, Guanabot,
884
CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
Marsian, Qutezuce, Rama, User2004, Indrian, Chairboy, Alereon, Kghose, Larry V, Hooperbloob, ArgentLA, Rd232, Joshbaumgartner, Bukvoed, Ashley Pomeroy, Wdfarmer, Hohum, Jwinius, Pauli133, Gene Nygaard, Drbreznjev, Dismas, DeepSpace, Bastin, Nuno Tavares, Woohookitty, Bkkbrad, Nvinen, Isnow, GraemeLeggett, Darkwand, Koavf, Skaterdude182, Vegaswikian, XLerate, Naraht, Ysangkok, Mark Sublette, Mark83, Wsk, Simishag, MoRsE, Chobot, Bgwhite, YurikBot, Noclador, Encyclops, Manicsleeper, Arado, John Smith’s, Rincewind42, Gaius Cornelius, Lavenderbunny, Ugur Basak, Kvn8907, Kassie, Asams10, Calvin08, Jor70, Hayden120, Eggfu, Bob Hu, GrinBot, Nick-D, Groyolo, Pankkake, Sardanaphalus, Dancraggs, SmackBot, TestPilot, Bjelleklang, Deon Steyn, MarshallStack, Eskimbot, StarKruzr, Chris the speller, Jprg1966, MalafayaBot, Baa, DHN-bot, Dual Freq, Blueshirts, Aerobird, Battlecry, Thejason, OrphanBot, KaiserbBot, MeekSaffron, Evil Merlin, Nibuod, Ian01, Matt Whyndham, The PIPE, Dr. Sunglasses, Moleskin, Simongraham, MilborneOne, Makyen, MrDolomite, Eddie Wong, Radiant chains, VoxLuna, CmdrObot, Siberia, Jsmaye, Orca1 9904, Necessary Evil, Cydebot, Fnlayson, ST47, TenthEagle, CMarshall, Chrislk02, Nabokov, The Mad Bomber, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, Sukisuki, Headbomb, Frank, Woody, Sulaimandaud, Hcobb, Javed Ali, Akradecki, Darklilac, CombatWombat42, Bzuk, Johnb210, Parsecboy, T96 grh, Puddhe, Don Hollway, JayDuck, Kilo90, KConWiki, Dili, BilCat, ArmadilloFromHell, NJR ZA, Khalid Mahmood, Dx87, Okwestern, Rebell18190, Brainiack16, Nvfusa, Notreallydavid, Youngjim, Ndunruh, Tatrgel, Inwind, Nigel Ish, Crkey, HJ32, TXiKiBoT, Andage01, Java7837, 18Fox, Liko81, Anna Lincoln, Raryel, Finngall, Are2dee2, SieBot, Peterson.M83, Kernel Saunters, ToePeu.bot, Coimbra68, VVVBot, Unregistered.coward, Quakeomaniac, Cobatfor, JetLover, Yeungkinglun, Lightmouse, OKBot, Phonemic, Dailyindependent, SidewinderX, MBK004, Lastdingo, Darthveda, Niceguyedc, Topsecrete, Masterblooregard, Alexbot, Socrates2008, Keysanger, Guppzor, DumZiBoT, ViperNerd, Cloverfield, Kwjbot, Isak'Ra, Dave1185, Addbot, DotySteve, EZ1234, Ape89, Pete mervyn, Helios87, Doniago, Aldrich Hanssen, Numbo3-bot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, VengeancePrime, Amirobot, Glmm, Ayceman, AnomieBOT, Xqbot, The Banner, Pajeron, Riotrocket8676, Mark Schierbecker, Hj108, SassoBot, Wikinegern, Shadowjams, Ojoc, FrescoBot, Aleuru, OgreBot, FoxBot, Trappist the monk, DixonDBot, Bryan TMF, Papamission, Mfarooqumar, DexDor, DASHBot, John of Reading, Pheasantpete, Sp33dyphil, BobbieCharlton, Cogiati, Illegitimate Barrister, BrokenAnchorBot, Lyncs, Mootaz10, Tnewto1, ClueBot NG, Catlemur, Merkelkd, Helpful Pixie Bot, SojerPL, BG19bot, Vagobot, RovingPersonalityConstruct, Kgmstwo, DPL bot, Farzam1370, BattyBot, America789, Quill and Pen, F16vista, OriginalAndCreativeUsernameHere, Wotchit, Maxx786, ArmbrustBot, Exequenda, Adirlanz, Stamptrader, Akifumii, ScrabbleZ, Strak Jegan, Jayreen29, Muraer, Efram23, Rocketmaniac2, Deviruki and Anonymous: 273 • Brazo Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazo?oldid=640967634 Contributors: Woohookitty, Neelix, CMG, Cydebot, Silver Sonic Shadow, Smartse, BilCat, Boleyn, The Bushranger, Eugene-elgato, I dream of horses, DexDor, Helpful Pixie Bot, CitationCleanerBot, Monkbot and Anonymous: 2 • Pye Wacket Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pye%20Wacket?oldid=650605448 Contributors: Edward, GraemeLeggett, Arado, Bullzeye, Hawkeye7, SmackBot, Hmains, Janm67, Iridescent, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Magioladitis, R'n'B, Nono64, Indubitably, HairyWombat, Addbot, The Bushranger, DexDor, ZéroBot, Aeonx, Helpful Pixie Bot, BG19bot, Monkbot, TheGreatWhiteBird and Anonymous: 2 • AGM-86 ALCM Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-86%20ALCM?oldid=654018231 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Rlandmann, Pti, Riddley, Oberiko, Bobblewik, H1523702, Mzajac, Dabarkey, John Fader, Atlant, Joshbaumgartner, Saga City, Grammarbot, PatrickSauncy, YurikBot, RussBot, Arado, RadioFan2 (usurped), Lavenderbunny, Frühstücksdienst, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Chris the speller, Hibernian, DHN-bot, Il palazzo, EagleWSO, TheGerm, A.R., Vgy7ujm, SabreMau, MilborneOne, Dave420, R. E. Mixer, 5HT8, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Profhobby, Nabokov, Aldis90, Woody, Dustin.gartner, Hcobb, Dawkeye, OuroborosCobra, BilCat, J.delanoy, C1010, Ndunruh, Tatrgel, STBotD, D-Kuru, VolkovBot, Davehi1, LanceBarber, VVVBot, WacoJacko, Kumioko, Yoda of Borg, Matrek, Ktr101, Sturmvogel 66, Good Olfactory, Dave1185, Addbot, Reedmalloy, Lightbot, Zorrobot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, إماراتي1971, Mcoupal, SassoBot, DexDor, Sp33dyphil, Werieth, Illegitimate Barrister, Mekt-hakkikt, H3llBot, Extrapolaris, 220 of Borg, America789, AMU10, Glcm1 and Anonymous: 27 • AGM-12 Bullpup Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-12%20Bullpup?oldid=612127493 Contributors: Rlandmann, GCarty, JidGom, Riddley, Karl Dickman, Avriette, Limbo socrates, Cmdrjameson, Joshbaumgartner, Ynhockey, Hohum, Gene Nygaard, Alanmak, MoRsE, Epolk, Megapixie, JLaTondre, SmackBot, Looper5920, Bjelleklang, Tnkr111, Chris the speller, Bluebot, Jprg1966, BobThePirate, Il palazzo, Nakon, Rodeosmurf, Olly lewis, RASAM, Edwy, Jimvin, ChrisCork, Fl295, Cydebot, Nabokov, Aldis90, BetacommandBot, Thijs!bot, Oldwildbill, DPdH, Mongreldog, Flayer, BilCat, Naohiro19, Ndunruh, GimmeBot, Chuck Sirloin, Nathan, Lucasbfrbot, OKBot, Kumioko, Mojoworker, Idsnowdog, Socrates2008, MystBot, Dave1185, Addbot, LaaknorBot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Amirobot, AnomieBOT, Rubinbot, Tokyotown8, Driftkingz109, Brad101AWB, SassoBot, Le Deluge, Jiujitsuguy, Jackehammond, Biscuiteater57, Theopolisme, BattyBot, ArmbrustBot, Thordk and Anonymous: 20 • AGM-131 SRAM II Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-131%20SRAM%20II?oldid=639579512 Contributors: Patrick, Rlandmann, Oberiko, Everyking, Pmcm, Amerika, Joshbaumgartner, AeroViper, Mark Bergsma, Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, Sardanaphalus, Cydebot, BilCat, Rei-bot, MBK004, Addbot, The Bushranger, Yobot and Anonymous: 6 • AGM-28 Hound Dog Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-28%20Hound%20Dog?oldid=648074034 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Edward, Rlandmann, DocWatson42, Oberiko, Bobblewik, Dabarkey, Karl Dickman, Blanchette, Simonbp, ArgentLA, Eleland, Joshbaumgartner, Denniss, Woohookitty, Tabletop, Edison, Rjwilmsi, Rogerd, Mark Sublette, Bgwhite, YurikBot, RussBot, Arado, Hydrargyrum, Gaius Cornelius, Los688, Johantheghost, Ospalh, Pawyilee, Bagheera, SmackBot, Chris the speller, Ken keisel, Spinolio, Tdrss, Calvados, Aaronstj, Iridescent, R. E. Mixer, Hildenja, 5-HT8, Fl295, Cydebot, Gogo Dodo, After Midnight, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, Woody, Hubble15, Dawkeye, Sherbrooke, DuncanHill, CosineKitty, .anacondabot, JayDuck, Avicennasis, BilCat, LorenzoB, Brucelipe, Archolman, R'n'B, FLJuJitsu, M-le-mot-dit, Ndunruh, Spiesr, Kyle the bot, GimmeBot, PhoenixVTam, Zephyrus67, VVVBot, Ogre lawless, Kumioko, Ath55ena, Sjdunn9, Ktr101, Sturmvogel 66, Good Olfactory, Airplaneman, TLHorstead, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Troymacgill, Ulric1313, Tokyotown8, Xqbot, Adlerbot, Xfgh7hg, Felis domestica, Pilot850, RjwilmsiBot, DexDor, John of Reading, GoingBatty, Sp33dyphil, Dbarlett, AvicBot, ZéroBot, Whoop whoop pull up, Chesipiero, Regicide1649, Firstsgt, Mike vanderzee and Anonymous: 36 • AGM-65 Maverick Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-65%20Maverick?oldid=655317361 Contributors: Rlandmann, Jeandré du Toit, GCarty, Conti, Mulad, Nohat, Echoray, Camerong, RadicalBender, Riddley, DocWatson42, Oberiko, Greyengine5, Wwoods, Bobblewik, Onco p53, Rich Farmbrough, Avriette, Rama, Mecanismo, Smyth, Meggar, Get It, Hooperbloob, Joshbaumgartner, Fat pig73, Gene Nygaard, Elchup4cabra, Nuno Tavares, Bkkbrad, Nvinen, GraemeLeggett, Bertus, FlaBot, JozhGoober, Chobot, Benzene, YurikBot, Borgx, Jimp, Arado, Bleakcomb, Gaius Cornelius, BraneJ, Phichanad, Staxringold, Alureiter, GrinBot, SmackBot, WikiuserNI, Deiaemeth, Chris the speller, BobThePirate, Open-box, Jumping cheese, Evil Merlin, Tanyiliang, Lord Eru, SashatoBot, Tdrss, Aspade, RASAM, Khazar, John, Dammit, CmdrObot, Rogerborg, Orca1 9904, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Co-pilot, Aldis90, O, Faigl.ladislav, Woody, JustAGal, Hmrox, DagosNavy, CombatWombat42, Petronas, Cmhbob, T96 grh, Bg007, Puddhe, Soulbot, TeraBlight, PEAR, BilCat, J.delanoy, Ndunruh, Tatrgel, STBotD, Red Polar Bear Ranger, Nigel Ish, Gamer112, Balmung0731, TXiKiBoT, GimmeBot, Andy Dingley, Keon7777777, AlleborgoBot, 400Hz100V, SieBot, YonaBot, KGyST, Phe-bot, RucasHost, Flyer22, Lightmouse, ZH Evers, Bcdm,
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
885
MBK004, Socrates2008, Rhododendrites, DumZiBoT, Vtrinchi, BodhisattvaBot, Milstuffxyz, Dave1185, EZ1234, LaaknorBot, Lightbot, Zorrobot, The Bushranger, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Jimderkaisser, Edoe, Apole7, AnomieBOT, Rubinbot, 1exec1, MCheer, Materialscientist, WaffleMaster44, Xqbot, TechBot, Dy031101, H falcon, FrescoBot, Gire 3pich2005, MondalorBot, Waceaquinas, Hellaras, Papamission, Djfgregory, John of Reading, Sp33dyphil, ZxxZxxZ, Werieth, Dolovis, FeatherPluma, ClueBot NG, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, Lightning Ace1995, CitationCleanerBot, Tlai1977, America789, Cyberbot II, Br'er Rabbit, Mogism, Judge john666, Wotchit, Efram23, FlorentPirot and Anonymous: 133 • AGM-69 SRAM Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-69%20SRAM?oldid=651810472 Contributors: TwoOneTwo, Patrick, Rlandmann, Julesd, Zoicon5, Stewartadcock, Oberiko, Bobblewik, Dabarkey, Pmsyyz, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, Orangefsh, Gene Nygaard, Kralizec!, Graham87, Wiarthurhu, FlaBot, Mark Sublette, Arado, Gaius Cornelius, Georgewilliamherbert, SmackBot, Chris the speller, Nakon, Glacier109, FleetCommand, R. E. Mixer, SlowSam, Cydebot, Patrick O'Leary, Nabokov, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, Escarbot, Tantalas, BilCat, Oleg Str, Nono64, Ndunruh, VolkovBot, Jcvalle, Jwr2003b, Lightmouse, Kumioko, Maelgwnbot, MBK004, Wprlh, Sturmvogel 66, 1ForTheMoney, Good Olfactory, Addbot, LatitudeBot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, AnomieBOT, DexDor, Bk109 and Anonymous: 20 • AGM-79 Blue Eye Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-79%20Blue%20Eye?oldid=544097729 Contributors: Rlandmann, GCarty, Joshbaumgartner, Gene Nygaard, Pirate2000, SmackBot, Cydebot, Ianwashere, Rei-bot, Addbot, The Bushranger and Erik9bot • ASM-N-5 Gorgon V Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-N-5%20Gorgon%20V?oldid=638581292 Contributors: ShelfSkewed, BilCat, The Bushranger, Helpful Pixie Bot and CitationCleanerBot • Bold Orion Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bold%20Orion?oldid=641757257 Contributors: Alansohn, Chris the speller, N2e, Uruiamme, BilCat, CommonsDelinker, Manishearth, Cunard, GDK, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Anotherclown, John of Reading, GA bot, Helpful Pixie Bot, CitationCleanerBot and Monkbot • GAM-63 RASCAL Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAM-63%20RASCAL?oldid=648072852 Contributors: Michael Hardy, Rlandmann, Alansohn, RussBot, Arado, Ospalh, SmackBot, Oscarthecat, SeanWillard, The PIPE, Mgiganteus1, Tmangray, Blackvault, Cydebot, Aldis90, Woody, Darklilac, Brucelipe, LurkingInChicago, Breeezee, Warut, Ndunruh, DH85868993, GimmeBot, Davehi1, Anonymous Dissident, Binksternet, Alexbot, Threecharlie, MystBot, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, TaBOT-zerem, Rubinbot, Tokyotown8, LilHelpa, GrouchoBot, Johnbv417, DexDor, Dewritech, Bamyers99, Chesipiero, Mogism, Jmnpet and Anonymous: 6 • GAM-87 Skybolt Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAM-87%20Skybolt?oldid=653191964 Contributors: TwoOneTwo, Maury Markowitz, Rlandmann, Dysprosia, Topbanana, JonathanDP81, Finlay McWalter, Yosri, DocWatson42, Oberiko, Greyengine5, Jason Quinn, H1523702, Capnned, Sam Hocevar, Karl Dickman, Rich Farmbrough, Guanabot, Ylee, Pearle, Amcl, A2Kafir, Joshbaumgartner, Rwendland, Dan100, Crosbiesmith, Tabletop, GraemeLeggett, Ian Dunster, Kolbasz, YurikBot, RussBot, Arado, Gaius Cornelius, Irishguy, Ospalh, Mangoe, Betacommand, Chris the speller, Bluebot, Il palazzo, A.R., Badgerpatrol, Soarhead77, Khazar, MilborneOne, Fl295, Cydebot, Tec15, Monkeybait, Cancun771, Aldis90, AntiVandalBot, Dricherby, BilCat, The Real Marauder, CommonsDelinker, KTo288, MarcoLittel, Youngjim, Whatfg, GimmeBot, A4bot, Andy Dingley, Legoktm, TrufflesTheLamb, D.W., ImageRemovalBot, MBK004, Hickinbottoms, Sturmvogel 66, Shem1805, Thingg, Deep silence, Innapoy, The Bushranger, Legobot, Ckruschke, MGA73, Midgetman433, Airborne84, Nirmos, DexDor, CrimsonBot, Wikitimeofmylife, Bomazi, Roccopoiago, Irondome, Drmandarin and Anonymous: 40 • High Virgo Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High%20Virgo?oldid=641757231 Contributors: Alansohn, T-dot, BilCat, R'n'B, The Bushranger, Anotherclown, John of Reading, GA bot, Sp33dyphil, Helpful Pixie Bot and Anonymous: 1 • AGM-123 Skipper II Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-123%20Skipper%20II?oldid=629584419 Contributors: Rlandmann, GCarty, Joshbaumgartner, FlaBot, ENeville, Pirate2000, Tnkr111, Dual Freq, OOODDD, Nabokov, Woody, Avicennasis, BilCat, Behtis, Chaosdruid, Addbot, RedBot, Mir09 and AvicBot • Harpoon (missile) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon%20(missile)?oldid=648913579 Contributors: The Epopt, Mcarling, Rlandmann, Jeandré du Toit, ²¹², Wernher, Thue, Oaktree b, Riddley, Modeha, DocWatson42, Ike, Oberiko, Greyengine5, Wronkiew, Bobblewik, Btphelps, Mzajac, Dabarkey, Jimwilliams57, Bbpen, Karl Dickman, N328KF, Brianhe, Avriette, Rama, Mecanismo, Meggar, Sortior, Harald Hansen, Syzygy, Travisyoung, Hooperbloob, Joshbaumgartner, Sligocki, Gene Nygaard, Yousaf465, Bobrayner, Kfitzner, Nuno Tavares, Woohookitty, Blackeagle, Pol098, Isnow, BlaiseFEgan, Paxsimius, Graham87, Descendall, Rjwilmsi, Erebus555, Orville Eastland, FlaBot, Demarchist, Victor12, Chobot, YurikBot, Mare, StuffOfInterest, Arado, John Smith’s, Broken arrow, Gaius Cornelius, Lavenderbunny, ENeville, Mieciu K, BOT-Superzerocool, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Phichanad, Curpsbot-unicodify, Warreed, Tirronan, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Prodego, Chris the speller, Baumfabrik, Hibernian, Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, Dual Freq, TheGerm, Open-box, Uncleharpoon, John, Beta34, Dave420, Octane, HowardSelsam, R. E. Mixer, Paulc206, 5-HT8, Spottydog3, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Daniel J. Leivick, Nabokov, Aldis90, Epbr123, Woody, Dark Enigma, Nick Number, VijayPadiyar, Mongreldog, Quintote, RebelRobot, MajesticX, Bubba hotep, AsgardBot, BilCat, LorenzoB, Volcore, FlieGerFaUstMe262, Bunker by, Rebell18190, Chrthiel, Notreallydavid, Smitty, STBotD, ThePointblank, VolkovBot, Philip Trueman, TXiKiBoT, Darantares, Dormskirk, VNCCC, Raryel, Tom MacPherson, Kermanshahi, AlleborgoBot, Wjl2, SieBot, Heb, 4wajzkd02, WereSpielChequers, BotMultichill, Ravensfire, Kurokishi, Skipzor, Lightmouse, Dodger67, Nejjk, Ken123BOT, MBK004, ClueBot, Masterblooregard, Socrates2008, El bot de la dieta, Jellyfish dave, James.tantalo, DumZiBoT, 11vert11, Dave1185, Addbot, EZ1234, Nohomers48, AkhtaBot, Scohen93, Lightbot, BoredEngineer, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, OrgasGirl, Ata Fida Aziz, KamikazeBot, Apole7, AnomieBOT, Anupsadhu, FreeRangeFrog, Xqbot, DSisyphBot, Lostmuskrat, Hj108, H falcon, Leetkrew, Le Deluge, Knightwind, Mark Renier, Grand-Duc, Pinethicket, Foxhound66, Marclluell, Dinamik-bot, Bryan TMF, 777sms, Desagwan, RjwilmsiBot, Thatsashwin, EmausBot, TuHan-Bot, Illegitimate Barrister, Arapad, Anir1uph, Prendre la fuite, Status, ChuispastonBot, HandsomeFella, EdoBot, KarlsenBot, ClueBot NG, ColMilGem, Tioperci, Sharkmouth, Helpful Pixie Bot, SojerPL, TMX-Mike, Pine, 113727b, Kendall-K1, Aisteco, BattyBot, Refizul, Adnan bogi, SD5bot, Kbog, Wotchit, Evano1van, Geeciii, Eric Corbett, Nguyen QuocTrung, UcAndy, Adam Cameron Smith, Usumacinta, Judah fourteen, Junchuann, Llammakey and Anonymous: 172 • UGM-89 Perseus Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-89%20Perseus?oldid=647770548 Contributors: Rich Farmbrough, Kolbasz, Arado, Cydebot, Aldis90, BilCat, Marcd30319, Ktr101, The Bushranger, FrescoBot, RjwilmsiBot, DexDor, ObscureReality, Helpful Pixie Bot, Lellis.easc, Monkbot and Anonymous: 1 • AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-84H/K%20SLAM-ER?oldid=644845376 Contributors: Stemonitis, Arado, Chris the speller, Jprg1966, Dale101usa, Gogo Dodo, BilCat, Petebutt, PraetorianD, Blaylockjam10, Stochtastic, Illegitimate Barrister, Lemonsticks, Numbermaniac, Jodosma, UcAndy, Glcm1, WeedMan69, E.D.J. Muckenfuss and Anonymous: 7
886
CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
• Bat (guided bomb) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat%20(guided%20bomb)?oldid=652813123 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Omegatron, Riddley, Bobblewik, Trevor MacInnis, Rich Farmbrough, Roo72, RJHall, Joshbaumgartner, Gene Nygaard, GraemeLeggett, Graham87, BD2412, Rjwilmsi, Sus scrofa, Gadget850, Johna, GMan552, Nick-D, Groyolo, That Guy, From That Show!, Hmains, Trekphiler, Fuhghettaboutit, The PIPE, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, A1064, DPdH, Albany NY, BilCat, Ja 62, TallNapoleon, Mugs2109, Cobatfor, TheNeilster, Ktr101, Creeping Death 1982, Thewellman, The Oracle of Podunk, Addbot, The Bushranger, RadioBroadcast, Mynameinc, FrescoBot, Hallucegenia, HRoestBot, Calmer Waters, CPMendez, DASHBot, John of Reading, SporkBot, BattyBot, Riley Huntley, Edantu and Anonymous: 8 • GT-1 (missile) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GT-1%20(missile)?oldid=650399024 Contributors: GraemeLeggett, Hmains, DulcetTone, BilCat, Kguirnela, Rocketmaniac, Lastdingo, The Bushranger, Cnwilliams, Mahuna2, CitationCleanerBot, Monkbot and Anonymous: 4 • LBD Gargoyle Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LBD%20Gargoyle?oldid=575220891 Contributors: Rlandmann, Gene Nygaard, RussBot, Ospalh, A bit iffy, Hmains, Trekphiler, The PIPE, Cydebot, Aldis90, DPdH, VoABot II, Caulde, Cobatfor, TheNeilster, Sturmvogel 66, Leofric1, LaaknorBot, The Bushranger, StoneProphet, KLBot2, Mddkpp, Makecat-bot and Anonymous: 7 • Long Range Anti-Ship Missile Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long%20Range%20Anti-Ship%20Missile?oldid=646512698 Contributors: Bobrayner, Rjwilmsi, Arado, Chris the speller, Aldis90, Hcobb, BilCat, Thewellman, Addbot, Download, Waerfelu, TGCP, Babak902003, T-Nod, Phd8511, NobodyMinus, America789, Cyberbot II, Z07x10, Veronicawilson235, Antiochus the Great, UcAndy, Bdm25, Glcm1, E.D.J. Muckenfuss and Anonymous: 9 • Boeing Ground-to-Air Pilotless Aircraft Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing%20Ground-to-Air%20Pilotless%20Aircraft? oldid=648370168 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Gigs, Tdrss, KylieTastic, Jdaloner, Afernand74, Johnuniq, The Bushranger, Jonesey95, Trappist the monk, John of Reading, Frietjes, Mohamed CJ, BattyBot, HueSatLum, 30 SW and Faizan • CIM-10 Bomarc Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIM-10%20Bomarc?oldid=654926269 Contributors: Andre Engels, SimonP, Maury Markowitz, RTC, Angela, Rlandmann, Dmsar, Bearcat, Jphieffer, Rhombus, Wolfkeeper, Finn-Zoltan, Iceberg3k, Formeruser81, HistoryBA, Plasma east, Karl Dickman, Kevin Rector, D6, Rich Farmbrough, Guanabot, A2Kafir, Joshbaumgartner, Ashley Pomeroy, Fat pig73, Phyllis1753, Jak86, Woohookitty, Strongbow, Nvinen, Bricktop, Kralizec!, BD2412, Cxbrx, FlaBot, Ground Zero, Mark Sublette, Kolbasz, Preslethe, Arado, RadioFan, Hydrargyrum, Gaius Cornelius, Los688, Brian Crawford, Jkhoury, Johna, Yaztromo, SmackBot, Hibernian, DHN-bot, Rcbutcher, HoodedMan, Jbhood, Spinolio, Tdrss, Calvados, John, Vgy7ujm, Statsone, Bwmoll3, Nobunaga24, Chetvorno, Americasroof, Charbbert, Fl295, Cydebot, NorthernThunder, Aldis90, TruthbringerToronto, Dallas84, Bzuk, Carom, Swpb, BilCat, Marty55, LorenzoB, Chuckwatson, Abebenjoe, Patar knight, Notreallydavid, Speciate, Tesscass, TXiKiBoT, GimmeBot, Hqb, Ng.j, LanceBarber, Moorem, Cobatfor, Hellacious, NiD.29, Niceguyedc, Nimbus227, Ktr101, Alexbot, Yggdriedi, Lineagegeek, Drg2, SchreiberBike, Silverplate, IngerAlHaosului, Salvadoradi, Kbdankbot, Jaydec, Sanawon, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Dfe6543, 1exec1, Max96, RadioBroadcast, FrescoBot, Kyteto, 777sms, Rr parker, Ryan.opel, EmausBot, Sp33dyphil, Ida Shaw, Dolovis, Spideraz, Demiurge1000, Priwo, Helpful Pixie Bot, MattFromOntario, Curb Chain, 22WHERO, Mohamed CJ, Cfree44, Kndimov, Compfreak7, Alarbus, ChrisGualtieri, Khazar2, 30 SW, MopSeeker, Limnalid, DbivansMCMLXXXVI and Anonymous: 61 • LIM-49 Nike Zeus Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIM-49%20Nike%20Zeus?oldid=654518695 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Topbanana, Crosbiesmith, Kolbasz, Arado, Hawkeye7, Nick-D, WDGraham, John, Mr Stephen, Agne27, CommonsDelinker, Petebutt, Eskovan, Spinningspark, Graham Beards, WereSpielChequers, Afernand74, Niceguyedc, Piledhigheranddeeper, Wilsone9, Sturmvogel 66, The Bushranger, Legobot, AnomieBOT, Citation bot, Anotherclown, I dream of horses, EmausBot, John of Reading, BG19bot, Vilhelm.s, Isumbard Prince, Khazar2, Avi8tor, Handenry, Cinderella157 and Anonymous: 7 • LIM-49 Spartan Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIM-49%20Spartan?oldid=651617983 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Rlandmann, Finlay McWalter, Tom harrison, Night Gyr, CheekyMonkey, La goutte de pluie, Gene Nygaard, Dziban303, Kenyon, Crosbiesmith, FlaBot, Arado, Georgewilliamherbert, Groyolo, Dual Freq, Joema, Ken keisel, Tdrss, Gordon22, Fl295, Cydebot, Aldis90, Spartanpass, DulcetTone, Davidelit, Woody, Escarbot, Two way time, BilCat, EscapingLife, Rann Star, Student7, Balmung0731, GimmeBot, DragonBot, DumZiBoT, WikHead, Addbot, Nohomers48, LaaknorBot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, AnomieBOT, Xqbot, SuperAnth, FrescoBot, El Mayimbe, Chesipiero, Physicsandwhiskey, SpartanMcLoy and Anonymous: 21 • Nike-X Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike-X?oldid=655494373 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Arado, Nikkimaria, Yobot, LilHelpa, John of Reading, Cwmhiraeth, Regulov, BattyBot, Spumuq and Anonymous: 4 • RIM-2 Terrier Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-2%20Terrier?oldid=647109195 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Rlandmann, GCarty, David Newton, Elf, Mboverload, Mtnerd, Avriette, Robotje, A2Kafir, Grutness, LtNOWIS, Deboerjo, Gene Nygaard, Blackeagle, GraemeLeggett, FlaBot, Victor12, Chris the speller, Dual Freq, CmdrObot, Oden, Fl295, Cydebot, Thijs!bot, Kubanczyk, Woody, JAnDbot, Tekuli, Two way time, Roches, Alex Spade, BilCat, Saburny, CommonsDelinker, Busaccsb, SieBot, VVVBot, Cobatfor, Thinkvoyager, MBK004, Addbot, Ginosbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Jackehammond, ZéroBot, Dondervogel 2, Vagobot, Myfgsl-2, Khazar2, Llammakey and Anonymous: 15 • RIM-8 Talos Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-8%20Talos?oldid=639960723 Contributors: Rlandmann, Tkinias, GCarty, Tempshill, Skaffman, DocWatson42, Mboverload, Bbpen, N328KF, Murtasa, ESkog, A2Kafir, Deboerjo, Ahseaton, Kelly Martin, Firsfron, Blackeagle, Kolbasz, Ahpook, Megapixie, Arima, Ospalh, Gadget850, That Guy, From That Show!, SmackBot, Prodego, Jim62sch, Dual Freq, MrDolomite, CmdrObot, MarsRover, Fl295, Cydebot, Kubanczyk, Woody, Thaimoss, .anacondabot, Two way time, BilCat, KTo288, Trumpet marietta 45750, Amikake3, Petebutt, Nuance 4, Busaccsb, Cobatfor, Abu America, Hardwic2, Sjdunn9, Sturmvogel 66, Thewellman, Prhays, Addbot, LaaknorBot, Ginosbot, GDK, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Rubinbot, LilHelpa, Xqbot, Turnbull FL, D'ohBot, Citation bot 1, EmausBot, Tinss, ZéroBot, Josve05a, Myfgsl-2, Valleyjc, Chipperdude15, Monkbot, Llammakey and Anonymous: 14 • RIM-24 Tartar Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-24%20Tartar?oldid=632168973 Contributors: Rlandmann, GCarty, Pibwl, DocWatson42, Avriette, Rama, Deboerjo, FlaBot, YurikBot, Florian Adler, Dual Freq, OrphanBot, Woody, Fru1tbat, Tillman, Two way time, BilCat, Balmung0731, Thunderbird2, VVVBot, Cobatfor, Thewellman, MystBot, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, ArthurBot, ZéroBot, Myfgsl-2, ÄDA - DÄP, Llammakey and Anonymous: 5 • RIM-66 Standard Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-66%20Standard?oldid=653870549 Contributors: Rlandmann, DocWatson42, Rjwilmsi, Bgwhite, WriterHound, Arado, Bleakcomb, Gaius Cornelius, Cerejota, Attilios, SmackBot, Hibernian, Dual Freq, AP1787, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Rifleman 82, Adnergje, Aldis90, DulcetTone, Woody, Nick Number, QuiteUnusual, Sarmadys, JAnDbot, Two way time, BilCat, Jamesontai, VolkovBot, TXiKiBoT, Broadbot, AlleborgoBot, Unregistered.coward, Cobatfor, MBK004, Arjayay, Shem1805, Thewellman, Chaosdruid, DumZiBoT, Addbot, H92Bot, Ginosbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Troymacgill, Apole7, AnomieBOT, Xqbot, Anon423, Ashrf1979, Nokta strigo, FrescoBot, PigFlu Oink, Skyraider1, DexDor, EmausBot, John
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
887
of Reading, Clive tooth, Arapad, BrokenAnchorBot, Iron Archer, Krassdaniel, MainFrame, Snotbot, AeroJPRF, Bonafide2004, BG19bot, Phd8511, Myfgsl-2, Tlai1977, Kool777456, America789, OriginalAndCreativeUsernameHere, Cerabot, Maxx786, Amortias, Llammakey and Anonymous: 43 • SAM-N-2 Lark Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAM-N-2%20Lark?oldid=629583545 Contributors: RadioFan, Chris the speller, BilCat, Cobatfor, Gene93k, Thewellman, The Bushranger, Yobot and ChrisGualtieri • Sprint (missile) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint%20(missile)?oldid=647961632 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Wolfkeeper, Tom harrison, Bobblewik, Twinxor, Night Gyr, Crosbiesmith, Marudubshinki, Kolbasz, Arado, Ospalh, Mangoe, Moez, Hibernian, Dual Freq, Frap, Joema, Ken keisel, Wossi, John, Fl295, Cydebot, Aldis90, Smiteri, Thijs!bot, Bot-maru, Greg L, Sherbrooke, BilCat, CommonsDelinker, TXiKiBoT, Zephyrus67, Addbot, Mnh, Glane23, GDK, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Jim1138, Brutaldeluxe, FrescoBot, MastiBot, K6ka, Ovnours, KLBot2, Aisteco, Svintussen and Anonymous: 16 • AIM-120 AMRAAM Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120%20AMRAAM?oldid=652911734 Contributors: Lorax, Leandrod, Patrick, Markonen, William M. Connolley, Rlandmann, GCarty, Echoray, Wernher, Cabalamat, David.Monniaux, Riddley, Vt-aoe, Jphieffer, Profoss, Philwelch, Greyengine5, Lupin, Everyking, Mboverload, Bobblewik, H1523702, Quadell, Maartentje, Tin soldier, Faraz, Willhsmit, Mjuarez, Rich Farmbrough, Guanabot, Rama, Mecanismo, Night Gyr, Acq3, Loren36, SElefant, E Pluribus Anthony redux, Chairboy, Bobo192, Ardric47, Ommnomnomgulp, ArgentLA, Jigen III, Atlant, Joshbaumgartner, Yamla, Dalillama, Pauli133, Gene Nygaard, DeepSpace, Centralman, Bobrayner, Sylvain Mielot, Alvis, Bkkbrad, Nvinen, ^demon, GregorB, Plrk, Wisq, GraemeLeggett, Rjwilmsi, Koavf, Rogerd, Wiarthurhu, Vegaswikian, FlaBot, Bobstay, Maayanh, Mark Sublette, Mark83, Nimur, MoRsE, Chobot, Moocha, Mmx1, Bartleby, YurikBot, Noclador, RussBot, FrenchIsAwesome, Arado, John Smith’s, Lavenderbunny, Ugur Basak, -OOPSIE-, Welsh, Thiseye, Tony1, Mieciu K, Engineer Bob, Asams10, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Arthur Rubin, Phichanad, John Broughton, GrinBot, Nick-D, Sardanaphalus, Dancraggs, Jsnx, SmackBot, Battle Ape, Deiaemeth, Jim62sch, Sam8, Boris Barowski, Sdlitvin, Vechs, Chris the speller, Bluebot, Thumperward, MalafayaBot, SailorfromNH, Oni Ookami Alfador, Dual Freq, Il palazzo, Crazyheron, Aerobird, Battlecry, Snowmanradio, MrRadioGuy, A.R., Skrip00, Soarhead77, Ohconfucius, Dr. Sunglasses, Ergative rlt, LWF, MilborneOne, Joffeloff, Dammit, Andrwsc, Phuzion, Amakuru, Virtualquark, Mmab111, CmdrObot, Hildenja, Dougsnow, Orca1 9904, JaderVason, Fl295, Necessary Evil, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Lordofhyperspace, Monkeybait, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, Memty Bot, Headbomb, Saruwine, Woody, Sulaimandaud, Dfrg.msc, Hcobb, OuroborosCobra, IAF, Barneyg, Dryke, CombatWombat42, Lan Di, Nathanjp, Magioladitis, Two way time, BlakJakNZ, Diego bf109, BilCat, WolfyB, Wolfy9005, Khalid Mahmood, Jogrkim, Azil14, Whale plane, MrBell, Notreallydavid, Duch, SenorBeef, Youngjim, Ndunruh, Rwessel, Tatrgel, Smitty, SirBob42, Francesco54, Nigel Ish, HJ32, Sdsds, TXiKiBoT, Raryel, Falcon8765, Zachjeli, AceFighterPilot, Bahamut0013, Squalk25, SieBot, WereSpielChequers, ToePeu.bot, Coimbra68, Unregistered.coward, KGyST, Smsarmad, Bbolen, Lightmouse, Fredmdbud, MBK004, Danish47, HughFlo, Phoenixegmh, Cloudaoc, HDP, Niceguyedc, Topsecrete, Vksgeneric, Manishearth, Thehelpfulone, Chaosdruid, Jellyfish dave, Takavar92, Habu12, Dave1185, Jim Sweeney, Addbot, Dryphi, Mike Babic, EZ1234, LaaknorBot, Parijatgaur, LC-130, LinkFA-Bot, Mauruf, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Legobot, Yobot, 9K58, Nyat, AnomieBOT, 1exec1, Rockypedia, Julnap, Ulric1313, WaffleMaster44, Quebec99, Driftkingz109, Xqbot, Mark Schierbecker, Hj108, SCΛRECROW, Román Wiki, Le Deluge, Erik9bot, FrescoBot, Grand-Duc, Kyteto, DrilBot, Poliocretes, Foxhound66, ChiefFox, Jonjo Robb, Irbisgreif, El caleuche 2009, Diannaa, Papamission, RjwilmsiBot, DexDor, DASHBot, WikitanvirBot, Pheasantpete, LHCo, Sp33dyphil, Yoepp, ZéroBot, Illegitimate Barrister, Josve05a, Dolovis, Utar, Redhanker, Anir1uph, Klmodernguy, BrokenAnchorBot, Victory in Germany, High Mark, Azu Mao, Tabrisius, Pandeist, ClueBot NG, Amraamny, Korrawit, Snotbot, Heaney555z, Frietjes, Concord113, Helpful Pixie Bot, SojerPL, Tjngirlz, .onda., Phd8511, TROPtastic, Giblets46, Chalim Kenabru, NobodyMinus, Russellcarden, Tlai1977, Regicide1649, America789, ChrisGualtieri, N00b0l0l, 235.Corsair, OriginalAndCreativeUsernameHere, Dexbot, Makecat-bot, Arzk02587k, Z07x10, 1999, Maxx786, Tty56, Altaïr Skywalker 47, Nguyen QuocTrung, Stamptrader, ASF-14, Monkbot, Luisedwin2105, DJC631, Jerodlycett and Anonymous: 323 • AN/TWQ-1 Avenger Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/TWQ-1%20Avenger?oldid=630750650 Contributors: Riddley, DocWatson42, Bobblewik, Avriette, Meggar, Tronno, Sandstig, Hohum, RJFJR, Wyatts, Jtrainor, Gene Nygaard, Dismas, Bobrayner, Woohookitty, Chris Buckey, BlaiseFEgan, A Train, BD2412, Ground Zero, Cornellrockey, YurikBot, Lavenderbunny, Judas vanhel, Nick-D, SmackBot, Kyrandos, DocKrin, Jprg1966, Uber555, EGGS, AllStarZ, Old Guard, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Peptuck, Thijs!bot, Deathbunny, Hcobb, L0b0t, Ingolfson, Parsecboy, Avicennasis, Panser Born, BilCat, Jedi-gman, Sm8900, Koalorka, ASJ94, SieBot, Unregistered.coward, Mercenario97, TDurden1937, PistolPete037, Tabunoki, Chaosdruid, NJGW, Addbot, Nohomers48, Bstockus, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Brian in denver, Stellar Grifon, Equaaldoors, Luke85, Mark Schierbecker, SCΛRECROW, PacoLUX, Az29, AvicBot, Illegitimate Barrister, Dainomite, Tlai1977, BattyBot, Cyberbot II, Onepebble, UiLego, Shkvoz and Anonymous: 60 • GTR-18 Smokey Sam Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTR-18%20Smokey%20Sam?oldid=645352803 Contributors: Deansfa, OrangeDog, BilCat, The Bushranger, LilHelpa and Anonymous: 2 • Operation Bumblebee Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation%20Bumblebee?oldid=607238911 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Bearcat, Cerejota, SmackBot, Hmains, Bluebot, Trekphiler, J Clear, Acm acm, BilCat, Jim.henderson, Sm8900, Anna Lincoln, Milkbreath, Sapphic, Mugs2109, Ddavev, Trivialist, Wprlh, Thewellman, Addbot, The Bushranger, DrilBot, HRoestBot, Ginerftw, ChrisGualtieri, DoctorKubla and Anonymous: 6 • RIM-50 Typhon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-50%20Typhon?oldid=640148351 Contributors: Rlandmann, DocWatson42, Cydebot, Aldis90, Woody, Two way time, BilCat, Marcd30319, SieBot, Cobatfor, DumZiBoT, Addbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, ZéroBot and RobDuch • RIM-67 Standard Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-67%20Standard?oldid=642872620 Contributors: Rlandmann, Gene Nygaard, Tabletop, Russavia, Bleakcomb, Cerejota, SmackBot, Dual Freq, Woody, Nick Number, J Clear, Two way time, BilCat, Solicitr, 4wajzkd02, MBK004, Thewellman, DumZiBoT, Addbot, Jeneral28, Lightbot, Zorrobot, FrescoBot, Foxhound66, RedBot, EmausBot, John of Reading, ZéroBot, Iron Archer, Myfgsl-2, Altrace2, Llammakey and Anonymous: 27 • RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116%20Rolling%20Airframe%20Missile?oldid= 654082971 Contributors: The Anome, Rmhermen, Edward, Mcarling, Rlandmann, GCarty, Riddley, DocWatson42, Wwoods, Qui1che, Rich Farmbrough, Night Gyr, Darkone, BonzoESC, DarylC, Sumergocognito, Gene Nygaard, Redvers, YixilTesiphon, Nvinen, MiG, Hideyuki, Valentinejoesmith, FlaBot, YurikBot, RussBot, Ospalh, Engineer Bob, Datafuser, Asams10, Alureiter, Allens, Jsnx, Emoscopes, Ohnoitsjamie, MalafayaBot, Dual Freq, Leveretth, Wybot, Bogsat, Voytek s, Martian.knight, Dl2000, ShakingSpirit, OnBeyondZebrax, Bigmak, Cydebot, Max Ackerman, Gogo Dodo, Thijs!bot, Hcobb, L0b0t, Nlkrio, Two way time, Faizhaider, Cosco, BilCat, Rettetast, Rebell18190, M0unds, Adrian M. H., SirKillalot, Orthopraxia, VolkovBot, Andyo2000, MCTales, Koalorka, I Like Cheeseburgers, Cobatfor, Sklei0106, Anchor Link Bot, Ygbsm, Shentosara, Lukeizzle, Jellyfish dave, Takavar92, Dave1185, Addbot, Hermógenes Teixeira Pinto Filho, Nohomers48, Doverhockey9, Download, LaaknorBot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, ArthurBot, AH-64 Longbow,
888
CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
Mdewman6, Safetybearry, Sarcastic ShockwaveLover, Le Deluge, FrescoBot, EndlessUnknown, ElijahBosley, Jonesey95, Rapiervsraptor, Full-date unlinking bot, Cayojoe, Desagwan, EmausBot, Babak902003, Thewolfchild, Helpful Pixie Bot, Fromthehill, Friday83260, Qrhoo, America789, Cyberbot II, Adnan bogi, Khazar2, Myles Longe, UnbiasedVictory, Junchuann, Llammakey and Anonymous: 84 • RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161%20Standard%20Missile%203?oldid=652815265 Contributors: Rmhermen, Patrick, Rlandmann, Marteau, Davidmaxwaterman, Nurg, DocWatson42, Gracefool, Oneiros, Klemen Kocjancic, D6, Pmsyyz, ArnoldReinhold, Tim Peterson, Wdfarmer, CJ, Velella, BDD, Sleigh, Gene Nygaard, Crosbiesmith, Tabletop, Mandarax, BD2412, Cowcabob, Demarchist, Ground Zero, Midgley, Arado, Marcus Cyron, Cerejota, Gadget850, Knotnic, Arthur Rubin, Phil Holmes, SmackBot, Tigri, Deon Steyn, Chris the speller, TheFeds, Dual Freq, WDGraham, Evil Merlin, Jonovision, Derek R Bullamore, PRRfan, X15, Joseph Solis in Australia, Karaahmet, Nabokov, Woody, Aquilosion, Hcobb, Nick Number, SusanLesch, J Clear, Deeplogic, F-451, HolyT, CombatWombat42, Magioladitis, Two way time, BilCat, Sm8900, Nigholith, VolkovBot, ColdCase, Imperator3733, Kakoui, TXiKiBoT, Ghez, Lightmouse, Senor Cuete, MBK004, ClueBot, Matrek, Niceguyedc, Alexbot, Dcd139, SerMSYS, Shem1805, Chaosdruid, Yelkrokoyade, Fastily, Lemmey, ZL47, Machinegun31, Cornholio i need tp, Addbot, Colt9033, Peti610botH, The Bushranger, Luckasbot, Yobot, Guy1890, AnomieBOT, E235, Citation bot, Xqbot, Kajowi, Mnmngb, Eugene-elgato, Le Deluge, FrescoBot, Mark Renier, RedBot, Full-date unlinking bot, Misakubo, Ahanks11, RjwilmsiBot, EmausBot, Leone cuore, Sandielm, Michaeljamesx, ZéroBot, Jakebob88, Iron Archer, ClueBot NG, Widr, BG19bot, Myfgsl-2, Datasphere, Rodaen, America789, Khazar2, Campbell1234, Tony Mach, Z07x10, Ruby Murray, Pvpoodle, How Shuan Shi, Keijhae, Llammakey, B52CrewChief and Anonymous: 74 • RIM-174 Standard ERAM Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-174%20Standard%20ERAM?oldid=655490967 Contributors: Mcarling, Conti, Jikester, Klemen Kocjancic, Gene Nygaard, Tabletop, Rjwilmsi, Cerejota, Garion96, SmackBot, Chris the speller, Jrt989, Tr1290, Aldis90, Hcobb, Nick Number, J Clear, Two way time, BilCat, VolkovBot, Cobatfor, Addbot, Le Deluge, FrescoBot, Jamesboru, RedBot, Full-date unlinking bot, Jesse V., JCRules, ZéroBot, BrokenAnchorBot, Iron Archer, Doyna Yar, BG19bot, Myfgsl-2, Mark Arsten, America789, Faizan, Keijhae, BeowulfSmith, Llammakey and Anonymous: 15 • BGM-75 AICBM Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-75%20AICBM?oldid=629480223 Contributors: Los688, Cydebot, Parsecboy, BilCat, Toddy1, The Bushranger, Yngvadottir, Causa83, DASHBot, GA bot, Aeonx, CitationCleanerBot, Garamond Lethe, Eric Corbett, Someone not using his real name and Anonymous: 1 • Davy Crockett (nuclear device) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy%20Crockett%20(nuclear%20device)?oldid=654485205 Contributors: Trelvis, Bryan Derksen, JeLuF, Rmhermen, Patrick, RTC, Gabbe, Stewacide, Cyde, Poor Yorick, Nikai, ²¹², Lommer, Jengod, Dfeuer, Raul654, Owen, Kizor, Dbenbenn, Fastfission, Iceberg3k, Twinxor, Rich Farmbrough, Pavel Vozenilek, CanisRufus, ArgentLA, Gunter.krebs, Alansohn, Eleland, Joshbaumgartner, Velella, Cal 1234, Pauli133, Dziban303, 790, Edison, Bubba73, Bhadani, Ian Dunster, Ground Zero, AJR, BjKa, Ahpook, Hairy Dude, StuffOfInterest, Hydrargyrum, ENeville, Nathan8225, Omniwolf, Moe Epsilon, Georgewilliamherbert, 2over0, Kevin, Mais oui!, Erudy, Heaviestcat, SmackBot, Herostratus, Master Deusoma, Chris the speller, Jedwards01, Hellfire83, Rcbutcher, Audriusa, Frap, Kevinpurcell, Mytwocents, EVula, Gbinal, A5b, WayKurat, John, LWF, Mgiganteus1, Darz Mol, Iridescent, Clarityfiend, Pjbflynn, JForget, Kalaong, Fl295, Myscrnnm, Give Peace A Chance, Nabokov, Papajohnin, Thijs!bot, Legaiaflame, E. Ripley, Widefox, L0b0t, Ingolfson, Altairisfar, Arch dude, Meeowow, JDCAce, Mr. G. Williams, VoABot II, Tacheon, JaGa, MartinBot, Tgeairn, Coppertwig, STBotD, Funandtrvl, Mastrchf91, W. B. Wilson, TXiKiBoT, Onikas, Rdfox 76, Les Meloures, Logan, VVVBot, Wilson44691, Judicatus, Spartan198, ClueBot, FieldMarine, Shark96z, Yamazaki-kun, Alexbot, Sturmvogel 66, Perkeleperkele, Mklobas, Qwfp, Gnowor, WikiDao, Syremusic, Good Olfactory, EjsBot, LaaknorBot, Tide rolls, The Bushranger, Yobot, Jim1138, Magic35289, RadioBroadcast, Ozzman313, Orpheusrasgood, W Nowicki, HowardJWilk, Milzo1986, ZéroBot, H3llBot, Trentacular, ClueBot NG, Dylantv, Oddbodz, Gob Lofa, MusikAnimal, Harizotoh9, Lgfcd, HarveyHenkelmann, Thoptersaurus, Jabiss the jiba and Anonymous: 170 • LGM-118 Peacekeeper Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-118%20Peacekeeper?oldid=652132617 Contributors: TwoOneTwo, Rmhermen, Maury Markowitz, Edward, Patrick, JohnOwens, Delirium, Stw, Ahoerstemeier, Rlandmann, Havardk, Tempshill, Taoster, Optim, Krellmachine, Reubenbarton, Brouhaha, Oberiko, Greyengine5, Lupin, Fastfission, Monedula, MSTCrow, ConradPino, AlexanderWinston, Balcer, Dabarkey, NoPetrol, N328KF, Rich Farmbrough, Avriette, Cacycle, Pmsyyz, ArnoldReinhold, Ylee, Mr. Billion, Kross, Sortior, C Hanna, Hektor, Coma28, 119, Joshbaumgartner, Orangefsh, Hohum, Gene Nygaard, Dan100, Crosbiesmith, Woohookitty, Bricktop, Randy2063, BlaiseFEgan, Teemu Leisti, Avochelm, Rillian, FlaBot, Scottrainey, Kolbasz, Russavia, Coolhawks88, Chobot, RussBot, Arado, Xihr, Koisoke, Catharticflux, Ospalh, Lockesdonkey, Bota47, Searchme, Georgewilliamherbert, Arthur Rubin, Curpsbot-unicodify, Tierce, Junglecat, Otto ter Haar, Some guy, Sacxpert, SmackBot, Jim62sch, Wlmg, Rmosler2100, Chris the speller, Thom2002, Hibernian, Imacdo, Tsca.bot, Eschbaumer, MJCdetroit, Cancellier, A.R., John, Adavidw, Gobonobo, Bwmoll3, Rock4arolla, E71, Eluchil404, FleetCommand, R. E. Mixer, CmdrObot, Tjeffers, HUnger, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Hydromaster, Optimist on the run, Cancun771, Aldis90, Raintonr, Woody, Z10x, Hcobb, Scourgeofgod, Guy Macon, Barneyg, Masamage, Spartaz, CosineKitty, Dricherby, Meeowow, PhilKnight, Magioladitis, Jetstreamer, Leev, Wolfram.Tungsten, BilCat, Depsidee, Juansidious, Ops101ex, Afskymonkey, StingerJ, Trumpet marietta 45750, Plasticup, C1010, Ndunruh, Wesino, Banjodog, VolkovBot, TXiKiBoT, Jbd28, Technopat, Martin451, Alfrodull, Mallerd, Bungo77, HowardMorland, ToePeu.bot, Brow1901, MilFlyboy, Yerpo, 61mei31, Sim IJskes, Binksternet, Matrek, Dlabtot, Niceguyedc, Ktr101, Excirial, PaulKincaidSmith, Lineagegeek, Sturmvogel 66, XLinkBot, Addbot, OlEnglish, Zorrobot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Amirobot, Troymacgill, Caboose73, Alilchide, AnomieBOT, Shootbamboo, Materialscientist, Ckruschke, Mangoman88, Xqbot, Smallman12q, Surv1v4l1st, Trinity54, Kyteto, LittleWink, RedBot, Go For TLI, Gregory J Kingsley, Vrenator, Pilot850, Guerndt, EmausBot, John of Reading, Theus PR, Nordicman72, Mmeijeri, Dunc333, JoeSperrazza, Holbenilord, ClueBot NG, YogurtU, CrystalArc, Kasirbot, Helpful Pixie Bot, Hornsignal, Mogism, Z07x10, TwinkleVain, WJD3916, 1990’sguy, Jimkwaj1, Monkbot, Fasteddie1911, Samharen, YouBel and Anonymous: 114 • LGM-25C Titan II Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-25C%20Titan%20II?oldid=653956045 Contributors: Patrick, Cyde, Rlandmann, Andrewa, Hike395, Mulad, Dimadick, Ray Radlein, Blainster, Reubenbarton, Netoholic, Bobblewik, Traumerei, Dabarkey, Karl Dickman, D6, Rich Farmbrough, David Schaich, Cwolfsheep, Giraffedata, A2Kafir, Joshbaumgartner, Phyllis1753, Gunter, Bricktop, Beej, Grammarbot, Strait, Bubba73, Ground Zero, CStyle, Xihr, RadioFan, Gaius Cornelius, Los688, Gadget850, JustAddPeter, Rhallanger, Sacxpert, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Reedy, Sam8, Hmains, Chris the speller, Autarch, Colonies Chris, Andrew502502, WDGraham, AussieLegend, Aces lead, Andy120290, Glacier109, Spinolio, Zahid Abdassabur, Bwmoll3, Minna Sora no Shita, Nobunaga24, Craigboy, R. E. Mixer, CmdrObot, ThreeBlindMice, N2e, Cydebot, Simon Brady, Nabokov, Tewapack, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, Jbmann, Uruiamme, Barneyg, Dwarner30uk, Entropy7, Airbreather, Unused0029, Cgingold, BilCat, LorenzoB, R'n'B, CommonsDelinker, Tdadamemd, Ndunruh, Ohms law, KylieTastic, Banjodog, EdgarDurbin, Vedran8080, Itsfullofstars, Didle5, TXiKiBoT, GimmeBot, , Bcappel, LanceBarber, Mandsford, Christyanthemum, MBK004, EoGuy, VQuakr, Ktr101, Winston365, Sturmvogel 66, Graham1973, Good Olfactory, Addbot, Mikebreakrun3, The Bushranger, DiverDave, AnomieBOT, JackieBot, RadioBroadcast, Ckruschke, Citation bot, Xqbot, Geomartin, Xiphiaz, Heroicrelics, WDGraham (public), Armigo, Thinking of England, ZéroBot, Havermore, H3llBot, The Strip, Cgruda,
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
889
Leebrandoncremer, Bpatton15, Kc135ejim, 220 of Borg, BattyBot, ChrisGualtieri, Khazar2, Epicgenius, Mzriz18, USAF1975 and Anonymous: 55 • LGM-30 Minuteman Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30%20Minuteman?oldid=655498767 Contributors: Bryan Derksen, Robert Merkel, 0, Scipius, Ray Van De Walker, Maury Markowitz, Heron, Patrick, RTC, Nixdorf, Ahoerstemeier, Rlandmann, Mulad, Zoicon5, Timc, Tempshill, Ed g2s, Wernher, Ortonmc, Dimadick, Chris Roy, Yosri, Blainster, Hadal, Alexwcovington, Reubenbarton, DocWatson42, Oberiko, Greyengine5, Fastfission, Subsolar, BigBen212, Bobblewik, ConradPino, Oneiros, Dabarkey, Willhsmit, Imjustmatthew, Karl Dickman, N328KF, Jkl, Rich Farmbrough, ArnoldReinhold, User2004, Night Gyr, CanisRufus, Kwamikagami, Leif, C Hanna, Jhd, Hektor, Atlant, Joshbaumgartner, Equinoxe, Wdfarmer, Docboat, Kucharek, Gene Nygaard, Dziban303, Crosbiesmith, Bobrayner, Woohookitty, BeenBeren, Peng, Bricktop, Tabletop, Amikeco, BlaiseFEgan, GraemeLeggett, BD2412, Isaac Rabinovitch, Wiarthurhu, Direwolf5, FlaBot, Kolbasz, Wongm, Wgfcrafty, YurikBot, RussBot, Arado, Hede2000, Welsh, Kal-El, Asams10, Georgewilliamherbert, Johndburger, Warfreak, Curpsbot-unicodify, Carlosguitar, Some guy, Dancraggs, SmackBot, Mangoe, Reedy, Gjs238, Betacommand, Chris the speller, Qwasty, Thumperward, Oli Filth, Cathryn, Worthawholebean, Il palazzo, WDGraham, Tsca.bot, MyNameIsVlad, OrphanBot, Meson537, Jumping cheese, Cancellier, Acdx, A5b, Ohconfucius, Glacier109, Tdrss, Adavidw, Vgy7ujm, JoshuaZ, Bwmoll3, Yuri Gouveia Ribeiro, Buckboard, TastyPoutine, Dl2000, Kencf0618, JHP, Chetvorno, JForget, R. E. Mixer, CmdrObot, B4Ctom1, ThreeBlindMice, Mushrom, Oseirus, Cydebot, RaptorEmperor, Gogo Dodo, Nabokov, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, Kubanczyk, Bobblehead, Woody, Hcobb, Nick Number, Sherbrooke, Cbs228, Barneyg, Tillman, Kiwichipster, Kaini, Mvannier, MLilburne, Fetchcomms, Dricherby, PhilKnight, .anacondabot, Jetstreamer, SHCarter, Buckshot06, KConWiki, BilCat, LorenzoB, Walle83, KTo288, Ops101ex, Numbo3, Thaurisil, 999mal, Mrg3105, Assassin3577, C1010, Ndunruh, Jevansen, Banjodog, VolkovBot, That-Vela-Fella, Sdsds, GimmeBot, Bcappel, LanceBarber, Koalorka, Bungo77, PokeYourHeadOff, Gbawden, SieBot, A.shteiman, Lightmouse, Usafspaceguy05, BHenry1969, MBK004, ClueBot, Matrek, Icarusgeek, Darthveda, Exosketal, BrianAlex, PolarYukon, Niceguyedc, Craftsman2001, Ktr101, Socrates2008, Lineagegeek, Sturmvogel 66, Johnuniq, DumZiBoT, InternetMeme, AlanM1, XLinkBot, WikHead, Smolov.Ilya, Addbot, Crossrich, ElCani, Download, The Bushranger, Yobot, OrgasGirl, CinchBug, Brian in denver, Missileguy2, Flewis, Ckruschke, Zendell, Danmcneil, Carrite, Darkest tree, Heroicrelics, Banak, Armigo, Vicenarian, MastiBot, NicoScPo, Lissajous, Rotblats09, 777sms, Klangenfurt, Pilot850, EmausBot, Jmliles4290, Jasonanaggie, ZéroBot, Ridoking, BrokenAnchorBot, Magneticlifeform, Kate Mortensen, Snotbot, Rezabot, Helpful Pixie Bot, Nbarile18, Ucsbwalker, Phd8511, Polmandc, Armorking187, Twistedpictures1, NobodyMinus, Carsenegame, BattyBot, Purdygb, Sailing Dutchman, Ducknish, 30 SW, Mogism, AldezD, Shurakai, Wuerzele, Helloeveryperson, WellThenThatsNice, JamesWernerAU, Onuphriate, Monkbot, Garfield Garfield, Matthewfroberson, YouBel, Tdadamemd a1145, Tabit Harik, Nicky mathew, Von Callay and Anonymous: 180 • Mark 45 torpedo Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%2045%20torpedo?oldid=631823633 Contributors: The Epopt, TenOfAllTrades, Wevets, Tabletop, TotoBaggins, GraemeLeggett, Mandarax, Rjwilmsi, Hydrargyrum, Megapixie, Saberwyn, Gjs238, Rcbutcher, William Allen Simpson, Fl295, Nabokov, Brad101, Aldis90, Smiteri, BilCat, PMG, Kguirnela, JulesVerne, Wolit, AlleborgoBot, Aednichols, FreshPrinze, ClueBot, Pekelney, Alexbot, Thewellman, 1ForTheMoney, MystBot, Common Good, Addbot, AdmiralHood, Eumolpo, Xqbot, FrescoBot, Grand-Duc, Babak902003, ZéroBot, Helpful Pixie Bot, Monkbot and Anonymous: 5 • Medium Atomic Demolition Munition Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium%20Atomic%20Demolition%20Munition?oldid= 631099816 Contributors: Fastfission, Bobblewik, Mzajac, Kjkolb, Hohum, Wtshymanski, Dziban303, Petwil, Koavf, Xihr, Los688, Mais oui!, Seval, Courcelles, Dfrg.msc, TXiKiBoT, Andy Dingley, ClueBot, SuperHamster, Addbot, TaBOT-zerem, Holysmoly, ElPeste, AvicBot, Ryan Vesey, Helpful Pixie Bot and Anonymous: 10 • B61 Family Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61%20Family?oldid=642591689 Contributors: Pifactorial, Shaddack, Perry Middlemiss, Wknight94, Georgewilliamherbert, Jsplegge, O keyes, CmdrObot, Thijs!bot, Nono64, Ndunruh, Lightmouse, MBK004, Good Olfactory, Addbot, Gail, Yobot, TMIneo, DexDor, Zigwaffle, BG19bot and Anonymous: 5 • RACER IV Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RACER%20IV?oldid=527510645 Contributors: Soarhead77, Alaibot, Fabrictramp, Cander0000, Mark Lincoln, Linefeed, OsamaBinLogin, Fratrep, Good Olfactory, Yobot and Anonymous: 2 • Special Atomic Demolition Munition Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%20Atomic%20Demolition%20Munition?oldid= 650858995 Contributors: The Epopt, Robert Merkel, Patrick, RTC, Bobby D. Bryant, Gbleem, ²¹², Smack, Fastfission, Leonard G., Ceejayoz, ShakataGaNai, Squash, Rich Farmbrough, Night Gyr, Wtshymanski, Cal 1234, Admiral Valdemar, BillC, Bonus Onus, GregorB, Descendall, MZMcBride, Maxim Razin, Cshay, Xihr, Los688, Mosquitopsu, TDogg310, Mais oui!, Tobi Kellner, Nick-D, SmackBot, John, CzarB, Randroide, Ludde23, Vengefin, Reedy Bot, Notreallydavid, Rwessel, TXiKiBoT, Cerebellum, Andy Dingley, Deswanson, WacoJacko, Auntof6, John Nevard, Tort100, Good Olfactory, Asrghasrhiojadrhr, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, AnomieBOT, GB fan, Tubbablub, Surv1v4l1st, Cbreeze123, Kevcmk, MajorVariola, Mikhail Ryazanov, Wukai, Limnalid and Anonymous: 44 • T-4 Atomic Demolition Munition Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-4%20Atomic%20Demolition%20Munition?oldid= 624949842 Contributors: Patrick, Ezhiki, Alvestrand, Night Gyr, Pearle, Wtmitchell, Wtshymanski, Georgewilliamherbert, Colonies Chris, Esemono, Gavia immer, Andy Dingley, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, LucienBOT, CrimsonBot and Anonymous: 2 • Tactical Atomic Demolition Munition Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical%20Atomic%20Demolition%20Munition?oldid= 625151640 Contributors: Alvestrand, Wtshymanski, GregorB, Lockley, Georgewilliamherbert, Mais oui!, SmackBot, Alaibot, Mark Lincoln, Addbot, The Bushranger, LucienBOT, CrimsonBot and Anonymous: 1 • Titan (rocket family) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan%20(rocket%20family)?oldid=645697458 Contributors: Bryan Derksen, Rmhermen, Matusz, Michael Hardy, Bobby D. Bryant, Cyde, (, Minesweeper, Alfio, Ellywa, Ahoerstemeier, Andrewa, Rossami, Audin, Zoicon5, Tempshill, Miterdale, Topbanana, Robbot, Astronautics, Blainster, Rsduhamel, Alan Liefting, Reubenbarton, Oberiko, Fleminra, ZeroJanvier, KevinTernes, Gzornenplatz, Bobblewik, Chowbok, SimonLyall, Andy Christ, Karl Dickman, Trevor MacInnis, Alexrexpvt, SECProto, CanisRufus, Friism, Huntster, Cwolfsheep, A2Kafir, Joshbaumgartner, Akaihyo, Ahseaton, Kitch, Adrian.benko, BerserkerBen, Mazca, Bricktop, Tabletop, Jivecat, Bgwhite, Roboto de Ajvol, Hairy Dude, RussBot, Aspersions, Hydrargyrum, Logawi, Pstakem, Rhallanger, Petri Krohn, Tsiaojian lee, Curpsbot-unicodify, Mikus, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Nickst, Hmains, Fetofs, Chris the speller, SEIBasaurus, Solargroovy, Redline, WDGraham, Aces lead, Glacier109, John, Dwpaul, Vgy7ujm, Minna Sora no Shita, Rwboa22, Novangelis, Dragos muresan, Joseph Solis in Australia, Hildenja, N2e, Aspie1, Necessary Evil, Cydebot, Palmtree3000, RottweilerCS, Nabokov, JodyB, Thijs!bot, Seaphoto, JAnDbot, IanOsgood, Igodard, Captdeuce, Cgingold, LorenzoB, Duckysmokton, Hbent, CommonsDelinker, Vox Rationis, Ndunruh, Ohms law, Banjodog, EdgarDurbin, Vedran8080, Itsfullofstars, Sdsds, GimmeBot, MEFlora, Drake Redcrest, LanceBarber, Yintan, DaddyWarlock, MBK004, ClueBot, Viking64, Wwheaton, Enenn, AFMissileers, Sturmvogel 66, DumZiBoT, Addbot, Meus Nomen, Download, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Legobot, Luckas-bot, AnomieBOT, Xqbot, GrouchoBot, Anotherclown, RibotBOT, LucienBOT, Redrose64, Hobarthudson, RedBot, MastiBot, Julien1978, Jethwarp, 777sms, EmausBot, Look2See1, Pheasantpete, Mmeijeri, FlyAkwa, ZéroBot, T-Bjørn, H3llBot, ChiZeroOne, Hpenley, Cgruda, BG19bot, Leebrandoncremer, Ninney, Jmcontra, Calu2000, Jamesx12345, Jack.belk and Anonymous: 80
890
CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
• HGM-25A Titan I Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HGM-25A%20Titan%20I?oldid=639151549 Contributors: Bryan Derksen, Maury Markowitz, Cyde, Ahoerstemeier, Stan Shebs, Rlandmann, Andrewa, Scupper, Audin, Topbanana, Wookie, Dimadick, Jmabel, Reubenbarton, Oberiko, Greyengine5, Wolfkeeper, Niteowlneils, Bobblewik, Dabarkey, Karl Dickman, Mike Rosoft, Rich Farmbrough, Guanabot, CanisRufus, Cwolfsheep, AmbassadorShras, Joshbaumgartner, Andrew Gray, Gene Nygaard, Firsfron, Bricktop, Ae7flux, Mendaliv, Bubba73, Mark Sublette, Hairy Dude, RussBot, Hydrargyrum, Howcheng, Tony1, Ageekgal, Curpsbot-unicodify, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, The Dark, Chris the speller, WDGraham, Tsca.bot, Aces lead, Ohconfucius, SashatoBot, Bwmoll3, Minna Sora no Shita, Jmgonzalez, Majora4, ThreeBlindMice, N2e, Fl295, Cydebot, Thijs!bot, Esemono, JAnDbot, BilCat, Drfaustus71, Mark Lincoln, CommonsDelinker, Wsacul, Ndunruh, Ohms law, Vedran8080, VolkovBot, Sdsds, GimmeBot, Cootiequits, AHMartin, SieBot, Freshprose, Gavinmoore, Arknascar44, Lightmouse, Canglesea, DaddyWarlock, Ktr101, Socrates2008, AFMissileers, Sturmvogel 66, DumZiBoT, Good Olfactory, Addbot, OCTopus-en, JPKonz, חובבשירה, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Rubinbot, RadioBroadcast, Xqbot, DSisyphBot, GrouchoBot, Nikolay Molchanov, Full-date unlinking bot, Tim1357, John of Reading, Moof3h, ZéroBot, ClueBot NG, Keithcowing, Cgruda, Leebrandoncremer, Glacialfox, Wuerzele, Siamsky, Jackmcbarn, Jim Carter, Gotech8, Unician and Anonymous: 27 • Trident (missile) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident%20(missile)?oldid=653934501 Contributors: Trelvis, The Epopt, Mav, Edward, Patrick, Michael Hardy, Blueshade, Rlandmann, Jll, Kaihsu, Morven, Cyrius, Elde, DocWatson42, Oberiko, Fastfission, Bobblewik, Mdob, PDH, Jossi, Maartentje, Bbpen, Mtnerd, N328KF, Rich Farmbrough, Martpol, Night Gyr, TerraFrost, Ylee, CanisRufus, E Pluribus Anthony redux, Clue, PhilHibbs, Rlaager, Walkiped, Me2youall, Duk, Zupi, Cwolfsheep, Phlake, Joshbaumgartner, Rwendland, Velella, Danntm, Jrleighton, Alai, Dan100, Crosbiesmith, Alvis, PoccilScript, James Kemp, Bricktop, Jeff3000, TreveX, Torqueing, GregorB, BlaiseFEgan, Paxsimius, Graham87, Sjö, Rjwilmsi, Syndicate, FlaBot, Lzz, Who, Mark83, Srleffler, Chobot, Mmx1, Arado, PhilipO, MakeChooChooGoNow, Mais oui!, Curpsbot-unicodify, David Biddulph, Dancraggs, SmackBot, Unschool, Hux, Hmains, Chris the speller, Thom2002, WDGraham, Jcb10, Rrburke, Feenix, Aces lead, Pickle UK, Jumping cheese, WonRyong, Black Butterfly, A.R., Wybot, Skinnyweed, John, Nejee16, Like tears in rain, Rkmlai, Dl2000, Burto88, Tr1290, Cydebot, Gogo Dodo, Capmaster, Brian.Burnell, Aldis90, Woody, Nick Number, WhaleyTim, Cyclonenim, AntiVandalBot, Widefox, Shlgww, Kiwichipster, JAnDbot, Trig, WikipedianProlific, Warthog32, Jimjamjom, Robtheorg, Soulbot, Gabe1972, BilCat, LorenzoB, MarcusMaximus, Psym, Flami72, MartinBot, Notreallydavid, Davandron, Jackaranga, Mike V, Signalhead, Nug, Isaac Sanolnacov, Nsougia2, Raryel, Usergreatpower, Falcon8765, Guevara27, TrufflesTheLamb, ZH Evers, Mtaylor848, JL-Bot, Jbloun1, Cake taken, MBK004, Antarctic-adventurer, Matrek, Tigerboy1966, Masterblooregard, DragonBot, Vikchill, NuclearWarfare, Sturmvogel 66, Belchfire, NJGW, DumZiBoT, Hawkania, Hodgo22, Addbot, LinkFA-Bot, Tide rolls, Yobot, Infero Veritas, AnomieBOT, Trident1couk, Abcjake, Furshur, HJ Mitchell, Bambuway, Pinethicket, Rotblats09, IVAN3MAN, FoxBot, Trappist the monk, Paul barasi, Boundarylayer, Sp33dyphil, ZéroBot, August571, Brandmeister, Watomb, Matthewrbowker, Avfrye, Domjenkin, ClueBot NG, Deano8216, Kr4m1, MerlIwBot, BG19bot, Codepage, 220 of Borg, Cyberbot II, Mogism, Andyhowlett, Kylefoxaustin, Stephendavion, Christmasmansam123 and Anonymous: 135 • UGM-133 Trident II Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-133%20Trident%20II?oldid=647491567 Contributors: David Newton, DocWatson42, Andrew Gray, TaintedMustard, Crosbiesmith, J M Rice, BD2412, Arado, Mais oui!, Chris the speller, Hibernian, WDGraham, Cydebot, Lbertybell, Aldis90, Id447, VictorAnyakin, JAnDbot, Memphisto, BilCat, RP88, Rettetast, UnitedStatesian, Lachrie, JL-Bot, MBK004, Matrek, Dpmuk, Mild Bill Hiccup, Chaosdruid, Jellyfish dave, Sietec, Ajahewitt, Addbot, Toyokuni3, Hermógenes Teixeira Pinto Filho, Al3xil, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Jim1138, , The High Fin Sperm Whale, LilHelpa, Geomartin, Dynami, Abcjake, Leptosome, RedBot, Orenburg1, Trappist the monk, 10987sa, Vrenator, Pilot850, Rasim, Rail88, Boundarylayer, ZéroBot, August571, SporkBot, Lokpest, Rangoon11, Junior436068, Ebehn, Egg Centric, Jrobin08, RovingPersonalityConstruct, Phd8511, PumknPi, Lellis.easc, BattyBot, Dexbot, Mogism, Popey000, Z07x10, Racemcd, UnbiasedVictory, RobDuch, Thepno95, Jack.belk, ThaBigCheese99 and Anonymous: 45 • UGM-73 Poseidon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-73%20Poseidon?oldid=647284219 Contributors: The Epopt, Mav, Edward, Rlandmann, Jll, Robbot, Yosri, Greyengine5, Bbpen, Rich Farmbrough, Murtasa, Walkiped, Pop, Cwolfsheep, Hooperbloob, Gunter.krebs, Crosbiesmith, Marudubshinki, Rjwilmsi, Yamamoto Ichiro, FlaBot, YurikBot, Arado, American2, Curpsbot-unicodify, SmackBot, Gilliam, Hibernian, John, Craigboy, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Nabokov, Brian.Burnell, Woody, J Clear, BilCat, BJ Axel, Marcd30319, VolkovBot, TXiKiBoT, Raryel, Eurocopter, AlleborgoBot, Flyer22, Maralia, Sturmvogel 66, Chaosdruid, Acunn1, Good Olfactory, The Bushranger, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Bunnyhop11, ArthurBot, Marshallj25, Full-date unlinking bot, Trappist the monk, Pilot850, EmausBot, ZéroBot, ClueBot NG, Roberticus, ZomaFabrice, Dexbot, RobDuch and Anonymous: 17 • UGM-96 Trident I Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-96%20Trident%20I?oldid=647080468 Contributors: David Newton, Arado, Hmains, Thom2002, WDGraham, Cydebot, Aldis90, WASD, JAnDbot, BilCat, MBK004, Addbot, The Bushranger, AnomieBOT, ArthurBot, Abcjake, Trappist the monk, Boundarylayer, SporkBot, MOSNUM Bot, BattyBot and Anonymous: 3 • W21 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W21?oldid=603604500 Contributors: Rich Farmbrough, LtNOWIS, Malcolma, SmackBot, Alaibot, Sherbrooke, Fabrictramp, Mark Lincoln, Squids and Chips, WereSpielChequers, Brilliantine, Addbot, Shadowjams, John of Reading and Anonymous: 1 • W41 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W41?oldid=620172702 Contributors: Alan Liefting, Mrzaius, Ron Ritzman, Malcolma, Sacxpert, SmackBot, CmdrObot, Alaibot, Fabrictramp, Mark Lincoln, Hrafn, The Bushranger, Washburnmav, Anotherclown, Xfgh7hg, Trappist the monk, John of Reading, Helpful Pixie Bot, BigJim707 and Anonymous: 1 • W42 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W42?oldid=646761065 Contributors: A2Kafir, Woohookitty, Arado, Los688, Malcolma, Avalon, Mais oui!, SmackBot, Chris the speller, Alaibot, Fabrictramp, Mark Lincoln, Squids and Chips, ResidentAnthropologist and KLBot2 • W60 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W60?oldid=650149639 Contributors: Mrzaius, Lockley, Wavelength, Los688, Mais oui!, SmackBot, Chris the speller, WilliamJE, Mark Lincoln and KLBot2 • W63 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W63?oldid=588938359 Contributors: Kjkolb, Mrzaius, Los688, Mais oui!, Sherbrooke, Askari Mark, Mark Lincoln, KLBot2 and Anonymous: 1 • W64 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W64?oldid=546186491 Contributors: Kjkolb, Eubot, Los688, Mais oui!, Sherbrooke, Askari Mark, Plasticup, Yobot and KLBot2 • W65 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W65?oldid=630510240 Contributors: Deb, Mrzaius, Rjwilmsi, Los688, Mais oui!, PKT, Sherbrooke, Mark Lincoln, Tsange and KLBot2 • W69 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W69?oldid=633583384 Contributors: Bryan Derksen, Maury Markowitz, Fastfission, Kappa, Grutness, Dziban303, Yopohari, Rowan Moore, Megapixie, Georgewilliamherbert, Mais oui!, SmackBot, Nabokov, Thijs!bot, Pan Dan, Alexbot, Addbot, LucienBOT and Anonymous: 3
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
891
• MGM-140 ATACMS Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-140%20ATACMS?oldid=654871225 Contributors: Christopher Mahan, Lir, Rlandmann, Emperorbma, Riddley, Kokiri, DocWatson42, MisfitToys, Bender235, ZeroOne, Cwolfsheep, King nothing, Andershalden, Joshbaumgartner, Cal 1234, Wyatts, Alai, MoRsE, Chobot, DanMS, Gaius Cornelius, Los688, Ninly, MagneticFlux, SmackBot, Looper5920, Jprg1966, Papa November, Hibernian, Oni Ookami Alfador, A.R., John, Yasirniazkhan, Redwolf6879, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Aldis90, Hcobb, Lan Di, James marlow, MetsBot, Bow66, VolkovBot, Occasional Reader, PDFbot, The1marauder, Rkarlsba, Lastdingo, Tosaka1, Addbot, Nohomers48, Shleider, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Legobot, Yobot, AnomieBOT, TinucherianBot II, FrescoBot, Guinnessmonkey, Frankb-wik, Anir1uph, TitaniumCarbide, Touchtheskywithglory, BattyBot, America789, Fatimah M, Solarislv, Tamlinwah, How Shuan Shi, Crossswords and Anonymous: 29 • RGM-59 Taurus Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGM-59%20Taurus?oldid=629476640 Contributors: Bearcat, Exxolon, Malcolma, Bagheera, SmackBot, BobThePirate, Cydebot, BilCat, R'n'B, GroveGuy, Moonriddengirl, CorenSearchBot, Boneyard90, Theleftorium, The Bushranger, Helpful Pixie Bot, BattyBot and Monkbot • Ares (missile) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares%20(missile)?oldid=623028899 Contributors: RussBot, Mais oui!, Paul D. Anderson, Chris the speller, WDGraham, Cydebot, Aldis90, MBK004, Addbot, The Bushranger, Solomonfromfinland and Anonymous: 1 • MGM-134 Midgetman Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-134%20Midgetman?oldid=654868065 Contributors: Rlandmann, Klemen Kocjancic, Eric Shalov, Bender235, Amcl, Gunter.krebs, Joshbaumgartner, Crosbiesmith, GregorB, Rjwilmsi, Arado, Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, SmackBot, Chris the speller, Hibernian, A.R., Cydebot, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, DPdH, QuiteUnusual, IanOsgood, BilCat, CommonsDelinker, TXiKiBoT, SieBot, 61mei31, Krenim, Sfan00 IMG, DumZiBoT, Addbot, Numbo3-bot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, KamikazeBot, Ходок, ZéroBot, CrimsonBot, Ace of Raves, Chesipiero, Hmainsbot1, HMitch08 and Anonymous: 19 • RTV-A-2 Hiroc Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTV-A-2%20Hiroc?oldid=649097010 Contributors: Denni, Hartze11, Alison, Mu301, Crystallina, SmackBot, Bluebot, WDGraham, Cydebot, MarshBot, Ohms law, Potatoswatter, Sdsds, Mugs2109, Easphi, Addbot, Delta 51, The Bushranger, Tom.Reding, Decstop, Ebrambot and Anonymous: 1 • ArcLight (missile) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArcLight%20(missile)?oldid=653662070 Contributors: Arado, WulfTheSaxon, Will Beback, Cydebot, Hcobb, Zeldafreakx86, BGinOC, Snarfherder, Thewolfchild, The Banner Turbo, Dainomite, America789, Mogism and Anonymous: 1 • Hera (rocket) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hera%20(rocket)?oldid=639166250 Contributors: Frecklefoot, Joshbaumgartner, Gene Nygaard, Mvpel, Ewlyahoocom, Gadget850, SmackBot, WDGraham, Bejnar, Fl295, McM.bot, Matrek, DumZiBoT, Addbot, GDK, The Bushranger, FrescoBot, John of Reading, SporkBot, Ploeg8393, Krenair and Anonymous: 4 • AGM-45 Shrike Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-45%20Shrike?oldid=644669308 Contributors: Delirium, Rlandmann, Robbot, Pascal666, Bobblewik, Eranb, Mtnerd, Avriette, ZeroOne, Thatguy96, Joshbaumgartner, Bukvoed, GraemeLeggett, Yuriybrisk, Erebus555, FlaBot, Mark83, Arado, TGC61780, Jor70, Nick-D, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Mike McGregor (Can), Hmains, Bluebot, Emt147, DHN-bot, Dual Freq, Il palazzo, Buckboard, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Hydraton31, Nabokov, Aldis90, HedgeFundBob, AsgardBot, BilCat, CommonsDelinker, Mike cronin63, Youngjim, Blood Oath Bot, Amikake3, Mdk0642, Starrymessenger, Kernel Saunters, Cobatfor, Otommod, Jgb2, Alexbot, Addbot, Zorrobot, The Bushranger, Yobot, Amirobot, AnomieBOT, Jim1138, JackieBot, Anotherclown, D'ohBot, Morganson691, Hammerfrog, ArmbrustBot and Anonymous: 24 • AGM-78 Standard ARM Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-78%20Standard%20ARM?oldid=644708758 Contributors: Rlandmann, Pigsonthewing, Bobblewik, Avriette, Joshbaumgartner, Bukvoed, Gene Nygaard, Ketiltrout, YurikBot, Arado, Gaius Cornelius, Cerejota, Pirate2000, Hmains, Chris the speller, Dual Freq, Snowmanradio, TechPurism, Cydebot, Dougweller, Tantalas, Youngjim, STBotD, Amikake3, Rei-bot, Da Joe, Cobatfor, Addbot, Lightbot, Luckas Blade, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Xqbot, RedBot, ZéroBot, Ridoking, Myfgsl-2, ArmbrustBot and Anonymous: 5 • AGM-88 HARM Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88%20HARM?oldid=648213922 Contributors: GTBacchus, Rlandmann, David.Monniaux, Riddley, DocWatson42, Oberiko, Greyengine5, Fleminra, Bobblewik, Onco p53, Rich Farmbrough, Avriette, Guanabot, Meggar, KBi, Hooperbloob, Joshbaumgartner, RobertStar20, Hohum, ^demon, Mendaliv, Chinfo, Gareth E Kegg, MoRsE, Chobot, YurikBot, Noclador, Charles Gaudette, Arado, John Smith’s, Spike Wilbury, Kkmurray, NorsemanII, Emijrp, Ray Chason, Selkem, Nick-D, Attilios, SmackBot, Jtwang, Baa, DHN-bot, Dual Freq, Moonsword, Battlecry, Snowmanradio, Evil Merlin, A.R., Kelleym, Big Smooth, JoeBot, Amakuru, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Mike65535, Metal Snake, Thijs!bot, Memty Bot, CipherPixy, Hcobb, Wikidenizen, DrBorka, Tantalas, CombatWombat42, Arz1969, KConWiki, AsgardBot, BilCat, Ultraviolet scissor flame, R'n'B, Nono64, McSly, Trumpet marietta 45750, Youngjim, Mads bahrt, Ndunruh, Tatrgel, STBotD, JustAnMD, VolkovBot, Balmung0731, HJ32, TXiKiBoT, Starrymessenger, Metzby, Aubri, MegaMom, Editore99, Atani, Android Mouse Bot 3, ClueBot, Trojancowboy, Mt hg, Jwkozak91, Chaosdruid, Jax 0677, Addbot, Oldmountains, AnnaFrance, The Bushranger, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Mackin90, AnomieBOT, Rubinbot, RjwilmsiBot, Djfgregory, DASHBot, Mrbubl3s, Babak902003, Sp33dyphil, Illegitimate Barrister, Shuipzv3, Nelson Teixeira, Orange Suede Sofa, ClueBot NG, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, CitationCleanerBot, Giblets46, Nzit, JesusHacker, America789, Makecat-bot, Z07x10 and Anonymous: 63 • AGM-122 Sidearm Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-122%20Sidearm?oldid=592173029 Contributors: Rlandmann, Riddley, Oberiko, Mzajac, King nothing, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, FlaBot, JdforresterBot, Nemo5576, YurikBot, Los688, Jonas Viper, Sardanaphalus, DHN-bot, Aerobird, TheGerm, Woody, BilCat, SieBot, Cobatfor, Alexbot, Chaosdruid, SoxBot III, Dave1185, Addbot, Queenmomcat, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Yobot, DASHBot, GoingBatty, Sp33dyphil, Righteous9000, Phredd671, Bryant81272, Brent81272, Helpful Pixie Bot, CitationCleanerBot, BattyBot, Adirlanz and Anonymous: 5 • AGM-136 Tacit Rainbow Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-136%20Tacit%20Rainbow?oldid=639556775 Contributors: SimonP, Rlandmann, N328KF, Rich Farmbrough, Joshbaumgartner, Gene Nygaard, FlaBot, Daderot, Gaius Cornelius, Ospalh, SmackBot, Dual Freq, Taymoss, Fl295, BilCat, Nono64, EH101, SidewinderX, Kyle144, Addbot, The Bushranger, Yobot, Ulric1313 and Anonymous: 8 • ASM-N-8 Corvus Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-N-8%20Corvus?oldid=638580088 Contributors: Kolbasz, Cydebot, BilCat, Cobatfor, The Bushranger, John of Reading and Mark Arsten • GAM-67 Crossbow Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAM-67%20Crossbow?oldid=641757324 Contributors: Rlandmann, Bobblewik, Gene Nygaard, Woohookitty, Ospalh, Hmains, Fl295, Akradecki, Salad Days, BilCat, AMCKen, MystBot, Addbot, The Bushranger and Anonymous: 1
892
CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
• ADM-141 TALD Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADM-141%20TALD?oldid=651725021 Contributors: SimonP, Rlandmann, Lupo, Gene Nygaard, Ospalh, Pirate2000, BobThePirate, Dual Freq, Cydebot, Akradecki, Flayer, Arz1969, Brucelipe, LanceBarber, Chaosdruid, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, LilHelpa, TheStarwolf, Dondervogel 2, Snotbot, Iflyfa18s, ScrabbleZ and Anonymous: 6 • ADM-144 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADM-144?oldid=537310768 Contributors: Rlandmann, Night Gyr, HenryLi, Megapixie, Bluebot, BobThePirate, Chaosdruid and The Bushranger • ADM-160 MALD Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADM-160%20MALD?oldid=655393753 Contributors: SimonP, Rlandmann, Gene Nygaard, Arado, Ospalh, Pirate2000, Nick-D, SmackBot, Sam8, Boris Barowski, Chris the speller, Dual Freq, Cydebot, Hcobb, Akradecki, VolkovBot, PixelBot, Chaosdruid, Addbot, Lightbot, TechBot, John of Reading, Krassdaniel, America789, Mjbrennan99 and Anonymous: 8 • ADM-20 Quail Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADM-20%20Quail?oldid=632920698 Contributors: Rlandmann, Dabarkey, Karl Dickman, Xezbeth, Petersam, Stahlkocher1, Flambe, Denniss, Hohum, Gene Nygaard, Woohookitty, Rjwilmsi, Wiarthurhu, Jmc, YurikBot, RussBot, Fuzzy901, Lavenderbunny, Neilbeach, PTSE, Pirate2000, Groyolo, Chris the speller, DMS, BobThePirate, Martin Blank, Dual Freq, R. E. Mixer, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Thijs!bot, Woody, Dawkeye, Sherbrooke, Akradecki, Avicennasis, BilCat, Brucelipe, R'n'B, CommonsDelinker, Youngjim, Ndunruh, Spiesr, GimmeBot, LanceBarber, Lightmouse, Kumioko, Keeper76, FieldMarine, PixelBot, Chaosdruid, Airplaneman, Addbot, LaaknorBot, דוד55, The Bushranger, Fraggle81, Ulric1313, Sandip90, Full-date unlinking bot, RjwilmsiBot, DexDor, John of Reading, AvicBot, ZéroBot, AK456 and Anonymous: 12 • Beechcraft MQM-107 Streaker Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft%20MQM-107%20Streaker?oldid=650836940 Contributors: Vegaswikian, SmackBot, Chronodm, Rjones3, Cydebot, Fnlayson, CombatWombat42, BilCat, Keith D, SidewinderX, Boing! said Zebedee, Sturmvogel 66, Chaosdruid, Addbot, The Bushranger, Ajh1492, AnomieBOT, RightCowLeftCoast, Lovetravel86, 777sms, Dronebuddy, Illegitimate Barrister, Anir1uph, Sfdyoung, ChuispastonBot, Mddkpp, Hpskiii, LukasMatt and Anonymous: 8 • Northrop BQM-74 Chukar Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop%20BQM-74%20Chukar?oldid=650620986 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Rlandmann, Gidonb, Jooler, Bobblewik, Trevor MacInnis, Avriette, Kbh3rd, Bukvoed, Gene Nygaard, Dziban303, BD2412, Dcsutherland, Vegaswikian, Durin, SchuminWeb, Welsh, Sardanaphalus, Bluebot, Dual Freq, Rlevse, Acdx, Kashmiri, Dl2000, KPWM Spotter, CmdrObot, MarsRover, Fl295, Cydebot, Nabokov, Hcobb, Akradecki, DagosNavy, Salad Days, Keith D, CommonsDelinker, WJBscribe, Petebutt, SieBot, Cobatfor, Editore99, Lastdingo, DannaShinsho, Addbot, CarsracBot, דוד55, The Bushranger, MTWEmperor, AnomieBOT, Tokyotown8, Full-date unlinking bot, 777sms, Gavbadger, Chesipiero, Technical 13, Abrahamdsl, Mddkpp, Nsgoldberg and Anonymous: 17 • XGAM-71 Buck Duck Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XGAM-71%20Buck%20Duck?oldid=654035470 Contributors: Patrick, HorsePunchKid, Dabarkey, Karl Dickman, Xezbeth, Arado, SmackBot, Olly lewis, Takowl, Ohconfucius, Nagle, Cydebot, MarshBot, CommonsDelinker, EH101, GimmeBot, Skipweasel, Chaosdruid, Addbot, The Bushranger, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Citation bot, Full-date unlinking bot and 777sms • XSM-73 Goose Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XSM-73%20Goose?oldid=632079709 Contributors: Rlandmann, Karl Dickman, Rich Farmbrough, Water Bottle, Gene Nygaard, Alai, Marudubshinki, Edison, Rjwilmsi, Feydey, SmackBot, Chris the speller, Mr Stephen, Saxbryn, Fl295, Cydebot, Eastmain, Woody, Dricherby, Brucelipe, R'n'B, Ndunruh, Jamesontai, EH101, GimmeBot, AMCKen, Niceguyedc, Addbot, The Bushranger, FrescoBot, ReigneBOT, John of Reading and Anonymous: 5 • XSM-74 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XSM-74?oldid=544332929 Contributors: Rlandmann, SmackBot, Chris the speller, Cydebot, Aldis90, Woody, Brucelipe, Andreas Parsch, Ndunruh, GimmeBot, Thunderbird2, Lightbot, The Bushranger and Anonymous: 2 • Cornelius XBG-3 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius%20XBG-3?oldid=635333214 Contributors: The Rambling Man, Cydebot, Petebutt, The Bushranger, Chesipiero, Helpful Pixie Bot, CitationCleanerBot and Mddkpp • Fairchild BQ-3 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild%20BQ-3?oldid=568671840 Contributors: Petebutt, The Bushranger, AustralianRupert, 777sms and Chesipiero • Fleetwings BQ-1 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleetwings%20BQ-1?oldid=586193805 Contributors: Petebutt, Piledhigheranddeeper, The Bushranger, 777sms and Chesipiero • Fleetwings BQ-2 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleetwings%20BQ-2?oldid=641626257 Contributors: DPdH, Petebutt, The Bushranger, 777sms and Chesipiero • Gorgon (missile family) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgon%20(missile%20family)?oldid=645990836 Contributors: Rlandmann, Robbot, Woohookitty, XLerate, Sophysduckling, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, DMS, Iridescent, Wikited, Cydebot, Aldis90, BilCat, Petebutt, Cobatfor, SchreiberBike, Addbot, The Bushranger, Xqbot, Jackehammond, Leonidl, Jay8g, Suzukisue and Anonymous: 2 • Interstate TDR Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate%20TDR?oldid=603826911 Contributors: Klemen Kocjancic, GraemeLeggett, MZMcBride, Wavelength, SatuSuro, Hu12, Courcelles, Cydebot, TAnthony, Reedy Bot, Petebutt, Andy Dingley, Nimbus227, The Bushranger, Rubinbot, AustralianRupert, 777sms, GA bot, ZéroBot, Wackywace, Demiurge1000, Chesipiero, Historyonthemarch, Helpful Pixie Bot, Mddkpp, Makecat-bot and Anonymous: 4 • Interstate XBDR Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate%20XBDR?oldid=609598533 Contributors: Phyllis1753, Nick-D, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Piledhigheranddeeper, Addbot, Vyom25, The Bushranger, LilHelpa, HRoestBot, 777sms, Wackywace, CrimsonBot, Chesipiero, Helpful Pixie Bot, Mddkpp and Anonymous: 1 • JB-4 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JB-4?oldid=626504364 Contributors: Hmains, Drmies, The Bushranger, Trappist the monk, Merlin48, Helpful Pixie Bot, CitationCleanerBot, Monkbot and Anonymous: 1 • KAN Little Joe Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAN%20Little%20Joe?oldid=611042738 Contributors: Woohookitty, Explainer, Hmains, DéRahier, ShelfSkewed, Cydebot, Aldis90, Parsecboy, Cobatfor, Addbot, The Bushranger, LilHelpa, Jackehammond, EmausBot, BobM3, Helpful Pixie Bot and Anonymous: 2 • Northrop JB-1 Bat Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop%20JB-1%20Bat?oldid=635402946 Contributors: PamD, KTo288, The Bushranger, Trappist the monk, EmausBot, BattyBot and 30 SW • Piper LBP Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper%20LBP?oldid=592800572 Contributors: Ahunt, Wavelength, Hmains, Cydebot, Advait.ghaisas, Arjayay, The Bushranger, 777sms, BaSH PR0MPT, Chesipiero, Helpful Pixie Bot, CitationCleanerBot and Monkbot • Pratt-Read LBE Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt-Read%20LBE?oldid=618002832 Contributors: Ahunt, Hmains, Cydebot, Optimist on the run, FerdinandFrog, The Bushranger, 777sms, Helpful Pixie Bot, CitationCleanerBot, Mddkpp and Monkbot
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
893
• Taylorcraft LBT Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylorcraft%20LBT?oldid=606959028 Contributors: GraemeLeggett, Wavelength, Cydebot, Mild Bill Hiccup, The Bushranger, 777sms, GoingBatty, Chesipiero, Helpful Pixie Bot, CitationCleanerBot and Monkbot • ASM-135 ASAT Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135%20ASAT?oldid=639579572 Contributors: Rlandmann, Topbanana, Twang, Robbot, N328KF, Woohookitty, Mendaliv, RussBot, Welsh, Asams10, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Jsplegge, SmackBot, Hmains, Chris the speller, Oni Ookami Alfador, Soarhead77, Sevenless, Iridescent, Iepeulas, Joseph Solis in Australia, MarsRover, NickFr, Cydebot, Aadrover, Aldis90, Woody, Piotr Mikołajski, Fru1tbat, Roidroid, Charibdis, BilCat, Brucelipe, R'n'B, !Darkfire!6'28'14, Ndunruh, Nico2007, D-Kuru, GimmeBot, CMBJ, יוסי, Iknowyourider, MBK004, Nukes4Tots, Addbot, Tassedethe, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Ace aniki, Luckas-bot, SpaceCowboy2253, AnomieBOT, Causa83, John of Reading, Striker121, GoingBatty, ZéroBot, Mikhail Ryazanov, Jay8g, Minsbot, Space Strategos, Pratyya Ghosh, Mogism, Jamesmcmahon0, Captain Ben Sisko and Anonymous: 30 • MGM-157 EFOGM Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-157%20EFOGM?oldid=654868066 Contributors: Bender235, Aldis90, Petebutt, JL-Bot, The Bushranger, PleaseStand, Jesse V., Wackywace, Cyberbot II and Anonymous: 1 • AGM-153 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-153?oldid=544224015 Contributors: Rlandmann, Wsloand, FlaBot, SmackBot, Bluebot, BobThePirate, Chaosdruid, Addbot, The Bushranger, Erik9bot and Anonymous: 1 • AGM-159 JASSM Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-159%20JASSM?oldid=544227218 Contributors: Rlandmann, Riddley, Wsloand, SmackBot, Bluebot, BobThePirate, PRRfan, Rei-bot, Addbot, The Bushranger, Erik9bot, Ripchip Bot, Alison22 and Anonymous: 1 • AGM-169 Joint Common Missile Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-169%20Joint%20Common%20Missile?oldid= 644712250 Contributors: Rlandmann, Riddley, Comatose51, Rich Farmbrough, Cwolfsheep, Joshbaumgartner, Gene Nygaard, Gurch, YurikBot, RussBot, Arado, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, SmackBot, Open-box, A.R., Skrip00, Cydebot, Woody, Etr52, Two way time, CommonsDelinker, Nono64, StalinsLoveChild, Tatrgel, HJ32, TXiKiBoT, Chaosdruid, Addbot, Lightbot, HerculeBot, The Bushranger, JCRules, Ebrambot, Hmainsbot1 and Anonymous: 9 • AGM-53 Condor Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-53%20Condor?oldid=594835809 Contributors: Rlandmann, Wernher, Everyking, Joshbaumgartner, Dziban303, Los688, Cydebot, Avicennasis, BilCat, MarcoLittel, VolkovBot, Thunderbird2, Lucasbfrbot, Mild Bill Hiccup, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, AvicBot, Chalim Kenabru and Anonymous: 2 • AGM-63 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-63?oldid=544049722 Contributors: Rlandmann, Riddley, Joshbaumgartner, Sardanaphalus, Cydebot, Addbot, The Bushranger, RedBot, Mir09 and Anonymous: 1 • AGM-64 Hornet Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-64%20Hornet?oldid=644709420 Contributors: Rlandmann, Joshbaumgartner, Arado, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, TechPurism, Cydebot, Rei-bot, Wilhelmina Will, Sturmvogel 66, Addbot, The Bushranger, Guy1890, Erik9bot, Mir09, CrimsonBot, PhnomPencil and Anonymous: 4 • AGM-80 Viper Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-80%20Viper?oldid=644671773 Contributors: Leandrod, Rlandmann, Avriette, Joshbaumgartner, RJFJR, Uncle G, Nvinen, Bschorr, YurikBot, Arado, Bluebot, Cydebot, Chaosdruid, Addbot, The Bushranger and Anonymous: 2 • AGM-83 Bulldog Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-83%20Bulldog?oldid=629484134 Contributors: Rlandmann, Joshbaumgartner, Gene Nygaard, Graham87, BOT-Superzerocool, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Colonies Chris, Cydebot, BilCat, MarcoLittel, Reibot, Addbot, The Bushranger, The High Fin Sperm Whale, Erik9bot, Shirudo and Anonymous: 2 • AIM-152 AAAM Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-152%20AAAM?oldid=616077051 Contributors: Edward, Rlandmann, GCarty, Riddley, Bobblewik, Mjuarez, Joshbaumgartner, Galaxiaad, Gimboid13, RussBot, Ospalh, Engineer Bob, Pirate2000, Riverofdreams, SmackBot, STBotD, Cobatfor, Chaosdruid, Addbot, The Bushranger, Subpots, MaxDel, Heavyweight Gamer, ZéroBot, Garamond Lethe and Anonymous: 7 • AIM-95 Agile Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-95%20Agile?oldid=613989348 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Rlandmann, GCarty, DocWatson42, Karl Dickman, Roo72, Joshbaumgartner, Pirate2000, Hmains, Derekbridges, Cydebot, Aldis90, Arz1969, Balmung0731, HJ32, Lastdingo, Addbot, The Bushranger, Xosema, MaxDel, DexDor and Anonymous: 5 • AIM-97 Seekbat Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-97%20Seekbat?oldid=647875668 Contributors: Edward, Rlandmann, GCarty, Pibwl, Joshbaumgartner, Firsfron, FlaBot, Arado, Welsh, David Underdown, Pirate2000, Alureiter, SmackBot, Hmains, Derekbridges, Cydebot, BilCat, MarcoLittel, Sfan00 IMG, Addbot, The Bushranger, Mcclellanj, Erik9bot, MaxDel, Khazar2 and Anonymous: 4 • AQM-127 SLAT Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AQM-127%20SLAT?oldid=646566157 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Tabletop, Nick-D, Attilios, Cydebot, TAnthony, BilCat, Meters, Yerpo, AMCKen, The Bushranger, DASHBot, GoingBatty, Helpful Pixie Bot, Mddkpp and Anonymous: 5 • FGR-17 Viper Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGR-17%20Viper?oldid=638819050 Contributors: Leandrod, Antandrus, Ground Zero, Grafen, SmackBot, Metallurgist, MarsRover, Cydebot, Aldis90, Magioladitis, BilCat, W. B. Wilson, FergusM1970, Hqb, Spartan198, Arugia, Addbot, The Bushranger, High Contrast, Jackehammond, T-Nod, Mogism, Liquiddude, Awd19691969 and Anonymous: 8 • Have Dash Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have%20Dash?oldid=603583909 Contributors: The Anome, Attilios, Onebravemonkey, Cs-wolves, Cydebot, Fnlayson, R'n'B, Kumioko (renamed), LP-mn, Piledhigheranddeeper, Addbot, The Bushranger, Jonesey95, ZéroBot and Monkbot • MGM-166 LOSAT Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-166%20LOSAT?oldid=614356441 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Ixfd64, Rlandmann, Riddley, Avriette, Alereon, Gene Nygaard, Los688, SmackBot, Cydebot, Aldis90, .anacondabot, BilCat, MajorHazard, Dreamafter, LizGere, Addbot, HatlessAtlas, The Bushranger, Mark Schierbecker, AurgelmirCro, Brittus, GoingBatty, CrimsonBot, Cyberbot II and Anonymous: 5 • NOTS-EV-2 Caleb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOTS-EV-2%20Caleb?oldid=641757598 Contributors: Woohookitty, Tabletop, SatuSuro, Chris the speller, WDGraham, Cydebot, IanOsgood, BilCat, GDK, The Bushranger, Xfansd, Aeonx and Anonymous: 1 • RIM-101 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-101?oldid=645918605 Contributors: Cydebot, BilCat, The Bushranger, Monkbot and Anonymous: 1 • RIM-113 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-113?oldid=629544757 Contributors: Wavelength, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Aldis90, BilCat, R'n'B, EoGuy, The Bushranger and BG19bot
894
CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
• RIM-85 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-85?oldid=618194876 Contributors: Cydebot, Socrates2008, Addbot, AttoRenato, The Bushranger and Monkbot • SSM-N-2 Triton Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSM-N-2%20Triton?oldid=642058628 Contributors: Arado, FrescoBot, RobDuch and Anonymous: 1 • UUM-125 Sea Lance Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUM-125%20Sea%20Lance?oldid=607821815 Contributors: Rlandmann, Wmahan, Warpflyght, Xezbeth, Sumergocognito, Blackeagle, FlaBot, Kuribosshoe, Gaius Cornelius, Los688, SmackBot, Hmains, Bluebot, BobThePirate, Tdrss, Scarlet Lioness, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Appraiser, BilCat, Marcd30319, EH101, Thunderbird2, Matrek, Chaosdruid, Addbot, The Bushranger, AdmiralHood, SassoBot, TuxLibNit and Anonymous: 9 • Vought HVM Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought%20HVM?oldid=651445383 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Gene Nygaard, GregorB, Malcolma, Alaibot, Aldis90, MajorHazard, Lastdingo, AnomieBOT and Anonymous: 1 • 3.5-Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3.5-Inch%20Forward%20Firing%20Aircraft% 20Rocket?oldid=584817316 Contributors: Cydebot, Malleus Fatuorum, TAnthony, Rettetast, Andy Dingley, Martin Velek, SchreiberBike, Little Mountain 5, The Bushranger, DASHBot, Magneticlifeform and Helpful Pixie Bot • AUM-N-2 Petrel Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUM-N-2%20Petrel?oldid=629462123 Contributors: SimonP, Rlandmann, Gene Nygaard, Marudubshinki, Epolk, Pirate2000, Hmains, Bluebot, Trekphiler, TechPurism, Cydebot, JustAGal, BilCat, R'n'B, Kguirnela, Petebutt, Maelgwnbot, Addbot, The Bushranger, EmausBot, Mddkpp and Anonymous: 2 • Mousetrap (weapon) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mousetrap%20(weapon)?oldid=599129417 Contributors: Riddley, Securiger, DocWatson42, Klox, Roo72, Kross, Gergiev, HiFiGuy, BD2412, Catsmeat, YurikBot, Salmanazar, BorgQueen, SmackBot, Hmains, Krzypntbllr, Rcbutcher, Trekphiler, Cydebot, Aldis90, Bobblehead, Dawkeye, Toddst1, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Cheposo, Lotje, EmausBot, H3llBot and Anonymous: 1 • RUM-139 VL-ASROC Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RUM-139%20VL-ASROC?oldid=594691531 Contributors: Rlandmann, Ehn, Tempshill, Topbanana, Riddley, Pibwl, Rorro, DMG413, CanisRufus, Cwolfsheep, Joshbaumgartner, Gene Nygaard, Alai, Prashanthns, GraemeLeggett, RussBot, Chris Capoccia, Los688, Saberwyn, Allens, Looper5920, Dual Freq, TheGerm, Cydebot, Two way time, BilCat, Rettetast, Kguirnela, Thewellman, Addbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, AdmiralHood, FrescoBot, LucienBOT, RedBot, Babak902003, ZéroBot, AvicAWB, Medalofhonor105 and Anonymous: 8 • RUR-5 ASROC Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RUR-5%20ASROC?oldid=654868427 Contributors: The Epopt, Rambot, Minesweeper, Tempshill, Riddley, DocWatson42, Oberiko, Fleminra, Revth, Bobblewik, Willhsmit, Maikel, Mtnerd, Danh, Guanabot, Bender235, Aranel, Longhair, Get It, Idleguy, A2Kafir, Joshbaumgartner, ASK, TaintedMustard, Gene Nygaard, Dan100, PoccilScript, Nvinen, GraemeLeggett, Mandarax, Arabani, Catsmeat, Chobot, Bgwhite, Borgx, RussBot, John Smith’s, Gaius Cornelius, Saberwyn, Nicolaiplum, Georgewilliamherbert, Ageekgal, Alureiter, SmackBot, Delphi00, Hmains, Kurykh, BobThePirate, Rcbutcher, Ebrockway, Astroview120mm, John, Wikited, CmdrObot, Axefan, Sir Lothar, Cydebot, CMarshall, Brian.Burnell, Cancun771, Aldis90, Kirk Hilliard, Thijs!bot, DulcetTone, WinBot, JAnDbot, MER-C, Dewey101, Two way time, BilCat, LorenzoB, Subspace1250, Raza0007, PMG, Rettetast, Kguirnela, SirBob42, Pdfpdf, 4wajzkd02, Cobatfor, Lightmouse, 61mei31, MBK004, Matrek, Pekelney, Thehelpfulone, Thewellman, DumZiBoT, Dark Mage, Kwjbot, WardenWolf, The Bushranger, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, TaBOT-zerem, Rubinbot, 4twenty42o, Anon423, Cantons-de-l'Est, GrouchoBot, GovertonGTU, MHolz, Jackehammond, EmausBot, Werieth, Dolovis, Philafrenzy, Dan Hunton, Helpful Pixie Bot, Tpmcnamara, ChrisGualtieri, RobDuch, Llammakey and Anonymous: 47 • RUR-4 Weapon Alpha Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RUR-4%20Weapon%20Alpha?oldid=636087182 Contributors: DocWatson42, Alansohn, Mathrick, RussBot, Dysmorodrepanis, Hmains, DocKrin, Trekphiler, Cydebot, Aldis90, Stoshmaster, Two way time, BilCat, R'n'B, Busaccsb, Cobatfor, Lightmouse, MBK004, Sturmvogel 66, Addbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, AnomieBOT, AdmiralHood, Panda 51, FrescoBot, RobDuch, Wfoj3, YahooWill and Anonymous: 8 • UUM-44 SUBROC Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUM-44%20SUBROC?oldid=628289117 Contributors: Rlandmann, GCarty, Kolbasz, Ahpook, RussBot, SmackBot, Jagged 85, BobThePirate, Missinglincoln, JohnI, Cydebot, Aldis90, Woody, Uruiamme, BilCat, Macguba, CommonsDelinker, TXiKiBoT, Will dwane, Pdfpdf, Cobatfor, Matrek, Addbot, Download, Lightbot, The Bushranger, AdmiralHood, Webwat, GovertonGTU, Comet Tuttle, Vodafone3, Jackehammond, EmausBot, Logical Cowboy, Illegitimate Barrister, Leonidl, Dobie80 and Anonymous: 7 • 4.5-Inch Beach Barrage Rocket Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.5-Inch%20Beach%20Barrage%20Rocket?oldid=626493184 Contributors: Ewen, Kolbasz, Bob1960evens, Rreagan007, Magus732, The Bushranger, Trappist the monk and Anonymous: 2 • 7.2-Inch Demolition Rocket Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.2-Inch%20Demolition%20Rocket?oldid=643046810 Contributors: Catsmeat, The Rambling Man, Chiswick Chap, The Bushranger, Terrortank, Trappist the monk, Helpful Pixie Bot, BattyBot and Anonymous: 2 • Lobber Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobber?oldid=613367730 Contributors: The Bushranger, OccultZone and Monkbot • M16 (rocket) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16%20(rocket)?oldid=632645579 Contributors: GraemeLeggett, Magioladitis, The Bushranger, Trappist the monk, JustSomePics, Mogism and Anonymous: 1 • M8 (rocket) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M8%20(rocket)?oldid=608945559 Contributors: Hohum, GraemeLeggett, Scottanon, Chris the speller, Hebrides, GroveGuy, Afernand74, The Bushranger, Orenburg1, Helpful Pixie Bot and Anonymous: 3 • RTV-A-3 NATIV Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTV-A-3%20NATIV?oldid=607703118 Contributors: The Bushranger • Urban Assault Weapon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban%20Assault%20Weapon?oldid=472054104 Contributors: Riddley, DocWatson42, Orca1 9904, Cydebot, Waacstats, Nohomers48 and The Bushranger • Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder-launched%20Multipurpose% 20Assault%20Weapon?oldid=651935738 Contributors: The Anome, Conti, Katana0182, Riddley, DocWatson42, MathKnight, Bobblewik, Mzajac, Kramer, Grunt, Night Gyr, ZeroOne, Loren36, CanisRufus, Gmarine3000, David kitson, Cmdrjameson, Kjkolb, King nothing, Thatguy96, Joshbaumgartner, Sandstig, Ashley Pomeroy, Denniss, Dan100, Mahanga, BlaiseFEgan, Kralizec!, GraemeLeggett, Ratamacue, Dpv, YurikBot, RussBot, Gaius Cornelius, Shaddack, Arima, CLW, Raistlin8r, Hayden120, ThunderBird, SmackBot, Looper5920, EvilCouch, Ominae, Kintetsubuffalo, Htra0497, Uri R, LWF, 667NotB, PETN, Patrick Berry, Wafulz, Tufftoon, Cydebot, Rifleman 82, Aldis90, F-451, Flayer, Tins128, Jarl of Torvaldsland, Wonton, CommonsDelinker, Thurinym, Tourbillon, Falcon8765, Bahamut0013, MajorHazard, Why Not A Duck, Basilisk59, Dodger67, JEM153012, EnigmaMcmxc, Scalhotrod, NellieBly, Nukes4Tots, Addbot, Nohomers48, Yobot, TaBOT-zerem, Ohmygod766, Jackehammond, Acsian88, FastZcar, L1A1 FAL, HupHollandHup, ClueBot NG, Dainomite, BattyBot, America789, Khazar2, Redalert2fan, Shkvoz, DanieB52, Bulldogdaniel24 and Anonymous: 76
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
895
• RIM-7 Sea Sparrow Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-7%20Sea%20Sparrow?oldid=645911997 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Mcarling, RadicalBender, Jphieffer, Daniel Case, Pol098, Anders.Warga, Cerejota, SmackBot, Chris the speller, Dual Freq, WonRyong, MarsRover, Cydebot, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, Woody, CombatWombat42, Two way time, R'n'B, STBotD, SieBot, Flyer22, Socrates2008, Jusdafax, Chaosdruid, Dcharles11, Addbot, EZ1234, Nohomers48, LaaknorBot, Lightbot, Stinkypie, High Contrast, Xqbot, GrouchoBot, Sarcastic ShockwaveLover, ActivExpression, DexDor, WikitanvirBot, ZéroBot, ClueBot NG, Geistjaeger, Helpful Pixie Bot, Frajjsen, Myfgsl-2, Qrhoo, Sean Clark, HWClifton and Anonymous: 29 • RIM-162 ESSM Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-162%20ESSM?oldid=654917044 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Mcarling, Rlandmann, Riddley, Gidonb, N328KF, Gunter.krebs, Jigen III, Pol098, GraemeLeggett, Ketiltrout, Gurch, Victor12, Chobot, Arado, John Smith’s, Saberwyn, Zwobot, Heathhunnicutt, Orcaborealis, Alureiter, That Guy, From That Show!, SmackBot, BobThePirate, Dual Freq, Aerobird, Jwillbur, Bogsat, J.smith, Accurizer, Musashi1600, Cydebot, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, Woody, Hcobb, E rik, Mongreldog, CombatWombat42, Two way time, BilCat, GarryL200, STBot, Nono64, Okwestern, HJ32, Broadbot, Moskevap, SieBot, Quakeomaniac, Cobatfor, Matrek, Mumiemonstret, Taifarious1, Addbot, Nohomers48, LaaknorBot, Zorrobot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Titusprime, LilHelpa, Coltsfan, Le Deluge, L8AV8R, DexDor, Ngatimozart, Catlemur, Myfgsl-2, America789, Bryan3398, Khazar2, JackW2, Wrant and Anonymous: 47 • AGM-124 Wasp Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-124%20Wasp?oldid=644711410 Contributors: Rlandmann, Joshbaumgartner, Arado, Engineer Bob, Pirate2000, SmackBot, Melchoir, Cydebot, BilCat, Tatrgel, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Stanislao C, Erik9bot and Anonymous: 1 • Compact Kinetic Energy Missile Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact%20Kinetic%20Energy%20Missile?oldid=627145724 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Leandrod, Riddley, Rich Farmbrough, Dalillama, SDC, O keyes, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Alaibot, Aldis90, Oosh, Marokwitz, Waacstats, MajorHazard, Dreamafter, Lastdingo, Tosaka1, Addbot, Katzilla22, Yobot, John of Reading, Cbrittain10, America789, 786b6364, Fergus the widget and Anonymous: 5 • FGM-148 Javelin Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148%20Javelin?oldid=654917390 Contributors: The Anome, Rlandmann, PaulinSaudi, Selket, Cabalamat, Riddley, DocWatson42, Fudoreaper, Phil1988, Rlcantwell, Khatores, N328KF, Guanabot, Pmsyyz, Night Gyr, Schloob, Loren36, Kross, Shanes, Gmarine3000, Tronno, Cwolfsheep, PatrickFisher, Joshbaumgartner, Sandstig, Linmhall, Wtmitchell, Hadlock, TaintedMustard, Frescard, Wyatts, Gene Nygaard, Daranz, Bacteria, Mikko Luukkonen, Jenrzzz, Tabletop, GregorB, Macaddct1984, Xiong Chiamiov, GraemeLeggett, Elvey, Dpolychron, Josh Parris, Rjwilmsi, FlaBot, MoRsE, Schwern, Bgwhite, RattusMaximus, RussBot, Arado, John Smith’s, Ecryder, Snake 89, Texboy, Tertulia, Mieciu K, Engineer Bob, Searchme, Raistlin8r, NorsemanII, JoanneB, TheQuaker, Nick-D, SmackBot, Looper5920, Jhardin.impsec, Stretch 135, Ominae, Geoff B, Jprg1966, Thumperward, Hossen27, DHN-bot, SirromN, Sct72, Il palazzo, Wilhelm Ritter, Jumping cheese, A.R., J.smith, Lunarbunny, John, Flip619, LWF, Ocatecir, Doctor Hexagon, Andrwsc, Tigey, Ose91, JoeBot, Dave420, UncleDouggie, Octane, Whaiaun, Talono, Firehawk1717, JForget, Makeemlighter, NinjaKid, Jim101, Salmagnone, Orca1 9904, Mator, Cydebot, Mough, Rifleman 82, MasterMan, Captainm, Daniel J. Leivick, Aldis90, Unicyclopedia, Hcobb, E rik, Lklundin, Dybdal, DagosNavy, JAnDbot, CombatWombat42, Demonkey36, Avaya1, Meeowow, Canjth, Neftaly, Puddhe, Nickwotton, Zhanghia, BilCat, Spellmaster, Matamoros, KASSPER, Biggyniner, IanHarvey, Climax Void, CommonsDelinker, GomJabbar, Jasper205, McSly, Notreallydavid, Villa mad123, Tatrgel, Jeff F F, Tybb, DanMP5, DorganBot, D-Kuru, Ja 62, Gothbag, RaptorR3d, Thomas.W, James Callahan, W. B. Wilson, FergusM1970, Starrymessenger, Raryel, Robert1947, Quindraco, Brokenwit, Andy Dingley, Falcon8765, Koalorka, EnviroGranny, Aubri, Chuck Sirloin, S.Bowers, Dreamafter, BonesBrigade, Kernel Saunters, Archer1234, Oxymoron83, Henry Delforn (old), Lightmouse, CactusZac098, Kumioko (renamed), Dodger67, Wee Curry Monster, ClueBot, Ol Chappy, TotesBoats, JTBX, Ottoshmidt, Auntof6, Abrech, Muro Bot, BOTarate, RegaL the Proofreader, GPS73, XLinkBot, Nepenthes, Grautbakken, WikiDao, SJSA, Milstuffxyz, Dave1185, Jim Sweeney, Addbot, Nohomers48, Cuaxdon, Shrubage, SpBot, Herr Gruber, Lightbot, Zorrobot, The Bushranger, Aaroncrick, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Ptbotgourou, TaBOT-zerem, AnomieBOT, Rubinbot, Stanislao Avogadro, Capricorn42, Ocelotl10293, WotWeiller, Mark Schierbecker, CalmCalamity, Brutaldeluxe, Le Deluge, Jonathon A H, Paper mache c boy, Skcpublic, FrescoBot, ZStoler, Arteshbod-e-Setad, AstaBOTh15, Calmer Waters, Genuine Truth Seeker, RedBot, ROG5728, Seamonkey210, RjwilmsiBot, Jackehammond, Lapkonium, J.J.I.J.R., TheArashmatashable, GIndim, ZéroBot, Illegitimate Barrister, Shuipzv3, Anir1uph, L1A1 FAL, HuskerFan13, EdoBot, , Petrb, ClueBot NG, Catlemur, Helpful Pixie Bot, Jjoy3646, GeoMK.21, Rikojr, Reallyfastcar, Dainomite, PuckerStarfish, Glevum, Takahara Osaka, MrMartman9flippy, Trfrfdex, America789, Cyberbot II, BobbyV7890, Adnan bogi, Puguh.purwandaru, AKStheIMAGE, Dexbot, Trollface262, Redalert2fan, 93, Z07x10, Maxx786, Fduchello, Evano1van, Shkvoz, Finnusertop, Thees, How Shuan Shi, Infantom, Epic Failure, Naboochodonosor, Miniman879, IrishSpook, Deepayan Sen, Zoomplanet, Mohdtal88, Jerodlycett and Anonymous: 282 • FGM-172 SRAW Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-172%20SRAW?oldid=646209617 Contributors: Rlandmann, Riddley, Cwolfsheep, Pearle, Alansohn, Circuitloss, Gene Nygaard, Rjwilmsi, Jimp, RussBot, Arado, O^O, NawlinWiki, Nick-D, Victor falk, SmackBot, Stretch 135, Ominae, Dasbrick, Htra0497, OrphanBot, MilborneOne, Salmagnone, Cydebot, Rifleman 82, Gogo Dodo, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, L0b0t, Propaniac, Flayer, IKrolm, KTo288, Nono64, Gunnap, Soutrik.93, One Night In Hackney, Quindraco, Bahamut0013, AlleborgoBot, Kumioko (renamed), Ark Angel 4400, Socrates2008, PixelBot, Addbot, Atethnekos, Fireaxe888, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Yobot, Boksi, Viking59, Rubinbot, AdmiralProudmore, Amendola90, Jonathon A H, Brody Kennen, RedBot, Megaidler, Jackehammond, Reallyfastcar, Cyberbot II and Anonymous: 26 • Joint Air-to-Ground Missile Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint%20Air-to-Ground%20Missile?oldid=645975672 Contributors: Riddley, DocWatson42, Comatose51, Rich Farmbrough, Jigen III, Bobrayner, Derek R Bullamore, Will Beback, MarsRover, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Thijs!bot, BilCat, Naniwako, Dreamafter, Matrek, Arjayay, SchreiberBike, Chaosdruid, Leofric1, Dthomsen8, Addbot, Nohomers48, The Bushranger, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Ulric1313, LaptopLuke, Babak902003, Rockstar031678, Defense358, Rockstar1986, BattyBot, America789, Cyberbot II, Z07x10, Cyrapas, Glcm1 and Anonymous: 19 • Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced%20Precision%20Kill%20Weapon% 20System?oldid=644789376 Contributors: Riddley, DocWatson42, Chowbok, Rich Farmbrough, RussBot, SmackBot, Chris the speller, Fnlayson, Hcobb, OuroborosCobra, BilCat, Jedi-gman, Banality, VNCCC, Patrick Rogel, Chaosdruid, Dave1185, Addbot, AnomieBOT, Werieth, ZéroBot, DrunkSquirrel, Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma, BattyBot, America789, Galing, AdelanteXIV, Z07x10 and Anonymous: 11 • AGM-87 Focus Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-87%20Focus?oldid=547272098 Contributors: Rlandmann, Riddley, Joshbaumgartner, Galaxiaad, Pirate2000, Trickstar, Cydebot, Chaosdruid, Dave1185, Addbot, The Bushranger, ZéroBot and ArmbrustBot • AGM-129 ACM Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-129%20ACM?oldid=647086124 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Mrwojo, Rlandmann, Bshort, Riddley, Bobblewik, ConradPino, Willhsmit, Rich Farmbrough, Avriette, Richi, Joshbaumgartner, Gene Nygaard,
896
CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
Dziban303, Robert K S, BlaiseFEgan, Johndoe85839, A Train, BD2412, Rjwilmsi, Noclador, Mr Frosty, RussBot, Rxnd, Arado, Conscious, Hellbus, Spot87, Joel7687, Megapixie, Engineer Bob, Asams10, Benandorsqueaks, SmackBot, Cla68, Bluebot, Trebor, Hibernian, Hongooi, Joe n bloe, Evil Merlin, TechPurism, Tdrss, MilborneOne, Iridescent, Bigmak, 5-HT8, Cydebot, Gogo Dodo, Nabokov, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, Woody, KevinQuimby, CombatWombat42, .anacondabot, BilCat, LorenzoB, Brucelipe, Nono64, Rocketmaniac, Duch, Ndunruh, DorganBot, D-Kuru, Balmung0731, GimmeBot, Billgordon1099, LanceBarber, AlleborgoBot, VVVBot, Guidosst, PraetorianD, Lightmouse, Kumioko, Hamiltondaniel, Matrek, Adventhesis, Chaosdruid, Subversive.sound, Addbot, Reedmalloy, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Ptbotgourou, MTWEmperor, AnomieBOT, Rubinbot, Citation bot, Trappist the monk, RjwilmsiBot, DexDor, DASHBot, Werieth, Miguel.baillon, Strike Eagle, AnomalousGuy, 220 of Borg, Khazar2, Jmnpet, Glcm1, Balon Greyjoy and Anonymous: 49 • AGM-130 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-130?oldid=655597413 Contributors: Rlandmann, Tkinias, Andrewman327, Riddley, Rich Farmbrough, El Raki, Joshbaumgartner, Gene Nygaard, Gimboid13, GraemeLeggett, Bgwhite, Dorbie, Arado, Pirate2000, De Administrando Imperio, SmackBot, DHN-bot, A.R., DabMachine, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Headbomb, Matthew Proctor, Tantalas, Avicennasis, Jacobst, Ndunruh, LanceBarber, RucasHost, Dave1185, Addbot, Download, The Bushranger, AnomieBOT, Mark Schierbecker, Pilot850, EmausBot, Sp33dyphil, Werieth, AvicBot, ZéroBot, Helpful Pixie Bot, Makecat-bot, Z07x10, B14709, MopSeeker and Anonymous: 7 • AGM-137 TSSAM Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-137%20TSSAM?oldid=654055362 Contributors: Rlandmann, Camerong, Riddley, Bobblewik, Wsloand, Arado, Relaxing, Bluebot, Trebor, BobThePirate, Colonies Chris, Fnlayson, Aldis90, Nick Number, Wasell, BilCat, Duch, Starrymessenger, Ng.j, PixelBot, Chaosdruid, Addbot, The Bushranger, AnomieBOT, Tokyotown8, Xmelox, Skylar130 and Anonymous: 5 • AGM-158 JASSM Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158%20JASSM?oldid=654055177 Contributors: Leandrod, Rlandmann, Sertrel, Riddley, Onco p53, Qui1che, Rich Farmbrough, Avriette, Enric Naval, Cwolfsheep, Jigen III, Wsloand, Gene Nygaard, HenryLi, Galaxiaad, Kelly Martin, Tabletop, Kralizec!, FlaBot, Florian Huber, MoRsE, Chobot, Mare, Arado, Grafen, Warreed, Mouseboks, Nick-D, SmackBot, Quidam65, Bluebot, Enomosiki, Hibernian, BobThePirate, DHN-bot, WonRyong, Will O'Neil, Swatjester, Joffeloff, Aquadisco, AJeong86, PRRfan, SebastianP, Jurpo, 5-HT8, Silphium, Cydebot, Solidpoint, Aldis90, Oldwildbill, Z10x, Hcobb, OuroborosCobra, Avaya1, BilCat, Raza0007, Nono64, Zevets, Duch, Bumper12, Ndunruh, Sdsds, Chiongryan, VVVBot, Da Joe, PraetorianD, ImageRemovalBot, MBK004, Mild Bill Hiccup, Socrates2008, Draeath, SoxBot III, DumZiBoT, Addbot, LaaknorBot, LC-130, Oldmountains, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Rubinbot, Bug322, Srwalden, Anotherclown, LucienBOT, Commit charge, Adlerbot, LittleWink, MondalorBot, 09bil98z24, Lightlowemon, Stochtastic, Immunize, Rail88, Werieth, Illegitimate Barrister, Anir1uph, BG19bot, AnomalousGuy, BattyBot, America789, Cyberbot II, Makecat-bot, Z07x10, Emily mainzer, Nguyen QuocTrung, UcAndy, Glcm1, Thewookieroar, DADuck135 and Anonymous: 62 • AGM-176 Griffin Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-176%20Griffin?oldid=655590467 Contributors: Mcarling, Riddley, DocWatson42, Fudoreaper, Gibsnag, Victor falk, Jprg1966, PRRfan, Fnlayson, Heavydpj, Woody, Hcobb, CombatWombat42, Magioladitis, BilCat, Ng.j, WikHead, Addbot, TutterMouse, Tassedethe, The Bushranger, Troymacgill, AnomieBOT, SwineFlew?, RedBot, RjwilmsiBot, EmausBot, Babak902003, ZéroBot, Illegitimate Barrister, Redhanker, Wbmoore, BG19bot, DrunkSquirrel, 2minty, America789, JurgenNL and Anonymous: 19 • AGM-84E Standoff Land Attack Missile Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-84E%20Standoff%20Land%20Attack% 20Missile?oldid=644672453 Contributors: Patrick, Michael Hardy, Riddley, Oberiko, Clarknova, CanisRufus, Enric Naval, Wendell, Joshbaumgartner, Alai, Randy2063, Wavelength, RussBot, Arado, Los688, Yuravian, Bluebot, Hibernian, Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, Wybot, Jimvin, Dale101usa, Skapur, 5-HT8, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Nabokov, Aldis90, DagosNavy, Appraiser, BilCat, Megalodon99, Rettetast, Fusion7, Strandist, Ng.j, Cobatfor, Dvich, DumZiBoT, Addbot, Blethering Scot, The Bushranger, Yobot, BigLoo, Xqbot, Anotherclown, Brittus, Kbar64, Soufle, AO2JAMES, UcAndy and Anonymous: 19 • Direct Attack Guided Rocket Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct%20Attack%20Guided%20Rocket?oldid=613447020 Contributors: Riddley, Delphi00, B4Ctom1, Aldis90, Hcobb, Jedi-gman, Ploxhoi, WacoJacko, Chaosdruid, Leofric1, Addbot, The Bushranger, ZéroBot, Illegitimate Barrister, America789, ChrisGualtieri and Anonymous: 1 • Guided Advanced Tactical Rocket – Laser Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided%20Advanced%20Tactical%20Rocket%20% E2%80%93%20Laser?oldid=606381202 Contributors: Riddley, Aldis90, Jedi-gman, The Bushranger, Yobot, DASHBot, America789 and Anonymous: 2 • Low-Cost Guided Imaging Rocket Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-Cost%20Guided%20Imaging%20Rocket?oldid= 578418430 Contributors: Riddley, Jedi-gman, Leofric1, Addbot, Desagwan, ZéroBot, ClueBot NG, Vacation9, Aisteco and Anonymous: 1 • Precision Attack Air-to-Surface Missile Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision%20Attack%20Air-to-Surface%20Missile? oldid=429192610 Contributors: Riddley, Rich Farmbrough, Leofric1, ContiAWB, Tbhotch and Anonymous: 1 • Small Smart Weapon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small%20Smart%20Weapon?oldid=639312880 Contributors: SmackBot, Robofish, Bluewind, Cydebot, WikHead, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Yobot, Apophenic, Wikireader41, RjwilmsiBot, SporkBot and Anonymous: 1 • 2.25-Inch Sub-Caliber Aircraft Rocket Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2.25-Inch%20Sub-Caliber%20Aircraft%20Rocket?oldid= 638185397 Contributors: Shenme, DePiep, Hmains, Little Mountain 5, Addbot, Jojhutton, The Bushranger, LucienBOT, Trappist the monk, DASHBot, ClueBot NG and Anonymous: 2 • 5-Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-Inch%20Forward%20Firing%20Aircraft%20Rocket? oldid=559301700 Contributors: Lavenderbunny, LouScheffer, Rettetast, CommonsDelinker, Jellyfish dave, Addbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Captain Cheeks, DASHBot and Anonymous: 2 • High Velocity Aircraft Rocket Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High%20Velocity%20Aircraft%20Rocket?oldid=641745466 Contributors: Merenta, DonPMitchell, Groyolo, Hmains, LouScheffer, Ourai, Carguychris, Corella, BilCat, Sphilbrick, Binksternet, Jellyfish dave, MystBot, Addbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, ApostropheSheriff, Trappist the monk, Lotje, Tsx11, Magneticlifeform, Khazar2, RobDuch and Anonymous: 10 • Tiny Tim (rocket) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiny%20Tim%20(rocket)?oldid=652101512 Contributors: Bart133, Bgwhite, Hellbus, LouScheffer, The Legacy, Rekinser, JL-Bot, Lastdingo, MystBot, Addbot, Magus732, Fireaxe888, The Bushranger, Yobot, Ambaryer, Russelldember, CXCV, SassoBot, Topherwhelan, LucienBOT, Lotje, Reach Out to the Truth, Jackehammond, Yaush, EmausBot, ZéroBot, Muta112, Magneticlifeform, Gerald Hoag and Anonymous: 6
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
897
• AGM-62 Walleye Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-62%20Walleye?oldid=653525201 Contributors: Rlandmann, Riddley, Yosri, Bobblewik, Mike Rosoft, Avriette, Night Gyr, Cmdrjameson, John Fader, A2Kafir, Merenta, Joshbaumgartner, GraemeLeggett, Ewlyahoocom, Arado, Megapixie, Emijrp, Attilios, Herostratus, DHN-bot, Dual Freq, Tdrss, Dammit, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Aldis90, Headbomb, Tantalas, Johnfmh, Raoulduke47, Youngjim, STBotD, Balmung0731, TXiKiBoT, GimmeBot, Intellectual47, PWS-KY, Lightmouse, Flappity, MBK004, ClueBot, Chaosdruid, Addbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, JackieBot, Djfgregory, Sp33dyphil, Whoop whoop pull up, Helpful Pixie Bot and Anonymous: 20 • B28 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B28%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=649074425 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Rlandmann, Camerong, CanisRufus, Hans-Peter Scholz, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, Rwendland, Hunter1084, Ahseaton, Cooperised, Marudubshinki, Ian Dunster, Nemo5576, Wongm, Ahpook, Noclador, RussBot, Arado, Hydrargyrum, Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, Asterion, Sardanaphalus, A5b, MegaHasher, John, MrDolomite, CMG, Nabokov, Thijs!bot, Nyttend, Nono64, Levg, Philip Trueman, ClueBot, Niceguyedc, Socrates2008, Addbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, AnomieBOT, Centurionstyle, 777sms, Lucas hamster, Tommy2010, ZéroBot, CrimsonBot, EdoBot, ClueBot NG, Mkcalif01 and Anonymous: 14 • B41 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B41%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=655585659 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Matt Gies, Fastfission, Night Gyr, Dennis Brown, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, Dziban303, GregorB, Pmj, Search4Lancer, Ewlyahoocom, Jimp, Arado, Los688, Bullzeye, Mike18xx, Trovatore, Ospalh, Light current, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Bookworm66, Hibernian, Sbharris, Radagast83, Mgiganteus1, IronGargoyle, Nick Number, JAnDbot, AniRaptor2001, WolfmanSF, HowardMorland, Swaq, Fan Railer, Hamiltondaniel, Alexbot, Eeekster, Winston365, Hermógenes Teixeira Pinto Filho, Moosehadley, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, KamikazeBot, AnomieBOT, WaffleMaster44, Xqbot, Frost111, EmausBot, Boundarylayer, Winner 42, ZéroBot, A2soup, Gyrostat, CrimsonBot, EdoBot, Whoop whoop pull up, Sqzx, Ajaxfiore, TimonMueller, Kristijan H., Beeshy(ninja), Kent Krupa and Anonymous: 42 • B43 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B43%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=652699715 Contributors: Camerong, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, Gene Nygaard, Triddle, Marudubshinki, Mark Sublette, Ahunt, MoRsE, Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, Sardanaphalus, Jim62sch, Mitchpost, T-dot, Nabokov, SSpiffy, Nick Number, LorenzoB, Petebutt, Bporopat, SieBot, Miremare, Maralia, OekelWm, 51edb, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, LittleWink, Full-date unlinking bot, Samuel Salzman, Merlinsorca, ZéroBot, CrimsonBot, EdoBot and Anonymous: 17 • B46 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B46%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=624947341 Contributors: Rickyrab, Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, Fedallah, Nick Number, Jo7hs2, Addbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, AustralianRupert, WikitanvirBot, CrimsonBot, Bomazi, EdoBot and Anonymous: 1 • B53 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B53%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=651910987 Contributors: Patrick, Spamhog, Blainster, Fastfission, Rich Farmbrough, Night Gyr, Sietse Snel, ArgentLA, Danski14, Borisborf, Joshbaumgartner, Ruleke, Wtmitchell, Hadlock, Dziban303, Marudubshinki, Emerson7, EchoPapa, Coemgenus, Nemo5576, Chobot, DaGizza, RussBot, Rowan Moore, Georgewilliamherbert, Sacxpert, Sardanaphalus, Criticality, SmackBot, Jim62sch, Cla68, Ken keisel, Chrylis, Giancarlo Rossi, Robofish, Dl2000, Nabokov, SteveMcCluskey, Thijs!bot, Nick Number, Darklilac, Tangurena, Cgingold, Ascraeus, STBot, Aboutmovies, TexLex, VolkovBot, Anynobody, Mr Xaero, LanceBarber, Mpx, Meltonkt, Afernand74, NickCT, Ktr101, RP459, Nukes4Tots, Bookbrad, Addbot, FiriBot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Troymacgill, AnomieBOT, Westerness, Citation bot, Xqbot, Nappyrootslistener, AustralianRupert, FrescoBot, LucienBOT, Sas1975kr, RjwilmsiBot, CrimsonBot, Wingman4l7, Bomazi, EdoBot, Cgt, ClueBot NG, Helpful Pixie Bot, Weedenbc, BattyBot, EvergreenFir, Bigfire45 and Anonymous: 41 • B57 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B57%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=652697262 Contributors: Night Gyr, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, Rwendland, Hohum, BRW, Kolbasz, Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, Mais oui!, Sardanaphalus, Hmains, JoeCool59, Tsca.bot, M-2, PRRfan, Nabokov, J Clear, LorenzoB, Antarctic-adventurer, Addbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, AnomieBOT, Atomicgurl00, OgreBot, Thinking of England, ZéroBot, CrimsonBot, EdoBot and Anonymous: 12 • B77 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B77%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=624948031 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, Chris the speller, Alaibot, Mark Lincoln, CultureDrone, MystBot, Addbot, The Bushranger, CrimsonBot and EdoBot • B83 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B83%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=655261716 Contributors: Bryan Derksen, Rmhermen, William Avery, Patrick, Camerong, Sappe, Stewartadcock, DocWatson42, Fastfission, ConradPino, Avriette, Night Gyr, Sortior, Maximusnukeage, ArgentLA, Transfinite, Joshbaumgartner, Vbdrummer0, Woohookitty, Oliphaunt, Former user 2, GregorB, Marudubshinki, Urban011, Nemo5576, Kolbasz, Preslethe, RussBot, Arado, Diliff, Stalmannen, Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, Thesporkandfoon, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Jprg1966, Thumperward, Hibernian, Rcbutcher, MarshallBagramyan, Dl2000, Kevin W., Johnlogic, Cydebot, Quibik, Nabokov, Thijs!bot, Nick Number, Desertsky85451, Two way time, BilCat, Flo422, AlexiusHoratius, Afskymonkey, Sb67filippini, SieBot, WRK, RisingSunWiki, Alexbot, 51edb, 1ForTheMoney, Nukes4Tots, Addbot, Nohomers48, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, AnomieBOT, Jeff Muscato, Xqbot, Wcoole, Frost111, FrescoBot, Full-date unlinking bot, CadmiumX99, RjwilmsiBot, EmausBot, WikitanvirBot, CrimsonBot, Yiosie2356, Sbmeirow, EdoBot, ClueBot NG, Helpful Pixie Bot, Madariga, Mark83-09 and Anonymous: 51 • B90 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B90%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=624948285 Contributors: Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, Hmains, Cydebot, Addbot, The Bushranger, WikitanvirBot, ZéroBot, CrimsonBot, EdoBot and Anonymous: 1 • Bigeye bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigeye%20bomb?oldid=589235239 Contributors: Michael Hardy, Gene Nygaard, Gaius Cornelius, SmackBot, Cydebot, IvoShandor, Meltonkt, ClueBot NG and Anonymous: 5 • BLU-14 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-14?oldid=642599561 Contributors: Mark Sublette and Magioladitis • BLU-3 Pineapple Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-3%20Pineapple?oldid=627039058 Contributors: Riddley, Rcc105, Bobblewik, BD2412, Nemo5576, Megapixie, SmackBot, Cydebot, Dogaroon, MystBot, Addbot, ClueBot NG and Anonymous: 5 • BLU-82 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-82?oldid=646086072 Contributors: Jdlh, Frecklefoot, Omegatron, Pakaran, Riddley, Blainster, Xanzzibar, PBP, Jyril, Varlaam, FrYGuY, Geni, Jpg, Rich Farmbrough, Rhobite, Avriette, ArnoldReinhold, MeltBanana, Project2501a, Nborders1972, Sherurcij, Joshbaumgartner, Sumergocognito, UPH, Gene Nygaard, GregorB, Marudubshinki, Wachholder0, Rogerd, Wiarthurhu, FlaBot, Mark Sublette, BjKa, Stereoisomer, YurikBot, Hydrargyrum, Hyuri, Bachrach44, Zwobot, Curpsbotunicodify, DisambigBot, SmackBot, Impaciente, Canderra, Hmains, Hibernian, PETN, ChrisCork, Cydebot, Srajan01, Nabokov, After Midnight, Brian.Burnell, Glennfcowan, Louis Waweru, J Clear, Sherbrooke, Hurtsmyears, JAnDbot, Ryan4314, Sullivan.t.j, Japo, LorenzoB, Nono64, J.delanoy, Tdadamemd, NVO, CaptinJohn, Andy Dingley, LanceBarber, Maledicted, Kernel Saunters, Jvs, Rupert Horn,
898
CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
TubularWorld, Beachgrinch, BHenry1969, MBK004, NovaDog, Nickersonl, Ridge Runner, XLinkBot, DragonFury, Mindblast101, Addbot, Tassedethe, Xowets, Luckas-bot, Punkbeast, LilHelpa, FrescoBot, Joep01, DexDor, Werieth, Victory in Germany, Pratyya Ghosh, Sebastienroblin, ArmbrustBot, Prof. Mc, Hanzio kitana and Anonymous: 85 • BOLT-117 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOLT-117?oldid=642899586 Contributors: Rlandmann, Riddley, ChrisO, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Hmains, Cydebot, Mange01, DH85868993, Starrymessenger, Cobatfor, DragonBot, Alexbot, Sturmvogel 66, Addbot, OlEnglish, The Bushranger, Yobot, AnomieBOT, ArthurBot, The O o, GrouchoBot and Anonymous: 7 • CBU-100 Cluster Bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-100%20Cluster%20Bomb?oldid=601273788 Contributors: Rlandmann, K1Bond007, Riddley, Avriette, Joshbaumgartner, Melaen, Gene Nygaard, Elfguy, Icelight, Sammy1339, Robofish, Cydebot, Dfrg.msc, Vincefilpi, Hauserns, Num1dgen, Dreamafter, Cobatfor, Kumioko (renamed), Ktr101, Dave1185, Addbot, Polemarchus, Luckas-bot, Spaz 1123, Throwaway85, America789 and Anonymous: 8 • CBU-55 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-55?oldid=647666526 Contributors: Rich Farmbrough, Eric Shalov, Velella, FlaBot, SmackBot, Chris the speller, O keyes, DHN-bot, Cydebot, Alaibot, Spellmaster, JJJ999, Mandsford, SilverbackNet, Lightmouse, DumZiBoT, Addbot, Polemarchus, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Edward Sutherland, Gunnanmon, Erjayne, Guywholikesca2+ and Anonymous: 15 • CBU-72 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-72?oldid=647667550 Contributors: Eric Shalov, Gene Nygaard, Petri Krohn, Chris the speller, LtPowers, Cydebot, Leedeth, Ascraeus, Adamdaley, DumZiBoT, Polemarchus, Decibert, Yobot, Guywholikesca2+, Hmainsbot1 and Anonymous: 3 • CBU-75 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-75?oldid=544510686 Contributors: Gene Nygaard, FlaBot, Megapixie, Cydebot, Rocketmaniac, Addbot and Polemarchus • E133 cluster bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E133%20cluster%20bomb?oldid=361174542 Contributors: Cydebot and IvoShandor • E48 particulate bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E48%20particulate%20bomb?oldid=589235909 Contributors: Cydebot, IvoShandor and Anonymous: 2 • E86 cluster bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E86%20cluster%20bomb?oldid=589235592 Contributors: Ennerk, Cydebot, IvoShandor, Diaa abdelmoneim and Anonymous: 2 • Lazy Dog (bomb) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazy%20Dog%20(bomb)?oldid=601982859 Contributors: Finlay McWalter, Sleske, Woohookitty, GregorB, Scottanon, G Clark, Megapixie, Malcolma, Nutster, Noworld, Cydebot, SithiR, Alaibot, BetacommandBot, DulcetTone, Gwern, ChainSuck-Jimmy, Delicious carbuncle, Addbot, AuntieFeezle, Ikessurplus, Will Beback Auto, Rakki9999111 and Anonymous: 10 • Little Boy Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little%20Boy?oldid=655564429 Contributors: Trelvis, WojPob, The Anome, Rmhermen, Nate Silva, Mjb, Graft, Tedernst, Jdlh, Edward, Bdesham, Patrick, RTC, Polimerek, Ixfd64, Eurleif, Kosebamse, Egil, Ahoerstemeier, Synthetik, Nikai, Med, GCarty, Schneelocke, Ideyal, Mulad, Timwi, David Newton, Daniel Quinlan, Bjh21, WhisperToMe, DJ Clayworth, Itai, Fibonacci, Jamesday, Finlay McWalter, JorgeGG, Netizen, Geoff97, Dukeofomnium, Lupo, Fastfission, Wwoods, Alison, Leonard G., Bobblewik, Utcursch, Jodamiller, Beland, Semenko, Satori, Neutrality, Hellisp, Ropers, Kate, DanielCD, Jcm, Lithorien, Discospinster, Rich Farmbrough, Avriette, Vsmith, Calair, SElefant, El C, J-Star, Mytg8, Caligulathegod, Bobo192, NetBot, Mordemur, Smalljim, Reinyday, R. S. Shaw, Get It, Giraffedata, Stepinrazor, Kjkolb, Obradovic Goran, Supersexyspacemonkey, Alansohn, JYolkowski, Jhertel, Anthony Appleyard, Elpincha, Miltonhowe, Wtmitchell, TenOfAllTrades, Sciurinæ, DV8 2XL, Gene Nygaard, Dan East, TheCoffee, Ahseaton, Kitch, Richwales, Crosbiesmith, Woohookitty, Logophile, Pol098, Commander Keane, WadeSimMiser, -Ril-, Atomicarchive, Tutmosis, Emops, Cedrus-Libani, BD2412, Mendaliv, Coneslayer, Rjwilmsi, Tmbyrd, Hochnebel, JHMM13, Vegaswikian, Guinness2702, TBHecht, Rangek, FlaBot, Mirror Vax, RexNL, Gurch, TeaDrinker, Thecurran, Chobot, Cactus.man, Gwernol, Silarius, Jimp, Kafziel, RussBot, Stalmannen, Manop, Pseudomonas, Draeco, Shanel, NawlinWiki, Hawkeye7, Janke, Rhythm, Grafen, Dake, LiamE, JTBurman, Arima, AviN456, Dppowell, Voidxor, Foofy, Samir, Everyguy, Mistercow, CalebMichael, Deeday-UK, Georgewilliamherbert, Mamawrites, Thnidu, Tevildo, Alias Flood, Whobot, Curpsbot-unicodify, Smurfy, Allens, Katieh5584, Maxamegalon2000, Subrock, Nick-D, Torgo, SmackBot, EvilCouch, Reedy, Tarret, Prodego, InverseHypercube, Ze miguel, Elminster Aumar, Delldot, Eskimbot, Lengis, Septegram, Gilliam, Hmains, Chris the speller, Bluebot, TimBentley, Geneb1955, Rakela, Persian Poet Gal, MK8, Cbh, SchfiftyThree, Oni Ookami Alfador, DHN-bot, Sbharris, Colonies Chris, Emurphy42, Harry Q. Hammer, Dave Rave, Jwillbur, Zone46, Addshore, Stevenmitchell, Fuhghettaboutit, Nakon, SnappingTurtle, OutRIAAge, Chrylis, The PIPE, Esrever, AThing, Vemund, Rjcfl[email protected], John, Microchip08, NongBot, Ekrubntyh, NNemec, Stwalkerster, Buckboard, Whomp, MTSbot, D Money 16, Siebrand, Cordialatron, Wfgiuliano, Akusu, Igoldste, CPilgrim, Leebert, Courcelles, Ziusudra, Tawkerbot2, Tubbyspencer, Zaphody3k, MightyWarrior, Bayberrylane, Vahidyamartino, SkyWalker, CmdrObot, Raysonho, Admiral.Ackbar, Scirocco6, Avillia, Old Guard, Lurlock, Funnyfarmofdoom, Slazenger, Kanags, Ryan, LarryMColeman, TicketMan, Give Peace A Chance, Soetermans, Michael C Price, Quibik, Nabokov, Myhlow, Cancun771, Thijs!bot, John254, A3RO, JSmith60, Yettie0711, Dfrg.msc, CharlotteWebb, Escarbot, Eleuther, LachlanA, Rees11, AntiVandalBot, Chegis, Seaphoto, TimVickers, Malcolm, MECU, SkoreKeep, Cbrodersen, Kariteh, DOSGuy, JAnDbot, Xhienne, ThomasO1989, MER-C, CosineKitty, Magioladitis, Bakilas, VoABot II, Edmund372, The Anomebot2, 28421u2232nfenfcenc, LorenzoB, Frotz, Wikianon, Mark Lincoln, Cocytus, MartinBot, Mermaid from the Baltic Sea, Ravichandar84, Cian584, Erkan Yilmaz, J.delanoy, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Rrostrom, Tdadamemd, Darth Mike, Whitewolf79, Chakalacka, Marcsin, Thomas Larsen, Gmchambless1, Richard D. LeCour, NewEnglandYankee, DeltaFalcon, Ndunruh, MKoltnow, Dubhe.sk, Shshshsh, WJBscribe, Coz23, Gtg204y, Use the force, Halibutron, CardinalDan, ACSE, Hugo999, Nikthestunned, VolkovBot, ABF, Dtamasi, AlnoktaBOT, DancingMan, Philip Trueman, TXiKiBoT, Moogwrench, Nxavar, Musan, Monkey Bounce, Bsharvy, Pokehero, Szlam, Martin451, Mzmadmike, LeaveSleaves, Raymondwinn, Madhero88, Ice-creamlover27, Tommer man, Lamro, Enviroboy, Wackojut, Nibios, Sealman, Kadiddlehopper, Slapjack10, HowardMorland, Mizunokoe, Jasonquick, SieBot, Sonicology, Graham Beards, Scarian, Euryalus, Unregistered.coward, Caltas, Commodore Guff, WBTtheFROG, Boxingflame, Toddst1, Chromaticity, Oda Mari, User60521, Smidgie82, Ww2guru24, T24G, Steven Zhang, Lightmouse, SimonTrew, Cyfal, YingYang2, Capitalismojo, Arthurbuliva, Anyeverybody, TaerkastUA, Dolphin51, Pgokey, Lugnut64, Talalpa, WikipedianMarlith, Twinsday, MBK004, Phyte, ClueBot, Trojancowboy, Avenged Eightfold, Methossant, The Thing That Should Not Be, Abhinav, Aviator619, VQuakr, Rotational, Piledhigheranddeeper, Trivialist, Mandalorian NerfHerder Maceo, Excirial, CohesionBot, WikiZorro, EBY3221, Cenarium, Mustufailed, Yonskii, Aitias, Salamiboy99, Versus22, Alex10alex10, Porchcorpter, InternetMeme, 21stCenturyGreenstuff, Avoided, Northwesterner1, Good Olfactory, Dilbert2000, EEng, Rmiddl, Addbot, Pspkid1992, Elemented9, Some jerk on the Internet, Hda3ku, Edgy01, Ryanniemi, Chamal N, SpBot, Weekwhom, AgadaUrbanit, Sardur, Tassedethe, Ccenteno, Lightbot, QuadrivialMind, MaBoehm, Gail, Zorrobot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Fraggle81, Gavin Lisburn, Synchronism, AnomieBOT, Archon 2488, Jim1138, Law, Bluerasberry, Jeff Muscato, Materialscientist, Gogiva, Larsanders, Vock, LilHelpa, MauritsBot, Xqbot, JimVC3, Capricorn42, Wanderer099, Soneill83,
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
899
Ruy Pugliesi, GrouchoBot, Armbrust, Sabio101, Corruptcopper, Anotherclown, RibotBOT, Amaury, Buzz-tardis, Occasionality, FrescoBot, Wikiisright, Crash12190, Ilovekola, Timp1206, Pinethicket, Alonso de Mendoza, Jean-François Clet, BRUTE, RedBot, Lars Washington, Pikiwyn, HowardJWilk, SpaceFlight89, RazielZero, Enemenemu, Saintonge235, Time9, Matt142, Sgt. R.K. Blue, Mr.98, IspinIm, DARTH SIDIOUS 2, RjwilmsiBot, B3an, EmausBot, Fathead101, Boundarylayer, Dewritech, Racerx11, Jttren02, Joearsenault5, Sp33dyphil, Wikipelli, Ornithikos, 11powelljc, A2soup, Chasrob, Tomobe03, Walshie16, Ὁ οἶστρος, H3llBot, Erianna, L Kensington, DASHBotAV, Wikiwind, History80, ClueBot NG, Fatkid193, Jack Greenmaven, Satellizer, Dalekcan, Atomicjohn, Helpful Pixie Bot, Aquario, Heartgoldcam1995, DBigXray, Jay8g, Blitzface, Questions99, Tyger66666666, Kendall-K1, Trevayne08, The evacipated, Zedshort, Mrtrollingpants, Lellis.easc, BattyBot, Hghyux, Ethan Donovan, Blsbear, EuroCarGT, Ekren, Vouzounian2, Cwobeel, XXzoonamiXX, Frosty, Vintovka Dragunova, Epicgenius, Moriki415, Bartron2, True1111, Glaisher, Afraga8, Chrisycharming1, Lokiandthor, Monkbot, Ibzboss, Kovinkestner, Yolohomieswag, Qwertyxp2000, InfoDataMonger, Riyaz.Meerasa, InePotter, Martin2247, Editing656, Qubec132, Niccholas.gradishar, WIki GOBBLE, Laura s mccarthy and Anonymous: 654 • M-121 (bomb) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-121%20(bomb)?oldid=599545666 Contributors: Bobblewik, Avriette, Cmdrjameson, GraemeLeggett, Stormbay, Megapixie, SmackBot, KelleyCook, Cydebot, SamMcGowan, MarcoLittel, Stillwaterising, Foofbun, Sun Creator, Addbot, Brad101AWB, Helpful Pixie Bot, ArmbrustBot and Anonymous: 8 • M115 bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M115%20bomb?oldid=608235213 Contributors: Stone, Wetman, DragonflySixtyseven, Cydebot, IvoShandor, Lightbot, Jason Recliner, Esq., MusikAnimal and Anonymous: 5 • M117 bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M117%20bomb?oldid=589236574 Contributors: Thue, Camerong, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, GregorB, Sango123, Emarsee, YurikBot, Jinkleberries, Megapixie, Hirudo, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Cla68, DHN-bot, Saxbryn, Cydebot, Nabokov, IvoShandor, LordAnubisBOT, Flyingidiot, Oh Snap, Buffs, LanceBarber, SieBot, Excirial, Addbot, Nohomers48, Lightbot, Yobot, JackieBot, Xqbot, Mikespedia, EmausBot, Diako1971, Blacklisted.Gangster and Anonymous: 10 • M47 bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M47%20bomb?oldid=527171152 Contributors: Rmhermen, Ewen, Sandstein, JMK, Cydebot, DPdH, IvoShandor, VX, JonRichfield and Anonymous: 1 • Mark 4 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%204%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=633784096 Contributors: Fastfission, Jonathan Kovaciny, Jimp, Shaddack, Los688, Ospalh, BOT-Superzerocool, Georgewilliamherbert, MrDolomite, Nabokov, Squids and Chips, TXiKiBoT, Petebutt, Cyfal, Justin W Smith, DumZiBoT, Addbot, The Bushranger, Lucas hamster, Chasrob, CrimsonBot, BattyBot, Rydbergite and Anonymous: 5 • Mark 5 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%205%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=649425672 Contributors: Rwendland, Grenavitar, Arado, Shaddack, Georgewilliamherbert, Hibernian, Soarhead77, MrDolomite, Matt.smart, Youngjim, VolkovBot, Andy Dingley, Alexbot, Addbot, The Bushranger, Citation bot, Xqbot, OgreBot, CrimsonBot, Helpful Pixie Bot, Nathanweetman and Anonymous: 4 • Mark 6 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%206%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=634050279 Contributors: Fastfission, Avriette, Shaddack, Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, Ken keisel, John, MrDolomite, Cancun771, Mark Lincoln, TXiKiBoT, Winston365, Addbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Xqbot, D'ohBot, CrimsonBot, Dexbot, Cmoibenlepro3 and Anonymous: 4 • Mark 7 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%207%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=649098106 Contributors: Bobblewik, MarkS, Night Gyr, Chairboy, Arado, Limulus, Sardanaphalus, Jim62sch, Bluebot, Emt147, Jbhood, Ken keisel, Soarhead77, Robofish, MrDolomite, Nabokov, SkoreKeep, Philg88, Balmung0731, Seaoneil, LanceBarber, Cobatfor, PeterWD, Addbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Tohd8BohaithuGh1, Amirobot, JackieBot, Dickinabutt, Anna Frodesiak, CrimsonBot, BrokenAnchorBot, Whoop whoop pull up, Mattise135, BattyBot and Anonymous: 8 • Mark 8 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%208%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=651137170 Contributors: Patrick, Fastfission, Fredddie, Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, MrDolomite, Addbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Grand-Duc, CrimsonBot, Orange Suede Sofa, Julietdeltalima and Anonymous: 2 • Mark 10 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%2010%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=624941210 Contributors: Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, SmackBot, Addbot, The Bushranger, CrimsonBot and Anonymous: 1 • Mark 11 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%2011%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=651440366 Contributors: Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, Jim62sch, Winston365, Addbot, The Bushranger, FrescoBot, Lucas hamster, CrimsonBot, Khazar2, Spirit of Eagle, Vieque, Julietdeltalima and Anonymous: 1 • Mark 118 bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%20118%20bomb?oldid=650117673 Contributors: ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, Rjwilmsi, Megapixie, Little Savage, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Hmains, Saxbryn, Andkore, Cydebot, DPdH, Binksternet, Sturmvogel 66, Addbot, Lightbot, Ulric1313, John of Reading and Anonymous: 1 • Mark 12 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%2012%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=624941540 Contributors: Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, Rifleman 82, Quibik, Hqb, Cobatfor, EphemeralMoment, ClaimJumperBill, InternetMeme, Addbot, The Bushranger, DadOfBeanAndBug, Lucas hamster, CrimsonBot and Anonymous: 3 • Mark 13 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%2013%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=637170124 Contributors: Gaius Cornelius, Shaddack, Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, Hmains, Chris the speller, Winston365, Addbot, The Bushranger, DefenseSupportParty, CrimsonBot, Dexbot, Vieque and Anonymous: 1 • Mark 14 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%2014%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=647084619 Contributors: Fastfission, Arado, Los688, Jim62sch, Kellyprice, Nick Number, Styrofoam1994, Mark Lincoln, Ariel., Hqb, Addbot, The Bushranger, CrimsonBot and Anonymous: 2 • Mark 15 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%2015%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=654031847 Contributors: DocWatson42, Gadfium, Brianhe, Phyllis1753, Wtmitchell, Wachholder0, G Clark, Arado, Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, SmackBot, KelleyCook, Brokenscope, Mikemenn, JMK, CmdrObot, A876, Nabokov, Nick Number, DuncanHill, Mark Lincoln, Keatsmuse, WacoJacko, TX55, The Thing That Should Not Be, Inox-art, Addbot, JakobVoss, The Bushranger, JackieBot, LucienBOT, CrimsonBot, Johnmorris1967 and Anonymous: 18 • Mark 16 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%2016%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=624945336 Contributors: Rich Farmbrough, Jakew, Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, Jimerb, Glacier109, John, Nick Number, Mark Lincoln, Ryan2845, Flyer22, Moletrouser, ImageRemovalBot, Ktr101, Jansjunnesson, Yuhi33, Addbot, The Bushranger, Full-date unlinking bot, CrimsonBot, Templatetypedef, TwoTwoHello, Literalman and Anonymous: 5
900
CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
• Mark 17 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%2017%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=624945486 Contributors: David Schaich, Mrzaius, 790, Commking, Chobot, Shaddack, Los688, Ospalh, Yabbadab, Georgewilliamherbert, SmackBot, Winterheart, Chris the speller, Rcbutcher, Jbhood, Ken keisel, Soarhead77, Giancarlo Rossi, Twalls, Nehrams2020, Zaphody3k, DJGB, Cydebot, Cancun771, Dricherby, Mark Lincoln, Taborgate, Natsirtguy, Tourbillon, Finngall, WereSpielChequers, Jack Merridew, Brozozo, VQuakr, Alexbot, Addbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Jim1138, High Contrast, Xqbot, DSisyphBot, Oonissie, CrimsonBot, Crashcraddock, Mikhail Ryazanov, Fphelton, Mysterious Whisper and Anonymous: 12 • Mark 18 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%2018%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=653916366 Contributors: Arado, Shaddack, Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, Hmains, Hibernian, Spartan078, Ktr101, Addbot, LaaknorBot, Tassedethe, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Frost111, TobeBot, CrimsonBot and Anonymous: 2 • Mark 21 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%2021%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=624945644 Contributors: Superm401, Klemen Kocjancic, Ashley Pomeroy, GregorB, Twerbrou, Los688, PRehse, SmackBot, Jim62sch, Davewild, Giancarlo Rossi, Alaibot, Mark Lincoln, Cyclone77, Hqb, Bob103051, SkyLined, Addbot, The Bushranger, RedBot, WikitanvirBot, CrimsonBot, ChuispastonBot and Anonymous: 5 • Mark 24 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%2024%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=624945966 Contributors: Chobot, Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, Chris the speller, Bluebot, Cydebot, Btball, Nick Number, Hqb, Loren.wilton, Addbot, The Bushranger, ArthurBot, FrescoBot, 777sms, CrimsonBot, Mogism and Anonymous: 3 • Mark 27 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%2027%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=654032157 Contributors: Chobot, Arado, Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, Nick Number, Notreallydavid, Addbot, The Bushranger, AnomieBOT, AdmiralHood, Xqbot, 777sms, CrimsonBot and Khazar2 • Mark 36 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%2036%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=624946618 Contributors: Smalljim, RJFJR, Hydrargyrum, Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, Ken keisel, John, Alaibot, Nick Number, BeadleB, Gene93k, Drmies, Addbot, The Bushranger, AnomieBOT, Heroicrelics, OgreBot, WikitanvirBot, CrimsonBot and Anonymous: 7 • Mark 39 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%2039%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=624947076 Contributors: DocWatson42, HistoryBA, ArnoldReinhold, Los688, Pawyilee, Georgewilliamherbert, Bagheera, Jmturner, Peter Isotalo, Ken keisel, Musashi1600, Nabokov, Nick Number, Sherbrooke, Addbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, EmausBot, Lucas hamster, ZéroBot, CrimsonBot and Anonymous: 4 • Mark 77 bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%2077%20bomb?oldid=599604814 Contributors: Rlandmann, Ehn, Omegatron, Saforrest, Zinnmann, Bobblewik, BruceR, Tothebarricades.tk, Mozzerati, Ta bu shi da yu, Rich Farmbrough, Dom Lochet, Dinu, CarrKnight, Pearle, Eleland, Joshbaumgartner, Rwendland, CranialNerves, Reinoutr, E=MC^2, Ashmoo, RadioActive, Ketiltrout, Dirkbike, Mark83, YurikBot, Gaius Cornelius, Shaddack, Dysmorodrepanis, Badagnani, Megapixie, That Guy, From That Show!, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Looper5920, Hmains, Betacommand, Bluebot, Dan McKenzie, Dual Freq, MJCdetroit, Pauric, George100, Cydebot, MC10, Gogo Dodo, Costelld, Butchpenton, Bwmcmaste, Parsiferon, Dr. Blofeld, Ryan4314, BilCat, Leon math, Trumpet marietta 45750, Num1dgen, Philip Trueman, Capper13, Lamro, Eddu, Falcon8765, Insanity Incarnate, SieBot, Mikemoral, VQuakr, Ktr101, Alexbot, Addbot, CarsracBot, Lightbot, Yobot, Galoubet, Stanislao Avogadro, BenzolBot, Full-date unlinking bot, Accents, Werieth, Cgt, ClueBot NG and Anonymous: 46 • Mark 81 bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%2081%20bomb?oldid=628885802 Contributors: Riddley, Night Gyr, El C, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, Firsfron, YurikBot, Bullzeye, Megapixie, Swhalen, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, DHN-bot, Colonies Chris, Dual Freq, Saxbryn, Orca1 9904, Cydebot, Nabokov, R'n'B, VolkovBot, Philip Trueman, SieBot, Dodger67, Ktr101, Alexbot, PixelBot, Dave1185, Addbot, Luckas-bot, Mean as custard, EmausBot, GWFrog, Makecat-bot, Banclark9.1 and Anonymous: 5 • Mark 82 bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%2082%20bomb?oldid=621999982 Contributors: The Epopt, Rlandmann, Ugen64, Topbanana, Riddley, Greyengine5, Bobblewik, JoJan, Brianhe, Deelkar, Night Gyr, Plugwash, El C, ArgentLA, Alansohn, Trainik, Joshbaumgartner, GraemeLeggett, Ctempleton3, FlaBot, Nimur, Jrtayloriv, Chobot, YurikBot, Deskana, Dickcote, Sardanaphalus, Chris the speller, Jutta234, DHN-bot, Airwolf, Saxbryn, Lahiru k, Necessary Evil, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Nabokov, Gh5046, Txomin, Huzzlet the bot, BrokenSphere, Ndunruh, VolkovBot, W. B. Wilson, Elpusa, Rei-bot, Slobberchops, Falcon8765, SieBot, Kernel Saunters, Da Joe, Atani, McFudd, ZH Evers, MenoBot, RisingSunWiki, Alexbot, PixelBot, SoxBot III, Airplaneman, Dave1185, Addbot, Legobot, Luckasbot, Yobot, TaBOT-zerem, Hwaldron, TobeBot, 777sms, EmausBot, WikitanvirBot, ZéroBot, Harryleith, Diako1971, Helpful Pixie Bot, Mbedway, Frze, Makecat-bot and Anonymous: 31 • Mark 83 bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%2083%20bomb?oldid=543966981 Contributors: The Epopt, Rlandmann, Riddley, Greyengine5, Bobblewik, Vanished user 1234567890, Night Gyr, El C, Gmarine3000, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, YurikBot, CLW, Wknight94, RunOrDie, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Dual Freq, Saxbryn, Cydebot, Nabokov, Elpusa, Rei-bot, SieBot, Da Joe, ZH Evers, RisingSunWiki, Threecharlie, Dave1185, Addbot, Legobot, Yobot, TaBOT-zerem, Sorruno, Obersachsebot, Green.nova343 and Anonymous: 10 • Mark 84 bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%2084%20bomb?oldid=634293822 Contributors: The Epopt, Bryan Derksen, Rlandmann, ChrisO, Xanzzibar, Greyengine5, Bobblewik, Plugwash, Get It, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, YurikBot, Sardanaphalus, CTSCo, Chris the speller, DHN-bot, Joe n bloe, Robofish, BillFlis, Saxbryn, Stadler981, Cydebot, Nabokov, Faigl.ladislav, Dano312, Ndunruh, STBotD, Nat682, Rei-bot, Falcon8765, SieBot, Da Joe, RucasHost, Cobatfor, SallyForth123, Mild Bill Hiccup, Alexbot, Dave1185, Addbot, Lightbot, Luckas-bot, Hwaldron, Wrelwser43, Chameleon15, LilHelpa, Xqbot, Mark Schierbecker, SwineFlew?, Fuzzykiller, EmausBot, Diako1971, BG19bot, Makecat-bot and Anonymous: 20 • MC-1 bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MC-1%20bomb?oldid=361174591 Contributors: MJCdetroit, Intovert2438, Cydebot, IvoShandor, Jellyfish dave and Anonymous: 1 • T-12 Cloudmaker Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-12%20Cloudmaker?oldid=654653403 Contributors: Damian Yerrick, Julesd, Raul654, Fastfission, AlistairMcMillan, Bobblewik, Karl Dickman, Ericg, Myfanwy, Avriette, Pmsyyz, Brim, Supersheep, RazorChicken, Alvis, Georgia guy, Scriberius, TomTheHand, GraemeLeggett, Ours, Mark Sublette, Midgley, RussBot, Hydrargyrum, DJBR, Vanished user 34958, SmackBot, Darklock, Crc32, Betacommand, DHN-bot, Rcbutcher, The PIPE, Hotspur23, Cydebot, Srajan01, Daniel Olsen, DPdH, Lifthrasir1, Apollyon48, LorenzoB, Nono64, Notreallydavid, Youngjim, VNCCC, Fltnsplr, AHMartin, Wombatcat, Hamiltondaniel, Loren.wilton, MBK004, DragonBot, Addbot, The Bushranger, Jackehammond, ClueBot NG, Helpful Pixie Bot, BG19bot, Zedshort and Anonymous: 21
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
901
• Weteye bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weteye%20bomb?oldid=563664582 Contributors: Icairns, Rich Farmbrough, Hooperbloob, Rwalker, Reid Kirby, Cydebot, IvoShandor, Thegreenj, Seraphim, Jason Recliner, Esq., Suntag, Weetoddid, DARTH SIDIOUS 2, DASHBotAV, Helpful Pixie Bot and Anonymous: 8 • BLU-108 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-108?oldid=648879686 Contributors: Riddley, Rich Farmbrough, Tabletop, Sjakkalle, Victor falk, Cydebot, Alaibot, DPdH, Nono64, Someguy1221, MajorHazard and Anonymous: 4 • BLU-109 bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-109%20bomb?oldid=653467767 Contributors: Marc Venot, Rich Farmbrough, Avriette, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, FlaBot, Georgewilliamherbert, Trent Arms, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Bluebot, Rcbutcher, The1exile, Tsca.bot, Orca1 9904, Cydebot, Nabokov, Thijs!bot, DPdH, BilCat, KTo288, Orthopraxia, Elpusa, PL290, Addbot, Xqbot, Odysseas-spartan-53, YFdyh-bot, ÄDA - DÄP, FlorentPirot, Lightfeather10 and Anonymous: 15 • BLU-116 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-116?oldid=654867408 Contributors: Bender235, Mieciu K, Georgewilliamherbert, Cla68, Chris the speller, Cydebot, Legaiaflame, Leofric1, Pb1791, Addbot, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Reactordrone and Anonymous: 3 • CBU-24 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-24?oldid=623163573 Contributors: Rlandmann, Riddley, Pfalstad, Sardanaphalus, EncMstr, Courcelles, Cydebot, Tanyia, Polemarchus, FrescoBot, Capricorn4049, Harryleith and Anonymous: 5 • CBU-87 Combined Effects Munition Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-87%20Combined%20Effects%20Munition?oldid= 627258070 Contributors: Riddley, Rich Farmbrough, Pol098, GregorB, Welsh, Megapixie, De Administrando Imperio, Realkyhick, SmackBot, Cla68, Hmains, Thomasnash, LeoNomis, Aspade, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Hcobb, Faizhaider, Fusion7, Ndunruh, Magnet For Knowledge, Mmarin10, Da Joe, Addbot, Polemarchus, Sorruno, Mark Schierbecker, WikitanvirBot, Dpenn89, Vagobot, Hmainsbot1, Ineverlaugh and Anonymous: 8 • CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97%20Sensor%20Fuzed%20Weapon?oldid=626853614 Contributors: Rl, Mulad, Riddley, Moink, Bobblewik, Comatose51, Sasquatch, Grutness, Joshbaumgartner, Gene Nygaard, Travellerjohn, Gafaddict, Pol098, BlaiseFEgan, Titoxd, Sderose, ENeville, Megapixie, Voidxor, Tierce, Mikkow, Victor falk, That Guy, From That Show!, SmackBot, Martylunsford, Bluebot, Rmt2m, Dasbrick, OrphanBot, Charivari, Breno, PRRfan, FairuseBot, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Ozmodiar.x, Hcobb, Alphachimpbot, Jfischer5175, Ndunruh, Ohms law, Philip Trueman, MajorHazard, Texcoco, Wweesslleeyy, Keeper76, Tosaka1, Jax 0677, Addbot, Nohomers48, Polemarchus, Herr Gruber, Lightbot, Yobot, Wikikoti, Xqbot, America789 and Anonymous: 35 • GATOR mine system Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GATOR%20mine%20system?oldid=642992148 Contributors: The Epopt, Bjh21, Liotier, Bobblewik, Klemen Kocjancic, Alsocal, Rustl, Hooperbloob, Joshbaumgartner, Lectonar, Vuo, Travellerjohn, Pol098, OldCommentator, Marudubshinki, Elfguy, Megapixie, Warreed, Marc Kupper, Tsca.bot, Shrumster, Saxbryn, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Hcobb, Ndunruh, DH85868993, Sam Blacketer, Falcon8765, Quercus basaseachicensis, Cewvero, Addbot, Polemarchus, Ettrig, AnomieBOT, Mark Schierbecker, Helpful Pixie Bot, ArthurDent006.5 and Anonymous: 11 • GBU-53/B Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-53/B?oldid=654525332 Contributors: UtherSRG, NilsTycho, Pol098, Benlisquare, Arado, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Chris the speller, Cowbert, Cydebot, CommonsDelinker, KGyST, Lightmouse, Dravecky, MystBot, Dave1185, Addbot, Yobot, Orenburg1, NortyNort, Suomi Finland 2009, Babak902003, BLM Platinum, Demiurge1000, America789, Cyberbot II, Z07x10 and Anonymous: 12 • M-69 incendiary Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-69%20incendiary?oldid=650560212 Contributors: Ewen, PaulinSaudi, Piotrus, SmackBot, Stor stark7, Aldis90, Binksternet, John Nevard, Spamwow, Ryboodle, Wipsenade, Primergrey, Bobnugeaneas, Wasbeer and BattyBot • PDU-5B dispenser unit Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDU-5B%20dispenser%20unit?oldid=409683285 Contributors: Bwpach, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Alaibot, DPdH and GregtheMan • Perseus (munition) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseus%20(munition)?oldid=569770219 Contributors: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Cydebot, The Bushranger and Anonymous: 1 • Tomahawk (missile) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk%20(missile)?oldid=655050133 Contributors: TwoOneTwo, The Epopt, Bryan Derksen, Lisiate, Patrick, JohnOwens, Liftarn, Zeno Gantner, Minesweeper, Rlandmann, Ideyal, David Newton, Pti, Kaare, Saltine, Head, Wernher, RadicalBender, Riddley, Fredrik, Sappe, Hemanshu, Hadal, SoLando, Xanzzibar, Centrx, Oberiko, Greyengine5, Orpheus, Gugganij, MSTCrow, H1523702, Oneiros, Bbpen, N328KF, Discospinster, Brianhe, Avriette, Guanabot, Mecanismo, Nard the Bard, SpookyMulder, Omnibus, Chairboy, TomStar81, Meggar, Harald Hansen, Duk, PiccoloNamek, John Fader, Atlant, Joshbaumgartner, MonkeyFoo, Riana, TaintedMustard, Pauli133, Sleigh, Gene Nygaard, Martian, Oleg Alexandrov, Pcd72, Qnonsense, Woohookitty, Blackeagle, Barrylb, Bricktop, GregorB, JohnC, Marudubshinki, Ashmoo, Graham87, Pentawing, Jweiss11, Ligulem, FlaBot, Ian Pitchford, BryceN, Q11, Mark83, Chobot, Visor, Hahnchen, Whoisjohngalt, Jimp, JJLatWiki, Arado, John Smith’s, Gaius Cornelius, Los688, JEnnoE, WulfTheSaxon, Megapixie, Derex, Larsinio, Voidxor, Nate1481, Engineer Bob, NorsemanII, Syd Midnight, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Hrshgn, Arthur Rubin, Curpsbot-unicodify, David Biddulph, Nick-D, Groyolo, Uncool 1, RupertMillard, SmackBot, Delphi00, Muspud2, GregChant, Ominae, Kim FOR sure, AustinKnight, HeartofaDog, Gilliam, Betacommand, Westsider, Chris the speller, Bluebot, MK8, Bjmullan, Jprg1966, Enomosiki, Hibernian, The359, DHN-bot, Colonies Chris, Htra0497, Ajay ijn, Rrburke, Jumping cheese, WonRyong, Harishmukundan, ءلی, John, MrDolomite, Burto88, Unsunghero28, Joseph Solis in Australia, LonelyPilgrim, KPWM Spotter, Mmab111, SkyWalker, Cynical Jawa, Paulc206, Smilliga, Pseudo-Richard, WeggeBot, Cydebot, Go229, Gogo Dodo, Christian75, Profhobby, Thijs!bot, Pedrojfg, Woody, NelC, E. Ripley, Hcobb, Danielfolsom, Micahgoulart, Akradecki, GTD Aquitaine, Gangasudhan, F-451, Bigjimr, JAnDbot, Deflective, CombatWombat42, Gsking, Phennessy, Puddhe, Benjam47, BilCat, LorenzoB, Khalid Mahmood, Raza0007, Nono64, Marcd30319, Eskimospy, ErwinP, DarkFalls, McSly, Ritarius, Ndunruh, Echo.brian, Olegwiki, DorganBot, D-Kuru, RjCan, Funandtrvl, Lights, Robotronik, Davie4264, Rei-bot, Oanjao, Awl, Yeokaiwei, Raryel, Razvan NEAGOE, Bob f it, One half 3544, Andy Dingley, Meters, Thedom91, Silver Spoon, ToePeu.bot, Bblshort, Caltas, Jerryobject, Lightmouse, Kumioko (renamed), DeknMike, Kusovac, Rkarlsba, Anyeverybody, Englanddg, Sandy of the CSARs, MBK004, ClueBot, Antarctic-adventurer, IceUnshattered, Ginnerz, Mt hg, Drmies, Williebruciestewie, Socrates2008, Bf2fan1, Shem1805, Chaosdruid, Jellyfish dave, Shankargopal, DumZiBoT, XLinkBot, Gnowor, Addbot, Jgm1937, Nohomers48, Nath1991, Oldmountains, Numbo3-bot, Tide rolls, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, إماراتي1971, Ajh1492, Kadrun, AnomieBOT, Jsj12, The High Fin Sperm Whale, LilHelpa, Xqbot, George Degonia, Jambornik, Srich32977, Ita140188, Coltsfan, RibotBOT, Editfinder, Le Deluge, Lead Edwin, Captain-n00dle, FrescoBot, Mark Renier, VS6507, Kyteto, AstaBOTh15, Geogene, Bgpaulus, Mjs1991, TobeBot, Ic451uk, Movis78, Yappy2bhere, VmZH88AZQnCjhT40, Mr.SlapstickHumor, RjwilmsiBot, EmausBot, John of Reading, WikitanvirBot, Dewritech, Sp33dyphil, Tommy2010, MrGRA, Haaginator, Illegitimate Barrister, Thargor Orlando, HawkMcCain, Anir1uph, Avatar9n, Peter Karlsen, RenamedUser5, Petrb, ClueBot NG, Infinity Warrior, Average Mike, Ambenson1, Tomreny, EricHolmy, 6048G, Kbar64, BG19bot, Phd8511, MusikAnimal, Codepage, Compfreak7,
902
CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
DSkauai, Glacialfox, 220 of Borg, BattyBot, IcyEd, America789, TreehouseIndustries, Hikitty4570000098, Cyberbot II, WeekeeDan, Dexbot, Cert-Albert, Z07x10, NittyKitty, Tusharmod, Stephendavion, AGM90759, SouthGal62, Nguyen QuocTrung, Ballistametalcraft, HighQuantity, Glcm1, Vieque, DNDCAN, FlorentPirot, Adamrogowski and Anonymous: 306 • FIM-92 Stinger Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92%20Stinger?oldid=655194510 Contributors: TwoOneTwo, The Epopt, WojPob, Gabbe, Sannse, Delirium, Kingturtle, Rlandmann, Netsnipe, Evercat, GCarty, Jonadab, Wik, K1Bond007, Thue, Cabalamat, Finlay McWalter, RadicalBender, Riddley, Robbot, Penta, Yosri, Fuelbottle, Superm401, GreatWhiteNortherner, Alan Liefting, DocWatson42, Greyengine5, Everyking, Mboverload, Horst F JENS, Bobblewik, Dvavasour, Vogon, Semenko, Avriette, Guanabot, Yuval madar, Marsian, Rama, Iediteverything, Bender235, ZeroOne, TerraFrost, Sum0, TomStar81, Cmdrjameson, Get It, Andrewpmk, Sandstig, Ashley Pomeroy, Denniss, Isaac, Konev, Sumergocognito, Zxcvbnm, Sleigh, Dismas, Kelly Martin, Billhpike, Alvis, CruiserBob, Woohookitty, Nvinen, TomTheHand, GregorB, BlaiseFEgan, Gimboid13, Icey, Rjwilmsi, Guyd, Catsmeat, SouthernNights, Number9, Coolhawks88, MoRsE, Chobot, Sherool, Chwyatt, Roboto de Ajvol, Sus scrofa, Noclador, Tommyt, Theredstarswl, Kauffner, Arado, John Smith’s, Hede2000, Tdevries, Gaius Cornelius, Lavenderbunny, Trovatore, Megapixie, Dr U, Nick-D, Victor falk, SmackBot, 1dragon, Kyrandos, Ominae, Blue520, KocjoBot, KelleyCook, Kintetsubuffalo, Betacommand, Avin, Jprg1966, Hibernian, Silent SAM, Rolypolyman, The1exile, Crazyheron, Trekphiler, Pisslub-S, Ma.rkus.nl, Swainy5, Bogsat, Kilonum, KG200, Databot, Dr. Sunglasses, LWF, AllStarZ, Sir marek, MilborneOne, 667NotB, Nobunaga24, The Bread, Kyoko, Darz Mol, Andrwsc, Rickington, Calysma, JoeBot, UncleDouggie, Octane, Blehfu, Randroide, Marco bisello, WeggeBot, Orca1 9904, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Bob1234321, Peripitus, Tec15, TenthEagle, Myscrnnm, B, Nabokov, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, DulcetTone, Dogaroon, Sulaimandaud, Derekkhho, Timthedim, Escarbot, Guy Macon, Fru1tbat, Jwkane, Tashtastic, DagosNavy, CombatWombat42, Nicholas Tan, PhilKnight, Two way time, Parsecboy, Bg007, Puddhe, PEAR, Sandor at the Zoo, BilCat, ACfan, LorenzoB, Rettetast, Zorakoid, Mjb1981, Youngjim, Xnuala, Nigel Ish, Knowledgebycoop, DerGolgo, SQL, Bahamut0013, Koalorka, Schnellundleicht, SVegerotX4, Hrafn, SieBot, Kernel Saunters, Unregistered.coward, Yerpo, Anchor Link Bot, Fredmdbud, SidewinderX, Darthveda, Syrphern, Mt hg, VQuakr, Shentosara, Seacad, Sahlqvist, Blanchardb, Ridge Runner, Alexbot, Socrates2008, NuclearWarfare, Holothurion, Chaosdruid, Bald Zebra, Nikolay Kazak, TaalVerbeteraar, Gav egerton, MystBot, Dave1185, Addbot, Nohomers48, Favonian, LemmeyBOT, SCSInet, Fireaxe888, Anwarma, Numbo3-bot, Judas6000, Lightbot, CunctatorMagno, Smile4Chomsky, Micah Throssel, The Bushranger, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, AnomieBOT, VanishedUser sdu9aya9fasdsopa, DemocraticLuntz, EVCM, Citation bot, Quebec99, Gaujmalnieks, TechBot, Ocelotl10293, Lostmuskrat, Mark Schierbecker, Kyng, Miguelito0292, FrescoBot, Krj373, Kamal413, Vertpox, Enemenemu, FoxBot, Lotje, Antemister, Bryan TMF, Bernd.Brincken, RjwilmsiBot, John of Reading, WikitanvirBot, Livgardisten, TheArashmatashable, Illegitimate Barrister, Fallschirmjägergewehr 42, L1A1 FAL, KazekageTR, Victory in Germany, Palaeozoic99, ClueBot NG, Lukas Tobing, Pipeexaminer, Chitt66, Helpful Pixie Bot, BG19bot, Dainomite, Katangais, Takahara Osaka, Zackmann08, Tlai1977, PatheticCopyEditor, America789, Gauzeandchess, Cyberbot II, GoShow, Adnan bogi, Khazar2, Bardrick, Wikirider99, Mogism, Expertseeker90, Redalert2fan, Beowulf571, KeyboardWarriorOfZion, Z07x10, Wotchit, Dux Ducis Hodiernus, Maxx786, Sebastienroblin, Shkvoz, Almvilp, HamiltonFromAbove, Nonstopmaximum, Vieque and Anonymous: 298 • AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154%20Joint%20Standoff%20Weapon?oldid= 655386793 Contributors: Busterdog, Rlandmann, Mulad, Topbanana, Riddley, Fredrik, Bobblewik, Gdr, IdahoEv, Sam Hocevar, Imjustmatthew, Avriette, Gmarine3000, Enric Naval, Hooperbloob, Jigen III, Joshbaumgartner, Hohum, Graham87, Yurik, Tabercil, Rjwilmsi, Mark83, Zotel, MoRsE, Aardvark114, Charles Gaudette, RussBot, Arado, Fuzzy901, ENeville, Czyrko, Moppet65535, Victor falk, SmackBot, Lamjus, Jprg1966, SailorfromNH, DHN-bot, KnowBuddy, Rheo1905, Swatjester, Spartanfox86, Rsquid, Iridescent, CWY2190, Cydebot, Munchingfoo, Hcobb, Dawkeye, BokicaK, MarvinCZ, Etr52, Magioladitis, Jedi-gman, CommonsDelinker, Numbo3, Dakirw8, Trumpet marietta 45750, MarcoLittel, Ndunruh, DorganBot, Toddy1, Starrymessenger, Elpusa, Jacek Z. Poland, Tonylam85, VVVBot, James.Denholm, PraetorianD, Lightmouse, DMNT, Warrendya, Mt hg, Dave1185, Addbot, Blaylockjam10, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Jimderkaisser, Troymacgill, Rubinbot, Julnap, FrescoBot, LucienBOT, ALCAPWNER, Hornet24, Full-date unlinking bot, Dinamik-bot, LLDsolitude, ZéroBot, Iron Archer, Umairmch, Daveduv, Toffer04, Helpful Pixie Bot, AvocatoBot, Knightserbia, Nzit, America789, Bryan3398, Makecat-bot, UcAndy, WPGA2345, Monkbot and Anonymous: 61 • ASM-A-1 Tarzon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-A-1%20Tarzon?oldid=603318978 Contributors: GraemeLeggett, Optimist on the run, James086, Magioladitis, Socrates2008, Delta 51, The Bushranger, Eumolpo, AustralianRupert, DexDor, DASHBot, GA bot, Demiurge1000, WikiCopter, Chesipiero, Helpful Pixie Bot, Shawmjennings, Khazar2, Froglich, Monkbot and Anonymous: 6 • Azon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azon?oldid=650972563 Contributors: Lee M, Gidonb, DocWatson42, Rich Farmbrough, Roo72, Bobo192, Remuel, Andrew Gray, Gene Nygaard, Lincspoacher, CyrilleDunant, GraemeLeggett, BD2412, Rjwilmsi, Zotel, RobertWalden, Kmorrow, Adamrush, MakeChooChooGoNow, IceCreamAntisocial, Hmains, Chris the speller, MagnusW, Il palazzo, Trekphiler, The PIPE, Cydebot, Nabokov, DPdH, Nwbeeson, Hfodf, Mountmold, Mugs2109, Loren.wilton, Martarius, Sfan00 IMG, Ktr101, Trulystand700, Ajahewitt, Addbot, The Bushranger, MinorProphet, Unara, HRoestBot, MastiBot, Midas02, ClueBot NG, Lippy8995, Cerabot, Jamesx12345, Monkbot and Anonymous: 21 • CBU-107 Passive Attack Weapon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-107%20Passive%20Attack%20Weapon?oldid= 625441775 Contributors: Riddley, Hooperbloob, Hohum, Pol098, Cydebot, Leofric1, The Bushranger, The Utahraptor, America789, IQ125 and Anonymous: 8 • GB-4 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GB-4?oldid=622447064 Contributors: Kosher Fan, Rjwilmsi, Megapixie, Hmains, Chris the speller, Trekphiler, MilborneOne, Cydebot, DPdH, Geniac, Adamdaley, Lightmouse, Ktr101, The Bushranger and RjwilmsiBot • GB-8 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GB-8?oldid=622817177 Contributors: Jason Quinn, Andrew Gray, Gene Nygaard, Rjwilmsi, Hmains, Chris the speller, Trekphiler, Cydebot, Aldis90, DPdH, Geniac, Adamdaley, Ktr101, Kakofonous, The Bushranger and Anonymous: 1 • GBU-10 Paveway II Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-10%20Paveway%20II?oldid=642992883 Contributors: The Epopt, Riddley, Superm401, Night Gyr, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, Alai, Nuno Tavares, GraemeLeggett, Marudubshinki, BD2412, Rjwilmsi, NickD, Tsca.bot, Phaid, Saxbryn, Cydebot, Satori Son, Ndunruh, DH85868993, Intrudermax, Falcon8765, Matrek, Socrates2008, Milstuffxyz, Dave1185, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, La Maupin, Sorruno, AnomieBOT, Anotherclown, Brodeurs, Papamission, Diako1971, Bartron67, Canoe1967, LMGuy and Anonymous: 10 • GBU-12 Paveway II Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-12%20Paveway%20II?oldid=638200490 Contributors: The Epopt, Rmhermen, Riddley, Night Gyr, Meggar, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, Nuno Tavares, Rjwilmsi, FlaBot, Knife Knut, YurikBot, Groyolo, Chris the speller, Bluebot, Jprg1966, Tsca.bot, Ortzinator, Saxbryn, Eluchil404, Cydebot, Kob zilla, Arz1969, Ndunruh, DorganBot, Starrymessenger, Slobberchops, Intrudermax, Falcon8765, AlleborgoBot, Alexbot, Life of Riley, Milstuffxyz, Dave1185, Addbot, Nohomers48, Ettrig, The Bushranger, Bedwards08, Papamission, ZéroBot, Diako1971, Mikesh, Pratyya Ghosh, ChrisGualtieri, JYBot, Makecat-bot, Zuzavr, Caealn and Anonymous: 20
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
903
• GBU-15 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-15?oldid=645911931 Contributors: The Epopt, Rlandmann, GCarty, Riddley, Greyengine5, Abqwildcat, Bobblewik, Nm1m, N328KF, Rich Farmbrough, Night Gyr, Joshbaumgartner, Bukvoed, Rjwilmsi, DoubleBlue, YurikBot, Arado, Gaius Cornelius, Sardanaphalus, BobThePirate, DHN-bot, Tsca.bot, Radagast83, Saxbryn, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Thijs!bot, Alphachimpbot, Cayenneman, CombatWombat42, Ndunruh, Petebutt, Falcon8765, Cobatfor, ClueBot, Thewellman, Addbot, Nohomers48, The Bushranger, Aboriginal Noise, ZéroBot, Skoot13, Frietjes and Anonymous: 9 • GBU-16 Paveway II Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-16%20Paveway%20II?oldid=551348357 Contributors: Riddley, Avriette, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, Nemo5576, Gaius Cornelius, Cydebot, Jackson070792, TXiKiBoT, Intrudermax, Da Joe, 1ForTheMoney, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, KLBot2, Makecat-bot, Froglich and Anonymous: 5 • GBU-24 Paveway III Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-24%20Paveway%20III?oldid=628438015 Contributors: The Epopt, David.Monniaux, Riddley, Night Gyr, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, Plrk, Josh Parris, Megapixie, SmackBot, Jprg1966, Bdiscoe, Saxbryn, CmdrObot, Orca1 9904, Cydebot, Nabokov, Thijs!bot, Nick Number, Gwern, ElectroSoldier, Rebell18190, Youngjim, Ndunruh, Mzmadmike, Falcon8765, AlleborgoBot, Drolz09, Milstuffxyz, Addbot, Lightbot, , The Bushranger, Mark Schierbecker, FrescoBot, Ben 109, ChuispastonBot, Makecat-bot and Anonymous: 16 • GBU-27 Paveway III Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-27%20Paveway%20III?oldid=642992965 Contributors: The Epopt, SimonP, SD6-Agent, Riddley, Bobblewik, Rich Farmbrough, Avriette, Night Gyr, King nothing, Joshbaumgartner, Carwil, Nemo5576, Nethency, Saxbryn, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Aldis90, Ndunruh, DH85868993, Falcon8765, Flyer22, Callidior, Rkarlsba, Milstuffxyz, Dave1185, Addbot, N9XTN, The Bushranger, Obigandalf, BG19bot, Redstar2011, Makecat-bot and Anonymous: 13 • GBU-28 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-28?oldid=653746534 Contributors: The Epopt, Leandrod, Rlandmann, Riddley, Greyengine5, Everyking, Bobblewik, Btphelps, Avriette, Night Gyr, TerraFrost, Joshbaumgartner, GraemeLeggett, Carwil, Mark Sublette, YurikBot, Kauffner, Hede2000, Los688, Gadget850, Modify, Erudy, Sardanaphalus, Drcwright, Roger Hui, Snori, Jcoman, BobThePirate, Tewfik, Mhym, Ziggle, BillFlis, Saxbryn, MrDolomite, Dp462090, WeggeBot, Cydebot, Kw0, Javasmith, Flayer, LorenzoB, Discpad, Yonidebot, Ndunruh, DougJustDoug, Idioma-bot, Amikake3, AlnoktaBOT, Falcon8765, Atani, Callidior, Senor Cuete, MBK004, DragonBot, Alexbot, DumZiBoT, Milstuffxyz, Addbot, Patton123, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Legobot, OCTopus, GrouchoBot, MrAronnax, Sp33dyphil, ZéroBot, Demiurge1000, Feddacheenee, ClueBot NG, Italicus84, BattyBot, Sdelhoyo, F111ECM, Makecat-bot and Anonymous: 36 • GBU-37 GPS-Aided Munition Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-37%20GPS-Aided%20Munition?oldid=642340734 Contributors: Riddley, DialUp, Deltabeignet, Amorrow, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Roger Hui, Ifnord, BenAveling, Bluebot, Saxbryn, Skapur, Cydebot, Ndunruh, Niceguyedc, MystBot, Addbot, The Bushranger, PoBibo and Anonymous: 4 • GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-43/B%20Massive%20Ordnance%20Air%20Blast? oldid=642271306 Contributors: The Epopt, Ed Poor, Yooden, Roadrunner, Hephaestos, Lisiate, Pit, Ahoerstemeier, Notheruser, Julesd, Salsa Shark, Ciphergoth, Cherkash, Arteitle, Mulad, Scott Sanchez, Riddley, Robbot, Xanzzibar, PBP, DocWatson42, Tom harrison, Fastfission, Curps, Joshuapaquin, Bobblewik, Zantolak, SYSS Mouse, Naryathegreat, Rich Farmbrough, Avriette, Pjacobi, Warpflyght, Night Gyr, Darkone, Loren36, Kwamikagami, Thunderbrand, TomStar81, Martey, Meggar, Duk, Vortexrealm, Supersheep, GChriss, Obradovic Goran, RazorChicken, Joshbaumgartner, SHIMONSHA, Denniss, Johntex, Dan100, Kenyon, Dismas, Firsfron, Igny, Nick Drake, MONGO, 171046, Lensovet, Blackcats, GraemeLeggett, Ashmoo, Rpeblack, Pmj, Ketiltrout, Rjwilmsi, Nightscream, Rogerd, Slendro, Vary, FlaBot, RobertG, Old Moonraker, JdforresterBot, Nemo5576, Mark Sublette, Fosnez, Chobot, Scoo, YurikBot, RussBot, Madkayaker, Hellbus, Lar, Hydrargyrum, Stephenb, Million Little Gods, Prometheusfy, Shaddack, Klysell, Mipadi, Gooberliberation, Tony1, Zwobot, Ospalh, Gadget850, Caspian, TheMadBaron, Don Williams, Attilios, SmackBot, StarSword, WACGuy, Thumperward, MalafayaBot, Imacdo, Arg, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Aerobird, Oralloy, OhadAston, Mytwocents, WngLdr34, Xdamr, Sampeach3, John, Robofish, BioTube, Shinryuu, Zothip, SebastianP, Atakdoug, Macinphile, NEMT, PETN, PLAYERTN, Lahiru k, SkyWalker, Patrick Berry, WhatDidIDoNow, N2e, Tufftoon, Fl295, Slazenger, Cydebot, Arsenmm, Myscrnnm, Soetermans, Srajan01, Gbaddorf, Nabokov, Nottheking, Mfdjoe342, Barticus88, Dfrg.msc, Philippe, Greg L, Sherbrooke, MrMarmite, Gioto, SummerPhD, F-451, JoeFriday, Ingolfson, HolyT, Ericoides, Lifthrasir1, GurchBot, Dricherby, Aki009, Kaplansa, Magioladitis, Father Goose, Parous, CeeWhy2, MartinBot, Humphrey20020, AlexiusHoratius, KTo288, Nono64, Amt1018, J.delanoy, Fiachra10003, Yonidebot, Footballplayer51, Ginsengbomb, Tdadamemd, Gzkn, BU43B, LordAnubisBOT, D-Kuru, Ychastnik APL, Tricky Wiki44, Supertask, UnitedStatesian, 4kinnel, Waycool27, Dethwing, WhiteKongMan, W00tfest99, Dirkbb, Wavehunter, Deconstructhis, Skipweasel, SieBot, El Wray, Scarian, Hotcoolhot, Cm.squared, Gatrfan, Oxymoron83, Greatrobo76, Denisarona, MenoBot, MBK004, ClueBot, Rodhullandemu, Sjeter, Harland1, Masterblooregard, Ktr101, Garscow, Lartoven, Grisunge, DumZiBoT, XLinkBot, Aseidave, Iranway, Zeliboba7, Addbot, Nohomers48, Blethering Scot, Sadkjos, Pmod, OlEnglish, Xowets, The Bushranger, Ben Ben, Vomitron88, AnomieBOT, LilHelpa, Obersachsebot, MauritsBot, Xqbot, TinucherianBot II, Destabilizator, Vicfinney, Anonymous from the 21st century, GrouchoBot, Mark Schierbecker, Shadowjams, BoomerAB, CaptainFugu, Arpadkorossy, RedBot, Lotje, Hellraiserbmf, NameIsRon, Beyond My Ken, Werieth, Daonguyen95, Stringer1993, DM 794, ClueBot NG, Fauzan, Jewjitsuchris, Muon, Calidum, Mynameisnoted, Mifter Public, Ghyfawkes, Xbunnyraptorx, Popizzamanjoe, S1D3winder016, ChrisGualtieri, Bruce neal, Leiskalol, ELiTe GoDzz HD, Hextinium, Porkchopstephen, Benm37, TryBanMeAgain, XXKurisuXx and Anonymous: 249 • GBU-44/B Viper Strike Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-44/B%20Viper%20Strike?oldid=649025327 Contributors: Riddley, DocWatson42, Alai, Arado, Heavydpj, Mutiny, Akradecki, Puddhe, Idioma-bot, FergusM1970, TXiKiBoT, Occasional Reader, Slysplace, Sun Creator, Chaosdruid, Addbot, Nohomers48, The Bushranger, Yobot, SpecialOpsGuy, AnomieBOT, Seadart, Lotje, John of Reading, Babak902003, Lateg, Wbmoore, America789, Kamen Rider Blade, Update7980 and Anonymous: 11 • Joint Direct Attack Munition Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint%20Direct%20Attack%20Munition?oldid=655334092 Contributors: TwoOneTwo, The Epopt, Edward, Michael Hardy, Fred Bauder, Gbleem, Rlandmann, Salsa Shark, Med, PaulinSaudi, Riddley, DocWatson42, YanA, Greyengine5, Wwoods, Bobblewik, Jokestress, Rob cowie, N328KF, Ulflarsen, Discospinster, Avriette, Pmsyyz, Night Gyr, R. S. Shaw, Foobaz, Jigen III, Ryanmcdaniel, Joshbaumgartner, Rwendland, Hohum, Emvee, Gene Nygaard, Karpada, AirBa, GregorB, MarkTBSc, Raivein, Amorrow, Jitsuman, Rjwilmsi, Skaterdude182, XLerate, Rangek, FlaBot, MoRsE, Chobot, Knife Knut, YurikBot, Noclador, Arado, Millsy, Lavenderbunny, FiggyBee, Georgewilliamherbert, Phichanad, Sardanaphalus, KnightRider, Jsnx, SmackBot, KMcD, Jim62sch, Eskimbot, JLRAtwil, Tnkr111, Durova, Thumperward, Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, DHN-bot, Martin Blank, Htra0497, Tsca.bot, Weregerbil, John, PRRfan, Hagman1983, Porterjoh, Wilhelm Screamer, Rogerborg, MarsRover, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Schroding79, Hcobb, OuroborosCobra, DPdH, Dawnseeker2000, Darklilac, .anacondabot, Magioladitis, Flayer, BilCat, PinkCake, STBot, Schwartzenator, Rebell18190, Bogey97, Dellarb, McSly, Ondal, Behappyinc10, Ndunruh, Orthopraxia, Johnpdeever, HJ32, Wikimaster97, Elpusa, Liko81, Sintaku, Raryel, Gilisa, Falcon8765, Tranquil23, Lightmouse, FIRST Rocks, Hamiltondaniel, SallyForth123, YSSYguy, RisingSunWiki, Franamax, Tosaka1, Davidganek, Arjayay, APh, Takavar92, Aseidave, Milstuffxyz, Dave1185, TornadoADV, Addbot, Oldmountains, Lightbot, JEN9841, The Bushranger, Yobot, Jimderkaisser, AnomieBOT, Piano non troppo, Mitche69,
904
CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
Materialscientist, Citation bot, Quebec99, Capricorn42, Willwagner602, Mark Schierbecker, Green Cardamom, Puro spana, Citation bot 1, ALCAPWNER, SwineFlew?, Oshmoz, Olegvdv68, MusicToDieTo, Desagwan, Turkishblackeagle93, Sp33dyphil, Illegitimate Barrister, Wikifreund, H3llBot, Tabrisius, JonRichfield, ClueBot NG, Helpful Pixie Bot, CitationCleanerBot, Dafranca, BattyBot, America789, Cyberbot II, Mjabb, Simonromaniac, Gcguevarra, Ruzzel01, YiFeiBot, Impsswoon, Efram23 and Anonymous: 158 • Massive Ordnance Penetrator Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive%20Ordnance%20Penetrator?oldid=639384645 Contributors: The Anome, Finlay McWalter, Riddley, Nurg, Bkell, DocWatson42, Bumm13, Radical Mallard, Gene Nygaard, Bryan986, GraemeLeggett, Rbeas, Agamemnon2, Hydrargyrum, VinnyCee, Oobideedoobidee, SmackBot, Cla68, Oralloy, Will Beback, Dl2000, DouglasCalvert, Jive Dadson, Ehistory, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Hcobb, Escarbot, Avaya1, SHCarter, Father Goose, STBot, KTo288, Nono64, Clarkcol, Duch, Lbeaumont, Euchre, Bobsd, EricSerge, MajorHazard, MarkKochanowski, Tosaka1, Ktr101, DumZiBoT, D1ma5ad, Addbot, Krawndawg, Nohomers48, Lightbot, ماني, Zorrobot, Smile4Chomsky, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, AnomieBOT, Quebec99, RibotBOT, SwineFlew?, DrilBot, Sfu1984, Sebastianblakehoward, RjwilmsiBot, Samuraiii, EmausBot, Sp33dyphil, ZéroBot, Mattypiper, Fritz.grobbelaar, ClueBot NG, Sihafi, CAWylie, Rarariot99, Makecat-bot, Dbarrentine and Anonymous: 68 • Paveway Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paveway?oldid=653150271 Contributors: Michael Hardy, Docu, Dysprosia, Cabalamat, David.Monniaux, Riddley, Zinnmann, H1523702, Rich Farmbrough, Avriette, Night Gyr, Cap'n Refsmmat, Sietse Snel, Idleguy, Hooperbloob, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, RJFJR, Woohookitty, GraemeLeggett, Rjwilmsi, Mark83, YurikBot, Charles Gaudette, Arado, John Smith’s, Megapixie, Howcheng, Thiseye, Nlu, Groyolo, SmackBot, Sam8, Jprg1966, Cydebot, Tofof, Hcobb, Dickhooker, DPdH, Ingolfson, CommonsDelinker, Rebell18190, Youngjim, D-Kuru, The94boss95, Rosicky96, Starrymessenger, Steven J. Anderson, Intrudermax, SieBot, ClueBot, Niceguyedc, Alexbot, Milstuffxyz, Dave1185, Addbot, Wikialoft, Nohomers48, Reedmalloy, LaaknorBot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Ptbotgourou, ZéroBot, AvicAWB, Giblets46, F111ECM, Faizan and Anonymous: 28 • Paveway IV Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paveway%20IV?oldid=648796900 Contributors: Riddley, Jason Quinn, Chowbok, Ojw, Hooperbloob, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, Arado, Thiseye, Jmcalvert, Cydebot, Lan Di, Jonashart, TeddyT, The94boss95, Rosicky96, ClueBot, Khal0o0di, Alexbot, Philtime, LicenseFee, Qwfp, Addbot, Trevor Marron, Buster7, The Bushranger, Yobot, Mishae, WikitanvirBot, ZéroBot, Jc9aj, America789, Makecat-bot, TheArmchairSoldier, Filedelinkerbot and Anonymous: 10 • Pyros (bomb) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyros%20(bomb)?oldid=645911569 Contributors: Bobrayner, Rjwilmsi, Hebrides, CombatWombat42, Magioladitis, Socrates2008, Addbot, The Bushranger, ZéroBot, America789, Cyberbot II and Anonymous: 1 • SCALPEL Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCALPEL?oldid=649025077 Contributors: Riddley, Rich Farmbrough, Bobrayner, Scriberius, GregorB, SmackBot, Chris the speller, Ian01, The Bushranger, Mark Schierbecker, Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma, Kamen Rider Blade and Anonymous: 1 • Small Diameter Bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small%20Diameter%20Bomb?oldid=654972202 Contributors: Delirium, Stan Shebs, Riddley, Xanzzibar, Gtrmp, Oberiko, Bobblewik, Gdr, Pmsyyz, Harald Hansen, Hooperbloob, Ryanmcdaniel, Alyeska, Joshbaumgartner, Gene Nygaard, Pol098, GraemeLeggett, Aintnosin, Obersachse, BD2412, Arado, Voidxor, Ninly, Hemo200, Potterra, NickD, SmackBot, TestPilot, Deon Steyn, Chaosfeary, Chris the speller, Jprg1966, Thumperward, MalafayaBot, Hibernian, BobThePirate, Chendy, Tsca.bot, J.smith, Will Beback, Dr. Sunglasses, Stwalkerster, CapitalR, CmdrObot, 5-HT8, SlowSam, Orca1 9904, Necessary Evil, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Benvogel, Nabokov, HammerHeadHuman, Hcobb, DPdH, JaceCady, BilCat, Rocinante9x, Ndunruh, DorganBot, Ng.j, AlleborgoBot, KGyST, RucasHost, Lightmouse, Hamiltondaniel, Driftwood87, Wee Curry Monster, Tosaka1, Socrates2008, John Nevard, DumZiBoT, PL290, Dave1185, Addbot, LaaknorBot, The Bushranger, Yobot, Edoe, Jgbwiki, AnomieBOT, GrouchoBot, LaptopLuke, MerlLinkBot, Le Deluge, FrescoBot, Pingu Is Sumerian, Ver-bot, Noameshel, MastiBot, What The UFK, EmausBot, Babak902003, Illegitimate Barrister, Mjm.css, Afranelli, KLBot2, Bivaughn, BattyBot, America789, Makecat-bot, Z07x10, Update7980, FlorentPirot and Anonymous: 56 • VB-6 Felix Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VB-6%20Felix?oldid=611728425 Contributors: FlaBot, Hmains, Trekphiler, Bwmoll3, Cydebot, Aldis90, DPdH, Biglovinb, Ktr101, The Bushranger, DrilBot, KLBot2 and Anonymous: 4 • Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind%20Corrected%20Munitions%20Dispenser?oldid= 647281440 Contributors: Riddley, Rich Farmbrough, Pol098, Arado, Warreed, SmackBot, Buckshot06, Ndunruh, Addbot, Some jerk on the Internet, Polemarchus, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Marclluell, Makecat-bot and Anonymous: 2
342.5.2
Images
• File:090605-F-1234P-054.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/090605-F-1234P-054.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/090605-F-1234P-054.jpg Original artist: US Air Force • File:1-20_Javelin_missile..PNG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/1-20_Javelin_missile..PNG License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Army, FM 3-22.37 “JAVELIN MEDIUM ANTIARMOR WEAPON SYSTEM” Original artist: HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Washington, DC, 23 January 2003 • File:1-27_Top_attack_flight_path..PNG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/1-27_Top_attack_flight_ path..PNG License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Army, FM 3-22.37 “JAVELIN MEDIUM ANTIARMOR WEAPON SYSTEM” Original artist: HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Washington, DC, 23 January 2003 • File:1-29_Direct_attack_flight_path..PNG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/1-29_Direct_attack_ flight_path..PNG License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Army, FM 3-22.37 “JAVELIN MEDIUM ANTIARMOR WEAPON SYSTEM” Original artist: HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Washington, DC, 23 January 2003 • File:1st_TOW_concept_mockup.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/1st_TOW_concept_mockup.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.redstone.army.mil/ Original artist: Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, United States Army • File:2.25-Inch_SCAR.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/2.25-Inch_SCAR.png License: Public domain Contributors: Aviation Ordnanceman’s Manual (AO), NAVAIR 00-80T-65 Original artist: Issued by the Chief of Naval Operations for the U.S. Naval Air Reserve. • File:231167-3-4-Afghanistan.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/231167-3-4-Afghanistan.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.marines.mil/unit/iimef/2ndmeb/PublishingImages/NewsStoryImages/2009/231167.jpg Original artist: Cpl. Zachary J. Nola
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
905
• File:4.5-Inch_Old_Faithful.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/4.5-Inch_Old_Faithful.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. War Department image via ORDATA. Original artist: U.S. War Department • File:4751st_Air_Defense_Squadron_-_ADC_-_Emblem.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/4751st_ Air_Defense_Squadron_-_ADC_-_Emblem.png License: Public domain Contributors: Scan of USAF patch Original artist: United States Air Force • File:5in_FFAR_F4U_MAG-33_Okinawa_Jun1945.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/5in_FFAR_ F4U_MAG-33_Okinawa_Jun1945.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This media is available in the holdings of the National Archives and Records Administration, cataloged under the ARC Identifier (National Archives Identifier) 532561. Original artist: Duncan, Lt. David D., Photographer, U.S. Marine Corps • File:66_kertasinko_75.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/66_kertasinko_75.JPG License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: MKFI • File:82nd_Airborne_soldiers_on_Grenada_1983.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/82nd_Airborne_ soldiers_on_Grenada_1983.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Army photo from the online publication Rebuilding the Army: Vietnam to Desert Storm, p. 395 [1]; also U.S. DefenseImagery photo VIRIN: DA-ST-85-02182 Original artist: Sgt. Michael Bogdanowicz, U.S. Army • File:864th_Strategic_Missile_Squadron.PNG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/864th_Strategic_ Missile_Squadron.PNG License: Public domain Contributors: AFHRA FOIA Request Original artist: AF Historical Research Agency • File:A-10_firing_AGM-65.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/A-10_firing_AGM-65.JPEG License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia; transferred to Commons by User:Common Good using CommonsHelper. (Source: www.dodmedia.osd.mil / ID: DF-SD-05-12102) Original artist: Original uploader was Jumping cheese at en.wikipedia • File:A-4B_with_Mk_7_bomb_on_cat_USS_Saratoga.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/A-4B_ with_Mk_7_bomb_on_cat_USS_Saratoga.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy National Museum of Naval Aviation photo No. 2008.122.057 [1] Original artist: U.S. Navy • File:A-4E_VA-164_1967.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/A-4E_VA-164_1967.JPEG License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. DefenseImagery photo VIRIN: DN-SC-88-06694 Original artist: LT JG Nelson, USN • File:A-4F_VA-113_launching_Zuni_rockets_1968.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/A-4F_ VA-113_launching_Zuni_rockets_1968.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy photo [1] from the USS Enterprise (CVAN-65) 1968 cruise book available at Navysite.de Original artist: USN • File:A-4_with_ZAP.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/A-4_with_ZAP.png License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy photo via [1] Original artist: USN • File:A-6E_Intruder_releasing_a_Walleye_II.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/A-6E_Intruder_ releasing_a_Walleye_II.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. DefenseImagery [1] photo VIRIN: DN-SC-95-01059 [2] Original artist: Vernon Pugh, USN • File:A4_fires_shrike.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/A4_fires_shrike.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Official U.S. Navy photo [1]; U.S. Navy Naval Museum of Armament and Technology [2] AGM-45 photo Original artist: U.S. Navy • File:AAM-A-1_Firebird_on_DB-26B_Invader_August_1949.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/ AAM-A-1_Firebird_on_DB-26B_Invader_August_1949.png License: Public domain Contributors: USAF via [1] Original artist: Unknown • File:AAM-N-4_Oriole.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/AAM-N-4_Oriole.png License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.flickr.com/photos/63014123@N02/5763170020/ Original artist: Naval Historical Center photo A-32035 • File:AAM-N-5_Meteor.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/AAM-N-5_Meteor.png License: Public domain Contributors: United States Navy Original artist: Unknown • File:ACIMD_missile_on_F-14A_at_NWC_China_Lake_1980s.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/ ACIMD_missile_on_F-14A_at_NWC_China_Lake_1980s.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy Naval Museum of Armament and Technology [1] ACIMD photo Original artist: USN • File:ADM-141_TALD_and_ADM-141C_ITALD_decoy_missiles_on_display.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ commons/7/79/ADM-141_TALD_and_ADM-141C_ITALD_decoy_missiles_on_display.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Natan Flayer • File:ADM-141_tactical_air-launched_decoys.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/ADM-141_tactical_ air-launched_decoys.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ID:DNST9104336 Original artist: Service Depicted: Navy Camera Operator: PH2 WILLIAM A. LIPSKI • File:ADM-20C-40-MC_Quail_decoy_missile_at_NMUSAF.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/ ADM-20C-40-MC_Quail_decoy_missile_at_NMUSAF.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: National Museum of the United States Air Force Original artist: Original uploader was Brucelipe at en.wikipedia • File:ADM-20_Quail.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/ADM-20_Quail.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: USAF (credited as such at [1]) Original artist: Unknown • File:AGM-114_and_Hydra_70.jpeg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/AGM-114_and_Hydra_70.jpeg License: CC BY-SA 2.5 nl Contributors: Own work Original artist: User:Dammit • File:AGM-122.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/AGM-122.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia; Transfer was stated to be made by it:User:EH101. Original artist: Original uploader was Aerobird at en.wikipedia • File:AGM-123_Skipper_II.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/AGM-123_Skipper_II.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ID:DNSC8508022 Original artist: Service Depicted: Navy
906
CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
• File:AGM-129A_-_2006_0306_b52_2lg.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/AGM-129A_-_2006_ 0306_b52_2lg.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2006_0306_b52_2lg.jpg (english Wikipedia) Original artist: Staff Sgt. Jocelyn Rich (uploaded by Brucelipe)
• File:AGM-129_Tinker_AFB.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/AGM-129_Tinker_AFB.JPG License: CC0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Balon Greyjoy • File:AGM-12C_Bullpup-B_missile_on_display_at_NMUSAF.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/ AGM-12C_Bullpup-B_missile_on_display_at_NMUSAF.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: National Museum of the USAF http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/051117-F-1234P-040.JPG Original artist: U.S. Air Force • File:AGM-12D_Bullpup_missile_on_display_at_Air_Force_Armament_Museum.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/ wikipedia/commons/d/dd/AGM-12D_Bullpup_missile_on_display_at_Air_Force_Armament_Museum.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: en:Image:AGM12D.jpg Original artist: en:User:Fl295 • File:AGM-154_01.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/AGM-154_01.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: www.navy.mil Original artist: US Navy • File:AGM-154_03.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/AGM-154_03.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: www.af.mil Original artist: MSgt Michael Ammons (US Air Force) • File:AGM-154_JSOW_01.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/AGM-154_JSOW_01.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:AGM-45_Shrike_detonation.gif Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/AGM-45_Shrike_detonation.gif License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy Naval Museum of Armament and Technology [1] Annular-blast photo Original artist: USN • File:AGM-65_M-48_post_impact.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/AGM-65_M-48_post_impact. jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Defense Visual Information Center, image DF-SC-86-11072 Original artist: USAF • File:AGM-65_M-48_pre_impact.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/AGM-65_M-48_pre_impact.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Defense Visual Information Center, image DF-SC-86-11071 Original artist: USAF • File:AGM-65_Maverick_MG_1382.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/AGM-65_Maverick_MG_ 1382.jpg License: CC BY-SA 2.0 fr Contributors: Own work Original artist: Rama • File:AGM-69A_SRAM_loaded_into_B-1B.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/AGM-69A_ SRAM_loaded_into_B-1B.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Originally appeared on the Defense Image Digest CD-ROM. http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DVIC_View/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=DFST8803500&JPGPath=/Assets/Still/1988/Air_Force/ DF-ST-88-03500.JPG Original artist: USAF Technical Sgt. Kit Thompson • File:AGM-76.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/AGM-76.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Sturmvogel 66 • File:AGM-78_at_USAF_Museum_2009.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/AGM-78_at_USAF_ Museum_2009.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: National Museum of the U.S. Air Force photo 090601-F-1234P-016 Original artist: USAF • File:AGM-88E_HARM_p1230047.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/AGM-88E_HARM_p1230047. jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:AGM-88_HARM_on_FA-18C.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/AGM-88_HARM_on_ FA-18C.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=2196 Original artist: U.S. Navy Photo by Photographer’s Mate 3rd Class Brian Fleske. • File:AIM-120_AMRAAM.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/AIM-120_AMRAAM.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:AIM-120_AMRAAM_P6230147.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/AIM-120_AMRAAM_ P6230147.JPG License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Captainm 14:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC) • File:AIM-120_first_kill.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/AIM-120_first_kill.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. DefenseImagery photo VIRIN: DF-SC-82-03829 Original artist: USAF • File:AIM-152_AAAM.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/AIM-152_AAAM.svg License: CC BY-SA 2.0 de Contributors: Own work, based on images found at www.designation-systems.net. Original artist: TM • File:AIM-26A_1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/AIM-26A_1.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transfered from en.wikipedia Original artist: Original uploader was Fl295 at en.wikipedia • File:AIM-26A_2(Nuclear_Falcon).jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2e/AIM-26A_2%28Nuclear_Falcon%29. jpg License: PD Contributors: Own work Original artist: Fl295 (talk) (Uploads) • File:AIM-47.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/AIM-47.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: National Museum of the USAF http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/060731-F-1234S-018.jpg Original artist: U.S. Air Force • File:AIM-4A_and_AIM-4G_missile_line_drawings.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/AIM-4A_ and_AIM-4G_missile_line_drawings.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Air Force Characteristics Summary AIM-4A and AIM-4G Original artist: USAF • File:AIM-4D.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/AIM-4D.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AIM-4D.jpg Original artist: the United States Federal Government
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
907
• File:AIM-54A_first_test_A-3A_NAN11-66.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/AIM-54A_first_test_ A-3A_NAN11-66.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy Naval Aviation News November 1966 [1]; Official U.S. Navy photograph KN-13326 Original artist: USN • File:AIM-54C_350px.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/AIM-54C_350px.png License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:AIM-54_6_Pack.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/AIM-54_6_Pack.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: EnWiki Original artist: Service Depicted: Navy Command Shown: N0829 • File:AIM-54_Phoenix_cropped.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/AIM-54_Phoenix_cropped.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.news.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=12162 http://www.news.navy.mil/management/ photodb/photos/030320-N-4142G-013.jpg Originally from en.wikipedia; description page is/was here. Original artist: ? • File:AIM-54_Phoenix_destroys_QF-4_drone_1983.jpeg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/AIM-54_ Phoenix_destroys_QF-4_drone_1983.jpeg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy National Museum of Naval Aviation photo No. 1996.488.256.039 and 1996.488.256.040 Original artist: U.S. Navy • File:AIM-9B-9D-9C_NAN3-71.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/AIM-9B-9D-9C_NAN3-71.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy Naval Aviation News March 1971 [1] Original artist: USN • File:AIM-9B_hits_F6F-5K_over_China_Lake_1957.jpeg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/AIM-9B_ hits_F6F-5K_over_China_Lake_1957.jpeg License: Public domain Contributors: Combination of U.S. Navy National Museum of Naval Aviation photos No. 1996.488.022.007, 1996.488.022.008, and 1996.488.022.009 Original artist: U.S. Navy • File:AIM-9L_DF-ST-82-10199.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/AIM-9L_DF-ST-82-10199.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This Image was released by the United States Air Force with the ID DF-ST-82-10199 (next). This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information.
Original artist: Sr. Airman Theodore J. Koniares • File:AIM-9L_hits_tank_at_China_Lake_1947.jpeg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/AIM-9L_hits_ tank_at_China_Lake_1947.jpeg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy National Museum of Naval Aviation photo No. 1996.488.022.024 Original artist: U.S. Navy • File:AIM-9R_shot.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/AIM-9R_shot.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy photo [1] from China Lake website; Transferred from en.wikipedia; transferred to Commons by User:Roberta F. using CommonsHelper. Original artist: U.S. Navy; Original uploader was HJ32 at en.wikipedia, 7 January 2007 (original upload date) • File:AIM-9X_F-15C_2002.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/AIM-9X_F-15C_2002.JPEG License: Public domain Contributors: US Defense Visual Information Center photo DF-SD-05-02700 Original artist: Camera Operator: TSgt. Michael Ammons, USAF • File:AIM-9_AIM-120_and_AGM-88_on_F-16C.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/AIM-9_ AIM-120_and_AGM-88_on_F-16C.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Defense Visual Information Center (DVIC) http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/Still/2004/Air_Force/DF-SD-04-09567.JPEG Original artist: TSGT KEVIN J. GRUENWALD, USAF • File:AIM-9_hitting_QF-4B_at_Point_Mugu_1974.jpeg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/AIM-9_ hitting_QF-4B_at_Point_Mugu_1974.jpeg License: Public domain Contributors: Combination of U.S. Navy National Museum of Naval Aviation photos No. 1996.488.022.027, 1996.488.022.028, and 1996.488.022.026 Original artist: U.S. Navy • File:AIR-2A_Genie_2.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/AIR-2A_Genie_2.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:ALCMCruiseMissile.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/ALCMCruiseMissile.JPG License: CCBY-SA-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:AMG-154.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/AMG-154.jpg License: CC BY 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Tutantomen • File:ANMSQ-104_Engagement_Control_Station.jpeg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/ANMSQ-104_ Engagement_Control_Station.jpeg License: CC BY-SA 2.5 nl Contributors: Own work Original artist: User:Dammit • File:AQM-127_SLAT.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/66/AQM-127_SLAT.jpg License: Fair use Contributors: [1] Original artist: ? • File:ASALM_PTV.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/ASALM_PTV.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Air Force photograph via [1] Original artist: USAF • File:ASAT_missile_launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/ASAT_missile_launch.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Originally downloaded from http://www.losangeles.af.mil/SMC/HO/SNAPSHOTS%20IN%20SMC% 20HISTORY.htm Image is a cropped version of this: Image page Original artist: Paul E. Reynolds (USAF) • File:ASM-135_ASAT_5.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/ASM-135_ASAT_5.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.af.mil/photos/media_search.asp?q=ASAT&btnG.x=0&btnG.y=0 (last access: Febr. 20.2012) Original artist: USAF
908
CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
• File:ASROC_launch_from_USS_Joseph_Strauss_(DDG-16)_1978.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ bc/ASROC_launch_from_USS_Joseph_Strauss_%28DDG-16%29_1978.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Official U.S. Navy photograph [1] from the USS Joseph Strauss 1978 Cruise Book. Original artist: USN • File:ASROC_launcher_USS_Columbus_1962.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/ASROC_launcher_ USS_Columbus_1962.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Official U.S. Navy photograph NH 98463. Original artist: USN • File:AT-4Launcher.jpeg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/AT-4Launcher.jpeg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Polanksy kolbe • File:AT4_2REI_1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/AT4_2REI_1.jpg License: CC BY 3.0 Contributors: collection personnelle Original artist: davric • File:AT4_HEAT_and_AT8_Bunker_Busting_Projectile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/AT4_ HEAT_and_AT8_Bunker_Busting_Projectile.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: Jackehammond • File:AT4_image.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/AT4_image.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia; transfer was stated to be made by User:W. B. Wilson. Original artist: Original uploader was W. B. Wilson at en.wikipedia • File:ATACMSMay2006.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/ATACMSMay2006.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://sill-www.army.mil Original artist: Unknown • File:AUM-N-2_on_P2V.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/AUM-N-2_on_P2V.png License: CC BY 2.0 Contributors: http://www.flickr.com/photos/63014123@N02/5763202258/in/set-72157626688627341 Original artist: Unknown. Color correction by Ryan Crierie • File:A_Crane_lifts_an_Evolved_Sea_Sparrow_Missile_(ESSM)_aboard_the_guided_missile_destroyer_USS_McCampbell.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/A_Crane_lifts_an_Evolved_Sea_Sparrow_Missile_%28ESSM%29_ aboard_the_guided_missile_destroyer_USS_McCampbell.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 040505-N-4700J-001 (next). This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information.
Original artist: U.S. Navy photo by Lt. j.g. Joel Jackson • File:A_Trident_Missile_Breaks_the_Surface_After_Being_Fired_from_HMS_Vanguard_MOD_45151581.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/A_Trident_Missile_Breaks_the_Surface_After_Being_Fired_from_HMS_ Vanguard_MOD_45151581.jpg License: OGL Contributors: • Photo http://www.defenceimagery.mod.uk/fotoweb/fwbin/download.dll/45153802.jpg Original artist: Lt Stuart Antrobus RN • File:Active_LGM-30_Minuteman_Sites.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Active_LGM-30_ Minuteman_Sites.png License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Bwmoll3 • File:Advanced_F-106.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Advanced_F-106.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Air Force image via [1]. (Originally uploaded on en.wikipedia) Original artist: Unknown (Transferred by The Bushranger/Originally uploaded by The Bushranger) • File:Advanced_Precision_Kill_Weapon_System_(icon).jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3c/Advanced_ Precision_Kill_Weapon_System_%28icon%29.jpg License: PD Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Agile_flight_test_on_F-4.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Agile_flight_test_on_F-4.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: US Navy Photo from China Lake website Original artist: U.S. Navy • File:Agm-129_acm.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Agm-129_acm.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Agm-154a.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Agm-154a.png License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Agm-158_JASSM.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Agm-158_JASSM.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Department of the Air Force Original artist: U.S. Air Force • File:Agm-28_1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Agm-28_1.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: en:Image:Agm-28_1.jpg Original artist: ? • File:Agm-83a.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Agm-83a.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia; transferred to Commons by User:JuergenKlueser using CommonsHelper. Original artist: . Original uploader was MarcoLittel at en.wikipedia • File:Agm130_sideview.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Agm130_sideview.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.af.mil Original artist: US Air Force • File:Aim-9-seeker-geometry.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Aim-9-seeker-geometry.svg License: CC0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Createaccount • File:Aim_120_amraam_missile_20040710_145603_1.4.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Aim_ 120_amraam_missile_20040710_145603_1.4.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Air_Force_Global_Strike_Command.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Air_Force_Global_ Strike_Command.svg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.afgsc.af.mil/art/index.asp Original artist: en:United States Army Institute of Heraldry • File:Alpha_Draco_under_maintenance.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Alpha_Draco_under_ maintenance.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: National Archives via [1] Original artist: Unknown
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
909
• File:Ambox_current_red.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Ambox_current_red.svg License: CC0 Contributors: self-made, inspired by Gnome globe current event.svg, using Information icon3.svg and Earth clip art.svg Original artist: Vipersnake151, penubag, Tkgd2007 (clock) • File:Ambox_important.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Ambox_important.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work, based off of Image:Ambox scales.svg Original artist: Dsmurat (talk · contribs) • File:Ambox_wikify.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Ambox_wikify.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: penubag • File:Armed_Forces_Day_of_South_Korea_(1973)_5.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Armed_ Forces_Day_of_South_Korea_%281973%29_5.jpg License: CC BY-SA 2.5 Contributors: Taken by author Original artist: Baek, Jong-sik • File:Army-fgm148.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Army-fgm148.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia; transferred to Commons by User:Sreejithk2000 using CommonsHelper. Original artist: United States Army. Original uploader was ZStoler at en.wikipedia • File:Army_mlrs_1982_02.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Army_mlrs_1982_02.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Arty_stub.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/Arty_stub.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia Original artist: Original uploader was LostArtilleryman at en.wikipedia • File:Asrocnuke1962.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Asrocnuke1962.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons. Original artist: The original uploader was Tempshill at English Wikipedia • File:Atlas-B_with_Score_payload.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Atlas-B_with_Score_payload. jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Atlas-E.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Atlas-E.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: USAF via Gunter’s Space Page Original artist: USAF • File:Atlas-F.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Atlas-F.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: USAF via Gunter’s Space Page Original artist: USAF • File:Atlas-icbm-erection-large.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Atlas-icbm-erection-large.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Air Force Original artist: U.S. Air Force • File:Atlas_2E_Ballistic_Missile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Atlas_2E_Ballistic_Missile.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: EricDBier • File:Atlas_C.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Atlas_C.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: US Air Force. Version of image is found here and credited to USAF. USAF is the only organisation that can possibly have taken the image anyway. Original artist: US Air Force • File:Atlas_missile_launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Atlas_missile_launch.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Atombombe_Little_Boy.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Atombombe_Little_Boy.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Atombombe_Little_Boy_2.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Atombombe_Little_Boy_2.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.archives.gov/research_room/arc/ Original artist: Unknown • File:AtomicTestingMuseumB53nuclearbomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/ AtomicTestingMuseumB53nuclearbomb.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work (Original text: I (LanceBarber (talk)) created this work entirely by myself.) Original artist: LanceBarber (talk) • File:Atomic_cloud_over_Hiroshima.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Atomic_cloud_over_ Hiroshima.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This media is available in the holdings of the National Archives and Records Administration, cataloged under the ARC Identifier (National Archives Identifier) 542192. Original artist: Enola Gay Tail Gunner S/Sgt. George R. (Bob) Caron • File:Autonetics_D-17.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Autonetics_D-17.JPG License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Jnanna • File:Avenger_Stinger_Missile.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Avenger_Stinger_Missile.JPEG License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.defenseimagery.mil/ Original artist: Lance Corporal Brandon Gwathney, United States Marine Corps • File:Avenger_missile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/Avenger_missile.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Aviacionavion.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Aviacionavion.png License: Public domain Contributors: • Turkmenistan.airlines.frontview.arp.jpg Original artist: Turkmenistan.airlines.frontview.arp.jpg: elfuser • File:Azon_-_the_worlds_first_smart_bomb.jpg Source: smart_bomb.jpg License: Fair use Contributors: From [1]. Original artist: ?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/Azon_-_the_worlds_first_
• File:B-17-JB-2-1944.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/B-17-JB-2-1944.png License: Public domain Contributors: 1944 United States Army Film “USA Experimental Activities of AAF"; Army Pitrial Service Original artist: United States Army pictorial service • File:B-2_spirit_bombing.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/B-2_spirit_bombing.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: US Air Force Original artist: USAF
910
CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
• File:B-83_nuclear_weapon.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/B-83_nuclear_weapon.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:B28RE_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/B28RE_bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:B41_nuclear_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/B41_nuclear_bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/ Original artist: Ultimate source: Either a photo of the Air Force or the DOE. • File:B53_at_Pantex.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/B53_at_Pantex.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: National Nuclear Security Administration [1] Original artist: Unknown • File:B57_nuclear_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/B57_nuclear_bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.nukestrat.com/dk/intrepid.htm (direct link) Original artist: JoeCool59 at en.wikipedia • File:B83_nuclear_bomb_trainer.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/B83_nuclear_bomb_trainer.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil Original artist: ? • File:BAT-PB4Y-wingbat.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/BAT-PB4Y-wingbat.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This media is available in the holdings of the National Archives and Records Administration, cataloged under the ARC Identifier (National Archives Identifier) 292148. Original artist: U.S. Navy • File:BGM-109G_GAMA.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/BGM-109G_GAMA.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.afmissileers.org/newsletters/NL2004/dec04.pdf Original artist: United States Air Force • File:BGM-109G_Gryphon_-_ID_DF-ST-83-09866.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/ BGM-109G_Gryphon_-_ID_DF-ST-83-09866.JPEG License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/ (http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imagery.html#a=search&s=DF-ST-83-09866&guid=5410e9c854274231d22c4b4e613800c192ad006f) Original artist: MASTER SGT. PAUL N. HAYASHI • File:BGM-109G_Gryphon_-_ID_DF-ST-84-09185.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/ BGM-109G_Gryphon_-_ID_DF-ST-84-09185.JPEG License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/ (http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imagery.html#a=search&s=DF-ST-84-09185&guid=2a2ab18eba2c05df33cf7149a4861f2ac807764e) Original artist: TSGT ROB MARSHALL • File:BGT_IRIS-T_SL-2.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/BGT_IRIS-T_SL-2.jpg License: CC-BYSA-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:BLU-109_aboard_F-15E.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/BLU-109_aboard_F-15E.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia by SreeBot Original artist: Avriette at en.wikipedia • File:BLU-109_aboard_F-16.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/BLU-109_aboard_F-16.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia; transferred to Commons by Anders using CommonsHelper. Original artist: Original uploader was Avriette at en.wikipedia • File:BLU-3_Pineapple_Cluster_bomblet.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/BLU-3_Pineapple_ Cluster_bomblet.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons. Original artist: Megapixie at English Wikipedia • File:BLU-82B_Daisy_Cutter_Bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/BLU-82B_Daisy_Cutter_ Bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:BLU-82_Daisy_Cutter_Fireball.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/BLU-82_Daisy_Cutter_ Fireball.JPG License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.afrc.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/080715-F-9999N-007.JPG Original artist: U.S. Air Force photo/Capt. Patrick Nichols • File:BOAR_(Bombardment_Aerial_Rocket)_on_trailer.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/BOAR_ %28Bombardment_Aerial_Rocket%29_on_trailer.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy photo via [1] Original artist: USN • File:BOAR_launch_from_F2H.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/BOAR_launch_from_F2H.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles, the Gary Verver collection Original artist: Unknown • File:BOAR_loading_on_AD-7.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/BOAR_loading_on_AD-7.png License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy photo via [1] Original artist: Unknown • File:BOLT117LGB.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/BOLT117LGB.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Sturmvogel 66 • File:BOMARC.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/BOMARC.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: https://www.patrick.af.mil/45SW/PA/MEDIA/multimedia.htm (cropped and converted from TIFF) Original artist: US Air Force • File:BOMARC_A_Surface-to-Air_Missile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/BOMARC_A_ Surface-to-Air_Missile.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.hill.af.mil; exact source Original artist: Unknown • File:BQM-74E_Diagram.gif Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/BQM-74E_Diagram_-_2.png License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:BQM-74E_launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/BQM-74E_launch.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: [1] at [2] Original artist: w:United States Navy photo by Ensign Lyn Niemeyer [020207-N-0000N-001] Feb. 7, 2002 • File:Baker.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Baker.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http: //archive.org/details/MSFC-5909731 Original artist: ? • File:Balad_AH1_Cobra_1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Balad_AH1_Cobra_1.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons. Original artist: Looper5920 at English Wikipedia • File:Bandeira_da_FNLA.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Bandeira_da_FNLA.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
911
• File:Bark.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Bark.svg License: CC BY-SA 4.0-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0 Contributors: This vector image was created with Inkscape by Bastianowa (Bastiana) na podstawie wersji rastrowej. Original artist: vector version Bastianow (Bastian) • File:Bat_missile_NAN6-50.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Bat_missile_NAN6-50.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy Naval Aviation News June 1950 [1] Original artist: USN • File:Bat_radar_NAN6-50.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Bat_radar_NAN6-50.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy Naval Aviation News June 1950 [1] Original artist: USN • File:Bazooka_rocket.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Bazooka_rocket.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Bazookasmithsonian.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/Bazookasmithsonian.jpg License: CC BY 2.0 Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia; Transfer was stated to be made by User:Undead_warrior. M1 Rocket Launcher Original artist: Carl Malamud • File:Bell_XGAM-63_Rascal_USAF.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Bell_XGAM-63_Rascal_ USAF.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Bell_YASM-A-1_Tarzon.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Bell_YASM-A-1_Tarzon.png License: Public domain Contributors: USAF photo via [1] Original artist: Unknown • File:Bluetank.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Bluetank.png License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: LA2 • File:Boeing_AGM-86B_(ALCM)_USAF.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Boeing_AGM-86B_ %28ALCM%29_USAF.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Boeing_B-52D-40-BW_(SN_56-0695)_in_flight_launching_Quail_decoy_061127-F-1234S-011.jpg Source: http: //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Boeing_B-52D-40-BW_%28SN_56-0695%29_in_flight_launching_Quail_decoy_ 061127-F-1234S-011.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Boeing_B-52F_takeoff_with_AGM-28_Hound_Dog_missiles.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/ 56/Boeing_B-52F_takeoff_with_AGM-28_Hound_Dog_missiles.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: US Goverment Original artist: ? • File:Boeing_GBU-39_Small_Diameter_Bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Boeing_GBU-39_ Small_Diameter_Bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.eglin.af.mil/agmsw/mm/1.html Original artist: USAF • File:Boeing_ground-to-air_pilotless_aircraft_-GAPA-1949.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/ Boeing_ground-to-air_pilotless_aircraft_-GAPA-1949.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/ photos/media_search.asp?q=raf&page=86 Original artist: U.S. Air Force • File:Bold_Orion_on_B-47.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Bold_Orion_on_B-47.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Air Force Space and Missile Museum [1] Original artist: Unknown • File:Bold_Orion_on_trailer_with_B-47_launch_aircraft_in_background.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ commons/d/de/Bold_Orion_on_trailer_with_B-47_launch_aircraft_in_background.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: USAF photograph via International Missile and Spacecraft Guide, 1960 and [1] Original artist: Unknown • File:Bomarc_B_missile_Canada_Aviation_Museum_Ottawa_2006.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/ 34/Bomarc_B_missile_Canada_Aviation_Museum_Ottawa_2006.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: en:User:Bzuk Original artist: en:User:Bzuk • File:Bomb_Weteye.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Bomb_Weteye.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: US Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, California Original artist: USN Photo by J. Chassee • File:Bundesarchiv_B_145_Bild-F029235-0024,_Nürburgring,_Bundeswehrparade_zum_NATO-Jubiläum.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Bundesarchiv_B_145_Bild-F029235-0024%2C_N%C3%BCrburgring% 2C_Bundeswehrparade_zum_NATO-Jubil%C3%A4um.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 de Contributors: This image was provided to Wikimedia Commons by the German Federal Archive (Deutsches Bundesarchiv) as part of a cooperation project. The German Federal Archive guarantees an authentic representation only using the originals (negative and/or positive), resp. the digitalization of the originals as provided by the Digital Image Archive. Original artist: Schaack, Lothar • File:Bundeswehr_Kreuz_Black.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Bundeswehr_Kreuz_Black.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Online-Redaktion Heer (16.12.10). Das Eiserne Kreuz. Bundeswehr. Retrieved on 19 January 2012. Original artist: See source • File:CATM_120C_AMRAAM_p1230119.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/CATM_120C_ AMRAAM_p1230119.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:CBU-97_SFW_(8steps_attacking_process)_NT.PNG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/CBU-97_ SFW_%288steps_attacking_process%29_NT.PNG License: CC BY 3.0 Contributors: Own work by uploader (ref: ? 2008 8 ( ) 2008 8 1 and others) Original artist: Tosaka • File:CCAFS_Navaho_(Large).jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/CCAFS_Navaho_%28Large%29. jpg License: Public domain Contributors: own work by Fl295 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CCAFS_Navaho_%28Large%29.jpg Original artist: Fl295 • File:CF-101B_firing_Genie_1982.jpeg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/CF-101B_firing_Genie_1982. jpeg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. DefenseImagery [1] photo VIRIN: DF-ST-83-11490 [2] Original artist: Photographer’s Name: TSgt. Frank Garzelnick, USAF • File:CIM-10_Bomarc_missile_battery.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/CIM-10_Bomarc_missile_ battery.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: National Museum of the U.S. Air Force photo 090603-F-1234P-002 in the BOMARC gallery Original artist: tbd (photograph is property of USAF)
912
CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
• File:CQM-10B_Bormarc_drone_launch_Vandenberg_1977.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/ CQM-10B_Bormarc_drone_launch_Vandenberg_1977.JPEG License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. DefenseImagery photo VIRIN: DF-SC-84-06887 Original artist: U.S. Air Force • File:CROW_(ballistic)_on_F4D_Skyray.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/CROW_%28ballistic% 29_on_F4D_Skyray.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy via [1] Original artist: Unknown • File:CROW_(guided)_on_F-4B_Phantom_II.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/CROW_ %28guided%29_on_F-4B_Phantom_II.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy via [1] Original artist: Unknown • File:Canadian_Red_Ensign_1921-1957.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Canadian_Red_Ensign_ 1921-1957.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Capsule_for_UUM-125_Sea_Lance.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Capsule_for_UUM-125_ Sea_Lance.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Defense Visual Information Center (DVIC) http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/Still/1987/Navy/DN-SC-87-05008.JPEG Original artist: U.S. Navy • File:CarolinasAviationMuseumHonestJohn.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/ CarolinasAviationMuseumHonestJohn.JPG License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia; transferred to Commons by User:Sreejithk2000 using CommonsHelper. Original artist: Shawn Dorsch. Original uploader was Sadorsch at en.wikipedia • File:Castle_Union.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Castle_Union.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: www.cddc.vt.edu Original artist: United States Department of Energy • File:Cbu-87_cluster_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Cbu-87_cluster_bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0104/cbu-87.jpg linked from http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0104/bombs. html Original artist: Official US military image • File:Cbu89bomb.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Cbu89bomb.png License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Chrysler_SM-78_-_PGM-19A_USAF.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Chrysler_SM-78_-_ PGM-19A_USAF.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Cold_War_Map_1959.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Cold_War_Map_1959.svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Image:BlankMap-World 1959.svg by Sémhur, under licence GFDL & CC-BY-SA Original artist: Sémhur • File:Commons-logo.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Commons-logo.svg License: ? Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Contaminated_Johnston_Island_Launch_Emplacement_1,_Bluegill_Prime,_Thor_failure,_July_25,_1962..jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Contaminated_Johnston_Island_Launch_Emplacement_1%2C_Bluegill_Prime% 2C_Thor_failure%2C_July_25%2C_1962..jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://home.earthlink.net/~{}markinthepacific/ sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/burnedpad01.jpg Original artist: U.S Defense Nuclear Agency • File:Convair_F-106A_Delta_Dart_1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Convair_F-106A_Delta_ Dart_1.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.ang.af.mil/history/PhotoHistory/coldwar/F106GoldenBears.asp Original artist: United States Air Force • File:Convair_Lobber_missiles.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Convair_Lobber_missiles.jpg License: CC0 Contributors: https://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/5019071118/ Original artist: Unknown • File:Convair_X-11_launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Convair_X-11_launch.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Convair_X-12_launch.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Convair_X-12_launch.JPG License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Corporalmissile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Corporalmissile.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: en:Image:Corporalmissile.jpg Original artist: en:User:Fl295 • File:Cruise_missile_pydna.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Cruise_missile_pydna.JPG License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Patrickske • File:DA-SC-88-01658.jpeg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/DA-SC-88-01658.jpeg License: Public domain Contributors: National Archives at College Park; http://research.archives.gov/description/6424504 Original artist: Frank Trevino; Department of Defense. American Forces Information Service. Defense Visual Information Center. • File:DAGR_missile.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/DAGR_missile.JPG License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Air Force Original artist: U.S. Air Force Airman or employee, taken or made as part of that person’s official duties • File:DASO_25_Video_(Cleared_for_Release)_VP8_001_Trident_II_UGM_133A_Test_Launch_02_June_2014.webm Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/DASO_25_Video_%28Cleared_for_Release%29_VP8_001_Trident_II_UGM_ 133A_Test_Launch_02_June_2014.webm License: Public domain Contributors: US Navy Strategic Systems Programs Original artist: US Navy Strategic Systems Programs • File:DavyCrockettBomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/DavyCrockettBomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Chuck Hansen, The Swords of Armageddon: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Development Since 1945 (Sunnyvale, CA: Chukelea Publications, 1995).[1] Original artist: US government DOD and/or DOE photograph • File:Davy_Crockett_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Davy_Crockett_bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Immediate source: Chuck Hansen, The Swords of Armageddon: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Development Since 1945 (Sunnyvale, CA: Chukelea Publications, 1995).[1] Original artist: U.S. federal government • File:Defence_Imagery_-_Missiles_12.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Defence_Imagery_-_ Missiles_12.jpg License: OGL Contributors: Image 45151586.jpg (item 04101137) at http://www.defenceimagery.mod.uk/ Original artist: Royal Navy
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
913
• File:Defense.gov_News_Photo_971111-N-6939M-303.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Defense. gov_News_Photo_971111-N-6939M-303.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 971111-N-6939M-303 (next). This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information.
Original artist: Petty Officer 3rd Class Christopher Mobley, U.S. Navy • File:Defense.gov_News_Photo_980220-N-0507F-001.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Defense. gov_News_Photo_980220-N-0507F-001.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 980220-N-0507F-001 (next). This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information.
Original artist: Petty Officer 3rd Class Brian Fleske, U.S. Navy • File:Defense.gov_photo_essay_080620-F-9876D-219.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Defense. gov_photo_essay_080620-F-9876D-219.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This Image was released by the United States Air Force with the ID 080620-F-9876D-219 (next). This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information.
Original artist: Staff Sgt. Patrick Dixon • File:Delta_II_rocket_lift_off.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Delta_II_rocket_lift_off.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=31336 Original artist: NASA/Kim Shiflett • File:Demonstration_cluster_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Demonstration_cluster_bomb. jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Historic American Engineering Record, Library of Congress, Call number HAER COLO,1COMCI,1-191 Original artist: U.S. Army, original print located at Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Commerce City, Colorado • File:Deployment_of_Nike_Missiles_Within_Contiguous_United_States.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ commons/9/9e/Deployment_of_Nike_Missiles_Within_Contiguous_United_States.png License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Bwmoll3 • File:Diamondback_missile.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Diamondback_missile.png License: Public domain Contributors: “Characteristics of Strategic, Tactical and Research Missiles”, Convair San Diego. Public Domain at [1] Original artist: Hanson, C.M. • File:Downed_Tomahawk_cruise_missile_in_Belgrade,_Serbia.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/ Downed_Tomahawk_cruise_missile_in_Belgrade%2C_Serbia.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: belgrade serbia nikola tesla aeronautical museum tomahawk cruise missile Original artist: David Holt • File:Dragon_02.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Dragon_02.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Dragon_04.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Dragon_04.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Duke_Field_reservists_drop_last_BLU-82_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Duke_ Field_reservists_drop_last_BLU-82_bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.afrc.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/ photos/080715-F-9999N-004.JPG Original artist: U.S. Air Force photo/Capt. Patrick Nichols • File:ELEC_AN-MPQ-64_Sentinel_Radar_lg.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/ELEC_ AN-MPQ-64_Sentinel_Radar_lg.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons by User:Wdwd using CommonsHelper. Original artist: US ARMY. • File:East_oblique_of_missile_site_control_building_-_Stanley_R._Mickelsen_Safeguard_Complex,_Missile_Site_ Control_Building,_Northeast_of_Tactical_Road;_southeast_of_Tactical_Road_South,_HAER_ND-9-B-9.tif Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/East_oblique_of_missile_site_control_building_-_Stanley_R._Mickelsen_ Safeguard_Complex%2C_Missile_Site_Control_Building%2C_Northeast_of_Tactical_Road%3B_southeast_of_Tactical_Road_ South%2C_HAER_ND-9-B-9.tif License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/nd0046.photos.199342p Original artist: Halpern, Benjamin Related names: Ralph M. Parsons Company Raytheon Company Morrison-Knudson and Associates Jackson, Christiana, transmitter Zielinski, James Edward, historian • File:Edit-clear.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f2/Edit-clear.svg License: Public domain Contributors: The Tango! Desktop Project. Original artist: The people from the Tango! project. And according to the meta-data in the file, specifically: “Andreas Nilsson, and Jakub Steiner (although minimally).” • File:Ensign_of_the_Royal_Air_Force.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Ensign_of_the_Royal_Air_ Force.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
914
CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
• File:Evolved_Sea_Sparrow_Missile.gif Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Evolved_Sea_Sparrow_ Missile.gif License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/policy/vision/vis99/v99-ch3c.html Original artist: USN • File:F-100D_308TFS_31TFW_TuyHoa_1966.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/F-100D_308TFS_ 31TFW_TuyHoa_1966.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Scan from Dana Bell, Air War over Vietnam, Volume IV. Arms and Armour Press, London, Harrisburg (PA), 1984, ISBN 0853686351, p. 17, cites U.S. Air Force as source. Also USAF photo no 020903o-9999r-020 [1]. Original artist: USAF • File:F-104G_with_a_ZELL-Verfaren_rocket_booster_and_a_B-43_nuclear_bomb.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/ wikipedia/commons/f/fe/F-104G_with_a_ZELL-Verfaren_rocket_booster_and_a_B-43_nuclear_bomb.JPG License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: MoRsE • File:F-105G_with_AGM-78_taking_of_Korat.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/F-105G_with_ AGM-78_taking_of_Korat.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Air Force photo 090605-F-1234P-079 [1] Original artist: U.S. Air Force • File:F-106A_119th_FIS_launching_AIM-9_1984.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/F-106A_119th_ FIS_launching_AIM-9_1984.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. DefenseImagery photo VIRIN: DF-ST-85-09775 (cropped and rightened) Original artist: TSgt. Ernest Sealing, USAF • File:F-14A_VF-1_launching_AIM-54_Phoenix.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/F-14A_VF-1_ launching_AIM-54_Phoenix.JPEG License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. DefenseImagery [1] photo VIRIN: DN-SC-04-17200 [2] Original artist: USN • File:F-14_carrying_AMRAAM.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/F-14_carrying_AMRAAM.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ID: DNSC8305179 Original artist: Service Depicted: Navy Camera Operator: PHC THORNSLEY • File:F-14_launching_a_TALD.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/F-14_launching_a_TALD.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ID:DNSC9501057 Original artist: Service Depicted: Navy Camera Operator: VERNON PUGH • File:F-15A_With_ASM-135_ASAT_drawing.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/F-15A_With_ ASM-135_ASAT_drawing.png License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.vectorsite.net/avf15_1.html Original artist: Greg Goebel • File:F-15E_drops_2,000-pound_munitions_Afghanistan_2009.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/ F-15E_drops_2%2C000-pound_munitions_Afghanistan_2009.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.defense.gov/ dodcmsshare/photoessay/2009-12/hires_091126-F-8155K-914a.jpg Original artist: U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Michael B. Keller • File:F-15E_gbu-28_release.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/F-15E_gbu-28_release.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DVIC_View/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=DFSD0508507&JPGPath=/Assets/ 2005/Air_Force/DF-SD-05-08507.JPG Original artist: TSGT Michael Ammons, USAF • File:F-16_carrying_MALD.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/F-16_carrying_MALD.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ID:DFSD0108201 / 990702F9448S009 Original artist: Service Depicted: Air Force • File:F-18C_with_SLAM-ER_missile_and_AWW-13_pods_in_flight.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/ 3/3b/F-18C_with_SLAM-ER_missile_and_AWW-13_pods_in_flight.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Official U.S. Navy photograph [1] from the Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division. Original artist: USN • File:F-22_GBU39B_AIM-120_m02006120800117.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/F-22_ GBU39B_AIM-120_m02006120800117.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.deagel.com/library2/ Original artist: US Air Force • File:F-4B_VF-111_CVA-43.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/F-4B_VF-111_CVA-43.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: www.usscoralsea.net[1] Original artist: Richard Tobin, USN • File:F-4D_497th_TFS_with_BOLT-117s_1971.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/F-4D_497th_ TFS_with_BOLT-117s_1971.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Air Force photo from Dana Bell: Air War over Vietnam III. London, Arms&Armour Press 1983, p. 28. ISBN 0-85368-607-6. Cited as USAF photo. Original artist: USAF • File:F-4E_3rd_TFW_dropping_GBU-15_1985.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/F-4E_3rd_ TFW_dropping_GBU-15_1985.JPEG License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. DefenseImagery photo VIRIN: DF-ST-87-13356 Original artist: SSgt. Lee Schading, USAF • File:F-84E_launchs_rockets.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/F-84E_launchs_rockets.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: National Museum of the U.S. Air Force Original artist: Unknown • File:F-89J_Montana_ANG_display_Great_Falls_2008.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/F-89J_ Montana_ANG_display_Great_Falls_2008.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia Original artist: Banjodog (talk). Original uploader was Banjodog at en.wikipedia, 23 August 2008 (original upload date)) • File:F4D_with_Caleb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/F4D_with_Caleb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy photograph via [1] Original artist: Unknown • File:F94CRocketPod.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/F94CRocketPod.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Sturmvogel 66 • File:FBX_T.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/FBX_T.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http: //www.mda.mil/mdalink/images/FBX_T.jpg Original artist: US Army employee • File:FFAR_being_loaded_on_TBF.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/FFAR_being_loaded_on_TBF. png License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy Historical Center / Naval Aviation News, May-June 1995 [1] Original artist: Unknown • File:FFV_502_HEPD_LMAW_projectile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/FFV_502_HEPD_ LMAW_projectile.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: Jackehammond
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
915
• File:FGM-148_Javelin_-_ID_030206-M-5753Q-004.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/FGM-148_ Javelin_-_ID_030206-M-5753Q-004.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=5007 Original artist: Lance Cpl. Kevin Quihuis Jr. • File:FGM-148_Javelin_-_ID_DM-SD-04-07567.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/FGM-148_ Javelin_-_ID_DM-SD-04-07567.JPEG License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/ (http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imagery.html#a=search&s=DM-SD-04-07567&guid=cb9def718ed81dd9d9b979cc37ce2932e9082b93) Original artist: SGT MAURICIO CAMPINO, USMC • File:FGR-17_VIPER.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/FGR-17_VIPER.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: United States Army Public Affairs Office, Washington, D.C. Original artist: United States Army • File:FIM-92_Stinger_USMC.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/FIM-92_Stinger_USMC.JPG License: Public domain Contributors: Still Image: DF-ST-86-05165 Originally uploaded in November 2008 to en:Wikipedia (log) by Koalorka (talk). Original artist: SSGT DANNY PEREZ, U.S. Air Force • File:FJ-4B_VX-5_with_Mk_12_nuclear_bomb_over_China_Lake_c1958.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ commons/c/c7/FJ-4B_VX-5_with_Mk_12_nuclear_bomb_over_China_Lake_c1958.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy photo [1] via chinalakealumni.org Original artist: USN • File:Fairchild_XBQ-3.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Fairchild_XBQ-3.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Army Air Forces Original artist: Unknown • File:Falcon_JDAM_LGBs_(1).jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Falcon_JDAM_LGBs_%281%29. jpg License: Public domain Contributors: USAF Original artist: Tech. Sgt. Scott Reed • File:Final_US_Navy_RIM-8_Talos_firing_1979.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Final_US_Navy_ RIM-8_Talos_firing_1979.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ID:DN-ST-84-03162 / Service Depicted: Navy / National Archive# NN33300514 2005-06-30 Original artist: Camera Operator: PH1 DAVID C. MACLEAN • File:Firing_an_AT4.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Firing_an_AT4.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: washington state Original artist: Army.mil photo by Jason Kaye • File:First_Chemical_weapons_destroyed_at_JACADS.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/First_ Chemical_weapons_destroyed_at_JACADS.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency, see gallery Original artist: U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency • File:First_gps_weapon_OCD.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/First_gps_weapon_OCD.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: USAF Eglin Air Force Base Photographic Services, Public Relations Original artist: USAF Eglin Air Force Base Photographic Services, Public Relations • File:Flag_of_Angola.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Flag_of_Angola.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Drawn by User:SKopp Original artist: User:SKopp • File:Flag_of_Argentina.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Flag_of_Argentina.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Based on: http://www.manuelbelgrano.gov.ar/bandera_colores.htm Original artist: (Vector graphics by Dbenbenn) • File:Flag_of_Australia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b9/Flag_of_Australia.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Flag_of_Austria.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Flag_of_Austria.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work, http://www.bmlv.gv.at/abzeichen/dekorationen.shtml Original artist: User:SKopp • File:Flag_of_Bahrain.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Flag_of_Bahrain.svg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.moci.gov.bh/en/KingdomofBahrain/BahrainFlag/ Original artist: Source: Drawn by User:SKopp, rewritten by User:Zscout370 • File:Flag_of_Bangladesh.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Flag_of_Bangladesh.svg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.dcaa.com.bd/Modules/CountryProfile/BangladeshFlag.aspx Original artist: User:SKopp • File:Flag_of_Belgium_(civil).svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Flag_of_Belgium_%28civil%29.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Flag_of_Bolivia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Flag_of_Bolivia.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: User:SKopp • File:Flag_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Flag_of_Bosnia_and_ Herzegovina.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: Kseferovic • File:Flag_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina_(1992-1998).svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Flag_of_ Bosnia_and_Herzegovina_%281992-1998%29.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work, from other free images. Original artist: Vernes Seferovic • File:Flag_of_Botswana.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Flag_of_Botswana.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Drawn by User:SKopp, rewritten by User:Gabbe, rewritten by User:Madden Original artist: User:SKopp, User:Gabbe, User:Madden • File:Flag_of_Brazil.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/05/Flag_of_Brazil.svg License: PD Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Flag_of_Bulgaria.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Flag_of_Bulgaria.svg License: Public domain Contributors: The flag of Bulgaria. The colors are specified at http://www.government.bg/cgi-bin/e-cms/vis/vis.pl?s=001&p=0034&n= 000005&g= as: Original artist: SKopp • File:Flag_of_Cambodia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Flag_of_Cambodia.svg License: CC0 Contributors: File:Flag_of_Cambodia.svg Original artist: Draw new flag by User: _ • File:Flag_of_Cameroon.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Flag_of_Cameroon.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Drawn by User:SKopp Original artist: (of code) cs:User:-xfi-
916
CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
• File:Flag_of_Canada.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cf/Flag_of_Canada.svg License: PD Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Flag_of_Chad.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Flag_of_Chad.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Quelle · Fonto: http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/td.html Original artist: SKopp & others (see upload log) • File:Flag_of_Chile.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Flag_of_Chile.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: SKopp • File:Flag_of_Colombia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Flag_of_Colombia.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Drawn by User:SKopp Original artist: SKopp • File:Flag_of_Croatia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Flag_of_Croatia.svg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.sabor.hr/Default.aspx?sec=4317 Original artist: Nightstallion, Elephantus, Neoneo13, Denelson83, Rainman, R-41, Minestrone, Lupo, Zscout370, MaGa (based on Decision of the Parliament) • File:Flag_of_Cyprus.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Flag_of_Cyprus.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: User:Vzb83 • File:Flag_of_Denmark.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Flag_of_Denmark.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: User:Madden • File:Flag_of_Egypt.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Flag_of_Egypt.svg License: CC0 Contributors: From the Open Clip Art website. Original artist: Open Clip Art • File:Flag_of_El_Salvador.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Flag_of_El_Salvador.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: user:Nightstallion • File:Flag_of_Estonia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Flag_of_Estonia.svg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.riigikantselei.ee/?id=73847 Original artist: Originally drawn by User:SKopp. Blue colour changed by User:PeepP to match the image at [1]. • File:Flag_of_Ethiopia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Flag_of_Ethiopia.svg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.ethiopar.net/type/Amharic/hopre/bills/1998/654.ae..pdf Original artist: Drawn by User:SKopp • File:Flag_of_Finland.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Flag_of_Finland.svg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1978/19780380 Original artist: Drawn by User:SKopp • File:Flag_of_France.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c3/Flag_of_France.svg License: PD Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Flag_of_Georgia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Flag_of_Georgia.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work based on File:Brdzanebuleba 31.pdf Original artist: User:SKopp • File:Flag_of_Germany.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/ba/Flag_of_Germany.svg License: PD Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Flag_of_Greece.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Flag_of_Greece.svg License: Public domain Contributors: own code Original artist: (of code) cs:User:-xfi- (talk) • File:Flag_of_Hungary.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Flag_of_Hungary.svg License: Public domain Contributors: • Flags of the World – Hungary Original artist: SKopp • File:Flag_of_India.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/41/Flag_of_India.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Flag_of_Indonesia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Flag_of_Indonesia.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Law: s:id:Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 24 Tahun 2009 (http://badanbahasa.kemdiknas.go.id/ lamanbahasa/sites/default/files/UU_2009_24.pdf) Original artist: Drawn by User:SKopp, rewritten by User:Gabbe • File:Flag_of_Iran.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Flag_of_Iran.svg License: Public domain Contributors: URL http://www.isiri.org/portal/files/std/1.htm and an English translation / interpretation at URL http://flagspot.net/flags/ir'.html Original artist: Various • File:Flag_of_Iraq.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Flag_of_Iraq.svg License: Public domain Contributors: • This image is based on the CIA Factbook, and the website of Office of the President of Iraq, vectorized by User:Militaryace Original artist: Unknown, published by Iraqi governemt, vectorized by User:Militaryace based on the work of User:Hoshie • File:Flag_of_Ireland.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Flag_of_Ireland.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Drawn by User:SKopp Original artist: ? • File:Flag_of_Israel.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Flag_of_Israel.svg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Modern%20History/Israel%20at%2050/The%20Flag%20and%20the%20Emblem Original artist: • File:Flag_of_Italy.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/03/Flag_of_Italy.svg License: PD Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
917
• File:Flag_of_Japan.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9e/Flag_of_Japan.svg License: PD Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Flag_of_Jordan.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Flag_of_Jordan.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Flag_of_Kenya.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Flag_of_Kenya.svg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.kenyarchives.go.ke/flag_specifications.htm Original artist: User:Pumbaa80 • File:Flag_of_Kurdistan.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Flag_of_Kurdistan.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: iThe source code of the previous SVG was invalid due to 12 errors. • File:Flag_of_Kuwait.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Flag_of_Kuwait.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: SKopp • File:Flag_of_Latvia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Flag_of_Latvia.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Drawn by SKopp Original artist: Latvija • File:Flag_of_Lebanon.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Flag_of_Lebanon.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: Traced based on the CIA World Factbook with some modification done to the colours based on information at Vexilla mundi. • File:Flag_of_Lithuania.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Flag_of_Lithuania.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: SuffKopp • File:Flag_of_Luxembourg.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Flag_of_Luxembourg.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work http://www.legilux.public.lu/leg/a/archives/1972/0051/a051.pdf#page=2, colors from http://www. legilux.public.lu/leg/a/archives/1993/0731609/0731609.pdf Original artist: Drawn by User:SKopp • File:Flag_of_Malaysia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Flag_of_Malaysia.svg License: domain Contributors: Create based on the Malaysian Government Website (archive version) Original artist: SKopp, Zscout370 and Ranking Update
Public
• File:Flag_of_Mexico.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Flag_of_Mexico.svg License: Public domain Contributors: This vector image was created with Inkscape. Original artist: Alex Covarrubias, 9 April 2006 • File:Flag_of_Morocco.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Flag_of_Morocco.svg License: Public domain Contributors: adala.justice.gov.ma (Ar) Original artist: Denelson83, Zscout370 • File:Flag_of_Myanmar_(1974-2010).svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Flag_of_Myanmar_ %281974-2010%29.svg License: CC0 Contributors: Open Clip Art Original artist: Unknown • File:Flag_of_New_Zealand.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Flag_of_New_Zealand.svg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.mch.govt.nz/files/NZ%20Flag%20-%20proportions.JPG Original artist: Zscout370, Hugh Jass and many others • File:Flag_of_Nigeria.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Flag_of_Nigeria.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Flag_of_North_Korea.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Flag_of_North_Korea.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Template: Original artist: Zscout370 • File:Flag_of_Norway.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Flag_of_Norway.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: Dbenbenn • File:Flag_of_Oman.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Flag_of_Oman.svg License: CC0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Flag_of_Pakistan.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Flag_of_Pakistan.svg License: Public domain Contributors: The drawing and the colors were based from flagspot.net. Original artist: User:Zscout370 • File:Flag_of_Paraguay.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Flag_of_Paraguay.svg License: CC0 Contributors: This file is from the Open Clip Art Library, which released it explicitly into the public domain (see here). Original artist: Republica del Paraguay • File:Flag_of_Poland.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/12/Flag_of_Poland.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Flag_of_Portugal.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Flag_of_Portugal.svg License: Public domain Contributors: http://jorgesampaio.arquivo.presidencia.pt/pt/republica/simbolos/bandeiras/index.html#imgs Original artist: Columbano Bordalo Pinheiro (1910; generic design); Vítor Luís Rodrigues; António Martins-Tuválkin (2004; this specific vector set: see sources) • File:Flag_of_Qatar.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Flag_of_Qatar.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Drawn by User:SKopp Original artist: (of code) cs:User:-xfi• File:Flag_of_Rhodesia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Flag_of_Rhodesia.svg License: Public domain Contributors: self made, supersedes original based on Rhodesia Flag.png Original artist: Sagredo, supersedes image by en:User:Actarux • File:Flag_of_Romania.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Flag_of_Romania.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: AdiJapan
918
CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
• File:Flag_of_Saudi_Arabia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Flag_of_Saudi_Arabia.svg License: CC0 Contributors: the actual flag Original artist: Unknown • File:Flag_of_Serbia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Flag_of_Serbia.svg License: Public domain Contributors: From http://www.parlament.gov.rs/content/cir/o_skupstini/simboli/simboli.asp. Original artist: sodipodi.com • File:Flag_of_Singapore.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Flag_of_Singapore.svg License: Public domain Contributors: The drawing was based from http://app.www.sg/who/42/National-Flag.aspx. Colors from the book: (2001). The National Symbols Kit. Singapore: Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts. pp. 5. ISBN 8880968010 Pantone 032 shade from http://www.pantone.com/pages/pantone/colorfinder.aspx?c_id=13050 Original artist: Various • File:Flag_of_Slovenia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Flag_of_Slovenia.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work construction sheet from http://flagspot.net/flags/si%27.html#coa Original artist: User:Achim1999 • File:Flag_of_Somalia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Flag_of_Somalia.svg License: Public domain Contributors: see below Original artist: see upload history • File:Flag_of_South_Africa.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Flag_of_South_Africa.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Per specifications in the Constitution of South Africa, Schedule 1 - National flag Original artist: Flag design by Frederick Brownell, image by Wikimedia Commons users • File:Flag_of_South_Africa_1928-1994.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Flag_of_South_Africa_ 1928-1994.svg License: Public domain Contributors: SVG based on this image Original artist: Parliament of South Africa • File:Flag_of_South_Korea.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Flag_of_South_Korea.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Ordinance Act of the Law concerning the National Flag of the Republic of Korea, Construction and color guidelines (Russian/English) ← This site is not exist now.(2012.06.05) Original artist: Various • File:Flag_of_South_Vietnam.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Flag_of_South_Vietnam.svg License: Public domain Contributors: (see history) Original artist: (see history) • File:Flag_of_Spain.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9a/Flag_of_Spain.svg License: PD Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Flag_of_Swaziland.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Flag_of_Swaziland.svg License: CC0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Flag_of_Sweden.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4c/Flag_of_Sweden.svg License: PD Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Flag_of_Switzerland.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Flag_of_Switzerland.svg License: Public domain Contributors: PDF Colors Construction sheet Original artist: User:Marc Mongenet Credits: • File:Flag_of_Syria_(1932-1958;_1961-1963).svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Flag_of_Syria_ %281932-1958%3B_1961-1963%29.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: User:AnonMoos • File:Flag_of_Thailand.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Flag_of_Thailand.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: Zscout370 • File:Flag_of_Tunisia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Flag_of_Tunisia.svg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.w3.org/ Original artist: entraîneur: BEN KHALIFA WISSAM • File:Flag_of_Turkey.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Flag_of_Turkey.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Turkish Flag Law (Türk Bayrağı Kanunu), Law nr. 2893 of 22 September 1983. Text (in Turkish) at the website of the Turkish Historical Society (Türk Tarih Kurumu) Original artist: David Benbennick (original author) • File:Flag_of_UNITA.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Flag_of_UNITA.svg License: CC BY-SA 1.0 Contributors: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Unita.jpg Original artist: Ceresnet • File:Flag_of_Venezuela.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Flag_of_Venezuela.svg License: Public domain Contributors: official websites Original artist: Zscout370 • File:Flag_of_Vietnam.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Flag_of_Vietnam.svg License: Public domain Contributors: http://vbqppl.moj.gov.vn/law/vi/1951_to_1960/1955/195511/195511300001 http://vbqppl.moj.gov.vn/vbpq/Lists/ Vn%20bn%20php%20lut/View_Detail.aspx?ItemID=820 Original artist: Lưu Ly vẽ lại theo nguồn trên • File:Flag_of_Yemen.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Flag_of_Yemen.svg License: CC0 Contributors: Open Clip Art website Original artist: ? • File:Flag_of_Zimbabwe.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Flag_of_Zimbabwe.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work after www.flag.de Original artist: User:Madden • File:Flag_of_the_Czech_Republic.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Flag_of_the_Czech_Republic. svg License: Public domain Contributors: • -xfi-'s file • -xfi-'s code • Zirland’s codes of colors Original artist: (of code): SVG version by cs:-xfi-. • File:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: Zscout370
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
919
• File:Flag_of_the_People’{}s_Republic_of_China.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Flag_of_the_ People%27s_Republic_of_China.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work, http://www.protocol.gov.hk/flags/eng/n_flag/ design.html Original artist: Drawn by User:SKopp, redrawn by User:Denelson83 and User:Zscout370 • File:Flag_of_the_Philippines.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Flag_of_the_Philippines.svg License: Public domain Contributors: The design was taken from [1] and the colors were also taken from a Government website Original artist: User:Achim1999 • File:Flag_of_the_Republic_of_China.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Flag_of_the_Republic_of_ China.svg License: Public domain Contributors: [1] Original artist: User:SKopp • File:Flag_of_the_Soviet_Union.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Flag_of_the_Soviet_Union.svg License: Public domain Contributors: http://pravo.levonevsky.org/ Original artist: СССР • File:Flag_of_the_United_Arab_Emirates.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Flag_of_the_United_ Arab_Emirates.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ae/Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg License: PD Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a4/Flag_of_the_United_States.svg License: PD Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Flag_of_the_United_States_Navy.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Flag_of_the_United_ States_Navy.svg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.flagpictures.org/downloads/print/usnavy1.svg Original artist: United States Department of the Navy • File:Fleetwings_XBQ-1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Fleetwings_XBQ-1.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: United States Army Air Forces photo Original artist: Unknown • File:Fleetwings_XBQ-2A.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Fleetwings_XBQ-2A.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: United States Army Air Forces Archive Original artist: Unknown • File:Fleetwings_XBQ-2A_front.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Fleetwings_XBQ-2A_front.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: USAAF photo # (USA)3866 Original artist: Unknown • File:Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg License: Cc-bysa-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Fregatte_Sachsen_(F_219).jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Fregatte_Sachsen_%28F_219%29. jpg License: CC BY 2.0 Contributors: originally posted to Flickr as Fregattee SACHSEN Original artist: Bundeswehr-Fotos • File:Front_view_of_an_XM70E2_towed_rocket_launcher.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Front_ view_of_an_XM70E2_towed_rocket_launcher.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: I took a photo of it at an outdoor, US government owned museum Original artist: Jon.jeckell • File:GAM-67_on_B-47.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/GAM-67_on_B-47.png License: CC BY 2.0 Contributors: http://www.flickr.com/photos/63014123@N02/5763239364/in/set-72157626688627341 Original artist: Ryan Crierie • File:GBU-10_xxl.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/GBU-10_xxl.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:GBU-12_xxl.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/GBU-12_xxl.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:GBU-12s_loading_on_F-14.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/GBU-12s_loading_on_F-14.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Navy NewsStand Photo ID: 041211-N-4953E-144 Navy NewsStand Home Original artist: United States Navy, Photographer’s Mate 2nd Class Danny Ewing Jr. • File:GBU-15_xxl.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/GBU-15_xxl.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:GBU-24_xxl.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/GBU-24_xxl.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:GBU-27_xxl.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/GBU-27_xxl.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:GBU-28_xxl.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/GBU-28_xxl.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:GBU-31_xxl.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/GBU-31_xxl.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:GBU-38_munition_explosions_in_Iraq.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/GBU-38_munition_ explosions_in_Iraq.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.flickr.com/photos/soldiersmediacenter/2333229360/in/ photostream/ Original artist: Andy Dunaway • File:GBU-99_AGM-12B_AGM-12C.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/GBU-99_AGM-12B_ AGM-12C.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: en:Image:GBU-99 AGM-12B AGM-12C.jpg Original artist: U.S. military • File:GT-1_on_B-25J.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/GT-1_on_B-25J.png License: Public domain Contributors: USAAF photo A-61220 [1] Original artist: Unknown • File:GTR-18_launch_Crow_Valley_Philippines_1984.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/ GTR-18_launch_Crow_Valley_Philippines_1984.JPEG License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. DefenseImagery photo VIRIN: DF-ST-86-05156 Original artist: SSgt. Daniel D. Perez, USAF • File:GTR-18s_ready_to_launch_Philippines_1984.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/GTR-18s_ ready_to_launch_Philippines_1984.JPEG License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. DefenseImagery photo VIRIN: DF-ST-86-05162 Original artist: SSgt. Daniel D. Perez, USAF
920
CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
• File:Gadsden_flag.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Gadsden_flag.svg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Lexicon, Vikrum • File:Gbu_16_paveway_loading.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Gbu_16_paveway_loading.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gbu_16_paveway_loading.jpg Original artist: uploaded by Avriette • File:Gemini-Titan_11_Launch_-_GPN-2000-001020.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/ Gemini-Titan_11_Launch_-_GPN-2000-001020.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Great Images in NASA (Description) Original artist: NASA/KSC • File:GeminiPatch.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/GeminiPatch.png License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:General_Effects_of_Atomic_Bomb_on_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki.ogv Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ commons/b/b1/General_Effects_of_Atomic_Bomb_on_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki.ogv License: Public domain Contributors: This video was digitized from the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration holdings or another U.S. Federal government source, and made available online by the International Amateur Scanning League and FedFlix, a project of Public.Resource.Org. The digital video file was originally available and sourced from the Internet Archive. Original artist: Department of Defense
• File:German_MEADS_Battle_Manager_0323.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/af/German_MEADS_Battle_Manager_0323.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: MEADS International Original artist: MEADS International
• File:German_MEADS_Launcher_0335.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c9/German_MEADS_Launcher_0335.jpg License: CCBY-SA-3.0 Contributors: MEADS International Original artist: MEADS International
• File:German_helmet.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/German_helmet.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: F l a n k e r
• File:Gimlet_FJ-2_F6F.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Gimlet_FJ-2_F6F.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy photograph via [1] Original artist: USN
• File:Gimlet_on_F2H.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Gimlet_on_F2H.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy via [1] Original artist: Unknown
• File:Goldsboro_Mk_39_Bomb_1-close-up.jpeg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Goldsboro_Mk_39_Bomb_1-close-up. jpeg License: Public domain Contributors: http://2013.riverrunfilm.com/sites/default/files/films/LegendOfTheBuriedBomb.jpg Original artist: U.S. Air Force
• File:Gun-type_fission_weapon_en-labels_thin_lines.svg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Gun-type_fission_weapon_ en-labels_thin_lines.svg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: Based on an illustration by FastFission (Image:Gun-type Nuclear weapon.png) and a modified version by Howard Morland (Image:Gun-Type Fission Weapon.png). The bullet and the target were slighty modified (the bullet was a stack of rings). Original artist: Vector version by Dake with English labels by Papa Lima Whiskey, lines modified by Mfield
• File:HICS_Lines_Connectivity2.PNG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/HICS_Lines_Connectivity2.PNG License: Public domain Contributors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_control_center_(ICBM)#Photo_Gallery Original artist: United States Air Force
• File:HIMARS_-_missile_launched.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/HIMARS_-_missile_launched.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.pentagon.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=24398; exact image source Original artist: U.S. Army photo
• File:HIMARS_DA-SD-07-43938.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/HIMARS_DA-SD-07-43938.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Defense Visual Information Center, United States Department of Defense U.S. Marine Corps photo - released (DOD ID: DA-SD-07-43938, 070601-M-1391M-010) Original artist: LCPL Seth Maggard, USMC
• File:HMAS_Toowoomba_FFH-156_Gulf_of_Oman.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/HMAS_Toowoomba_FFH-156_ Gulf_of_Oman.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 091104-N-3038W-255 (next). This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information. Original artist: Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class John Phillip Wagner Jr.
• File:HNLMS_De_Zeven_Provincien_fires_a_SM-2.jpg
Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/HNLMS_De_Zeven_ Provincien_fires_a_SM-2.jpg License: CC BY-SA 1.0 Contributors: http://www.defensie.nl/actueel/foto/materieel/vaartuigen Original artist: Ministerie van Defensie
• File:Hans_Bethe.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Hans_Bethe.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Los Alamos National Laboratory Original artist: Los Alamos National Laboratory
• File:HardtackOak.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/HardtackOak.JPG License: Public domain Contributors: http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HardtackOak.JPG Original artist: Unknown
• File:Harpoon_asm_bowfin_museum.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Harpoon_asm_bowfin_museum.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: own work by Avriette http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Harpoon_asm_bowfin_museum.jpg Original artist: Avriette
• File:Harpoon_launched_by_submarine.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Harpoon_launched_by_submarine.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ID:DNSC8307009 Original artist: Service Depicted: Navy
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
921
• File:Harpoonlaunch.gif Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Harpoonlaunch.gif License: Public domain Contributors: own work by Darantares http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Harpoonlaunch.gif Original artist: Darantares
• File:Have_Dash_II.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Have_Dash_II.png License: Public domain Contributors: Air Force illustration via [1] Original artist: Unknown
• File:Hawk_CWAR_radar.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Hawk_CWAR_radar.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia; transferred to Commons by User:Common Good using CommonsHelper. Original artist: Original uploader was Megapixie at en.wikipedia
• File:Hawk_System.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Hawk_System.jpg License: CC BY-SA 2.5 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Hawk_launch_better.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Hawk_launch_better.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Hawk_mobile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Hawk_mobile.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Hawk_rada_hpir.jpeg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Hawk_rada_hpir.jpeg License: Public domain Contributors: Defense Visual Information Directorate, Armed Forces Information Services (AFIS). Original artist: SSGT Strausbaugh, Location: MCAS, KANEOHE BAY
• File:Heat-Homing_Rocket_on_AD_Skyraider_c1952.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Heat-Homing_Rocket_on_ AD_Skyraider_c1952.JPG License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy Naval Museum of Armament and Technology [1] Sidewinder photo Original artist: USN
• File:Heinkel_He_111_during_the_Battle_of_Britain.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Heinkel_He_111_during_the_ Battle_of_Britain.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This is photograph MH6547 from the collections of the Imperial War Museums (collection no. 4700-05) Original artist: Unknown
• File:Hellfire-motor-drawing1.gif Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Hellfire-motor-drawing1.gif License: Public domain Contributors: Originally from en.wikipedia; description page is/was here. Original artist: Original uploader was Riddley at en.wikipedia
• File:Hera_rocket_on_launch_pad.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Hera_rocket_on_launch_pad.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Seize the High Ground New Ideas about Space and Missile Defense After the War, 1991-1997, Page 198 (http://www.smdc.army.mil/2008/ Historical/Book/Chap5.pdf) Original artist: US Army
• File:Herbert_York.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Herbert_York.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This image is available from the National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office Photo Library under number PLU-57-004. Original artist: Federal Government of the United States
• File:Hi-Hoe_sounding_rocket_on_F4H_Phantom.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Hi-Hoe_sounding_rocket_on_ F4H_Phantom.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy via [1] and [2] Original artist: Unknown
• File:Hibex.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Hibex.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: HIBEX on http://www. wsmr-history.org/ Original artist: White Sands Missile Range Museum
• File:HibexAction1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/HibexAction1.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: HIBEX Missile in action on http://www.wsmr-history.org/ Original artist: Unknown
• File:High_Virgo.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/69/High_Virgo.jpg License: Fair use Contributors: General Dynamics via [1] Original artist: ?
• File:Hiroshima_Damage_Map.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Hiroshima_Damage_Map.png License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey Original artist: U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, Chairman: Franklin D'Olier (1877-1953)
• File:Honestjohnhillyard.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Honestjohnhillyard.jpg License: CC BY-SA 4.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Spinedork
• File:Hopi_on_AD-5N.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Hopi_on_AD-5N.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy photo via [1] and [2] Original artist: Unknown
• File:Hourglass_drawing.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Hourglass_drawing.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:House_1953_Nevada_Nuclear_Test_5_psi.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/House_1953_Nevada_Nuclear_Test_ 5_psi.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, Editors Samuel Glasstone and Philip Dolan Original artist: US Government
• File:Hughes_Brazo.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/76/Hughes_Brazo.jpg License: Fair use Contributors: Hughes via [1] Original artist: ?
• File:Hvar.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Hvar.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Hydra_70_03.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Hydra_70_03.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Hydra_70_M261.jpeg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Hydra_70_M261.jpeg License: CC BY-SA 2.5 nl Contributors: Own work Original artist: User:Dammit
• File:INF_inspection.JPEG Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/INF_inspection.JPEG License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.defenseimagery.mil; VIRIN: DF-ST-90-00450 Original artist: Jose Lopez
• File:Image-GBU-24_Missile_testmontage-gi_BLU-109_bomb.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Image-GBU-24_ Missile_testmontage-gi_BLU-109_bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: the three images were taken from http://www.dtra.mil/newsservices/ photo_library/RD/RD-1.cfm Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Missile_test_montage.jpg Original artist: uploaded by James Efrem Ringold
922
CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
• File:Interstate_TDR-1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Interstate_TDR-1.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy photograph Original artist: Unknown
• File:Interstate_TDR-1_on_display_at_Naval_Aviation_Museum.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Interstate_TDR-1_ on_display_at_Naval_Aviation_Museum.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: VectorSite [1] Original artist: Greg Goebel
• File:Interstate_TDR-1_three-view_silhouette.png
Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Interstate_TDR-1_three-view_ silhouette.png License: Public domain Contributors: vectorsite.net [1] Original artist: Greg Goebel
• File:Interstate_XBDR-1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/Interstate_XBDR-1.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: NASA [1]; Transferred from en.wikipedia Original artist: NASA. Original uploader was The Bushranger at en.wikipedia, 1 April 2010 (original upload date)
• File:Interstate_XBDR-1_flying.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Interstate_XBDR-1_flying.png License: Public domain Contributors: “XBDR-1 Mock Up,” Interstate Aircraft & Engineering Corp. Rpt No. W 272. National Archives File 72-AC-1B. Original artist: Interstate Aircraft & Engineering Corp.
• File:Interstate_XBDR-1_piloted_side_view.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Interstate_XBDR-1_piloted_side_view. png License: Public domain Contributors: “XBDR-1 Mock Up,” Interstate Aircraft & Engineering Corp. Rpt No. W 272. National Archives File 72-AC-1B. Original artist: Interstate Aircraft & Engineering Corp.
• File:Interstate_XBQ-4.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Interstate_XBQ-4.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: National Archives Original artist: U.S. Army Air Forces
• File:Interstate_XTD3R.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Interstate_XTD3R.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy Naval Aviation News/[1] January 1946, p. 19. Original artist: USN
• File:Irani_F-14_Tomcats_carrying_AIM-54_Phoenixs.jpg
Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Irani_F-14_Tomcats_ carrying_AIM-54_Phoenixs.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.iiaf.net/archive/aircraft/images/f_14__caring_hawk_missle.jpg Original artist: IIAF
• File:IranianMobileHawk.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/IranianMobileHawk.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: http://www.iranmilitaryforum.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=20264.0;attach=40993;image Original artist: M-ATF, from military.ir and iranmilitaryforum.net
• File:Iranian_F-4E_Phantom_II_armed_with_AGM-65_Maverick.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Iranian_F-4E_ Phantom_II_armed_with_AGM-65_Maverick.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.iiaf.net/archive/aircraft/images/f4mavrick_jpg.jpg Original artist: IIAF
• File:Iraq_firefight.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Iraq_firefight.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Israeli_Air_Defense_-_MIM-104D_Patriot_-_pic001.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Israeli_Air_Defense_-_ MIM-104D_Patriot_-_pic001.jpg License: CC BY 4.0 Contributors: File:IAF-Patriot-2014-Chuck-Hagel.jpg Original artist: DoD Photo by Erin A. KirkCuomo, Graphic Proccessing by User:MathKnight
• File:Ivy_King_Blast.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Ivy_King_Blast.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:JASSM_mockup_0048.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/JASSM_mockup_0048.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Photograph by me Original artist: Marco Jansen
• File:JB-2-Ground_Preperation_1944.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/JB-2-Ground_Preperation_1944.png License: Public domain Contributors: 1944 United States Army Film “USA Experimental Activities of AAF"; Army Pitrial Service Original artist: United States Army pictorial service
• File:JB-2_Loon_(V-1_Buzz_Bomb)_USAF.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/JB-2_Loon_%28V-1_Buzz_Bomb%29_ USAF.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:JB-2_in_flight_test_1944.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/JB-2_in_flight_test_1944.png License: Public domain Contributors: 1944 United States Army Film “USA Experimental Activities of AAF"; Army Pitrial Service Original artist: United States Army pictorial service
• File:JB-4_in_shop.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/JB-4_in_shop.png License: Public domain Contributors: United States Army Air Force photo via “International Missile and Spacecraft Guide 1960” and [1] Original artist: Unknown
• File:JDAM_GBU30_MER.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/JDAM_GBU30_MER.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: USAF at [1]; USN at [2] Original artist: USAF
• File:JDAM_family_(1).jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/JDAM_family_%281%29.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/ORD_JDAM_Drawings_lg.jpg Original artist: USAF
• File:Javelin3.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Javelin3.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.redstone. army.mil/history/systems/JAVELIN.html Original artist: ?
• File:Jb2-1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Jb2-1.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia Original artist: Original uploader was Bwmoll3 at en.wikipedia
• File:Jb2-2.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Jb2-2.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia Original artist: Original uploader was Bwmoll3 at en.wikipedia
• File:John_F._Kennedy,_White_House_color_photo_portrait.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/John_F._Kennedy% 2C_White_House_color_photo_portrait.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This media is available in the holdings of the National Archives and Records Administration, cataloged under the ARC Identifier (National Archives Identifier) 194255. Original artist: Cecil Stoughton, White House
• File:Juno_II_rocket.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Juno_II_rocket.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Downloaded from the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Image (MIX) Server: http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/MSFC-5900711.html Original artist: NASA
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
923
• File:Jupiter-C_vs_Jupiter_IRBM.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Jupiter-C_vs_Jupiter_IRBM.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Jupiter_Deployment_Italy.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Jupiter_Deployment_Italy.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
• http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/systems/jupiter/chapter7.html Original artist: ? • File:Jupiter_emplacement.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Jupiter_emplacement.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/systems/jupiter/photos/jupiter.html Original artist: U.S. government
• File:KAN-1_Little_Joe_missile_at_Point_Mugu_c1945.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/KAN-1_Little_Joe_missile_ at_Point_Mugu_c1945.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy All Hands magazine March 1961, p. 8. Original artist: U.S. Navy
• File:KAN_Little_Joe.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/KAN_Little_Joe.png License: CC BY 2.0 Contributors: http:// www.flickr.com/photos/publicresourceorg/493966168/#/ Original artist: Unknown
• File:KUM-1_or_PTV-N-2_Gorgon_IV.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/KUM-1_or_PTV-N-2_Gorgon_IV.jpg License: CC BY 2.0 Contributors: originally posted to Flickr as Missile, Air-to-Air, Drone and Test, Gorgon IV, also Designated KUM-1 or PVT-N-2 Original artist: Cliff
• File:Kepler-solar-system-2.gif Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Kepler-solar-system-2.gif License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Keres-AGM-78-hatzerim-2.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Keres-AGM-78-hatzerim-2.jpg License: CC BY 2.5 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:LAW-1961.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/LAW-1961.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Naval Photograhic Center, Naval District, Washington DC 20374 Original artist: Photographer Roger G. Pineda
• File:LBD-1_glide_bomb_at_NAS_Mojave_1946.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/LBD-1_glide_bomb_at_NAS_ Mojave_1946.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy National Museum of Naval Aviation photo No. 1996.488.002.010 Original artist: U.S. Navy
• File:LGM-30G_Minuteman_III_MIRV.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/LGM-30G_Minuteman_III_MIRV.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/photos/index.asp?galleryID=529&page=4 Original artist: USAF
• File:LOCAT_rocket.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/LOCAT_rocket.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Army via [1] Original artist: Unknown
• File:LTV-N-4_rocket_at_NOTC_Inyokern_in_1949.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/LTV-N-4_rocket_at_NOTC_ Inyokern_in_1949.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy All Hands magazine April 1949, p. 38. Original artist: U.S. Navy
• File:Lacrosse.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Lacrosse.jpg License: wsmr-history.org/Lacrosse.htm Original artist: White Sands Missile Range Museum
Public domain Contributors:
http://www.
• File:Lark_missile_launch_at_NOTS_China_Lake_in_1950s.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Lark_missile_launch_ at_NOTS_China_Lake_in_1950s.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy All Hands magazine March 1956, p. 60. Original artist: U.S. Navy
• File:Larkmissile.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/Larkmissile.png License: PD Contributors: http://dmn.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Lark-missile.jpg Original artist: Smithsoneon
• File:Launch_of_a_RIM-50_Typhon_missile_c1962.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Launch_of_a_RIM-50_Typhon_ missile_c1962.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy All Hands magazine November 1962, p. 33. Original artist: USN
• File:Launched_FIM-92A_Stinger_missile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Launched_FIM-92A_Stinger_missile.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.marines.mil; ID: 5966 (cropped) Original artist: Christopher O'Quin, U.S. Marine Corps
• File:Law_ftbenning_1960_04.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Law_ftbenning_1960_04.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Lazy_dog_bombs.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Lazy_dog_bombs.jpg License: CC BY 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Ikessurplus
• File:Lazy_dog_dispenser.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Lazy_dog_dispenser.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.chinalakealumni.org/1961.htm Original artist: Skyraider
• File:Little_Boy_Internal_Components.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Little_Boy_Internal_Components.png License: GFDL Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Little_Boy_arming_plugs_in_October_2009.JPG Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Little_Boy_arming_plugs_in_ October_2009.JPG License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Nick-D
• File:Little_boy.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Little_boy.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Copy from U.S. National Archives, RG 77-AEC. Chuck Hansen, The Swords of Armageddon: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Development Since 1945 (Sunnyvale, CA: Chukelea Publications, 1995)[1] Original artist: US government DOD and/or DOE photograph
• File:Loading_three_AGM-86_ALCMs.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Loading_three_AGM-86_ALCMs.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.minot.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123400731 Original artist: Senior Airman Kristoffer Kaubisch or Senior Airman Andrew Crawford
• File:Lockheed_Martin_Hellfire_II.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Lockheed_Martin_Hellfire_II.jpg License: CCBY-SA-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Lockheed_Martin_Longbow_Hellfire.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Lockheed_Martin_Longbow_Hellfire.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: Stahlkocher Original artist: ?
924
CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
• File:Lockheed_Martin_headquarters.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Lockheed_Martin_headquarters.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons by User:Kelly using CommonsHelper. Original artist: Coolcaesar at en.wikipedia
• File:Lt_Ayers_and_prototype_AIM-95_1970.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Lt_Ayers_and_prototype_AIM-95_ 1970.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Originally from en.wikipedia; description page is/was here. Original artist: Original uploader was HJ32 at en.wikipedia
• File:Luccaitaly1944.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Luccaitaly1944.png License: Public domain Contributors: This media is available in the holdings of the National Archives and Records Administration, cataloged under the ARC Identifier (National Archives Identifier) 531216. Original artist: Department of Defense. Department of the Army. Office of the Chief Signal Officer.
• File:M-118Bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/M-118Bomb.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Sturmvogel 66
• File:M1134_ATGM_Vehicle_fires_TOW_missile.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/M1134_ATGM_Vehicle_fires_ TOW_missile.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.flickr.com/ Original artist: Soldiers Media Center, United States Army
• File:M117_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/M117_bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: from a PDF document on https://naveodtechdiv.navsea.navy.mil/ Original artist: ?
• File:M139_Sarin_bomblet.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/M139_Sarin_bomblet.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological War -Chapter 2- p. 59 in PDF Original artist: Chemical and Biological Defense Command Historical Research and Response Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD (United States Army)
• File:M202A1.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/M202A1.png License: Public domain Contributors: TM 3-1055-456-12 M202A1 Operator’s Manual. Original artist: US Army
• File:M202_FLASH.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/M202_FLASH.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: United States Army Original artist: Unknown
• File:M60A2_at_AAF_Museum.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/M60A2_at_AAF_Museum.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons by Ain92 using CommonsHelper. Original artist: Yellowute at English Wikipedia
• File:M72-LAW-firing.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/M72-LAW-firing.png License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:M727-Hawk-hatzerim-1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/M727-Hawk-hatzerim-1.jpg License: CC BY 2.5 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:M72A2_LAW_1969.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/M72A2_LAW_1969.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: United States Army Original artist: Mr. Larry Johnson, Photo Facility Branch, Audio-Visuals Department, Ft Lewis Washington
• File:M72_1.gif Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/M72_1.gif License: Public domain Contributors: en.wikipedia; transfer was stated to be made by User:TFCforever. Original artist: Original uploader was Riddley at en.wikipedia
Transferred from
• File:M72_LAW_Vietnam.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/M72_LAW_Vietnam.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.history.army.mil/books/Vietnam/7-ff/Ch6.htm Original artist: Department of Defense
• File:M730-Chapparal-hatzerim-1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/M730-Chapparal-hatzerim-1.jpg License: CC BY 2.5 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:M77_Cluster_Munition_With_Hand.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/M77_Cluster_Munition_With_Hand.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: Jackehammond
• File:MAR-I_radar.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/MAR-I_radar.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www. wsmr-history.org/MAR-I.htm Original artist: US Army
• File:MATADOR.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/MATADOR.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: https://www. patrick.af.mil/45SW/PA/MEDIA/multimedia.htm (cropped and converted from TIFF) Original artist: United States Air Force
• File:MBT-70_Shillelagh_rocket_firing.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/MBT-70_Shillelagh_rocket_firing.JPG License: Public domain Contributors: R.P.Hunnicutt. Abrams. A history of American main battle tank Vol.2. — Presidio Press, 1990. ISBN 0-89141-388-X Original artist: US Army
• File:MEADS_360-Degree_Launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/26/MEADS_360-Degree_Launch.jpg License: CC-BY-SA3.0 Contributors: MEADS International Original artist: MEADS International
• File:MGM-13_Mace.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/MGM-13_Mace.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:MGM-18_Lacrosse_02.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/MGM-18_Lacrosse_02.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Redstone Arsenal Historical Information http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/missiles/lacrosse_02.jpg Original artist: U.S. Army
• File:MGM-51.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/MGM-51.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia; transfer was stated to be made by User:TFCforever. Original artist: Original uploader was Riddley at en.wikipedia
• File:MGM-51_Shillelagh2.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/MGM-51_Shillelagh2.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/M551.html http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/missiles/shillelagh_01.jpg Original artist: US Army
• File:MGM-52_Lance.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/MGM-52_Lance.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http: //www.wsmr-history.org/Lance.htm Original artist: White Sands Missile Range Museum
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
925
• File:MGR-1_Honest_John_02.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/MGR-1_Honest_John_02.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Redstone Arsenal Historical Information http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/missiles/honest_john_03.jpg (original) http://history.redstone.army.mil/miss-honestjohn.html (now) Original artist: U.S. Army
• File:MGR-1_Honest_John_rocket.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/MGR-1_Honest_John_rocket.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/missiles/missiles0007.html Original artist: US military
• File:MGR-3_Little_John_01.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/MGR-3_Little_John_01.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Redstone Arsenal Historical Information http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/missiles/little_john_15jul63_rsa_01.jpg Original artist: U.S. Army
• File:MIM-104_Patriot_Operators.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/MIM-104_Patriot_Operators.png License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: Noclador
• File:MIM-104_Patriot_Radar_unit_JASDF_Iruma_Airbase_2006-2.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/MIM-104_ Patriot_Radar_unit_JASDF_Iruma_Airbase_2006-2.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: Tokoroten 's file Original artist: Tokoro_ten
• File:MIM-14_Nike-Hercules_02.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/MIM-14_Nike-Hercules_02.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Redstone Arsenal Historical Information http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/hercphotos/herc_wsmr_1970_02.jpg Original artist: U.S. Army
• File:MIM-14_Nike-Hercules_11.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/MIM-14_Nike-Hercules_11.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Redstone Arsenal Historical Information http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/hercphotos/nike_herc_40.jpg Original artist: U.S. Army
• File:MIM-23_HAWK_PAR_radar_2.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/MIM-23_HAWK_PAR_radar_2.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:MIM-46_Mauler.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/MIM-46_Mauler.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:MIM-46_Mauler_launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/MIM-46_Mauler_launch.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-46.html Original artist: Unknown
• File:MIM-72_Chaparral_07.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/MIM-72_Chaparral_07.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Redstone Arsenal Historical Information http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/missiles/chaparral_07.jpg Original artist: U.S. Army
• File:MLRS-system.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/MLRS-system.JPEG License: Public domain Contributors: http: //www.defenseimagery.mil; Still Asset Details for DA-SC-84-02320 Original artist: Unknown
• File:MLRS_(Multiple_Launch_Rocket_System)_Vehicles_at_Camp_Bastion,_Afghanistan_MOD_45148148.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia. org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/MLRS_%28Multiple_Launch_Rocket_System%29_Vehicles_at_Camp_Bastion%2C_Afghanistan_MOD_45148148.jpg License: OGL Contributors:
• Photo http://www.defenceimagery.mod.uk/fotoweb/fwbin/download.dll/45153802.jpg Original artist: Cpl Ian Houlding • File:MLRS_05.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/MLRS_05.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.redstone. army.mil/history/archives/mlrs/mlrs_05.jpg Original artist: Unknown
• File:MMIII_C5_airdrop(Oct_1974).jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/27/MMIII_C5_airdrop%28Oct_1974%29.jpg License: PD Contributors: USAF Historical archives Original artist: USAF Minuteman Program Office (crossrich (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC))
• File:MOAB_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/MOAB_bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:MQM-74A_Chukar_launch_US_Navy_1972.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/MQM-74A_Chukar_launch_US_ Navy_1972.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy Naval Aviation News August 1972 [1] Original artist: USN
• File:MQM-74C_Chukar_II_floating.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/MQM-74C_Chukar_II_floating.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ID:NST8505588 Original artist: Service Depicted: Navy
• File:MQM107E.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/MQM107E.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.af.mil/ photos/media_search.asp?q=MQM-107 Original artist: U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Michael Ammons
• File:MQM107EF16.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/MQM107EF16.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http: //www.af.mil/photos/media_search.asp?q=MQM-107 Original artist: U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Michael Ammons
• File:MQR-13_BMTS_launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/MQR-13_BMTS_launch.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Army via [1] Original artist: Unknown
• File:MQR-16A_Gunrunner.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/18/MQR-16A_Gunrunner.jpg License: PD Contributors: Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles (via National Aerospace Education Council) Original artist: unknown
• File:MX-774_missile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/MX-774_missile.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http: //www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/050419-F-1234P-026.jpg Original artist: U.S. Air Force photo
• File:Maintenance_check_on_a_Patriot_missile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Maintenance_check_on_a_Patriot_ missile.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia; transferred to Commons by User:Trixt using CommonsHelper. Original artist: U.S. Army. Original uploader was Lyta79 at en.wikipedia
• File:Maple_Leaf_(from_roundel).svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Maple_Leaf_%28from_roundel%29.svg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors:
926
CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
• Roundel_of_the_Royal_Canadian_Air_Force_(1946-1965).svg Original artist: Roundel_of_the_Royal_Canadian_Air_Force_(1946-1965).svg: F l a n k e r • File:Marder_Roland.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Marder_Roland.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia; transfer was stated to be made by User:High Contrast. Original artist: Original uploader was Edurcastro28 at en.wikipedia
• File:Marines_1st_Battalion,_6th_Marines_in_Marjeh,_Afghanistan.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Marines_1st_ Battalion%2C_6th_Marines_in_Marjeh%2C_Afghanistan.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: [1] Original artist: U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl Andres J. Lugo
• File:Marineshumping2001.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Marineshumping2001.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.pacom.mil Original artist: Sergeant Joseph R. Chenelly, United States Marine Corps
• File:Mark-5-nuclear-bomb-nose-cavity.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/71/Mark-5-nuclear-bomb-nose-cavity.jpg License: PD Contributors: via Scott Carson, @scottcarson1 https://twitter.com/scottcarson1957/status/557730742453944322 Original artist: US Atomic Energy Comission
• File:Mark17CAM.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Mark17CAM.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Image taken by uploader Original artist: Nehrams2020
• File:Mark_28_Thermonuclear_Bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Mark_28_Thermonuclear_Bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1036 Original artist: USAF
• File:Mark_36_nuclear_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Mark_36_nuclear_bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Carey Sublette’s Nuclear Weapons Archive Original artist: Federal Government of the United States
• File:Mark_45_Nuclear_Torpedo.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Mark_45_Nuclear_Torpedo.jpg License: CC BY 2.0 Contributors: originally posted to Flickr as Mark 45 Nuclear Torpedo Original artist: Cliff
• File:Mark_5_nuclear_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Mark_5_nuclear_bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: [1] Original artist: Federal Government of the United States
• File:Mark_77_bomb_loaded_on_FA-18.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Mark_77_bomb_loaded_on_FA-18.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ID:DNST9400999 Original artist: Service Depicted: Navy Camera Operator: PH2 BRUCE TROMBECKY
• File:Mark_7_nuclear_bomb_at_USAF_Museum.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Mark_7_nuclear_bomb_at_USAF_ Museum.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia Original artist: Original uploader was Chairboy at en.wikipedia
• File:Mark_81_bombs.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Mark_81_bombs.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ID: DNST8304608 Original artist: Service Depicted: Marines Camera Operator: MAJ T. CAMPBELL
• File:Mark_83_Bombs.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Mark_83_Bombs.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 041108-N-8704K-002 (next). This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information. Original artist: Service Depicted: Navy Operation / Series: IRAQI FREEDOM Camera Operator: PH3 (AW/SW) JOSHUA KARSTEN, USN
• File:Martin_ASALM.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Martin_ASALM.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Air Force illustration via [1] Original artist: Unknown
• File:Martin_XTM-61_Matador.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Martin_XTM-61_Matador.JPG License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Kirbert
• File:Mc-1_gas_bomb.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Mc-1_gas_bomb.png License: Public domain Contributors: Originally from en.wikipedia; description page is/was here. Original artist: Original uploader was ClockworkSoul at en.wikipedia
• File:Medium_Atomic_Demolition_Munition_(internal).jpg
Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Medium_Atomic_ Demolition_Munition_%28internal%29.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Medium_Atomic_Demolition_Munition_(with_scientists).jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Medium_Atomic_ Demolition_Munition_%28with_scientists%29.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Brookings Institution Original artist: Department of Defense photograph
• File:Mercury_Atlas_9_HR.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Mercury_Atlas_9_HR.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia; transferred to Commons by User:Magnus Manske using CommonsHelper. Original artist: NASA. Original uploader was Bubba73 at en.wikipedia
• File:Mercury_Capsule2.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Mercury_Capsule2.png License: Public domain Contributors: This is a cropped and rotated version of : http://nix.larc.nasa.gov/info?id=S62-04976&orgid=8 Original artist:
• Original uploader was SunKing at en.wikipedia • File:Merge-arrow.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Merge-arrow.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Minuteman3launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Minuteman3launch.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Minuteman_I.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Minuteman_I.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: https://www. patrick.af.mil/45SW/PA/MEDIA/multimedia.htm (converted from TIFF) Original artist: US Air Force
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
927
• File:Minuteman_III_MIRV_path.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Minuteman_III_MIRV_path.svg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/Minuteman.pdf. Completely re-drawn and re-worked from scratch by User:Fastfission in Inkscape. Original artist: Fastfission
• File:Minuteman_III_diagram.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Minuteman_III_diagram.png License: Public domain Contributors: [1] Original artist: User:Acdx
• File:Minuteman_III_in_silo_1989.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Minuteman_III_in_silo_1989.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Minuteman_guidance_computer_(1).jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Minuteman_guidance_computer_%281% 29.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Misil_regulus.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Misil_regulus.JPG License: GFDL Contributors: Own work Original artist: G36
• File:MissileGap_NIE11-8-60.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/MissileGap_NIE11-8-60.png License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0000267734.pdf National Intelligence Estimate 11-8-60 Original artist: US Intelligence Board
• File:Missle_template.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Missle_template.svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: • Kh-35_flight_sketch.svg Original artist: Kh-35_flight_sketch.svg: Allocer • File:Mk-82_xxl.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Mk-82_xxl.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Mk-84_xxl.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Mk-84_xxl.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Mk._81_250-lb_and_Mk._82_Snakeye_I_500-lb.jpg
Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Mk._81_250-lb_and_ Mk._82_Snakeye_I_500-lb.jpg License: CC BY 2.0 Contributors: This file was derived from: Mk. 81, Mk. 82 Bombs (2834533691).jpg: Original artist: Mk._81,_Mk._82_Bombs_(2834533691).jpg: Cliff from I now live in Arlington, VA (Outside Washington DC), USA
• File:Mk11_mark-91-pic1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Mk11_mark-91-pic1.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Mk12.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c9/Mk12.jpg License: PD Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Mk15.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Mk15.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia Original artist: Original uploader was Robartin at en.wikipedia. Later version(s) were uploaded by Ian Dunster at en.wikipedia.
• File:Mk17_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Mk17_bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Mk43.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Mk43.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: en.wikipedia; transfer was stated to be made by Mathonius. Original artist: Original uploader was Georgewilliamherbert at en.wikipedia
Transferred from
• File:Mk44_Lazy_Dog_bomb.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Mk44_Lazy_Dog_bomb.png License: Public domain Contributors: Own scan from Bombs and Bomb Components (TM 9-1325-200) Original artist: Departments of the Army, Navy and Air Force
• File:Mk4_Fat_Man_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Mk4_Fat_Man_bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Mk8-pic1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Mk8-pic1.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Mk8-pic2.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Mk8-pic2.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Mk_14_nuclear_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Mk_14_nuclear_bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Mk_17_thermonuclear_bomb,_Strategic_Air_Command_Memorial_in_Fort_Worth_NAS_JRB,_TX.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/ wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Mk_17_thermonuclear_bomb%2C_Strategic_Air_Command_Memorial_in_Fort_Worth_NAS_JRB%2C_TX.jpg License: CC0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Paul Helton
• File:Mk_28_F1_Thermonuclear_Bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Mk_28_F1_Thermonuclear_Bomb.jpg License: CC BY-SA 2.5 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Hans-Peter Scholz (User:Zwergelstern)
• File:Mk_28_nuclear_bomb_Ellsworth_AFB_1984.JPEG
Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Mk_28_nuclear_bomb_ Ellsworth_AFB_1984.JPEG License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. DefenseImagery [1] photo VIRIN: DF-ST-85-05150 [2] Original artist: TSgt. Boyd Belcher, USAF
• File:Mk_4_FFAR.jpeg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Mk_4_FFAR.jpeg License: CC BY-SA 2.5 nl Contributors: Own work Original artist: User:Dammit
• File:Mk_6_nuclear_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Mk_6_nuclear_bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Mk_6_reentry_vehicle_on_display_at_National_Atomic_Museum.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Mk_6_ reentry_vehicle_on_display_at_National_Atomic_Museum.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/6758/ images/Nam13.jpg Original artist: ?
• File:Mk_84_bomb_explosion_Vietnam_c1972.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Mk_84_bomb_explosion_Vietnam_ c1972.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy photo [1] available on midwaysailor.com Original artist: Bud Taylor, VF-161, USN
• File:Mk_8_nuclear_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Mk_8_nuclear_bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
928
CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
• File:Mobile_Minuteman_train.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Mobile_Minuteman_train.png License: Public domain Contributors: Personal Collection Original artist: US Air Force
• File:Mousetrap_(7.2-Inch_ASW_Rocket).jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Mousetrap_%287.2-Inch_ASW_Rocket% 29.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Mt-Olympus_Nike_Zeus.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/Mt-Olympus_Nike_Zeus.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.williamson-labs.com/kwaj-stories.htm Original artist: US Army
• File:MuseeMarine-sabre-p1000456.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/MuseeMarine-sabre-p1000456.jpg License: CC BY-SA 2.0 fr Contributors: Own work Original artist: Rama
• File:NIKE_AJAX_Anti-Aircraft_Missile_Radar3.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/NIKE_AJAX_Anti-Aircraft_ Missile_Radar3.jpg License: CC BY-SA 2.0 Contributors: Flickr: NIKE AJAX Anti-Aircraft Missile Radar Original artist: brewbooks
• File:NIKE_Zeus.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/NIKE_Zeus.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www. redstone.army.mil/history/chron2b/1957.html Original artist: US Army, Redstone Arsenal
• File:NMUSAF_Tarzon.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/NMUSAF_Tarzon.jpg License: CC BY-SA 2.0 Contributors: https://www.flickr.com/photos/37467370@N08/7466266344/ Original artist: Greg Goebel
• File:Nagasakibomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Nagasakibomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http:// www.archives.gov/research/military/ww2/photos/images/ww2-163.jpg National Archives image (208-N-43888) Original artist: The picture was taken by Charles Levy from one of the B-29 Superfortresses used in the attack.
• File:Navaho_missile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Navaho_missile.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http:// nix.ksc.nasa.gov/info;jsessionid=1jck07ju63ajp?id=MSFC-9142272&orgid=11 Original artist: NASA Marshall Space Flight Center
• File:Naval_Ensign_of_Germany.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Naval_Ensign_of_Germany.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Naval_Ensign_of_Italy.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Naval_Ensign_of_Italy.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Italian Navy web site Original artist: Denelson83
• File:Naval_Ensign_of_Japan.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Naval_Ensign_of_Japan.svg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors:
and File:DSP Z 8702 C.pdf Original artist: David Newton, uploader was Denelson83
• File:Naval_Ensign_of_Pakistan.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Naval_Ensign_of_Pakistan.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Naval_Ensign_of_Thailand.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Naval_Ensign_of_Thailand.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Naval_Ensign_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg
Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Naval_Ensign_of_the_United_ Kingdom.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Naval_Jack_of_Canada.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Naval_Ensign_of_Canada.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Navy_rockets_enlarged.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Navy_rockets_enlarged.png License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy photo via China Lake archives [1] Original artist: Unknown
• File:Nike-missile-family.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Nike-missile-family.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/missiles/missiles.html, http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/missiles/army_family_missiles_ 02.jpg Original artist: United States Army
• File:Nike_Ajax_Marion,_KY_PA250202.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Nike_Ajax_Marion%2C_KY_PA250202. JPG License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Original uploader was Chris Light at en.wikipedia Original artist: Chris Light (talk).
• File:Nike_Ajax_acquisiton_radar.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Nike_Ajax_acquisiton_radar.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: https://airdefense.bliss.army.mil Original artist: Unknown
• File:Nike_Ajax_assembly_line.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Nike_Ajax_assembly_line.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://web.archive.org/web/20040905111521/http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/ajaxphotos/nike_ajax_30.jpg Original artist: US Army Redstone Arsenal
• File:Nike_Ajax_base_aerial_view.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Nike_Ajax_base_aerial_view.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://web.archive.org/web/20040306104150/http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/ajaxphotos/nike_ajax_06.jpg Original artist: US Army Redstone Arsenal
• File:Nike_Ajax_base_on_alert.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Nike_Ajax_base_on_alert.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://web.archive.org/web/20040306104049/http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/ajaxphotos/nike_ajax_01.jpg Original artist: US Army Redstone Arsenal
• File:Nike_Ajax_missile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fe/Nike_Ajax_missile.jpg License: PD Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Nike_Ajax_production_model_test_launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Nike_Ajax_production_model_test_ launch.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://web.archive.org/web/20041025102102/http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/ajaxphotos/ nike_ajax_14.jpg Original artist: US Army Redstone Arsenal
• File:Nike_Ajax_test_launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Nike_Ajax_test_launch.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://web.archive.org/web/20040306104205/http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/ajaxphotos/nike_ajax_07.jpg Original artist: US Army Redstone Arsenal
• File:Nike_Hercules.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Nike_Hercules.jpg License: PD Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Nike_Hercules_Corporal_intercept.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Nike_Hercules_Corporal_intercept.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://history.redstone.army.mil/ihist-1960.html Original artist: US Army
• File:Nike_Hercules_Evolution.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Nike_Hercules_Evolution.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Mythology/Military/NikeHercules.html Original artist: US Army Rocket and Guided Missile Agency
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
929
• File:Nike_Hercules_IFC-functie_overzicht.gif Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Nike_Hercules_IFC-functie_overzicht.gif License: Public domain Contributors: Internet (Information pamphlet on the Nike Hercules missile system) Original artist: USAADS
• File:Nike_Hercules_IFC_radars.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Nike_Hercules_IFC_radars.JPG License: CC BYSA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Butch
• File:Nike_Hercules_Integrated_Fire_Control_area.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Nike_Hercules_Integrated_Fire_ Control_area.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://web.archive.org/web/20040629085219/http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/ hercphotos/nike_herc_46.jpg Original artist: US Army Redstone Arsenal
• File:Nike_Site_SF-88L_Missile_Control.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Nike_Site_SF-88L_Missile_Control.jpg License: CC BY 2.0 Contributors: flickr Original artist: Marcin Wichary
• File:Nike_Zeus_A_test_launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Nike_Zeus_A_test_launch.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.ninfinger.org/models/scaleroc/Nike-Zeus%20A%20antimissile/nza%2001.jpg Original artist: US Army
• File:Nike_Zeus_D_launch_at_Point_Mugu.jpeg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Nike_Zeus_B_launch_at_Point_Mugu. jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://pepperdine.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15730coll8/id/40 Original artist: U. S. Navy Photo
• File:Nike_Zeus_Sign_at_Bldg_4505_COL_Drewry_and_Mr._C_A_Warren_(BTL)_25_Apr_63.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ commons/a/af/Nike_Zeus_Sign_at_Bldg_4505_COL_Drewry_and_Mr._C_A_Warren_%28BTL%29_25_Apr_63.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.smdc.army.mil/smdcphoto_gallery/eagle/feb07/14-N-Z%20Sign%20at%20Bldg%204505%20COL%20Drewry%20and%20Mr.%20C% 20A%20Warren%20(BTL)%2025%20Apr%2063.jpg Original artist: US Army
• File:Nike_Zeus_acquistion_radar_on_Kwajalein_c1962.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Nike_Zeus_acquistion_ radar_on_Kwajalein_c1962.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy All Hands magazine January 1963, p. 8. Original artist: U.S. Navy
• File:Nike_Zeus_static_display_and_test_launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Nike_Zeus_static_display_and_test_ launch.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.ninfinger.org/models/scaleroc/Nike-Zeus%20A%20antimissile/Zeus02.jpg Original artist: US Army
• File:Nike_Zeus_system_illustration.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Nike_Zeus_system_illustration.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKPOF-077-001-p0083.aspx Original artist: US Army
• File:Nike_Zeus_tracking_radars_on_Kwajalein_in_1960s.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Nike_Zeus_tracking_ radars_on_Kwajalein_in_1960s.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Army photo 15-C02-06 from the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command gallery [1] Original artist: U.S. Army
• File:Nike_ajax_32.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Nike_ajax_32.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Redstone Arsenal Historical Information http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/ajaxphotos/nike_ajax_32.jpg Original artist: U.S. Army
• File:Nike_family_01.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Nike_family_01.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Redstone Arsenal Historical Information http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/nikefam/nike_family_04.jpg Original artist: U.S. Army
• File:Nike_family_02.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Nike_family_02.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Redstone Arsenal Historical Information http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/nikefam/nike_family_02.jpg Original artist: U.S. Army
• File:Nike_hercules_us70_2009.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/Nike_hercules_us70_2009.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Zorin09
• File:Nike_missile_former_site_Michigan.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Nike_missile_former_site_Michigan.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Digital Visual Library Image page Image description page Digital Visual Library home page Original artist: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, photographer not specified or unknown
• File:North_American_AGM-28B_Hound_Dog_USAF.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/North_American_AGM-28B_ Hound_Dog_USAF.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:North_Dakota_ANG_female_weapons_handlers_with_AIM-4C_1972.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/North_ Dakota_ANG_female_weapons_handlers_with_AIM-4C_1972.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. DefenseImagery photo VIRIN: DF-SD-0726072 Original artist: USAF
• File:Northrop_AGM-136A_Tacit_Rainbow.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Northrop_AGM-136A_Tacit_Rainbow. jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/090305-F-1234P-003.jpg Original artist: US Air Force photo
• File:Northrop_Boojum_(final).png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Northrop_Boojum_%28final%29.png License: Public domain Contributors: USAF via [1] Original artist: Unknown
• File:Northrop_SM-62_Snark_061218-F-1234P-002.jpg
Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Northrop_SM-62_Snark_ 061218-F-1234P-002.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: US Goverment Original artist: ?
• File:Northrop_SM-62_Snark_061218-F-1234P-006.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Northrop_SM-62_Snark_ 061218-F-1234P-006.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: US Goverment Original artist: ?
• File:Norwegian_javelin.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Norwegian_javelin.jpg License: CC BY 2.0 Contributors: Army Summit 09 (1 of 27) Original artist: Soldatnytt from Oslo, Norway
• File:Nuvola_apps_kaboodle.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Nuvola_apps_kaboodle.svg License: LGPL Contributors: http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/gnome-themes-extras/0.9/gnome-themes-extras-0.9.0.tar.gz Original artist: David Vignoni / ICON KING
• File:O'Brien_firing_Sea_Sparrow.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/O%27Brien_firing_Sea_Sparrow.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy source: U.S. Navy NewsStand photo ID 031105-N-0000D-003 and http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/975.htm Original artist: Ensign Kristin Dahlgren, U.S. Navy
930
CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
• File:Old_NIKE_Missile_radar_dome_with_ravens.JPG Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Old_NIKE_Missile_radar_ dome_with_ravens.JPG License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia Original artist: G.Goodwin Jr.. Original uploader was Slant6guy at en.wikipedia
• File:Old_NIKE_Radar_Tower_@_Arctic_Valley.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ef/Old_NIKE_Radar_Tower_%40_Arctic_ Valley.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: I (Slant6guy:) (talk)) created this work entirely by myself. Original artist: Gerald and Snark
• File:Operation_Castle_-_Romeo_001.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Operation_Castle_-_Romeo_001.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This image is available from the National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office Photo Library under number XX-33. Original artist: United States Department of Energy
• File:Operation_Upshot-Knothole_-_Badger_001.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Operation_Upshot-Knothole_-_ Badger_001.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This image is available from the National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office Photo Library under number XX-34. Original artist: Federal Government of the United States
• File:P-61_GorgonIV_NAN1-48.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/P-61_GorgonIV_NAN1-48.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy Naval Aviation News January 1948 [1] Original artist: USN
• File:PATRIOT_battery_in_Poland,_2010.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/PATRIOT_battery_in_Poland%2C_2010. JPG License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.defenseimagery.mil; VIRIN: 100602-A-2092W-007 Original artist: Lawree Roscoe Washington Jr., U.S. Army
• File:PD-icon.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/62/PD-icon.svg License: PD Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Patriot_PAC3_JASDF_20080518.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Patriot_PAC3_JASDF_20080518.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: Los688
• File:Patriot_System_1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Patriot_System_1.jpg License: CC BY-SA 2.5 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Patriot_System_2.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Patriot_System_2.jpg License: CC BY-SA 2.5 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Patriot_antenna_mast_grp.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Patriot_antenna_mast_grp.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Patriot_antenna_mast_grp.jpg Originally uploaded 06:19, 23 January 2005 (UTC) by Nvinen (talk) to en: Wikipedia (log). Original artist: (This image was downloaded from http://www.jcmd.jte.osd.mil/mini-test.htm PD-USGov-Military)
• File:Patriot_missile_launch_b.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Patriot_missile_launch_b.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Patriot_radar_anmpq53.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Patriot_radar_anmpq53.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This image was downloaded from http://www.jcmd.jte.osd.mil/mini-test.htm . Originally from en.wikipedia; description page is/was here. Original artist: Original uploader was Nvinen at en.wikipedia
• File:Paveway_III_laser_guided_bomb_seeker_head.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Paveway_III_laser_guided_ bomb_seeker_head.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Paveway_III_laser_guided_bomb_seeker_head.jpg Original artist: uploaded by Megapixie
• File:Paveway_II_p1230135.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Paveway_II_p1230135.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Paveway_ILA06.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Paveway_ILA06.JPG License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: axesofevil200
• File:Paveway_IV_Harrier_GR9.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Paveway_IV_Harrier_GR9.jpg License: OGL Contributors: defenceimagery.mod.uk Original artist: Defence Imagery
• File:Peacekeeper-missile-testing.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Peacekeeper-missile-testing.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.smdc.army.mil/SMDCPhoto_Gallery/Missiles/Missiles.html Original artist: David James Paquin (attributed) Original uploader was Solipsist at en.wikipedia
• File:Peacekeeper_RV_vehicles_close_up.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Peacekeeper_RV_vehicles_close_up.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Peacekeeper_Rail_Garrison_Car_-_Dayton_-_kingsley_-_12-29-08.jpg
Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/ Peacekeeper_Rail_Garrison_Car_-_Dayton_-_kingsley_-_12-29-08.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Gregory J Kingsley
• File:Peacekeeper_missile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Peacekeeper_missile.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: • Original source: http://www.af.mil/photos/factsheet_photos.asp?fsID=112 (This link is now dead. See a cached version: [1]) Original artist: United States Air Force
• File:Pegasus_(Topping_model).png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Pegasus_%28Topping_model%29.png License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Gadget850
• File:People_icon.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/People_icon.svg License: CC0 Contributors: OpenClipart Original artist: OpenClipart
• File:Pershing_1B_-_A_Battery_3-84_-_White_Sands_(1986).png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Pershing_1B_-_A_ Battery_3-84_-_White_Sands_%281986%29.png License: Public domain Contributors: United States Army Original artist: United States Army
• File:Pershing_1_launch_(Feb_16,_1966).png Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Pershing_1_launch_%28Feb_16%2C_ 1966%29.png License: Public domain Contributors: Scan of photo Original artist: Warren C. Weaver
• File:Pershing_II_-_4th_test_launch.jpeg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Pershing_II_-_4th_test_launch.jpeg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imagery.html#guid=81894c73d072e83e0badc37ef36695d2eb679d28 Original artist: DoD
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
931
• File:Pershing_and_Redstone.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Pershing_and_Redstone.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Redstone Arsenal Historical Information http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/pershing/pershing_redstone.jpg Original artist: U.S. Army
• File:Pershing_static_burn.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Pershing_static_burn.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Redstone Arsenal Historical Information http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/pershing/pershing_inf_8sep88_01.jpg Original artist: ?
• File:Phoenix_missile_at_Grumman_Memorial_Park.jpg
Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Phoenix_missile_at_ Grumman_Memorial_Park.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: The Wordsmith
• File:Photo_m55_rocket_disassembly_cse.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Photo_m55_rocket_disassembly_cse.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency, see gallery Original artist: U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency
• File:Piper_LBP-1_Glomb.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Piper_LBP-1_Glomb.png License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy photograph from Naval Aviation News [1] via [2] Original artist: Unknown
• File:Plumbbob_John_003.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Plumbbob_John_003.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/photos/photodetails.aspx?ID=446 Original artist: Photo courtesy of National Nuclear Security Administration / Nevada Site Office
• File:Plumbbob_John_Nuclear_Test.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Plumbbob_John_Nuclear_Test.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: nuclearweaponarchive.org [1] Original artist: USAF
• File:Pluto-SLAM.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/Pluto-SLAM.png License: Public domain Contributors: http://www. vectorsite.net/twcruz_3_16.png Original artist: Greg Goebel
• File:Polaris_missile_launch_from_HMS_Revenge_(S27)_1983.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Polaris_missile_ launch_from_HMS_Revenge_%28S27%29_1983.JPEG License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. DefenseImagery photo VIRIN: DF-SC-84-04513 Original artist: USN
• File:Portal-puzzle.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fd/Portal-puzzle.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Pratt-Read_LBE-1_Glomb.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Pratt-Read_LBE-1_Glomb.png License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy photo via [1] Original artist: Unknown
• File:Predator_and_Hellfire.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Predator_and_Hellfire.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.ifpafletcherconference.com/2010/powerpoint/Lance_Mans-Day2-final4web.ppt Original artist: Brigadier Lance Mans, Deputy Director, NATO Special Operations Coordination Centre
• File:Pye_Wacket_missile_prototype_(AEDC_Photo_59-1907-C).jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Pye_Wacket_ missile_prototype_%28AEDC_Photo_59-1907-C%29.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: US Air Force Materiel Command, Arnold Engineering Development Center, PYE WACKET, Photo 59-1907-C Original artist: US Air Force
• File:Question_book-new.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/Question_book-new.svg License: Cc-by-sa-3.0 Contributors: Created from scratch in Adobe Illustrator. Based on Image:Question book.png created by User:Equazcion Original artist: Tkgd2007
• File:RAF-Molesworth-25Jan1989.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/RAF-Molesworth-25Jan1989.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.defenseimagery.mil Original artist: MSGT Patrick Nugent Date: 25 Jan 1989
• File:RAF_Museum_Cosford_-_DSC08475.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/RAF_Museum_Cosford_-_DSC08475. JPG License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Rept0n1x
• File:RARE_cutaway.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/RARE_cutaway.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: NOTS Technical Program Review, 1956, Chapter 6: Propellants and Propulsion for Missiles [1] Original artist: U.S. Naval Ordnance Test Station
• File:RB24B_RB24J_RB27_RB28.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/RB24B_RB24J_RB27_RB28.JPG License: CC BYSA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Adrian R Johansson
• File:RIM-116_Loading.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/RIM-116_Loading.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=59375 Original artist: Mass Communication Specialist Third Class Ann Marie Lazarek
• File:RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missile_Launcher_3.jpg
Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/RIM-116_Rolling_ Airframe_Missile_Launcher_3.jpg License: CC BY-SA 2.5 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Darkone
• File:RIM-24_Tartar_on_USS_Berkeley_(DDG-15)_1970.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/RIM-24_Tartar_on_USS_ Berkeley_%28DDG-15%29_1970.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Official U.S. Navy photograph [1] from the USS Berkeley (DDG-15) 1970 Cruise Book. Original artist: USN
• File:RIM-2_Terrier_on_board_USS_Boston_(CAG-1).jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/RIM-2_Terrier_on_board_ USS_Boston_%28CAG-1%29.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Official U.S. Navy photograph NH 98295, from the collections of the Naval Historical Center. Original artist: USN
• File:RIM-67A_launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/RIM-67A_launch.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http: //www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-67.html Original artist: US Navy
• File:RIM-67B_Standard.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/RIM-67B_Standard.JPEG License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/1988/Navy/DN-SC-88-01299.JPEG Original artist: LT. RAINE
• File:RIM-67_intercepts_Firebee_drone_at_White_Sands_1980.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/RIM-67_intercepts_ Firebee_drone_at_White_Sands_1980.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. DefenseImagery photo VIRIN: DN-SC-82-00008 and DN-SC-82-00009 Original artist: USN
• File:RIM-7_Sea_Sparrow_-_ID_070813-N-4166B-041.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/RIM-7_Sea_Sparrow_-_ID_ 070813-N-4166B-041.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=49454 Original artist: Jordon R. Beesley (Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class)
932
CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
• File:RIM-8_Talos_Test_Firing.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/RIM-8_Talos_Test_Firing.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Official U. S. Navy Photograph Original artist: Paul Malloy
• File:RTV-A-3_NATIV_on_launcher.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/RTV-A-3_NATIV_on_launcher.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: USAF via [1] Original artist: Unknown
• File:RTV-N-15_Pollux.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/RTV-N-15_Pollux.jpg License: CC BY 2.0 Contributors: originally posted to Flickr as Missile, Test, RTV-N-15, also Designated Pollux Original artist: Cliff
• File:Radioactive.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Radioactive.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Created by Cary Bass using Adobe Illustrator on January 19, 2006. Original artist: Cary Bass
• File:RakArtBtl_122_(2).jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/RakArtBtl_122_%282%29.jpg License: CC0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Güwy
• File:Ram_and_HVAR_on_F4U.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Ram_and_HVAR_on_F4U.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Official U.S. Navy photograph 80-G-439903, now in the collections of the U.S. National Archives. Original artist: U.S. Navy
• File:Ram_on_F8F.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Ram_on_F8F.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy via [1] Original artist: Unknown
• File:Recoilless_gun_155mm_Davy_Crockett3.jpg
Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Recoilless_gun_155mm_Davy_ Crockett3.jpg License: CC BY-SA 2.5 Contributors: Own-work, taken at the United States Army Ordnance Museum (Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD) Original artist: Mark Pellegrini
• File:Red_pog.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0c/Red_pog.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Redeye_Surface_to_Air_Missile_06.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Redeye_Surface_to_Air_Missile_06.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Redeye_Surface_to_Air_Missile_Launch.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Redeye_Surface_to_Air_Missile_ Launch.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/missiles/missiles0013.html http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/missiles/redeye_01.jpg Original artist: n/a
• File:Redeye_launcher_comparison.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Redeye_launcher_comparison.png License: Public domain Contributors: From a US GOV PDF file at http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/pdf/redeye/redeye.pdf (History of the Redeye weapon system) Original artist: US Gov
• File:Redstone_04.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Redstone_04.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www. redstone.army.mil/history/archives/redstone/redstone.html Original artist: USGov-Military-Army
• File:Redstone_09.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Redstone_09.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://history. redstone.army.mil/redstone/redstone_09.jpg Original artist: USGov-Military-Army
• File:Regulus_missile.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Regulus_missile.png License: Public domain Contributors: Originally from en.wikipedia; description page is/was here. Original artist: Original uploader was The Epopt at en.wikipedia
• File:Republic-Ford_JB-2_Loon.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Republic-Ford_JB-2_Loon.JPG License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: elliottwolf
• File:Retired_Maj._Gen._Doug_Pearson_and_Capt._Todd_Pearson_in_front_of_an_F-15A_Eagle_both_flew.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia. org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Retired_Maj._Gen._Doug_Pearson_and_Capt._Todd_Pearson_in_front_of_an_F-15A_Eagle_both_flew.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Air Force Original artist: Erik Hogmeyer
• File:Robert_McNamara_official_portrait.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Robert_McNamara_official_portrait.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.defense.gov/photos/newsphoto.aspx?newsphotoid=11425 (http://www.defense.gov/dodcmsshare/ newsphoto/2009-07/hires_PCC-53242.jpg direct link]) Original artist: DoD photo by Oscar Porter, U.S. Army.
• File:RocketSunIcon.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/RocketSunIcon.svg License: Copyrighted free use Contributors: Self made, based on File:Spaceship and the Sun.jpg Original artist: Me
• File:Rockeye_cluster_bomb_after_drop_with_bomblets.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Rockeye_cluster_bomb_ after_drop_with_bomblets.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy Naval Museum of Armament and Technology [1] Rockeye II photo Original artist: USN
• File:Romanian_MIM-23_HAWK.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Romanian_MIM-23_HAWK.jpg License: CC BYSA 2.0 Contributors: originally posted to Flickr as December 1st: Rockets Original artist: nicubunu
• File:Roundel_of_the_USAF.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Roundel_of_the_USAF.svg License: Public domain Contributors: MIL-STD-2161A (AS), DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE STANDARD PRACTICE PAINT SCHEMES AND EXTERIOR MARKINGS FOR US NAVY AND MARINE CORPS AIRCRAFT (1 MAY 1993) and USAF TO 1-1-4, TECHNICAL MANUAL EXTERIOR FINISHES, INSIGNIA AND MARKINGS, APPLICABLE TO USAF AIRCRAFT (CHANGE 6 - 20 MAR 1998). Original artist: Zscout370
• File:SA-2_site_being_blanketed_by_cluster_bombs_from_F-105_Thud_Wild_Weasels.jpg
Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ commons/b/b9/SA-2_site_being_blanketed_by_cluster_bombs_from_F-105_Thud_Wild_Weasels.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/090605-F-1234P-045.jpg Original artist: US Air Force
• File:SADM(cropped).jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/SADM%28cropped%29.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:SAM-7-batey-haosef-1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/SAM-7-batey-haosef-1.jpg License: CC BY 2.5 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:SCAR_tiny.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/SCAR_tiny.png License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy photo via China Lake archives [1] Original artist: Unknown
• File:SDB3.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/SDB3.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.af.mil/shared/ media/photodb/photos/060801-F-2907c-176.jpg Original artist: Master Sgt. Lance Cheung
• File:SFW_CBU-97.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/SFW_CBU-97.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
933
• Self-photographed • Picture taken by my FUJIFLIM Finepix S6500fd. Original artist: User:Texcoco
• File:SIP_rocket.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/SIP_rocket.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www. nawcwpns.navy.mil/clmf/sip.html Original artist: US Navy
• File:SM-2_Block_IV_080605-N-0000X-006.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/SM-2_Block_IV_080605-N-0000X-006. jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/080605-N-0000X-006.jpg Original artist: U.S. Navy photo by the Missile Defense Agency
• File:SM-3_launch_to_destroy_the_NRO-L_21_satellite.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/SM-3_launch_to_destroy_ the_NRO-L_21_satellite.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=55403 Original artist: Unknown
• File:SM-65_Atlas_Missile_Sites.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/SM-65_Atlas_Missile_Sites.png License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Bwmoll3
• File:SM_2060315-N-4884C-025.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/SM_2060315-N-4884C-025.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.navy.mil/view_photos_top.asp Original artist: U.S. Navy
• File:SSM-N-8_Regulus_I_on_display_at_Bowfin_Park.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/SSM-N-8_Regulus_I_on_ display_at_Bowfin_Park.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: own work by Avriette http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1622543_9777f49991_o.jpg Original artist: Avriette
• File:Schweizer_Armee_Dragon_PAL.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Schweizer_Armee_Dragon_PAL.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Own photograph. Shot at the Army Days 2006 (Heerestage 2006) in Thun. Original artist: Wikimedia Commons user TheBernFiles.
• File:SeaRAM_1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/SeaRAM_1.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: US Navy Original artist: US Navy
• File:Sea_Sparrow_Mark115_Fire_Control_Director.JPEG Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Sea_Sparrow_Mark115_ Fire_Control_Director.JPEG License: Public domain Contributors: ID:DNSC8706132 Original artist: Service Depicted: Navy
• File:Sea_Sparrow_Mark_91_FCS.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Sea_Sparrow_Mark_91_FCS.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ID:DNST9004632 Original artist: Service Depicted: Navy Camera Operator: PH2 TRACY LEE DIDAS
• File:Seal_of_the_US_Air_Force.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Seal_of_the_US_Air_Force.svg License: Public domain Contributors: SVG created from this image Original artist: Arthur E. DuBois, according to [1]
• File:Searchtool.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/61/Searchtool.svg License: ? Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Seekbat.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Seekbat.jpg License: designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-97.html Original artist: USAF
Public domain Contributors:
http://www.
• File:Sergeant_missile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Sergeant_missile.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Shavetail.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Shavetail.jpg License: wsmr-history.org/Shavetail.htm Original artist: White Sands Missile Range Museum
Public domain Contributors:
http://www.
• File:Shoulder-launched_Multipurpose_Assault_Weapon.jpg
Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Shoulder-launched_ Multipurpose_Assault_Weapon.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Shuttle.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Shuttle.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Sidewider_missile_20040710_145400_1.4.jpg
Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Sidewider_missile_20040710_ 145400_1.4.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Sidewinder9Xfirst_launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f7/Sidewinder9Xfirst_launch.jpg License: PD Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:SidewinderBOA.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/SidewinderBOA.jpg License: PD Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Sidewinder_1A+1C.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9a/Sidewinder_1A%2B1C.jpg License: PD Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Sidewinder_Fin.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/Sidewinder_Fin.JPG License: CC BY-SA 4.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Muraer
• File:Sm2-Launch-USN.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Sm2-Launch-USN.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia Original artist: Original uploader was TomD1939 at en.wikipedia
• File:Small_ICBM_Hard_Mobile_Launcher_USAF.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Small_ICBM_Hard_Mobile_ Launcher_USAF.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=541 Original artist: Unknown
• File:Snark.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Snark.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Greg Hume
• File:Snark_rocket.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Snark_rocket.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: https://www. patrick.af.mil/45SW/PA/MEDIA/multimedia.htm (cropped and converted from TIFF) Original artist: US Air Force
• File:Soldier_with_Bazooka_M1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Soldier_with_Bazooka_M1.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This image is available from the United States Library of Congress's Prints and Photographs division under the digital ID cph.135435. This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information. Original artist: U.S. Army Signal Corps photograph..
• File:Sparrow_III_launch_F3H-2M_NAN2-59.jpg
Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Sparrow_III_launch_F3H-2M_ NAN2-59.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy Naval Aviation News February 1959 [1] Original artist: USN
934
CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
• File:Sprint-i-box.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Sprint-i-box.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www. designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/sprint.html Original artist: US Army employee
• File:Sprint_missile_maneuvering_after_launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Sprint_missile_maneuvering_after_ launch.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.smdc.army.mil/smdcphoto_gallery/Missiles/121-SprintSystemTestM2-48.jpg Original artist: US Army
• File:Squirt_missile_leaving_the_launcher.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Squirt_missile_leaving_the_launcher.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.wsmr-history.org/Squirt1.htm Original artist: US Army
• File:Standard_Missile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Standard_Missile.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ID:DNSC8410094 Original artist: Service Depicted: Navy Command Shown: N0537 Camera Operator: DON MUHM
• File:Standard_Missile_-_ID_060730-N-8977L-012.jpg
Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Standard_Missile_-_ID_ 060730-N-8977L-012.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=37663 Original artist: Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Johansen Laurel
• File:StingerMissile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/StingerMissile.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Stinger_Crew_Operation_Desert_Shield.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Stinger_Crew_Operation_Desert_ Shield.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.flickr.com/photos/imcomkorea/3017966586/in/set-72157608801255735/ Original artist: SSGT F. LEE CORKRAN
• File:Subroc_Anti-Submarine_Missile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Subroc_Anti-Submarine_Missile.jpg License: CC BY 2.0 Contributors: originally posted to Flickr as Missile, Anti-Submarine, Subroc Original artist: Cliff
• File:T-12-USORDMUS.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/T-12-USORDMUS.JPG License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia; transferred to Commons by User:PMG using CommonsHelper. Original artist: Original uploader was DJBR at en.wikipedia
• File:T-34-rocket-launcher-France.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/T-34-rocket-launcher-France.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://library.uwa.edu/Special%20Collections/WW2%20Postcards/Signal_Corp/DefaultSC.asp Original artist: Unknown
• File:T37_rocket.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/T37_rocket.png License: Public domain Contributors: Technical Manual TM9-296 Original artist: U.S. War Department
• File:T66_launcher.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/T66_launcher.png License: Public domain Contributors: Technical Manual TM9-392, page 3 Original artist: United States War Department
• File:TG9181003d.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/TG9181003d.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: US Air Force Original artist: US Air Force
• File:THAAD_Launcher.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/THAAD_Launcher.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:TM-61C_Matador_at_Gatow.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/TM-61C_Matador_at_Gatow.JPG License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: MoRsE
• File:TM-61_Matador_missile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/TM-61_Matador_missile.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This Image was released by the United States Air Force with the ID 091204-F-1234S-001 (next). This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information. Original artist: USAF
• File:TM-76_Mace_missile_by_Mike_Hazzard.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/TM-76_Mace_missile_by_Mike_ Hazzard.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work, upload per OTRS Original artist: Mike Hazzard
• File:TOW_fired_from_Jeep.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/TOW_fired_from_Jeep.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:TV_3516_Asagiri.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/TV_3516_Asagiri.JPG License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: George.Hutchinson
• File:Tank_template.gif Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Tank_template.gif License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Tarzon_loaded_on_B-29.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Tarzon_loaded_on_B-29.png License: Public domain Contributors: USAF via [1] Original artist: Unknown
• File:Taylorcraft_LBT-1_Glomb.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e4/Taylorcraft_LBT-1_Glomb.png License: Fair use Contributors: Taylorcraft Foundation, collection of Mr. Forrest Barber [1] Original artist: ?
• File:Tems11.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Tems11.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Text_document_with_red_question_ mark.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Created by bdesham with Inkscape; based upon Text-x-generic.svg from the Tango project. Original artist: Benjamin D. Esham (bdesham)
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
935
• File:The_Rockets_Red_Glare-U.S._Marines_launch_a_4.5_rocket_barrage_against_the_Chinese_Communists_in_the_Korean_fighting._-_ NARA_-_532422.tif Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/The_Rockets_Red_Glare-U.S._Marines_launch_a_4.5_rocket_ barrage_against_the_Chinese_Communists_in_the_Korean_fighting._-_NARA_-_532422.tif License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. National Archives and Records Administration Original artist: Unknown or not provided
• File:Thor_IRBM.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Thor_IRBM.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: https://www. patrick.af.mil/45SW/PA/MEDIA/multimedia.htm (cropped and converted from TIFF) Original artist: US Air Force
• File:Thor_Raf_launch_3aug59.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8c/Thor_Raf_launch_3aug59.jpg License: PD Contributors: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/thor.htm Original artist: USAF
• File:Tiny_tim_ar.GIF Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Tiny_tim_ar.GIF License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Naval Weapons Center China Lake Weapons digest, official U.S. Navy photo [1] Original artist: USN
• File:Titan2_color_silo.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Titan2_color_silo.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Air Force photo in: U. S. Air Force Space and Missile History Office - Historical Overview of the Space and Missile Systems Center - Ballistic Missiles, p. 19 [1]; downloaded from en.wikipedia, original uploader User:Reubenbarton. Original artist: USAF
• File:Titan_1_ICBM.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Titan_1_ICBM.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http: //www.losangeles.af.mil/photos/mediagallery.asp?id=$-$1&page=1&count=48 (image link) Original artist: U.S. Air Force
• File:Titan_23G_launches_Clementine.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Titan_23G_launches_Clementine.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Titan_23G_rocket.gif Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Titan_23G_rocket.gif License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Titan_II_launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Titan_II_launch.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. DefenseImagery photo VIRIN: DF-ST-84-06932; National Museum of the U.S. Air Force photo 140124-F-DW547-006 Original artist: U.S. DoD
• File:Titan_IVB_launching_Lacrosse_satellite.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/Titan_IVB_launching_Lacrosse_ satellite.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imagery.html#guid=418188f210a4a9a0b5da16711e9fbd8197f4b2ad Original artist: U.S. Air Force/Staff Sgt. Pamela Taubman
• File:Titan_I_Cordele,_GA.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Titan_I_Cordele%2C_GA.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Bubba73
• File:Titan_I_close_up.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Titan_I_close_up.JPG License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Bubba73
• File:Titan_I_engine.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Titan_I_engine.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Bubba73
• File:Titan_Missile_Family.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Titan_Missile_Family.png License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Tomahawk_Block_IV_cruise_missile_-crop.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Tomahawk_Block_IV_cruise_
missile_-crop.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
• Tomahawk_Block_IV_cruise_missile.jpg Original artist: • derivative work: The High Fin Sperm Whale • File:Tomahawk_Operators.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Tomahawk_Operators.svg License: CC0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Silver Spoon
• File:Tory_II-A_nuclear_ramjet_engine.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Tory_II-A_nuclear_ramjet_engine.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Nevada National Security Site Tour Booklet, part 3 Original artist: Federal Government of the United States.
• File:Tory_II-C_nuclear_ramjet_engine.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Tory_II-C_nuclear_ramjet_engine.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Nevada National Security Site Tour Booklet, part 3 Original artist: Federal Government of the United States.
• File:Tow_atm.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Tow_atm.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: [1] from http://www. wsmr-history.org/ Original artist: White Sands Missile Range Museum
• File:Trident-C-4.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Trident-C-4.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www. navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=9430 Original artist: US Navy
• File:TridentMissileSystem.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/TridentMissileSystem.png License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: Originally from en.wikipedia; description page is/was here. Original artist: Original uploader was WikipedianProlific at en.wikipediabr/> (Original text : en:User:WikipedianProlific)
• File:Trident_C4_first_launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Trident_C4_first_launch.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Trident_II_missile_image.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Trident_II_missile_image.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: High Res image from Lockheed Martin NOTE: According to NTI, this image is a U.S. Department of Defense photo, therefore is in the public domain. Also here, on US Navy web site Original artist: Unknown
• File:UGM-109_hits_target_on_San_Clemente_Island_1986.JPEG
Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/UGM-109_ hits_target_on_San_Clemente_Island_1986.JPEG License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. DefenseImagery photo VIRIN: DN-SC-86-06115 and DN-SC-86-06115 Original artist: USN
• File:USA-stub.PNG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/USA-stub.PNG License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: Bahamut0013
• File:USAF-stub.PNG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/USAF-stub.PNG License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: Bahamut0013
936
CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
• File:USAF_AIM-9M-9_DF-SD-07-01080.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a7/USAF_AIM-9M-9_DF-SD-07-01080.jpg License: PD Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:USAF_F-15C_fires_AIM-7_Sparrow.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/USAF_F-15C_fires_AIM-7_Sparrow.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This Image was released by the United States Air Force with the ID 050119-F-7709A-023 (next). This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information. Original artist: U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Michael Ammons
• File:USAF_ICBM_and_NASA_Launch_Vehicle_Flight_Test_Successes_and_Failures_(highlighted).png
Source: http://upload.wikimedia. Liorg/wikipedia/commons/6/67/USAF_ICBM_and_NASA_Launch_Vehicle_Flight_Test_Successes_and_Failures_%28highlighted%29.png cense: Public domain Contributors: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770078693_1977078693.pdf (pg10of44) http: //naca.larc.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19770078693 Title: Apollo launch-vehicle man-rating: Some considerations and an alternative contingency plan Original artist: Harris, E. D.; Brom, J. R.
• File:USAF_MOP_test_release_crop.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/USAF_MOP_test_release_crop.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dod_dtra/4327700817/ Original artist: DoD photo
• File:USAF_logo.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/USAF_logo.png License: Public domain Contributors: http://www. dobbins.afrc.af.mil/shared/media/ggallery/hires/AFG-060112-014.jpg Original artist: USAF
• File:USMC-120517-M-YE622-006.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/USMC-120517-M-YE622-006.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This Image was released by the United States Marine Corps with the ID 120517-M-YE622-006 (next). This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information. Original artist: Lance Cpl. Benjamin Pryer
• File:USN-stub.PNG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/USN-stub.PNG License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: Bahamut0013
• File:USSNorfolkDL1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/USSNorfolkDL1.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Originally from en.wikipedia; description page is/was here. Original artist: Original uploader was Ahseaton at en.wikipedia
• File:USS_Cusk;0834807.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/USS_Cusk%3B0834807.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08348.htm USN photo courtesy of http://ussubvetsofwwii.org Original artist: Unknown
• File:USS_Forrestal_explosion_29_July_1967.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/USS_Forrestal_explosion_29_July_
1967.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID USN 1124794 1124794#mw-category-media (next). This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information. Original artist: Official U.S. Navy Photograph
• File:USS_John_Paul_Jones_(DDG-53)_launches_RIM-174_June_2014.JPG Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/USS_ John_Paul_Jones_%28DDG-53%29_launches_RIM-174_June_2014.JPG License: Public domain Contributors: This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 140619-N-ZZ999-167 (next). This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information. Original artist: U.S. Navy photo
• File:USS_Lake_Erie_(CG-70)_SM-3_start.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/USS_Lake_Erie_%28CG-70%29_SM-3_ start.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=45496 Original artist: Lt. Chris Bishop Deputy Director, U.S. Navy photo (RELEASED)
• File:USS_Los_Angeles_(CA135)_Regulus_h97391.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/USS_Los_Angeles_%28CA135% 29_Regulus_h97391.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Official U.S. Navy Photograph, from the collections of the Naval Historical Center NH 97391 Original artist: USN
• File:USS_Mahan_SM-2ER_on_the_rail.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/USS_Mahan_SM-2ER_on_the_rail.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ID:DNSN8306748 Original artist: Service Depicted: Navy
• File:USS_New_Orleans_(LPD-18)_launches_RIM-116_missile_2013.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/USS_New_ Orleans_%28LPD-18%29_launches_RIM-116_missile_2013.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 130521-N-YR391-001 (next). This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information. Original artist: U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Gary Granger Jr.
• File:USS_Theodore_Roosevelt_conducts_a_live-fire_exercise.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/USS_Theodore_ Roosevelt_conducts_a_live-fire_exercise.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: https://www.flickr.com/photos/usnavy/14989078441/ Original artist: (U.S. Navy photo/Released) 140818-N-ZZ999-003
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
937
• File:USS_Tunny_SSG-282_Regulus1_launch_NAN9-58.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/USS_Tunny_SSG-282_ Regulus1_launch_NAN9-58.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy Naval Aviation News September 1958 [1] Original artist: USN
• File:USS_Worden_CG-18_Mark_10_launcher.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/USS_Worden_CG-18_Mark_10_ launcher.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Service Depicted: Navy Camera Operator: PH2 MICHAEL D.P. FLYNN Original artist: ?
• File:US_Navy_020227-N-2722F-030_USS_Stennis_-_JDAM.jpg
Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/US_Navy_ 020227-N-2722F-030_USS_Stennis_-_JDAM.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 020227-N-2722F-030 (next). This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information. Original artist: U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate 2nd Class James A. Farrally II.
• File:US_Navy_020705-N-5055W-006_RIMPAC_2002.jpg
Source: 020705-N-5055W-006_RIMPAC_2002.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/US_Navy_
This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 020705-N-5055W-006 (next). This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information. Original artist: U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate 2nd Class Jane West.
• File:US_Navy_030319-N-4142G-020_Ordnance_handlers_assemble_Joint_Direct_Attack_Munition_(JDAM)_bombs_in_the_forward_mess_ decks.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/US_Navy_030319-N-4142G-020_Ordnance_handlers_assemble_Joint_Direct_ Attack_Munition_%28JDAM%29_bombs_in_the_forward_mess_decks.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 030319-N-4142G-020 (next). This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information. Original artist: U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate Second Class Felix Garza Jr.
• File:US_Navy_030321-N-3235P-510_On_the_flight_deck_aboard_the_aircraft_carrier_USS_Harry_S._Truman_(CVN-75),_2000_lbs_GBU-31_ Joint_Direct_Attack_Munitions_(JDAM)_are_transported_to_the_flight_deck.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/ US_Navy_030321-N-3235P-510_On_the_flight_deck_aboard_the_aircraft_carrier_USS_Harry_S._Truman_%28CVN-75%29%2C_2000_lbs_GBU-31_ Joint_Direct_Attack_Munitions_%28JDAM%29_are_transported_to_the_flight_deck.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 030321-N-3235P-510 (next). This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information. Original artist: Photographer’s Mate 1st Class Michael W. Pendergrass / U.S. Navy
• File:US_Navy_030830-N-6187M-001_Sailors_remove_a_hoisting_sling_from_an_ammo_crate_carrying_2000-pound_Mark_84_general_ purpose_bombs.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/US_Navy_030830-N-6187M-001_Sailors_remove_a_hoisting_sling_ from_an_ammo_crate_carrying_2000-pound_Mark_84_general_purpose_bombs.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 030830-N-6187M-001 (next). This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information. Original artist: U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate 3rd Class Lance H. Mayhew, Jr.
• File:US_Navy_040205-N-5859A-001_An_F-A-18E_Super_Hornet_assigned_to_the_Eagles_of_Strike_Fighter_Squadron_One_One_Five_ (VFA-115)_carries_ten_Mark_83_bombs.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/US_Navy_040205-N-5859A-001_An_ F-A-18E_Super_Hornet_assigned_to_the_Eagles_of_Strike_Fighter_Squadron_One_One_Five_%28VFA-115%29_carries_ten_Mark_83_bombs.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 040205-N-5859A-001 (next). This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information. Original artist: U.S. Navy photo by Lt. j.g. Matthew Abbot.
• File:US_Navy_040429-N-1082Z-116_Aviation_Ordnanceman_Airman_Lauren_Carr,_from_Atlanta,_Ga.,_puts_a_switch_on_a_2,000_lbs_ MK-84_general-purpose_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/US_Navy_040429-N-1082Z-116_Aviation_ Ordnanceman_Airman_Lauren_Carr%2C_from_Atlanta%2C_Ga.%2C_puts_a_switch_on_a_2%2C000_lbs_MK-84_general-purpose_bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 040429-N-1082Z-116 (next). This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information. Original artist: U.S. Navy photo
• File:US_Navy_041128-N-5345W-016_Aviation_Ordnanceman_3rd_Class_William_Miller_arms_a_AGM-65_Maverick_laser-guided_missile. jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/US_Navy_041128-N-5345W-016_Aviation_Ordnanceman_3rd_Class_William_Miller_ arms_a_AGM-65_Maverick_laser-guided_missile.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
938
CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 041128-N-5345W-016 (next). This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information. Original artist: U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate Airman Kristopher Wilson
• File:US_Navy_050327-N-6694B-001_An_F-A-18C_Hornet_rolls_into_a_turn_while_flying_a_combat_mission_over_Iraq.jpg
Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/US_Navy_050327-N-6694B-001_An_F-A-18C_Hornet_rolls_into_a_turn_while_flying_a_ combat_mission_over_Iraq.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 050327-N-6694B-001 (next). This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information. Original artist: U.S. Navy photo by Cmdr. Don Berry
• File:US_Navy_080714-N-8135W-176_The_Canadian_frigate_HMCS_Regina_(FFH_334)_fires_a_Harpoon_anti-ship_missile_during_a_Rim_ of_the_Pacific_(RIMPAC)_sinking_exercise.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/US_Navy_080714-N-8135W-176_ The_Canadian_frigate_HMCS_Regina_%28FFH_334%29_fires_a_Harpoon_anti-ship_missile_during_a_Rim_of_the_Pacific_%28RIMPAC%29_ sinking_exercise.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 080714-N-8135W-176 (next). This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information. Original artist: U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Kirk Worley
• File:US_Navy_081120-N-0000X-001_Members_of_USS_Fitzgerald’{}s_(DDG_62)_Harpoon_handling_team_carefully_lower_an_all-up-round_ Harpoon_missile_into_its_launch_rack_on_the_aft_VLS_deck_during_ammunition_onload_operations.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/ wikipedia/commons/1/1b/US_Navy_081120-N-0000X-001_Members_of_USS_Fitzgerald%27s_%28DDG_62%29_Harpoon_handling_team_carefully_ lower_an_all-up-round_Harpoon_missile_into_its_launch_rack_on_the_aft_VLS_deck_during_ammunition_onload_operations.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 081120-N-0000X-001 (next). This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information. Original artist: U.S. Navy photo by Ensign James Lamb
• File:US_Navy_090929-N-2515C-443_The_amphibious_transport_dock_ship_USS_Green_Bay_(LPD_20)_fires_a_surface-to-air_intercept_ missile_from_the_Rolling_Airframe_Missile_(RAM)_launcher_during_Combat_System_Ship_Qualification_Trials_off_t.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/US_Navy_090929-N-2515C-443_The_amphibious_transport_dock_ship_USS_Green_Bay_ %28LPD_20%29_fires_a_surface-to-air_intercept_missile_from_the_Rolling_Airframe_Missile_%28RAM%29_launcher_during_Combat_System_ Ship_Qualification_Trials_off_t.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 090929-N-2515C-443 (next). This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information. Original artist: U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Larry S. Carlson
• File:US_Navy_980220-N-0507F-003_U.S._Marine_Corps_Lance_Cpl._Leander_Pickens_arms_an_AIM-9_Sidewinder_missile_on_a_FA-18C_ Hornet.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/US_Navy_980220-N-0507F-003_U.S._Marine_Corps_Lance_Cpl._Leander_ Pickens_arms_an_AIM-9_Sidewinder_missile_on_a_FA-18C_Hornet.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 980220-N-0507F-003 (next). This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information. Original artist: DoD photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Brian Fleske, U.S. Navy
• File:US_Pacific_Army_and_Indian_Army_soldiers_during_a_joint_session_in_India,_2009.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ commons/4/46/US_Pacific_Army_and_Indian_Army_soldiers_during_a_joint_session_in_India%2C_2009.jpg License: CC BY 2.0 Contributors: Flickr: Eyes on target Original artist: The U.S. Army
• File:US_Rim-8g_missile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/US_Rim-8g_missile.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: en:Image:US Rim-8g missile.jpg Original artist: U.S. Navy
• File:US_Surveillance_Radar_in_Test_at_White_Sands_0563a.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/31/US_Surveillance_Radar_in_ Test_at_White_Sands_0563a.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: MEADS International Original artist: MEADS International
• File:US_flag_48_stars.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/US_flag_48_stars.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work based on PD info Original artist: Created by jacobolus using Adobe Illustrator.
• File:US_pilot_mock-sings_as_missile_hits_target.theora.ogv Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/US_pilot_mock-sings_as_ missile_hits_target.theora.ogv License: Public domain Contributors: RT http://www.rt.com/news/american-pilot-target-video-582/, originally from LIVELEAK.COM) Original artist: 101st Airborne pilot identified only as “Mexican”
• File:UUM-44_SUBROC_launch_sequence_c1964.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/UUM-44_SUBROC_launch_ sequence_c1964.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy All Hands magazine December 1964, p. 12. Original artist: U.S. Department of Defense
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
939
• File:United_States_Department_of_Defense_Seal.svg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/United_States_Department_of_ Defense_Seal.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: United States Department of Defense
• File:United_States_Department_of_the_Army_Seal.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Emblem_of_the_United_States_ Department_of_the_Army.svg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.defense.gov/multimedia/web_graphics/ Original artist: U.S. Dept. of Defense
• File:United_States_Department_of_the_Navy_Seal.svg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Seal_of_the_United_States_ Department_of_the_Navy.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Keeleysam Original artist: United States Army Institute Of Heraldry
• File:UnrestoredMatadorAtCAM.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/UnrestoredMatadorAtCAM.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work by Sadosrch, originally uploaded on en.wiki as en:File:UnrestoredMatadorAtCAM.JPG Original artist: Shawn Dorsch, (Sadosrch)
• File:Usa_edcp_location_map.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Usa_edcp_location_map.svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Uwe Dedering
• File:Uum-125a.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Uum-125a.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www. designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-125.html Original artist: See citation -- Drawing: U.S. Navy
• File:VB-1_Azon_2_(ORDATA).jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/VB-1_Azon_2_%28ORDATA%29.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://maic.jmu.edu/ordata/srdetaildesc.asp?ordid=3858 Original artist: Unknown
• File:VB-6_Felix_Guided_Bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/VB-6_Felix_Guided_Bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1046 Original artist: United States Air Force
• File:VLAlaunch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/VLAlaunch.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www. chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/missiles/wep-vla.html Original artist: No photo credit on web page
• File:Viper_002.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Viper_002.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www. redstone.army.mil/history/archives/viper_001.jpg Original artist: United States Army
• File:W53_nuclear_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/W53_nuclear_bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/ Original artist: DOE or USAF
• File:Walleye_rednose_navy_photo.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Walleye_rednose_navy_photo.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:West_Point_Cadets_and_Nike_Zeus.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/West_Point_Cadets_and_Nike_Zeus.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.smdc.army.mil/smdcphoto_gallery/eagle/feb07/15-West%20Point%20Cadets%20and%20Nike%20Zeus. jpg Original artist: US Army
• File:Wet_eye_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Wet_eye_bomb.jpg License: CC BY 2.0 Contributors: http://www. flickr.com/photos/armymaterielcommand/878617642/ Original artist: U.S. Army Materiel Command
• File:Wfm_thaad_diagram.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Wfm_thaad_diagram.svg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.mda.mil/global/images/system/thaad/38112.pdf Original artist: US Government
• File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors:
• Wiki_letter_w.svg Original artist: Wiki_letter_w.svg: Jarkko Piiroinen • File:Wikinews-logo.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Wikinews-logo.svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: This is a cropped version of Image:Wikinews-logo-en.png. Original artist: Vectorized by Simon 01:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Updated by Time3000 17 April 2007 to use official Wikinews colours and appear correctly on dark backgrounds. Originally uploaded by Simon.
• File:Wikisource-logo.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Reiartur Original artist: Nicholas Moreau
• File:XAGM-53_Condor_missile_1973.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/XAGM-53_Condor_missile_1973.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia Original artist: U.S. Navy. Original uploader was MarcoLittel at en.wikipedia 13 September 2009 (original upload date)
• File:XASM-N-8_Corvus_at_China_Lake_c1958.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/XASM-N-8_Corvus_at_China_ Lake_c1958.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy photo [1] via chinalakealumni.org Original artist: USN
• File:XASM-N-8_Corvus_missile_drawings_1957.PNG Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/XASM-N-8_Corvus_missile_ drawings_1957.PNG License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy Missile System Characteristics A4D-2 Skyhawk - XASM-N-8 Corvus [1] available at Alternatewars.com Original artist: USN
• File:XF3D-1_AAM-N-2_NAN7-54.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/XF3D-1_AAM-N-2_NAN7-54.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy Naval Aviation News July 1954 [1] Original artist: USN
• File:XGAM-71_Buck_Duck_decoy_missile_on_B-29_mothership_launch_pylon.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/ XGAM-71_Buck_Duck_decoy_missile_on_B-29_mothership_launch_pylon.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia Original artist: Original uploader was Olly lewis at en.wikipedia
• File:XM157_Rocket_Pod.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/XM157_Rocket_Pod.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: US Army FM 1-40 Attack Helicopter Gunnery Original artist: ?
• File:XM158_Rocket_Pod.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/XM158_Rocket_Pod.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: US Army FM 1-40 Attack Helicopter Gunnery Original artist: ?
• File:XM70E2_breach.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/XM70E2_breach.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Jon.jeckell
• File:XM70E2_revolver.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/XM70E2_revolver.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Jon.jeckell
940
CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
• File:Xagm-48a.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/Xagm-48a.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia; transferred to Commons by User:JuergenKlueser using CommonsHelper. Original artist: USAF. Original uploader was MarcoLittel at en.wikipedia
• File:Xmim-115a-1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Xmim-115a-1.jpg License: CC BY-SA 2.0 fr Contributors: Selfmade. Original photo by the US Army, Public Domain, from [1] Original artist: Rama
• File:Xsm-73-1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/Xsm-73-1.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Originally from it.wikipedia; description page is/was here. Original artist: Original uploader was EH101 at it.wikipedia
• File:Xsm-73.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Xsm-73.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:YMGM-157B.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/YMGM-157B.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Army photo via [1] Original artist: Unknown
• File:ZAIM-68A_Big_Q_arrangement_drawing.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/ZAIM-68A_Big_Q_arrangement_ drawing.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Air Force via [1] Original artist: Unknown
• File:Zeus_Missle_Track_Radar.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Zeus_Missle_Track_Radar.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.smdc.army.mil/smdcphoto_gallery/eagle/feb07/15-Missile%20Track%20Radar%20with%20Soldier%20WSMR.jpg Original artist: US Army
• File:Zeus_site_on_Kwajalein.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Zeus_site_on_Kwajalein.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.williamson-labs.com/kwaja.htm Original artist: US Army
• File:Zuni_unguided_rocket.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Zuni_unguided_rocket.jpg License: CC BY 2.0 Contributors: originally posted to Flickr as Missile, Air-to-Surface, Solid Propellant, Zuni Original artist: Cliff
342.5.3
Content license
• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0