Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1008

US Missiles Rockets and Bombs

Contents

1 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

2 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

3 MIM-14 Nike Hercules 16


3.1 Development and deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

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
3.2 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

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 Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 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

7 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

8 MGR-3 Little John 46


8.1 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
8.2 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
8.3 Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
8.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

9 PGM-19 Jupiter 48
9.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
9.1.1 Development and testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
9.1.2 Biological ights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
9.1.3 Military deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
9.2 Deployment sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
9.3 Launch vehicle derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
9.4 Specications (Jupiter MRBM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
9.5 Specications (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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

11 MIM-23 Hawk 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-specic modications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 Aordable 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 re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 106


18.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 conicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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: rst combat use of TOW anti-armor missile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
23.2.2 1982 Lebanon War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
23.2.3 1985 IranIraq 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 Specications (M72A2 and M72A3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
25.6.1 Launcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
25.6.2 Rocket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
25.6.3 Maximum eective 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 Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 Hellre 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 specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
32.4.2 Alternative Warhead Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
32.5 M993 Launcher specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 Specications (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 Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 xv

53 Gimlet (rocket) 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 Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 tted 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 Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 Specications (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 ights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
66.6 Launch vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
66.7 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
66.8 Specications (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
67.11Specications (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 258


70.1 Reactor design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
70.2 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 Specications (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 Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
xx CONTENTS

77.3 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274

78 AIM-82 275
78.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
78.2 Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 Specications (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 Peoples 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 19651973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300

84 AGM-86 ALCM 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 Specication[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 Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
106.5Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 re 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
116.4Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 469


128.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
128.6Inuences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478
128.7Appearances in media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478
128.8Other roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479
128.9Operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 xxxv

136Titan (rocket family) 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
136.8Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
137.5Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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

139.3Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
149.1Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525
153.1.3 Cancellation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 526
153.2Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
162.2Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
164.4Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
166.3Specications (Northrop Grumman ADM-160A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546
166.4Specications (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
168.5Specications (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
169.5Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 556
169.6Related content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 557
169.7References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 557

170XGAM-71 Buck Duck 558


170.1Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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


174.3Specications (XBQ-3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566
174.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566
174.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567

175Fleetwings BQ-1 568


175.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568
175.2Flight testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568
175.3Specications (XBQ-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568
175.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568
175.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568

176Fleetwings BQ-2 570


176.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570
176.2Flight testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570
176.3Specications (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
178.5Specications (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
179.3Specications (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
183.3Specications (LBP-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584
183.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584
183.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585

184Pratt-Read LBE 586


184.1Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586
184.2Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586
184.3Specications (LBE-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586
184.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586
184.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587

185Taylorcraft LBT 588


185.1Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588
185.2Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588
185.3Specications (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

196.2Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
214.3Specic 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


227.1Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 660

228Compact Kinetic Energy Missile 661


228.1Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 Qualication 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 Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
233.2Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
236.2Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 Grin 691


238.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 691
238.1.1 Naval use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 691
238.2Launch platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 692
238.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 692

239AGM-84E Stando Land Attack Missile 693


239.1See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 693
239.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 693
239.3External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 693

240Direct Attack Guided Rocket 694


240.1Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
241.2Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 696
241.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 696
241.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 696

242Low-Cost Guided Imaging Rocket 697


242.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697
242.2Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697
242.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697
242.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697
242.5External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697

243Precision Attack Air-to-Surface Missile 698


243.1Launch platforms (planned) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 698
243.2Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
251.5Eciency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 712
251.6Eects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 712
251.7See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 712
251.8References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 712

252B43 nuclear bomb 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
254.2Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716
254.3Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717
254.4W53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717
254.5Eects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
259.3Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 724
259.4Problems and issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 724
259.5See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725
259.6Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725

260BLU-14 726
260.1Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 726
260.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 726

261BLU-3 Pineapple 727


261.1Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 727
261.2External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 727

262BLU-82 728
262.1Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 728
262.2Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
268.2Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 737
268.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 737
268.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 737

269E48 particulate bomb 738


269.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 738
269.2Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 738
269.3Tests involving the E48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 738
269.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 738

270E86 cluster bomb 739


270.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 739
270.2Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 739
270.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 739
270.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 739

271Lazy Dog (bomb) 740


271.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 740
271.2Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 741
271.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 741

272Little Boy 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 eects 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
274.2Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
280.2Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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


285.1Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
288.2Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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


289.1Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 781


295.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 781
295.2Survivors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 781
295.3Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
302.2Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
304.2Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 798


305.2Skeet specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 798
305.3Weapon systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 798
305.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
307.1Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800
307.2Controversy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800
307.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800
307.4External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800

308CBU-24 801
308.1References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801
308.2External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801

309CBU-87 Combined Eects 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 Stando 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
321.3Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835
321.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835
321.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835
321.6External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835

322GB-4 836
322.1References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
333.3Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
335.3Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862
335.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862
335.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862
335.6External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863

336Paveway 864
336.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
339.1Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 Dis-


neys lm, see Pinocchio (1940 lm).
The MGR-1 Honest John rocket was the rst

Honest John test launch

tests exhibited more scatter on target than was accept-


An Honest John rocket on truck
able when HJ was conventionally armed. Development
nuclear-capable surface-to-surface missile in the US of an upgraded Honest John, M-50, was undertaken to
arsenal.[notes 1] Designated Artillery Rocket XM31, the improve accuracy and extend range. The size of the ns
rst such rocket was tested 29 June 1951 and the rst pro- was greatly reduced to eliminate weathercocking (the
duction rounds were delivered in January 1953. The des- tendency of crosswinds to turn a rocket to face into the
ignator was changed to M31 in September 1953. The rst wind). Increased spin was applied to restore the positive
Army units received their rockets by years end and Hon- stability margin that was lost when n size was reduced.
est John battalions were deployed in Europe in early 1954. The improved M-50, with the smaller ns and more ri-
Alternatively, the rocket was designed to be capable of ing, had a maximum range of 30+ miles with a scatter
carrying an ordinary high-explosive warhead weighing on target of only 230 metres (250 yd), demonstrating an
680 kilograms (1,500 lb), even though that was not the accuracy approaching that of tube artillery. Honest John
primary purpose for which it was originally envisioned. was manufactured by the Douglas Airplane Company of
Santa Monica, California.[1]
The M31 consisted of a truck-mounted, unguided, solid-
1.1 History and development fueled rocket transported in three separate parts. Before
launch they were assembled in the eld, mounted on an
Developed at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, Honest John M289 launcher and aimed and red in about 5 minutes.
was a large but simple n-stabilized, unguided artillery The rocket was originally outtted with a W7 variable
rocket weighing 2,640 kilograms (5,820 lb) in its initial yield nuclear warhead with a yield of up to 20 kilotons
M-31 nuclear-armed version. Mounted on the back of a of TNT (84 TJ) and later a W31 warhead with three vari-
truck, HJ was aimed in much the same way as a cannon ants was deployed with yields of 2, 10 or 30 kt (8.4, 41.8
and then red up an elevated ramp, igniting four small or 125.5 TJ) in 1959. There was a W31 variant of 20
spin rockets as it cleared the end of the ramp. The M- kt (84 TJ) used in the Nike Hercules antiaircraft system
31 had a range of 24.8 kilometres (15.4 mi) with a 20 exclusively. M-31 had a range between 5.5 and 24.8 km
kiloton nuclear warhead and was also capable of carrying (3.4 and 15.4 mi).
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 Minute-


man. 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 mili-
tary forces of Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark (non-
nuclear), France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Nether-
lands, Norway (non-nuclear), South Korea, Taiwan (non-
nuclear), and Turkey.[4]

Honest John warhead cutaway, showing M139 Sarin bomblets


(photo c. 1960) 1.2 Origin of name

also available for Honest John launch; designed to be In late 1950, Major General Holger Toftoy was a colonel
interchangeable for use with the either Honest John or overseeing the development of the rocket. The project
MGM-5 Corporal. Initially the M79 (E19R1) GB clus- was in danger of cancellation on the grounds that such
ter warhead, containing 356 M134 (E130R1) bomblets a large unguided rocket could not possibly have had the
for the M31A1C Honest John. The production model accuracy to justify further funds.[5] On a trip to White
was the M190 (E19R2) GB cluster warhead, contain- Sands Missile Range, Toftoy met a Texan man who was
ing 356 M139 (E130R2) bomblets when the M31A1C prone to making unbelievable statements. Whenever any-
was phased out in favor of the XM50 Honest John. Un- one expressed doubt about the mans claims, he would
der nominal conditions it had an MAE of 0.9 square respond, Why, around these parts, I'm called 'Honest
kilometers.[2] John!'" Because the project was being questioned, Toftoy
felt that the nickname was appropriate for the rocket and
The two basic versions of Honest John were: suggested the name to his superiors.[5]

MGR-1A (M31) was 8.31 metres (27 ft 3 in)


long, had an engine diameter of 58.10 centimetres 1.3 Support vehicles
(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 kilo-
grams (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 formu-
lation gave the rocket motor 670 kN (150,000 lbf)
thrust.
Loading an Honest John

Production of the MGR-1 variants nished in 1965 with a Vehicles used with Honest John
total production run of more than 7,000 rockets. Honest
Johns 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
rst U.S. nuclear ballistic missile, it had a longer service M289 truck, rocket launcher, (M139 truck) (G744),
1.5. OPERATORS 3

M329 trailer, rocket transporter, (G821)


M386 Truck, Rocket, 762mm, short launch rail, 5-
ton (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 Bedford, Indiana, displayed outside a Military sur-
Canadian Artillery, Shilo Manitoba plus store, at the Southwest corner of US-50/IN-37
and IN-450 (Google Maps streetview link ).
Denmark
Camp Atterbury Military Museum, Camp Atter-
bury, Indiana
The Royal Danish Arsenal Museum
Carolinas Aviation Museum, Charlotte, North Car-
United Kingdom olina (Two missiles are on display - both came from
the Florence Air & Missile Museum)
Imperial War Museum Duxford
Combat Air Museum, Topeka, Kansas
Royal Air Force Museum Fort Lewis Museum, Fort Lewis, Washington

United States Fort Sill, Oklahoma


National Atomic Museum, Kirtland AFB, Albu-
querque, New Mexico
Rock Island Arsenal, Arsenal Island, between Iowa
and Illinois
Texas Military Forces Museum at Camp Mabry,
Austin, Texas
Underwood Community Center, Underwood, Min-
nesota.[6]
United States Space & Rocket Center, Huntsville,
Alabama
Yuma Proving Ground, Yuma, Arizona
Restored Honest John on M465 cart at Carolinas Aviation Mu-
Milledgeville High School, Milledgeville Illinois
seum
(home of the Milledgeville Missiles)
Outdoor display, Spokane, Washington - southwest
3rd Cavalry Museum, 1st Cav Museum, Fort Hood, corner of Sanson and Market in Hillyard neighbor-
Texas hood
45th Infantry Museum, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Air Force Space & Missile Museum, Cape 1.5 Operators
Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida
American Armoured Foundation, Inc. Tank & Ord- Belgium
nance War Memorial Museum, Danville, Virginia
4 CHAPTER 1. MGR-1 HONEST JOHN

Italy

Italian Army

Republic of Korea

Republic of Korea Army

Norway
German parade in 1969
Norwegian Army (196165)

Netherlands

Royal Netherlands Army

Taiwan

Republic of China Army

Turkey
South Korean Armed Forces day in 1973

Turkish Army
Belgian Army
United Kingdom
Canada

British Army
Canadian Army
United States
Denmark
United States Army
Royal Danish Army

1.6 See also


France
W7
French Army W31
M139 bomblet
Germany
G-numbers
MGR-3 Little John
German Army

Greece 1.7 Notes


[1] The rst nuclear-authorized guided missile was the MGM-
Hellenic Army 5 Corporal.
1.9. EXTERNAL LINKS 5

1.8 References
[1] Gibson, Nuclear Weapons of the United States, pp. 177-
179, 1996

[2] Kirby,Reid, The CB Battleeld Legacy, Army Chemical


Review JulyDecember 2006, pp. 25 - 29.

[3] http://www.astronautix.com/articles/doulants/htm Be-


dard, 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;
Janes Weapon Systems 1987-1988 (London: Janes,
1987) p.127.

[5] McKenney, Janice E. (2007). The organizational history


of eld 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 declassied
military monograph on the Honest John, chronol-
ogy, pictures, and a movie of an Honest John ring)

Weapons of the Field Artillery - Part 3, U.S. Mili-


tary 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
Chapter 2

MIM-3 Nike Ajax

The United States Army's Nike Ajax was the worlds rst 2.1.1 Background
operational surface-to-air missile (SAM),[1] entering ser-
vice in 1954. Nike Ajax was designed to attack con- The inherent inaccuracy of anti-aircraft artillery means
ventional bomber aircraft ying at high subsonic speeds that when shells reach their targets they are randomly dis-
and altitudes above 50,000 feet (15 km). Nike was ini- tributed in space. This distribution is much larger than
tially deployed in the US to provide defence against So- the lethal radius of the shells, so the chance that any one
viet bomber attacks, and was later deployed overseas to shell will successfully hit the target is very small. Suc-
protect US bases, as well as being sold to various allied cessful anti-aircraft gunnery therefore requires as many
forces. Some examples remained in use until the 1970s. rounds to be red as possible, increasing the chances that
Technological development during the 1950s quickly ren- one of the rounds will get a hit. During The Blitz, UK
dered Nike obsolete. It was unable to defend against more gunners red 49,044 shells in January 1941 for 12 kills,
capable bombers or multiple targets in formation, and had almost 4,100 shells per success.[4] German gunners with
relatively short range. Even while Nike was being de- radar support did better, estimating that an average of
ployed, these concerns led to the contracts for the greatly 2,800 shells were required to down a single Boeing B-
improved MIM-14 Nike Hercules, which began deploy- 17.[5]
ment in 1959. As Hercules developed, the threat moved Flying faster means that the aircraft passes through the
from bombers to ICBMs, and the LIM-49 Nike Zeus anti- range of a gun more rapidly, reducing the number of
ballistic missile project started to address these. All of the rounds a particular gun can re at that aircraft. Flying
Nike projects were led by Bell Labs, due to their early at higher altitudes often has a similar eect, as it re-
work in radar guidance systems during World War II. quires larger shells to reach those altitudes, and this typ-
Originally known simply as Nike, it gained the Ajax as ically results in slower ring rates for a variety of prac-
part of a 1956 renaming eort that resulted from the in- tical reasons. Aircraft using jet engines roughly double
troduction of Hercules. It was initially given the identi- the speed and altitude over piston-powered designs, lim-
er SAM-A-7 (Surface-to-air, Army, design 7) as part iting the number of shells so greatly that the chance of
of an early tri-service identication system,[2] but later hitting the bomber dropped almost to zero. As early as
changed to MIM-3 (Mobile Interceptor Missile, design 1942, German ak commanders were keenly aware of the
3) in 1962.[3][N 1] problem, and expecting to face jet bombers, they began
a missile development program to supplant their guns.[6]
Part of the Nike Ajax development program designed a
new solid fuel rocket motor used for the missiles booster. The western allies maintained air superiority for much of
This had originally been designed for the US Navy's mis- the war and their anti-aircraft systems did not see as much
siles, and was enlarged for the Nike eorts. The rocket pressure to improve. Nevertheless, by the mid-war period
was so useful that it found numerous applications outside the US Army had reached the same conclusion as their
the military world as the Ajax missiles were decommis- German counterparts; ak was simply no longer useful.[7]
sioned in the 1960s. Many sounding rockets used the Accordingly, in February 1944 the Army Ground Forces
booster as their rst or second stage, and many of those sent the Army Service Forces (ASF) a request for in-
used Nike in their name. formation 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
2.1 History in 1944 led to a re-evaluation of this policy, and on 26
January 1945 the Army Chief of Ordnance issued a re-
quirement for a new guided missile weapon system. The

6
2.1. HISTORY 7

request was passed to Bell Labs, then a world leader in the second radars 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 calcu-
late the proper warhead shaping to maximize the chance
of a hit. Once determined, Picatinny Arsenal would pro-
2.1.2 Project Nike duce the warhead, and Frankford Arsenal would provide
a fuse. Douglas Aircraft would provide the missile air-
Main 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 o- 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 ying 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 ver- continually to about 2,500 fps (1700 mph, 762 m/s) at
tically launched under the thrust of a solid- the end of the liquid engines ring, 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 in-
Early 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 mis-
to use a monopulse radar system for Nike. Two systems
sile in ight.[7]
were considered, one using phased signals, and another
using signal timing known as the amplitude null sys-
This 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 demon-
Bell had been invited to take part in GAPA as well, but strated that the radar return from the missile at high alti-
declined 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 require-
panies, 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
[9] of test launches starting in 1946, with the aim of having
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
force evolved out of the Army Air Force.[10] 2.1.4 Testing
The rst test ring of a static round was carried out at
2.1.3 Building the team the White Sands Proving Ground on 17 September 1946,
and then returned to Douglas in California for study. The
At the ranges and speeds being considered, even a next week an unguided example was launched, and sim-
supersonic rocket will take enough time to reach the tar- ilar tests followed until 28 January 1947, ending the rst
get that the missile needs to lead the bomber in order test series. During one test a missile reached an altitude of
to properly intercept it. Bell proposed a system using two 140,000 feet. A second test series followed in September
radars, one tracking the target, and another tracking the and October 1947, including several improvements in the
missile. An analog computer would calculate the impact design in order to address problems with the booster. A
point and send guidance signals to the missile encoded in 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, de-
manding large ns for stability.

tinued to demonstrate problems.[1]


Eventually the team was forced to give up on the clustered
booster concept. Invariably small dierences in thrust
between the dierent JATO bottles would lead to signif-
icant thrust asymmetries, ones that overwhelmed the sta- Test launch of the production model Nike Ajax missile with the
bilizing eect of the ns in spite of them being very large. new booster.
Instead, the project selected a larger booster being devel-
oped by the US Navy's Operation Bumblebee, creating a the proposed production model was carried out starting in
new version known as the Allegheny JATO T39 2.6DS- October, and on 27 November 1951, Nike successfully
51,000.[11] The Navys similar booster can be seen on the
intercepted a QB-17 target drone. Twenty-two further
RIM-2 Terrier. tests followed that year. In the new year a new test series
A new series of test rings started in September 1948, started, including a live-re 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]
ications were carried out. Funding problems then de-
layed the program until January 1950. From late January
through April another 16 missiles were red, 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 open-
ing 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 The Nike Ajax assembly line.
that development of Nike be accelerated, and that an ini-
tial production run of 60 launch stations and 1,000 mis- Production was launched in August 1952. By the end of
siles should be completed by 31 December 1952, with the year, three complete ground systems and 1,000 mis-
continued production of 1,000 a month after that date. siles had been delivered to White Sands. The complete
In January 1951, Wilson approved the plan, in spite of system was set up by January 1953, and an underground
additional testing being required.[12] A new test series of launch site rst red on 5 June 1953. Crew training was
2.1. HISTORY 9

carried out at Fort Bliss with the missiles red toward dental warhead or fuel explosion. Originally this would
White Sands. Service deliveries began that year, and require about 119 acres of land per site. This presented
eventually a total of 350 launch systems and 13,714 mis- a serious problem for the planners, and especially the
siles were produced over the production run.[1] In 1957, Corps of Engineers Real Estate Oces. As early as 1952
the National Guard started taking over the anti-aircraft they had asked for a solution, which led to design ar-
role, replacing regular army units at Bliss.[1] chitect Leon Chatelain, Jr. developing an underground
conguration.[13]
As the missile batteries were now protected and acci-
2.1.7 Deployment
dental 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.
The rst 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 sys-
tem. On 15 November 1956 the missile was ocially
renamed as the Nike Ajax, as part of DA Circular 700-
This Nike Ajax site is on full alert, with missiles ready for launch 22.[1]
on all sixteen launch sites. This image appears to be taken from
Over the next four years, 265 batteries were constructed
the control area (IFC) which was separated from the launch area
to allow its radars to see the missiles as they launched. 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 em-
placements 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 Recre-
ation Area.[18][19]

2.1.8 After Ajax


Nike bases were arranged around major cities and military sites.
As early as April 1952, planners expressed concerns over
Army Anti-Aircraft Command (ARAACOM). ARAA- the Ajaxs ability to pick out targets in a packed forma-
COM initially proposed a series of widespread bases sur- tion. The Nike radar would see several nearby targets as
rounding cities and major military sites. However, while a single larger one, unable to resolve the individual air-
planning the deployment around Chicago, it became clear craft. The warheads lethal range was smaller than the
that Lake Michigan would force sites protecting approach resolution, so it might not approach any one of the air-
from the east to be located in the city itself. Moreover, craft closely enough to damage it. This led to suggestions
various scenarios demonstrated that having a staggered about equipping the Nike with a nuclear warhead, which
two-layer layout of the sites would oer much greater would be able to attack the entire formation with a sin-
protection, which argued for some bases to be located gle round. Bell was asked to study this in May, and they
closer to the urban centers.[1] 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
10 CHAPTER 2. MIM-3 NIKE AJAX

ranges on the order of 75 miles (121 km). A new long-


range 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, provid-
ing 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
Ajaxs 240. The last US Ajax site, outside Norfolk, Vir-
ginia, closed in November 1963.[1] Ajax remained in ac-
tive 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.
As the original Bell Nike team worked on Hercules, the
The Nike missile family, with the Zeus B in front of the Hercules nature of the strategic threat was changing. By the late
and Ajax. 1950s the concern was the ICBM and little interest in the
threat of bombers remained. Even before Hercules de-
ployed, 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 consider-
ably greater upgrades to the radars and computers instead.
These eorts gave rise to the Nike II project in 1958,[21]
soon known as LIM-49 Nike Zeus.
Unlike the earlier Nike eorts, 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 ne 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 ef-
1974, 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 eects that blocked radar, questions
cules option, ordering it into development in December about the missiles ability to damage enemy warheads,
1952.[20] At the time, the missiles were ocially known and above all, rapidly rising costs. Development was can-
as Nike I and Nike B.[2] As part of DA Circular 700-22, celled in January 1963.[22]
Nike I ocially became Nike Ajax and Nike B became
Nike Hercules.
The nuclear-armed Nike B was originally going to be a 2.1.9 Nike boosters
slightly larger Nike I, just wide enough to carry the new
warhead. But during early development the decision was As Ajax missiles were removed from service, thousands
made to move to a solid fuel upper stage. This required of unused booster rockets were left over from the pro-
a larger fuselage, and was heavier as well. In order to gram, and more when the Hercules was removed from
get the new missile into the air, the booster engine was service years later. These proved perfect for all sorts
replaced with a new design using four of the original of roles, notably as the boosters for various sounding
boosters strapped together. The new missile oered in- rockets. These designs often, but not always, included
terception altitudes well above 100,000 feet (30 km) and Nike in their name. Examples include the Nike-Cajun,
2.2. DESCRIPTION 11

Nike-Apache, Nike-Smoke and many others. The orig-


inal 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 on their launchers. When an alert was received, the mis-
plates arranged in a frame. The feed horn is at the bottom of the siles were transferred to the surface one at a time using
A-shaped supports. an elevator, then pushed along rails on the surface lead-
ing to the launchers. The launchers bisected the rails, so
the missiles were simply pushed over the launchers, con-
nected 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
o targets to the tracking radars. Two monopulse track-
ing radars were used, the Target Tracking Radar (TTR) to
track the target handed o by the LOPAR, and the Mis-
sile Tracking Radar (MTR) to track the missile as it ew
The ACQ radar was the primary search radar for the Ajax, and
toward the target.[23]
was also used for short-range duties with the Hercules as LOPAR.
Launch of the missile was accomplished by lighting the
A complete Nike Ajax system consisted of several radars, solid fuel booster, which provided 59,000 lbf of thrust for
computers, missiles and their launchers. Sites were gen- three seconds. The booster pushed the missile through
erally arranged in three major sections, the administra- the sound barrier, and it remained supersonic for the rest
tion area, area A, the magazine and launcher area with of its ight. The MTR picked up the missile as the booster
the missiles, L, and the Integrated Fire Control area with fell away, and then tracked it continually after that point.
the radar and operations center, or IFC. Most sites placed Data from the TTR and MTR were sent to the analog
the A and IFC on one parcel of land with the L on an- tracking computer, which continually calculated the im-
other, but some sites used three entirely separate areas. pact point and sent radio commands to the missile to
The IFC was located between 1,000 yards and a mile from guide it. In order to maximize range, the missile was nor-
the launchers, but had to be within the line-of-site so the mally own almost vertically to a higher altitude than the
radars could see the missiles as they launched.[14] target, where the thinner air lowered drag and allowed
The launch area normally consisted of two or three under- the missile to descend on its target. At the correct time,
ground facilities and their aboveground launchers. Sites the missiles three warheads were triggered by a signal
with four to six launchers were not unknown. A single from the computer.[23] The warheads were surrounded by
launcher site normally held twelve missiles, eight in the metal cubes providing a blast-fragmentation eect.
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 and vehicles that would have operated at the site.
various Ajax missile sites were overlapped, this led to the The site has been preserved in the condition it was in
possibility that two sites might attack one target while an- at the time it was decommissioned in 1974. The site
other ew past both. ARADCOM initially set up a coor- began as a Nike Ajax base and was later converted
dination system not unlike the Royal Air Force's plotting to Nike Hercules.[28]
room from the Battle of Britain, with commands from a
central manual plotting room being sent to batteries over The second best preserved Nike installation is site
telephone lines. This was clearly inadequate, and in the NY-56 at Fort Hancock in Sandy Hook, New Jersey.
late 1950s the Interim Battery Data Link was introduced The site has been restored and contains the original
to share data between batteries. This allowed command missile bunkers, as well as three Nike Ajax and a
to be devolved to the battery commanders, who could see Nike Hercules on display. The site is on the National
which targets other batteries were attacking.[1] This sys- Register of Historic Places.[29]
tem was further improved with the introduction of the
Nike-Ajax Missile Site N-75 in Carrolton, Virginia.
Missile Master system, which replaced manual plotting
The former Nike-Ajax missile base is now home to
with a computer-run system, and then the simpler and
the Isle of Wight County Parks and Recreation De-
smaller Missile Mentor and BIRDIE systems.[25][26]
partment. Many buildings still stand including the
The Nike batteries were organized in Defense Areas barracks, mess hall, administration and recreation
and placed around population centers and strategic lo- building and ocer/non-commissioned ocer fam-
cations such as long-range bomber and important mili- ily housing. Visitors can also see the fueling area and
tary/naval bases, nuclear production facilities and (later) concrete slabs that mark the location of the under-
ICBM sites. The Nike sites in a Defense Area formed a ground missile bunkers. The park, over 100 acres
circle around these cities and bases. There was no xed in size, oers dierent recreational activities and
number of Nike batteries in a Defense Area and the actual features softball and soccer elds, basketball, vol-
number of batteries varied from a low of 2 in the Barks- leyball, and tennis courts, picnic areas, nature and
dale AFB Defense Area to a high of 22 in the Chicago mountain bike trails, skate park, playgrounds, senior
Defense Area. In the US the sites were numbered from center and a recreation hall. In addition, there are
01 to 99 starting at the north and increasing clockwise. shing opportunities in Jones Creek..[30]
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
southwest and west, and those numbered 76 to 99 were to A Nike Ajax, Nike Hercules, and Nike Zeus are on
the northwest and north. The Defense Areas were identi- display at the Redstone Arsenal in Alabama.
ed by a one- or two-letter code which were related to the
city name. Thus those Nike sites starting with C were in A Nike Ajax and Nike Hercules are on display at the
the Chicago Defense Area, those starting with HM were Royal Museum of the Armed Forces and Military
in the Homestead AFB/Miami Defense Area, those start- History in Brussels, Belgium.
ing 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 northwest-
Springs, Colorado.
ern part (88) of the San Francisco Defense Area (SF).[16]
Studies throughout the Nike project considered mobile A Nike Ajax missile is on display at Camp Nathan
launchers, but none were developed for the Ajax system. Hale, in Niantic, Connecticut.
Missile sites were relocatable or transportable, and all
of the support equipment was built into trailers or other- Two Nike Ajax and a Hercules are on display at the
wise provided road wheels.[27] Cape Canaveral Space & Missile Museum in Cape
Canaveral, Florida.

A Nike Hercules is on display at Nike Missile Site


2.3 Survivors HM-69, now a registered historic site located within
Everglades National Park.
2.3.1 Bases A Nike Ajax is on display at the War Museum in
Athens, Greece.
The best preserved Nike installation is site SF88L
located in the Marin Headlands just west of the A Nike Ajax and Hercules are on display in front of
Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, California. the VFW post in Cedar Lake, Indiana.
The site is a museum, and contains the missile
bunkers, and control area, as well as period uniforms A Nike Ajax is on display in Marion, Kentucky.
2.4. SEE ALSO 13

A Nike Ajax and Hercules are on display at the A Nike Ajax is on display in front of the American
Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Aberdeen, Maryland. Legion Post in Waynesboro, Pennsylvania.

A Nike Ajax is on display in front of the VFW post A Nike Ajax is on display in front of the Combat Air
in Hancock, Maryland. Museum in Topeka, Kansas.

Two Nike Ajax and a Hercules are on display at a A Nike Ajax is on display at the MUNA Military
small Cold War museum in Ft. Meade, Maryland. Museum, Marktbergel, Germany

A Nike Ajax and Hercules are on display at the A Nike Ajax and a Nike Hercules are on display on
Dutch Air Force Museum in Soesterberg Air Base, a Military site near a trac roundabout near Thes-
Netherlands. saloniki, Greece

A Nike Ajax is on display at The Space Center in A Nike Ajax is on display at the New England Air
Alamagordo, New Mexico. Museum in Windsor Locks, Connecticut

A Nike Ajax is on display near the administrative


buildings at the former Nike site in Rustan, about 2.4 See also
40 km to the southwest of Oslo, Norway.

Two Nike Ajax and a Nike Hercules are on display MIM-14 Nike Hercules and LIM-49 Nike Zeus,
near the Bataan Building at Camp Perry, near Port Ajaxs children
Clinton, Ohio.
S-25 Berkut and S-75 Dvina, Soviet counterparts to
A Nike Ajax is on display near the Toledo Rockets the Ajax
Glass Bowl Stadium on the campus of the University
English Electric Thunderbird and Bristol Blood-
of Toledo in Toledo, Ohio.
hound, UK counterparts
A Nike Ajax is displayed in front of an Army Sur-
plus store located near the Letterkenny Army Depot
in Pennsylvania. 2.5 Notes
A Nike Ajax and Hercules are on display at the [1] Nike was initially designated SAM-G-7, and later changed
Pennsylvania National Guard Department of Mili- to SAM-A-7. Originally the Air Force used A while the
tary Arts building at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsyl- Army used G, but the Air Force abandoned the 1947 tri-
vania. service designation system in 1951 and the Army took
over the A designation.
A Nike Hercules missile is used as a static display
by the Rhode Island National Guard. [2] Cagle says 600 mph, but many other sources put it at 500
or more.
A Nike Ajax and Hercules are on display at the Air
Power Park in Hampton, Virginia. [3] Although none of the references state the reason for keep-
ing the AQU radar, it appears this was in order to avoid
A Nike Ajax missile cutaway, as well as a com- having to upgrade certain displays in the control centres.
plete Nike Ajax missile are on display at the Udvar-
Hazy Center of the Smithsonian Air & Space Mu-
seum at Washington Dulles International Airport, in 2.6 References
Washington D.C..
Citations
A Nike Ajax and Nike Hercules are on display in the
Berryman War Memorial Park in Bridgeport, Wash-
ington. [1] FAS 1999.

[2] Cagle 1959, VI.


A Nike Ajax is on display at the Ft. Lewis Military
Museum in Tacoma, Washington. [3] Western Electric SAM-A-7/M1/MIM-3 Nike Ajax

A Nike Ajax on its launcher is on display outside an [4] Ian White, The History of Air Intercept Radar & the
American Legion hall in Okauchee Lake, Wiscon- British Nightgher, Pen & Sword, 2007, p. 75.
sin.
[5] Westerman 2001, p. 197.
A Nike Ajax on its transporter (trailer) is on display [6] Westerman 2001, p. 11.
outside a public storage (former site MS-20) facility
in Roberts, Wisconsin. [7] Cagle 1959, I.
14 CHAPTER 2. MIM-3 NIKE AJAX

[8] Leonard 2011, p. 104. Morgan, Mark; Berhow, Mark (1 June 2002). Rings
of Supersonic Steel: Air Defenses of the Uniter States
[9] Walker, Bernstein & Lang 2003, p. 39. Army 1950-1979. Hole In The Head Press. ISBN
[10] GAPA (Ground-to-Air Pilotless Aircraft)", Boeing 9780615120126.

[11] Cagle 1959, III. Westerman, Edward (2001). Flak: German Anti-
Aircraft Defenses, 1914-1945. University Press of
[12] Lonnquest & Winkler 1996, p. 56. Kansas. ISBN 0700614206.
[13] Cagle 1959, VII. Barry Leonard, History of Strategic and Ballistic
Missile Defense: Volume II: 1956-1972, DIANE
[14] Morgan & Berhow 2002, p. 9.
Publishing, 2011
[15] Merle Cole, Nike Missiles: Army Air Defense Installa-
tions In Anne Arundel County: 1950-1973, Fort George Further reading
G. Meade Museum

[16] Lonnquest & Winkler 1996, pp. 570-572. Nike: the U.S. Armys Guided Missile System,
Western Electric
[17] Stephen Moeller, Vigilant and Invincible, ADA Maga-
zine, May/June 1995, Chapter 3, Modernization The Continental Air Defense Collection at the
United States Army Center of Military History
[18] Nike Battery NY-53 Middletown, NJ

[19] Nike Ajax Explosion - Sandy Hook, NJ


2.7 External links
[20] Lonnquest & Winkler 1996, p. 57.

[21] Leonard 2011, p. 180. Nike Historical Society

[22] Donald Baucom, The Origins of SDI, 1944-1983, Uni- Nike Hercules in Alaska
versity Press of Kansas, 1992, p. 19.
Nike Ajax Explosion Marker: Gateway National
[23] Morgan & Berhow 2002, p. 10. Recreation Area

[24] Morgan & Berhow 2002, p. 17. The short lm Big Picture: Pictorial Report Num-
ber 20 is available for free download at the Internet
[25] Morgan & Berhow 2002, p. 15. Archive
[26] Considerable detail on the battleeld control systems are Nike Ajax the rst surface-to-air missile
available in Air Defense Artillery Control Systems, US
Army Air Defense Digest, 1966, pp. 34-41.

[27] Ed Thelen, Nike was 'mobile'?", Ed Thelens Nike Mis-


sile Web Site.

[28] Nike Missile Site, SF88L

[29] Site NY-56 Sandy Hook, New Jersey, Nike Historical So-
ciety

[30]

Bibliography

Cagle, Mary (30 June 1959). Nike Ajax Historical


Monograph. U.S. Army Ordnance Missile Com-
mand.

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.
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 3.1.1 Project Nike
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 de-
fense. It was normally armed with the W31 nuclear war-
head, but could also be tted with a conventional warhead During World War II the US Army Air Force (USAAF)
for export use. Its warhead also allowed it to be used concluded that existing anti-aircraft guns, only marginally
in a surface-to-surface role, and the system also demon- eective against existing generations of propeller-driven
strated its ability to hit other short-range missiles in ight. aircraft, would not be eective at all against the emerg-
Hercules was replaced in the long-range anti-aircraft role ing jet-powered designs. Like the Germans and British
by the higher performance and considerably more mobile before them, they concluded the only successful defence
MIM-104 Patriot. would be to use guided weapons.[3]
Hercules was developed as the successor to the earlier As early as 1944 the US Army started exploring anti-
MIM-3 Nike Ajax, adding the ability to attack high-ying aircraft missiles, examining a variety of concepts. They
supersonic targets and carrying a small nuclear warhead split development between the Army Air Force or the
in order to attack entire formations of aircraft with a sin- Ordnance department based on whether or not the de-
gle missile. Development went smoothly, and deploy- sign depend[ed] for sustenance primarily on the lift of
ment began in 1958 at new bases, but eventually took aerodynamic forces or primary on the momentum of
over many existing Ajax bases as well, reaching a peak the missile.[4] That is, whether the missile operated more
of over 130 bases in the US alone. Throughout, Hercules like an aircraft (Air Force) or a rocket (Ordnance).
was the subject of a lengthy and acrimonious debate due
to complaints from supporters of the US Air Force's com- Ocial requirements were published in 1945; Bell Lab-
peting CIM-10 Bomarc system, which ultimately proved oratories won the Ordnance contract for a short-range
unsuccessful and saw limited deployment. US Hercules line-of-sight weapon under Project Nike,[3] while a team
sites began wide-scale deactivation during the 1970s as of players led by Boeing won the contract for a long-
the threat of Soviet bombers subsided with the growth of range design known as Ground-to-Air Pilotless Aircraft,
ICBM forces, but remained a front-line weapon in Eu- or GAPA. GAPA moved to the US Air Force when that
rope, with the last units deactivated in 1988. branch was formed in 1948. In 1946 the USAAF also
started two early research projects into anti-missile sys-
Several modications 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 worlds rst op-
favour 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 y to a point in the
ballistic missile role was carried out, but this later evolved sky to intercept the target. To increase range, the mis-
into the considerably dierent LIM-49 Nike Zeus design. sile was normally boosted above the target into thinner
Hercules would prove to be the last development of Bells 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, espe-
were developed by dierent teams. cially Strategic Air Command bomber airelds, and gen-
eral deployment then followed at US cities, important in-
dustrial 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 17

3.1.2 Ajax and Hercules range, it was unsurprising that the Army chose the Her-
cules option. Bell began working on the new design
in concert with the Nike partners, Western Electric and
Even as the Nike was undergoing testing, planners grew
Douglas Aircraft Company. Instead of the basic W-7,
concerned about the missiles ability to attack formations
development of an improved version specically for Her-
of aircraft. Given the low resolution of the tracking radars
cules was started under the direction of Sandia Labora-
available at the time, a formation of aircraft would appear
tories in Albuquerque and at Los Alamos. The new W31
on the radars as a single larger return. Launched against
warhead was given 1A priority by the Joint Chiefs of Sta
such a formation, the Nike would y towards the center of
in March 1953.[9]
the composite return. Given the Nike warheads relatively
small lethal radius, if the missile ew into the middle of
the formation and exploded, it would be highly unlikely 3.1.3 Solid fuel
to destroy any of the aircraft.
Improving performance against such targets would re-
quire either much higher resolution radars, or much larger
warheads. Of the two, the warhead seemed like the sim-
plest 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 modied Nike missile, largely
a re-arrangement of the internal components, making
room for the 15 kT WX-9 gun-type warhead also be-
ing developed as an artillery round. The WX-9, like all
gun-type designs, was long and thin, originally designed
to be red from an 11 artillery piece, and easily t within
This image shows the evolution of the Hercules and its associ-
the 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 Soon after design work started, the Army requested that
more ecient and uses much less fuel to reach any given the existing liquid fuel engine be replaced with a solid fuel
explosive power. Implosion designs are necessarily spher- design, for a variety of reasons. Primary among these was
ical, and thus less suitable for inclusion in a skinny fuse- that the Ajax fuels were "hypergolic", igniting on contact.
lage like Nikes. In order to use an implosion warhead, Due to the nature of these fuels, extreme caution had to
Bell also proposed a much more modied design known be used whenever the missiles were moved or unloaded
as Nike Hercules. This featured an enlarged upper fuse- for maintenance. This was carried out in a protected area
lage able to carry the XW-7 warhead of up to 40 kT.[9] In behind a large berm, in order to protect the rest of the site
spite of the greatly increased explosive power, the WX- from an accidental explosion during fuelling. This com-
7 was only slightly heavier than the WX-9, about 950 plexity added enormously to the cost and time required to
pounds for common XW-7 versions, as opposed to 850 maintain the missiles.
pounds for the XW-9.[10] Solid fuel rockets can remain stored for years, and is
At the same time, there were increasing concerns that generally very dicult to ignite without an extended pe-
higher speed aircraft would be able to launch their war- riod of applied ame. This means they can be manhan-
heads at the extreme range of the Nike bases. This was dled safely, and maintained with the rocket motor in-
a common complaint by the Air Force, who noted the stalled. However, the lower specic impulse of these en-
ability for bombers to attack from as much as 50 miles gines, combined with the requirement for longer range,
(80 km) while the Nike was only comfortable launching demanded a much larger weapon to store the required
at about 25 miles (40 km).[11] This could be increased fuel. Hercules, still known ocially as Nike B at this
even further using stand-o missiles, like those currently point,[N 2] grew to become a much larger design. This,
under development by all of the nuclear-armed forces for in turn, required a much larger booster to loft it, but this
just this reason.[N 1] A larger Nike with greatly improved was solved by strapping together four of the existing Nike
range would not only help address this problem, but also boosters to form a cluster known as the XM-42, with the
allow a single base to defend a much larger area, lower- only modication to the original M5 engine design being
ing the overall costs of deploying a widespread defensive the addition of new holes to bolt them together, creating
system. the M5E.[12]
As a new missile was desired anyway to provide longer Some eort was also put into a frangible booster for the
18 CHAPTER 3. MIM-14 NIKE HERCULES

Ajax, whos casing would destroy itself in ight. This was late development as the BOMARC. BOMARC proved
a concern because the Ajax boosters were built in steel extremely expensive, dicult to maintain in operation
tubes that fell back to the ground close to the launcher readiness, had questionable performance and was dis-
sites and presented a real range safety concern. Martin playing a continued inability to reach operational status.
produced the T48E1 and E2 designs for Ajax used a Instead of de-emphasizing BOMARC in favour of Her-
breglass casing that was destroyed by small explosives, cules, inter-service rivalry became rampant, and the Air
but this engine proved overweight and did not boost the Force began a policy of denigrating Hercules and the
Ajax to the required speed. Redstone Arsenal then pre- Army using policy by press release.[17]
sented the T48E3 which was somewhat larger and longer
In a famous event, the Air Force interviewed for an article
to reach reasonable performance, but only at the cost of that appeared in the New York Times entitled Air Force
having to modify all of the Ajax launcher rails. The Army
Calls Army Nike Unt To Guard Nation.[18] This was
eventually decided not to proceed with any Ajax mod- answered most forcibly not by the Army, but the Defense
ications as Hercules would be arriving shortly anyway.
Secretary Charles Erwin Wilson, who wrote in Newsweek
Similar experiments for Hercules boosters led to the XM- that one hard solid fact remerges above them all: no mat-
61 single-chamber booster, but when the XM-42 cluster
ter what the Nike is or isn't, its the only land-based oper-
proved to be even less expensive than expected, this eort
ational anti-aircraft missile that the U.S. has.[19] By the
was also dropped.[13] 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 ght going on over the
missile was ocially renamed as the Nike Hercules, as Armys 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 inter-
Nike 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 ssion 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 ecient, and thus less expensive to produce. range of their ABM developments.[22]
The new design ultimately provided eective 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 rst place
feet (30 km). the ght over Hercules and BOMARC and related anti-
missile developments. Nor did it stop the ghting in the
press. Army Colonel John Nickerson Jr. publicly de-
3.1.4 Bomarc / Hercules controversy
nounced Wilson, while leaking details of their latest mis-
sile design, the Pershing.[21][23] The resulting ap led to
Main article: CIM-10 Bomarc
calls for Nickerson to be court-martialed and was com-
pared 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 con-
had 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 Armys
1958 an article appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times in
existing point defence role, and as a valuable backup
which various Air Force ocials complained that the
to their own manned interceptors. There were con-
Hercules was ineective. Chicago was slated to shortly
cerns about the possibility of Air Force ghters being at-
begin receiving its Hercules upgrades. Similar articles
tacked by Army missiles, but the two forces improved co-
began appearing in papers around the country, invari-
ordination between the Armys ARAACOM and the Air
ably just before that city was to begin receiving their mis-
Forces 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 rst 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
few years.[11] Eventually, in November the new Secretary of Defense,
Neil H. McElroy announced both systems would be pur-
Things changed dramatically with the development of
chased. Both forces, and their congressional support-
Hercules. 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 fulll the
originally started in the 1940s in the GAPA project.
defence mission. In 1959 both the House and Senate de-
The project had moved several times, and was now in
3.1. DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT 19

bated the systems, with the Senate recommending cut- A similar test on 17 July against a 300-knot Q2A de-
ting funding for Hercules and Congress stating the oppo- stroyed the target with the T45. A dual-launch followed
site. Congress eventually came to support the Defense on 24 July, with the rst round destroying its target with
Secretarys position as stated in the Master Air Defense the T45, and the second with the instrument package y-
Plan, retaining Hercules while reducing BOMARC and ing one second behind. A similar test on 29 July launched
SAGE.[26] two missiles against three F-80 Shooting Star drones y-
Meanwhile the Air Force scrambled to bring BOMARC ing in formation, the rst missile destroyed the lead air-
to operational status, and in 1 September 1959 declared craft while the second passed within lethal range of a sec-
ond. Testing was unexpectedly cancelled before the W-7
the 46th Air Defense Squadron at McGuire Air Force
Base operational. It was later revealed that only one of could be red.[29]
the sixty missiles at the site was actually functional at that
time. Engineers continued work on getting a second mis-
3.1.6 Deployment
sile operational at McGuire, but the Air Force went ahead
with plans to open the Suolk County Missile Annex by
Hercules was designed from the start to operate from Ajax
1 January 1960. In January only four missiles were oper-
bases. However, as it protected a much greater area, not
ational at Suolk, and during House appropriation hear-
as many sites were needed to provide coverage of poten-
ings that month, the DoD proved rather subdued when
tial targets. Early deployments starting in 1958 were on
Congress attacked the design, especially in light of sev-
new sites, but Ajax units started converting as well. Con-
eral failed tests of the BOMARC B missile. In February
versions were largely complete by 1960, leaving only a
Air Force Chief of Sta Thomas D. White shocked ev-
few Ajax sites in use. The last active Nike Ajax batter-
eryone when he requested that BOMARC deployments
ies were relieved of their mission in December 1961, fol-
be reduced to eight US and two Canadian sites, essen-
lowed by the last Army National Guard unit in May 1964.
tially killing the program.[27]
Nuclear-armed Nike Hercules missiles were deployed
In the aftermath of the Hercules/BOMARC debates, re-
in the United States, Greece, Italy, Korea and Turkey,
tired Army Brigadier General Thomas R. Phillips wrote
and with Belgian, Dutch, and U.S. forces in West
an article for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that BOMARC
Germany.[30] Conventionally armed Nike Hercules mis-
and SAGE had been the most costly waste of funds in
siles also served in the United States, Germany, Denmark,
the history of the Defense Department.[27]
Japan, Norway, and Taiwan.[31] The rst deployments in
Europe began in 1959.[32]

3.1.5 Operation SNODGRASS


3.1.7 Improved Nike Hercules
Plans had been made to test the Hercules W-7 warhead in
a live-re exercise in 1959 as part of Operation SNOD-
GRASS. However, as rumours of a ban on atmospheric
testing of nuclear weapons spread, SNODGRASS be-
came a crash project to be completed before 1 Septem-
ber 1958 at any available site the Nevada Test Site was
fully booked with the existing Project AMMO testing se-
ries. Part of the rush was due to the newly evolving un-
derstanding of the eects of nuclear weapons on radar
systems, which led to serious concerns about various
weapons 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 Army-
Air Force test at Eglin Air Force Base with tests of both
the conventional T45 and nuclear W-7 warheads. A va-
riety of problems, including one found in the W-7 war-
head, 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 ve
radars on platforms for a better view. From left to right are the
the AMMO project.[28]
TTR and TRR, HIPAR (large white dome) LOPAR (small dark
The AMMO shot took place on 1 July 1958, successfully rectangle in center foreground) and MTR.
intercepting a simulated 650 knot target ying at an al-
titude of 100,000 feet and a slant range of 79 miles.[N 3] Even before deployment of Hercules began, studies on
The rst SNODGRASS round was launched on 14 July improvements to the system had been identied. A 23
with its warhead replaced by an instrument package and October 1954 report stated that Concurrent with the
launched against a 350-knot Q2A Ryan Firebee I drone. prosecution of the NIKE I and NIKE B programs, studies
20 CHAPTER 3. MIM-14 NIKE HERCULES

and research and development must be conducted to in- retroactively became known as LOPAR, and remained
sure that the NIKE equipment is modernized to the max- in use as the main target selection radar in the missile
imum extent within the limits of current technology and control van. HIPAR would detect targets separately and
economics of improvement as compared to investment hand o to the LOPAR and TTR so those systems could
in a new system .... Three key elements were identied; remain largely unchanged and able to launch either Her-
the need to attack formations without nuclear warheads, cules or Ajax.
operations against low-altitude targets, and better trac- These changes were presented on 24 August 1956, and
handling capabilities to handle larger raids.[33] accepted by both CONARC and ARADCOM. The ac-
In early 1956 Bell began studies of the INH concept by tive seeker system was later dropped to lower costs.[34]
considering the predicted threat for the 1960-65 period. Engineering was complete in 1958 and entered low-rate
This was predicted to be aircraft with speeds up to Mach production in May 1959. The rst HIPAR was tested at
3, a wide range of radar cross sections, and powerful White Sands between 14 April 1960 and 13 April 1961,
electronic countermeasures. IRBMs and ICBMs were starting with two Ajax launches that passed 14 yards and
also a consideration, but these were being addressed by 18 yards from the drone targets, and a further 17 Her-
the Nike Zeus concept, leaving only short-range weapons cules launches that were generally successful. Among
as an issue Hercules might need to address. To address the various test targets were a Mach 3 Lockheed AQM-
this whole range of issues, Bell proposed a series of 60, a drone, and a Corporal missile. Also conducted
changes:[34] were tests to evaluate ECM performance, two surface-to-
surface tests, and two Hercules-on-Hercules attacks with
1. improvements to the X-band TTR/MTR radars to the target Hercules ying in a semi-ballistic trajectory.[35]
increase range Deployment of the INH upgrade kits began on 10 June
1961 at the BA-30 site in the Washington-Baltimore
2. the addition of the long-range L-band High Power
defense area, and continued into September 1967.[36]
Acquisition Radar (HIPAR) to detect small, high-
HIPAR was a large system and generally deployed under
speed targets
a dome on top of a concrete platform that raised it above
3. the addition of the wide-frequency Ku-band Target any local obstructions. To provide the same range of
Ranging Radar (TRR) to provide ranging in a heavy view, the tracking radars were also often placed on con-
ECM environment crete platforms of their own, although these were much
smaller. LOPAR was retained in order to allow the same
4. the addition of an active seeker on the missile to im- displays to be used in the launcher control sites adapting
prove performance against low-altitude targets HIPAR to use the existing displays would require more
work and reduce the eectiveness of that radar.
The addition of the TRR solved a problem with early The Hercules missile systems sold to Japan (Nike J) were
pulse radar units. It is relatively easy to jam a conven- subsequently tted with upgraded internal guidance sys-
tional radar by sending out additional pulses of radio sig- tems, the original vacuum tube systems being replaced
nal on the same frequency. Unless the transmitter has en- with transistorized ones.
coded 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 eect on 3.1.8 Anti-missile upgrades
the determination of the direction to the target, which is
the same for both the original and jammer pulses. How- Although Hercules had demonstrated its ability to suc-
ever, it makes the determination of range dicult or im- cessfully engage short-range missiles, the capability was
possible. The TRR solves this problem by providing a not considered very important. During development the
separate ranging system on another frequency. By mak- Air Force continued its Project Wizard while the Army
ing the signal wide-frequency, the jammer has to likewise started their Project Plato studies for dedicated anti-
broadcast across a similar bandwidth, limiting the energy missile systems. By 1959 Plato was still very much a
in any one frequency and allowing the operator to tune the paper project, while news of large deployments of short-
receiver to nd an unjammed band.[34] Combining range range missiles in the Warsaw Bloc became a clear threat.
from the TRR and direction from the TTR provided com- Plato was cancelled in February 1959, replaced in the
plete information on the target. short term by further upgrades to Hercules, and in the
The changes were designed to be upgradable without ma- longer term by the FABMDS program.[37] FABMDS
jor changes to the deployed system the TTR/MTR could would have performance against any credible theatre
be replaced at any time, the HIPAR used its own displays ranged missile or rocket system, as well as oer anti-
and therefore required no changes in the missile launch aircraft capabilities, the ability to attack four targets at
equipment, the TRR was slaved to the TTR and sim- once, and be relatively mobile.
ply updated range readings, and the new seeker could be The Hercules system was compared to threats ranging
retrotted 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 rst deployment of the EFS/ATBM HIPAR was car-
ried 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 Cor- Considerable work on a mobile launcher was carried out using
poral, Sergeant and Lance, and nally the long-range (for a modied GOER vehicle.
battleeld concerns) 200 mi (320 km) Redstone. Of these
threats, Redstone was considered just within the Her- As Hercules had evolved from the xed-base Ajax sys-
cules capabilities, able to defend against such a target tem, early deployments oered no mobility. However,
over a relatively limited range. Increasing performance both Ajax and Hercules systems in Europe had to be able
against these longer-range theatre weapons would re- to move as US forces shifted. This led to the use of semi-
quire more extensive upgrades that would have pushed trailer systems for the re control systems, which could be
the time-frame out to the range when FABMDS was easily moved and re-positioned as required. LOPAR was
expected.[38] relatively small, and the TTR/MTR were always trailer
based, so these systems were also fairly mobile. The
The primary change to create the resulting Improved
EFS/ATBM Hercules was a modied version of the problem was the missile launcher itself, and especially the
large HIPAR radar, which presented a formidable mobil-
HIPAR. The antenna was modied to give it the ability
to see higher angles, while the Battery Control Console ity problem.
was upgraded with dual PPI displays for short- and long- Starting in April 1960, considerable eort was put into
range work, and the data link to the missile van was up- a fully mobile Cross-Country Hercules launcher based
graded. Additionally the radar was given the Electronic on the M520 Goer vehicle, an articulated prime mover
Frequency Selection (EFS) system which allowed op- that saw considerable service during the Vietnam War.
erators to quickly switch between a selection of operat- This system was successfully tested at White Sands on 1
ing frequencies at about 20 microseconds, while the ear- October 1961.[39][40] In spite of this success, the GOER-
lier system required manual switching that took about 30 based Hercules would not be used operationally.
seconds.[38] Eorts to mount the HIPAR on the same platform be-
The rst EFS sets arrived at White Sands late in 1962 tween March and December 1962 were not nearly as suc-
and started testing in April 1963. In testing the system cessful, and on 18 December 1962 the concept was aban-
was successful against all manner of short-range rockets doned in favour of an airmobile solution using conven-
and missiles, and successfully tracked the Redstone on tional M52 trucks and modied trailers. The resulting
23 September and 5 October 1963, but failed to achieve system used six semi-trailers: four to carry HIPAR elec-
a kill in either test due to unrelated problems. A test tronic gear, one to carry the antenna, and one to carry the
against the much higher performance Pershing was car- generators. General Electric demonstrated a prototype
ried out on 16 October 1963, and while the HIPAR was on 11 February 1964. The AN/MPQ-43 Mobile HIPAR
able to detect the missile, the tracking system it was un- 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 Bat-
tery 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 hear-
ings. 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 stor-
The 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 ight 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 guid-
ance system, as well as the complex re control systems
radars, suered 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 xed 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 mis-
siles, rather than mobility. The DoD invested consider-
ably in upgrading the security of the storage areas of the
launcher sections, ultimately installing signicant tow-
ers 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]
Soviet development of ICBMs and the de-emphasis of each, while most recent cost estimate, from Japan,
their bomber force decreased the value of the Hercules was US$3 .0 million.
[42]
system. Beginning around 1965, the number of Nike
batteries was reduced. Thules air defense was reduced
during 1965, and SAC air base defense during 1966, re-
ducing 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, The booster was formed from four of the earlier Ajax
high-altitude anti-aircraft missile.[45] It was normally de- M5E1 boosters held together in a frame. Each of these
ployed in xed bases with a central radar and control site was a steel tube, and held together in this fashion they
(Integrated Fire Control area or IFC) separated from the presented a considerable range safety issue when they
launcher area (LA). Hercules batteries in the US were fell back to the ground after launch. The boosters were
generally placed in older Ajax bases, using their under- equipped with four large swept-wing ns at the extreme
ground storage and maintenance buildings. 145 missile rear, behind the rocket exhaust, using a diamond cross-
batteries were deployed during the cold war. section suitable for supersonic lift.[48]
Hercules could carry either a nuclear warhead or a con-
ventional high explosive warhead (T-45 fragmentation
3.2.1 Sites
type). Initially the nuclear-armed version carried the W-
7 Mod 2E nuclear warhead, with yields of 2.5 or 28 kt.
Each Nike battery consisted of two or three areas; IFC,
Beginning in FY 1961 the older warheads were replaced
LA and general. The LA consisted to a maximum of four
by W-31 Mod 0 warheads, with yields of 2 kt (Y1) or
launching sections, each section consisted of an under-
30 kt (Y2).[49] The last versions carried the W31 Mod 2
ground storage area, an elevator to move missiles to and
warhead, with yields of 2 or 20 kt.[2]
from the surface launchers, and four aboveground ring
locations. One of these locations was directly above the Approximately 25,000 Nike Hercules were
elevator, the others were reached by manually pushing the manufactured.[44] Three versions were produced,
missiles o the elevator to the launcher along rails. The MIM-14A, B and C. The dierences between these
LA also had a control van to control and monitor the LA versions are not known.[50] There are slight dierences
activities and maintenance facilities. in dimensions as reported in dierent sources, it is not
known if this is due to dierent versions.[44]
The IFC contained the search and tracking radars and
control center (operators, computer, etc.), and various re-
lated oces and communications centres for general op- 3.2.3 Detection and tracking
erations. To operate the Nike-Hercules system on the IFC
the crew consisted of about nine operators under com-
mand of the Battery Control Ocer (BCO). The crew on
the LA, also under command of the BCO, was responsi-
ble for preparing and erecting the missile. On both the
IFC and the LA maintenance people were available.
The battery crew was housed on-site, either at the IFC, or
sometimes, together with administrative oces and gen-
eral 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 Nike Hercules guidance schematic, surface-to-air mode.
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 Interceptions with the Hercules system would typically
alone was 24 feet 11 inches (7.59 m) long. The fuse- start with targets being detected and identied on the
lage had a bullet-like shape (SearsHaack body), but this HIPAR system, if this was in use. Otherwise the LOPAR
was dicult to make out due to the presence of the four was used. In order to simplify the upgrades at Ajax sites,
large delta wings running almost the entire length of the HIPAR did not replace the earlier ACQ radar from Ajax,
fuselage. Each wing ended with a control ap which was which was retained and now known as LOPAR. HIPAR
separated from the wing by a short distance, leaving a used its own displays and operators, and forwarded tar-
gap. The back of the controls were even with the extreme geting information to the LOPAR operators who would
rear of the missile. Smaller deltas in front of the main then pick up those same targets on their own display.
wings, and blended into them, provided roll control with Once a target was found on the LOPAR it could be identi-
very small aps mounted to pivot along a line roughly 45 ed with aid of an Identication 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 im-
prove their line-of-sight.
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
IFC radars. Left: acquisition radar (LOPAR), three spherical an- to the missile by modulating the MTR signal. When the
tennae: tracking radars. Just behind the right two tracking radars missile neared the intercept point a command signal was
the two vans for housing computer and tracking equipment and sent to the missile to explode.[46]
the operating consoles for the operators (crew of 9).

3.2.5 Launch sequence


The LOPAR provided rough range, azimuth and limited
altitude or elevation information to the operators of the Hercules missiles were normally stored in a safe mode,
Target Tracking Radar (TTR), who would manually slew using various keys and pull-to-arm pins. During an alert,
the TTR onto the target. Once locked-on, tracking was the site would go on blue alert, at which time the LA
automatic.[46] crew would arm and erect the missiles and then retreat to
New to the Hercules system was the Target Ranging safety. As the missiles were brought to readiness, a light
Radar, or TRR. It is relatively easy to jam range infor- board in the LA control van lit up with a series of amber
mation on monopulse radars like the TTR by sending out lights for each launcher area, and green lights for each
false return signals. The radar can continue to locate the missile.[46] On the IFC the status of the selected missile
target in elevation or azimuth because all of the signals was given.
come from the same location, but the receiver cannot eas- When the battery was given orders to attack a target, the
ily determine which pulse was sent by the radar and which alert status lamp changed from blue to red. When the
was sent by the electronic countermeasures (ECM) on the TTR and MTR radars were locked, the computer had
target aircraft. The TRR system combatted this by oper- a ring solution and the missile reported active, the LA
ating on two selectable very dierent set of frequencies. lamp changed from amber to green, indicating the ability
The result was ne for ranging but useless for position de- to re. At this time the target information and the inter-
termination. This signal would be very dicult to jam be- cept point were displayed on the plotting boards and the
cause the jammer would have to broadcast across a wide BCO selected the right time to manually re.[46]
set of frequencies in order to ensure they were return-
ing on the frequency the receiver had actually selected. The entire sequence of events from decision to launch
Meanwhile the TTR can continue oering location infor- to actual launch normally took about 36 seconds. This
mation, and in the case that is also jammed (dicult but included about 30 seconds to develop a track for a tar-
possible), was upgraded to oer a home-on-jam mode get; 4 seconds for computer to develop a ring solution,
that used the ECM systems own broadcasts as a location and 2 seconds between the initial re order command and
source. Skilled operators could also try to track the target missile launch. There was a 5 second allowance for the
in a manual tracking mode. missile to launch, if it failed to do so it was marked re-
jected and another missile selected. A new missile could
be launched about 11 seconds after detonation or reject-
ing the previous missile. Based on the 'time to y' of
3.2.4 Guidance 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 y' 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 oered the ability to attack pre-located
information was displayed on plotting boards.[46] ground targets, after feeding in the coordinates in an op-
Prior to launch, the Missile Tracking Radar (MTR) eration that took about ve 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 Republic of Korea


missile would eventually pass out of line-of-sight with the
MTR, so nal arming information was provided during
the dive, and the warhead was triggered by a barometric Netherlands
fuse.

Norway
3.3 Accidental launches
An accidental launch of a Nike-H missile occurred Taiwan
on April 14, 1955, at the W-25 site at Fort George
G. Meade which contains the National Security
Turkey
Agency headquarters [51]

Naha, Okinawa June or July 1959, a similar incident


occurred concerning a Hercules anti-aircraft missile United States
on Okinawa which according to some witnesses, was
complete with a nuclear warhead, and was acciden-
tally red from the Nike site 8 battery at Naha Air
Base.[52] While the missile was undergoing continu- 3.5 Gallery
ity testing of the ring circuit, known as a squib test,
stray voltage caused a short circuit in a faulty ca-
Nike Hercules after take-o at NAMFI in Greece
ble that was lying in a puddle and allowed the mis-
siles rocket engines to ignite with the launcher still
2 Nikes on transport rail
in a horizontal position.[52] The Nike missile left the
launcher and smashed through a fence and down into
Missile elevator
a beach area skipping the warhead out across the wa-
ter like a stone.[52] The rockets exhaust blast killed
Dutch Nike site in W-Germany (note the above ground
two Army technicians and injured one.[52]
storage shelter).
Inchon, Korea. Reported in The Washington Post
[53]

of December 5, 1998,[52] the missile inadvertently MIM-14 Nike-H missile at Okinawa, June 1967
launched from a Nike missile site near the summit
of Mt. Bongnaesan where it exploded above some Section Panel Operator
reclaimed land o Songdo (now Songdo Interna-
tional Business District), showering residential ar- Battery Control Ocer operating position with the
acquisition radar operator on the left and on the right the
eas with debris, destroying parked cars and breaking
computer operator. And in front the plotting boards.
windows.[53]
TTR and TRR operator console. The TTR was op-
erated by three operators (range, elevation and azimuth).
3.4 Operators De TRR was operated by the track supervisor.

Belgium MTR operator console. De MTR was operated by one


operator.

Denmark Coder decoder group AN/MSQ-18.

Germany
3.6 See also
Greece List of missiles

Italy Project Nike

W31
Japan
List of Nike missile locations
26 CHAPTER 3. MIM-14 NIKE HERCULES

3.7 References [19] Lonnquest & Winkler 1996, pp. 60-61.

[20] Lonnquest & Winkler 1996, p. 61.


Notes
[21] Larsen, Douglas (1 August 1957). New Battle Looms
[1] Examples include the USs AGM-28 Hound Dog, the Over Armys Newest Missile. Sarasota Journal. p. 35.
UKs Blue Steel, and the USSRs Kh-20. Retrieved 18 May 2013.

[22] Walker, Bernstein & Lang 2003, pp. 27-30, 37.


[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 [23] Nickerson Accuses Wilson Of 'Grave Errors On Mis-
known as Nike II. siles. The News and Courier. 28 June 1957. p. B-14.
Retrieved 18 May 2013.
[3] The simulated target appears to be purely simulated, not
a drone. [24] Army Weights Court-Martial Over Missiles. St. Peters-
burg Times. 25 February 1957. p. 1. Retrieved 18 May
[4] According to the Popular Science article of 1954, Ajax did
2013.
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 [25] Lonnquest & Winkler 1996, pp. 61-62.
setups.
[26] Lonnquest & Winkler 1996, p. 62.
Citations [27] Lonnquest & Winkler 1996, p. 63.

[28] Cagle 1973, pp. 98-120.


[1] Department of the Army, Army Missiles Handbook Jan-
uary 1960 (formerly SECRET) p. 52 Missiles les, United [29] Cagle 1973, pp. 98120.
States Army Center of Military History.
[30] Thomas B. Cochran, William M. Arkin, and Milton
[2] Thomas B. Cochran, William M. Arkin, and Milton M. Hoenig, Nuclear Weapons Databook Volume I: U.S.
Hoenig, Nuclear Weapons Databook Volume I: U.S. Nu- Nuclear Forces and Capabilities (Cambridge: Ballinger,
clear Forces and Capabilities (Cambridge: Ballinger, 1984) p.287; The New York Times December 23, 1959,
1987) p.45. p. 50; Irving Heymont, The NATO Nuclear Bilateral
Forces Orbis 94:4 Winter 1966, pp. 10251041; George
[3] Zeus 1962, p. 165. S. Harris, The Troubled Alliance: Turkish-American Prob-
[4] Walker, Bernstein & Lang 2003, p. 39. lems in Historical Perspective 19451971 (Washington:
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research,
[5] Walker, Bernstein & Lang 2003, p. 20. 1972), p. 153.

[6] Leonard 2011, pp. 3-4, 18. [31] Cagle 1973, p. 186.

[7] Thunderbird. Flight International: 295299, 302303. [32] The New York Times April 9, 1959, p. 7 and December
25 September 1959. ISSN 0015-3710. Retrieved 18 May 23, 1959, p. 50.
2013.
[33] Cagle 1973, pp. 163164.
[8] Lonnquest & Winkler 1996, pp. 56-57.
[34] Cagle 1973, p. 167.
[9] Lonnquest & Winkler 1996, p. 57. [35] Cagle 1973, pp. 169171.
[10] Complete List of All U.S. Nuclear Weapons, Nuclear [36] Cagle 1973, p. 171.
Weapon Archive, 14 October 2006
[37] Naval Forces Capability for Theater Missile Defense,
[11] Will NIKE Protect Us from Red Bombers?", Popular National Academies Press, 2001
Science, September 1956, pp. 152-155
[38] Cagle 1973, pp. 190196.
[12] Cagle 1973, p. 67.
[39] Nike-Hercules Anti-Aircraft Missile Launched,
[13] Cagle 1973, pp. 67-78. Charleston News and Courier, 2 October 1961, p. 3A.
[14] Nike Ajax (SAM-A-7) (MIM-3, 3A)", Federation of [40] Missile Fired from Mobile Transport, Daytona Beach
American Scientists, 29 June 1999 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 Unt 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 De- Nike Hercules at Encyclopedia Astronautica
ter: The legacy of the United States cold war missile pro-
gram The last operational North American unit

[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 Jan-


uary 1960 (formerly SECRET) p. 52 Missiles les, 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 Novem-
ber 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 De-
fend and Deter: The Legacy of the United States Cold
War Missile Program. US Army Construction En-
gineering Research Lab. Retrieved 26 December
2013.
Kaplan, Lawrence (2006). Nike Zeus: The U.S.
Armys First ABM. Falls Church, Virginia: Missile
Defense Agency. OCLC 232605150. Retrieved 13
May 2013.
Technical Editor (2 August 1962). Nike Zeus.
Flight International: 165170. 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 Mis-
sile Command. Retrieved 1 January 2014.

3.8 External links


Nike Hercules at Designation-Systems.net
Nike Historical Society
Chapter 4

Project Nike

Nike missile family on display at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama.


From left, MIM-14 Nike Hercules, MIM-23 Hawk (front), MGM-
29 Sergeant (back), LIM-49 Spartan, MGM-31 Pershing, MGM-
18 Lacrosse, MIM-3 Nike Ajax.

Project Nike, (Greek: , Victory, pronounced


[nk]), was a U.S. Army project, proposed in May
1945 by Bell Laboratories, to develop a line-of-sight anti-
aircraft missile system. The project delivered the United
States rst operational anti-aircraft missile system, the
Nike Ajax located in
Nike Ajax, in 1953. A great number of the technolo-
Marion, Kentucky.
gies 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 missiles rst-stage livering the BOMARC missile.
solid rocket booster became the basis for many types of Bell Labs proposal would have to deal with bombers y-
rocket including the Nike Hercules missile and NASA's ing at 500 mph (800 km/h) or more at altitudes of up
Nike Smoke rocket, used for upper-atmosphere research. to 60,000 ft (20,000 m). At these speeds, even a super-
sonic rocket is no longer fast enough to be simply aimed
at the target. The missile must lead the target to en-
4.1 History sure the target is hit before the missile depletes its fuel.
This means that the missile and target cannot be tracked
Project Nike began during 1944 when the War Depart- by a single radar, increasing the complexity of the sys-
ment demanded a new air defense system to combat the tem. One part was well developed. By this point, the US
new jet aircraft, as existing gun-based systems proved had considerable experience with lead-calculating analog
largely incapable of dealing with the speeds and altitudes computers, starting with the British Kerrison Predictor
at which jet aircraft operated. Two proposals were ac- and a series of increasingly capable U.S. designs.
cepted. Bell Laboratories oered 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 Tar-
General Electric, named Project Thumper, eventually de- get Tracking Radar (TTR) for tracking. The Missile

28
4.1. HISTORY 29

Tracking Radar (MTR) tracked the missile by way of a 1,000 yards (914 m). One part (designated C) of about
transponder, as the missiles radar signature alone was not six acres (24,000 m) contained the IFC (Integrated Fire
sucient. The MTR also commanded the missile by way Control) radar systems to detect incoming targets (acqui-
of pulse-position modulation, the pulses were received, sition and target tracking) and direct the missiles (mis-
decoded and then amplied back for the MTR to track. sile tracking), along with the computer systems to plot
Once the tracking radars were locked the system was able and direct the intercept. The second part (designated L),
to work automatically following launch, barring any un- around forty acres (160,000 m), held 1-3 underground
expected occurrences. The computer compared the two missile magazines each serving a group of four launch as-
radars directions, along with information on the speeds semblies and included a safety zone. The site had a crew
and distances, to calculate the intercept point and steer of 109 ocers and men who ran the site continuously.
the missile. The entirety of this system was provided by One launcher would be on 15 minutes alert, two on 30
the Bell Systems electronics rm, Western Electric. minutes and one on two hour alert. The third part was the
administrative area (designated A), which was usually co-
The Douglas-built missile was a two-stage missile us-
ing a solid fuel booster stage and a liquid fueled located with the IFC and contained the battery headquar-
ters, barracks, mess, recreation hall, and motor pool. The
(IRFNA/UDMH) second stage. The missile could reach
a maximum speed of 1,000 mph (1,600 km/h), an alti- actual conguration of the Nike sites diered depending
tude of 70,000 ft (21 km) and had a range of 25 miles on geography. Whenever possible the sites were placed
(40 km). The missile contained an unusual three part on existing military bases or National Guard armories;
payload, with explosive fragmentation charges at three otherwise land had to be purchased.
points down the length of the missile to help ensure a The Nike batteries were organized in Defense Areas and
lethal hit. The missiles limited range was seen by critics placed around population centers and strategic locations
as a serious aw, because it often meant that the missile such as long-range bomber bases, nuclear plants, and
had to be situated very close to the area it was protecting. (later) ICBM sites. The Nike sites in a Defense Area
After disputes between the Army and the Air Force (see formed a circle around these cities and bases. There was
the Key West Agreement), all longer-range systems were no xed number of Nike batteries in a Defense Area and
assigned to the Air Force during 1948. They merged the actual number of batteries varied from a low of two
their own long-range research with Project Thumper, in the Barksdale AFB Defense Area to a high of 22 in the
while the Army continued to develop Nike. During Chicago Defense Area. In the Continental United States
1950 the Army formed the Army Anti-Aircraft Com- the sites were numbered from 01 to 99 starting at the
north and increasing clockwise. The numbers had no re-
mand (ARAACOM) to operate batteries of anti-aircraft
guns and missiles. ARAACOM was renamed the US lation to actual compass headings, but generally Nike sites
numbered 01 to 25 were to the northeast and east, those
Army Air Defense Command (USARADCOM) during
1957. It adopted a simpler acronym, ARADCOM, in numbered 26 to 50 were to the southeast and south, those
numbered 51 to 75 were to the southwest and west, and
1961.
those numbered 76 to 99 were to the northwest and north.
The Defense Areas in the Continental United States were
identied by a one- or two-letter code which were related
4.1.1 Nike Ajax to the city name. Thus those Nike sites starting with C
were in the Chicago Defense Area, those starting with
Main article: MIM-3 Nike Ajax HM were in the Homestead AFB/Miami Defense Area,
The rst successful Nike test was during November 1951, those starting with NY were in the New York Defense
intercepting a drone B-17 Flying Fortress. The rst type, Area, and so forth. As an example Nike Site SF-88L
Nike Ajax (MIM-3), were deployed starting in 1953. refers to the launcher area (L) of the battery located in
The Army initially ordered 1,000 missiles and 60 sets of the northwestern part (88) of the San Francisco Defense
equipment. They were placed to protect strategic and tac- Area (SF).
tical sites within the US. As a last-line of defense from
air attack, they were positioned to protect cities as well During the early-to-mid-1960s the Nike Ajax batteries
as military installations. The missile was deployed rst at were upgraded to the Hercules system. The new mis-
Fort Meade, Maryland during December 1953. A further siles had greater range and destructive power, so about
240 launch sites were built up to 1962. They replaced 896 half as many batteries provided the same defensive capa-
radar-guided anti-aircraft guns, operated by the National bility. Regular Army batteries were either upgraded to
Guard or Army to protect certain key sites. This left a the Hercules system or decommissioned. Army National
handful of 75 mm Skysweeper emplacements as the only Guard units continued to use the Ajax system until 1964,
anti-aircraft artillery remaining in use by the US. By 1957 when they too upgraded to Hercules. Eventually, the Reg-
the Regular Army AAA units had been replaced by mis- ular Army units were replaced by the National Guard as
sile battalions. During 1958 the Army National Guard a cost-saving measure, since the Guard units could return
began to replace their guns and adopt the Ajax system. to their homes when o duty.

Each launch site had three parts, separated by at least A Nike Ajax missile accidentally exploded at a battery in
30 CHAPTER 4. PROJECT NIKE

Leonardo, New Jersey on 22 May 1958, killing 6 soldiers mote air crews. ECM activity also took place between
and 4 civilians. A memorial can be found at Fort Hancock the bombers and the Nike sites. The performance of the
in the Sandy Hook Unit of Gateway National Recreation NIKE crews improved remarkably with this live target
Area. practice.
Many Nike Hercules batteries were manned by Army Na-
tional Guard troops, with a single active Army ocer as-
4.1.2 Nike Hercules
signed to each battalion to account for the units nuclear
warheads. The National Guard air defense units shared
Main article: MIM-14 Nike-Hercules
responsibility for defense of their assigned area with ac-
tive 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 oper-
proved 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 vac- Development 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 im- Zeus, with a new 400,000 lbf (1.78 MN) thrust solid-
prove the probability of a kill. The W-31 warhead had fuel booster, was rst test launched during August 1959
four variants oering 2, 10, 20 and 30 kiloton yields. and demonstrated a top speed of 8,000 mph (12,875
The 20 kt version was used in the Hercules system. At km/h). The Nike Zeus system utilized the ground based
sites in the USA the missile almost exclusively carried a Zeus Acquisition Radar (ZAR), a signicant improve-
nuclear warhead. Sites in foreign nations typically had ment over the Nike Hercules HIPAR guidance system.
a mix of high explosive and nuclear warheads. The re Shaped like a pyramid, the ZAR featured a Luneburg
control of the Nike system was also improved with the lens receiver aerial weighing about 1,000 tons. The rst
Hercules and included a surface-to-surface mode which successful intercept of an ICBM by Zeus was in 1962,
was successfully tested in Alaska. The mode change was at Kwajalein in the Marshall Islands. Despite its tech-
accomplished by changing a single plug on the warhead nological advancements, the Department of Defense ter-
from the Safe Plug to Surface to Air or Surface to minated Zeus development in 1963. The Zeus system,
Surface. which cost an estimated $15 billion, still suered from
The Nike Hercules was deployed starting in June 1958. several technical aws[1]that were believed to be uneco-
First 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 benets 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 In March 1969. the Army started the anti-ballistic mis-
targets to acquire and track with their radar. SAC sile Safeguard Program, which was designed to defend
had many Radar Bomb Scoring (RBS) sites across the Minuteman ICBMs, and which was also based on the
country which had very similar acquisition and tracking Nike-X system. It became operational in 1975, but was
radar, plus similar computerized plotting boards which shut down after just three months.[2]
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 4.1.4 Nike-X
RBS procedures. The distances from the simulated bomb
landing point and the target were recorded on paper, Main article: Nike-X
measured, encoded, and transmitted to the aircrews. The Nike-X was a proposed US Army anti-ballistic missile
results of these bomb runs were used to promote or de- (ABM) system designed to protect major cities in the
4.2. SPECIFICATIONS 31

United States from attacks by the Soviet Union's ICBM til the project was canceled in favor of the Thor based
eet. The name referred to its experimental basis, it was Program 437 system during 1966. In the end, neither de-
intended to be replaced by a more appropriate name when velopment would enter service. However, the Nike Zeus
the system was put into production. This never came to system did demonstrate a hit to kill capability against bal-
pass; the original Nike-X concept was replaced by a much listic missiles during the early 1960s. See National Mis-
thinner defense system known as the Sentinel Program sile Defense and anti-ballistic missile systems.
that used some of the same equipment. Nike Hercules was included in SALT I discussions as an
Nike-X was a response to the failure of the earlier Nike ABM. Following the treaty signed during 1972, and fur-
Zeus system. Zeus had been designed to face a few dozen ther budget reduction, almost all Nike sites in the con-
Soviet ICBMs in the 1950s, and its design would mean it tinental United States were deactivated by April 1974.
was largely useless by mid-1960s when it would be fac- Some units remained active until the later part of that
ing hundreds. It was calculated that a salvo of only four decade in a coastal air defense role.
ICBMs would have a 90% chance of hitting the Zeus
base, whos radars could only track a few warheads at
the same time. Worse, the attacker could use radar re- 4.2 Specications
ectors 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. 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, allow-
ing successful attack right up to the few last seconds of Trucks
the warheads re-entry. They would operate below the al-
titude where decoys or explosions had any eect. Nike-X M254 truck, missile rocket motor, Nike Ajax
also used a new radar system that could track hundreds
of objects at once, allowing salvoes of many Sprints. It M255 truck, body section, Nike Ajax
would require dozens of missiles to overwhelm the sys- M256 truck, inert, Nike Ajax
tem. Nike-X considered retaining the longer range Zeus M257 truck, inert, Nike Ajax
missile, and later developed an extended range version
known as Zeus EX. It played a secondary role in the Nike- M442 truck, guided missile, rocket motor,
X system, intended primarily for use in areas outside the Nike Hercules
Sprint protected regions. M451 truck, guided missile test set, Nike Her-
cules
Nike-X required at least one interceptor missile to at-
tack each incoming warhead. As the USSRs missile eet M473 truck, guided missile body section, Nike
grew, the cost of implementing Nike-X began to grow as Hercules
well. Looking for lower-cost options, a number of studies M489 truck, missile nose section, Nike Her-
carried 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 lim-
ited attacks. When the Chinese exploded their rst H-
bomb 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 bat-
4.1.5 Decommissioning teries at 40 Defense Areas within the United States (in-
cluding Alaska and Hawaii) in which Project Nike mis-
Soviet 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 En-
air 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 na-
and 82 in 1969. tions 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 CHAPTER 4. PROJECT NIKE

which were deemed vital to national defense. The origi- The Nike Hercules was designed to use existing Nike
nal basing strategy projected a central missile assembly Ajax facilities. With the greater range of the Nike Her-
point from which missiles would be taken out to pre- cules allowing for wider area coverage, numerous Nike
pared above-ground launch racks ringing the defended Ajax batteries were permanently deactivated. In addition,
area. However, the Army discarded this semimobile con- sites located further away from target areas were desirable
cept because the system needed to be ready for instan- due to the nuclear warheads carried by the missile. Unlike
taneous action to fend o a surprise attack. Instead, a the older Ajax sites, these batteries were placed in loca-
xed-site scheme was devised. tions that optimized the missiles range and minimized
the warhead damage. Nike Hercules batteries at SAC
Due to geographical factors, the placement of Nike bat-
teries diered at each location. Initially, the planners bases and in Hawaii were installed in an outdoor congu-
ration. In Alaska, a unique above-ground shelter congu-
chose xed sites well away from the defended area and
the Corps of Engineers Real Estate Oces began seeking ration was provided for batteries guarding Anchorage and
Fairbanks. Local Corps of Engineer Districts supervised
tracts of land in rural areas However, Army planners de-
termined that close-in perimeter sites would provide en- the conversion of Nike Ajax batteries and the construc-
tion of new Nike Hercules batteries.
hanced repower. Staggering sites between outskirt and
close-in locations to urban areas gave defenders a greater Nike missiles remained deployed around strategically im-
defense-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. Al-
though 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 con-
including the mess hall, barracks, and recreation facili- duct live-re 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 rst oered to
or the Launch Area, depending upon site conguration,
obstructions, and the availability of land. federal agencies. Many were already on Army National
Guard bases who continued to use the property. Others
The Launch Area provided for the maintenance, storage, were oered to state and local governments while others
testing, and ring of the Nike missiles. The selection of were sold to school districts. The left-overs were oered
this area was primarily inuenced 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. Sev-
the missile-tracking-radar in the Battery Control Area. eral were completely obliterated and turned into parks.
The rst Nike sites featured above-ground launchers. Some are now private residences. Only a few remain in-
This 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 ocer and the controls he operated to launch mis-
siles. In addition to the launch control trailer, the launch Bergstrom AFB Defense Area, TX
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 under- Chicago-Gary Defense Area, IL-IN
ground magazines capacity was reduced to eight missiles.
Thus, storage racks, launcher rails, and elevators under- Cincinnati-Dayton Defense Area, OH-IN
went modication to accept the larger missiles. Two
additional features that readily distinguished newly con- Cleveland Defense Area, OH
verted sites were the double fence and the kennels housing Dallas-Fort Worth Defense Area, TX
dogs that patrolled the perimeter between the two fences.
Detroit Defense Area, MI
4.5. NIKE AS SOUNDING ROCKET 33

Dyess AFB Defense Area, TX 4.5 Nike as sounding rocket


Ellsworth AFB Defense Area, SD The Nike was also used as sounding rocket in the follow-
ing versions:
Fairbanks Defense Area, AK
Nike Apache[4]
Fairchild AFB Defense Area, WA
Nike Hawk[4]
Hanford Defense Area, WA
Nike Hydac
Hartford Defense Area. CT Nike Iroquois

Homestead-Miami Defense Area, FL Nike Javelin


Nike Malemute[4]
Kansas City Defense Area, KS-MO
Nike Nike
Lincoln AFB Defense Area, NE
Nike Orion
Loring AFB Defense Area, ME Nike Recruit

Los Angeles Defense Area, CA Nike T40 T55


Nike Tomahawk[4]
Milwaukee Defense Area, WI
Nike Viper
Minneapolis-St.Paul Defense Area, MN
Nike-Asp
New York Defense Area, NY Nike-Cajun[4]

Niagara Falls-Bualo Defense Area, NY Nike-Deacon

Norfolk Defense Area, VA


4.6 Survivors
Oahu Defense Area, HI
4.6.1 Bases
Outt AFB Defense Area, NE
The best preserved Nike installation is site SF88L
Philadelphia Defense Area, PA-NJ located in the Marin Headlands just west of the
Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, California.
Pittsburgh Defense Area, PA The site is a museum, and contains the missile
bunkers, and control area, as well as period uniforms
Providence Defense Area, RI-MA and vehicles that would have operated at the site.
The site has been preserved in the condition it was in
Robbins AFB Defense Area, GA at the time it was decommissioned in 1974. The site
began as a Nike Ajax base and was later converted to
St. Louis Defense Area, MO Nike Hercules. Three Nike Hercules are displayed
in the original bunkers. The base is open to the pub-
San Francisco Defense Area, CA lic, including demonstrations of the operational mis-
sile lift from the bunker to the surface. Tours are
Schilling AFB Defense Area, KS conducted by members of the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area sta.
Seattle Defense Area, WA
The second best preserved Nike installation is site
Travis AFB Defense Area, CA NY-56 at Fort Hancock in Sandy Hook, New Jersey.
The site has been restored and contains the original
Turner AFB Defense Area, GA missile bunkers, as well as three Nike Ajax and a
Nike Hercules on display. Each fall the base hold a
Walker AFB Defense Area, NM Cold War Day. Tours one weekend a month from
April to October. The site is on the National Regis-
Washington-Baltimore Defense Area, MD-VA ter of Historic Places.
34 CHAPTER 4. PROJECT NIKE

As the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Cri- Two Nike Ajax and a Nike Hercules are on display
sis approaches, a group of students attending the near the Bataan Building at Camp Perry, near Port
George T. Baker Aviation School are restoring a Clinton, Ohio.
Nike Hercules missile for display at one of the orig-
inal launch sites in the Everglades. The missile was A Nike Ajax is on display near the Toledo Rockets
salvaged from a US Army depot in Alabama. It will Glass Bowl Stadium on the campus of the University
be on public display at the HM69 Nike site, which of Toledo in Toledo, Ohio.
is operated by the National Park Service.[5] A Nike Ajax is displayed in front of an Army Sur-
plus store located near the Letterkenny Army Depot
in Pennsylvania.
4.6.2 Missiles
A Nike Ajax and Herclules are on display at the
A Nike Zeus is on display at the Space Camp in Pennsylvania National Guard Department of Mili-
Huntsville, Alabama. tary Arts building at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsyl-
vania.
A Nike Ajax, Nike Hercules, and Nike Zeus are on
display at the Redstone Arsenal in Alabama. A Nike Ajax and Hercules are on display at the Air
Power Park in Hampton, Virginia.
A Nike Ajax and Nike Hercules are on display at the
Royal Museum of the Army and Military History in A Nike Ajax missile cutaway, as well as a complete
Brussels, Belgium. Nike Ajax missile are on display at the Udvar-Hazy
Center of the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum at
A Nike missile is on display at Camp San Luis Washington Dulles International Airport, in Chan-
Obispo near Morro Bay, California. tilly, Virginia.

A Nike Ajax and Hercules are on display at A Nike Ajax and Nike Hercules are on display in the
the Peterson Air and Space Museum in Colorado Berryman War Memorial Park in Bridgeport, Wash-
Springs, Colorado. ington.

Two Nike Ajax and a Hercules are on display at the A Nike Hercules and transport trailer are on dis-
Cape Canaveral Space & Missile Museum in Cape play at the Ft. Lewis Military Museum in Tacoma,
Canaveral, Florida. Washington.

A Nike Ajax is on display at the War Museum in A Nike Ajax on its launcher is on display outside an
Athens, Greece. American Legion hall in Okauchee Lake, Wiscon-
sin.
A Nike Ajax and Hercules are on display in front of
A Nike Ajax on its transporter (trailer) is on display
the American Legion post in Cedar Lake, Indiana.
outside a public storage (former site MS-20) facility
A Nike missile is on display at the Combat Air Mu- in Roberts, Wisconsin.
seum in Topeka, Kansas.
A Nike Ajax is on display in front of the American
A Nike Ajax is on display in Marion, Kentucky. Legion Post in Waynesboro, Pennsylvania.

A Nike Ajax and Hercules are on display at the A Nike Hercules is on display outside the Royal Nor-
Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Aberdeen, Maryland. wegian Air Force's training centre at Kjevik, Nor-
way.
A Nike Ajax is on display in front of the VFW post
A Nike Hercules and what seems to be the tip of a
in Hancock, Maryland.
Nike Ajax is on display at Trgstad Fort, about 45
Two Nike Ajax and a Hercules are on display at a km to the southeast of Oslo, Norway.
small Cold War museum in Ft. Meade, Maryland. A Nike Hercules is on display at Stvnsfortet, about
A Nike Ajax and Hercules are on display at 50 km south of Copenhagen.
the Dutch Air Force Museum in Soesterberg Air A Nike Hercules is on display in a park in St. Boni-
Base.[6] facius, Minnesota.
A Nike Ajax is on display at The Space Center in A Nike Hercules is on display in Young Pa-
Alamagordo, New Mexico. triots Park(Formally Nike base D-54) in Riverview,
Michigan.
A Nike Ajax is on display near the administrative
buildings at the former Nike site in Rustan, about A Nike Ajax missile is on display at Richard Mont-
40 km to the southwest of Oslo, Norway. gomery High School in Rockville, Maryland.[7]
4.10. EXTERNAL LINKS 35

4.7 See also 4.10 External links


Wasserfall was a World War II German project for Nike Missile Manual Collection
a surface-to-air missile.
The Continental Air Defense Collection at the
Missile guidance United States Army Center of Military History

Sprint Video Documentary of History of Nike-Hercules


Project in U.S.
LIM-49 Spartan
Community fr ehemaliges Nike-Hercules-Personal
Safeguard Program (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 des- Nike Zeus info
ignation (G-789)
Pictures of a demilitarized Nike site in Germany
Cold War Museum
Nike Sites of the Los Angeles Defense Area
List of U.S. Army Rocket Launchers By Model
Number The Nike Missile Program, Doug Crompton Area
Hoejerup and Stevns Fort. Denmark. En-
glish/danish
4.8 Sources Nike Ajax Explosion Marker: Gateway National
Recreation Area
Morgan, Mark L., & Berhow, Mark A., Rings of
Supersonic Steel, Second Edition, Hole in the Head The short lm Big Picture: Pictorial Report Num-
Press, 2002, ISBN 0-615-12012-1. ber 20 is available for free download at the Internet
Archive
John C. Lonnquest, David F. Winkler (Novem-
ber 1996). To Defend and Deter: The Legacy of The short lm Big Picture: Army Digest Number
the United States Cold War Missile Program (USA- Nine: Nike Zeus-Pershing is available for free down-
Cerl Special Report, N-97/01,). Afhra. ISBN 978- load at the Internet Archive
9996175718.

4.9 References
[1] NIKE ZEUS - Seventeen years of growth Flight Inter-
national 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. Re-
trieved 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 cri-


sis, 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
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 ock 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 ex-
ploded.

NIKE Missile Site near Anchorage, AK


Locations of US Army Nike Missile Sites in the Contiguous United
States
Chapter 5

MGM-5 Corporal

For what was the front line of nuclear defense, the Cor-
poral missile was notoriously unreliable and inaccurate.*
It used a liquid-fueled rocket burning red fuming nitric
acid and hydrazine; this required elaborate and time-
consuming preparation immediately before launch, mak-
ing its tactical responsiveness questionable. For guidance,
it employed commands sent through a reworked World
War II-era radar system. Until 1955, its in-ight accu-
racy was less than 50 percent, with only modest improve-
ments thereafter. The rst year of British test rings in
1959 yielded a success rate of only 46 percent, a dismal
record which raised questions among military planners of
its operational eectiveness in Germany.

Corporal eld artillery missile at Cape Canaveral, Florida, the While this may have been true of the rst de-
Air Force Space & Missile Museum
ployed Corporal missiles, the later generation Cor-
poral Type IIB were surprisingly accurate for their
The MGM-5 Corporal missile was the rst guided time.
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 ssion 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, iner-
km). tial guidance (internal accelerometers) kept the missile
in a vertical position and pre-set guidance steered it dur-
Developed by the United States Army in partnership with ing its launch. The ground guidance system was a mod-
Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, Gilllan Brothers ied SCR584 pulse tracking radar which measured the
Inc., Douglas Aircraft Company and Caltechs pioneering missiles 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 rst 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 eld until in the trajectory calculation. The Doppler radar was also
1964, when the system was replaced by the solid-fueled used to send the nal range correction and warhead arm-
MGM-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 Corporal Missile Battalions in Europe were highly mo-
bile, considering the large number of support vehicles and
The Corporal was rst developed in White Sands Missile personnel required to support the transportation, check-
Range, New Mexico. It came out of the project ORDCIT out, and launch of this liquid-fueled nuclear-tipped (or
series of rockets developed by the Army and the forerun- conventional HE) missile. In Germany, frequent unan-
ner to Caltechs Jet Propulsion Laboratory. After being nounced Alerts were performednecessitating assem-
sold to Britain in 1954, it became the rst U.S. guided bling all personnel and moving vehicles and missiles to
missile destined for service in a foreign country to be used a pre-assigned assembly point. From there the battal-
by a foreign power. ion would move to a launch siteusually somewhere in

38
5.4. SEE ALSO 39

a remote forestset up the missile on its launcher and 259th Missile Battalion reag as 1st Bn, 40th
go through a detailed checkout of the various systems. Art (Fort Bliss)
This was not a trivial operation as these electronic sys- 523rd Missile Battalion reag as 1st Bn, 81st
tems were all vacuum tubes. A mock ring would be per- Art (Fort Carson)
formed and the entire battalion would be gone as soon as
526th Missile Battalion reag as 1st Bn, 84th
possible in order to not be a target of counter-battery re.
Art (Fort Sill)
The deployment in the eld during an Alert was amaz-
ingly swift due to the highly trained crews. 530th Missile Battalion reag as 1st Bn, 39th
Arty (Germany)
Live-re training for Germany- based US Forces took
531st Missile Battalion reag as 1st Bn, 38th
place at Fort Bliss but later the British Royal Artillery
Arty (Germany)
Guided Weapons Range on the Scottish island of Benbec-
ula in the Outer Hebrides. Missiles were red toward des- 543rd Missile Battalion reag as 1st Bn, 82nd
ignated target coordinates in the Atlantic Ocean. Radar Arty (Italy)
on St. Kilda scored successful (on-target) rings. Fre- 557th Missile Battalion reag as 2nd Bn, 81st
quently, Soviet shing trawlers would intrude into the Arty (Germany)
target area. 558th Missile Battalion reag as 2nd Bn, 82nd
One outstanding Corporal Missile unit, the 1st Missile Arty (Germany)
Battalion of the 38th Artillery (1/38th) was stationed in 559th Missile Battalion reag as 2nd Bn, 84th
Babenhausen Kaserne. Its re mission was to protect the Arty (Germany)
Fulda Gap from an armored invasion by the Soviet Union 570th Missile Battalion reag as 1st Bn, 80th
and Warsaw Pact nations. Eventually the Corporal IIB Arty (Italy)
was overtaken by advances in technology and in 1963 they
601st Missile Battalion reag as 2nd Bn, 40th
began to be deactivatedreplaced by the Sergeant mis-
Arty (Germany)
sile system.

5.2 Toys 5.4 See also


List of U.S. Army weapons by supply catalog desig-
A version of the Corporal was made as a die-cast toy nation (SNL Y-3)
by manufacturers such as Corgi and Dinky. The Corgi
Corporalmarketed to children as 'the rocket you can Frank Malina
launch'was timed to coincide with the British test r-
Private (missile)
ing in 1959.
A 1/40 scale plastic model kit of the Corporal missile with Wac Corporal
its mobile transporter was produced in the late 1950s and MGM-29 Sergeant
was reissued by Revell-Monogram in 2009.
List of U.S. Army Rocket Launchers by model num-
ber
5.3 Operators
United Kingdom[1]
5.5 References
[1] The rst nuclear-authorized unguided rocket was the
MGR-1 Honest John.
British Army, Royal Artillery
27th Guided Weapons Regiment RA 1957- [1] USAREUR Units & Kasernes, 1945 - 1989
1966 [2] USAREUR Units & Kasernes, 1945 - 1989
47th Guided Weapons Regiment RA 1957-
1965 Army Ballistic Missile Agency (1961) Development
of the Corporal: the embryo of the army missile pro-
United States gram Vol 1. ABMA unclassied report, Redstone
Arsenal, Alabama.
MacDonald, F (2006) 'Geopolitics and 'the Vision
United States Army[2]
Thing': regarding Britain and Americas rst nuclear
246th Missile Battalion reag as 2nd Bn, 80th missile', Transactions of the Institute of British Geog-
Art (Fort Sill) raphers 31, 53-71. available for download ,
40 CHAPTER 5. MGM-5 CORPORAL

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 Mis-
sile Agency.
Chapter 6

PGM-11 Redstone

See also: Redstone (rocket family)

The PGM-11 Redstone was the rst large American


ballistic missile. A short-range surface-to-surface rocket,
it was in active service with the U.S. Army in West Ger-
many from June 1958 to June 1964 as part of NATO's
Cold War defense of Western Europe. It was the rst
missile to carry a live nuclear warhead, in the 1958 Pa-
cic Ocean weapons test, Hardtack Teak.
A direct descendant of the German V-2 rocket, the mis-
sile 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. Redstones
prime contractor was the Chrysler Corporation.[1]
For its role as a eld artillery theater ballistic missile, Red-
stone earned the moniker the Armys Workhorse. It
was retired by the U.S. in 1964, though in 1967 a surplus
Redstone helped launch Australias rst satellite.

US Army eld 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 regions red rocks and soil.[2] Chrysler Cape Canaveral on August 20, 1953. It ew for one
was awarded the prime production contract and began minute and 20 seconds before suering an engine failure
missile and support equipment production in 1952 at the and falling into the sea. Following this partial success,
newly renamed Michigan Ordnance Missile Plant in War- the second test was conducted on January 27, 1954, this
ren, Michigan. The navy-owned facility was previously time without a hitch as the missile ew 55 miles. The
known as the Naval Industrial Reserve Aircraft Plant used third Redstone ight on May 5 was a total loss as the en-
for jet engine production. Following the cancellation of a gine cut o one second after launch, causing the rocket to
planned jet engine program, the facility was made avail- fall back on the pad and explode. Subsequent tests were
able to the Chrysler Corporation for missile production. completely or partially successful and the Redstone was
Rocketdyne Division of North American Aviation Com- declared operational in 1955.
pany provided the rocket engines; Ford Instrument Com- The Mercury-Redstone Launch Vehicle was a derivation
pany, division of Sperry Rand Corporation, produced the of the Redstone with a fuel tank increased in length by 6
guidance and control systems; and Reynolds Metals Com- feet (1.8 m) and was used on May 5, 1961 to launch Alan
pany fabricated fuselage assemblies as subcontractors to Shepard on his sub-orbital ight to become the second
Chrysler. The rst Redstone lifted o from LC-4A at person and rst American in space.[3]

41
42 CHAPTER 6. PGM-11 REDSTONE

6.2 Description research program aimed at understanding re-entry phe-


nomena. These Redstones had two solid fuel upper stages
Redstone was capable of ights from 57.5 miles (92.5 added. The U.S. donated a spare Sparta for Australias
km) to 201 miles (323 km). It consisted of a thrust unit rst satellite launch, WRESAT, in November 1967.
for powered ight and a missile body for overall mis-
sile control and payload delivery on target. During pow-
ered ight, Redstone burned a fuel mixture of 25 percent
6.4.2 New Hampshire landmark
water75 percent ethyl alcohol with liquid oxygen (LOX)
A Redstone serves as a landmark in Warren, New Hamp-
used 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 Red-
warhead 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 termina-
also launched another Granite Stater into suborbital ight:
tion of powered ight, as determined by the preset range
Alan Shepard of Derry.[7]
to target. The body continued on a controlled ballistic tra-
jectory to the target impact point. The thrust unit contin-
ued on its own uncontrolled ballistic trajectory, impact- 6.4.3 Popular culture
ing short of the designated target.
The nuclear-armed Redstone carried the W39 Rocket Girl, a stage play by George D. Morgan, deals
warhead. [4] with the invention of hydyne, a special fuel designed
to boost Explorer I, Americas rst satellite, into or-
bit utilizing the Redstone/Jupiter C.
6.3 Operators
United States
6.5 Gallery
United States Army
Redstone early production (1953)
40th Field Artillery Group 1958-1961 West
Germany[5] Preparations on May 16, 1958 for the rst Redstone
launch on May 17 conducted by US Army troops.
1st Battalion, 333rd Artillery Regiment Battery A, 217th Field Artillery Missile Battalion,
46th Field Artillery Group 1959-1961 West 40th Artillery Group (Redstone); Cape Canaveral,
Germany[6] Florida; Launch Complex 5

2nd Battalion, 333rd Artillery Regiment Redstone trainer missile practice ring exercise by
US Army troops of Battery A, 1st Missile Battalion,
209th Field Artillery Group Fort Sill, Oklahoma 333rd Artillery, 40th Artillery Group (Redstone);
4th Bn, 333rd Artillery Regiment 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 Ter-
Redstone 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 deacti-
vated in June 1964, as Redstone missiles were replaced by
the Pershing missile in the U.S. Army arsenal. All Red-
6.6 References
stone 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
retired from active service at Redstone Arsenal. [1] Redgap, Curtis The Chrysler Corporation Missile Division
and the Redstone missiles 2008 Orlando, Florida. Re-
trieved Oct 8 2010
6.4.1 Sparta
[2] Cagle, Mary T. (1955). The Origin of Redstones
Name. US Army, Redstone Arsenal. Retrieved 9 Oc-
From 196667, a series of surplus modied Redstones
tober 2010.
called Spartas were launched from Woomera, South Aus-
tralia as part of a joint U.S.United KingdomAustralian [3] Turnill 1972, pp. 8182, 1478
6.7. EXTERNAL LINKS 43

[4] Redstone Missile (PGM-11)". US: Aviation and Mis- Appendix A: The Redstone Missile in Detail
sile Research, Development, and Engineering Center. Re-
trieved January 9, 2015. Redstone at the White Sands Missile Range

[5] http://www.usarmygermany.com/Sont.htm?http& 40th Artillery Group (Redstone)


&&www.usarmygermany.com/Units/FieldArtillery/
USAREUR_40th%20Arty%20Group.htm 46th Artillery Group (Redstone)

[6] http://www.usarmygermany.com/Sont.htm?http& From the Stars & Stripes Archives: Redstone Rock-
&&www.usarmygermany.com/Units/FieldArtillery/ eteers
USAREUR_46th%20Arty%20Group.htm
Jupiter A
[7] Asselin, Ted (1996). The Redstone Missile - Warren, NH.
Warren: Bryan Flagg. The Chrysler Corporation Missile Division and the
Redstone missiles
Bibliography

Bullard, John W (October 15, 1965). History Of


The Redstone Missile System (Historical Monograph
Project Number: AMC 23 M). Historical Division,
Administrative Oce, Army Missile Command.
The Redstone Missile System. Fort Sill, Oklahoma:
United States Army. August 1960. Publication L
619.
Standing Operating Procedure For Conduct Of Red-
stone Annual Service Practice At White Sands Mis-
sile Range New Mexico. Fort Sill, Oklahoma: Head-
quarters, 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 Observers Book
of Manned Spaceight. 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.
452465.

6.7 External links


Redstone Army Command site
NASA Documents relating to Redstone and Mer-
cury Projects
Redstone from Encyclopedia Astronautica
Redstone timeline
Boeing: History Products - North American Avia-
tion Rocketdyne Redstone Rocket Engine
Chapter 7

MGM-18 Lacrosse

The MGM-18 Lacrosse was a short-ranged tactical were available the next year. The diculties encountered
ballistic weapon intended for close support of ground by the project are illustrated by the protracted design and
troops.[4] Its rst ight test was in 1954 and was deployed testing periods, with the missile not entering into service
by the United States Army beginning in 1959, despite be- until July 1959. Problems included reliability concerns
ing still in the development stage. The programs many and diculties with guidance, particularly susceptibility
technical hurdles proved too dicult to overcome and the to ECM jamming of the guidance signals.
missile was withdrawn from eld service by 1964. In 1956, the Federal Telecommunications Laboratory be-
gan work on a dierent guidance system, known as MOD
1, which would have improved Lacrosses performance
7.1 History with regards to electronic countermeasures. MOD 1,
however, was terminated in 1959, causing the United
States Marine Corps to withdraw their participation in the
7.1.1 Development project. The rst units received Lacrosse in 1959, though
the system would continue to be in need of development
The Lacrosse project began with a United States Ma-
and renement.
rine Corps requirement for a short-range guided missile
to supplement conventional eld artillery. The navy's Nearly 1,200 Lacrosse missiles were produced and de-
Bureau 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.
7.1.2 Service
The missile system was named the Lacrosse because it
employed a forward observation station which had a di- The rst unit to be equipped with Lacrosse was 5th Bat-
rect view of the target. The forward observation station talion, 41st Artillery, based at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. In
was mounted on a jeep and after the missile was launched total, eight battalions would be equipped with Lacrosse,
control was passed to the forward station for nal guid- with most going to Europe, except one to Korea and one
ance to the target. Hence the name Lacrosse which is how retained by the Strategic Army Corps.
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
7.1.3 Designations
armys Ordnance Corps and Redstone Arsenal, pursuant
The original navy project was assigned the designator
to a policy giving the Department of the Army responsi-
SSM-N-9. When transferred to the army, the program
bility over all land-based short ranged weapons. Cornell
became SSM-G-12, which changed to SSM-A-12 after
and Johns Hopkins continued with the project, with the
minor changes in the armys designation scheme. When
former having primary responsibility for guidance sys-
adopted into service, the weapon system was referred
tems design.
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 missiles 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 List of military aircraft of the United States

44
7.3. REFERENCES 45

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 Institu-
tion. August 1998. Retrieved October 11, 2011.

[2] Parsch, Andreas (26 January 2002). Martin SSM-A-


12/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.
Chapter 8

MGR-3 Little John

The MGR-3 Little John was a free ight 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 ight is stabilized by applying spin
during the 1950s and 1960s. to the rocket while on the launcher, just before ring.
This manual method of stabilization was called spin-on-
straight-rail (SOSR).[1] The system was mamufactured
8.1 Description by the Douglas Aircraft Company.
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 sys-
tem was initially deployed with the 1st Missile Battalion,
157th Field Artillery in Okinawa, Japan.
The missile was retired beginning in July, 1967, with the
nal missile removed from inventory in 1970. Five hun-
dred 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 Specications
Carried on the XM34 rocket launcher, it could carry ei-
ther nuclear or conventional warheads. It was primar-
ily 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 Armys Rocket and Guided Missile Agency laboratory
at Huntsville, Alabama, the Redstone Arsenal, in June
1955. In June 1956, the rst launch of the XM47 Little
John occurred. The Little John was delivered to the eld
in November 1961 and remained in the Army weapons
inventory until August 1969.[1][2]
It was a n-stabilized eld 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 sepa-
rate containers and assembled by the user.[1] Internal components of the Medium Atomic Demolition Munition.
W45 warhead is to the right of the casing.
The Little John diers from the Honest John in not only
its size but how it is stabilized in ight. The ight of the
Honest John is stabilized by a spin that is imparted to the Length: 4.4 metres (14.5 ft)[4]

46
8.4. REFERENCES 47

Diameter: 320 millimetres (12.5 in)[4]

Missile weight: 350 kilograms (780 lb)[4]


Combined weight of missile and launcher: 910 kilo-
grams (2,000 lb)
Warhead: W45 with a yield of 110 kilotons of
TNT (4.241.8 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: Ta-


ble 2: Tactical Missiles. Flight International. Retrieved
2009-02-17.
Chapter 9

PGM-19 Jupiter

The PGM-19 Jupiter was the rst medium-range bal- LC-5. The vehicle performed well until past 50 sec-
listic missile (MRBM) of the United States Air Force onds into launch when control started to fail, leading to
(USAF). It was a liquid-propellant rocket using RP-1 fuel breakup at T+73 seconds. It was deduced that overheat-
and LOX oxidizer, with a single Rocketdyne LR70-NA ing in the boattail had burned through the wiring, thus
(model S-3D) rocket engine producing 667 kN of thrust. extra insulation was added there on future ights. On
The prime contractor was the Chrysler Corporation. April 26, Missile 1B was launched, but broke apart at
The missiles, armed with nuclear warheads, were de- T+93 seconds from propellant slosh, leading to the ad-
dition of baes to the fuel tanks. The third test on May
ployed in Italy and Turkey in 1961 as part of NATOs
Cold War deterrent against the Soviet Union. They were 31 succeeded, as did launches on August 28 and Octo-
all removed by the United States as part of a secret agree- ber 23. Test number six on November 27 failed due to a
ment with the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Cri- turbopump malfunction at T+202 seconds and so did the
sis. 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.
9.1 History 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
9.1.1 Development and testing of which used a variant of the same Rocketdyne engine.
Rocketdyne came up with a number of xes and the Army
In September 1955, Wernher von Braun, brieng the retrotted all its Jupiters with the redesigned pumps, thus
U.S. secretary of defense on long range missiles, pointed there were no more Jupiter failures caused by turbopumps
out that a 1,500 mi (2,400 km) missile was a logical ex- afterward. The Air Force by comparison was reluctant
tension of the PGM-11 Redstone. Accordingly, in De- to x their Thor and Atlas missiles if it meant delaying
cember 1955, the secretaries of the Army and Navy an- the program and so had several more turbopump-related
nounced a dual ArmyNavy program to create a land- and launch failures during 1958.
sea-based MRBM.
The rst three tests of 1958 were all successful and con-
The requirement for shipboard storage and launching dic- centrated on detaching and recovering dummy reentry ve-
tated the size and shape of the Jupiter, which emerged as a
hicles. Missile AM-19 (October 10) went out of control
short squat missile with a large girth. Although the Navy and was destroyed at T+49 seconds due to a re in the
disliked the Jupiters cryogenic propellants and dropped it
boattail section. Afterwards, there was only one more
in November 1966 in favor of the solid-fueled UGM-27 failure in the Jupiter program, AM-23 on September 15,
Polaris submarine-launched ballistic missile, Jupiter re- 1959, which developed a leak in a helium pressurization
tained its shape, making it too big for carriage in contem-
bottle that led to loss of control within seconds of lifto.
porary cargo aircraft such as the Douglas C-124 Globe- The missile pitched over and broke in half, dumping the
master II. contents of its RP-1 tank before the Range Safety ocer
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 battleeld missiles with a
range of 200 miles (320 km) or less. The Jupiter MRBM 9.1.2 Biological ights
program was transferred to the Air Force, which had de-
veloped the PGM-17 Thor MRBM independently, and Jupiter missiles were used in a series of suborbital biolog-
was not altogether happy with the Jupiter program. ical test ghts. On December 13, 1958, Jupiter AM-13
Jupiter test ights ocially commenced with the launch was launched from Cape Canaveral, Florida with a Navy-
of Missile 1A on March 1, 1957 from Cape Canaverals 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 ight in 1959

on board. The nose cone recovery parachute failed to


operate and Gordo did not survive the ight. Telemetry
data sent back during the ight showed that the monkey 864th SMS insignia
survived the 10 g (100 m/s) of launch, eight minutes of
weightlessness and 40 g (390 m/s) 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 ight 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 alti-
tude 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 ight. After splashdown
1963
the Jupiter nosecone carrying Able and Baker was recov-
ered 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, re-
a biological payload, including several mice (which did fused to accept basing any Jupiter missiles in France.
not survive). This prompted U.S. to explore the possibility of deploy-
ing the missiles in Italy and Turkey. The Air Force was
The monkeys survived the ight in good condition. Able
already implementing plans to base four squadrons (60
died four days after the ight from a reaction to anaes-
missiles)subsequently redened as 20 Royal Air Force
thesia while undergoing surgery to remove an infected
squadrons each with three missilesof PGM-17 Thor
medical electrode. Baker lived for many years after the
IRBMs in Britain on airelds stretching from Yorkshire
ight, nally succumbing to kidney failure on November
to East Anglia.
29, 1984 at the United States Space and Rocket Center
in Huntsville, Alabama. In 1958, the United States Air Force activated the
864th Strategic Missile Squadron at ABMA. Although
the USAF briey considered training its Jupiter crews
9.1.3 Military deployment at Vandenberg AFB, California, it later decided to con-
duct all of its training at Huntsville. In June and Septem-
In April 1958, the U.S. Department of Defense notied ber of the same year the Air Force activated two more
the Air Force it had tentatively planned to deploy the rst squadrons, the 865th and 866th.
three Jupiter squadrons (45 missiles) in France. Negoti- In April 1959, the secretary of the Air Force issued im-
ations 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 ring sequence included lling 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 o-
cer 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 mainte-
nance and repair to missiles in the eld. Each RIM area
also housed 25 tons of liquid oxygen and nitrogen gen-
erating plants. Several times a week, tanker trucks car-
ried the fuel from the plant to the individual emplace-
ments. The actual locations of the launch sites (built in
a triangular conguration) 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.
In October 1959, the location of the third and nal Jupiter
MRBM squadron was settled when a government-to-
government agreement was signed with Turkey. The U.S.
Jupiter on display at the National Museum of the United States
and Turkey concluded an agreement to deploy one Jupiter
Air Force, Ohio
squadron on NATOs southern ank. One squadron to-
taling 15 missiles was deployed at ve sites near zmir,
Turkey from 1961 to 1963, operated by USAF person-
squadrons to Italy. The two squadrons, totaling 30 mis-
nel, with the rst ight of three Jupiter missiles turned
siles, were deployed at 10 sites in Italy from 1961 to 1963.
over to the Trk Hava Kuvvetleri (Turkish Air Force) in
They were operated by Italian Air Force crews, but USAF
late October 1962, but USAF personnel retaining control
personnel controlled arming the nuclear warheads. The
of nuclear warhead arming.
deployed missiles were under command of 36 Aerobri-
gata Interdizione Strategica (36th Strategic Interdiction On four occasions between mid-October 1961 and Au-
Air Squadron, Italian Air Force) at Gioia del Colle Air gust 1962, Jupiter mobile missiles carrying 1.4 mega-
Base, Italy. ton of TNT (5.9 PJ) nuclear warheads were struck by
lightning at their bases in Italy. In each case, thermal
Jupiter squadrons consisted of 15 missiles and approxi-
batteries were activated, and on two occasions, tritium-
mately 500 military personnel with ve ights of three
deuterium boost gas was injected into the warhead pits,
missiles each, manned by ve ocers and 10 NCOs.
partially arming them. After the fourth lightning strike
To reduce vulnerability, the ights were located approxi-
on a Jupiter MRBM, the USAF placed protective light-
mately 30 miles apart, with the triple launcher emplace-
ning 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 over-
theodolites, a hydraulic and pneumatic truck and a liq-
ying 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
US gallons (15,000 l; 3,300 imp gal). missiles were already largely obsolete and increasingly
vulnerable to Soviet attacks. All Jupiter MRBMs were
The missiles arrived at the emplacement on large trail-
removed 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 con-
nected and the bottom third of the missile was encased in
a ower 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
343758.11N 863956.40W / 34.6328083N
86.6656667W

White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico


325247.45N 1062043.64W / 32.8798472N
106.3454556W

Republic of Italy Headquarters: Gioia del Colle Air


Base

Training Pad 40476.74N 165533.5E /


40.7852056N 16.925972E

Squadron 1

Site 1 404424.59N 165558.83E /


40.7401639N 16.9330083E Illustration showing dierences among Redstone, Jupiter-C,
Mercury-Redstone, and Jupiter IRBM.
Site 3 403542.00N 165133.00E /
40.5950000N 16.8591667E
Site 4 404847.05N 162253.08E / 9.3 Launch vehicle derivatives
40.8130694N 16.3814111E
Site 5 404532.75N 162253.08E / The Saturn I and Saturn IB rockets were manufactured by
40.7590972N 16.3814111E using a single Jupiter propellant tank, in combination with
Site 7 405743.98N 161054.66E / eight Redstone rocket propellant tanks clustered around
40.9622167N 16.1818500E it, to form a powerful rst stage launch vehicle.
The Jupiter MRBM was also modied by adding upper
Squadron 2 stages, in the form of clustered Sergeant-derived rock-
Site 2 404042.00N 17612.03E / ets, to create a space launch vehicle called Juno II, not
40.6783333N 17.1033417E to be confused with the Juno I which was a Redstone-
Jupiter-C missile development. There is also some con-
Site 6 40586.10N 163022.73E /
fusion with another U.S. Army rocket called the Jupiter-
40.9683611N 16.5063139E
C, which were Redstone missiles modied by lengthening
Site 8 404214.98N 16828.42E / the fuel tanks and adding small solid-fueled upper stages.
40.7041611N 16.1412278E
Site 9 405523.40N 164828.54E /
40.9231667N 16.8079278E 9.4 Specications (Jupiter
Site 10 403459.77N 163543.26E /
40.5832694N 16.5953500E
MRBM)
Length: 60 ft (18.3 m)
Turkish Republic Headquarters: Cigli Air Base
Diameter: 8 ft 9 in (2.67 m)
Training Pad 383117.32N 2713.89E /
38.5214778N 27.0177472E Total Fueled Weight: 108,804 lb (49,353 kg)

Site 1 384226.68N 26534.13E / Empty Weight: 13,715 lb (6,221 kg)


38.7074111N 26.8844806E
Oxygen (LOX) Weight: 68,760 lb (31,189 kg)
Site 2 384223.76N 275357.66E /
38.7066000N 27.8993500E RP-1 (kerosene) Weight: 30,415 lb (13,796 kg)
Site 3 385037.66N 270255.58E / Thrust: 150,000 lbf (667 kN)
38.8437944N 27.0487722E
Site 4 384415.13N 272451.46E / Engine: Rocketdyne LR70-NA (Model S-3D)
38.7375361N 27.4142944E
ISP: 247.5 s (2.43 kNs/kg)
Site 5 384730.73N 274228.94E /
38.7918694N 27.7080389E 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

Cuto 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/s)

Peak deceleration: 44.0 g (431 m/s)

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

Juno II launch vehicle derived from Jupiter IRBM mobile missile.


9.5 Specications (Juno II launch
vehicle)
9.7 Former operators
Main article: Juno II
The Juno II was a four-stage rocket derived from the United States
United States Air Force
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. 864th Strategic Missile Squadron
865th Strategic Missile Squadron
Juno II total length: 24.0 m
866th Strategic Missile Squadron
Orbit payload to 200 km: 41 kg
Italy
Escape velocity payload: 6 kg Aeronautica Militare (Italian Air Force)

First launch date: December 6, 1958


36 Brigata Aerea Interdizione Strategica (36th
Strategic Air Interdiction Brigade)
Last launch date: May 24, 1961

Turkey
Trk Hava Kuvvetleri (Turkish Air Force)
9.6 Jupiter MRBM and Juno II
launches
9.8 Surviving examples
There were 46 test launches, all launched from Cape
Canaveral Missile Annex, Florida.[3] The Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama
displays a Jupiter missile in its Rocket Garden.
This list is incomplete; you can help by The U.S. Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama
expanding it. displays two Jupiters, including one in Juno II congura-
tion, in its Rocket Park.
9.11. EXTERNAL LINKS 53

An SM-78/PMG-19 is on display at the Air Force Space [6] Factsheets : Chrysler SM-78/PGM-19A Jupiter. Na-
& Missile Museum at Cape Canaveral, Florida. The mis- tional Museum of the United States Air Force. Retrieved
sile had been present in the rocket garden for many years 26 April 2014.
until 2009 when it was taken down and given a complete [7] Rantin, Bertram (6 October 2010). The 2010 SC State
restoration.[4] This pristine artifact is now in sequestered Fair is just a week away. The State (South Carolina).
storage in Hangar R on Cape Canaveral AFS and cannot Archived from the original on 7 October 2010. Retrieved
be viewed by the general public. 26 April 2014.
A Jupiter (in Juno II conguration) is displayed in the
Rocket Garden at Kennedy Space Center, Florida. It was
damaged by Hurricane Frances in 2004,[5] but was re- 9.11 External links
paired and subsequently placed back on display.
A PGM-19 is on display at the National Museum of the Jupiter IRBM History, U.S. Army Redstone Ar-
United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio. The missile senal
was obtained from the Chrysler Corporation in 1963. For
Jupiter IRBM, Encyclopedia Astronautica
decades it was displayed outside the museum, before be-
ing removed in 1998. The missile was restored by the The Jupiter Missiles of Turkey, G. L. Smith
museums sta and was returned to display in the mu-
seums new Missile Silo Gallery in 2007.[6] Detailed spherical panoramas inside the aft (engine)
compartment
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 fair-
grounds 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, Over-


ights, Shootdowns and Defections During the Cold War
and Thereafter. Aviation History Pages. Retrieved 16
January 2011.

[3] Wade, Mark. Juno II. Encyclopedia Astronautica. Re-


trieved 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.
Chapter 10

MGM-31 Pershing

Three single-stage Pershing II missiles prepared for launch at Mc-


Gregor Range (December 1, 1987)

Pershing was a family of solid-fueled two-stage ballistic


missiles designed and built by Martin Marietta to re-
place the PGM-11 Redstone missile as the United States
Army's primary nuclear-capable theater-level weapon.
Pershing later replaced the U.S. Air Forces MGM-13
Pershing missile (460 mile range) and Redstone missile (201 mile
Mace cruise missile. The Pershing systems were devel-
range)
oped and elded over 30 years from the rst test version
in 1960 through nal elimination in 1991. The systems
were managed by the U.S. Army Missile Command (MI- The U.S. Army began studies in 1956 for a ballistic mis-
COM) and deployed by the Field Artillery Branch. sile with a range of about 500750 nautical miles (930
1,390 km; 580860 mi). Later that year, Secretary of
Defense Charles Erwin Wilson issued the Wilson Mem-
orandum that removed from the U.S. Army all missiles
10.1 Development with a range of 200 miles (320 km) or more.[1] When this
memorandum was rescinded by the United States Depart-
In 1956, George Bunker, the president of the Martin ment of Defense (DoD) in 1958, the ABMA began de-
Company, paid a courtesy call on General John Medaris, velopment of the class of ballistic missile. Initially called
USA, of the Army Ballistic Missile Agency (ABMA) the Redstone-S, where the S meant solid propellant, the
at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. Medaris noted that it name was changed to Pershing in honor of General of the
would be advantageous to the Army if there was a mis- Armies John J. Pershing.
sile plant in the vicinity of the Air Force Missile Test
Center (present day Cape Canaveral Air Force Station) in Seven companies were selected to develop engineering
Florida. The Martin Company subsequently began con- proposals: Chrysler, the Lockheed Corporation, the
struction of their Sand Lake facility in Orlando, Florida, Douglas Aircraft Company, the Convair Division of Gen-
and this was opened in late 1957. Edward Uhl, the co- eral Dynamics, the Firestone Corp., the Sperry-Rand
inventor of the bazooka, was the vice-president and gen- Company, and the Martin Company.[2]
eral manager of the new factory. The Secretary of the Army, Wilber M. Brucker, the for-

54
10.2. PERSHING I 55

mer governor of Michigan was apparently under pres- deployment to South Korea, but was deactivated before
sure from his home state to award the contract to a com- equipment was issued.
pany in Michigan. Chrysler was the only contractor from In 1964, the Secretary of Defense assigned the Pershing
Michigan, but Medaris persuaded Brucker to leave the weapon system to a Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) role af-
decision entirely in the hands of the ABMA. After a ter a DoD study showed that the Pershing would be supe-
selection process by General Medaris and Dr. Arthur rior to tactical aircraft for the QRA mission. The German
Rudolph, the Martin Company (later Martin Marietta af- Air Force began training at Fort Sill. Each missile battal-
ter a merger in 1961) was awarded a CPFF (cost-plus- ion was then authorized six launchers.[7] In 1965 this was
xed-fee) contract for research, development, and initial
increased to eight launchers, two per ring battery. By
production of the Pershing system under the technical su- 1965, three U.S. Army battalions and two German Air
pervision and concept control of the government. Mar-
Force wings were operational in Germany. The 579th
tins quality control manager for the Pershing, Phil Crosby Ordnance Company was later moved to Nelson Barracks
developed the concept of Zero Defects that enhanced the
in Neu-Ulm and tasked with maintenance and logistical
production and reliability of the system. general support for the Pershing artillery units.

10.2 Pershing I 10.2.3 Missile


The Pershing I missile was powered by two Thiokol solid-
10.2.1 Development propellant engines. Since a solid-propellant engine can-
not be turned o, selective range was achieved by thrust
The rst XM14 R&D Pershing I[lower-alpha 1] test mis-
reversal and case venting. The rocket stages were at-
sile, was launched on February 25, 1960. The rst two-
tached with splice bands and explosive bolts. As directed
stage launch from the tactical transporter erector launcher
by the onboard guidance computer, the bolts would ex-
(TEL) was in January 1962. The rst test ights used only
plode and eject the splice band. Another squib would
the rst stage, but by the end of 1962, full range two stage
open the thrust reversal ports in the forward end of the
ights had been successful. For training there was an inert
stage and ignite the propellant in the forward end, caus-
Pershing I missile designated XM19. In June 1963, the
ing the engine to reverse direction. During testing, it
XM14 and XM19 Pershing missiles were redesignated as
was found that the second stage would draft behind the
XMGM-31A and XMTM-31B, respectively. The pro-
warhead and cause it to drift o course, so an explosive
duction version of the tactical missile was subsequently
charge was added to the side of the engine that would
designated as MGM-31A.
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
10.2.2 Deployment
nozzles and air vanes on the engine case. Guidance was
provided by an onboard analog guidance computer and an
The Pershing made its rst public appearance at Fort Ben-
Eclipse-Pioneer ST-120 (Stable Table-120) inertial navi-
ning in May 1960 as part of a display for President Eisen-
gation system. The warhead could be conventional explo-
hower.[4] The Pershing later performed as part of the
sive or a W50 nuclear weapon with three yield options
inaugural parade of President Kennedy in 1961. Presi-
the Y1 with 60 kiloton yield, Y2 with 200 kiloton yield
dent Kennedy and other dignitaries visited White Sands
and Y3 with 400 kiloton yield.
Missile Range in 1963 to observe test rings of various
weapons systems the Pershing was demonstrated, but
not red.[5]
10.2.4 Ground equipment
Initial plans were for ten missile battalions with one at
Fort Sill, one in Korea and eight in West Germany; this The Pershing I ring platoon consisted of four M474
was eventually reduced to one battalion at Fort Sill and tracked-vehicles manufactured by FMC Corporation
three in West Germany.[6] The 2nd Missile Battalion, by comparison, Redstone needed twenty vehicles. The
44th Artillery Regiment was activated at Fort Sill as the transporter erector launcher (TEL) transported the two
rst tactical Pershing unit. The 56th Artillery Group was stages and the guidance section as an assembly and pro-
activated in Schwbisch Gmnd, West Germany to be- vided the launch platform after the warhead was mated.
come the parent unit for three missile battalions. The 4th It utilized a removable erector launcher manufactured
Missile Battalion, 41st Artillery was formed in 1963 and by Unidynamics. The warhead carrier transported the
deployed to Schwbisch Gmnd. This was followed by warhead, the missile ns and the azimuth laying set used
the deployment of the 1st Battalion, 81st Field Artillery to position the missile. The programmer test station
to McCully Barracks in Wackernheim. Each missile bat- (PTS) and power station (PS) were mounted on one car-
talion had four launchers, one per battery. rier. 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 10.2.7 APL


self test and malfunction isolation. Additionally, the PTS
would perform tests that simulated airborne missile oper- In 1965, the Army contracted with the Applied Physics
ation, programed the trajectory of the missile and con- Laboratory (APL) of Johns Hopkins University to de-
trolled the ring sequence. Plug-in micromodules in- velop and implement a test and evaluation program.[10]
creased maintainability and allowed the PTS operator to APL provided technical support to the Pershing Oper-
perform 80% of all repairs at the ring position. A tur- ational Test Unit (POTU), identied problem areas and
bine driven Power Station, mounted behind the PTS, pro- improved the performance and survivability of the Per-
vided the primary electrical and pneumatic power and shing systems.[11]
conditioned air for the missile and ground support equip-
ment at the ring position.
10.2.8 Gallery
The AN/TRC-80 Radio Terminal Set was produced by
Collins Radio Company specically for the Pershing sys- Missile carrier
tem. The Track 80 used an inatable dish antenna
to provide line-of-sight or tropospheric-scatter voice and Warhead carrier
teleprinter communications between missile ring units
and higher headquarters. The erector-launcher, PTS, PS Programmer Test Station and Power station
and RTS could be removed from the carriers and air-
AN/TRC-80 Radio Terminal Set
transported in fourteen CH-47 Chinook loads.[8]

10.3 Pershing IA
10.2.5 Orientation
10.3.1 Development
The missile had to be positioned or laid in on a pre-
surveyed site with a system of two theodolites and a target In 1964, a series of operational tests and follow-on tests
card. Directional control was passed from one theodolite were performed to determine the reliability of the Persh-
to the one next to the missile. The missile was then ori- ing I. The Secretary of Defense then requested that the
ented to north by an operator using a horizontal laying Army dene the modications required to make Persh-
theodolite aimed at a window in the guidance section of ing suitable for the quick reaction alert (QRA) role. The
the missile. Using a control box, the ST-120 Inertial nav- Pershing IA development program was approved in 1965,
igation system in the guidance section was rotated until it and the original Pershing was renamed to Pershing I. Mar-
was aligned; at this point the missile knew which direc- tin Marietta received the Pershing IA production con-
tion was north. tract in mid-1967. Project SWAP replaced all the Per-
shing equipment in Germany by mid-1970 and the rst
units quickly achieved QRA status. In 1965, Secretary
of Defense Robert McNamara directed that the U.S. Air
10.2.6 Satellite launcher Forces 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 up-
graded to Pershing IA under Project SWAP. Production
Model of the Pegasus satellite launcher system of the Pershing IA missile ended in 1975 and reopened
in 1977 to replace missiles expended in training.
In 1961, Martin proposed a satellite launch system based Pershing IA was further improved in 1971 with the Per-
on the Pershing. Named Pegasus, it would have had a shing Missile and Power Station Development Program.
lighter, simplied guidance section and a short third stage The analog guidance computer and the control computer
booster.[9] A 60-pound (27 kg) payload could be boosted in the missile were replaced by a single digital guidance
to a 210 miles (340 km) circular orbit, or to an ellipti- and control computer. The main distributor in the mis-
cal orbit with a 700 miles (1,130 km) apogee. Pegasus sile that routed power and signals was replaced with a new
would have used the Pershing erector-launcher and could version. The missile used a rotary inverter to convert DC
be emplaced in any open area. Martin seems to have been to AC that was replaced by a solid-state static inverter.
targeting the nascent European space program, but this The power station was improved for accessibility and
program was never developed. maintenance.[14] Further improvements in 1976 allowed
10.3. PERSHING IA 57

the ring of a platoons three missiles in quick succes- impact on operational requirements.
sion and from any site without the need for surveying.[15] During periods of increased tension, the ring batteries of
The Automatic Reference System (ARS) used an optical each battalion were deployed to previously unused eld
laser link and a north-seeking gyro with encode to elim- tactical sites. At these sites, they assumed responsibil-
inate the need for pre-selected and surveyed points. The ity for coverage of all assigned targets. During transition
Sequential Launch Adapter connected the PTS to three from the peacetime to full combat status, coverage was
missiles, eliminating the need to cable and uncable each maintained on the highest priority targets that were as-
launcher. signed to the peacetime CAS batteries.
A total of 754 Pershing I and Pershing IA missiles were Once all ring batteries were at their eld sites, the r-
built with 180 deployed in Europe.[3] ing elements of the battalions were deployed by platoons,
which were then separated from each other geographi-
cally to reduce vulnerability. The platoons then moved
10.3.2 Deployment
to new ring 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, o- The M790 erector launcher (EL) was a modied low-boy [17]
cer positions were increased by one grade: batteries were at-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 hy-
were commanded by a colonel; and the brigade was com- draulic system that could erect the 5 ton missile from hori-
manded by a brigadier general.[16]:2-4 zontal to vertical in nine seconds. Due to the overall mis-
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
During peacetime operations, a portion of the Pershing U.S. Army [18] units and a Magirus-Deutz for German Air
IA assets was deployed on the QRA mission. The remain- Force units. Launch activation was performed from a
der would be conducting eld training or were maintained remote re box that could be deployed locally or mounted
in kasernes awaiting alert. The system was designed to in the battery control central (BCC). One PTS controlled
be highly mobile, permitting its dispersal to clandestine three launchers when one launch count was complete,
sites in times of alert or war and was deployed at dis- ten large cables were unplugged from the PTS and the
tances greater than 100 km behind the forward edge of PTS was moved up and connected to the next launcher.
battle area or political border. Owing to its mobility and
setback, Pershing was considered one of the most surviv-
able theater nuclear weapons ever deployed in Europe. 10.3.4 Further improvements
The primary mission in the Supreme Allied Commander, A repackaging eort of the missile and power station
Europe scheduled plan took one of two forms: peacetime was completed in 1974 to provide easier access to mis-
or an increased state of readiness called period of tension. sile components, reduce maintenance, and improve re-
Dierent levels or techniques of tasking were used for liability. A new digital guidance and control computer
these mission forms. The peacetime quick reaction alert combined the functions of the analog control computer
role required that for each battalion or wing, one ring and the analog guidance computer into one package. The
battery or a portion thereof would be combat alert status mean corrective maintenance time was decreased from
(CAS) on a permanent hard site, covering assigned tar- 8.7 hours to a requirement of 3.8 hours. The reliabil-
gets. ity increased from 32 hours mean time between failures
In peacetime the four batteries of each battalion rotated to a requirement of 65 hours. In 1976, the sequential
through four states or conditions of alert readiness, the launch adapter (SLA) and the automatic reference sys-
highest being that of the CAS battery. The purpose of tem (ARS) were introduced. The SLA was an automatic
this rotation was to assume the CAS status, to share the switching device mounted in a 10 ton trailer that allowed
burden of CAS responsibility, to provide time for eld the PTS to remain connected to all three launchers allow-
tactical training and equipment maintenance, and to give ing all three to remain hot and greatly decreasing the time
ample leave and pass time to personnel without adverse 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-aireld 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
Because of SALT II agreements, no new launchers could
DoD policies of the time restricted females from many be built, therefore the new missile had to t onto up-
positions, including Field Artillery. The rst female me- graded Pershing IA launchers. The functions of the ve-
chanical repairer (MOS 46N, Ordnance Branch) grad- hicle mounted PTS needed for the older systems were
uated from the Pershing course at Redstone Arsenal consolidated into the Ground Integrated Electronics Unit
in 1974.[19] The rst female enlisted Pershing missile (GIEU) on the side of the launcher. The warhead and
crewmembers (MOS 15E, Field Artillery) graduated in radar sections were carried as an assembly on a pallet that
1978,[20] as did the rst female Field Artillery ocer.[21] 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 trac-
10.3.6 Gallery tor for units in Germany. The tractors had an Atlas
crane used for missile assembly and a generator to pro-
Pershing 1A missile system
vide power for the launcher and missile. Since the new
Programmer Test Station and Power station guidance system was self-orienting, the launcher could be
emplaced on any surveyed site and launched within min-
Battery Control Central utes.

Azimuth Reference System


10.4.3 Motors

10.4 Pershing II The new rocket motors were built by Hercules. To min-
imize airframe weight, the rocket cases were spun from
Kevlar with aluminum attachment rings.[26]
10.4.1 Development
In 1973, a task force was established to begin develop- 10.4.4 Reentry vehicle
ment of a follow-on system. The 400 kt warhead was
greatly over-powered for the QRA mission, and a smaller The reentry vehicle (RV) was structurally and function-
warhead required greater accuracy. The contract went ally divided into three sections: the radar section (RS),
to Martin Marietta in 1975 and the rst development the warhead section (WHS), and the guidance and con-
launches began in 1977. Pershing II was to use the new trol/adapter (G&C/A) section.
W85 warhead with a ve to 50 kt variable yield or an The G&C/A section consisted of two separate portions,
earth-penetrator W86 warhead.[lower-alpha 2] The warhead
the G&C and the adapter, which were connected by a
was to be packaged in a maneuverable reentry vehicle manufactured splice. At the forward end of the G&C
(MARV) with active radar guidance, and it would be
there was a quick access splice for attachment to the war-
launched with the Pershing I rocket engines. In 1975 the head section. At the aft end, the adapter was grooved to
U.S.A. turned down a request from Israel to purchase the
accept the V-band that spliced the propulsion section to
new Pershing II.[23] the G&C section. The RV separation system consisted of
The Soviet Union began deployment of the RSD-10 Pi- a linear shaped charge ring assembly bolted to the G&C
oneer (SS-20) in 1976. Since the initial version of the section so that separation occurred just forward of the
SS-20 had a range of 2,700 miles (4,300 km) and two G&C manufactured splice. A protective collar on the
warheads, the Pershing II requirement was changed to outer surface of the adapter, mounted over the location
increase the range to 900 miles (1,400 km). It would of the linear shaped charge, provided personnel protec-
have had the range to reach into the eastern Ukraine, tion during G&C/A handling operations.
Belarussia, or Lithuania, thus the NATO Double-Track The G&C portion contained two guidance systems. The
Decision was made to deploy both the medium range primary guidance system was a Goodyear Aerospace
Pershing and the longer range, but slower BGM-109G active radar guidance system. Using radar maps of the
Ground Launched Cruise Missile (GLCM) in order to target area, the Pershing II had an accuracy of 30 me-
strike potential targets farther to the east. tres (100 ft) circular error probable.[27] The backup sys-
Both 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 ns.
The warhead section contained the W85 warhead. Provi-
10.4.6 Flight
sions 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 mis-
passed from the G&C section to the RS.
sile followed an inertially guided trajectory until RV sep-
The radar section consisted of the Goodyear radar unit aration. Attitude and guidance commands during pow-
with the antenna enclosed in an ablative radome. The ered ight (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 con-
ing the terminal phase, received altitude and video infor- trol was provided by two movable air vanes on the rst
mation and sent the detected video and altitude data to stage during rst stage ight and by the RV air vanes dur-
the DCU in the G&C section. ing second stage ight. The rst stage also had two xed
air vanes for stability during rst stage powered ight.
The midcourse phase of the trajectory was initiated at
10.4.5 Radar area correlator
RV separation and continued until the terminal phase be-
gan. 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 con-
trolled 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 ight.
Goodyear Aerospace active radar homing system.[28] This
At a predetermined altitude above the target, the termi-
technique 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 con-
position errors with respect to its trajectory and target lo-
trol to slow down the RV and achieve the proper impact
cation. These position errors were used to update the in-
velocity. 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 x 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 eected by placing Soviet Union, and with the introduction of the SS-20, had
four reference data arrays in memory, each representing even fallen behind. NATOs answer was not long in com-
a given altitude band. This correlation process was per- ing and on December 12, 1979, the military comman-
formed several times during each of four altitude bands der of NATO decided to deploy 572 new nuclear mis-
and 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 Per-
only. shing 1A missiles.

Goodyear also developed the Reference Scene Genera- The second signicant aspect of the NATO decision was
tion Facility a truck mounted shelter containing the the readiness to trade with the Soviet Union for the re-
equipment required to program the missile targeting con- duction or total elimination of these missiles against sim-
trolled by a DEC PDP-11/70.[30] Radar maps of target ilar reductions or elimination of the Soviet SS-20 ballistic
areas were stored on disk, then specic targeting data was missiles.
transferred to a tape cartridge. During countdown opera- NATOs condition for not carrying out its plans for mis-
tions, the cartridge was plugged into the launcher control sile 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 Main-
could 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 SS-
20 mobile missile launchers with a total of 837 nuclear
warheads based in the eastern U.S.S.R.
The rst of these were deployed in West Germany be-
ginning in late November 1983. The deployment in was
completed in late 1985 with a total of 108 launchers. Ini-
tial Operational Status (IOS) was achieved on December
15, 1983 when A Battery, 1st Battalion, 41st Field Ar-
tillery 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 Mari-
etta 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 ex-
plosion occurred while removing a missile stage from the Pershing 1B during an Engineering Development shoot, January
storage container during an assembly operation. An in- 1986
vestigation revealed that the Kevlar rocket bottle had ac-
cumulated a triboelectric charge in the cold dry weather;
Pershing IB was a single stage, reduced range version of
as the motor was removed from the container the electri-Pershing II with the same range as the Pershing IA. The
cal charge began to ow and created a hot spot that ignited
Pershing II launcher was designed so that the cradle could
the propellant.[31][32][33] A moratorium on missile move-
be easily repositioned to handle the shorter missile air-
ment was enacted through late 1986 when new grounding frame. The intent was to replace the German Air Forces
and handling procedures were put into place. Pershing IA systems with Pershing IB, since SALT II lim-
The deployment of Pershing missiles was a cause of sig- ited the range of German-owned missiles. The German
nicant protests in Europe.[34] government agreed to destroy its Pershing IA systems
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 modied the launchers to hold two single-
In 1982, the 55th Maintenance Battalion was activated as stage missiles.[36]
part of the 56th Field Artillery Brigade. The 579th Ord-
Pershing III was a proposal for a four-stage 25,000
nance Company was deactivated and reformed as Head-
pounds (11,000 kg) version that would have replaced the
quarters Company and D Company. The three service
LGM-118 Peacekeeper.[37]
batteries in the eld artillery battalions were deactivated
and reformed as forward service companies under the
55th.[35]
10.6 Operators
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 United States: United States Army
general as a commander. 1st Battalion, 81st Field Ar-
tillery was inactivated and reformed as 1st Battalion, 9th 56th Artillery Group, (later 56th Artillery Brigade,
Field Artillery in Neu-Ulm, 1st Battalion, 41st Field Ar- 56th Field Artillery Brigade, 56th Field Artillery
tillery was inactivated and reformed as 2nd Battalion, Command (19631991)
9th Field Artillery in Schwbisch-Gmnd and 3rd Bat-
9th Field Artillery Regiment
talion, 84th Field Artillery was inactivated and reformed
as 4th Battalion, 9th Field Artillery in Heilbronn. With 1st Battalion, 9th Field Artillery Regi-
3rd Battalion, 9th Field Artillery at Fort Sill, all the r- ment (19861991)
ing units were then under the 9th Field Artillery Regi- 2d Battalion, 9th Field Artillery Regi-
ment. The 55th Maintenance Battalion was redesignated ment (19861991)
10.8. LEGACY 61

4th Battalion, 9th Field Artillery Regi-


ment (19861991)
81st Artillery Regiment, later 81st Field Ar-
tillery Regiment
1st Missile Battalion, 81st Artillery Reg-
iment (19631972)
1st Battalion, 81st Field Artillery Regi-
ment (19721986)
84th Field Artillery, later 84th Field Artillery
Regiment
3d Missile Battalion, 84th Artillery Reg-
iment (19631968)
3d Battalion, 84th Field Artillery Regi-
ment (19681986) Pershing rocket motor being destroyed by static burn, September
41st Artillery, later 41st Field Artillery Regi- 1988.
ment
1st Missile Battalion, 41st Artillery Reg- static burn of their rockets and subsequently crushed in
iment (19711972) May 1991 at the Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant near
1st Battalion, 41st Field Artillery Regi- Caddo Lake, Texas. Although not covered by the treaty,
ment (19721986) West Germany agreed unilaterally to the removal of the
4th Missile Battalion, 41st Artillery Reg- Pershing IA missiles from its inventory in 1991, and the
iment (19631971) missiles were destroyed in the United States.

214th Field Artillery Brigade (19791991)


2d Missile Battalion, 44th Artillery (?1971) 10.8 Legacy
3d Battalion, 9th Field Artillery Regiment
(19711990) The INF treaty only covered the destruction of launchers
and rocket motors. The W-85 warheads used in the Per-
2d Missile Battalion, 79th Artillery (??) shing II missiles were removed, modied, 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-
Flugkrpergeschwader 1 (1st Surface-to-Surface tion was re-used in the Coleman Aerospace Hera and the
Missile Wing) Orbital Sciences Storm II target missiles.

Flugkrpergruppe 12 (12thSurface-to- The INF Treaty allowed for inert Pershing II missiles to
Surface Missile Group) be retained for display purposes. One is now on display
in the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum in
Flugkrpergruppe 13 (13th Surface-to- Washington, D.C., alongside a Soviet SS-20 missile. An-
Surface Missile Group) other is at the Central Armed Forces Museum in Moscow,
[38][lower-alpha 3]
Flugkrpergeschwader 2 (2nd Surface-to-Surface Russia, also with an SS-20. A number of
Missile Wing) inert Pershing I and Pershing IA missiles are displayed in
the U.S. and Germany.
Flugkrpergruppe 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
Flugkrpergruppe 22 (22nd Surface-to- a sculpture called Good Defeats Evil, a 39-foot (12 m),
Surface Missile Group) 40-short-ton (36,000 kg) monumental bronze statue of
Saint George ghting the dragon of nuclear war, with the
dragon being made from sections of the Pershing II and
10.7 Elimination SS-20 missiles. The sculpture was donated to the United
Nations by the Soviet Union in 1990, and it is located on
The Pershing systems were scrapped following the rati- 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 White Sands Missile Range Museum, White Sands
Memorial Fund badge made of scrap missile material, Missile Range, New Mexico
with half the proceeds going to the fund.[40] Air Force Space & Missile Museum, Cape
On November 4, 1991 the Ronald Reagan Presidential Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida
Library opened in Simi Valley, California. The then ve U.S. Space & Rocket Center, Huntsville, Alabama
living presidents, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George (no longer on display as of 2008)
Bush, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan were present at Virginia Air and Space Center, Hampton, Virginia
the opening. Parker presented them each with a black National Air and Space Museum, Washington, DC
ballpoint Duofold Centennial with the Presidential seal
on the crown formed from scrap Pershing and SS-20 ma- Central Armed Forces Museum, Moscow, Russia
terial, and engraved signatures of the presidents. The pen
was also oered in a walnut box also with the names of
all ve presidents and the Presidential seal.[41] 10.11 See also
Pershing missile launches
10.8.1 Veterans
Pershing missile bibliography
In 2000, a number of U.S. Army Pershing missile veter-
ans decided to seek out their fellow veterans and to start
acquiring information and artifacts on the Pershing sys- 10.12 References
tems. In 2004, the Pershing Professionals Association
was incorporated to meet the long-term goals to pre- [1] Charlies Hurricane. Armed Forces. Time. June 6,
serve, interpret and encourage interest in the history of 1956. (subscription required (help)).
the Pershing missile systems and the soldiers who served,
and to make such information accessible to present and [2] Harwood, William B. (1993). Raise Heaven and Earth.
future generations to foster a deeper appreciation of the Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-67-174998-6.
role that Pershing played in world history.[42] [3] Pershing Ia System Description (PDF). Martin Marietta.
Veterans of the 2nd Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, June 1974. OR 13,149.
who had carried out the security for the Pershing sys-
[4] Pershing: The Man, the Missile, the Mission (PDF). The
tems formed a subchapter known as the Pershing Tower Martin Company. 1960. WSS 009.
Rats. The two German Air Force missile wings in Ger-
many also formed veterans groups.[43][44] [5] JFKs Visit to White Sands (PDF). White Sands Missile
Range. United States Army.

[6] Lemmer, George F. (January 1966). Strengthening USAF


10.9 See also General Purpose Forces, 1961-1964 (PDF). USAF His-
torical Division Liaison Oce.
Pershing missile launches [7] McKenney, Janice E. (2007). Pershing Missile.
Organizational History of Field Artillery 1775 - 2003.
Pershing missile bibliography 230234 (PDF). Washington D.C.: U.S. Army Center of
Military History.

[8] Tupper, Fred A.; Hausburg, E. E. (January 1963). Field


10.10 Notes Artillerys Newest Missile (PDF). Artillery Trends: 36
40.
[1] The original system was simply named Pershing, but was
renamed Pershing I in 1965 when the Pershing Ia was in- [9] Pershing Rockets for Europe (PDF). Interavia. July 1961.
troduced. Military and other documentation is inconsis- [10] Mentzer, Jr., William R. (1998). Test and Evaluation
tent in the use of Arabic and Roman numerals and in cap- of Land-Mobile Missile Systems (PDF). Johns Hopkins
italization, resulting in the use of I, 1, 1a, 1A, 2, II and the APL Technical Digest (Johns Hopkins University).
like.
[11] Lyman, Donald R. (May 1977). POTU (PDF). Field
[2] No ocial military documentation uses the MGM-31 se- Artillery Journal: 1517.
ries designation for the Pershing II.
[12] Parsch, Andreas (November 17, 2002). Martin TM-
[3] The treaty allowed for a total of fteen Pershing II and 76/MGM-13/CGM-13 Mace. Directory of U.S. Military
GLCM missiles for display. Seven Pershing IIs were re- Rockets and Missiles.
tained; last known locations are:
[13] Moore, Jr., Alan L. (April 1969). A New Look of Per-
U.S. Army Artillery Museum, Fort Sill, Oklahoma shing (PDF). The Field Artilleryman: 4957.
10.12. REFERENCES 63

[14] Instructional Department Notes: Pershing (PDF). The [34] Hundreds of Thousands Protest Missiles in Europe: Urge
Field Artilleryman: 7678. August 1971. U.S. to Match Soviet Halt. Los Angeles Times. April 8,
1985.
[15] Pershing System Modular Improvement (PDF). Field
Artillery Journal: 30. May 1976. [35] 55th Maintenance Battalion. Donau (U.S. Army). July
16, 1982.
[16] Pershing II Firing Battery (PDF). United States Army.
March 1985. FM 6-11. [36] Pershing II RR (PDF). United States Army.

[17] Equipment Data Sheets for TACOM Combat & Tactical [37] Arkin, William M. (June 1983). Pershing II and U.S.
Equipment (PDF). United States Army. June 1985. pp. Nuclear Strategy. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: 12.
4286 4287. TM 43-0001-31.
[38] The Pershing Weapon System and Its Elimination.
[18] Equipment Data Sheets for TACOM Combat & Tactical United States Army.
Equipment (PDF). United States Army. June 1985. pp.
4202 4203. TM 43-0001-31. [39] Thongchua, Nat; Kaczmarek, Michael (November 7,
1994). Theater Missile Defense Targets for Interceptor
[19] The Women of Redstone Arsenal. United States Army. Test and Evaluation (PDF). 1944 AIAA Missile Sciences
Archived from the original on July 11, 2010. Conference.

[20] Busse, Charlane (July 1978). First Women Join Pershing [40] Charity: Writing O The Weapons. Time. August 28,
Training (PDF). Field Artillery Journal: 40. 1991. (subscription required (help)).

[21] The Journal interviews: 1LT Elizabeth A. Tourville [41] Fischier, Tony. Five Presidents. Parker Pens Penogra-
(PDF). Field Artillery Journal: 4043. November 1978. phy: 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. [43] Traditionsgemeinschaft Flugkrpergeschwader 1 [Com-
Archived from the original on February 2, 2008. munity Tradition of Missile Wing 1] (in German).

[24] Eskow, Dennis, ed. (January 1984). Raining Fire [44] Traditionsgemeinschaft Flugkrpergeschwader 2 [Com-
(PDF). Popular Mechanics (Hearst). munity Tradition of Missile Wing 2] (in German).

[25] Harsch, Joseph. (June 22, 1983). U.S. Has Other De-
fense 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/MGM-


31 Pershing. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Mis-
siles.

[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


Armys Strategic Weapon. Bulletin of the Atomic Scien-
tists: 2531.

[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 (JulyAugust 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 rst 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 re-
liable; 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
A Hawk system in service with the German Luftwae before it 130 to 170 hours. Later Hawk versions improved this
was phased out
further to between 300 and 400 hours.

The Raytheon MIM-23 Hawk (Homing All the Way Improved Hawk or I-Hawk The original Hawk system
Killer)[2] is a U.S. medium-range surface-to-air missile. had problems engaging targets at low altitudethe mis-
The Hawk was initially designed to destroy aircraft and sile would have problems picking the target out against
was later adapted to destroy other missiles in ight. The ground clutter. The U.S. Army began a program to ad-
missile entered service in 1960, and a program of ex- dress these issues in 1964 via the Hawk Improvement
tensive upgrades has kept it from becoming obsolete. It Program (Hawk/HIP). This involved numerous upgrades
was superseded by the MIM-104 Patriot in United States to the Hawk system:
Army service by 1994. It was nally phased out of
U.S. service in 2002, the last U.S. users, the U.S. Ma- A digital data processing central information coor-
rine Corps replacing it with the man-portable infrared- dinator for target processing, threat ordering, and in-
guided visual range FIM-92 Stinger. The missile was also tercept evaluation.
produced outside the US in Western Europe, Japan and
Iran.[3] An improved missile (MIM-23B) with a larger war-
head, smaller and more powerful M112 motor, and
Although the U.S. never used the Hawk in combat, it has
improved guidance section.
been employed numerous times by other nations. Ap-
proximately 40,000 of the missiles were produced. Janes The PAR, CWAR, HPIR, and ROR were replaced
reported that the original systems single shot kill proba- by upgraded variants (see #Radars).
bility was 0.56; I-Hawk improved this to 0.85.[4]

The system entered service during 1972, the rst unit


reaching operational status by October. All US units were
11.1 Development upgraded to I-Hawk standard by 1978.

Development of the Hawk missile system began in Product Improvement Plan In 1973 the U.S. Army
1952, when the United States Army began studies into started an extensive multi-phase Hawk PIP (Product Im-
a medium range semi-active radar homing surface-to- provement Plan), mainly intended to improve and up-
air missile. In July 1954 development contracts where grade the numerous items of ground equipment.
awarded to Northrop for the launcher, radars and re con-
trol systems, while Raytheon was awarded the contract Phase I

64
11.1. DEVELOPMENT 65

Phase I involved replacement of the Upgrades to the missile that takes it up to


CWAR with the AN/MPQ-55 Improved MIM-23G that enable the missile to deal with
CWAR (ICWAR), and the upgrade of low ying targets in a high clutter environment.
the AN/MPQ-50 PAR to Improved PAR These were rst deployed in 1990.
(IPAR) conguration by the addition of
a digital MTI (Moving Target Indica- Hawk missile ILM (Improved lethality modication)
tor). The rst PIP Phase I systems were
elded between 1979 and 1981.
To improve the lethality of the warhead of the
Phase II missile against ballistic missiles, the warhead
was redesigned to produce fewer larger frag-
Developed from 1978 and elded be- ments, typically 35 grams each comparable to
tween 1983 and 1986. upgraded the a 12.7 mm projectile in mass.
AN/MPQ-46 HPI to AN/MPQ-57 stan-
dard by replacing some of the vacuum Hawk mobility and TMD upgrades
tube based electronics with modern
solid-state circuits, and added an op-
A Hawk mobility survivability enhancement
tical TAS (Tracking Adjunct System).
programme has been developed following ex-
The TAS, designated OD-179/TVY, is
perience in the 1990 Gulf War. The aim of this
an electro-optical (TV) tracking system
programme was to reduce the number of sup-
that increases Hawk operability and sur-
port vehicles per battery and to increase surviv-
vivability in a high-ECM environment.
ability. Upgrades to the launcher allow missiles
Phase III to be transported on the launcher itself, as well
as replacing vacuum tubes with a single laptop
The PIP Phase III development was computer. A north nding system speeds ori-
started in 1983, and was rst elded by entation and launcher alignment. A eld wire
U. S. forces in 1989. Phase III was a replaces heavy cables and allows for greater
major upgrade which signicantly en- dispersion amongst battery vehicles from 110
hanced the computer hardware and soft- m to 2 km. The upgrades where deployed by
ware for most components of the system, the US Marine Corps between early 1995 and
a new CWAR the AN/MPQ-62, added September 1996.
single-scan target detection capability,
and upgraded the HPI to AN/MPQ- Phase IV
61 standard by addition of a Low-
Altitude Simultaneous Hawk Engage-
With both the Army and Marines abandon-
ment (LASHE) system. LASHE allows
ing the Hawk, phase IV was never completed.
the Hawk system to counter saturation
However it was planned to include:
attacks by simultaneously intercepting
multiple low-level targets. The ROR was High mobility continuous wave acquisi-
phased out in Phase III Hawk units. tion radar to improve detection of small
UAVs.
Hawk Missile Restore Reliability (MRR) A new CW engagement radar.
Anti-radiation missile decoys.
This was a program that ran between 1982 and
An improved missile motor.
1984 intended to improve missile reliability.
An upgraded electro-optical tracker.
Hawk ECCM Improved command and control.
ATBM upgrades.
Running alongside the MMR program, this
produced ECCM to specic threats, proba- Hawk XXI (Hawk 21)
bly contemporary Soviet ECM pods such as
the SPS-141 tted to the Su-22, which proved The Hawk XXI or Hawk-21 is a more ad-
moderately eective during the IranIraq War. vanced, and more compact version of Hawk
The MIM-23C and E missiles contain these PIP-3 upgrade. Hawk-XXI basically elimi-
xes. nates the PAR and CWAR radars with the
introduction of 3D MPQ-64 Sentinel radars.
Low clutter enhancements Norway's Kongsberg Company provides an
66 CHAPTER 11. MIM-23 HAWK

FDC (Fire Distribution Center) as it is used clutter in addition to an inverted receiver developed in
in NASAMS system in Norway. The missiles the late 1960s to give the missile enhanced ECCM abil-
are upgraded MIM-23K standard with an im- ity and to increase the Doppler frequency resolution.
proved blast-fragmentation warhead that cre- A typical Basic Hawk battery consists of:
ates a larger lethal zone. The system is also ef-
fective against short range tactical ballistic mis-
siles. 1 PAR: Pulse Acquisition Radara search radar
with a 20 rpm rotation, for high/medium altitude
A MPQ-61 HIPIR radar provides low altitude target detection.
and local area radar coverage as well as contin-
uous wave radar illumination for the MIM-23K 1 CWAR: Continuous Wave Acquisition Radar
Hawk missiles. a search doppler radar with a 20 rpm rotation, for
low altitude target detection.
2 HPIR: High Power Illuminator doppler Radar
11.2 Description target tracking, illumination and missile guidance.
1 ROR: Range Only RadarK-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 ring section of the battery. The AFCC con-
trols 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 6 M-192: Launchers with 18 missiles.

The Hawk system consists of a large number of compo- 6 SEA: Generators 56 kVA (400 Hz) each.
nent elements. These elements were typically tted on 12 M-390: Missile transport pallets with 36 mis-
wheeled trailers making the system semi-mobile. Dur- siles
ing the systems 40-year life span, these components were
continually upgraded. 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
Hawk launcher, the SP-Hawk, was elded in 1969, which 1 Missile test shop AN/MSM-43.
simply mounted the launcher on a tracked M727 (modi-
ed 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 1 PAR: Pulse Acquisition Radara search radar
boost phase and a sustain phase. The MIM-23A missiles with a 20 (+/2) rpm rotation, for high/medium al-
were tted with an M22E8 motor which burns for 25 to titude target detection.
32 seconds. The MIM-23B and later missiles are tted
1 CWAR: Continuous Wave Acquisition Radar
with an M112 motor with a 5 second boost phase and a
a search doppler radar with a 20 (+/2) rpm rotation,
sustain phase of around 21 seconds. The M112 motor has
for low altitude target detection.
greater thrust, thus increasing the engagement envelope.
The original MIM-23A missiles used a parabolic reec- 2 HIPIR: HIgh Power Illuminator doppler
tor, but the antenna directional focus was insucient, Radartarget tracking, illumination and missile
when engaging low ying targets the missile would dive guidance.
on them, only to lose them in the ground clutter. The 1 FDC: Fire Distributuon Center
MIM-23B I-Hawk missiles and later uses a low side lobe,
high-gain plane antenna to reduce sensitivity to ground 1 IFF: Identication Friend or Foe Transceiver
11.3. MISSILES 67

6 DLN: Digital Launchers with 18 missiles. 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) blast-
fragmentation warhead, a smaller and improved guidance
12 M-390: Missile transport pallets with 36 mis- package, and a new M112 rocket motor. The new war-
siles 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 sec-
onds 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
11.3 Missiles high altitude, and 2.5 to 20 km (1.6 to 12.4 mi) at low
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-
edge control surface. MTM-23B training missile.

XMEM-23B Full telemetry version for testing and


The MIM-23A is 5.08 metres (16.7 ft) long, has a evaluation purposes.
body diameter of 0.37 metres (1 ft 3 in), a wing
span of 1.21 metres (4 ft 0 in) and weighs 584 kilo-
grams (1,287 lb) at launch with a 54 kilograms (119 11.3.3 System components
lb) HE blast/fragmentation warhead. It has a mini-
mum engagement range of 2 kilometres (1.2 mi), a The Hawk and Improved Hawk structure was integrated
maximum range of 25 kilometres (16 mi), a mini- into one systemAN/TSQ-73 air defense missile con-
mum engagement altitude of 60 metres (200 ft) and trol and coordination system, called Missile Minder or
a maximum engagement altitude of 11,000 metres Hawk-MM. It consists of the following components:
(36,000 ft). MPQ-50 Pulse Acquisition Radar, MPQ-48 Improved
Continuous Wave Acquisition Radar, TSW-8 Battery
The MIM-23B to M versions are 5.03 m (16.5 ft) Control Central, ICC Information Coordination Central,
long, have a body diameter of 0.37 m (1 ft 3 in) MSW-11 Platoon Command Post, MPQ-46 High Power
and, with a larger warhead of 75 kg (165 lb), weigh- Illuminator, MPQ-51 Range Only Radar and the M192
ing 638 kg (1,407 lb) at launch. An improved mo- Launcher.[6]
tor, with a total weight of 395 kg (871 lb) including
295 kg (650 lb) of propellant, increases the maxi-
mum range of the MIM-23B to M versions to 35 11.3.4 Improved ECCM
km (22 mi) and maximum engagement altitude to
18,000 m (59,000 ft). The minimum range is re- MIM-23C
duced 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 capabili-
missile is tted with both radio frequency proximity ties.
and impact fuses. The guidance system uses an X-
band 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 dierence be-
tween the two missiles - however it seems likely that the
D family missiles represent an alternative guidance sys-
11.3.1 Basic Hawk: MIM-23A tem, possibly home on jam developed in response to So-
viet 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/multi-
jamming environment. Introduced in 1990. The search radar used with the basic Hawk system, with a
New body section radar pulse power of 450 kW and a pulse length of 3 s,
a Pulse Repetition Frequency of 800 and 667 Hz alter-
MIM-23G/H nately. The radar operates in the 1.25 to 1.35 GHz range.
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- reector of open lattice construction, mounted on a small
bly for the MIM-23E/F missiles. two-wheeled trailer. Rotation rate is 20 rpm, the BCC -
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
AN/MPQ-50 (Improved Hawk to Phase III)

Introduced around 1994. Enhanced lethality congura-


tion warhead with 35 gram (540 grain) fragments instead Introduced with the I-Hawk system, the improved-PAR.
of the I-Hawks 2 gram (30 grain) fragments. MIM-23K The system introduces a digital MTI (Moving Target In-
Hawk missiles are eective up to 20,000 m altitude and dicator) that helps separate targets from ground clutter.
up to 45 km in range. The missile also includes a new It operates in the 500 to 1,000 MHz (C-band) frequency
fuse to make it eective against ballistic missiles. range with a peak operating power of 1,000 watts.

New fuzing + old warhead


Range (source Janes):
MIM-23L/M 104 km (65 mi) (high PRF) to 96 km (60 mi)
(low PRF) versus 3 m2 (32 sq ft) target.
Retains the I-Hawks 30 grain warhead, but with the new 98 km (61 mi)(high PRF) to 90 km (56 mi)
fuse. (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.
11.4 Radars
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
nal iteration of the system consists of only 2 radars, an
enhanced phased array search radar and an engagement
radar (HPIR).

A Hawk PAR radar


A Sentinel radar
PAR Pulse Acquisition Radar
The pulse acquisition radar is a long range, high altitude
search 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 in-
creases the detection range to around 70 km (43 mi). The
radar operates in the 1020 GHz (J-band). Other features
include FM ranging and BITE (Built in test equipment).
Frequency modulation is applied to the broadcast on al-
ternate 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 for-
warded 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 Sen-
tinel 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 tar-
gets 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 A Hawk HPI radar
targets. The unit comes mounted on its own mobile
trailer. The unit acquires targets through 360 degrees of HPIR High Power Illuminating Radar
azimuth while providing target radial speed and raw range The early AN/MPQ-46 High Power Illuminator (HPIR)
data. radars had only the two large dish-type antennas side by
side, one to transmit and one to receive. The HPIR au-
AN/MPQ-34 (Basic Hawk) tomatically acquires and tracks designated targets in az-
imuth, elevation and range. It also serves as an interface
unit supplying azimuth and elevation launch angles com-
MPQ-34 Hawk CW Acquisition radar with a power rating puted by the Automatic Data Processor (ADP) in the In-
of 200 W and a frequency of 10 GHz (X-Band) Built by formation Coordination Centre (ICC) to the IBCC or the
Raytheon. Replaced by MPQ-48. Improved Platoon Command Post (IPCP) for up to three
launchers. The HPIR J-band energy reected from the
AN/MPQ-48 (Improved Hawk) target is also received by the Hawk missile. These re-
turns are compared with the missile reference signal be-
The Improved Hawk version of the CW acquisition radar ing transmitted directly to the missile by the HPIR. Tar-
doubled the output power and improved the detection get tracking is continued throughout the missiles ight.
ranges: 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
Range (source Janes):
Battery Control Centre (BCC) and automatically searches
69 km (43 mi) (CW) to 63 km (39 mi) (FM) a given sector for a rapid target lock on. The HPIR in-
versus 3 m2 (32 sq ft) target. corporates ECCM and BITE.
65 km (40 mi) (CW) to 60 km (37 mi) (FM)
versus 2.4 m2 (26 sq ft) target. AN/MPQ-33/39 (Basic Hawk)
52 km (32 mi) (CW) to 48 km (30 mi) (FM)
versus 1 m2 (11 sq ft) target. This X Band CW System is used to illuminate targets in
the Hawk Missile Battery. The unit comes mounted on
AN/MPQ-55 (Phase I - Phase II) its own mobile trailer. Unit automatically acquires and
70 CHAPTER 11. MIM-23 HAWK

tracks designated targets in azimuth elevation and range the HPIR radar cannot determine the range, typically be-
rate. The system has an output power of around 125 W cause of jamming. The ROR is dicult to jam because
operating in the 10-10.25 GHz band. MPQ-39 was an it operates only briey during the engagement, and only
upgraded version of the MPQ-33. in the presence of jamming.

AN/MPQ-46 (Improved Hawk Phase I) AN/MPQ-37 (Basic Hawk)

The radar operates in the 1020 GHz (J-band) region. AN/MPQ-51 (Improved Hawk Phase II)
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 s at a pulse repe-
Range (source Janes): tition frequency of 1600 Hz. Antenna: 4-foot (1.2 m)
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)
FDC (Hawk Phase III and Hawk XXI) - Fire Distribu-
The majority of the remaining tube electronics are up- tion Center. C4I unit, enabling modern command, con-
graded to solid state. Also, an electro-optical tracking trol, communications and Force Operation. Color dis-
system, the daytime only OD-179/TVY TAS (Tracking plays with 3D map overlays enhance the situation aware-
Adjunct System) is added for operation in a high ECM ness. Instriduces the real-time exchange of air picture and
environement. The TAS was developed from the US commands between the Hawk units. Make-ready capa-
Air Forces TISEO (Target Identication System, Electro- bility for SL-AMRAAM and SHORAD/vSHORAD sys-
Optical) by Northrop. It consists of a video camera with a tems.
x10 zoom lens. The I-TAS which was eld tested in 1992
added an Infra Red capability for night operation as well
as automatic target detection and tracking.
11.5 Country-specic modica-
HEOS Germany, Netherlands and Nor- tions
way modied their Hawk systems with
an alternative IR acquisition and track-
ing system known as the Hawk Electro-
Optical Sensor (HEOS) in place of the
TAS. HEOS operates in the 8 to 11 m
band and is used to supplement the HPI
to acquire and track targets before missile
launch.

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 employ-
ing a fan beam antenna to provide a wide-angle, low-
altitude illumination pattern to allow multiple engage-
ments against saturation raids. This antenna is rectangu-
lar. 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
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 de-
tection of aircraft at 30 to 40 km and identication at 17
to 25 km. They have also modied their system for en-
gagements at altitudes up to 24,000 m.

Sparrow Hawk

A composite system ring AIM-7 Sparrow missiles from


a modied 8 round launcher. The system was demon-
strated at the China Lake weapons test site in 1985. There
are currently no users of the system.

Hawk AMRAAM Iran Air Force Grumman F-14A Tomcat ghters armed with
multiple missiles. The missile carried on the right ouboard plyon
At Safe Air 95 AMRAAM missiles were demonstrated of the tomcat in the left seems to be an MIM-23 Hawk missile.
being red from a modied M192 missile launcher. The
normal battery radar is used for the engagement, with the
Norway
missiles own radar used for terminal homing. Raytheon
and Kongsberg are oering this system as an upgrade to
the existing Hawk system. This proposal is aimed partic- Norway has developed its own Hawk upgrade scheme
ularly at Hawk operating countries that also have AIM- known as the Norwegian Adapted Hawk (NOAH) which
120 AMRAAM in their inventory. Norway is currently involves the lease of I-Hawk launchers, HPI radars and
operating this type of system as NASAMS. missile loaders from the USA and their integration with
Hughes (now Raytheon) Kongsberg Acquisition Radar
Iran and Control Systems. The NOAH system became op-
erational in 1988. It was replaced by NASAMS in the
period 1995-1998.

ACWAR

Future developments were expected to include the intro-


duction 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 tac-
tical air defence requirements and the equipment is be-
Iranian mobile Hawk launcher ing designed for operation of Hawk in the late 1990s and
beyond. However, the ACWAR programme was termi-
As part of what became known as the Iran-Contra aair, 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 11.6 Combat History
have experimented with a number of MIM-23 Hawk mis-
siles for carriage on F-14 Tomcat ghters in the air-to-air August 1962 agreement in principle was reached
role under a program known as SKY Hawk. Iran has also between the US and Israeli governments for the sale
modied its ground-based Hawk systems for carriage on of Hawk missiles to Israel.
a convoy of 8x8 wheeled vehicles and adapted the launch-
ers to carry Standard RIM-66 or AGM-78 missiles with October - November 1962 the Cuban Missile Crisis
two Standard missiles per launcher. necessitates a request for a total of 304 missiles to
be delivered at an average turnaround of 3 days per
The Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force had recently re- missile.
vealed its own version of the MIM-23 Hawk the Shahin
which it claims to be under production. In 2010 Iran an- February - March 1965 the United States Marine
nounced that it will be mass-producing its next generation Corps gets interested in the Hawk, placing them at
of air defense system called Mersad which would inte- Da Nang and Hill 327, which was west of Da Nang
grate with the Shahin missile.[8] airbase. This was both the rst USMC deployment
72 CHAPTER 11. MIM-23 HAWK

of the Hawk, and also the rst deployment of the Chadian territory proper and left the French with
Hawk in Vietnam. only a very small window of opportunity to shoot
the intruder. The interception took place almost at
March 1965 the rst Hawk battalion was deployed the vertical of the battery. Debris and unexploded
to Israel. bombs from the Tu-22 rained over the position and
injured no one.
June 5, 1967 In an unusual incident an Israeli MIM-
23A shot down a damaged Israeli Dassault MD.450 August 2, 1990, Hawk missiles defending Kuwait
Ouragan that was in danger of crashing into the against the Iraqi invasion in August 1990 are
Negev Nuclear Research Center near Dimona, be- claimed to have shot down up to 14 Iraqi aircraft.
ing the rst combat ring of the Hawk and the Only two kills have been veried a MiG-23BN and a
rst combat kill attributed to the Hawk system . Su-22. In responde, an Iraqi Su-22 from the No.109
Squadron red a single Kh-25MP anti-radar missile
March 21, 1969 Before noon, a new Hawk battery,
against a Bubiyan Island battery. This forced a radar
which was deployed at Baluza, north of the town
shutdown on the HAWK. It was later captured by
of Kantara in the Sinai region detected an Egyptian
Iraqi special forces and found out to be in automatic
MiG-21 aircraft which took o from Port-said air-
mode of operation, after the American contractors
port. The controller, Yair Tamir, tracked the aircraft
that operated it ed.[12] Iraqi forces captured four or
on the radar, in its ight from north to south along
ve Kuwaiti Hawk batteries.
the Suez canal, and when the MiG-21 broke to a
course heading towards the Hawk battery, a missile November 1990, Task Force Scorpion, a U.S. Army
was launched at it, which successfully destroyed the Hawk-Patriot electronic task force, becomes opera-
aircraft while it was ying at an altitude of 6,700 m. tional and assumes the air defense mission for Desert
. During the War of Attrition, Hawk batteries had Shield units forming up in Saudi Arabia.[13]
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. February 1991, Bravo Battery, 2-1 ADA moves
into Iraq and establishes Hawk missile sites near as-
May 1972, Improved Hawk support equipment was Salman.[14]
rst deployed to Germany.
A SAFE AIR demonstration was conducted at
October 1973 Yom Kippur war 75 Israeli missiles WSMR to display the eectiveness and versatil-
were red downing between 12 and 24 aircraft and ity of several existing and new United States Army
one oil well on re in Abu-Rodes oil eld. weapon systems in providing air and surface de-
1977 Conversion of Basic Hawk to Improved Hawk fense. Emphasis was placed on defeating cruise mis-
was completed by all US Army units in Europe and siles and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The
Korea by the end of the year. Hawk system successfully engaged two surrogate
cruise missiles, one UAV, and one xed wing drone.
1980s
The United States Marine Corps successfully tested
Kuwait, 1 kill of an Iranian F-5 during the its Hawk Mobility and theater missile defense
IranIraq War. (TMD) software upgrades at White Sands Missile
Range. Hawk acquired the three LANCE targets,
Iran, at least 40 Iraqi aircraft destroyed during
two of which were successfully engaged and de-
the IranIraq War. On February 12, 1986, 9
stroyed. This was the rst time the entire USMC
Iraqi aircraft downed by a Hawk site near al-
ATBM system had been tested.
Faw in southern Iraq during Operation Dawn
8. Among the aircraft, are Su-22 and MiG-
23s.[9] In addition, Iranian HAWK sites shot
down 3 friendly F-14 Tomcats and 1 F-5 Tiger 11.7 Operators
II.[10][11]

March 1985 DA and the Oce of the Secretary Bahrain


of Defense (OSD) approved the development of an Belgium
anti-tactical missile (ATM) mission for Hawk.
Denmark [15]
September 7, 1987, French Army, 403nd Air De-
fence Regiment, in Chad, shot down a Libyan Tu- Egypt
22B on a bombing mission with an MIM-23B dur-
ing the Chadian-Libyan war. The particularity of France
this event is with its geographical situation, a few
miles from a border. The attack began outside the Germany (phased out in 2005)
11.7. OPERATORS 73

Italy

Netherlands

USA (phased out)

Phase III

Egypt on 25 February 2014, Egypt ordered a


new 186 rocket motors.[18]

Hawk-SAM being towed by a truck on the Romanian National France


Day parade on December 1, 2008 at the Triumph Arch in
Bucharest. Greece

Israel To be replaced by Davids Sling[16]


Greece

Iran Italy

Israel To be replaced by Davids Sling[16] Jordan It might be upgraded to become the


most Advanced & Accurate HAWK system in the
Italy world or phased out and replaced with modern air
defence system and on 25 February 2014, Jordan
Japan ordered a new 114 rocket motors.[18]
Kuwait
Netherlands (Phased out and sold to
Netherlands Romania)

Norway (phased out in 1998) Saudi Arabia


Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Singapore
Spain
Spain
Sweden
Sweden

Taiwan (Republic of China) To be replaced Taiwan (Republic of China) To be replaced


by Tien Kung 3[17] by Tien Kung 3[17]

Turkey UAE

UAE US Marine Corps (phased out of US service


in 2002)
USA (phased out)

Phase II These countries have implemented Phase 1 and Hawk XXI


Phase 2 improvements.
Royal Moroccan Army
Belgium (phased out)
Romanian Air Force[19]
Denmark (Phased out)
Republic of Korea[20] 24 batteries
France

Germany (phased out in 2005) Turkey

Greece Iraq
74 CHAPTER 11. MIM-23 HAWK

11.8 See also [17] Taiwan Retires Hawk Missiles - Defensenews.com, 15


September 2014
Surface-to-air missile [18] Binnie, Jeremy (26 February 2014). Egypt, Jordan to
extend the life of HAWK missiles. IHS Janes 360. Re-
SA-3 Goa Soviet low-altitude missile system
trieved 3 September 2014.
SA-6 Gainful advanced Soviet mobile low-altitude [19] Surface to air missiles inventory on the Romanian Air
missile system Force Ocial Site, accessed 18th June 2007.
Mersad Iranian air defense system based on MIM- [20] http://www.koreadefence.net/wys2/file_attach/2009/10/
23 Hawk 11/1255272637-60.jpg

The Iran-Contra aair, in which MIM-23 missiles


were oered to Iran. Janes Land-Based Air Defence 20052006, ISBN
0-7106-2697-5

11.9 References
11.10 External links
[1] As given in Janes Land-Based Air Defence 199697. Site
designation-systems.net gives the initial operational capa- Ocial website
bility as August 1959 with the U.S. Army.
MIM-23 Hawk at Designation-Systems.net
[2] http://books.google.com/books?id=NVEtqShrgvkC&
pg=PA598&lpg=PA598&dq=homing+all+the+ FAS.org page on the Hawk system.
way+killer&source=bl&ots=H-xhrpPGjh&sig=
YPievni4i4oq6phAAnJRza8olfo&hl=en&sa=
Israeli use of the Hawk system.
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), Janes Land-


Based Air Defence Ninth Edition 199697, p. 296, Couls-
don: Janes 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] Schrder, Hans (1991). Royal Danish Airforce. Ed.


Kay S. Nielsen. Tjhusmuseet, 1991, p. 164. ISBN 87-
89022-24-6.

[16] Israeli Patriot Replacement - Strategypage.com, Decem-


ber 13, 2012
Chapter 12

MGM-29 Sergeant

The MGM-29 Sergeant was an American short-range, 12.1 Operators


solid fuel, surface-to-surface missile developed at the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory. The missiles were built by Sperry West Germany[4]
Utah Company.
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
Army battalion was deactivated in 1977. Sergeant Mis- 350th Rocket Artillery Battalion 1964-1976
sile 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 in-
United States[5]
terim stage in the development of battleeld missiles. It
avoided the Corporals 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-
porary Blue Water and later Lance, would reduce setup 2nd Bn, 30th Field Artillery Regiment 1963-1975 -
time. Vicenza, Italy
The Sergeant had a takeo thrust of 200 kilonewtons 3rd Bn, 38th Field Artillery Regiment 1962-? - Fort
(45,000 lb ), a takeo weight of 4,530 kilograms (9,990 Sill
lb), a diameter of 790 millimetres (31 in), a length of
10.52 metres (34.5 ft) and a n span of 1.80 metres (5 ft 1st Bn, 68th Field Artillery Regiment 1964-1970 -
11 in). The Sergeant missile had a minimum range of 40 West Germany
kilometres (25 mi), and a maximum range of 135 kilo-
5th Bn, 73rd Field Artillery Regiment 1963-1975 -
metres (84 mi).
West Germany
The Sergeant was used as the second stage of the Scout
satellite launcher, and clusters of Sergeant-derived rock- 5th Bn, 77th Field Artillery Regiment 1963-1975 -
ets were used in the second and third stages of the Jupiter- West Germany
C sounding rocket and used in the second, third, and
3rd Bn, 80th Field Artillery Regiment 1964-1970 -
fourth stages of the Juno I and Juno II launch vehicles.
West Germany
Thiokol developed the Sergeant rocket motorsand the
Castor rocket stages derived from themat the Redstone 3rd Bn, 81st Field Artillery Regiment 1963-1976[6]
Arsenal near Huntsville, Alabama.[3] - South Korea

12.2 References
[1] Weapons of the Filed Artillery (1965)". US Army. Re-
trieved 11 May 2013.

75
76 CHAPTER 12. MGM-29 SERGEANT

[2] Sergeant electrodynamics. Flight: 643644. 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 13

MIM-46 Mauler

13.1.1 Duster and Vigilante

The US Armys rst 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 per-
formance increased.
To replace the Duster, the Army started work on the
Sperry Vigilante, which mounted a powerful 37 mm
Gatling gun on top of a modied M113 Armored Person-
nel Carrier chassis. Although the Vigilante was, like the
Duster, optically aimed and guided, its 3,000 rpm ring
rate gave it much better performance against high-speed
MIM-46 Mauler prototype. aircraft.
As the Vigilante program continued, the Army decided
that any gun-based system was hopeless as speeds in-
The General Dynamics MIM-46 Mauler was a self-
creased and engagement times dropped. The Vigilante
propelled anti-aircraft missile system designed to a late
had a maximum eective range of about 3,000 yards
1950s US Army requirement for a system to combat low-
(2,700 m), and its shells took about 5 seconds to cross
ying high-performance tactical ghters and short-range
this distance. A jet aircraft ying at 500 mph (800 km/h)
ballistic missiles. Based on the M113 chassis, Mauler car-
would cover over a kilometer during those 5 seconds. By
ried search and attack radars, re control computers and
the time a radar-assisted sighting system could develop a
nine missiles in a highly mobile platform. An ambitious
ring solution, the target would be out of range.
design for its era, the Mauler ran into intractable prob-
lems during development, and was eventually canceled in Given their doubts in the new system, the Army decided
November 1965. to cancel the Vigilante and keep the Duster in service until
a much more capable all-missile system arrived to replace
Maulers 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
ll this niche. These weapons were much less capable
than Mauler, and were intended solely as a stop-gap so-
13.1.2 FAAD
lution 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 require-
the late 1990s. Both the US Navy and British Army
ments for a missile-based system in 1959.
were also expecting Mauler to full 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),
respectively, to ll these needs. with an illumination radar on the ground that reected
signals o the target that were picked up by a small re-
ceiver in the missiles nose. This system had the advan-
tage 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 reected 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 reections could confuse the missiles seeker. Since
SARH relied on making the seeker in the missile as sim-
ple as possible in order to t into the missile body, it was
common for seekers of the era to be easily confused by
reections from trees, buildings or the ground. It was dif-
cult 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 semi-
active 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 in-
creasingly inaccurate as the missile ies towards the tar-
get. Some sort of secondary terminal guidance system
was almost always needed with beam-riding weapons.
In spite of these disadvantages, beam-riding oered
FAAD the ability to guide the missiles in close proxim-
The Army was not the only potential user of the Mauler
ity to the ground. Since the guidance signal is received
system; both the British Army and US Navy planned on
at the rear of the missile body, the signal would remain
using Mauler for their own needs. The British Armys
clear as long as there were no obstructions between the
intended role was essentially identical to the USs, but
missile and launcher. It was only the launch platform that
the Navy was looking for a solution to the problem of air
had to have the ability to distinguish targets from ground
attack against their capital ships both by high-speed air-
clutter, not the missile. FAAD used a continuous wave
craft as well as early (non-skimming) anti-shipping mis-
radar, which uses the Doppler shift of the moving targets
siles. Starting in 1960 they had developed a program
to locate them against any sort of background. For termi-
for a Basic Point Defense Missile System (BPDMS),
nal guidance, FAAD used an advanced infrared homing
and intended to use a modied version of the Mauler, the
system.
RIM-46A Sea Mauler, to ll this role. Maulers beam
Given the quick engagement times, on the order of sec- riding system made it preferable to other missile systems
onds, the Army decided that FAAD had to have semi- because it would have fewer problems with clutter from
automatic actions. In combat, the operators would select the sea. Additionally, its fast-acting semi-automatic re
targets on a long-range search radar and then simply say control was highly desired for a weapon that was expected
go to attack them. The systems re control computer to counter targets with engagement times under a minute.
would slew the weapons and re automatically as soon as Expecting its arrival, the Navys latest destroyer escorts,
they came in range. the Knox class frigate, were built with space reserved for
After running Monte Carlo simulations on an IBM 650, the Sea Mauler launchers when they arrived.[4]
they decided to use a blast-fragmentation warhead, de- Development of the missile airframe and engine pro-
ciding that the continuous-rod warhead would be less gressed rapidly. Unguided examples, known as Launch
eective.[1] Test Vehicles, started ring tests in September 1961.
For mobility, the system would be based on the M113, the These were quickly followed by the Control Test Vehi-
Armys latest APC and one of the more advanced vehicles cle (CTV) guided examples in 1961, which ew simple
in the inventory. The modications needed to support a paths to test the aerodynamic controls. Both test series
missile system were relatively simple, and the crew area demonstrated a variety of problems, including failures [3]
of
inside the chassis oered room for the needed equipment. the rocket casings, and excessive drag and wing utter.
The resulting vehicle was known as the XM-546.[2] The rst Guidance Test Vehicle (GTV), essentially the
service prototypes, started ring 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 dierent con-
sion) won in 1959.[3] In 1960 the project was given the tainer materials would be used in an attempt to nd a
ocial name Mauler. suitable solution.[5]
13.1. BACKGROUND 79

13.1.4 Cancellation pable than Mauler, however, with ranges up to 10 km and


higher speeds. However, the ending of the Cold War led
By this point there were serious doubts that the sys- the Army to cancel their ADATS purchase, leaving Cha-
tem would be entering service any time soon. On 16 parral/Vulcan in service even longer. The anti-aircraft
September 1963 the Army Materiel Command asked the role was eventually lled by the Bradley Linebacker,
Aviation and Missile Command to study adapting the based on the short-range FIM-92 Stinger.
Navys AIM-9 Sidewinder missile as the basis of a short- The cancellation also left the British Army without a de-
range anti-aircraft system. They suggested that the con- fense system, but they had prepared for this eventuality,
version would be simple, but the missiles long lock-on having had several US missile systems cancelled out from
time and optical guidance would make it ineective in under them in the past. Before selecting the Mauler,
close combat. the British Aircraft Corporation had been working on
Based on this potential solution to the air defense prob- a private project known as Sightline, and continued
lem, the Army Sta, supported by the Army Air Defense its development as a low priority while the Mauler pro-
Artillery School at Fort Bliss, started a new study un- gram progressed. On its cancellation, Sightline was given
der the direction of Lieutenant Colonel Edward Hirsch. full development funds, and entered service in 1971 as
Known as the Interim Field Army Air Defense Study Rapier.
(IFAADS), it called for a multi-layer system consisting The US Navy was in a somewhat more troubling posi-
of an adapted Sidewinder as a missile component known tion. In addition to their need to replace guns and ex-
as the MIM-72 Chaparral, a short-range gun component isting missile systems like the RIM-24 Tartar, they were
using the M61 Vulcan known as the M163 VADS, and also looking to replace short-range gun systems on their
the separate AN/MPQ-49 Forward Area Alerting Radar older ships. Mauler was built-in not only to their lat-
that would support both by sending digital information to est ship designs, like the Knox, but formed the basis for
displays in those platforms. All of these would be fur- their entire anti-aircraft concept for the 1970s. It was be-
ther supported by the FIM-43 Redeye man-portable mis- lieved that Mauler would greatly improve the capabilities
sile. Although the resulting composite system would not of smaller ships, allowing them to take on some of the
be nearly as capable as Mauler, it could be in service much roles that would normally require a much larger platform,
sooner and provide some cover while a more capable sys- like a full destroyer.
tem developed.
With Maulers cancellation, the Navy had to start a crash
In November 1963 Mauler was re-directed as a pure tech- program to develop a suitable system. As the infrared-
nology demonstration program. Several modied ver- guided Sidewinder would be of limited use against air-
sions using simpler systems were proposed, but even these craft or missiles approaching head-on, they were forced
would not have entered service before 1969. Tests with to use the AIM-7 Sparrow instead. Although the Spar-
the GTVs continued until the entire program was can- row was a capable missile, it was intended for launch from
celled outright in November 1965.[3] Chaparral adapted high-speed aircraft and thus had relatively low accelera-
the Maulers IR seeker, which was greatly improved over tion, trading this for longer cruising time and range. An
the versions in the original AIM-9C. entirely new motor was developed for the new Sea Spar-
row. To guide it, a new manually controlled radar illu-
minator was developed, guided by an aimer standing be-
13.1.5 Aftermath tween two large radar dishes that looked somewhat like
searchlights. The ships search radars would send target
The Chaparral/Vulcan combination was always intended information via voice channels to the operator, who would
to be a stop-gap solution while a more powerful sys- slew the illuminators onto the target and launch the mis-
tem evolved. However, in the 1970s the threat was per- siles. The missiles were held in a large eight-cell rotating
ceived to change from tactical aircraft to missile-ring launcher than was slaved to the illuminator in order to al-
helicopters that would pop-up from behind cover. This low the seeker to see the reected signal. The system, as
suggested the use of a fast-acting gun system, albeit one a whole, was much larger than Mauler, had shorter range,
with much longer range than the Vulcans 1,200 m. Out and much longer reaction times.
of these studies came the Division Air Defense concept
In spite of the Sea Sparrows relative simplicity, it was
that was eventually lled 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 lat-
inal Mauler in form, function and even the launch plat- est models, which can be vertically launched from four-
form, an adapted M113. ADATS is somewhat more ca-
80 CHAPTER 13. MIM-46 MAULER

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 sys-
tem of even greater capability.

13.2 Description
The General Dynamics Mauler system used a large A-
frame 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 missiles canister was
popped o to allow the infrared seeker to see the tar-
get, and then it was launched into the illuminating radars
beam.[3]
Raytheon provided both the search and illumination
radars, while Burroughs provided the re 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)
n span, and weighed 120 pounds (54 kg). It had a max-
imum 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 Sys-
tem, 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 de-


sign 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 14

MGM-52 Lance

The MGM-52 Lance was a mobile eld artillery tactical were in storage awaiting destruction. Following its deacti-
surface-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 re for anti-missile systems.
support to the United States Army. The missiles warhead
was developed at Lawrence Livermore National Labora-
tory. It was replaced by MGM-140 ATACMS. 14.4 Operators[3][4]
United States
14.1 Deployment
US Army
The rst Lance missiles were deployed in 1972, replac-
ing (together with the US-Navys nuclear-tipped RIM- 1st Bn, 12th Field Artillery Regiment 1973-
2D & RIM-8E/B/D) the earlier Honest John rocket and 1992 Fort Sill[2]
Sergeant SRBM ballistic missile, greatly reducing the 1st Bn, 32nd Field Artillery Regiment 1975-
weight and bulk of the system, while improving both ac- 1991 Hanau, Germany
curacy and mobility.[2]
6th Bn, 33rd Field Artillery Regiment 1975-
A Lance battery (two re units) consisted of two M752 1987 Reag as 6th Bn, 32nd Field Artillery
launchers (one missile each) and two M688 auxiliary ve- Regiment 1987-91 Fort Sill[5] (One Btry was
hicle (two missiles each),[2] for a total six missiles. The Forward Deployed to South Korea)[6]
ring rate per unit was approximately three missiles per
hour. 2nd Bn, 42nd Field Artillery Regiment 1974-
1987 Reag as 4th Bn, 12th Field Artillery
Regiment 1987-1991 Crailsheim, Germany

14.2 Payload 3rd Bn, 79th Field Artillery Regiment 1974-


1986 Reag as 2nd Bn, 32nd Field Artillery
Regiment 1986-? Giessen, Germany
The payload consisted either of a W70 nuclear warhead
with a yield of 1-100 kt or a variety of conventional muni- 1st Bn, 80th Field Artillery Regiment1974-
tions. The W70-3 nuclear warhead version was one of the 1987 Reag as 3rd Bn, 12th Field Artillery
rst warheads to be battleeld-ready with an enhanced Regiment 1987-1991 Aschaenburg, Ger-
radiation (neutron bomb) capability. Conventional mu- many
nitions included cluster bombs for use against SAM-Sites, 1st Bn, 333rd Field Artillery Regiment 1973-
heat seeking Anti-Tank Cluster munitions or a single uni- 1986 Reag as 3rd Bn, 32nd Field Artillery
tary conventional shape-charged warhead for penetrating Regiment 1986-? Wiesbaden, Germany
hard targets and for bunker busting. The original design 2nd Bn, 377th Field Artillery Regiment 1974-
considered a chemical weapon warhead option, but this 1987 Reag as 2nd Bn, 12th Field Artillery
development was cancelled in 1970. Regiment 1987-1992 Herzogenaurach, Ger-
many

14.3 Deactivation United Kingdom

With the signing of the INF Treaty in 1987, the United British Army
States Army began withdrawing Lance missiles from Eu-
rope. By 1992, all United States Army Lance warheads 50th Missile Regiment Royal Artillery

81
82 CHAPTER 14. MGM-52 LANCE

Israel 14.7 External links


Israeli Defence Force Video of Lance missiles being launched by British
Army in 1992 - #1
Netherlands
Video of British Army Lance launches in 1992 - #2
Netherlands Army
Video of British Army Lance launches in 1992 - #3
129th Artillery Battalion 1979-1992
Redstone Arsenal History - Lance
Belgium
Herzobase.org - Lance Missile base in Germany
Belgium Army Designation Systems Article
3rd Artillery Battalion
Brookings Institution photos and data
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 Institu-
tion. August 1998. Retrieved October 11, 2011.
[2] Ripley, Tim. The new illustrated guide to the modern US
Army. Salamander Books Ltd. pp. 9293. ISBN 0-
86101-671-8.
[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
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 Navys
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 cur-
was 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. MICOMs report was cautiously opti-
tem, the Vulcan covering short-range short-time engage- mistic, concluding that the Sidewinder could be adapted
ments, and the Chaparral for longer range use. very quickly, although it would have limited capability.
A new concept, the Interim Forward Area Air Defense
(IFAAD) evolved around the Sidewinder. The main con-
cern was that at shorter distances the missile would not
have time to lock onto the target before it ew out of
15.1 Development range, so to serve this need a second vehicle based around
the M61 Vulcan cannon was specied. Both would be
aimed manually, eliminating the delay needed for a re
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 rst 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 modied 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 rst Cha-
both 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 radars
Forward Area Alerting Radar (FAAR), was developed in
display and then pressing re. The entire engagement
1966 to support the Chaparral/Vulcan system, although
would be handled by the re 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 ns on the airframe, but oth-
ers, like problems with the re control and guidance sys-
tems, appeared to be more dicult 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
Maulers delays put this entire program in question. More Sidewinder. The main dierence is that to reduce drag
worrying, a new generation of Soviet attack aircraft was only two of the ns on the MIM-72A have rollerons, the
coming into service. For both of these reasons the Mauler other two having been replaced by xed thin ns. The
program was scaled back in 1963 and alternatives were MIM-72s MK 50 solid-fuel rocket motor was essentially
studied. identical to the MK 36 MOD 5 used in the AIM-9D

83
84 CHAPTER 15. MIM-72 CHAPARRAL

Sidewinder. The MIM-72 missile is launched from the The missile cost approximately $80,000 and M48 re
M48 re unit, consisting of a M730 tracked vehicle t- units $1.5 million.
ted with an M54 missile launcher capable of holding four
missiles ready to re. The M48 carries an additional eight
missiles stowed. 15.3 Variants
The MIM-72A like the FIM-43 Redeye uses a rst gen-
eration infra-red seeker, and can be fooled by ares and MIM-72A Chaparral Original production missile.
hot brick jammers, such as the L166 IRCM unit tted
to the Mi-24. Also the missile needs to be able to see the MIM-72B Training missile.
hot exhaust of an aircraft, making it a tail chase only mis-
MIM-72C Improved Chaparral. Featuring an im-
sile. A similar B model for training was identical to the
proved AN/DAW-1 guidance section, M817 direc-
A model with the exception of a dierent warhead fuze.
tional doppler fuze and a M250 blast-fragmentation
The C version of the missile, from 1974, has an improved warhead. These enhancements gave the missile an
guidance section that gives the missile an all-aspect ca- all-aspect capability. Produced between 1976 and
pability, as well as a new doppler radar fuze and an im- 1981. It entered service in November 1978. Range
proved warhead. The fuze and warhead were adapted improved to 9000 m.
from the earlier Mauler program. C models were de-
ployed between 1976 and 1981, reaching operational sta- RIM-72C Sea Chaparral. Naval version - Evalu-
tus in 1978. An experimental D model used the warhead ated but not deployed by the US Navy. Adopted by
from the C version with the seeker from the A model, but Taiwan.
was not deployed. MIM-72D Experimental missile that was cancelled
A naval version of the missile was also developed, based before production.
on the C version of the missile the RIM-72C Sea Cha-
parral. This was not adopted by the U.S. Navy, however MIM-72E MIM-72C missiles retrotted with a new
it was exported to Taiwan. M121 smokeless motor.

The Chaparral system is manually red by visually track- MIM-72F New built missiles with upgraded M121
ing the targets, slewing the missile carrier into the general smokeless motor.
direction, and waiting for the missile seekers to lock on
to the target. It is not suitable for engaging helicopters MIM-72G Fitted with a new AN/DAW-2 based on
popping up behind cover, for instance. the seeker in the FIM-92 Stinger giving improved
resistance to countermeasures. This was retrotted
In 1977 Ford and Texas Instruments started a project to all Chaparral missiles during the late 1980s. New
to give the Chaparral a limited all-weather capability missiles were produced between 1990 and 1991.
through the addition of a FLIR camera. The test rings
in 1978 also used a new smokeless motor, which greatly MIM-72H Export version of the MIM-72F.
improved visibility after ring and made it much easier to
re follow-up rounds. The testing proved successful, and MIM-72J Downgraded export version of the MIM-
the FLIR upgrades were carried out in September 1984. 72G.
Existing missiles were upgraded with the new motor to M30 Inert training missile.
become the MIM-72E, while new-build versions (other-
wise identical) were known as the MIM-72F.
A nal upgrade adapted the greatly improved seeker from 15.4 Operators
the FIM-92 Stinger to the MIM-72, starting in 1980. The
Stingers seeker is considerably more capable in terms of
o-axis sighting, as well as being able to reject most Chile 28 units purchased in the 1980s. Being
common forms of jamming. Ford was contracted to de- phased out.[1]
liver the resulting MIM-72G starting in 1982, and all ex-
isting missiles had been updated by the late 1980s. New- Egypt
build G models followed between 1990 and 1991. By
this point in time the system was already being removed
from regular Army service, and being handed over to the Israel
National Guard.
Two export-only versions of the MIM-72 were also built, Morocco
the MIM-72H which is an export version of the MIM-
72F, and the MIM-72J, a MIM-72G with a downgraded
guidance and control section. 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

MIM-72 operated by Israel. 15.8 External links


http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-72.
Taiwan (Republic of China) html
http://history.redstone.army.mil/miss-chaparral.
Republic of China Marine Corps built on M113 html
Chassis
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/
Republic of China Navy installed on La Fayette ground/chaparral.htm
class frigate, Newport class

Tunisia

United States

United States Army All units removed from ser-


vice by 1997.[1]

15.5 General characteristics


(MIM-72A)
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
Chapter 16

MIM-104 Patriot

The MIM-104 Patriot is a surface-to-air missile (SAM) technologies, including the MPQ-53 passive electroni-
system, the primary of its kind used by the United States cally scanned array radar and track-via-missile guidance.
Army and several allied nations. It is manufactured by the Full-scale development of the system began in 1976 and
U.S. defense contractor Raytheon and derives its name it was deployed in 1984. Patriot was used initially as an
from the radar component of the weapon system. The anti-aircraft system, but during 1988 it was upgraded to
AN/MPQ-53 at the heart of the system is known as the provide limited capability against tactical ballistic mis-
"Phased Array Tracking Radar to Intercept On Target siles (TBM) as PAC-1 (Patriot Advanced Capability-1).
or the bacronym PATRIOT. The Patriot System replaced The most recent upgrade, called PAC-3, is a nearly total
the Nike Hercules system as the U.S. Armys primary system redesign, intended from the outset to engage and
High to Medium Air Defense (HIMAD) system, and re- destroy tactical ballistic missiles.
placed the MIM-23 Hawk system as the U.S. Armys
medium tactical air defense system. In addition to these
roles, Patriot has been given the function of the U.S. 16.1.1 Patriot equipment
Armys anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system, which is now
Patriots primary mission. The Patriot system has four major operational functions:
Patriot uses an advanced aerial interceptor missile and communications, command and control, radar surveil-
high-performance radar systems. Patriot was developed lance, and missile guidance. The four functions combine
at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama, which had to provide a coordinated, secure, integrated, mobile air
previously developed the Safeguard ABM system and its defense system.
component Spartan and hypersonic speed Sprint missiles. The Patriot system is modular and highly mobile. A
The symbol for Patriot is a drawing of a Revolutionary battery-sized element can be emplaced in less than 1
War-era Minuteman. hour. All components, consisting of the re control sec-
Patriot 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 truck-
Netherlands, 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 rst deployed towed by M983 HEMTTs.
in Morg in 24 May 2010 but has since been moved to Missile reload is accomplished using a M985 GMT
Toru 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 reg-
Korea 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 red 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.
A standard M977 HEMTT with a regular-sized crane is
sometimes referred to as the Large Repair Parts Trans-
16.1 Introduction porter (LRPT).
The heart of the Patriot battery is the re control sec-
In 1975 the SAM-D missile successfully engaged a drone tion, consisting of the AN/MPQ-53 or 65 Radar Set,
at the White Sands Missile Range. During 1976, it the AN/MSQ-104 Engagement Control Station (ECS),
was renamed the PATRIOT Air Defense Missile Sys- the OE-349 Antenna Mast Group (AMG), and the EPP-
tem. The MIM-104 Patriot would combine several new III Electric Power Plant. The systems missiles are trans-

86
16.1. INTRODUCTION 87

German Patriot system with camouage


A detailed view of an AN/MPQ-53 radar set. The circular pat-
tern on the front of the vertical component is the systems main
ported on and launched from the M901 Launching Sta- phased array, consisting of over 5,000 individual elements, each
tion, which can carry up to four PAC-2 missiles or about 39 millimeters (1.535 in) diameter.
up to sixteen PAC-3 missiles. A Patriot battalion is
also equipped with the Information Coordination Cen-
jamming.
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 electroni-


cally 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 dierence between these two radars is the addi-
tion of a second traveling wave tube (TWT), which gives
the 65 radar increased search, detection, and tracking
capability. The radars antenna array consists of over
5,000 elements that ash the radars beam many times
per second. Additionally, the radars antenna array con-
tains 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 af-
fect the radar. Patriots radar is somewhat unique in that
it is a detection-to-kill system, meaning that a single
unit performs all search, identication, track, and engage-
ment functions. This is in contrast to most SAM systems,
AN/MSQ-104 vehicle of a Dutch Patriot unit
where several dierent 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 Patriots at phased array radar the nerve center of the Patriot ring battery, costing ap-
is 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 sub-
cruise missiles. Additionally, the power and agility of Pa- components of the ECS are the Weapons Control Com-
triots 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 Inter-
and 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 systems man-to-machine interface. The ECS is air
88 CHAPTER 16. MIM-104 PATRIOT

conditioned, pressurized (to resist chemical/biological at-


tack), 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 xed and
oating point capability. It is organized in a multipro-
cessor conguration that operates at a maximum clock
rate of 6 megahertz. This computer controls the opera-
tor 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 dur-
ing Patriots service life.
Mounted at the base of each pair of antennas are two
The DLT connects the ECS to Patriots Launching Sta-
high-power ampliers associated with the antennas and
tions. It uses either a SINCGARS radio or ber optic
the radios in the collocated shelter. It is through these an-
cables 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 re 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 batter-
ies and their associated ICC. This creates a secure, real- The EPP-III Electric Power Plant
time data network (known as PADIL, Patriot Data Infor-
mation Link) that allows the ICC to centralize control of The EPP-III Diesel- Electric Power Plant (EPP) is the
its subordinate ring batteries. power source for the ECS and Radar. The EPP consists of
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 dis-
coming into the ECS. The RLRIU gives a ring battery an tribution unit. The generators are mounted on a modi-
address on the battalion data network, and sends/receives ed 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 ground-
coming 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
Patriots 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 sur-
rounded 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,
interface software that the system is operated. self-contained units. The ECS controls operation of the
launchers through each launchers DLT, via ber 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
The OE-349 Antenna Mast Group (AMG) is mounted in azimuth and elevates to a xed, elevated launch posi-
on an M927 5-Ton Cargo Truck. It includes four 4 kW tion. Precise aiming of the launcher before launch is not
antennas in two pairs on remotely controlled masts. Em- necessary; thus, no extra lags are introduced into system
placement of the AMG can have no greater than a 0.5 reaction time. Each launcher is also capable of providing
degree roll, and a 10-degree crossroll. The antennas can detailed diagnostics to the ECS via the data link.
be controlled in azimuth, and the masts can be elevated The launching station contains four major equipment sub-
up to 100 feet 11 inches (30.76 m) above ground level. systems: the launcher generator set, the launcher elec-
16.2. VARIANTS 89

tronics module (LEM), the launcher mechanics assembly rubber ring. The radome provides an aerodynamic shape
(LMA), and the launcher interconnection group (LIG). for the missile and microwave window and thermal pro-
The generator set consists of a 15 kW, 400 Hz generator tection for the RF seeker and electronic components.
that powers the launcher. The LEM is used for the real- The Patriot guidance section consists primarily of the
time implementation of launcher operations requested via modular digital airborne guidance system (MDAGS).
data link from the ECS. The LMA physically erects and The MDAGS consists of a modular midcourse package
rotates the launchers platform and its missiles. The LIG that performs all of the required guidance functions from
connects the missiles themselves to the launcher via the launch through midcourse and a terminal guidance sec-
Launcher Missile Round Distributor (LMRD).
tion. The TVM seeker is mounted on the guidance sec-
tion, extending into the radome. The seeker consists of an
antenna mounted on an inertial platform, antenna control
Patriot Guided Missile
electronics, a receiver, and a transmitter. The Modular
Midcourse Package (MMP), which is located in the for-
The rst elded variant was the round MIM-104A, Stan-
ward portion of the warhead section, consists of the nav-
dard. It was optimized solely for engagements against
igational electronics and a missile-borne computer that
aircraft and had very limited capability against ballistic
computes the guidance and autopilot algorithms and pro-
missiles. It had a range of 70 km (43 mi), and a speed in
vides steering commands according to a resident com-
excess of Mach 2. The MIM-104B anti-stando jam-
puter program.
mer (ASOJ) is a missile designed to seek out and destroy
ECM emitters. The warhead section, just aft of the guidance section,
contains the proximity fused warhead, safety-and-arming
The MIM-104C PAC-2 missile was the rst Patriot mis-
device, fuzing circuits and antennas, link antenna switch-
sile that was optimized for ballistic missile engagements.
ing circuits, auxiliary electronics, inertial sensor assem-
The GEM series of missiles (MIM-104D/E) are further
bly, and signal data converter.
renements 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, ex-
employing 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 arm-
enhancements which dramatically increase its lethality ing and ring 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 specic information for these dierent 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 rst seven of these are in the larger PAC-2 congu- the missile. It receives commands from the missile au-
ration of a single missile per canister, of which four can topilot and positions the ns. The missile ns steer and
be placed on a launcher. PAC-3 missile canisters contain stabilize the missile in ight. A n servo system positions
four missiles, so that sixteen rounds can be placed on a the ns. The n servo system consists of hydraulic actua-
launcher. The missile canister serves as both the ship- tors and valves and an electrohydraulic power supply. The
ping and storage container and the launch tube. Patriot electrohydraulic power consists of battery, motor pump,
missiles are referred to as certied rounds as they leave oil reservoir, gas pressure bottle, and accumulator.
the factory, and additional maintenance is not necessary
on the missile prior to it being launched.
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 Patriot was rst introduced with a single missile type: the
design, the only dierences between the variants being MIM-104A. This was the initial Standard missile (still
certain internal components. They consist of (from front known as Standard today). In Patriots early days, the
to rear) the radome, guidance section, warhead section, system was used exclusively as an anti-aircraft weapon,
propulsion section, and control actuator section. with no capability against ballistic missiles. This was
The radome is made of slip-cast fused silica approxi- remedied during the late 1980s when Patriot received its
mately 16.5 millimetres (0.65 in) thick, with nickel alloy rst major system overhaul with the introduction of the
tip, and a composite base attachment ring bonded to the Patriot Advanced Capability missile and concurrent sys-
slip cast fused silica and protected by a molded silicone tem upgrades.
90 CHAPTER 16. MIM-104 PATRIOT

16.2.2 MIM-104B (PAC-1) was further modied. PAC-2 also saw Patriots rst ma-
jor missile upgrade, with the introduction of the MIM-
Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-1), known today as 104C, or PAC-2 missile. This missile was optimized
the PAC-1 upgrade, was a software-only upgrade. The for ballistic missile engagements. Major changes to the
most signicant aspects of this upgrade was changing the PAC-2 missile were the size of the projectiles in its blast-
way the radar searched and the way the system defended fragmentation warhead (changed from around 2 grams to
its assets. Instead of searching low to the horizon, the around 45 grams), and the timing of the pulse-Doppler
top of the radars search angle was lifted to near vertical radar fuse, which was optimized for high-speed engage-
(89 degrees) from the previous angle of 25 degrees. This ments (though it retained its old algorithm for aircraft en-
was done as a counter to the steep parabolic trajectory gagements if necessary). Engagement procedures were
of inbound ballistic missiles. The search beams of the also optimized, changing the method of re the system
radar were tightened, and while in TBM search mode used to engage ballistic missiles. Instead of launching
the ash, or the speed at which these beams were shot two missiles in an almost simultaneous salvo, a brief delay
out, was increased signicantly. While this increased the (between 3 and 4 second) was added in order to allow the
radars detection capability against the ballistic missile second missile launched to discriminate a ballistic missile
threat set, it decreased the systems eectiveness against warhead in the aftermath of the explosion of the rst.
traditional atmospheric targets, as it reduced the detec-
PAC-2 was rst tested in 1987 and reached Army units in
tion range of the radar as well as the number of ashes
1990, just in time for deployment to the Middle East for
at the horizon. Because of this, it was necessary to retain
the Persian Gulf War. It was there that Patriot was rst
the search functions for traditional atmospheric threats in
regarded as a successful ABM system and proof that bal-
a separate search program, which could be easily toggled
listic missile defense was indeed possible. The complete
by the operator based on the expected threat. Addition-
study on its eectiveness remains classied.
ally, the ballistic missile defense capability changed the
way Patriot defended targets. Instead of being used as a
system to defend a signicant area against enemy air at-
tack, it was now used to defend much smaller point tar- 16.2.4 MIM-104D (PAC-2/GEM)
gets, which needed to lie within the systems TBM foot-
print. The footprint is the area on the ground that Patriot There were many more upgrades to PAC-2 systems
can defend against inbound ballistic missiles. throughout the 1990s and into the 21st century, again
mostly centering on software. However, the PAC-2 mis-
During the 1980s, Patriot was upgraded in relatively mi- siles were modied signicantlyfour separate variants
nor ways, mostly to its software. Most signicant of these became known collectively as guidance enhanced mis-
was 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 signicant 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 neces-
designated MIM-104B and called anti stand-o 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 stando 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 ies a highly lofted trajectory and then locates, homes radar cross-section targets. The GEM was used exten-
in on, and destroys the most signicant emitter in an area sively in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), during which
designated by the operator. air defense was highly successful.[16][17]
Just prior to OIF, it was decided to further upgrade the
GEM and PAC-2 missiles. This upgrade program pro-
16.2.3 MIM-104C (PAC-2) duced missiles known as the GEM/T and the GEM/C,
the T designator referring to TBM, and the C des-
During 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 de-
bound ballistic missiles, it was questionable whether or signed specically to be more eective against low al-
not the MIM-104A/B missile was capable of destroying titude, low RCS targets like cruise missiles. Addition-
them 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 up-
PAC-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 ne
align the missile trajectory with its target to achieve hit-
16.2.5 MIM-104F (PAC-3) to-kill capability. However, the most signicant upgrade
to the PAC-3 missile is the addition of a K band active
See also: Medium Extended Air Defense System radar seeker. This allows the missile to drop its uplink
The PAC-3 upgrade is a signicant 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 tar-
get. The PAC-3 missile is accurate enough to select, tar-
get, 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 com-
pletely eliminates the need for a traditional proximity-
fused warhead. However, the missile still has a small
explosive warhead, called Lethality Enhancer, a warhead
which launches 24 low-speed tungsten fragments in ra-
dial direction to make the missile cross-section greater
and enhance the kill probability. This greatly increases
the lethality against ballistic missiles of all types.
The PAC-3 upgrade has eectively quintupled the foot-
print that a Patriot unit can defend against ballistic mis-
PAC-3 missile launcher, note four missiles in each canister siles of all types, and has considerably increased the sys-
tems lethality and eectiveness against ballistic missiles.
ery aspect of the system. It took place in three stages, and It has also increased the scope of ballistic missiles that
units were designated Conguration 1, 2, or 3. Patriot can engage, which now includes several interme-
diate range. However, despite its increases in ballistic
The system itself saw another upgrade of its WCC and missile defense capabilities, the PAC-3 missile is a less
its software, and the communication setup was given a capable interceptor of atmospheric aircraft and air-to-
complete overhaul. Due to this upgrade, PAC-3 oper- surface missiles. It is slower, has a shorter range, and
ators can now see, transmit, and receive tracks on the has a smaller explosive warhead compared to older Pa-
Link 16 Command and Control (C2) network using a triot missiles.
Class 2M Terminal or MIDS LVT Radio. This capabil-
ity greatly increases the situational awareness of Patriot Patriots PAC-3 interceptor was to be the primary inter-
crews and other participants on the Link 16 network than ceptor for the new MEADS system, which was scheduled
are able to receive the Patriot local air picture. The soft- to enter service alongside Patriot in 2014. 29 Novem-
ware can now conduct a tailored TBM search, optimizing ber 2012 The Medium Extended Air Defense System
radar resources for search in a particular sector known (MEADS) detected, tracked, intercepted and destroyed
to have ballistic missile activity, and can also support a an air-breathing target in its rst-ever intercept ight test
keepout altitude to ensure ballistic missiles with chem- at White Sands Missile Range, N.M.[19]
ical warheads or early release submunitions (ERS) are de- Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control is the prime
stroyed at a certain altitude. For Conguration 3 units, the contractor on the PAC-3 Missile Segment upgrade to the
Patriot radar was completely redesigned, adding another Patriot air defense system which will make the missile
travelling wave tube (TWT) that increased the radars more agile and extend its range by up to 50%.[20] The
search, detection, tracking, and discrimination abilities. PAC-3 Missile Segment upgrade consists of the PAC-
The PAC-3 radar is capable, among other things, of dis- 3 missile, a very agile hit-to-kill interceptor, the PAC-3
criminating whether or not an aircraft is manned and missile canisters (in four packs), a re solution computer,
which of multiple reentering ballistic objects are carry- and an Enhanced Launcher Electronics System (ELES).
ing ordnance. The PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) inter-
The PAC-3 upgrade carried with it a new missile design, ceptor increases altitude and range through a more pow-
nominally known as MIM-104F and called PAC-3 by the erful dual-pulse motor for added thrust, larger ns that
Army.[18] The PAC-3 missile evolved from the Strategic collapse inside current launchers, and other structural
Defense Initiative's ERINT missile, and so it is dedicated modications for more agility.[21]
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 previ-
ous variants, due to 180 tiny pulse solid propellant rocket
92 CHAPTER 16. MIM-104 PATRIOT

16.2.6 Patriot Advanced Aordable In April 2013, Raytheon received U.S. Army approval for
Capability-4 (PAAC-4) a second recertication, extending the operational life of
the worldwide inventory of Patriot missiles from 30 to 45
See also: Davids Sling years.[26]

In August 2013, Raytheon and Rafael Advanced Defense


Systems began to seek funding for a fourth-generation 16.3 The Patriot Battalion
Patriot intercepting system, called the Patriot Advanced
Aordable Capability-4 (PAAC-4). The system aims to In the U.S. Army, the Patriot System is designed around
integrate the Stunner interceptor from the jointly-funded the battalion echelon. A Patriot battalion consists of a
Davids Sling program with Patriot PAC-3 radars, launch- headquarters battery (which includes the Patriot ICC and
ers, and engagement control stations. The two-stage, its operators), a maintenance company, and between four
multimode seeking Stunner would replace single-stage, and six line batteries", which are the actual launching
radar-guided PAC-3 missiles produced by Lockheed batteries that employ the Patriot systems. Each line bat-
Martin. Government and industry sources claim the tery consists of three or four platoons: Fire Control pla-
Stunner-based PAAC-4 interceptors will oer improved toon, Launcher platoon, and Headquarters/Maintenance
operational performance at 20 percent of the $2 mil- platoon (either a single platoon or separated into two
lion unit cost of the Lockheed-built PAC-3 missiles. separate units, at the battery commanders discretion).
The companies are seeking $20 million in U.S. gov- The Fire Control platoon is responsible for operating and
ernment funding to demonstrate cost and performance maintaining the big 4. Launcher platoon operates and
claims through a prototype PAAC-4 system. Israeli pro- maintains the launchers, and Headquarters/Maintenance
gram ocials have said that a previous teaming agree- platoon(s) provides the battery with maintenance support
ment between Raytheon and Rafael would allow the U.S. and a headquarters section. The Patriot line battery is
company to assume prime contractor status, and produce commanded by a captain and usually consists of between
at least 60 percent of the Stunner missile in the United 70 and 90 soldiers. The Patriot battalion is commanded
States. The Missile Defense Agency has said that the U.S. by a lieutenant colonel and can include as many as 600
Army is considering use of the Stunner as a potential so- soldiers.
lution to future U.S. military requirements.[22] Once deployed, the system requires a crew of only three
individuals to operate. The Tactical Control Ocer
(TCO), usually a lieutenant, is responsible for the opera-
16.2.7 The future tion of the system. The TCO is assisted by the Tactical
Control Assistant (TCA). Communications are handled
Patriot upgrades continue, with the most recent being new by the third crewmember, the communications system
software known as PDB-7.x (PDB standing for Post De- specialist. A hot-crew composed of an NCOIC (usu-
ployment Build). This software will allow Conguration ally a Sergeant) and one or more additional launcher crew
3 units to discriminate targets of all types, to include anti- members is on-hand to repair or refuel launching stations,
radiation missile carriers, helicopters, unmanned aerial and a reload crew is on standby to replace spent canisters
vehicles, and cruise missiles. after missiles are launched. The ICC crew is similar to
The PAC-3 missile is currently being tested for a signif- the ECS crew at the battery level, except its operators are
icant new upgrade, currently referred to as Missile Seg- designated as the Tactical Director (TD) and the Tactical
ment Enhancement (MSE). The MSE upgrade includes a Director Assistant (TDA).
new n design and a more powerful rocket engine. Patriot battalions prefer to operate in a centralized fash-
Lockheed 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 ring 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 1. A hostile aircraft is detected by the AN/MPQ-65
missile (GEM-T), an upgrade to the PAC-2 missile. The Radar. The radar examines the tracks size, speed,
upgrade involves a new fuse and the insertion of a new low altitude, and heading, and decides whether or not it
noise oscillator which increases the seekers sensitivity to is a legitimate track or clutter created by RF inter-
low radar cross-section targets. ference.
16.3. THE PATRIOT BATTALION 93

10. The AN/MPQ-65 Radar, which has been contin-


uously tracking the hostile aircraft, acquires the
just-red missile and begins feeding it interception
data. The Radar also illuminates the target for the
missiles semi-active radar seeker.
11. The monopulse receiver in the missiles nose re-
ceives the reection of illumination energy from the
target. The track-via-missile uplink sends this data
through an antenna in the missiles tail back to the
AN/MPQ-65 set. In the ECS, computers calculate
the maneuvers that the missile should perform in or-
der to maintain a trajectory to the target and the
U.S. Soldiers familiarize members of the Polish military with pre- TVM uplink sends these to the missile.
ventive maintenance for Patriot missile systems in Morg, Poland
(1 June 2010) 12. Once in the vicinity of the target, the missile deto-
nates its proximity fused warhead.

2. If the track is classied by the radar as an aircraft, Following is the process a PAC-3 ring battery uses to
in the AN/MSQ-104 Engagement Control Station, engage a single tactical ballistic missile with two PAC-3
an unidentied 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 tracks 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,
ocer), 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 systems launchers into operate mode
that it is hostile. Typically, the engagement author-
from standby mode. The engagement will take
ity for Patriot units rests with the Regional or Sec-
place automatically at the moment the computer de-
tor Air Defense Commander (RADC/SADC), who
nes the parameters that ensure the highest proba-
will be located either on a U.S. Navy guided missile
bility of kill.
cruiser or on a USAF AWACS aircraft. A Patriot
operator (called the ADAFCO or Air Defense Ar- 3. The system computer determines which of the bat-
tillery Fire Control Ocer) is colocated with the terys launchers have the highest probability of kill
RADC/SADC to facilitate communication to the and selects them to re. Two missiles are launched
Patriot battalions. 4.2 seconds apart in a ripple.
5. The TD contacts the ADAFCO and correlates the 4. The AN/MPQ-65 radar continues tracking the tar-
track, ensuring that it is not a friendly aircraft. get and uploads intercept information to the PAC-3
missiles which are now outbound to intercept.
6. The ADAFCO obtains the engagement command
from RADC/SADC, and delegates the engagement 5. Upon reaching its terminal homing phase, the Ka
back down to the Patriot battalion. band active radar seeker in the nose of the PAC-3
missile acquires the inbound ballistic missile. This
7. Once the engagement command is received, the TD radar selects the radar return most likely to be the
selects a ring battery to take the shot and orders warhead of the incoming missile and directs the in-
them to engage. terceptor towards it.
8. The TCO instructs the TCA to engage the track. The 6. The ACMs (attitude control motors) of the PAC-
TCA brings the systems launchers from standby 3 missile re to precisely align the missile on the
into operate. interception trajectory.
9. The TCA presses the engage switch indicator. 7. The interceptor ies straight through the warhead of
This sends a signal to the selected launcher and res the inbound ballistic missile, detonating it and de-
a missile selected automatically by the system. stroying the missile.
94 CHAPTER 16. MIM-104 PATRIOT

8. The second missile locates any debris which may be in the systems handling of timestamps.[32][33] The Pa-
a warhead and attacks in a similar manner. triot missile battery at Dhahran had been in operation
for 100 hours, by which time the systems internal clock
had drifted by one-third of a second. Due to the mis-
siles speed this was equivalent to a miss distance of 600
16.4 Persian Gulf War (1991) meters.
The radar system had successfully detected the Scud and
16.4.1 Trial by re predicted where to look for it next. However, the times-
tamps of the two radar pulses being compared were con-
verted to oating point dierently: one correctly, the
other introducing an error proportionate to the opera-
tion time so far (100 hours). The dierence between the
two was consequently wrong, so the system looked in the
wrong part of the sky and found no missile. With no mis-
sile, 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 Is-
raelis had identied the problem and informed the U.S.
Army and the PATRIOT Project Oce, 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 systems computers regu-
larly. 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 sys-
assigned 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 rst 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
red at Saudi Arabia on 18 January.[28] This incident was 16.4.3 Success rate vs. accuracy
widely misreported as the rst 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 Raytheons Patriot manufacturing plant in
ment of over 40 hostile ballistic missiles. The success Andover, Massachusetts, during the Gulf War, he de-
of 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 Presidents 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 red into Saudi Arabia and Institute of Technology, and Reuven Pedatzur of Tel Aviv
were riddled with fragments from the lethality enhancer University testied 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. Zimmer-
On 25 February 1991, an Iraqi Scud hit the barracks in man of the Center for Strategic and International Stud-
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 28 soldiers from the U.S. ies testied about the calculation of success rates and
Armys 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 Postols
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 mis-
siles hit, but the warhead falls anyway because the Scud
Success Rate the percentage of Scuds destroyed or broke up?
deected 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 Pa-
the interceptions of targets. Therefore, PATRIOT crews
triots red
recorded each launch on standard denition videotape,
which was insucient for detailed analysis. Damage
In accordance with the standard ring 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 red. If to determine if the warhead was destroyed before the de-
every Scud were deected 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 tar-
gets in the desert or disable the Scuds warhead in order
to avoid casualties, while in Israel the Scuds were aimed
directly at cities and civilian populations. The Saudi Gov-
ernment also censored any reporting of Scud damage by
the Saudi press. The Israeli Government did not institute
the same type of censorship. Furthermore, PATRIOTs
success rate in Israel was examined by the IDF (Israel De-
fense Forces) who did not have a political reason to play
up PATRIOTs 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.
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 tar-
get spraying shrapnel out in a fan in front of the missile,
either destroying or disabling the target. These missiles
were red at the targets center of mass. With aircraft
this was ne, 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 TBMs warhead
and allowing it to fall to earth.
Patriot Antenna Mast Group (AMG), a 4 kW UHF communica-
tions array In response to the testimonies and other evidence, the
sta of the House Government Operations Subcommit-
The Iraqi redesign of the Scuds also played a role. Iraq tee on Legislation and National Security reported, The
had redesigned its Scuds by removing weight from the Patriot missile system was not the spectacular success in
warhead to increase speed and range, but the changes the Persian Gulf War that the American public was led to
weakened the missile and made it unstable during ight, believe. There is little evidence to prove that the Patriot
creating a tendency for the SCUD to break up during its hit more than a few Scud missiles launched by Iraq during
descent from Near space. This presented a larger num- the Gulf War, and there are some doubts about even these
ber of targets as it was unclear which piece contained the engagements. The public and the United States Congress
warhead. were misled by denitive statements of success issued by
What all these factors mean, according to Zimmerman, is administration and Raytheon representatives during and
that the calculation of Kills becomes more dicult. Is after the war.[40]
a kill the hitting of a warhead or the hitting of a missile?
96 CHAPTER 16. MIM-104 PATRIOT

A Fifth Estate documentary quotes the former Israeli De-


fense Minister as saying the Israeli government was so
dissatised 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 can-
celed only with the ceasere with Iraq.

16.5 Operation Iraqi Freedom


(2003)
Patriot was deployed to Iraq a second time in 2003, this
time to provide air and missile defense for the forces con- Israeli Patriot battery (together with Iron Dome battery, left)
ducting Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). Patriot PAC-3, in display for United States Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel,
GEM, and GEM+ missiles both had a very high success 2014.
rate, intercepting Al-Samoud 2 and Ababil-100 tactical
ballistic missiles.[24] However, no longer-range ballistic
missiles were red during that conict. The systems were
16.6.2 Syrian civil war (2014)
stationed in Kuwait and successfully destroyed a number
On 31 August 2014, a Syrian unmanned aerial vehicle
of hostile surface-to-surface missiles using the new PAC-
was shot down by an Israeli Air Defense Command MIM-
3 and guidance enhanced missiles. Patriot missile bat-
104D Patriot missile near Quneitra, after it had pene-
teries were involved in three friendly re incidents, re-
trated Israeli airspace over the Golan Heights.[48] Nearly a
sulting in the downing of a Royal Air Force Tornado and
month later, on September 23, a Syrian Air Force Sukhoi
the death of both crew members, Flight Lieutenant David
Su-24 was shot down on similar circumstances.[48][49]
Rhys Williams and Flight Lieutenant Kevin Barry Main,
on 23 March 2003. On 24 March 2003, a USAF F-16CJ
Fighting Falcon red a HARM anti-radiation missile at a
Patriot missile battery after the Patriots radar had locked 16.7 Operators
onto and prepared to re at the aircraft, causing the pi-
lot 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 oper-
ate 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 VFA-
195, Carrier Air Wing Five.[43][44]

MIM-104 Patriot Operators


16.6 Service with Israel
Operators[50]
Today the Israeli Air Defense Command operates MIM-
104D Patriot (PAC-2/GEM+) batteries with Israeli up-
grades. The Israel Defense Forces' designation for the Bahrain
Patriot weapon system is "Yahalom" (, "diamond"
in Hebrew).
Royal Bahraini Air Force

16.6.1 Operation Protective Edge (2014)


Egypt
During Operation Protective Edge, Patriot batteries of the
Israeli Air Defense Command intercepted and destroyed
two unmanned aerial vehicles launched by Hamas.[45][46] Egyptian Air Defense Command
The interception of a Hamas drone on 14 July 2014 was
the rst time in the history of the Patriot systems use that Germany
it successfully intercepted an enemy aircraft.[47]
16.7. OPERATORS 97

Luftwae Saudi Arabia


Flugabwehrraketengeschwader 1
Royal Saudi Air Defense
Greece
South Korea
Hellenic Armed Forces
350 Guided Missiles Wing Republic of Korea Air Force (PAC-2, 2016 PAC-3
Change)
Jordan 1st Air Defense Artillery Brigade
2nd Air Defense Artillery Brigade

Jordanian Armed Forces


Spain

Israel
Spanish Army

Israeli Air Force Regimiento de Artillera antiarea 74

Israeli Air Defense Command (GEM+


Yahalom)[51] To be replaced by Davids Taiwan (Republic of China)
Sling[52]

Republic of China Army


Japan
United Arab Emirates
Japan Air Self-Defense Force
Air Defense Missile Training Unit (PAC-3) Union Defence Force
1st Air Defence Missile Group (PAC-3)
The United Arab Emirates closed a deal (nearly $4 bil-
2nd Air Defence Missile Group (PAC-3)
lion) with Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and the US Gov-
3rd Air Defence Missile Group (PAC-2) ernment to buy and operate the latest development of the
4th Air Defence Missile Group (PAC-3) PAC-3 system, as well as 288 of Lockheeds PAC-3 mis-
siles, and 216 GEM-T missiles. The deal is part of the
5th Air Defence Missile Group (PAC-2)
development of a national defense system to protect the
6th Air Defence Missile Group (PAC-3) Emirates from air threats.[55]

Kuwait United States

Kuwait Air Force 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
with four radars and 20 launchers.[54] 1st Battalion, 43d Air Defense Artillery
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 Akash missile


3d Battalion, 2d Air Defense Artillery KS-1
Regiment
4th Battalion, 3d Air Defense Artillery HQ-9
Regiment
NASAMS
69th Air Defense Artillery Brigade
S-300
4th Battalion, 5th Air Defense Artillery
Regiment S-400
1st Battalion, 44th Air Defense Artillery
Sayyad-2
Regiment
1st Battalion, 62nd Air Defense Artillery
Regiment (United States)
16.9 References
108th Air Defense Artillery Brigade
1st Battalion, 7th Air Defense Artillery Notes
Regiment
3d Battalion, 4th Air Defense Artillery [1] Brain, Marshall. How Patriot Missiles Work. howstu-
Regiment works.com. Retrieved 27 September 2014.
35th Air Defense Artillery Brigade, Eighth [2] MIM-104 Patriot. Janes Information Group. 12 Au-
Army gust 2008. Retrieved 26 August 2008.
2d Battalion, 1st Air Defense Artillery
[3] Raytheon Awarded Contract for UAE Patriot.. space-
Regiment war.com. 11 February 2009. Retrieved 27 September
1st Battalion, 1st Air Defense Artillery 2014.
Regiment
[4] Building the Shield. Defense News. 21 March 2011.
6th Battalion, 52d Air Defense Artillery
Retrieved 27 September 2014.
Regiment
5th Battalion 7th Air Defense Artillery Regi- [5] South Korea Eyes Independent Missile Defense Sys-
tem. spacewar.com. 20 December 2006. Retrieved 27
ment
September 2014.
3d Battalion, 6th Air Defense Artillery Regi-
ment [6] Lekic, Slobodan (4 December 2012). NATO backs Pa-
triot anti-missile system for Turkey. Boston.com. Re-
trieved 4 December 2012.

16.8 See also [7] Harpoon database encyclopedia. Retrieved 5 October


2012. (a database for the computer game Harpoon)
List of missiles [8] US Army Budget FY2011. Retrieved 6 April 2010.
MEADS [9] Unspecied. PATRIOT Advanced Capability-2 (PAC-
2)". U.S. Department of Defence/U.S. Missile Defense
U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command Agency. Retrieved 28 March 2015.
Anti-ballistic missile [10] Parsch, Andreas. Lockheed Martin Patriot PAC-3.
designation-systems.net. Retrieved 27 September 2014.
National Missile Defense
[11] Air Defense: Patriot Gains A Longer Reach Against Mis-
U.S. Army Air Defense Units siles. strategypage.com. 18 June 2013. Retrieved 27
September 2014.
M-numbers
[12] Encyclopedia Astronautica. Encyclopedia Astronautica:
ADATS MIM-104A. Encyclopedia Astronautica. Retrieved 28
March 2015.
Comparable SAMs:
[13] NATO Graphics and Painting. Patriot Fact Sheet.
NATO. Retrieved 28 March 2015.
Aster (missile family)
[14] Patriot TMD. Federation of American Scientists. Re-
Standard Missile family of medium-to-long range trieved 27 September 2014.
anti-air missiles developed by the US Navy.
[15] Raytheon MIM-104 Patriot. designation-systems.net.
Type 3 Ch-SAM Retrieved 27 September 2014.
16.9. REFERENCES 99

[16] 9 of 9 vs TBM with no loss of life or equipment [33] Robert Skeel. Roundo Error and the Patriot Missile.
SIAM News, volume 25, nr 4. Retrieved 8 May 2013.
[17] Operation Iraqi Freedom Presentation. US Army 32nd
AAMDC. September 2003. Retrieved 27 September [34] Stewart, Cameron (18 February 1999). Nurrungar
2014. played fateful role in Desert Storm tragedy. The Aus-
tralian (hartford-hwp.com). Retrieved 27 September
[18] PATRIOT MIM-104F Advanced Capability - 3 (PAC-3) 2014.
Missile. Weapon Systems Book. PEO Missiles and Space.
2012. p. 97. Retrieved 27 September 2014. [35] Bush, George H. W. (15 February 1991). Remarks to
Raytheon Missile Systems Plant Employees in Andover,
[19] MEADS Successfully Intercepts Air-Breathing Target At Massachusetts. George H. W. Bush Presidential Library.
White Sands Missile Range. MEADS International. 29 Retrieved 27 September 2014.
November 2012. Retrieved 27 September 2014.
[36] Postol, Theodore A. (7 April 1992). Optical Evidence
[20] PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement. Lockheed Mar- Indicating Patriot High Miss Rates During the Gulf War.
tin. Archived from the original on 19 October 2007. Re- Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved 29 January
trieved 27 September 2014. 2008.
[21] Lockheed Martin to supply rst PAC-3 MSE missiles. [37] Pedatzur, Reuven (7 April 1992). The Israeli Experience
Shephardmedia.com. 29 April 2014. Retrieved 27 Operating Patriot in the Gulf War. Federation of Amer-
September 2014. ican Scientists. Retrieved 13 June 2009.
[22] Raytheon-Rafael Pitch 4th-Gen Patriot System. De- [38] Zraket, Charles A. (7 April 1992). Testimony of Charles
fensenews.com. 31 August 2013. Retrieved 27 Septem- A. Zraket. Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved
ber 2014. 13 June 2009.
[23] Trimble, Stephen (7 April 2009). Lockheed proposes [39] Zimmerman, Peter D. (7 April 1992). Testimony of Pe-
funding plan for air-launched Patriot missile. Washing- ter D. Zimmerman. Federation of American Scientists.
ton DC. Retrieved 27 September 2014. Retrieved 13 June 2009.
[24] Patriot Report Summary (PDF). Oce of the Under [40] Star Wars - Operations. Federation of American Scien-
Secretary of Defense For Acquisition. January 2005. tists. Retrieved 27 September 2014.
Archived from the original on 26 February 2006.
[41] The Fifth Estate. Toronto, Ontario. 5 February 2003.
[25] Butler, Amy (15 May 2013). Italy Looks To Poland CBC.
As Meads Production Partner. Aviationweek.com. Re-
trieved 27 September 2014. [42] Dewitte, Lieven (25 March 2003). U.S. F-16 res on
Patriot missile battery in friendly re incident. Retrieved
[26] Raytheon (1 April 2013). US Army to Extend Patriot 27 September 2014.
Missiles Service Life to 45 Years. Deagel.com.
[43] Piller, Charles (21 April 2003). Vaunted Patriot Missile
[27] Casualties and Damage from Scud Attacks in the 1991
Has a 'Friendly Fire' Failing. Los Angeles Times. Re-
Gulf War. Retrieved 11 May 2010.
trieved 27 September 2014.
[28] A Review of the Suggested Exposure of UK Forces to
[44] Gittler, Juliana (19 April 2003). Atsugi memorial service
Chemical Warfare Agents in Al Jubayl During the Gulf
honors pilot killed in Iraq. Stars and Stripes. Retrieved
Conict. Retrieved 11 May 2010.
27 September 2014.
[29] House Government Operations Committee - The Per-
[45] Gaza drone enters Israel, is shot down over Ashdod by
formance of the Patriot Missile in the Gulf. Federation
IAF. The Jerusalem Post. 14 July 2014.
of American Scientists. 7 April 1992. Retrieved 13 June
2009. [46] Gaza drone downed by IAF. The Jerusalem Post. 17
July 2014.
[30] Postol, Theodore; Lewis, George (8 September 1992).
Postol/Lewis Review of Armys Study on Patriot Eec- [47] Israel Air Force Hones Patriot Batteries for UAV Defense
tiveness. Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved - Defensenews.com, 16 November 2014
13 June 2009.
[48] Raved, Ahiya (23 September 2014). IDF: Syrian ghter
[31] Zimmerman, Peter D. (16 November 1992). A Review jet shot down over Golan. ynetnews.com. Retrieved 27
of the Postol and Lewis Evaluation of the White Sands September 2014.
Missile Range Evaluation of the Suitability of TV Video
Tapes to Evaluate Patriot Performance During the Gulf [49] Egozi, Arie (23 September 2014). Israeli Patriot downs
War. Federation of American Scientists. INSIDE THE Syrian Su-24. FlightGlobal. Retrieved 27 September
ARMY. pp. 79. Retrieved 13 June 2009. 2014.

[32] Patriot missile defense, Software problem led to system [50] Sanger, David E.; Schmitt, Eric (30 January 2010). U.S.
failure at Dharhan, Saudi Arabia; GAO report IMTEC 92- Speeding Up Missile Defenses in Persian Gulf. New York
26. US Government Accounting Oce. 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 De-


cember 2012.

[53] Gulf States Requesting ABM-Capable Systems. Re-


trieved 17 August 2010.

[54] Kuwait buys PAC-3. Strategypage.com. 6 August


2012. Retrieved 27 September 2014.

[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. airde-


fenseartillery.com. 2010. Archived from the original on
17 September 2010.

16.10 External links and references


Patriot MIM-104 surface-to-air defense missile sys-
tem - Army Recognition

Ocial Army PATRIOT web site


Ocial Raytheon (missile contractor) PATRIOT
web site
Patriot Missile Air Defence System - Army Tech-
nology
Raytheon MIM-104 Patriot

MIM-104 Patriot - Armed Forces International


Lockheed Martin Patriot MIM-104E PAC III - Pho-
tos, H.A.F
Chapter 17

Roland (missile)

The Roland is a Franco-German mobile short-range would normally be employed only in daylight against very
surface-to-air missile (SAM) system. The Roland was low-level targets or in a heavy jamming environment.[3]
also purchased by the U.S. Army as one of very few for- The Roland missile is a two-stage solid propellant unit 2.4
eign SAM systems. meters long with a weight of 66.5 kg including the 6.5
Roland was designed to a joint French and German re- kg multiple hollow-charge fragmentation warhead which
quirement for a low-level mobile missile system to protect contains 3.5 kg of explosive detonated by impact or prox-
mobile eld formations and xed, high-value targets such imity fuses. The 65 projectile charges have a lethal radius
as airelds. Development began in 1963 as a study by of 6 meters. Cruising speed is Mach 1.6. The missile is
Nord Aviation of France and Blkow of Germany with delivered in a sealed container which is also the launch
the system then called SABA in France and P-250 in tube. Each launcher carries two launch tubes with 8 more
Germany.[1] The two companies formed a joint develop- inside the vehicle or shelter with automatic reloading in
ment project in 1964 and later (as Arospatiale of France 10 seconds.
and MBB of Germany) founded the Euromissile com-
For defense of xed sites such as airelds the shelter
pany for this and other missile programs. Aerospatiale Roland can be integrated in the CORAD (Co-ordinated
took primary responsibility for the Roland 1 day/clear- Roland Air Defense) system which can include a surveil-
weather system while MBB took primary responsibility lance radar, a Roland Co-ordination Center, 8 Roland re
for the Roland 2 all-weather system. Aerospatiale was units and up to 8 guns.[4]
also responsible for the rear and propulsion system of the
missile while MBB developed the front end of the mis-
sile with warhead and guidance systems. The rst guided Roland 1 This is the fair-weather daylight-only,
launch of a Roland prototype took place in June 1968, version used by the French and Spanish armies on
destroying a CT-20 target drone and elding of produc- the AMX-30R chassis.
tion systems was expected from January 1970. The test Roland 2 This is the all-weather version employed
and evaluation phase took much longer than originally an- on the AMX-30R and Marder chassis and also as a
ticipated with the clear-weather Roland I nally entering shelter mount in either a static location or mounted
operational service with the French Army in April 1977, on a 66 or 88 all-terrain truck. Euromissile,
while the all-weather Roland II was rst elded by the MaK, IBH and Blohm and Voss of Germany in 1983
German Army in 1978 followed by the French Army in proposed the Leopard 1 tank chassis as a carrier for
1981.[2] The long delays and ever-increasing costs com- the Roland system to appeal to those countries who
bined with ination meant Roland was never procured in already used the Leopard I tank.[5]
the numbers originally anticipated.
American Roland Selected in 1975 as the forward
air defense system for U.S. Army divisions the rst
missiles were delivered in 1977 with the rst r-
17.1 Variants ing from the XM975 launcher vehicle (a modied
M109 howitzer chassis) taking place in September
The Roland SAM system was designed to engage enemy 1978. American Roland was essentially Roland 2
air targets ying at speeds of up to Mach 1.3 at altitudes with a longer-ranged American-made search radar.
between 20 meters and 5,500 meters with a minimum ef- The palletized re unit could be installed and rapidly
fective range of 500 meters and a maximum of 6,300 me- removed from the XM975 chassis, installed on a
ters. The system can operate in optical or radar mode and truck or used as a static emplacement. Problems
can switch between these modes during an engagement. with technology transfer and rising costs killed the
A pulse-doppler search radar with a range of 1518 km program and only 27 re units and 600 missiles were
detects the target which can then be tracked either by the built for one battalion in the Army National Guard,
tracking radar or an optical tracker. The optical channel mounted on M812 atbed trucks. With the failue

101
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. Rolands 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 exist-
ing Roland 1/2 systems for the French and Ger-
man systems to maintain them in service through From 1969 Euromissile studied Roland as a possible
2010. It included replacing the existing optical sight naval weapon for shipboard installation. Originally
with a GLAIVE integrated thermal sighting system known as Roland MX and later as Jason the stan-
with laser rangender that allows for night and poor dard twin launcher (without search radar) with two
weather operation without the radar.[7] below-decks 8-round reloading drums could be in-
stalled on a standard sized module that was featured
Roland M3S The prototype for this next- in several proposed Blohm & Voss MEKO frigate
generation Roland system was completed in 1992 proposals of the 1970s. No prototype or production
and was oered to meet the air defense requirements systems were built with attention turning early on to
of Turkey and Thailand. The prototype was a shel- an 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 op-
erated by one man although 2 are necessary for sus-
The Roland system has been installed on a variety of plat-
tained 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-to-
re position but only the 2 lower positions can be Tracked
automatically reloaded. In addition to the existing
Roland missile Roland M3S could use the Roland AMX 30
3 missile, the RM5 missile, or the VT-1 missile of Marder
the Crotale missile system. Additionally the up-
per 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
four FIM-92 Stinger missiles to increase the systems ACMAT 66
ability to rapidly engage multiple targets in a satura- MAN 66, 88
tion attack.
Roland 3 upgraded system This uses either the Roland 2 was proposed in the early 1980s for installa-
existing Roland missile or a new Roland 3 missile tion on the Leopard 1 tank chassis, probably to meet an
with speed increased from 550 m/s to 620 m/s and expected Dutch army requirement but was never built.
range increased from 6.3 to 8.5 km with maximum In conguration it would have been very similar to the
eective altitude increased to 6,000 m. Warhead AMX-30R.
size is also increased to 9.1 kg with 84 projectile American Roland on the M109 chassis was built in pro-
charges. Response time for the rst target is quoted totype form but production systems were rather hastily
as 68 seconds with 26 seconds for subsequent tar- installed on 66 atbed trucks.
gets. The Roland 3 missile can be used by all Roland
systems.[8] 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 xed assets like airelds
tween the then Matra and Aerospatiale of France or depots or tted 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 cus-
tomer 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 Euromis- the 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 sys- Roland 1 and 98 Roland 2) were eventually pro-
tem into the Roland 3 system with retrotting of cured. The French Army has subsequently con-
French and German Roland re units from 1996.[10] verted 20 of its Roland 2 all-weather systems to the
17.3. USERS 103

Carole air-mobile shelter mounted system. These 600 missiles installed on 66 atbed trucks instead
are used by the 54th Roland Regiment of the French of tracked carriers. The XMIM-115 was never type-
Reaction Force for rapid deployment on short no- classied and served for less than a decade, being
tice anywhere in the world.[12] Three of the four Ar- retired in 1988.
tillery Regiments which operated Roland have been
disbanded and the 4th (54 Regiment) has been con- Argentina purchased 4 Roland shelter-mounted sys-
verted to the Mistral (missile). Thus it is likely tems for static defense of xed installations and one
Roland has been withdrawn from French service. of these was deployed to defend Stanley aireld dur-
ing the Falklands War with Britain in 1982. This
Germany was to buy 12,200 missiles 340 Roland 2 system red 8 out of the 10 missiles it was deployed
re units installed on the Marder (IFV) chassis to with and is credited with shooting down one Harrier
fully replace the towed Bofors 40 mm guns systems Jump Jet and two 1000lb General-purpose bombs.
and Contraves Super Fledermaus re control sys- This system was captured intact by the British.[12]
tems 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
re units in 3 batteries of 12. Eventually 140 re
were retired from service in 2001.
units were procured and equipped 3 regiments with
one assigned to each army corps. The Luftwae
had a requirement for 200 Roland 2 shelter systems
mounted on MAN 88 trucks for the close-in de-
fense of airelds and as mobile gap-llers 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 Ger-
many. In 199899 10 Roland LVB systems were in-
stalled on MAN 66 trucks to be air-transportable
in the Transall C-160 for the German rapid reac-
tion 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 com-
pleted by the end of 2005. The Luftwae 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 devel-
opment: LFK NG). A battery of German systems
have been passed on to Slovenia.[13] Venezuela purchased 6 Roland 2 shelter mounted
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-
Range Air Defense System) competition to replace Nigeria acquired 16 Roland 2 systems on the AMX-
the MIM-72 Chaparral and M163 VADS divisional 30R chassis. An option for a further 16 was not
air defense systems with a requirement for more taken up.[12]
than 500 re units to be designated the MIM-115. Spain acquired 9 Roland 1 and 9 Roland 2 systems
Hughes Aircraft and Boeing Aerospace were con- on the AMX-30R chassis and 414 missiles for de-
tracted to develop American Roland which would fense of its armored eld 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 re 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 re units to equip 4 Iraq is believed to have received 100 shelter-
battalions and 1,000 missiles (against an anticipated mounted Roland 2 on MAN 88 trucks and 13 self-
requirement for 14,000) was approved in October propelled systems on the AMX-30R chassis during
1978 but subsequently reduced to just 1 battalion. the 198088 IranIraq war and they rst went into
Diculties in technology transfer, integration and action in 1982 claiming a F-4E Phantom and F-5E
commonality diculties and rising costs meant only Tiger that year. Roland is believed to have shot
a single Army National Guard battalion was ever down 2 Panavia Tornado aircraft during Operation
equipped with the type with the 27 launchers and Desert Storm and an A10 Thunderbolt during the
104 CHAPTER 17. ROLAND (MISSILE)

Iraq war.[14] As a result of Operation Desert Storm Germany (phased out, will be replaced by LFK
in 1991 and Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 these NG)
systems may no longer be in service.[12]
Iraq (no longer in use)
In 1986 Qatar ordered 3 self-propelled Roland 2
systems on the AMX-30R chassis and 6 shelter- Nigeria
mounted systems with deliveries completed in
1989.[12] Qatar

Slovenia
17.4 Combat use Spain

On 1 June 1982, during the Falklands War, Sea Harrier United States formerly used by the U.S. Army
n XZ456 was shot down south of Stanley by members of National Guard
the GADA 601, an Argentine antiaircraft unit deployed
in the area.[15] The launcher, one of four examples deliv- Venezuela
ered 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 suc-
17.7 See also
ceeded in shooting down an American A-10 Thunderbolt
II at the beginning of the Iraq War, during the battle of LFK NG, the new short-range surface-to-air missile
Baghdad.[16] of the German Army

17.5 Rolandgate 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 ocers
claimed these missiles had been manufactured in 2003. [3] Janes Armour and Artillery
France pointed out that the latest Roland missiles were [4] Janes Armour and Artillery
manufactured in the early 1990s and thus the manufac-
turing date was necessarily an error (it turned out it was [5] Janes Armour and Artillery
probably the expiry date that was indicated), and armed
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] Janes Land Based Air Defense
dal were low level commanders. Wojskowe Suby In-
[8] Janes Land Based Air Defense
formacyjne, the Polish Armys intelligence unit, had not
veried their claims before they were leaked to the press. [9] Janes Land Based Air Defense
Poland apologized to France for the scandal, but these al-
legations against France worsened the already somewhat [10] Janes Land Based Air Defense
strained relationships between the two countries. The en-
tire incident was sarcastically called Rolandgate by the [11] Gunston
Polish media, using the unocial naming conventions of
US political scandals after Watergate. [12] Janes Land Based Air Defense

[13] Army Technology

17.6 Operators [14] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/sep/08/


20040908-123000-1796r/

Argentina [15] Smith, Gordon: Battle Atlas of the Falklands War 1982.
Lulu.com, 2006, page 97. ISBN 1-84753-950-5. (Span-
Brazil (no longer in use) ish)

France [16] Washington Times - French connection armed Saddam


17.10. EXTERNAL LINKS 105

17.9 Sources
Janes Armour and Artillery 198687, pp. 556558

Janes Land Based Air Defense 199394, 1999


2000 & 200203 editions

Bill Gunston, The Illustrated Encyclopedia of the


Worlds Rockets and Missiles, Salamander Books
1979, pp. 156158

http://www.army-technology.com

17.10 External links


Army Technology



Chapter 18

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), for- Shroud


Kill Vehicle Booster Flare
merly Theater High Altitude Area Defense, is a United
States Army anti-ballistic missile system designed to
shoot down short, medium, and intermediate ballistic 766 mm
370 mm Interstage
missiles in their terminal phase using a hit-to-kill ap- 2325 mm
340 mm

proach. The missile carries no warhead but relies on the 6170 mm


Gas Bag

kinetic energy of the impact to destroy the incoming mis- Window And Seeker
Semi-integrated Avionics
Petal
Strut
Divert and Attitude

sile. A kinetic energy hit minimizes the risk of explod- Control System Nozzle
Actuator

ing conventional warhead ballistic missiles, and nuclear 370 mm


Movable

tipped ballistic missiles won't explode upon a kinetic en- Flight


Termination
System (FTS) FTS
Nozzle

Avionics Battery Rate


ergy hit, although chemical or biological warheads may Batteries
1945 mm
Gyros

disintegrate or explode and pose a risk of contaminat-


ing 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 rst six in-
tegrated by Lockheed Martin Space Systems acting as tercept attempts missed the target (Flights 4-9). The rst
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 Capi-
tal Consortium. One THAAD system costs US$800
million.[2] 18.1.1 Demonstration-Validation Phase
Although originally a U.S. Army program, THAAD has 18.1.2 Engineering and manufacturing
come under the umbrella of the Missile Defense Agency.
The Navy has a similar program, the sea-based Aegis Bal-
phase
listic Missile Defense System, which now has a land com-
In June 2000, Lockheed won the Engineering and Manu-
ponent as well (Aegis ashore). THAAD was originally
facturing Development (EMD) contract to turn the design
scheduled for deployment in 2012, but initial deployment
into a mobile tactical army re unit. Flight tests of this
took place May 2008.[3][4]
system resumed with missile characterization and full-up
system tests in 2006 at White Sands Missile Range, then
moved to the Pacic 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 Lockheed is pushing for funding for the development
industry in 1990. In September 1992, the U.S. Army se- of an ER version of the THAAD to counter maturing
lected Lockheed Martin as prime contractor for THAAD threats posed by hypersonic glide vehicles adversaries
development. Prior to development of a physical proto- may employ, namely the Chinese WU-14, to penetrate
type, the Aero-Optical Eect (AOE) software code was the gap between low and high-altitude missile defenses.
developed to validate the intended operational prole of The company performed static re trials of a prototype
Lockheeds proposed design. The rst THAAD ight modied THAAD second booster in 2006 and continued
test occurred in April 1995, with all ight tests in the to self-fund the project until 2008. The current 14.5 in
Demonstration-Validation (DEM-VAL) program phase (37 cm)-diameter single-stage booster design would be

106
18.2. PRODUCTION AND DEPLOYMENT 107

expanded to a 21 in (53 cm) rst stage for greater range missiles have an estimated range of 125 miles (200 km),
with a second kick stage to close the distance to the tar- and can reach an altitude of 93 miles (150 km). The
get and provide improved velocity at burnout and more THAAD missile is manufactured at the Lockheed Mar-
lateral movement during an engagement. Although the tin Pike County Operations facility near Troy, Alabama.
kill vehicle would not need a redesign, the ground-based The facility performs nal integration, assembly and test-
launcher would have to be modied with a decreased in- ing of the THAAD missile.
terceptor capacity from eight to ve. Currently, THAAD-
ER 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 THAAD-
ER began in 2018, a elded product could be produced
in 2022. Although the system could provide some capa-
bility against a rudimentary hypersonic threat, the Pen-
tagon is researching other technologies like directed en-
ergy weapons and railguns to be optimal solutions. There-
fore, the THAAD-ER would be an interim measure to
counter the emerging threat until laser and railgun sys-
tems capable of performing missile defense come online,
The AN/TPY-2 radar
expected in the mid to late-2020s.[19]
The THAAD Radar is an X-Band active electronically
scanned array Radar developed and built by Raytheon at
18.2 Production and deployment its Andover, Massachusetts Integrated Air Defense Fa-
cility. It is the worlds largest ground/air-transportable
X-Band radar. The THAAD Radar and a variant devel-
oped 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 tac-
tical operations centers (TOCs) and the ground-based
radar (GBR);[20] the Army plans to eld at least six
THAAD batteries.[18]

18.2.1 First Units Activated

On 28 May 2008, the U.S. Army activated Alpha Bat-


tery, 4th Air Defense Artillery Regiment, 11th Air De-
fense 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 elding
began in 2009.[21][22]
On October 16, 2009, the U.S. Army and the Missile De-
fense Agency activated the second Terminal High Alti-
THAAD Energy Management Steering maneuver, used to burn
tude Area Defense Battery, Alpha Battery, 2nd Air De-
excess propellant.
fense Artillery Regiment, at Fort Bliss.[23]
Sometimes called Kinetic Kill technology, the THAAD On August 15, 2012, Lockheed received a $150 million
missile destroys missiles by colliding with them, using hit- contract from the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to pro-
to-kill technology, like the MIM-104 Patriot PAC-3 (al- duce THAAD Weapon System launchers and re con-
though the PAC-3 also contains a small explosive war- trol and communications equipment for the U.S. Army.
head). This is unlike the Patriot PAC-2 which carried The contract includes 12 launchers, two re control and
only an explosive warhead detonated using a proximity communications units, and support equipment. The con-
fuse. Although the actual gures are classied, THAAD tract 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. M1120 HEMTT Load Handling System (launcher)
These deliveries will bring all Batteries to the standard
six launcher conguration.[24] Indian Ballistic Missile Defence Programme

S-300VM
18.2.2 Deployments S-400 (SAM)
In June 2009, the United States deployed a THAAD unit
to Hawaii, along with the SBX sea-based radar, to de-
fend against a possible North Korean launch targeted at 18.4 References
the archipelago.[25]
[1] THAAD. Webcache.googleusercontent.com. Re-
In April 2013, the United States declared that Alpha Bat- trieved 2011-01-24.
tery, 4th Air Defense Artillery Regiment, would be de-
ployed to Guam to defend against a possible North Ko- [2] With an Eye on Pyongyang, U.S. Sending Missile De-
rean IRBM attack targeting the island.[26][27] fenses to Guam. The Wall Street Journal, April 3, 2013.

The American AN/TPY-2 early missile warning radar [3] Pentagon To Accelerate THAAD Deployment, Jeremy
station on Mt. Keren in the Negev desert is only active Singer, Space News, September 4, 2006
foreign military installation in Israel.[28]
[4] Lockheed Martin completes delivery of all
According to U.S. ocials the AN/TPY-2 radar was de- components of 1st THAAD battery to U.S.
ployed at Turkeys Krecik Air Force base.[29] The radar Army,Yourdefencenews.com,March 8,2012
was activated at January 2012.[30]
[5] MDAs new THAAD success, Martin Sie, UPI, April
6, 2007
18.2.3 International users [6] Army, Navy and Air Force shoot down test missile, Tom
Finnegan, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Friday, April 6, 2007
The United Arab Emirates signed a deal to purchase the
missile defense system on December 25, 2011.[31] On [7] Press Release by Lockheed Martin on Newswires.
May 27, 2013, Oman announced a deal for the acqui- Texas: Prnewswire.com. 2007-10-26. Retrieved 2011-
sition of the THAAD air defense system.[32] 01-24.

On 17 October 2013, the South Korean military asked [8] 31st successful 'hit to kill' intercept in 39 tests. Fron-
the Pentagon to provide information on the THAAD sys- tierindia.net. 2007-10-27. Retrieved 2011-01-24.
tem. Information of the system concerned prices and ca-
[9] THAAD shoots down missile from C-17. The Associ-
pabilities as part of eorts to strengthen defenses against ated Press, June 27, 2008
North Korean ballistic missiles.[33] In May 2014, the
Pentagon revealed it was studying sites to base Amer- [10] Defense Test Conducted MDA September 27, 2008
ican THAAD batteries in South Korea.[34] However,
South Korea decided it will develop its own indigenous [11] Terminal High Altitude Area Defense. MDA. March
17, 2009. Archived from the original on March 26, 2009.
long-range surface-to-air missile instead of buying the
THAAD.[35] South Korean Defense Ministry ocials [12] Ocials investigating cause of missile failure. The Gar-
previously requested information on the THAAD, as well den Island. December 12, 2009.
as other missile interceptors like the Israeli Arrow 3, with
the intention of researching systems for domestic technol- [13] THAAD System Intercepts Target in Successful Missile
ogy development rather than for purchase. Ocials did Defense Flight Test. MDA. June 29, 2010.
however claim that American deployment of the THAAD [14] THAAD Weapon System Achieves Intercept of Two
system would help in countering North Korean missile Targets at Pacic Missile Range Facility. Lockheed Mar-
threats.[36] However, China announced that deployment tin. October 5, 2011. Archived from the original on De-
of this system in South Korea is a threat to Chinas se- cember 9, 2011.
curity and can lead to a serious economical and politic
consequence for chinese-korean relations [37] Daniel Rus- [15] FTI-01 Mission Data Sheet. Missile Defense Agency.
15 October 2012.
sel replied that Beijing doesn't have any relation to this
matter and should not interfere with the defense policy of [16] Ballistic Missile Defense System Engages Five Targets
other countries[38] Simultaneously During Largest Missile Defense Flight
Test in History. Missile Defense Agency. 25 October
2012.
18.3 See also [17] Butler, Amy (5 November 2012). Pentagon Begins To
Tackle Air Defense Raid Threat. Aviation Week &
Arrow (Israeli missile) Space Technology.
18.5. EXTERNAL LINKS 109

[18] Chinas Hypersonic Ambitions Prompt Thaad-ER Push - 18.5 External links
Aviationweek.com, 8 January 2015

[19] Thaad-ER In Search Of A Mission - Aviationweek.com, Lockheed Martin THAAD web page
20 January 2015
Details of the project
[20] U.S. Army has received the latest upgrade for THAAD air
defense missile system - Armyrecognition.com, 2 January MDA THAAD page
2015
THAAD page on army-technology.com
[21] First Battery of THAAD Weapon System Activated at
Fort Bliss. Lockheed Martin via newsblaze, May 28, Program History
2008
http://www.airdefenseartillery.com/online/
[22] First Battery of THAAD Weapon System Activated at
Fort Bliss, Press Release, Lockheed Martin Ocial Web-
site, May 28, 2008

[23] Second Battery of Lockheed Martins THAAD Weapon 18.5.1 DEM-VAL Test Program
System Activated at Fort Bliss, Reuters (10-16-2009).
Retrieved 10-20-2009. THAAD First Successful Intercept, 10 June 1999
[24] Lockheed Martin Receives $150 Million Contract To Pro-
THAAD Second Successful Intercept, 2 August
duce THAAD Weapon System Equipment For The U.S.
1999
Army - Lockheed press release, Aug. 15, 2012

[25] Gienger, Viola (2009-06-18). Gates Orders Measures


Against North Korea Missile (Update2)". Bloomberg. 18.5.2 EMD Test Program
Retrieved 2011-01-24.
Successful THAAD Interceptor Launch Achieved,
[26] US to move missiles to Guam after North Korea threats.
22 November 2005
BBC. 2013-04-03. Retrieved 2013-04-03.

[27] Burge, David (2013-04-09). 100 bound for Guam: Fort Successful THAAD Integrated System Flight Test,
Bliss THAAD unit readies for historic mission. El Paso 11 May 2006
Times. Retrieved 2013-04-12.
Successful THAAD Intercept Flight, 12 July 2006
[28] How a U.S. Radar Station in the Negev Aects a Poten-
tial Israel-Iran Clash. Time Magazine, 30 May 2012. THAAD Equipment Arrives in Hawaii, October 18,
2006
[29] U.S. Maintains Full Control of Turkish-Based Radar
Defense Update, 30 January 2012 Successful THAAD High Endo-Atmospheric In-
tercept Test, January 27, 2007
[30] NATO Activates Radar in Turkey Next Week Turkish
Weekly Journal, 24 December 2011 Successful THAAD Radar Target Tracking Test,
[31] U.S., UAE reach deal for missile-defense system, CNN March 8, 2007
Wire Sta, CNN, Dec 30, 2011
Successful THAAD Mid Endo-Atmopsheric In-
[32] Oman to buy the air defense missile system THAAD - tercept, April 6, 2007
Armyrecogni