US Missiles Rockets and Bombs

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
21.1.1 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
39.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
39.4 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
40 Hopi (missile) 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
42.3 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

45.3 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

47.2 Development and cancellation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
47.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
48 MQR-13 BMTS 195

48.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
48.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
49 MQR-16 Gunrunner 197

49.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
50 Ram (rocket) 198

50.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
50.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
51 LOCAT 200
51.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
52 LTV-N-4 201
52.1 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
CONTENTS xv
53 Gimlet (rocket) 202

53.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
54 Zuni (rocket) 204

54.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
55.3 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
57.3 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

xvi CONTENTS
58.1.1 Technical description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

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

63.3 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

66.2 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

71.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
CONTENTS xix
71.4 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
72 AAM-N-4 Oriole 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
79.2.1 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
82.3 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
87.3.1 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

91.2 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
92 Bold Orion 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
93.4 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

95.2.1 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
97.3 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

105.2.1 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
112.4Deployment 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
115.8Foreign 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

117.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
120.3.1 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

151.2Cancellation 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
167.4Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549
167.5Operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549
167.6Survivors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549
167.7See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550
167.8References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550
168Beechcraft MQM-107 Streaker 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

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

178.3Aircraft 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
xlii CONTENTS

180.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579
180.4External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 580
181KAN Little Joe 581

181.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581
181.4External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 582
182Northrop JB-1 Bat 583

182.1References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583
183Piper LBP 584

183.3Specications (LBP-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584
183.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584
183.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585
184Pratt-Read LBE 586

184.3Specications (LBE-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586
184.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586
184.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587
185Taylorcraft LBT 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
186.5Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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

199.3See 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
203.3Launch 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
205.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619
206RIM-85 620
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

208.2See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623
208.3Suggested Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624
208.4External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624
209Vought HVM 625

209.1References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 625
2103.5-Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket 626

210.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 626
210.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 626
210.5External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627
xlvi CONTENTS
211AUM-N-2 Petrel 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
217.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 637
217.3.1 Citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 637
217.3.2 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 637
2187.2-Inch Demolition Rocket 639

218.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 639
CONTENTS xlvii

218.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 639
219Lobber 641
219.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 641
219.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 641
219.3External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642
220M16 (rocket) 643

220.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643
220.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643
220.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643
221M8 (rocket) 645

221.1Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
226.4See 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
232.6See 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
234.3.1 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
238.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
245.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 700
2465-Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket 702

246.2See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 702
246.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 702
246.4External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 702
247High Velocity Aircraft Rocket 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

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

252.1Delivery systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 713
252.2Broken Arrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 713
252.3Withdrawn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 714
252.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 714
252.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 714
252.6External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 714

253.1See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715
253.2External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715

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

255.1See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719
255.2External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719

256.1See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 720
256.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 720

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

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

CONTENTS lvii
278.1Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 759
278.2History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 759
278.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 759
278.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 760
278.5External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 760

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

280.1Survivors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 762
280.2Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 762
280.3Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 762
280.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 763
280.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 763
280.6External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 763

281.1Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 764
281.2Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 764
281.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 764
281.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 765
281.5External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 765

282.1See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 766
282.2External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 766

283.1Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 767
283.2See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 767
283.3External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 767
284Mark 118 bomb 768

284.1Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 768
284.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 768

285.1Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 769
lviii CONTENTS
285.2Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 769
285.3In popular culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 769
285.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 769
285.5External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 769

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

287.1See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 771
287.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 771

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

289.1Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 774
289.2Manufacture and service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 774
289.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 774
289.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 774

290.1Survivors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 776
290.2See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 776
290.3References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 776
290.4External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 776

291.1Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 777
CONTENTS lix
291.2Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 777
291.3See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 777
291.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 777

292.1References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 778

293.1See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 779
293.2References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 779

294.1See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 780
294.2External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 780

295.1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 781
295.2Survivors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 781
295.3Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 781
295.4See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 781
295.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 781

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

319.3See 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

325.1References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839
325.2External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839
326GBU-15 840
326.1Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840
326.2Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840
326.3Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841
326.4External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841

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
330.3See 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

332.2Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
333.3Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
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
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.
[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.
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
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
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
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
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]
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
3.7 References [19] Lonnquest & Winkler 1996, pp. 60-61.

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.
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.
[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.
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
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.
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]
4.7 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
Nike site SF-88L missile control.
A Nike Hercules missile.
A Nike Ajax missile.

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
[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
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.
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
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.
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
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 imity 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
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)
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
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.
Range
(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.
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
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
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
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
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.
Org%20Charts_Lance1.htm
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.
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
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.
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?
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
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.
[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.
[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 anon 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

17.9 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

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] 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
Armyrecognition.com, May 27, 2013
THAAD Radar Supports Successful Aegis BMD In-
[33] Army of South Korea shows interest for the U.S. THAAD tercept, June 22, 2007
- Armyrecognition.com, 18 October 2013
Successful THAAD Interceptor Low-Altitude Fly-
[34] United States Army has a plan to deploy THAAD air
Out Test, June 27, 2007
defense missile systems in South Korea - Armyrecogni-
tion.com, 29 May 2014
[35] S. Korea to develop indigenous missile defense system in-

stead of adopting THAAD - Sina.com, 3 June 2014
[36] 'S.Korea Requested Information on THAAD to Develop

L-SAM' - KBS.co.kr, 5 June 2014
[37] China calls USA to cancel THAAD deployment in South

Korea
[38] http://politobzor.net/
show-12855-balans-politiki-ssha-v-azii-smeschaetsya.
html
Chapter 19
HIMARS
The M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System AMRAAM anti-aircraft missile.[2]
(HIMARS) is a U.S. light multiple rocket launcher
mounted on a standard Army Medium Tactical Vehicle
(MTV) truck frame.
The HIMARS carries six rockets or one MGM-140
ATACMS missile on the U.S. Army's new Family of
19.1.1 Singapore
Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) ve-ton truck, and
can launch the entire Multiple Launch Rocket System
Family of Munitions (MFOM). HIMARS is interchange- As of September 2007, the Singapore Army proposed
able with the MLRS M270A1, carrying half the rocket to acquire HIMARS systems. The package includes 18
load. HIMARS launchers, 9 FMTV 5-Ton Trucks and XM31
The launcher is C-130 transportable. The chassis is unitary HE GMLRS pods, plus associated support and
produced by BAE Systems Mobility & Protection Sys- communications equipment and services. This proposed
tems (formerly Armor Holdings Aerospace and Defense package is notable for not involving the M-26 unguided
Group Tactical Vehicle Systems Division), the OEM of MLRS rockets. In late 2009, Singapore took delivery
the FMTV. The rocket launching system is produced by of the rst HIMARS ring unit and achieved Full Op-
Lockheed Martin Missiles & Fire Control. erational Capability. The 23rd Battalion, Singapore ar-
tillery commissioned its HIMARS battery on 5 Septem-
ber 2011. It marks the rst fully GPS-guided HIMARS
unit.
19.1 Deployment
The M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HI-
MARS) is the light, wheeled version of the M270 Multi-
ple Launch Rocket System (MLRS). The HIMARS uti-
lizes the same pod as the M270 MLRS uses. A pod can 19.2 Operational history
hold six rockets or a single missile. The windows are
made of glass and layers of sapphire.[1]
On February 14, 2010, the International Security Assis-
18th Field Artillery Brigade (Airborne) at Fort Bragg, tance Force (ISAF) for Afghanistan indicated in a press
North Carolina was the initial army test bed unit for the release that it was thought that two rockets red from a
M142 HIMARS. C Battery, 3rd Battalion, 27th Field Ar- HIMARS unit fell 300 metres short of their intended tar-
tillery Regiment began eld testing 3 HIMARS proto- get and killed 12 civilians during Operation Moshtarak.
types in all types of training events and environments in ISAF suspended the use of the HIMARS until a full re-
1998 as a residual of the Rapid Force Projection Initia- view of the incident was completed.[3] A British o-
tive (RFPI) Advanced Concept Technology Demonstra- cer later said that the rockets were on target, that the
tion (ACTD). In 2002, the United States Marine Corps target was in use by the Taliban, and use of the sys-
arranged with the United States Army to acquire 40 of tem has been reinstated.[4] Reports indicate that the civil-
the systems. Fielding began in 2005. In July 2007, ian deaths were due to the Talibans use of an occupied
Marines from Fox Battery 2nd Battalion 14 Marine Reg- dwelling, the presence of civilians at that location was not
iment were deployed to the Al Anbar province of Iraq. known to the ISAF forces.[5] An October 21, 2010 report
This is the rst Marine unit to use the HIMARS in com- in the New York Times credited HIMARS with aiding the
bat. NATO oensive in Kandahar by targeting Taliban com-
HIMARS was also tested as a common launcher for both manders hideouts, forcing many to ee to Pakistan, at
artillery rockets and the surface-launched variant of the least temporarily.[6]
110
19.5. OPERATORS 111
138th Field Artillery Brigade (KY

ARNG)
3rd Battalion 116th Field Artillery
Regiment (FL ARNG)
142nd Field Artillery Brigade (AR
ARNG)
1st Battalion 181st Field Artillery
Regiment (TN ARNG)
130th Field Artillery Brigade (KS
ARNG)
2nd Battalion 130th Field Artillery
Regiment(KS ARNG)
An MFOR rocket is launched from a HIMARS 197th Field Artillery Brigade (NH
ARNG)
19.3 Specications 3rd Battalion 197th Field Artillery
Regiment
1st Battalion 182nd Field Artillery
19.4 Related developments Regiment (MI ARNG)
115th Field Artillery Brigade (WY
Lockheed Martin UK and INSYS had jointly developed ARNG)
a demonstrator rocket artillery system similar to HI- 1st Battalion 121st Field Artillery
MARS for the British Armys 'Lightweight Mobile Ar- Regiment (WI ARNG)
tillery Weapon System/Rocket' (LIMAWS(R)) program.
The system consisted of a single MLRS pod, mounted on United States Marine Corps
a Supacat SPV600 chassis.[7] The LIMAWS(R) programs
11th Marine Regiment
was cancelled in September 2007.[8]
5th Battalion 11th Marines
14th Marine Regiment
19.5 Operators 2nd Battalion 14th Marines
United States Singapore
Singapore Army (18)

United States Army
23rd Battalion, Singapore Artillery (23 SA)[9]
Active Duty
17th Field Artillery Brigade United Arab Emirates
5th Battalion 3rd Field Artillery Reg-
iment United Arab Emirates Army (20)
1st Battalion 94th Field Artillery
Regiment Jordan
18th Field Artillery Brigade
3rd Battalion 27th Field Artillery Jordanian Army (12)
Regiment
3rd Battalion 321st Field Artillery 19.5.1 Potential and future operators
Regiment
214th Field Artillery Brigade Canada
1st Battalion, 14th Field Artillery
Regiment
Army National Guard The Department of National Defence is considering the
purchase of HIMARS. The former Chief of the Land
65th Field Artillery Brigade (UT ARNG) Sta, Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie, said the plan
5th Battalion 113th Field Artillery to acquire rocket launchers was something that would
Regiment (NC ARNG) be considered much further down the roadpossibly in
45th Field Artillery Brigade (OK ARNG) the 2012 time frame.[10][11][12][13]
112 CHAPTER 19. HIMARS
Qatar [6] Coalition Forces Routing Taliban in Key Afghan Region
[7] Missiles and Fire Support at DSEi 2007
In December 2012, Qatar notied the U.S. of a pos- [8] UK cancels LIMAWS Gun to pay for operations,
sible Foreign Military Sale of 7 M142 HIMARS sys- Janes.com, 04 September 2007
tems, as well as 60 M57 MGM-140 ATACMS Block
[9] Integration at its best. Ministry of Defence (Singapore).
1A T2K unitary rockets and 30 M31A1 Guided Multiple 2010-01-04. Retrieved 1 May 2011. Men from 23 SA
Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) unitary rockets. The had commenced training with the US Armys HIMARS
deal would cost an estimated $406 million.[14] in March 2009.
[10] CASR Background Artillery Long-Range Preci-

Poland sion Rocket System. Canadian American Strategic Re-
view. Retrieved 2009-11-11.
New Multiple Launch Rocket System. Program Homar [11] Canadian army shopping for rocket launchers. CTV.
Poland. Multiple Launch Rocket System Cooperation 2009-01-08. Retrieved 2009-11-11.
between Huta Stalowa Wola, ZM Mesko and Lockheed [12] Canada Seeks MLRS Rocket Systems. Defense Indus-
Martin. try Daily. 2009-01-07. Retrieved 2009-11-11.
[13] Long Range Precision Rocket System (LRPRS) A

Multiple- Launch Rocket System MERX LOI Letter of
19.6 See also Interest Notice. Canadian American Strategic Review.
List of U.S. Army Rocket Launchers by model num-
ber [14] Qatar Requests Sale of HIMARS, ATACMS and GMLRS
- Deagel.com, December 24, 2012
Astros II Multiple Launch Rocket System
BM-27 Multiple Launch Rocket System
19.8 External links
BM-30 Multiple Launch Rocket System
M142 HIMARS Lockheed Martin High Mobility
M-26 artillery rocket
Artillery Rocket System(Army recognition)
M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/himars.htm
SR5
Army-Technology.com: HIMARS
A-100
Lockheed-Martin: HIMARS
A-200
DoD Press Release on Proposed HIMARS Sale to
TOS-1 Multiple Launch Rocket System Singapore
9A52-4 Tornado Information about M26/M30/M31 MLRS rockets

on designation-systems.net
MERX Release on Proposed HIMARS to the Cana-

19.7 References dian Forces in 2010
[1] "Saint-Gobain delivers sapphire-engineered transparent Use of HIMARS system suspended in Afghanistan
armor" UPI / press release, 5 November 2013. Accessed: after 12 civilians killed by 300m targeting error
19 June 2014.
[2] HIMARS Launcher Successfully Fires Air Defense Mis-

sile
[3] ISAF Weapon Fails to Hit Intended Target, 12 Civilians

Killed
[4] Operation Moshtarak: missiles that killed civilians 'hit

correct target'". Telegraph. 2010-02-16. Retrieved 2010-
07-07.
[5] Artillery: It Wasn't Me. Strategypage.com. 2010-02-

18. Retrieved 2010-07-07.
Chapter 20
Medium Extended Air Defense System
The Medium Extended Air Defense System

(MEADS) is a ground-mobile air and missile de-
fense system intended to replace the Patriot missile
system through a NATO-managed development.[1] The
program is a tri-national development of the USA,
Germany, and Italy.
20.1 Description
Under development by Germany, Italy, and the United
States, MEADS is a ground-mobile air and missile de-
fense (AMD) system intended to replace Patriot systems
in the United States and Germany, and Nike Hercules sys-
tems in Italy. MEADS is designed to address the short-
comings of elded systems and to permit full interoper-
ability between the U.S. and allied forces. It is the only
medium-range AMD system to provide full 360-degree
coverage against tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missi-
less, unmanned aerial vehicles, aircraft, and large-caliber
rockets.
MEADS provides ground-mobile air and missile defense
with expanded coverage. The system provides enhanced
force protection against a broad array of third-dimension MEADS Over-the-Shoulder Launch at White Sands (MEADS In-
threats. Improved interoperability, mobility, and full ternational)
360-degree defense capability against the evolving threat
represent are key aspects. MEADS is the rst air and mis-
sile defense (AMD) system that provides continuous on- C-130 and A400M transport aircraft so they can quickly
the-move protection for maneuver forces. MEADS also deploy to a theater of operations. Because MEADS uses
provides area defense, homeland defense, and weighted fewer system assets, it permits a substantial reduction in
asset protection.[2] deployed personnel and equipment. MEADS reduces de-
MEADS incorporates the Lockheed Martin hit-to-kill mand for airlift, so it can deploy to theater faster.
PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) missile in The minimum MEADS engagement capability requires
a system including 360-degree surveillance and re con- only one launcher, one battle manager, and one re con-
trol sensors, netted-distributed tactical operations cen- trol radar to provide 360-degree defense of troops or crit-
ters, and lightweight launchers.[3] A single MEADS bat- ical assets. As more system elements arrive, they auto-
tery is able to defend up to 8 times the area of a Pa- matically and seamlessly join the MEADS network and
triot battery through use of advanced 360-degree sen- build out capability.
sors, near-vertical launch capability, and the longer-range The prime contractor, MEADS International, is a multi-
PAC-3 MSE missile. The MEADS radars using active national joint venture headquartered in Orlando, Florida.
phased arrays and digital beam forming make full use Its participating companies are MBDA Italia, MBDA
of the PAC-3 MSE missiles extended range. Deutschland GmbH, and Lockheed Martin. The com-
Truck-mounted MEADS elements drive or roll on and o pany initially won a competitive downselect to develop
113
114 CHAPTER 20. MEDIUM EXTENDED AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM
the MEADS system in 1999,[4] but the program could re control capabilities until a surveillance radar joins
not be started because the losing competitor led two suc- the network. The MFCR uses its main beam for up-
cessive protests. In 2001, a $216 million Risk Reduction link and downlink missile communications. An advanced
Eort contract was awarded to incorporate a new inter- Mode 5 identify friend-or-foe subsystem supports im-
ceptor approach.[5] In May 2005, MEADS International proved threat identication and typing.[12]
signed a denitized contract valued at $2 billion plus 1.4
billion for MEADS design and development. This con-
tract is expected to be completed in 2014.[6] The United
States funds 58 percent of the MEADS Design and De-
velopment program, and European partners Germany and
Italy provide 25 percent and 17 percent respectively.
The German Bundeswehr completed an analysis of air
defense alternatives in 2010 and strongly recommended
MEADS as the basis for improving Germanys missile
defense shield and as Germanys contribution to the Eu-
ropean Phased Adaptive Approach.[7] In February 2011,
the U.S. Department of Defense announced that it in-
tended to fulll its commitment to complete the design
and development eort, but that it would not procure the
MEADS system for budgetary reasons.[8]
MEADS Surveillance Radar (MEADS International)
In October 2011, the National Armaments Directors of
Germany, Italy, and the United States approved a con- Surveillance Radar (SR) the UHF MEADS Surveillance
tract amendment to fund two ight intercept tests, a Radar is a 360-degree active electronically steered array
launcher/missile characterization test, and a sensor char- radar that provides extended range coverage. It provides
acterization test before the MEADS Design and Devel- threat detection capability against highly maneuverable
opment through 2014.[9] low-signature threats, including short- and medium-range
In September 2013, MEADS received operating certi- ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and other air-breathing
cation for its Mode 5 Identication Friend or Foe (IFF) threats.
system. Mode 5 is more secure and provides positive line-
of-sight identication of friendly platforms equipped with
an IFF transponder to better protect allied forces.[10]
MEADS is a candidate for the German Taktisches
Luftverteidigungssystem (TLVS), a new generation of
air and missile defense that requires exible architecture
based on strong networking capabilities. MEADS was a
candidate for Polands Wisa medium range air defense
system procurement, but was eliminated in June 2014
when competition was downselected to the US Patriot
system and the French/Italian SAMP/T system.
20.2 Major End Items MEADS TOC (MEADS International)
The MEADS air and missile defense system is composed Battle Management, Command, Control, Communica-
of six major equipment items.[11] The MEADS radars, tions, Computers, and Intelligence (BMC4I) Tactical Op-
battle manager, and launchers are designed for high relia- erations Center (TOC) the MEADS TOC controls an
bility so that the system will be able to maintain sustained advanced network-centric open architecture that allows
operations much longer than legacy systems resulting in any combination of sensors and launchers to be organized
overall lower operation and support costs. into a single air and missile defense battle element. The
Multifunction Fire Control Radar (MFCR) an X-band, system is netted and distributed. Every MEADS battle
solid-state, phased array radar using element-level trans- manager, radar, and launcher is a wireless node on the
mit/receive modules developed in Germany. The active network. By virtue of multiple communications paths,
electronically scanned array (AESA) radar provides pre- the network can be expanded or contracted as the sit-
cision tracking and wideband discrimination and classi- uation dictates and precludes single point failure if one
cation capabilities. For extremely rapid deployments, node becomes inoperable. It also has a plug-and-ght
the MEADS MFCR can provide both surveillance and capability that allows MEADS launchers and radars to
20.3. PLUG-AND-FIGHT 115
seamlessly enter and leave the network without shutting it In Germany, the PAC-3 missile is expected to be supple-
down and interrupting ongoing operations. MEADS uses mented by IRIS-T SL as secondary missile for ground-
open, non-proprietary standardized interfaces to extend based medium range air defense. It is based on the IRIS-
plug-and-ght to non-MEADS elements. This exibility T air-to-air missile. The shorter range IRIS-T SLS sys-
is new for ground-based AMD systems.[13] tem uses unmodied IRIS-T air-to-air missiles launched
from standard LAU-7 aircraft launchers four of which
are mounted onto an all-terrain launch vehicle while the
medium-range IRIS-T SL missile is equipped with an
enlarged rocket motor, datalink, and jettisonable drag-
reducing nose cone.
20.3 Plug-and-Fight
In the BMC4I TOC, plug-and-ght exibility lets
MEADS exchange data with non-MEADS sensors and
shooters. The same capability lets MEADS move
with ground forces and interoperate with allied forces.
Through interoperability features designed into the sys-
German conguration MEADS launcher (MEADS International)
tem, MEADS will dramatically improve combat eec-
tiveness and situational awareness, reducing the potential
Launcher and Reloader the lightweight MEADS for fratricide. MEADS system elements can seamlessly
launcher is easily transportable, tactically mobile, and ca- integrate into each nations, or NATOs, combat architec-
pable of rapid reload. It carries up to eight PAC-3 Mis- ture as required.
sile Segment Enhancement (MSE) Missiles and achieves
launch readiness in minimum time.[14] A MEADS Units can be dispersed over a wide area. Command and
reloader is similar but lacks launcher electronic systems. control of launchers and missiles can be handed over to a
neighboring battle management unit while the initial sys-
Certied Missile Round (PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhance- tems are moved, maintaining maneuver force protection.
ment and canister) The PAC-3 Missile Segment En- Plug-and-ght connectivity lets MEADS elements attach
hancement (MSE) missile is the baseline interceptor for to and detach from the network at will, with no require-
MEADS. The interceptor increases the systems range ment to shut the system down.
and lethality over the baseline PAC-3 missile, which was
selected as the primary missile for MEADS when the de- The MEADS plug-and-ght capability enables command
sign and development program began in 2004. The MSE and control over other air and missile defense system ele-
missile increases the engagement envelope and defended ments through open, non-proprietary standardized inter-
area by using more responsive control surfaces and a more faces. MEADS implements a unique ability to work with
powerful rocket motor.[15] secondary missile systems if selected, and to evolve as
other capabilities are developed.[16]
20.4 Integration and Test History

In July 2010, the MEADS BMC4I demonstrated its in-
teroperability with the NATO Air Command and Con-
trol System (ACCS) during tests using the Active Layer
Theatre Ballistic Missile Defense (ALTBMD) Integra-
tion Test Bed being developed by NATO. The test was
an early maturity demonstration for the MEADS BMC4I
capability.[17]
In August 2010, the MEADS program completed an ex-
tensive series of Critical Design Review (CDR) events
with a Summary CDR at MEADS International. Re-
viewers from Germany, Italy, the United States, and
the NATO Medium Extended Air Defense System
Management Agency (NAMEADSMA) evaluated the
MEADS design criteria in a comprehensive series of 47
IRIS-T SL based on the IRIS-T air-to-air missile reviews.[18]
In December 2010, the rst MEADS launcher and Tacti- listic missile trajectory, attacked from the north. The
cal Operations Center were displayed in ceremonies in Surveillance Radar acquired both targets and provided
Germany and Italy before initiating system integration target cues to the MEADS battle manager, which gener-
tests at Pratica di Mare Air Force Base in Italy.[19] ated cue commands for the MFCR. The MFCR tracked
In November 2011, it was announced that the MEADS both targets successfully and guided missiles from launch-
Multifunction Fire Control Radar had been integrated ers in the Italian [25]
and German conguration to successful
with a MEADS TOC and launcher at Pratica di Mare Air intercepts.
Force Base. The objectives of the integration test series At White Sands Missile Range, Lockheed Martin and
were to demonstrate that the MEADS TOC could control Northrop Grumman also demonstrated plug-and-ght
the MEADS MFCR in coordination with the MEADS connectivity between MEADS and the U.S. Armys In-
Launcher as initial operational proof of the plug-and-ght tegrated Battle Command System (IBCS). IBCS demon-
capability. The MFCR demonstrated key functionali- strated ability to plug-and-ght a 360-degree MEADS
ties including 360-degree target acquisition and track us- Surveillance Radar and Multifunction Fire Control
ing both dedicated ights and other air trac.[20] Then, Radar.[26]
at White Sands Missile Range, MEADS demonstrated In July 2014, MEADS completed a comprehensive sys-
a rst-ever over-the-shoulder launch of the PAC-3 MSE tem demonstration at Pratica di Mare Air Base, Italy.
missile against a simulated target attacking from behind. The tests, including operational demonstrations run by
It required a unique sideways maneuver, demonstrating German and Italian military personnel, were designed to
a 360-degree capability. The missile executed a planned seamlessly add and subtract system elements under repre-
self-destruct sequence at the end of the mission after suc- sentative combat conditions, and to blend MEADS with
cessfully engaging the simulated threat.[21] other systems in a larger system architecture. All criteria
In November 2012 at White Sands Missile Range, for success were achieved.
MEADS detected, tracked, intercepted, and destroyed During the test, plug-and-ght capability to rapidly at-
an air-breathing target in an intercept ight test. The
tach and control an external Italian deployable air de-
test conguration included a networked MEADS Tacti- fense radar was demonstrated. Also demonstrated was
cal Operations Center, lightweight launcher ring a PAC-
engage-on-remote exibility, which allows operators to
3 MSE, and a 360-degree MEADS Multifunction Fire target threats at greater distances despite being masked by
Control Radar, which tracked the MQM-107 target and
terrain. Through reassigning workload, MEADS demon-
guided the missile to a successful intercept.[22] strated ability to maintain defense capabilities if any sys-
Several progress milestones were demonstrated during tem element is lost or fails.
2013, culminating in a 360-degree dual-intercept test that Interoperability with German and Italian air defense as-
went beyond initial contract objectives. In April, the sets was demonstrated through exchange of standardized
MEADS Surveillance Radar acquired and tracked a small NATO messages. Italian air-defense assets were inte-
test aircraft and relayed its location to a MEADS TOC, grated into a test bed at an Italian national facility, while
which generated cue search commands. The MFCR, in the Surface to Air Missile Operations Centre and Patriot
full 360-degree rotating mode, searched the cued area, assets were integrated into a test bed at the German Air
acquired the target, and established a dedicated track.[23] Force Air Defense Center in Fort Bliss, Texas. MEADS
In June 2013, during six days of testing, MEADS demon- further demonstrated capability to perform engagement
strated network interoperability with NATO systems dur- coordination with other systems, which elded system are
ing Joint Project Optic Windmill (JPOW) exercises. unable to do.[27]
MEADS demonstrated battle management capability to
In September 2014, MEADS MFCRs completed a six-
transmit, receive, and process Link 16 messages and to week performance test at Pratica di Mare Air Base, Italy,
conduct threat engagements.[24]
and MBDA Deutschlands air defense center in Frein-
In November 2013, MEADS intercepted and destroyed hausen. During the tests, the MEADS MFCR success-
two simultaneous targets attacking from opposite direc- fully demonstrated several advanced capabilities, many
tions during a stressing demonstration of its 360-degree of which are critical for ground-mobile radar systems.
AMD capabilities at White Sands Missile Range, N.M. Capabilities tested include tracking and canceling of jam-
All elements of the MEADS system were tested, includ- ming signals; searching, cueing and tracking in ground
ing the 360-degree MEADS Surveillance Radar, a net- clutter; and successfully classifying target data using kine-
worked MEADS battle manager, two lightweight launch- matic information.[28]
ers ring PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE)
Missiles and a 360-degree MEADS Multifunction Fire
Control Radar (MFCR). The ight test achieved all crite- 20.5 See also
ria for success.
The rst target, a QF-4 air-breathing target, approached S-500 (missile) - Next-generation Russian surface-
from the south as a Lance missile, ying a tactical bal- to-air missile.
Active electronically scanned array an active elec- [14] Lightweight Meads launcher (press release), Lockheed
tronically scanned array radar is a type of phased ar- Martin, Oct 2011.
ray radar whose transmitter and receiver functions
[15] Meads receives 66 million contract (press release), Lock-
are composed of numerous small solid-state trans-
heed Martin, Jan 2008.
mit/receive modules (TRMs).
[16] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/
Plug-and-Fight ability of system elements to at- news/press-releases/2007/august/
tach to and detach from the network at will, with no MEADSUnveilsAdvancedBattl.html
requirement to shut the system down.
LFK NG the new air defence missile of the news/press-releases/2010/september/
German Army MEADSDemonstratesInterope.html
MANTIS the very short-range protection system [18] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/

of the German Army within the SysFla program. news/press-releases/2010/september/
MEADSCompletesCDRReadyFor.html
NASAMS air defence system using the AIM-120
AMRAAM, developed by Norway. [19] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/
news/press-releases/2010/december/
FirstMEADSBattleManagerRe.html
20.6 References [20] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/

news/press-releases/2011/november/
[1] http://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jframe.html#http: MEADSDemonstratesAdvanced.html
//www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2003/ [21] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/
32aamdc_oif-patriot_sep03.ppt||| news/press-releases/2011/november/
[2] http://meads-amd.com/fact-sheets/ MEADSConductsSuccessfulFi.html
[3] http://www.meads-amd.com/index.php/about-meads/ [22] http://meads-amd.com/meads-ft-1/
[4] http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/ [23] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/

nato-agency-turns-down-meads-protest-55117/ us/news/press-releases/2013/april/
meads-low-frequency-sensor-successfully-cues-multifunction-fire-.
[5] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/ html
us/news/press-releases/2001/july/
MEADSINTERNATIONALSIGNS216MILLIONRI. [24] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/
html us/news/press-releases/2013/june/
mfc-0619213-meads-tactical-BMC4I.html
news/press-releases/2011/november/ [25] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/
NationalArmamentsDirector.html news/press-releases/2013/november/
mfc-110613-Unprecedented-Dual-Intercept-Success-For-MEADS.
[7] Germany backs MEADS defence system over Patriot. html
Reuters. 9 July 2010.
[26] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/
[8] http://www.acq.osd.mil/docs/U.S._MEADS_Decision_ us/news/press-releases/2014/july/
Fact_Sheet_Feb_11_2011.pdf mfc-072314-comprehensive-meads-network-tests-demonstrate-unmatched-
html
news/press-releases/2011/november/ [27] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/
NationalArmamentsDirector.html us/news/press-releases/2014/july/
mfc-072314-comprehensive-meads-network-tests-demonstrate-unmatched-
[10] MEADS air defense system IFF Identication Friend or html
Foe system has been certied for operation - Armyrecog-
nition.com, 4 September 2013 [28] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/
news/press-releases/2014/september/
[11] Fires bulletin (US: Army), JulSep 2008: 423 mfc-meads-multifunction-fire-control-radar-proves-capabilities-performanc
http://sill-www.army.mil/firesbulletin/2008/jul_sep_ html
2008/Jul_Sep_2008_pages_42_43.pdf Missing or empty
|title= (help).
[12] Meads multifunction (press release), Lockheed Martin, 20.7 External links
August 2012.
[13] Third Meads battle manager arrives in Huntsville (press MEADS International website MEADS program
release), Lockheed Martin, Feb 2012. website
MBDA product page German and Italian contrac-

tors
Lockheed Martin product page U.S. contractor
IRIS-T SL/SLS Further information on the IRIS-

T SL/SLS missile by German manufacturer Diehl
BGT.
Chapter 21
Bazooka
For other uses, see Bazooka (disambiguation). lab and Mount Wilson Observatory (for security rea-
sons), designed a tube-red rocket for military use dur-
ing World War I. He and his co-worker, Dr. Clarence
Bazooka is the common name for a man-portable re-
coilless antitank rocket launcher weapon, widely elded N. Hickman, successfully demonstrated his rocket to the
by the United States Army. Also referred to as the US Army Signal Corps at Aberdeen Proving Ground,
Stovepipe, the innovative bazooka was among the rst Maryland, on November 6, 1918, but as the Compigne
generation of rocket-propelled anti-tank weapons used Armistice was signed only ve days later, further develop-
in infantry combat. Featuring a solid rocket motor ment was discontinued. The delay in the development of
for propulsion, it allowed for high-explosive anti-tank the bazooka was as a result of Goddards serious bout with
(HEAT) warheads to be delivered against armored vehi- tuberculosis. Goddard continued to be a part-time con-
cles, machine gun nests, and fortied bunkers at ranges sultant to the US government at Indian Head, Maryland,
beyond that of a standard thrown grenade or mine. The until 1923, but soon turned his focus to other projects in-
Bazooka also red a HESH round, eective against build- volving rocket propulsion. Hickman later became head of
ings and tank armor. The universally applied nickname the National Defense Research Committee in the 1940s
arose from the M1 variants vague resemblance to the mu- where he guided rocket development for the war eort,
sical instrument called a "bazooka" invented and popular- including completing the development of the bazooka.[3]
ized by 1930s U.S. comedian Bob Burns.
During World War II, German armed forces captured
several bazookas in early North African[2] and Eastern
Front encounters and soon reverse engineered their own
version,[2] increasing the warhead diameter to 8.8 cm
(among other minor changes) and widely issuing it as the
21.2 Shaped charge development
Raketenpanzerbchse Panzerschreck (Tank terror).[2]
The term bazooka continues to be used informally as Shaped charge technology was developed in the US into a
a genericized term to refer to any shoulder-red missile shaped charge hand grenade for use by infantry, eective
weapon (mainly rocket propelled grenades). at defeating up to 60 mm (2.4 in) of vehicle armor. The
grenade was standardized as the M10. However, the M10
grenade weighed 3.5 lb (1.6 kg), was dicult to throw by
21.1 Design and development hand, and too heavy to be launched as a rie grenade. The
only practical way to use the weapon was for an infantry-
man to place it directly on the tank, an unlikely means
The development of the bazooka involved the develop-
of delivery in most combat situations. A smaller, less
ment of two specic lines of technology: the rocket-
powerful version of the M10, the M9, was then devel-
powered (recoilless) weapon, and the shaped-charge war-
oped, which could be red from a rie. This resulted in
head. It was also designed for easy maneuverability and
the creation of a series of rie grenade launchers, the M1
access.
(Springeld M1903), the M2 (Eneld M1917), the M7
(M1 Garand), and the M8 (M1 Carbine). However, a
truly capable anti-tank weapon had yet to be found, and
21.1.1 World War I
following the lead of other countries at the time, the U.S.
The Rocket-Powered Recoilless Weapon was the brain- Army prepared to evaluate competing designs [4][5]
for a more
child of Dr. Robert H. Goddard as a side project (under eective man portable anti-tank weapon.
Army contract) of his work on rocket propulsion. God- The combination of rocket motor and shaped charge war-
dard, during his tenure at Clark University, and while head would lead to Army development of light antitank
working at Worcester Polytechnic Institute's magnetics weapons.[6]
119
120 CHAPTER 21. BAZOOKA
21.2.1 Rocket-borne shaped charge and used a launch tube without reinforcements. During
weapons development the war, the M1A1 received a number of running mod-
ications. The battery specication was changed to a
In 1942, U.S. Army Colonel Leslie Skinner received the larger, standard battery cell size, resulting in complaints
M10 shaped-charge grenade which was capable of stop- of batteries getting stuck in the wood shoulder rest (the
ping German tanks. He tasked Lieutenant Edward Uhl compartment was later reamed out to accommodate the
with creating a delivery system for the grenade. Uhl cre- larger cells).[8] This was followed by a new aperture rear
ated a small rocket, but needed to protect the rer from sight and a front rectangular frame sight positioned at
the rocket exhaust and aim the weapon. According to the muzzle. The vertical sides of the frame sight were in-
Uhl, scribed with graduations of 100, 200, and 300 yards. On
the M9, the iron sights were at rst replaced by a plastic
I was walking by this scrap pile, and there optical ring sight, which proved unsatisfactory in service,
was a tube that... happened to be the same frequently turning opaque after a few days exposure to
size as the grenade that we were turning into a sunlight.[9] Later iron sights were hinged to fold against
rocket. I said, Thats the answer! Put the tube the tube when not in use, and were protected by a cover.
on a soldiers shoulder with the rocket inside, The launcher also had an adjustable range scale that pro-
and away it goes.[1] vided graduations from 50 to 700 yards (46 to 640 me-
ters) in 50-yard (46 m) increments. An additional strap
iron shoulder brace was tted to the launcher, along with
various types of blast deectors.
The bazooka required special care when used in tropical
or arctic climates or in severe dust or sand conditions.
Rockets were not to be red at temperatures below 0 F
or above 120 F (18 C to +49 C).[10]
21.2.2 Field experience induced changes
In 1943, eld reports of rockets sticking and prematurely

detonating in M1A1 launch tubes were received by Army
The M1 Bazooka Ordnance at Ogden Arsenal and other production facili-
ties. At the US Armys Aberdeen Proving Grounds, var-
By late 1942, the improved Rocket Launcher, M1A1 ious metal collars and wire wrapping were used on the
was introduced. The forward hand grip was deleted, and sheet metal launch tube in an eort to reinforce it. How-
the design simplied. The production M1A1 was 54 ever, reports of premature detonation continued until the
inches (1.37 m) long and weighed only 12.75 pounds (5.8 development of bore slug test gauges to ensure that the
kg). rocket did not catch inside the launch tube.[11]
The ammunition for the original M1 launcher was the The original M6 and M6A1 rockets used in the M1 and
M6, which was notoriously unreliable. The M6 was im- M1A1 launchers had a pointed nose, which was found to
proved and designated M6A1, and the new ammunition cause deection from the target at low impact angles. In
was issued with the improved M1A1 launcher. After the late 1943, another 2.36-in rocket type was adopted, the
M6, several alternative warheads were introduced. The M6A3, for use with the newly standardized M9 rocket
2.36-inch Smoke Rocket M10 and its improved subvari- launcher.[4] The M6A3 was 19.4 inches (493 mm) long,
ants (M10A1, M10A2, M10A4) used the rocket motor and weighed 3.38 lb (1.53 kg). It had a blunted, more
and n assembly of the M6A1, but replaced the anti-tank round nose to improve target eect at low angles, and a
warhead with a white phosphorus (WP) smoke head. WP new circular n assembly to improve ight stability. The
smoke not only acts as a visible screen, but its burning M6A3 was capable of penetrating 3.5 to 4 inches (89 to
particles can cause burns on human skin. The M10 was 102mm) of armor plate.
therefore used to mark targets, to blind enemy gunners Battery problems in the early bazookas eventually re-
or vehicle drivers, or to drive troops out of bunkers and
sulted in replacement of the battery-powered ignition sys-
dugouts.[7] The 2.36-Inch Incendiary Rocket T31 was an tem with a magneto sparker system operated through the
M10 variant with an incendiary warhead designed to ig- trigger. A trigger safety was incorporated into the design
nite res in enemy-held structures and unarmored vehi- that isolated the magneto, preventing misres that could
cles, or to destroy combustible supplies, ammunition, and
occur when the trigger was released and the stored charge
materiel; it was not often utilized. prematurely red the rocket. The nal major change
The original M1 and M1A1 rocket launchers were was the division of the launch tube into two discrete sec-
equipped with a simple rear sight and xed front sight, tions, with bayonet-joint attachments. This was done to
21.3. OPERATIONAL USE 121
make the weapon more convenient to carry, particularly

for use by airborne forces. The nal two-piece launcher
was standardized as the M9A1. However, the long list of
incorporated modications increased the launchers tube
length to 61 inches (1.55 m), with an overall empty weight
of 14.3 lb (6.5 kg). From its original conception as a
relatively light, handy, and disposable weapon, the nal
M9A1 launcher had become a heavy, clumsy, and rela-
tively complex piece of equipment.[9]
In October 1944, after receiving reports of inadequate
combat eect of the M1A1 and M9 launchers and their
M6A1 rockets, and after examining captured exam-
ples of the German 8.8 cm RPzB 43 and RPzB 54
Panzerschreck, the US Ordnance Corps began develop-
ment on a new, more powerful anti-tank rocket launcher,
A U.S. soldier res an M9 bazooka at a German machine gun
the 3.5-inch M20. However, the weapons design was not nest, Lucca 1944.
completed until after the war and saw no action against
an enemy until Korea.[12]
In 1945, the U.S. Armys Chemical Warfare Service stan- M1A1 bazooka (using an improved rocket, the M6A1)
dardized improved chemical warfare rockets intended for were used in combat by US forces. The M1A1 accounted
the new M9 and M9A1 launchers, adopting the M26 Gas for four medium German tanks and a heavy Tiger I,
Rocket, a cyanogen chloride (CK)-lled warhead for the with the latter being knocked out by a freak hit through
2.36-in rocket launcher.[13] CK, a deadly blood agent, the drivers vision slot.[12] A major disadvantage to the
was capable of penetrating the protective lter barriers bazooka was the large backblast and smoke trail (in colder
in some gas masks,[14] and was seen as an eective agent weather), which gave away the position of the shooter,
against Japanese forces (particularly those hiding in caves mandating quick relocation of the squad. Moreover, the
or bunkers), whose gas masks lacked the impregnants bazooka re team often had to expose their bodies in or-
that would provide protection against the chemical reac- der to obtain a clear eld of re against an armored tar-
tion of CK.[13][15][16] While stockpiled in US inventory, get. Casualties among bazooka team members were ex-
the CK rocket was never deployed or issued to combat tremely high during the war , and assignment to such duty
personnel.[13] in the face of German counterre was typically regarded
by other platoon members as not only highly dangerous,
but nearly suicidal .
21.3 Operational use When the existence of the bazooka was revealed to the
American public ocial press releases for the rst two
years stated that it packed the wallop of a 155mm
21.3.1 World War II cannona great exaggeration, but widely accepted by
the American public at the time.[18]
Secretly introduced via the Russian front and in Novem-
ber 1942 during Operation Torch, early production ver- In late 1942, numbers of early-production American M1
sions of the M1 launcher and M6 rocket were hastily sup- bazookas were captured by German troops from Russian
plied to some of the U.S. invasion forces during the land- forces who had been given quantities of the bazooka un-
ings in North Africa. On the night before the landings, der Lend-Lease as well as during the Operation Torch in-
Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower was shocked to discover vasions in the North African Campaign.[2] The Germans
from a subordinate that none of his troops had received promptly developed their own version of the weapon, in-
any instruction in the use of the bazooka.[17] creasing the diameter of the warhead from 60 mm to
88 mm (2.4 to 3.5 in). In German service, the bazooka
Initially supplied with the highly unreliable M6 rocket and was popularly known as the Panzerschreck. The German
without training, the M1 did not play a signicant armed weapon, with its larger, more powerful warhead, had sig-
role in combat in the North African ghting,[12] but did nicantly greater armor penetration; ironically, calls for
provide a German intelligence coup[2] when some were a larger-diameter warhead had also been raised by some
captured by the Germans in early encounters with inex- ordnance ocers during U.S. trials of the M1, but were
perienced US troops. A US general visiting the Tunisian rejected. After participating in an armor penetration test
front in 1943 after the close of combat operations could involving a German Panther tank using both the Raketen-
not nd any soldiers who could report that the weapon panzerbchse, or RPzB 54 Panzerschreck and the U.S.
had actually stopped an enemy tank.[12] Further issue of M9 bazooka, Corporal Donald E. Lewis of the U.S. Army
the bazooka was suspended in May 1943. informed his superiors that the Panzerschreck was far su-
During the Allied invasion of Sicily, small numbers of the perior to the American bazooka": I was so favorably im-
pressed [by the Panzerschreck] I was ready to take after the thin armor plate used by the Japanese and destroyed
the Krauts with their own weapon.[19] the vehicle.[26] Overall, the M1A1, M9, and M9A1 rocket
The M1 bazooka fared much better on the rare occasions launchers were viewed as useful and eective weapons
when it could be used against the much thinner armor during World War II, though they had been primarily
typically tted to the lower sides, underside, and top of employed against enemy emplacements [19]
and xed forti-
enemy tanks. To hit the bottom panel of an enemy tank, cations, not as anti-tank weapons. General Dwight
the bazooka operator had to wait until the tank was sur- Eisenhower later described it as one of the four Tools
mounting a steep hill or other obstruction, while hitting of Victory which won World War II for the Allies (to-
gether with the atom bomb, Jeep and the C-47 Skytrain
the top armor usually necessitated ring the rocket from [27][28]
the upper story of a building or similar elevated position. transport aircraft).
During the 1944 Allied oensive in France, when some
examples of liaison aircraft with the U.S. Army began 21.3.2 Korean War
to be experimentally eld-armed, and were already y-
ing with pairs or quartets of the American ordnance[20] The success of the more powerful German Panzerschreck
and most notably used during the Battle of Arracourt caused the bazooka to be completely redesigned at the
Major Charles Bazooka Charlie Carpenter mounted close of World War II. A larger, 3.5 in (90 mm) model
a battery of three M9 bazookas on the wing-to-fuselage was adopted, the M20 Super Bazooka. Though bear-
struts on each side of his L-4 Grasshopper aircraft in or- ing a supercial resemblance to the Panzerschreck, the
der to attack enemy armor, and was credited with de- M20 had greater eective range, penetrating capability
stroying six enemy tanks, including two Tiger I heavy and was nearly 20% lighter than its German counterpart.
tanks.[21][22] The M20 weighed 14.3 pounds (6.5 kg) and red a hol-
Despite the introduction of the M9 bazooka with its low shaped-charge 9 lb (4 kg) M28A2 HEAT rocket when
more powerful rocketthe M6A3in late 1943, reports used in an anti-tank role. It was also operated by a two-
of the weapons eectiveness against enemy armor de- man team and had a claimed rate of re of six shots per
creased alarmingly in the latter stages of World War II, minute. As with its predecessor, the M20 could also
as new German tanks with thicker and better-designed re rockets with either practice (M29A2) or WP smoke
cast armor plate and armor skirts/spaced armor were in- (T127E3/M30) warheads. Having learned from experi-
troduced. This development forced bazooka operators to ence of the sensitivity of the bazooka and its ammunition
target less well-protected areas of the vehicle, such as the to moisture and harsh environments, the ammunition for
tracks, drive sprockets, bogey wheels, or rear engine com- the new weapon was packaged in moisture-resistant pack-
partment. In a letter dated May 20, 1944, Gen. George aging, and the M20s eld manual contained extensive
S. Patton stated to a colleague that the purpose of the instructions on launcher lubrication and maintenance, as
bazooka is not to hunt tanks oensively, but to be used as well as storage of rocket ammunition.[29][30] When pre-
a last resort in keeping tanks from overrunning infantry. pared for shipment from the arsenal, the weapon was pro-
To insure this, the range should be held to around 30 tected by antifungal coatings over all electrical contacts,
yards.[12] The extreme diculty of closing to grenade- in addition to a cosmoline coating in the hand-operated
throwing distances unnoticed before hitting small spot magneto that ignited the rocket. Upon issue, these coat-
targets on an enemy tank helps explain the high mortality ings were removed with solvent to ready the M20 for ac-
rate of men assigned to anti-tank rocket launcher duty. tual ring.
In the Pacic campaign, as in North Africa, the orig-
inal bazookas sent to combat often had reliability is-
sues. The battery-operated ring circuit was easily dam-
aged during rough handling, and the rocket motors of-
ten failed because of high temperatures and exposure to
moisture, salt air, or humidity. With the introduction A 3.5 inch bazooka rocket loader training projectile.
of the M1A1 and its more reliable rocket ammunition,
the bazooka was eective against some xed Japanese Budget cutbacks initiated by Secretary of Defense Louis
infantry emplacements such as small concrete bunkers A. Johnson in the years following World War II eec-
and pill boxes.[23][24] Against coconut and sand emplace- tively canceled the intended widespread issue of the M20,
ments, the weapon was not always eective, as these and initial US forces deploying to Korea were armed
softer structures often reduced the force of the warheads solely with the M9/M9A1 2.36-in. launcher and old
impact enough to prevent detonation of the explosive stockpiled World War II inventories of M6A3 rocket
charge.[25] Later in the Pacic war, most infantry and ammunition. During the initial stages of the Korean
marine units often used the M2 amethrower to attack War, complaints resurfaced over the ineectiveness of
such emplacements.[25] In the few instances in the Pa- the 2.36-inch M9 and M9A1 against Soviet-supplied en-
cic where the bazooka was used against tanks and ar- emy armor. In one notable incident, infantry blocking
mored vehicles, the rockets warhead easily penetrated forces of the US Armys Task Force Smith were over-
21.4. VARIANTS 123
run by 33 North Korean T-34/85 tanks despite repeat- 21.4.2 Rocket Launcher, M1A1
edly ring 2.36 inch rockets into the rear engine com- Bazooka
partments of the vehicles.[31][32] Additionally, Ordnance
authorities received numerous combat reports regarding Improved electrical system
the failure of the M6A3 warhead to properly detonate
upon impact, eventually traced to inventories of rocket Simplied design
ammunition that had deteriorated from numerous years Used the M6A1 rocket
of storage in humid or salt air environments. Supplies of
3.5- in M20 launchers with M28A2 HEAT rocket ammu- Forward hand grip deleted.
nition were hurriedly airlifted from the United States to
South Korea, where they proved very eective against the Contact box removed.
[33]
T-34 and other Soviet tanks. Large numbers of 2.36-
inch Bazooka that were captured during the Chinese Civil
War were also employed by the Chinese forces against the
21.4.3 Rocket Launcher, M9 Bazooka
American Sherman and Patton tanks,[34] and the Chinese Optical reector sight the M9 and M9A1 featured
later reverse engineered and produced a copy of the M20 the D7161556 folding Reecting Sight Assembly.
designated the Type 51.[35]
Reinforced launch tube
Metal Furniture
21.3.3 Vietnam War
Used the improved M6A3 rocket
The M20 Super Bazooka was used in the early stages
of the war in Vietnam by the US Marines before grad- Could penetrate up to 4 inches (102 mm) of armor
ually being phased out of in favor of the M67 recoilless
Supplanted M1A1 in 1944
rie and later, the M72 LAW rocket.[36] While occasions
to destroy enemy armored vehicles proved exceedingly Could be disassembled into two halves for easier
rare, it was employed against enemy fortications and carrying.[39]
emplacements with success. The M20 remained in ser-
vice with South Vietnamese and indigenous forces until
the late 1960s. 21.4.4 Rocket Launcher, M9A1
The Vietnam Peoples Army also developed their own Bazooka
bazooka under the management of Tran Dai Nghia. It
Battery ignition replaced by trigger magneto.
was successfully test-red in 1947.[37][38]
21.4.5 Rocket Launcher, M18 Bazooka

21.3.4 Other conicts
Experimental
Portuguese defense forces used quantities of M9A1 and
M20 rocket launchers in their overseas departments Aluminum alloy
in Africa against Marxist guerrilla forces during the Weight of 10.5 lbs
Portuguese Colonial Wars. The French Army also used
the M1A1, M9A1, and M20 launchers in various cam- Ordered late summer 1945, canceled at war end.
paigns in Indochina and Algeria.
21.4.6 Rocket Launcher, M20 Super

Bazooka
21.4 Variants
Larger 3.5 in (88.9 mm) calibre warhead (Panzer-
21.4.1 Rocket Launcher, M1 Bazooka schreck was 88mm calibre)
Could penetrate up to 11 inches (280 mm) of armor
First issued June 14, 1942 by Capt. L.A. Skinner
Extended range by about 150 m
Used the M6 rocket
Originally a larger version of the M9A1, designated
M20 in late 1944.
Could penetrate up to 3 inches (76 mm) of armor.
Entered active service just before the start of the
Velocity of 265fps (80.77 m/s, 180 mph) Korean War.
21.4.13 88.9mm Instalaza M65

Developed by Instalaza for use by the Spanish Army,
the M65 was an improved version of the M20 Su-
per Bazooka. It used an improved ignition method
and new ammunition types.[43] The available ammu-
nition used were the CHM65 (High-Explosive Anti-
Tank), MB66 (Dual-Purpose), and FIM66 (Smoke)
Super Bazooka (mislabeled SAM-7 shoulder-launched anti- shells.
aircraft missile) in Batey ha-Osef Museum, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
21.5 Specications
21.4.7 Rocket Launcher, M20A1 Super
Bazooka 21.5.1 M1
Product improved variant with improved connector Length: 54 in (137 cm)
latch assembly, entering production in 1952[40]
Caliber: 2.36 in (57 mm)
Improved version of the M20
Weight: 13 lb (5.9 kg)
Warhead: M6 shaped charge (3.5 lb, 1.59 kg)
21.4.8 Rocket Launcher, M20B1 Super
Bazooka Range
Maximum: 400 yards (370 m)
Lightweight version with barrels made of cast alu-
minum, other components simplied Eective: (claimed) 150 yards (140 m)
Crew: 2, operator and loader
Used as a supplement to the M20
21.5.2 M1A1
21.4.9 Rocket Launcher, M20A1B1 Su-
per Bazooka Length: 54 in (137 cm)
M20B1 upgraded with M20A1 improvements Caliber: 2.36 in (57 mm)

Weight: 12.75 lb (5.8 kg)
21.4.10 Rocket Launcher, M25 Three Warhead: M6A1 shaped charge (3.5 lb, 1.59 kg)
Shot Bazooka Range
Experimental tripod mounted rocket launcher with Maximum: 400 yards (370 m)
overhead magazine circa 1955.[41] Eective: (claimed) 150 yards (140 m)
Crew: 2, operator and loader
21.4.11 RL-83 Blindicide
RL-83 Blindicide an improved Bazooka design
21.5.3 M9/M9A1
of Belgian origin. Used by Belgian forces during Length: 61 in (155 cm)
the Congo Crisis and by the Swiss Army, Mexi-
can Army and Israeli Army and various other armed Caliber: 2.36 in (57 mm)
forces.
Weight: 14.3 lb (6.5 kg)
Warhead: M6A3/C shaped charge (3.5 lb, 1.59 kg)
21.4.12 3.5 in HYDROAR M20A1B1
Rocket Launcher Range
Maximum: 400500 yards (370460 m)
Brazil, manufactured by Hydroar SA improved
Eective: (claimed) 120 yards (110 m)
3.5 M20A1B1 with US designed hand grip magneto
trigger replaced with one with solid state ring cir- Crew: 2, operator and loader (M9) or 1, opera-
cuit powered by two AA batteries.[42] tor+loader (M9A1)
21.7. SEE ALSO 125
21.5.4 M20A1/A1B1 Luxembourg
Length (when assembled for ring): 60 in (1,524 Malaysia

mm)
Mexico: replaced by M72 LAW
Caliber: 3.5 in (90 mm)
Myanmar
Weight (unloaded): M20A1: 14.3 lb (6.5 kg);
M20A1B1: 13 lb (5.9 kg)
Netherlands
Warhead: M28A2 HEAT (9 lb) or T127E3/M30
WP (8.96 lb) Pakistan
Range Paraguay
Maximum: 1000 yd (913 m) Philippines
Eective (stationary target/moving target):
300 yd (270 m) / 200 yd (180 m) Portugal
Crew: 2, operator and loader Rhodesia
South Africa
21.6 Users
Soviet Union
Argentina: Super Bazooka, replaced by AT4
Spain M65 - improved Spanish design.
Austria: replaced by Carl Gustav recoilless rie
Sweden: as Raketgevr 46, replaced by the Carl
Brazil[42] Gustav recoilless rie
Bolivia HEAT and HE versions. Thailand: as . 3.5 in Royal Thai Army,

replaced by Type 69 RPG
Cambodia
Canada Tunisia
Peoples Republic of China: large numbers of Turkey

2.36-inch bazookas were captured by the Chinese
Communists during the Chinese Civil War,[34] and United Kingdom
China also copied the 3.5-inch as the Type 51
with a projectile 90mm in diameter. The Type 51 United States
can re captured 3.5-inch projectiles (i.e. 90 mm),
but 3.5-inch Super Bazookas cannot load projectiles
made for the Type 51.
21.7 See also
Republic of China
List of U.S. Army weapons by supply catalog desig-
Cyprus nation (Group B)
France M72 LAW
West Germany Rocket-propelled grenade
Greece PIAT
Indonesia
Panzerfaust
India
Panzerschreck
Japan: JGSDF used Super Bazooka, replaced
by the Carl Gustav recoilless rie Lieutenant Colonel Charles Carpenter, who used
them from a liaison aircraft to knock out Wehrmacht
Republic of Korea tanks in 194445
21.8 References [24] Harclerode, Peter (2005), Wings of WarAirborne War-

fare 19181945, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, pp. 33233,
[1] Scales, Robert (May 31, 2010), Edward Uhl, Time. ISBN 0-304-36730-3.
[2] MC 2008; with cheap cost per use and which any 'farm [25] Kleber & Birdsell 2001, pp. 54954.
peasant can be trained to re, the AT4 CS is the modern- [26] Green, Michael (2004), Weapons of the Modern Marines,
day descendant of the Bazooka (paraphrased conclusion). Zenith Imprint Press, p. 45, ISBN 978-0-7603-1697-9.
[3] Mike Gruntman (30 July 2004). Blazing the Trail: The [27] The US Forces included Navy, Army, Army Air Force
Early History of Spacecraft and Rocketry. American In- and Marine Corps. Digger history. Archived from the
stitute of Aeronautics & Ast. p. 178. ISBN 978- original on 12 December 2008. Retrieved 2008-11-19.
1563477058.
[28] Douglas VC-47A Skytrain DC-3. Aircraft. March eld.
[4] BS 2010. Archived from the original on 3 December 2008. Re-
trieved 2008-11-19.
[5] Green & Green 2000, pp. 3637.
[29] TM 9-297, 3.5-inch Rocket Launchers M20 and M20B1
[6] Zaloga, Steven J (2005), US Anti-tank Artillery 194145, (technical manual), Department of the Army, 10 August
Oxford: Osprey, p. 8. 1950, pp. 3135, 8688.
[7] Smith, Carl (2000), US Paratrooper, 194145, Osprey, p. [30] TM 9-1055-201-12, Launcher, Rocket, 3.5-in M20A1 and
63, ISBN 978-1-85532-842-6. M20A1 B1 (technical manual), Washington, DC: Depart-
ment of the Army, August 1968, p. 39.
[8] Dunlap 1948, pp. 3045.
[31] Fukumitsu, Keith K, No More Task Force Smiths, Pro-
[9] Dunlap 1948, pp. 304.
fessional bulletin (US: Army).
[10] TM 9-294: 2.36-inch A.T. Rocket Launcher M1A1, US [32] former members of Task Force Smith (1985), To Presi-
War Department, Sep 1943. dent Reagan on failure of 2.36 inch bazooka (letter).
[11] Keith, Elmer (1979), Hell, I Was There, Petersen Publish- [33] Blair, Clay (2003), The Forgotten War: America in Korea,
ing, pp. 18491, ISBN 978-0-8227-3014-9. 19501953, Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, ISBN
1-59114-075-7.
[12] Green & Green 2000, pp. 3839.
[34] Appleman, Roy (1989). Disaster in Korea: The Chinese
[13] Smart, Jerey (1997), 2, History of Chemical and Bi-
Confront MacArthur. Military History 11. College Sta-
ological Warfare: An American Perspective, Aberdeen,
tion, Texas: Texas A and M University. pp. 1718, 118,
MD, USA: Army Chemical and Biological Defense Com-
188, 120, 190. ISBN 978-1-60344-128-5.
mand, p. 32.
[35] Archer, Denis HR (1976), Infantry Weapons, Jane, p.
[14] http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ershdb/ 572, ISBN 0-531-03255-8.
EmergencyResponseCard_29750039.html
[36] The U.S. Army had transitioned to the M67 recoilless rie
[15] Characteristics and Employment of Ground Chemical prior to deploying units to Vietnam
Munitions, Field Manual 3-5, Washington, DC: War De-
partment, 1946, pp. 10819. [37] K nim 100 nm ngy sinh ca c GS. VS Trn i
Ngha (100th birth anniversary of the late Professor. VS
[16] Skates, John R (2000), The Invasion of Japan: Alternative Tran Dai Nghia)" (in Vietnamese). Bo in t Qun
to the Bomb, University of South Carolina Press, pp. 93 i nhn dn (Peoples Army Newspaper Online). 13
96, ISBN 978-1-57003-354-4 September 2013.
[17] Green & Green 2000, p. 38. [38] Chuyn cha k v Gio s Vin s Trn i Ngha (The
Untold Story of Academician Prof. Tran Dai Nghia)".
[18] Popular Mechanics, January 1944.
Phunutoday (in Vietnamese). 24 January 2012.
[19] Green & Green 2000, p. 39. [39] Guzmn, Julio S (April 1953), Las Armas Modernas de
[20] Francis, Devon E., Mr. Piper and His Cubs, Iowa State Infantera (in Spanish).
University Press, ISBN 0-8138-1250-X, 9780813812502 [40] Contactor latch assembly standardized (JPEG), Preven-
(1973), p. 117 tative Maintenance Monthly (William Bill Ricca), Nov
1952.
[21] Whats New in Aviation, Popular Science 146 (2),
February 1945: 84 |chapter= ignored (help). [41] Military Review (Jane), Fourth, 4/1/1985: 81, ISBN 0-
7106-0334-7 Check date values in: |date= (help); Missing
[22] Carpenter, Leland F, Piper L-4J Grasshopper, Aviation
or empty |title= (help).
Enthusiast Corner, Aero Web, retrieved 21 October 2011.
[42] J 1996, p. 300.
[23] Rottman, Gordon L (2007), US Airborne Units in the
Pacic Theater 194245, Osprey, p. 43, ISBN 978-1- [43] Spain - M65 Anti-Tank Rocket Launcher. Tanks.Net.
84603-128-1. Retrieved 23 June 2013.
21.9 Bibliography
Infantry Anti-Tank Weapons, Bayonet strength,
150m.
Dunlap, Roy F (1948), Ordnance Went Up Front,
Samworth Press.
Green, Michael; Green, Gladys (2000), Weapons of

Pattons Armies, Zenith Imprint Press, ISBN 978-0-
7603-0821-9.
Infantry Weapons, Jane, 199596.
Kleber, Brooks E; Birdsell, Dale (2001-12-12)

[1966], XIV. The Flame Thrower In The Pacic:
Guadalcanal to the Marshall Islands, The Chemical
Warfare Service: Chemicals in Combat (online ed.),
Washington, DC, USA: Oce of the Chief of Mil-
itary History, Department of the Army.
"Grenades through RPGs", Weaponology (pro-

gramme), Military Channel, 2008-11-18.

How the Bazooka Team Stops Them , Decem-
ber 1943, Popular Science article on the early M1
Bazooka with rare photos
3.5 inch Super Bazooka instructions - 1965 Marine
Guide Book Manual
Anti-Tank Rocket M6 Bazooka

90th Infantry Division Preservation Group page on
Bazookas and Equipment
New GI Weapons, October 1950, Popular Science
see pages 98 and 99
Chapter 22
M47 Dragon
The M47 Dragon, known as the FGM-77 during de- The principles of ight and guidance were interesting.
velopment, is an American shoulder-red, man-portable The rst oddity was the delay between snapping the trig-
anti-tank missile system. It was phased out of U.S. mil- ger and the ignition of the launch motor. This was due to
itary service in 2001, in favor of the newer FGM-148 a chemical battery charging the initiator circuit (the oper-
Javelin system.[4] ator could hear a rising whine similar to the whine made
The M47 Dragon uses a wire-guidance system in concert by early integrated ash cameras when charging the ash
circuit). This usually led to the operator tensing up in an-
with a high explosive anti-tank warhead and was capa-
ble of defeating armored vehicles, fortied bunkers, main ticipation of the sudden explosion from the launcher that
he knew was coming. The missile was discharged from
battle tanks, and other hardened targets. While it was pri-
marily created to defeat the Soviet Union's T-55, T-62, the launcher tube by a launch motor, which was a rocket
and T-72 tanks, it saw use well into the 1990s, seeing motor that completely expended itself within the tube so
action in the Persian Gulf War. The U.S. military o- as not to injure the operator with exhaust gas. The missile
cially retired the weapon in 2001, although stocks of the coasted away from the operator and a burning infrared
weapon remain in U.S. arsenals. are was ignited at the rear of the missile.
After the missile was about 3050 meters from the gun-
ner, the missile was propelled forward and guided towards
the target by 3 rows of rocket propellants aligned longi-
22.1 History tudinally along the missile body. The rocket spiraled as
it moved forward, and the rocket propellants were red
in pairs to move the missile forward as well as keep the
missile on target. These were activated by the sight con-
troller which sent signals from the sight mechanism to the
missile along the wire which spooled out behind the mis-
sile and remained connected to the sight. The operator
kept the sight crosshairs on the target; the sight tracked
the infrared are and sent corrections to the missile ser-
vice motor to bring the ight of the missile to the aim
point. The service charges were red as needed both to
keep the missile correcting toward the aim point and to
keep it up and moving forward. A missile moving towards
a stationary target and tracked by a steady gunner would
re the rockets about every .5 to 1 second, resulting in its
signature 'popping' sound as it moved downrange. If the
operator over-corrected his aim point beyond the service
U.S. Army soldiers in October 1983, armed with the M47 Dragon motors capability to keep up, the missile grounded itself.
during the Invasion of Grenada. Conversely, if the guidance wire broke, the missile would
re its rockets rapidly, sending the missile into a rapid as-
Used by the U.S. Army, the U.S. Marine Corps, as well as cent. This was a recoilless weaponthe launcher did not
many foreign militaries, the M47 Dragon was rst elded kick per se when redbut the sudden loss of the 30 lb
in January 1975 to U.S. Army soldiers stationed in main- missile weight from the shoulder caused many soldiers to
land Europe.[5] The eective range of the Dragon was inch badly enough to lose track of the target, resulting
about 1000 meters, with the missile traveling 100 meters in a missile grounding.
per second, guided by an infrared sight. The operator
The M47 Dragon was not particularly popular with U.S.
had to continue to track the missile to its target, which
soldiers. Because of the missiles relatively short range
exposed him to enemy re.
128
22.4. USERS 129
22.4 Users
A U.S. Army soldier ring M47 Dragon.
and signature 'popping' sound as the missile was propelled

towards the target, M47 Dragon crews were expected to
take heavy casualties in the event of hostilities between
the United States and the Soviet Union. A Swiss Army M47 Dragon on display in October 2006.
Iran[7]
22.2 Variants Iraq: Acquired M47 Dragons captured from
Iran.[2]
22.2.1 Dragon II Israel[7]
Designed and upgraded from Dragon in 1985 when its Jordan[7]
penetration eectiveness was increased.
Morocco[7]
Netherlands:[7] Was replaced by the Spike in
22.2.2 Super-Dragon August 2001.[8]
Upgraded from Dragon II in 1990, it was capable of pen- Saudi Arabia

etrating 18 inches (450 mm) of armor at a maximum ef- Spain:[7] Phased out of service, being replaced
fective range of 1,500 meters. by the Spike.[8]
Switzerland[7]
22.2.3 Saeghe
Thailand[7]
Iran has reverse-engineered a version of the Dragon, the United States:[7] Since replaced by the FGM-
Saeghe. They displayed it in 2002 at the Defendory ex- 148 Javelin.
hibition in Athens, when it was in mass production.[3]
Hezbollah has acquired Saeghes for anti-tank and anti-
armor uses.[6] 22.5 See also
Known versions include Saeghe-1 and Saeghe-2.[3]
FGM-148 Javelin
BGM-71 TOW
22.3 Components
Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon
(SMAW)
The launcher system of the M47 Dragon consists of
a smoothbore berglass tube, breech/gas generator, SRAW
tracker, bipod, battery, sling, and forward and aft shock
ERYX
absorbers. In order to re the weapon, non-integrated day
or night sights must be attached. While the launcher itself List of U.S. Army Rocket Launchers By Model
is expendable, the sights can be removed and reused. Number
130 CHAPTER 22. M47 DRAGON
22.6 References
[1] M47 Dragon. 2008-01-19. Retrieved 2009-01-11.
[2] M-47 DRAGON Anti-Tank Guided Missile.

Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved 2009-01-
11.
[3] Archived May 8, 2003 at the Wayback Machine
[4] Figueroa, Jose (November 21, 2000). School of In-

fantry students shoot the works, herald new antitank era.
Marines. Retrieved December 30, 2012.
[5] Anti-Tank Missiles: M47 Dragon. Olive-Drab. Re-

trieved 2009-01-11.
[6] Riad Kahwaji (2006-08-20). Arab States Eye Better

Spec Ops, Missiles. Ocus.net. Retrieved 2009-01-10.
[7] Jones, Richard D. Janes Infantry Weapons 2009/2010.

Janes Information Group; 35 edition (January 27, 2009).
ISBN 978-0-7106-2869-5.
[8] Spike Anti-Armour Missile Systems, Israel. Army

Technology. Retrieved 2009-01-20.
22.7 External links

McDonnell-Douglas FGM-77 Dragon Designa-
tion Systems
Comal citizen nds M47 Dragon missile launcher in

the wood
Iranian Copies of the TOW and DRAGON

Chapter 23
BGM-71 TOW
The BGM-71 TOW ("Tube-launched, Optically tracked, nozzles amidships and propels the missile from the tube,
Wire-guided)[1] is an anti-tank missile. First produced at which point four wings indexed at 45 degrees just for-
in 1970, the TOW is one of the most widely used anti- ward of the booster nozzles spring open forwards, four
tank guided missiles.[2] tail control surfaces ip open rearwards, and sustained
propulsion is subsequently provided by the ight motor.
An optical sensor on the sight continuously monitors the
23.1 Design and development position of a light source on the missile relative to the
line-of-sight, and then corrects the trajectory of the mis-
sile by generating electrical signals that are passed down
two wires to command the control surface actuators.[4]
A U.S. Army soldier in 1964, with the rst concept mock-up of

Redstone Arsenals purposed future HAW system (Heavy Anti-
A TOW missile on display at the White Sands Missile Range Mu-
tank Weapon). The HAW ultimately resulted in the modern-day
seum.
TOW.
Initially developed by Hughes Aircraft between 1963 and The TOW missile was continually upgraded, with an im-
1968, the XBGM-71A was designed for both ground and proved TOW missile (ITOW) appearing in 1978 that had
heli-borne applications. In 1997, Raytheon Co. pur- a new warhead triggered by a long probe, which was ex-
chased Hughes Electronics from General Motors Cor- tended after launch, that gave a stand-o distance of 15
poration, so development and production of TOW sys- in (380 mm) for improved armor penetration. The 1983
tems now comes under the Raytheon brand.[3] The BGM- TOW 2 featured a larger 5.9 kg (13 lb) warhead with a
71 TOW wire-guided heavy anti-tank missile is pro- 21.25 in (540 mm) extensible probe, improved guidance
duced by Raytheon Systems Company. The weapon and a motor that provided around 30% more thrust.[5]
is used in anti-armor, anti-bunker, anti-fortication and This was followed by the TOW 2A/B which appeared in
anti-amphibious landing roles. The TOW is in service 1987.
with over 45 militaries and is integrated on over 15,000 Hughes developed a TOW missile with a wireless data
ground, vehicle and helicopter platforms worldwide. link in 1989, referred to as TOW-2N, but this weapon
In its basic infantry form, the system comprises a missile was not adopted for use by the U.S. military. Raytheon
in a sealed tube which is clipped to a launch tube prior to continued to develop improvements to the TOW line, but
use. When required, the missile tube is attached to the its FOTT (Follow-On To TOW) program was canceled in
rear of the launch tube, the target sighted and the mis- 1998, and its TOW-FF (TOW-Fire and Forget) program
sile red. The launch motor (booster) res through lateral was cut short on 30 November 2001 because of funding
131
132 CHAPTER 23. BGM-71 TOW
limitations.[6] In 2001 and 2002, Raytheon and the U.S.

Army worked together on an extended range TOW 2B
variant, initially referred to as TOW-2B (ER), but now
called TOW-2B Aero which has a special nose cap that
increases range to 10,000 meters. Although this missile
has been in production since 2004, no U.S. Army desig-
nation has yet been assigned. Also, a wireless version of
the TOW-2B Aero was developed that uses stealth one
way radio link, called TOW-2B Aero RF.
The TOW missile in its current variations is not a re-
and-forget weapon, and like most second generation wire-
guided missiles has Semi-Automatic Command Line of
Sight guidance. This means that the guidance system is A U.S. Army M1134 Stryker ATGM carrier at the Yakima Train-
directly linked to the platform, and requires that the tar- ing Center res a TOW missile in May 2011.
get be kept in the shooters line of sight until the missile
impacts. This has been the major impetus to develop ei-
ther a re-and-forget version of the system or to develop
quite bulky. The updated M151 launcher was upgraded
a successor with this ability.
to include thermal optics to allow night time usage, and
In October 2012, Raytheon received a contract to pro- had been simplied to reduce weight. The M220 was
duce 6,676 TOW (wireless-guided) missiles for the U.S. specically developed to handle the TOW-2 series.
military. Missiles that will be produced include the
TOW systems have also been developed for vehicle spe-
BGM-71E TOW 2A, the BGM-71F TOW 2B, the TOW
[7] cic applications on the M2/M3 Bradley IFV/CFV, the
2B Aero, and the BGM-71H TOW Bunker Buster. By
LAV-AT, the M1134 Stryker ATGM carrier, and the now
2013, the U.S. Marine Corps had retired the air-launched
[8] obsolete M901 ITV (Improved TOW Vehicle); they are
TOW missile.
generally referred to as TOW Under Armor (TUA).
In helicopter applications, the M65 system used by the
23.1.1 Launch platforms AH-1 series is the primary system deployed, but the
XM26 system was developed for the UH-1, and a sys-
tem was put into development for the later canceled AH-
56 helicopter. The TOW has also been used with AH.1
(TOW) and AH.7 variants of Westland Lynx helicopters,
with the attachment of 2 pylons, each carrying four mis-
siles.
The M41 TOW improved target acquisition system
(ITAS) is a block upgrade to the M220 ground/high-
mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV)-
mounted TOW 2 missile system. The TOW ITAS is cur-
rently being elded to airborne, air assault, and light in-
fantry forces throughout the active and reserve compo-
nents of the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps where it
is called the SABER. The ITAS, in addition to providing
better anti-armor capabilities to antitank units, also has
capabilities that make it an integral part of the combined
A TOW missile being red from an M151 MUTT. arms team. Even when organized in heavylight task
forces, where the preponderance of antiarmor capabili-
The TOW is designated as a BGM by the U.S. mili- ties traditionally has resided in the heavy elements, TOW
tary: a multiple launch environment (B) surface attack ITAS-equipped antitank units can not only destroy threat
(G) guided missile (M). The B launch environment pre- targets but also provide superior reconnaissance, surveil-
x is used only when the system can be used essentially lance, and target acquisition (RSTA), rear area protec-
unmodied when launched from a variety of launch plat- tion, and urban operations capabilities.
forms. The TOW ITAS consists of three new line replaceable
The M151 and M220 launchers are used by infantry, but units: the target acquisition subsystem (TAS), the re
can also be mounted on a number of vehicles, including control subsystem (FCS), and the lithium battery box
the M151 jeep, the M113 APC, the M966 HMMWV (LBB); a modied TOW 2 traversing unit; the existing
and the M1045 HMMWV (which replaced the M966). TOW launch tube and tripod; and a TOW Humvee mod-
These launchers are theoretically man-portable, but are ication kit. The TAS integrates into a single housing the
23.2. SERVICE HISTORY 133
direct view optics, a second-generation forward looking 23.2.2 1982 Lebanon War
infrared (FLIR) night vision sight (NVS), missile track-
ers, and a laser rangender. TAS electronics provide The Israel Defense Forces used TOW missiles during the
automatic boresighting for these components, eliminat- 1982 Lebanon War. On 11 July Israeli anti-tank teams
ing both tactical collimation and 180-day verication rearmed with the TOW ambushed Syrian armored forces
quirements. and destroyed 11 Syrian Soviet-made T-72 tanks. This
was probably the rst encounter of the American anti-
tank missile with the newer Soviet tank.[14]
23.2 Service history

23.2.3 1985 IranIraq War
In 1968, a contract for full scale production was awarded In the IranIraq War, the Islamic Republic of Iran Army
to Hughes, and by 1970 the system was being elded by used TOW Missiles purchased before the Iranian Revo-
the U.S. Army. When adopted, the BGM-71 series re- lution, as well as those purchased during the IranContra
placed the M40 106 mm recoilless rie and the MGM-32 aair.
ENTAC missile system then in service. The missile also
Of the 202 AH-1J Internationals (export version of Sea-
replaced the AGM-22B then in service as a heli-borne
Cobra) purchased from US, 62 were TOW-capable. Ira-
anti-tank weapon.
nian helicopters managed to slow down advances of Iraqi
tanks into Iran. During the "dogghts" between Iranian
SeaCobras and Iraqi Mil-24s, Iranians had several kills,
usually using TOW missiles.[15]
23.2.1 Vietnam: rst combat use of TOW
anti-armor missile
23.2.4 1991 Gulf War
On 24 April 1972, the U.S. 1st Combat Aerial TOW Team
arrived in South Vietnam; the teams mission was to test In the Gulf War, both the M2 Bradley Infantry ghting
the new anti-armor missile under combat conditions.[9] vehicle (IFV) and the M3 Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehi-
The team consisted of three crews, technical representa- cle (CFV) carried TOW missiles. The M2 can also carry
tives from Bell Helicopter and Hughes Aircraft, members an additional 7 rounds, while the M3 can carry an addi-
of the United States Army Aviation and Missile Com- tional 12 rounds.[16] Both M2 and M3 Bradley Fighting
mand, and two UH-1B helicopters; each mounting the Vehicles destroyed more Iraqi tanks during the war, than
XM26 TOW weapons system, which had been taken from M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tanks.[17]
storage. After displacing to the Central Highlands for
The British Army also deployed TOW-armed, Westland
aerial gunnery, the unit commenced daily searches for en-
Lynx helicopters to the conict, where they were used to
emy armor.[9] On 2 May 1972, U.S. Army UH-1 Huey
attack Iraqi armoured vehicles.
helicopters ring TOWs destroyed North Vietnamese
tanks near An Loc. This was heralded as the rst time
a U.S. unit neutralized enemy armor using American-
designed and built guided missiles (in this case against 23.2.5 1993 Somalia
an American-made M-41[10] ). On 9 May, elements of
the North Vietnamese Army's 203rd Armored Regiment On 12 July, three months prior to the Battle of Mo-
assaulted Ben Het Camp held by Army of the Republic gadishu, the United Nations and United States decided
of Vietnam Rangers . The Rangers destroyed the rst to put pressure on Mohamed Farrah Aidid by attacking
three PT-76 amphibious light tanks of the 203rd, thereby a meeting of his native Habr Gidr clan under Operation
breaking up the attack.[11][12] During the battle for the Michigan. The Washington Post described the event as
city of Kontum, the TOW missile had proven to be a sig- a slaughter in which a half-dozen AH-1 Cobra attack
nicant weapon in disrupting enemy tank attacks within helicopters red 16 TOW missiles and 2,000 rounds from
the region. By the end of May, BGM-71 TOW missiles their 20 mm cannons into the meeting of the Elders, in-
had accumulated 24 conrmed kills of both PT-76 light tellectuals, poets and religious leaders. The rst TOW
and T-54 main battle tanks.[11][12] missile destroyed the stairs, preventing escape. In the af-
On 19 August, the South Vietnamese 5th Infantry Reg- termath, it was revealed that Aidid was not in the meeting.
iment abandoned Firebase Ross in the Que Son Valley, Admiral Jonathan T. Howe claimed that only 20 people
30 miles southwest of Da Nang, to the North Vietnamese had been killed, as against the Red Cross, which said 54
711th Division. A dozen TOW missiles were left with had died, and Aidids SNA, which produced a list of 73
abandoned equipment and fell into Communist hands.[13] people whom they claimed had been killed.[18]
134 CHAPTER 23. BGM-71 TOW
23.2.6 Other service A BGM-71 TOW-armed Wiesel AWC of the

German Army.
The TOW was used eectively in multiple engagements
during Operation Desert Storm in the 1991 Gulf War. Loading, Iraq 2007.
Several TOW missiles were used by U.S. forces in Iraq, An AH-1W SuperCobra of the Republic of China
in the 22 July 2003 assault that killed Uday and Qusay Army armed with an XM65 launcher and four TOW
Hussein.[19] missiles.
The weapon has been spotted in April 2014 in at least two
A Lynx AH.7 of the Royal Navy tted with TOW
videos that surfaced showing rebels in the Syrian conict
missile launchers.
using BGM-71 TOW, wire-guided, anti-tank missiles, a
weapon previously not seen in use by the opposition.[20]
Such a video, showing a BGM-71E-3B with serial num-
ber removed, can be seen in this episode of the PBS series 23.7 See also
Frontline, at 8:07.
MAPATS
Swingre
23.3 Variants
Euromissile HOT
Raytheon has taken over for Hughes in recent years, and AT-5 Spandrel
now handles production of all current variants, as well as
TOW development. AT-4 Spigot
Original armor penetration estimates were 600 mm for AT-14 Kornet
BGM-71A/B and 700800 mm for BGM-71C. However,
according to a now declassied CIA study, the true pen- Shershen
etration values against a vertical target are much lower M47 Dragon
just 430 mm for basic TOW and 630 mm for Improved
TOW.[23] M72 LAW
Time to target at maximum range is 20 seconds therefore AT4
giving an average speed of 187.5 m/s.[24]
HJ-8
Joint Air to Ground Missile
23.4 International variants
History of UAVs decoys
Iran has reverse engineered and currently manufac- List of U.S. Army Rocket Launchers By Model
tures duplicate TOW missiles. These carry the Ira- Number
nian designation of Toophan[25]
23.8 Notes
23.5 Operators
[1] 4,200m for TOW-2B Aero, 3,750 m for TOW-2B.
23.6 Gallery
23.9 References
Launch, trailing wire is clearly noticeable.
M220 Tripod. [1] Ocial US Army history of TOW (9th paragraph)
[2] M-220 Tube-launched, Optically tracked, Wire-guided

Humvee.
missile (TOW)". fas.org. Retrieved 2 November 2013.
M901 ITV. [3] Augusta Chronicle http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/
1997/01/17/biz_202677.shtml
Greek TOW on the ground.
[4] Gunston, p. 156.
Greek soldiers manning a TOW unit.
[5] Gunston, p. 157.
The sight on an Hellenic Army BGM-71 TOW.
[6] globalsecurity.org 2001 scal year military budget. Re-
A ground-mounted TOW system. trieved on 3 August 2009.
23.10. SOURCES 135
[7] Raytheon awarded $349 million U.S. Army contract for 23.10 Sources
TOW missiles PRNewswire.com, 8 October 2012
The TOW Family
[8] TOW Fades Strategypage.com, 25 September 2013
TOW Improved Target Acquisition System (ITAS)
[9] Starry p. 215
The TOW Anti-Tank Missile in Vietnam
[10] Kontum: The Battle to Save South Vietnam / Thomas P.
McKenna Dunstan, Simon (1982). Vietnam Tracks-Armor in
Battle. Osprey Publications. ISBN 0-89141-171-2.
[11] Starry p. 215217
Gunston, Bill (1983). An Illustrated Guide to Mod-
[12] Dunstan ern Airborne Missiles. London: Salamander Books
Ltd. ISBN 0-86101-160-0.
[13] U.S. conrms enemy captured secret missiles. Washing-
ton Post News Service 22 August 1972 Starry, Donn A. General. Mounted Combat in Viet-
nam. Vietnam Studies; Department of the Army.
[14] , " , First printed 1978-CMH Pub 90-17.
, ," 2007 ,327
(Hebrew)
Ofer Shelah and Yoav Limor, Captives in Lebanon The
Truth about the Second Lebanon War, 2007 page 327. 23.11 External links
[15] http://www.airvectors.net/avcobra_2.html TOW project history at Redstone Arsenal
[16] The M2 Bradley family line remains an important cog in www.fas.org
the American War Machine. Retrieved on 6 June 2014.
More information at Designation Systems.net
[17] The American M2 & M3 Bradley Infantry Fighting Ve-
hicle. Retrieved on 6 June 2014. The Early TOW Missile Story & Photos
[18] U.S. War Crimes in Somalia. Retrieved on 18 April 2014. Tank vs Missile 1974 article
[19] bbc.co.uk News on the Middle East. Retrieved on 3 Au- Iranian Copies of the TOW and DRAGON
gust 2009.
Information relating to Raytheon produced BGM-
[20] Stratfor Intelligence. Retrieved on 9 April 2014.
71 TOW Missile
Discovery Channel program on Modern Missiles

[21] http://www.americanordnance.com/pdf/Tow.pdf
with best video information on TOW today. TOW
[22] TOW-2B Aero ITAS vs T-72 tank (test). Retrieved on 7 part starts at two minutes
March 2011.
Raytheon TOW 2A PDF
[23] http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_ Raytheon TOW 2B/2B Aero PDF
conversions/89801/DOC_0001066239.pdf
TOW Weapon System
[24] U.S. INTELLIGENCE AND SOVIET ARMOR Paul
F. Gorman, page 18.
[25] Mikhail Barabanov (2006-08-23). Hezbollahs Exami-

nation. Kommersant. Retrieved 2014-01-08.
[26] http://www.forecastinternational.com/samples/656_
2005.pdf
[27] www.mil.fi The Finnish Defence Forces: Presentation of

equipment. Retrieved on 3 August 2009.
[28] Military army ground forces equipment Morocco Army

Moroccan Equipements militaires arme forces terrestres
Maroc marocaine
[29] http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Foreign_Military_
Sale_Pakistan___TOW_2A_Anti_Armor_Guided_
Missiles_999.html
Chapter 24
XM70E2
The XM70 was a rocket launcher developed for the U.S.

Marine Corps from 1959 to 1963 at Rock Island Arse-
nal, Illinois Research and Development Division. Seven
prototypes were built and tested at Rock Island Arsenal
and Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. The Army in-
tended to develop a self-propelled variant designated the
XM71 as the core weapon system matured.
The rear view of the XM70E2 shows characteristics in common

with towed howitzers
Front view of an XM70E2 towed rocket launcher
The XM70 has an unusual layout for a rocket launcher,

borrowing most of its characteristics from towed how-
itzers. It used a closed breach and a hydraulic recoil
mechanism rather than allowing rocket exhaust to exit
the rear of the device, which allowed the crew to re-
main nearby to individually aim each rocket and to rapidly
reload. It also had long trail arms and a base plate to pivot
the system in common with conventional towed artillery. XM70E2 revolver magazine feeds rockets into the main launch
tube
The XM70 employed a unique revolver-like rotary mag-
azine to re rockets through a single launch tube in suc-
cession, rather than individual tubes for each rocket with explanation for Pacic Car and Foundry improvements.
the intent of improving accuracy while maintaining low
overall weight and mobility.
Most multiple launch rocket systems use individual 24.1 Variants
smoothbore tubes roughly the same length of each n-
stabilized rocket bundled in parallel for ring in rapid bar- XM70
rages. The XM70s single shared long barrel has grooves
indicative of riing to spin the rocket to gyro stabilize it XM70E1 - prototypes #2 & #3
in ight to provide additional accuracy. XM70E2 - prototypes #4 & #5 (on display at the
United States Patent US4353285 gives detailed technical Rock Island Arsenal museum
136
24.2. SEE ALSO 137
XM70E2 - prototype #6, produced by Pacic Car &

Foundry with split trail
XM70E2 - prototype #7, produced by Pacic Car &
Foundry with box trail
24.2 See also

List of artillery
List of rocket artillery
List of howitzers
List of artillery of the United States
Chapter 25
M72 LAW
The M72 LAW (Light Anti-Tank Weapon, also referred which proved an eective novel weapon against enemy
to as the Light Anti-Armor Weapon or LAW as well as armor. Despite early problems, it was such a success that
LAWS Light Anti-Armor Weapons System) is a portable many of the nations involved in World War II soon copied
one-shot 66 mm unguided anti-tank weapon. The solid it or developed similar weapon systems.
rocket propulsion unit was developed in the newly formedHowever, the bazooka had its drawbacks. Being large,
Rohm and Haas research laboratory at Redstone Arsenal cumbersome and rather fragile, it needed a dedicated
in 1959,[1] then the full system was designed by Paul V.and trained two-man team to be used eciently. Hard-
Choate, Charles B. Weeks, Frank A. Spinale, et al. at the
pressed on all fronts, Germany developed a one man alter-
Hesse-Eastern Division of Norris Thermadore. Ameri- native to the bazooka type weapons: the Panzerfaust fam-
can production of the weapon began by Hesse-Eastern in ily of weapons. These one-shot launchers were relatively
1963, and was terminated by 1983; currently it is pro- cheap to manufacture and needed no specialized train-
duced by Nammo Raufoss AS in Norway and their sub- ing; they were so simple to use that they were regularly
sidiary Nammo Talley, Inc. in Arizona.[2] issued to Volkssturm regiments. They proved remarkably
In early 1963, the M72 LAW was adopted by the U.S. ecient against any tanks they were used against during
Army and U.S. Marine Corps as their primary individual World War II. Noticeably, they were not rocket launchers
infantry anti-tank weapon, replacing the M31 HEAT ri- but recoilless ries.
e grenade and the M20A1 Super Bazooka in the U.S. The M72 LAW is a descendant and combination of the
Army. It was subsequently adopted by the U.S. Air Force two World War 2 weapons; the basic principle is that of
to serve in an anti-emplacement/anti-armor role in Air a miniaturized bazooka, while its low weight and cheap
Base Defense duties.[3][note 1] build allows for general issue and disposability akin to the
It had been intended that, in the early 1980s, the M72 Panzerfaust.
would be replaced by the FGR-17 Viper; but this pro-
gram was canceled by Congress and the M136 AT4 was
introduced in its place. In that time period, its nearest
comparison was the Swedish Pskott m/68 (Miniman) and 25.2 Description
the French SARPAC.[note 2]
The weapon consists of a rocket packed inside of a
launcher made up of two tubes, one inside the other.
While closed, the outer assembly acts as a watertight con-
25.1 History tainer for the rocket and the percussion cap-type ring
mechanism that activates the rocket. The outer tube con-
During World War II, the sudden prominence of tanks tains the trigger, the arming handle, front and rear sights,
and other armored vehicles on the battleeld led to the and the rear cover. The inner tube contains the channel
creation of man-portable weapons that would enable the assembly, which houses the ring pin assembly, includ-
humble infantryman to successfully deal with the new ing the detent lever. When extended, the inner tube tele-
threat. The rst such weapons to be used (with limited scopes outward toward the rear, guided by the channel as-
success) were Molotov cocktails, amethrowers, satchel sembly, which rides in an alignment slot in the outer tubes
charges, jury-rigged landmines and specially designed trigger housing assembly. This causes the detent lever to
magnetic hollow charges; but, all these weapons needed to move under the trigger assembly in the outer tube, both
get within a couple of meters from the target to be eec- locking the inner tube in the extended position and cock-
tive, which severely limited said eectiveness and greatly ing the weapon. Once armed, the weapon is no longer
endangered the user. watertight, even if the launcher is collapsed into its orig-
The U.S. Army then introduced the bazooka on the bat- inal conguration.
tleeld, the rst true rocket-propelled grenade launcher, When red, the striker in the rear tube impacts a primer,
138
25.3. AMMUNITION 139
25.3 Ammunition
M72 LAWs rocket
1961 LAW prototype, showing the rejected front sight that also
served as the front cover
which ignites a small amount of powder that ashes

down a tube to the rear of the rocket igniting the propel-
lant in the rocket motor. The rocket motor burns com-
pletely before leaving the mouth of the launcher, produc-
ing gases around 1,400 F (760 C). The rocket propels
the 66 mm warhead forward without signicant recoil.
As the warhead emerges from the launcher, six ns spring
out from the base of the rocket tube, stabilizing the war-
heads ight.[note 3] The early LAW warhead, developed
from the M31 HEAT rie grenade warhead, uses a sim- M72 demonstration at Fort Benning, Georgia in the 1960s. Note
ple, but extremely safe and reliable, piezoelectric fuze the M1 rie slung over the soldiers back.
system. On impact with the target, the front of the nose
section is crushed causing a micro-second electric current The M72A2 LAW was issued as a prepackaged round
to be generated, which detonates the warhead. The fuse of ammunition. Improvements to the launcher and dif-
then detonates a booster charge located in the base of the ferences in the ammunition were dierentiated by a sin-
warhead, which sets o the main warhead charge. The gle designation. The most common M72A2 LAWs came
force of the main charge forces the copper liner into a prepacked with a rocket containing a 66 mm HEAT war-
head which is attached to the inside of the launcher by
directional particle jet that, in relation to the size of the
warhead, is capable of a massive amount of penetration. the igniter. The standard M72A2 anti-armor HEAT war-
A unique mechanical set-back safety on the base of the head has an ocial stated penetration in 1977 of up to 20
detonator grounds the circuit until the missile has accel- cm/8 inches of steel plate, 600 mm (2.0 ft) of reinforced
[4][note 4]
erated out of the tube. The acceleration causes the three concrete, or 1.8 meters (5.9 feet) of soil.
disks in the safety mechanism to rotate 90 degrees in suc- A training variant of the M72 LAW, designated the
cession, ungrounding the circuit; the circuit from the nose M190, also exists. This weapon is reloadable and uses
to the base of the detonator is then completed when the the 35 mm M73 training rocket. A subcaliber training
piezo-electric crystal is crushed on impact. device that uses a special tracer cartridge also exists for
140 CHAPTER 25. M72 LAW
the M72. A training variant used by the Finnish armed

forces res 7.62 mm tracer rounds.
The US Army tested other 66 mm rockets based on the
M54 rocket motor used for the M72. The M74 TPA
(Thickened Pyrophoric Agent) had an Incendiary warhead
lled with TEA (triethylaluminium); this was used in the
M202A1 FLASH (FLame Assault SHoulder weapon) 4-
tube launcher. The XM96 RCR (Riot Control Rocket)
had a CS gas-lled warhead for crowd control and was
used with the XM191 quadruple-tube launcher.
Once red in combat, the launcher is required to be de-
stroyed to prevent its use by the enemy as a booby-trap;
the enemy could collapse the launcher to its original con-
guration, ll it with explosives and shrapnel, and rig it to Packing crates are used to demonstrate the danger of the M72
explode if moved by a soldier believing it to be unused. back blast
Due to the single use nature of the weapon, it was issued
as what is called a wooden-round[5] of ammunition by used against light armored targets. The M72 is the most
the Canadian Army and the United States Army, requir- common AT weapon in the Finnish Army. Finland has
ing no checks or maintenance, just as small arms ammu- recently upgraded its stocks to the M72 EC LAW Mk.I
nition can be stored in the same manner for years without version. It is designated 66 KES 12.[10] It also elds the
any problems. bunker buster version, named M72 ASM RC, and locally
designated 66 KES 12 RAK. The oldest version 66 KES
75 is now retired.
25.4.1 Australia 25.4.4 Turkey
The Turkish Army uses a locally-built version by Makina

The M72 rocket has been in Australian service since
ve Kimya Endustrisi Kurumu, called HAR-66 (Haf An-
the Vietnam War.[6][7] Currently, the Australian Defence
titank Roketi, Light Antitank Rocket), which has the per-
Force uses the M72A6 variant[8] as an anti-structure and
formance and characteristics of a mix of M72A2 and A3.
secondary anti-armor weapon. The weapon is used by
Turkey also indigenously developed an anti-personnel
ordinary troops at the section (squad) level and comple-
warhead version of HAR-66 AP and called it Eek Ars"
ments the heavier 84 mm Carl Gustav recoilless rie and
(Wasp).[11]
Javelin missile; which are generally utilized by special-
ized re support and anti-armor troops.[9]
25.4.5 United Kingdom

25.4.2 Republic of China
The British Army had previously used the NAMMO M72
The Republic of China Army (Taiwan) uses the M72 under the designation Rocket 66 mm HEAT L1A1 but
as a secondary anti-armor weapon. It is used primar- was replaced by the LAW 80 during the 1980s.[12] The
ily as a backup to the Javelin and M136 (AT4) anti-tank M72 rocket was reintroduced into British service under
weapons. The weapon is known in Taiwan as Type 66 the Urgent Operational Requirement program, with the
rocket launcher due to its caliber. M72A9 variant being designated the Light Anti-Structure
Munition (LASM).[13][14][15]
25.4.3 Finland
25.4.6 United States
The M72 LAW is used in the Finnish Army (some 70,000
pieces), where it is known under the designations 66 During the Vietnam and post-Vietnam periods, all is-
KES 75 (M72A2, no longer in service) and 66 KES 88 sued LAWs were recalled due to instances of the war-
(M72A5). In accordance with the weapons known limi- head exploding in ight, sometimes injuring the opera-
tations, a pair of tank buster troops crawl to a ring po- tor. After safety improvements, part of the training and
sition some 50 to 150 meters away from the target, bring- ring drills included the requirement to ensure the words
ing with them four to six LAWs, which are then used in w/coupler were included in the text description sten-
rapid succession until the target is destroyed or incapac- ciled on the launcher, which indicated the launcher had
itated. Due to its low penetration capability, its mostly the required safety modication(s).[note 5]
25.5. VARIANTS 141
With the failure of the M72 replacement the Viper,

Congress in late 1982 ordered the US Army to test o-
the-shelf light antitank weapons and report back by the
end of 1983. In partnership with Raufoss AS, Talley De-
fense oered the M72E5, which oered increased range,
penetration and better sights, which was tested along with
ve other light anti-armor weapons in 1983. Despite the
improvements the M72E5 oered, the AT4 was chosen
to replace the M72.[16][note 6]
Although generally thought of as a Vietnam War era
weapon which has been superseded by more powerful
AT4, the M72 LAW found a new lease of life in the op-
erations by the U.S. Army, the U.S. Marine Corps, and Exposed M72A6 rockets (lower right) alongside M72A6 tubes
Canadian Army in Iraq and Afghanistan. The lower cost and ammunition for 84 mm Carl Gustav recoilless ries; awaiting
and lighter weight of the LAW, combined with a lack of destruction.
modern heavy armored targets and the need for an indi-
vidual assault vs an individual antiarmor weapon, made it
ideal for the type of urban combat seen in Iraq and moun-
tain warfare seen in Afghanistan. In addition, a soldier
can only carry one AT4 on a mission, but with the LAW
he can carry two.[17]
The U.S. Marine Corps Systems Command at Quantico,
Virginia placed a 15.5 million dollar xed contract or-
der with Talley Defense for 7,750 M72A7s, with deliv-
ery to be completed in April 2011.[18][19] The M72A7 Firing the M72 LAW.
LAW is an improvement on its previous versions. It in-
cludes an improved rocket motor for a higher velocity to
accurately engage targets past 200 meters, an insensitive
25.5 Variants
munitions warhead to reduce the chance of an accidental
explosion, and a picatinny rail to mount laser pointers and 25.5.1 US variants
night sights. The LAW is useful in Afghanistan as a small
and light rocket system against short and medium-range 25.5.2 International versions
targets by foot patrols on the dicult terrain and high el-
evations of the country.[20] The U.S. military is still pur- 25.5.3 International designations
chasing LAW rockets as of January 2015.[21]
25.6 Specications (M72A2 and

M72A3)
25.6.1 Launcher
Length:
Extended: less than 1 m (39 in).

Closed: 0.67 m (26 in).
Weight:
Complete M72A2: 2.3 kg (5.1 lb).

Complete M72A3: 2.5 kg (5.5 lb).
25.4.7 The Philippines Firing mechanism: Percussion.
Front sight: reticle graduated in 25 m range incre-

ments.
The Philippine Army uses an unknown number of M72 Rear sight: peep sight adjusts automatically to tem-
LAWs. perature change.
25.6.2 Rocket Norway[22]
Caliber: 66 mm (2.6 in) Philippines[28]

Length: 508 mm (20.0 in)
Portugal
Weight: 1.8 kg (4.0 lb)
Romania[29]
Muzzle velocity: 145 m/s (475 ft/s)
Minimum range (combat): 10 m (33 ft) South Korea[22]
Minimum arming range: 10 m (33 ft) Spain: M72A3 variant.[22]
Maximum range: 1,000 m (3,300 ft) Taiwan[22]

Penetration: 250 mm (9.8 in)[4]
Thailand[22]
25.6.3 Maximum eective ranges Turkey[22]
Stationary target: 200 m (220 yd) United Kingdom: Used by the British Army
from the 1970s to the early 1990s.[30] The M72A9
Moving target: 165 m (180 yd) variant was reintroduced into service for the
Afghanistan War.[31]
Beyond these ranges there is less than a 50% chance
of hitting the target. United States[22]
Yemen[22]
25.7 Users
Australia: M72A6 variant.[22] 25.7.1 Former users
Austria[22] Cambodia
Belgium[22] FNLA[32]
Canada[22]
Chile: M72A3 variant.[22]

25.8 See also
Egypt: Purchased 5,000.
Rocket-propelled grenade
El Salvador[23]
Indonesia Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon
Israel[24][25] List of U.S. Army Rocket Launchers By Model

Number
Malaysia
Finland[22]
25.8.1 Similar weapons
Georgia[26]
AT4
Greece[27]
Panzerfaust 3
Luxembourg[22]
RPG-18 / RPG-22
Lebanon: Lebanese Armed Forces
RPG-76
Morocco[22]
Netherlands[22] M80 Rocket Launcher
New Zealand[22] Miniman

25.9 Notes [9]
[10] Ruotuvki 5/2013

[1] The U.S. Army partially replaced the Super Bazooka not
only with the M72 LAW, but also M67 recoilless rie and [11] MKEK Makina ve Kimya Endstrisi Kurumu / Mechan-
U.S. Marines kept the Super Bazooka in service till the ical and Chemical Industry Corporation. Mkek.gov.tr.
late 1960s Retrieved 2013-01-01.
[2] SARPAC was never adopted by the French Army export [12] Janes Infantry Weapons 19951996 page 686
only
[13] LASM British Army Website. Army.mod.uk. Re-
[3] note no matter what you see in the movies, training lms trieved 2013-01-01.
show that there is no Whoosh!" on launch ie more of a
loud BANG!!" or a BLOOP!" for the training versions [14] Oh, the Horror, the Horror at the Wayback Machine
and there is no smoke trail behind the rocket as it heads (archived March 26, 2008)
towards the target
[15] M72 Light Anti-tank (sic) Weapon System (LAW)".
[4] Note before the publication of FM-7 September 1977, Garys U.S. Infantry Weapons Reference Guide.
various penetration specications were given for the
M72A2 and the M31 HEAT. Anywhere from 250 mm to [16] D. Kyle, Armed Forces Journal International/November
305 mm. In the mid-1970s, the US Army decided to de- 1983 Viper Dead, Army Picks AT-4 Antitank Missile
termine the armor penetration under battleeld conditions page 21
again Soviet-made tanks captured in 1973. The result was
20 cm/8 inches; the proceeding penetration specication [17] Marines Fought the LAW, and the LAW Won. Defen-
is stated as it appears in FM-7 1977. seindustrydaily.com. 2005-03-10. Retrieved 2013-01-
01.
[5] Some reports state it was over water in the ash tube caus-
ing dangerous misres and unproven rumors of possible [18] John Antal Packing a Punch: Americas Man-Portable
sabotage at the manufacturing plant during the Vietnam Antitank Weapons page 88 Military Technology 3/2010
War ISSN 0722-3226
[6] Various reports in 1983 stated that during the Congres- [19] Light Assault Weapon (LAW)". FBO.gov.
sional mandated tests the rst M72E5 tested had an accu-
racy problem, because of its larger-diameter rocket motor, [20] Modernizing and equipping the force (Part 1) Army.mil,
interfered with the deployment of all the stabilizing ns 30 December 2010
after leaving the launcher. The manufactures have since [21] Nammo awarded contract to supply M72 Lightweight As-
made modications that have worked that problem out. sault Weapon variants to the U.S. DoD - Armyrecogni-
tion.com, 6 January 2015
25.10 References [22] Jones, Richard D. Janes Infantry Weapons 2009/2010.

ISBN 978-0-7106-2869-5.
[1] E. T. DeRieux et al Final Report Development of LAW
Propulsion Unit, R&H RARD, Technical Report No. S- [23] El Salvador. Military Technology World Defence Al-
12, December 1959 manac (Bonn : Wehr & Wissen): 60. 2005. ISSN 0722-
3226.
[2] M72 products. Nammo Talley, Inc. Retrieved Septem-
ber 25, 2014. [24]
[3] Mary T. Cagle History of the TOW Missile System page [25] http://www.idf.il/1283-17900-EN/Dover.aspx
10, U.S. Army 1977 Redstone Arsenal Pdf le of ocial
TOW history that discussed the new family of antitank [26] Armament of the Georgian Army. Geo-army.ge. Re-
weapons, the M72 LAW, the Dragon and the TOW trieved 2013-01-01.
[4] US Army publication September 30, 1977 FM-7 The [27]

Mechanized Infantry Platoon/Squad Section B-21
[28]
[5] Space and Electronic Warfare Lexicon. Retrieved 30
October 2010. [29] M72 LAW.
[6] REL22751 M72 (L1A2F1) Rocket Launcher Aus- [30] Owen, William F. (2007). Light Anti-Armour Weapons:
tralian War Memorial. Accessed December 2010. Anti-Everything?". http://asianmilitaryreview.com
Asian Military Review. Retrieved 2010-05-12.
[7] Weapons Used by Infantry Rie Sections diggerhis-
tory.info. Accessed December 2010. [31] Same Dierence The 66 is Back.
[8] Air Force technology: Equipment Defence Jobs Aus- [32] David Thompkins Interview. GWU. 14 February 1999.
tralia. Defencejobs.gov.au. Retrieved 2013-01-01. Retrieved 17 October 2011.

FAS
Garys U.S. Infantry Weapons Reference Guide

Article on the reintroduction of the LAW in Iraq by
the USMC
Canadian Military Page On the M72

Patent for sights of M 72 Patented by Paul V. Choate
of Milton, MA.
Patented by Paul V. Choate of Milton, MA.
1960s US Army M72 Training lm

Chapter 26
M55 (rocket)
26.2.1 Storage
An M55 rocket being disassembled at Umatilla Chemical Depot
The M55 rocket was a chemical weapon developed by

the United States in the 1950s. The United States Army A Sarin-lled M55 rocket being destroyed at Johnston Atoll in
produced both Sarin and VX unitary warheads for the 1990.
M55. During the 1960s the Army stored many M55s at Black
Hills Army Depot.[2] The M55 was also stored at the
Rocky Mountain Arsenal and in Okinawa, Japan.[2] The
26.1 History rockets in Japan were moved to Johnston Atoll during
Operation Red Hat where they were destroyed during the
1990s.
In 1951 the US Army Chemical Corps and Ordnance
Corps initiated a joint program to develop a 115mm
chemical rocket. The US Army Ordnance Corps de- 26.2.2 Disposal issues
signed the 115mm T238 and launcher in 1957 to pro-
vide the army a means to attack large area targets with Disposal operations for the M55 are made more di-
chemical agents. Artillery and mortars are for small cult because of the rockets design.[1] The rocket propel-
area targets; and due to dierent spin stabilities weapons lant was a double base composition nitroglycerin (NG)
intended for explosives are not ideal for chemical de- and nitrocellulose (NC) propellant.[2] Besides the NG and
livery. The 115mm rocket was subsequently accepted NC, M28 contains 2-nitrodiphenylamine (NDPA) as a
as the M55 rocket with M91 launcher. Produced from stabilizer.[4] The rocket propellant cannot be removed
19591965,[1] the M55s were manufactured at Newport from the warhead without cutting open the rocket.[5]
Army Ammunition Plant and tested at Aberdeen Proving
Ground.[2] The Army produced unitary warheads lled The propellant itself presents a hazard, because it be-
with Sarin (GB) and VX nerve agents for the M55.[3] comes unstable as it ages.[6] Specically, the danger
of autoignition is present as the stabilizer ages and be-
comes depleted.[7] The U.S. National Research Council
and other sources called the M55 the most dangerous
26.2 Disposal and storage pro- weapon in the American chemical arsenal because of this
grams and other hazards.[6][7]
Another danger is agent leakage. Army reports have in-
145
146 CHAPTER 26. M55 (ROCKET)
dicated that nerve agent GB can corrode the metal cas- [6] Langford, Roland E. Introduction to Weapons of Mass De-
ings of the munitions over time.[1] As Sarin decomposes struction, (Google Books), Wiley-IEEE, 2004, p. 282,
it forms acids which can corrode the aluminum casings (ISBN 0471465607).
found around the agent in the M55.[6][8] M55 rockets con- [7] Peterson, Carl R., U.S. National Research Council, et
taining GB have accounted for the majority of leaking al. Recommendations for the Disposal of Chemical Agents
American chemical weapons.[6] In mid-2002, over 4,000 and Munitions, National Academies Press, 1994, (Google
munitions in the U.S. chemical stockpile were found to Books), p. 46-48, (ISBN 0309050464).
be leaking agent; of that number 2,102 were Sarin con-
taining M55s.[8] [8] Committee on Review of Army Planning for the Disposal
of M55 Rockets at the Anniston Chemical Agent Disposal
Facility, U.S. National Research Council, Assessment of
Processing Gelled GB M55 Rockets at Anniston, (Google
26.3 Specications Books), National Academies Press, 2003, p. 11, (ISBN
0309089972).
The M55 is 78 inches long and 4.44 inches in diame-
ter. The 57 pound weapons can hold warheads lled with
about 10 pounds of GB or VX.[2] The warhead comprises 26.6 References
about 15 pounds total, and consists of several compo-
nents. The M34 and M36 Burster utilize composition B Committee on Review and Evaluation of the Army
or tetrytol and total about 3 pounds of the total weapon Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program, Committee
weight. The agent, as stated, comprises about ten pounds on Review and Evaluation of the Army Chemi-
of the weight with the rest lying in the casing and M417 cal Stockpile Disposal Program, U.S. National Re-
fuze.[2] search Council. Eects of Degraded Agent and Mu-
nitions Anomalies on Chemical Stockpile Disposal
Operations, (Google Books), National Academies
26.4 See also Press, 2004, p. 55, (ISBN 0309089182)
Binary chemical weapons

26.7 Further reading
Anniston Chemical Activity
Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System Puro, Toivo E. Nerve Gas, (Google Books), Traord
Publishing, 2006, p. 112, (ISBN 1412072964).
Number (M91)
26.5 Notes
[1] Noyes, Robert. Chemical Weapons Destruction and Explo-
sive Waste: Unexploded Ordnance Remediation, (Google
Books), William Andrew Inc., 1996, p. 32, (ISBN
0815514069).
[2] "M55 rocket", Federation of American Scientists, updated

June 15, 2000, accessed November 8, 2008.
[3] Croddy, Eric and Wirtz, James J. Weapons of Mass De-

struction: An Encyclopedia of Worldwide Policy, Technol-
ogy, and History, (Google Books), ABC-CLIO, 2005, p.
42, (ISBN 1851094903), accessed November 8, 2008.
[4] The propellant is known by the military nomenclature

M28 propellant. See: Eects of Degraded Agent and Mu-
nitions Anomalies on Chemical Stockpile Disposal Opera-
tions.
[5] Committee on Review and Evaluation of the Army Chem-

ical Stockpile Disposal Program, U.S. National Research
Council. Review of Systematization of the Tooele Chem-
ical Agent Disposal Facility, (Google Books), National
Academies Press, 1996, p. 86, (ISBN 0309054869).
Chapter 27
AT4
This article is about the unguided anti-tank weapon. For the Swedish Army began the rst evaluation rings of the
the Russian guided anti-tank missile, see AT-4 Spigot. prototype AT4s in the spring of 1981 with 100 tested by
M136 redirects here. For other uses, see M136 early 1982.[9]
(disambiguation). Even before the AT4 had been adopted by Sweden, it was
entered into a US Army competition for a new anti-tank
The AT4 (also variously AT-4, AT4 CS, AT4-CS, or weapon mandated by Congress in 1982 when the FGR-
AT-4CS)[6] is an 84-mm unguided, portable, single-shot 17 Viper failed as a replacement for the M72 LAW. Six
recoilless smoothbore weapon built in Sweden by Saab weapons were tested in 1983 by the US Army: the British
Bofors Dynamics (previously Bofors Anti-Armour Sys- LAW 80, the German Armbrust, the French APILAS,
tems). Saab has had considerable sales success with the the Norwegian M72E4 (an upgraded M72 LAW), the
AT4, making it one of the most common light anti-tank US Viper (for baseline comparison purposes) and the
weapons in the world. Swedish AT4. The US Army reported to Congress in
The designation CS represents conned space, refer- November 1983 that the FFV AT4 came the closest to
ring to the propellant charge being designed to operate meeting all the major requirements established to re-
eectively within buildings in an urban environment.[7] place the M72 LAW,[10] with the Armbrust coming in
It is intended to give infantry units a means to destroy or second.[11]
disable armoured vehicles and fortications, although it Though very impressed with the simplicity and durabil-
is not generally sucient to defeat a modern main battle ity of the tested version of the AT4, the US Army saw
tank (MBT). The launcher and projectile are manufac- some room for improvement, specically the addition of
tured prepacked and issued as a single unit of ammunition rear and front bumpers on the launch tube and changes
with the launcher discarded after a single use. to the sights and slings. After these changes, the AT4
was adopted by the US Army as the Lightweight Multipur-
pose Weapon M136.[12] The Swedish Army also recog-
nised these improvements and subsequently adopted the
27.1 Development Americanized version of the AT4 as the Pansarskott m/86
(Pskott m/86), with the addition of a forward folding hand
The AT4 is a development of the 74-mm Pansarskott grip to help steady the AT4 when being aimed and red.
m/68[8] (Miniman), adopted by the Swedish Army in the The forward folding grip is the only dierence between
late 1960s. Like the m/68, the AT4 was designed by the AT4 adopted by Sweden and the US Army version.
Frsvarets Fabriksverk (FFV) and manufactured at their
Due to the urban combat conditions that US military
facility at Zakrisdal, Karlstad, Sweden. FFV began re-
forces have been facing regularly in the last several years,
search in a replacement for the m/68 in 1976, delib-
the US Army Close Combat Systems manager in charge
erately designing an individual anti-armor weapon that
of purchases of the AT4 suspended orders for the stan-
would not be able to defeat the heavy armour protection
dard version of the AT4 and US military forces are now
of MBTs (main battle tanks) in frontal engagements, be-
only ordering the AT4 CS version.[13]
lieving that to be counterproductive. The AT4 was de-
signed as a weapon to engage medium to light armoured
vehicles from any direction, MBTs from the sides or rear,
and as an assault weapon against buildings and fortica-
tions. FFV also had the design goal of a weapon that
27.2 Operation
was simple to use, rugged, and far more accurate than
previous individual antiarmor weapons against moving The AT4 may be considered a disposable, low-cost al-
targets. Another key requirement was that the AT4 not ternative to a Carl Gustav recoilless rie. The AT4 took
only be able to penetrate armour, but also have a devas- many of its design features from the Carl Gustav, which
tating beyond-armour eect after penetration. FFV and operates on the principle of a recoilless weapon, where
147
148 CHAPTER 27. AT4
Seconds after ring an AT4 in combat in Iraq

US Army soldiers re the M136 AT4 in April 2007.
the forward inertia of the projectile is balanced by the in-

ertia of propellant gases ejecting from the rear of the bar- the pressure wave, allowing troops to re from enclosed
rel. But unlike the Carl Gustav, which uses a heavier and areas. It should be noted that the AT4-CS version also
more expensive steel tube with riing,[14] the disposable reduced its muzzle velocity from the original 290 m/s to
AT4 design greatly reduces manufacturing costs by using 220 m/s as part of its eort to be user safe in a conned
a reinforced smoothbore berglass outer tube. In a re- space, making the AT4-CS version less eective.
coilless weapon, the barrel does not need to contend with To re, the gunner rst removes the safety pin located at
the extreme pressures found in traditional guns and can the rear of the tube, which unblocks the ring rod. He
thus be made very lightweight. This fact, combined with
then takes a ring position ensuring that no one is present
the almost complete lack of recoil, means that relatively in the back blast area. If ring from the prone position, he
large projectiles (comparable to those found in mortars
must also place his legs well to the side to avoid burning
and artillery systems) can be utilised, which would other- himself. Then the gunner moves back the front and rear
wise be impossible in a man-portable weapon.
sight covers, allowing the sights to pop up into their r-
In the system originally developed by FFV for the Carl ing positions. The AT4 has iron sights that were originally
Gustav, a plastic blowout plug is placed at the center developed for the cancelled Viper, and are similar in con-
rear of the shell casing containing the projectile and pro- cept and use to those on assault ries.[15] He then removes
pellant, which itself is enclosed in the AT4 outer tube. the rst of two safeties by moving the ring rod cocking
When the gases build up to the correct pressure level, the lever (located on the left side) forward and then over the
blowout plug disintegrates, allowing the proper amount top to the right side. The gunner takes aim, while at the
of gases to be vented to the rear, balancing the propellant same time holding down the red safety lever located in
gases pushing the projectile forward. front of the cocking lever, and then res by pressing for-
The AT4 uses a unique method developed earlier by FFV ward the red ring button with his right thumb. Both the
and adopted for the AT4: the spring-loaded ring rod is red safety lever and ring button must be pressed down at
located down the side of the outer tube, with the ring the same time to re the AT4. The red ring button has
pin at the rear side of the tube. When released, the ring resistance similar to the trigger pull of an assault rie, so
pin strikes a primer located in the side of the casings rim. the gunner does not have to jab at the ring button which
Additionally, as the shell casing absorbs the majority of could throw his aim o.
the ring stresses, the launch tube can be designed to be After ring, the AT4 is discarded. Unlike the heavier Carl
very lightweight as it does not have to contend with the Gustav, the AT4 outer tube is built only to take the stress
extreme pressures found in traditional cannons. of one ring; it is not reusable and cannot be reloaded like
The disadvantage of the recoilless design is that it cre- the Carl Gustav.
ates a large back blast area behind the weapon, which The AT4 can mount an optical night sight on a removable
can cause severe burns and overpressure injuries both to xture. In US military use, the launcher can be tted with
friendly personnel in the vicinity of the user and some- the AN/PAQ-4C, AN/PEQ-2, or the AN/PAS-13 night
times to the users themselves, especially in conned sights.
spaces. The back blast may also reveal the users posi- The AT4 requires little training and is quite simple to use,
tion to the enemy. making it suitable for general issue. However, as the cost
The problem of back blast has been recently solved with of each launcher makes regular live-re training very ex-
the AT4-CS (Conned Space) version, specially designed pensive, practice versions exist that are identical in op-
for urban warfare. This version uses a saltwater counter- eration but re reloadable 9mm or 20mm tracer ammu-
mass in the rear of the launcher to absorb the back blast; nition. Both practice cartridges are unique to their re-
the resulting spray captures and dramatically slows down spective weapons, with their trajectory matched to that
27.4. PROJECTILES 149
27.4 Projectiles
There are several dierent projectiles for the AT4. Note
that because the AT4 is a one-shot weapon, projectiles are
preloaded into the launcher tubes.
AT4 launcher and projectile.
The AT4 is man-portable

HEDP 502 (High Explosive Dual Purpose)[16] For
use against bunkers, buildings, enemy personnel in
of the live round. The 20mm version also has a recoilless the open and light armour. The projectile can be
weapon eect with the same high noise and back blast as set to detonate on impact or with a slight delayed
the AT4 ring and is favoured by the Swedish army be- detonation. The heavier nose cap allows for the
cause of the added realism of the back blast as compared HEDP projectile to either penetrate light walls or
to the plonk sound of the 9mm round (similar to the windows and then explode, or be skipped o the
sound of a nger tapping on an empty can). ground for an airburst. For use against light armour,
there is a smaller cone HEAT warhead with 150
mm (5.9 inches) of penetration against RHA.
27.3 Specications
HP (High Penetration) Extra high penetration ability
(up to 500 mm (19.7 inches) to 600 mm (23.6
Length: 101.6 cm (40 in.) inches) of RHA.)
Weight: 6.7 kg (14.77 pounds)
AST (Anti Structure Tandem-warheads) Designed
Bore diameter: 84 mm for urban warfare where a projectile heavier than
the HEDP AT4 is needed. Two warheads, rst
Maximum eective range: 300 metres (328 yards), one a HEAT with a shallow cone resulting in less
although it has been used in excess of 500 meters penetration but a wider hole, and a second follow
(547 yards) for area re. through high-blast warhead. It has two settings: one
for destroying bunkers and one for mouse holing a
Penetration: 400 mm (15.7 inches) of rolled homo- building wall for combat entry.[17]
geneous armour (RHA; also see below)
Time of ight (to 250 metres, or 273 yards): less

than 1 second
Muzzle velocity: 285 metres (950 ft) per second
Operating temperature: 40 to +60 C (40 to +140

F)
Ammunition: n-stabilized projectile with HEAT

warhead Complete AT4 HEAT antitank round (which is preloaded
150 CHAPTER 27. AT4
in AT4) and AT8 bunker-busting warhead. Latvia[26]

Lebanon: Roughly 1,000 pieces purchased.[27]
Lithuania: Lithuanian Armed Forces.[28]

Netherlands[29] (Replaced by Pzf-3)
Philippines[30]
Poland[31]
HEDP 502 projectile for the LMAW. Sweden: Designated Pansarskott m86.[21]
United Kingdom: Small quantities of AT4 and
HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) The HEAT pro- HP projectiles purchased.[3]
jectile can penetrate up to 420 mm (16.5 inches) of United States: Designated M136 AT4 in USMC
RHA with beyond-armour eect.[18] and United States Army service, beginning in early
1987.[32] The AT4 was used in the US invasion of
AT8 (Bunker-Busting) A version of the AT4 where Panama, the War in Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf
the standard HEAT projectile is replaced with the War, and the Iraq War.[1] Over 300,000 have been
bunker-busting warhead developed for the SMAW. built locally, under license by ATK.[3]
No orders were ever placed.[19]
Venezuela: The AT4 has been in the Venezue-
AT12-T In the early 1990s, there were tests of a tandem lan arsenal since the 1980s.[21][33] In 2009, it was
charge 120-mm version (Bofors AT 12-T) that reported that AT4s sold to Venezuela had been cap-
would be able to penetrate the front armour of any tured from FARC insurgents in Colombia, lead-
modern main battle tank. However, the project was ing Colombia to accuse Venezuela of selling the
cancelled due to the dissolution of the Soviet Union weapons to the insurgents, thus heightening tensions
and cuts in Western defence budgets. between the two countries.[33][34]
27.5 Users 27.6 See also
Argentina: Argentine Marines.[20] B-300

Panzerfaust 3
Brazil[21]
ALAC (Arma Leve Anticarro)
Chile: Chilean Marine Corps, Chilean Army
Urban Assault Weapon
Croatia[21]
LAW 80
Denmark: Designated PVV M/95
(Panservrnsvben Model 1995).[22]:93 APILAS
M141 Bunker Defeat Munition
Estonia [23]
RPG-76 Komar
France: Designated ABL (Anti Blind Lger)
by the French Army.[24] MARA (anti-tank weapon)
Georgia[21]
Greece:Used by Hellenic Navy Seals

27.7 References and notes
Indonesia [1] Vapenexport (PDF), SE: Svenskafreds.
[2] M136 AT4, FAS.

Iraq: American forces supplied the Iraqi mili-
tary with AT4 weapons.[25] [3] Kemp, Ian (AprilMay 2006), The law gets tougher: the
shoulder-launched light anti-armour weapon has evolved
Ireland: Called the SRAAW (Short Range to become a multipurpose assault weapon much in de-
Anti Armour Weapon) by the Irish Defence mand for asymmetric warfare, Armada International,
Forces.[22]:139 ISSN 0252-9793.
27.7. REFERENCES AND NOTES 151
[4] McManners, Hugh (2003). Ultimate Special Forces. DK [17] 2008 SAAB video on AT4 versions including new multi-
Publishing. ISBN 0-7894-9973-8. purpose warhead for urban combat. YouTube. Retrieved
11 October 2014.
[5] Owen, William F. (2007). Light Anti-Armour Weapons:
Anti-Everything?" (PDF). Asian Military Review. Re- [18] History Channel, Lock N' Load With R. Lee Ermey, Rock-
trieved 12 May 2010. ets episode, aired 23 October 2009.
[6] The designation AT-4 is an alpha-phonetic word play on

[19] Janes Infantry Weapons 199596-page 220. The refer-
the weapons role (AT = Anti-Tank) and calibre of 84
ence refers to Allaint Techsystems as the manufacture, but
mm. Hewish, Mark, FFVs Lightweight AT4, rst of
they soon after were acquired by Honeywell. The SMAW-
a new family of Swedish anti-armour weapons Interna-
D oered by Talley was chosen for the U.S. Army pro-
tional Defense Review, May 1980, p. 70.
gram that the AT4 entered. See external images at the
SMAW-D link for an arms brochure on the FFV AT8
[7] Military Channel, "Weaponology" program, "Grenades
through RPGs"|note=(exact title unknown, didn't look in
time)|, rebroadcast: 18 November 2008; Note: Documen- [20] La Infantera de Marina adquiri armamento antitanque
tary Program concluded that this weapon was the best re- descartable
cent technology in a long line of grenades, anti-armor and
RPG weapons, part of best being cost per shot and ease [21] Jones, Richard D (27 January 2009), Infantry Weapons
of use. More sophisticated missile based systems have 2009/2010 (35 ed.), Janes Information, ISBN 978-0-
severe cost and need-of-training negative factors by com- 7106-2869-5.
parison with this Bazooka-like system, which any 'farm
peasant can be trained to re.'" (paraphrased conclusion) [22] The World Defence Almanac, 200001, ISSN 0722-3226
Check date values in: |date= (help).
[8] Pansarskott is a Swedish term that roughly translates to
Armour Shot. [23] Mil, EE.
[9] International Defense Review, May 1980, p. 71. [24] Replaced the APILAS: AT 4 CS L'arme anti blind lourd
AT 4 CS The Armoured Heavy anti gun, France: Ministry
[10] The French APILAS was the only tested weapon that had of Defense, retrieved 29 June 2013.
the maximum penetration to defeat the frontal armor of
the new Russian T-72 MBT, but it was rejected due to its
[25] Sverigesradio, SE.
weight and size.
[11] The Armbrust, while an impressive weapon, with its al- [26] The World Defence Almanac, 2010, p. 172, ISSN 0722-
most total lack of launch signature, which enabled it to 3226.
be red from enclosed spaces, was rejected due to higher
cost and lack of eective range against moving targets. [27] Kahwaji, Riad (13 November 2007). Lebanon: Foreign
Arms Vital to Hizbollah Fight (JPEG). Defense News.
[12] the U.S. Army had so much grief in the early 1980s from Check date values in: |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
various committee members of the U.S. Congress over
the M72 LAW being ocially referred to in manuals as [28] Lietuvos kariuomen :: Ginkluot ir karin technika
a Light ANTITANK Weapon that they named the AT4 Granatsvaidiai ir prietankiniai ginklai Prietankinis
to made sure no member of Congress could question that granatsvaidis AT-4. Retrieved 11 October 2014.
again
[29] The World Defence Almanac, 2005, p. 105, ISSN 0722-
[13] John Antal Packing a Punch: Americas Man-Portable 3226.
Antitank Weapons page 90 Military Technology 3/2010
ISSN 0722-3226 [30] http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6119/6314516917_
4dfa5d3eb7_z.jpg
[14] Until the 1980s the Carl Gustav was constructed of high-
alloy steel, but later versions used a thin steel liner con-
[31] Polish Army Photogallery (26). Polish Ministry of De-
taining the riing, strengthened by a carbon ber outer
fence. Retrieved 26 April 2010.
sleeve.
[15] FFV and the Swedish Army were so impressed by these [32] Modernizing and Equiping the Army. Department of
sights that they adopted them for their AT4s; while ade- the Army Historical Summary, FY. United States Army
quate during the day, the original plastic sights were di- Center of Military History. 1995. p. 43. CMH Pub 101-
cult to see at night or under low light conditions. 19.
[16] the complete disposable launcher and HEDP projectile is [33] Global Security - News and Defence Headlines - IHS
referred to by the manufacture in brochures as the LMAW Janes 360. Retrieved 11 October 2014.
i.e., light multipurpose-assault weapon see external
links for link on early photos and press releases for fur- [34] Colombia and Venezuela face o. GlobalPost. Re-
ther information on brochure trieved 11 October 2014.
152 CHAPTER 27. AT4
27.8 External links

AT4 Saab Bofors Dynamics video of various AT-4
versions
AT4 Information Page Modern Firearms
Swedish article on AT4 translated to English
M136 AT4 Global Security

AT4 article with early photos and press releases and
ads
U.S. Army eld manual 323.25
Brazilian newspaper recorded a AT-4 at Rocinha

slum (translated to English)
Ocial site for the AT4, covering the dierent ver-

sions of AT-4
Chapter 28
M141 Bunker Defeat Munition
The M141 Bunker Defeat Munition (BDM), or is counteracted by a backblast of gases red from the
SMAW-D (Disposable), is a single-shot, shoulder- rear of the weapon. This makes the SMAW-D inherently
launched weapon designed to defeat hardened structures. dangerous, especially in conned, urban areas, as is with
The weapon was designed as a modication of the United all weapons of this design.
States Marine Corps Shoulder-launched Multipurpose The M141 has two congurations: A carry mode in which
Assault Weapon (SMAW) to ll the void in the United the launcher is 32 inches long, and a ready to re mode
States Army inventory of a bunker buster weapon. in which the launcher is extended to its full length of 55
inches.
The warhead is the same High Explosive, Dual Purpose
28.1 Service History (HEDP) as the USMC SMAW. It is eective against ma-
sonry and concrete bunkers as well as lightly armored
Two candidates were evaluated for the US Armys BDM vehicles. The projectile is capable of penetrating up to
program. One candidate from McDonnell-Douglas (later 8 inches of concrete, 12 inches of brick, or 6.9 feet of
Talley Defense Systems) which used the same warhead sandbags. The warhead is activated by a crush switch in
as the Marine Corps SMAW, but with a rocket motor its nose that is able to distinguish between hard and soft
with a shorter burn time, and another developed by Swe- targets. On soft targets, such as sandbags, the detona-
dens FFV for Alliant Techsystems (later Honeywell), tion is delayed until the projectile is buried in the target,
which replaced the standard HEAT warhead of the producing a devastating eect. The warhead detonates
AT4/M136 with the same warhead dual purpose war- immediately on contact with hard targets.
head as used by the USMC SMAW. FFV designated the
bunker buster version of the AT4 the FFV AT8. In
1996 the McDonnell-Douglas candidate was chosen. In 28.3 Users
a unique move, the US Army ordered one batch of 1,500
then a second batch of 4,500 which were placed in con- Lebanon (Lebanese Army).[4]
tingency storage for expedited issue to units in combat.[1]
The SMAW-D was delivered to the Army in 1999.[2] USA
The conferees of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1994 agreed that the Armys BDM and
the Marine Corps SRAW were too similar justify sepa- 28.4 See also
rate long-term projects, and that the Army should pursue
an interim BDM program. Congress limited BDM pro- SMAW
curement to 6,000 units. AT4
CNN news footage showed US Army Rangers ring
M141s at various fortied caves during the Tora Bora
operations against the Afghan Taliban and al Qaeda, 28.5 References
being mistaken by the CNN reporters for AT4/M136
projectiles.[3] [1] Janes Infantry Weapons 199596 page 221
[2] designation-systems.net
28.2 Design [3] After being red, the projectile can be seen arching to-
wards it target, by the exhaust nozzle in the rear which is
still glowing from the heat of the burn-all-the-way in the
The SMAW-D operates on the principle of a recoilless launcher. Looks like the M141 projectile has a ruby tracer
rie, in that the recoil created by launching the projectile in the rear of the projectile.
153
154 CHAPTER 28. M141 BUNKER DEFEAT MUNITION
[4] Lebanon: Foreign Arms Vital to Hizbollah Fight - De-

fense News.
28.6 External links

SMAW-D - FAS
designation-systems.net
Chapter 29
M24 mine
For other uses, see M24 (disambiguation).
The M24 mine was a United States o-route land mine

based on the M28A2 HEAT rocket normally red by the
M20 3.5 inch rocket launcher. The rocket was launched
from an M143 plastic launch tube.
29.1 Operation
A trigger cable was laid across a road, when enough pres-
sure was applied to the trigger cable two conductors in-
side the cable were forced together closing a circuit. The
trigger cable consisted of two segments, requiring simul-
taneous pressure on both segments to trigger the mine.
For wheeled vehicles, the cable was laid directly across
the road so that wheels on both sides of the vehicle would
touch the cable at the same instance, while for tracked
vehicles the cable was laid at an angle of fteen degrees
to prevent the cable slipping between the treads on the
tracks.
The rocket had a maximum eective range of about 30
meters beyond which it became too inaccurate to reliably
strike the target.
The mine is long out of production and no longer in US
service. The mine has possibly been used in Angola.
29.2 See also

Number
29.3 References
FM 20-32, Landmine Warfare, Department of the
Army
Janes Mines and Mine Clearance 2005-2006
M24 mine at ORDATA
155
Chapter 30
FIM-43 Redeye
The General Dynamics FIM-43 Redeye was a man-

portable surface-to-air missile system. It used infrared
homing to track its target. Production was terminated in
September 1969 after about 85,000 rounds had been built
- in anticipation of the Redeye II, which later became the
FIM-92 Stinger. The Redeye was withdrawn gradually
between 1982 and 1995 as the Stinger was deployed.
30.1 Development
In 1948 the United States Army began seeking new in-
fantry air-defense weapons, as machine guns were inef-
fective against new fast jets. Several gun/rocket systems
were investigated but none were promising. In the mid-
1950s Convair began studies of a man portable infrared
guided missile. In November 1956 the results of these
studies were shown to the US Army and USMC. In 1957
ocial requirements were formulated, and in 1958 Con-
vair was awarded a contract to start development of the
system.
In July 1959 the development project began, in March
1960, the rst test rounds were red. Launches from a The block I/II launcher above, the block III launcher below.
launch tube followed in May 1961, with a shoulder launch
occurring in 1961. Technical problems prevented the
had an XM-62 open sight and upgraded electronics. The
missile entering full production: the missile did not live
new missile could turn at up to 3g. The missile achieved
up to its specications - being slower, less maneuverable
a kill probability against F9F tactical drones travelling at
and less accurate. During the testing, substantial use was
430 knots at an altitude of 100 meters of 0.51. From
made of the Atlantic Research MQR-16 Gunrunner ex-
this it was calculated that the kill probability versus a
pendable target missile.
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 at similar altitude would be
Limited production began as XM41 Redeye Block I. The 0.403, and 0.53 against helicopters (specically the Mi-6
missile was designated XMIM-43A in June 1963. Block and US H-13 and H-21). Kill probability against larger
I systems were then evaluated between 1965 and 1966. propeller driven aircraft like the AN-12 was estimated at
Block II systems designated XM41E1 began develop- 0.43.[1] Production of the Block III systems began in May
ment in 1964, the missile being designated XMIM-43B. 1967. In 1968 Block III was declared operational.
The missiles were delivered in April 1966, and included
a new gas-cooled detector cell, a slightly redesigned
launcher and an improved warhead. 30.2 History
In 1965 to 1966 General Dynamics developed the -
nal Redeye Block III conguration, designated at rst 50 Redeye systems were delivered to the mujahideen by
XM41E2 with XFIM-43C missiles. The missiles re- the US during the Soviet war in Afghanistan in 1984,[2]
tained the seeker from the Block II missile, but included where they were used to shoot down a number of air-
a new rocket motor, warhead and fuze. The launcher now craft including several Su-25 jets as well as Mi-24 and
156
30.5. COMPARISON CHART 157
Mi-8 helicopters.[3] By November 1986 it had largely

been replaced by the dramatically more successful FIM-
92 Stinger missiles.
The Redeye was known as Hamlet in Danish service and
as RBS 69 in Swedish service.
The Redeye was also used by the Nicaraguan "Contras"
to shoot down at least four Soviet Mi-8 helicopters during
the Nicaraguan Revolution. These were provided to the
FDN by the U.S.
30.3 Description
The missile is red from the M171 missile launcher. First A FIM-43C Redeye missile just after launch before the sustainer
the seeker is cooled to operating temperature and then the motor ignites.
operator begins to visually track the target using the sight
unit on the launcher. Once the target is locked onto by the
missile a buzzer in the launcher hand grip begins vibrat- FIM-43D Upgraded missile, with unknown capa-
ing, alerting the operator. The operator then presses the bilities.
trigger, which res the initial booster stage and launches
the missile out of the tube at a speed of around 80 feet per
second (25 m/s). As the missile leaves the tube spring- 30.5 Comparison chart
loaded ns pop out, four stabilizing tail ns at the back
of the missile, and two control surfaces at the front of
the missile. Once the missile has travelled six meters, 30.6 Users
the sustainer motor ignites. The sustainer motor takes the
missile to its peak velocity of Mach 1.7 in 5.8 seconds. Croatia[5]
1.25 seconds after the sustainer is ignited, the warhead is El Salvador[6]
armed.[1]
The missiles seeker is only capable of tracking the hot Sweden[7]
exhausts of aircraft, which limits the engagements to tail- Thailand[8]
chase only. The missiles blast fragmentation warhead is
triggered by an impact fuze requiring a direct hit. As
a rst generation missile it is susceptible to a variety of 30.6.1 Non-state users
countermeasures including ares and hot brick jammers.
In addition, its inability to turn at a rate greater than 3 G Bosniak army and the Bosnian mujahideen[5]
means that it can be outmaneuvered if detected.
30.7 See also

30.4 Variants
Number
Block I FIM-43/XFIM-43A/XMIM-43A -
SA-7
Block II FIM-43B/XFIM-43B/XMIM-43B - Fit-
ted with a gas cooled seeker and improved warhead
and fuse and modied launcher. 30.8 References
XFEM-43B Experimental test missile, with
[1] History of the Redeye Weapon System. Historical Division
data logging capability Army Missile Command. 1974.
Block III FIM-43C/XFIM-43C Production version [2] SIPRI Arms Transfers Database
- Improved warhead and fuse section, and a new
[3] Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot: Described / SU-25 In
launcher.
Afghanistan airtoaircombat.com
XFEM-43C Experimental test missile, with [4] The small secondary charge ignites any remaining propel-
data logging capability lent
158 CHAPTER 30. FIM-43 REDEYE
[5] http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.asp?
smallarms_id=30
[6] El Salvador Inventory Janes Land-Based Air Defense
[7] http://www.robotmuseum.se/Mappar/Robothistorik/09_
Luftvarn/ARM_rb_69.htm
[8] http://www.cmchant.com/the-redeye-battlefield-missile
30.9 External links

General Dynamics FIM-43 Redeye - Designation
Systems
Chapter 31
AGM-114 Hellre
The AGM-114 Hellre is an air-to-surface missile

(ASM) rst developed for anti-armor use , but later mod-
els were developed for precision strikes against other
target types, such as, in the case of a Predator drone,
individuals or groups of individuals. It was originally
developed under the name Helicopter Launched, Fire
and Forget Missile, which led to the acronym 'Hellre'
that became the missiles formal name.[2] It has multi-
mission, multi-target precision-strike capability, and can
be launched from multiple air, sea, and ground platforms.
The Hellre missile is the primary 100-pound (45 kg)
class air-to-ground precision weapon for the armed forces
of the United States and many other nations.
Cockpit video showing the missile being used in Afghanistan

against two people on a road.
31.1 Description
The Hellre can be deployed from rotary- and xed- aimed at the target. Predator and Reaper UCAVs carry
wing aircraft, waterborne vessels and land-based systems the Hellre II, but the most common platform is the AH-
against a variety of targets. 64 Apache helicopter gunship, which can carry up to 16
The development of the Hellre Missile System began in of the missiles at once. The AGM-114L, or Longbow
1974 with the U.S. Army requirement for a "tank-buster", Hellre, is a re-and-forget weapon: equipped with a
launched from helicopters to defeat armored ghting millimeter wave (MMW) radar seeker, it requires no fur-
vehicles.[3][4] Production of the AGM-114A started in ther guidance after launcheven being able to lock-on
1982. The Development Test and Evaluation (DT&E) to its target after launch[8] and can hit its target without
launch phase of the AGM-114B took place in 1984. the launcher or other friendly unit being in line of sight of
The DT&E on the AGM-114K was completed in Fis- the target. It also provides capability in adverse weather
cal Year (FY)93 and FY94. AGM-114M did not re- and battleeld obscurants (obscurants such as smoke and
quire a DT&E because it is the same as the AGM-114K fog being able to mask the position of the target or to
except for the warhead. Most variants are laser guided prevent the designating laser from producing a detectable
with one, AGM-114L Longbow Hellre, being radar reection). Each Hellre weighs 47 kg / 106 pounds, in-
guided.[5][6] Laser guidance can be provided either from cluding the 9 kg / 20 pound warhead, and has a range of
the launcher, such as the nose-mounted opto-electronics 8,000 meters. The AGM-114R Romeo Hellre II en-
of the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter, other airborne tered service in late 2012. It uses a semi-active laser hom-
target designators or from ground-based observers, the ing guidance system and an integrated blast fragmentation
latter two options allowing the launcher to break line of sleeve warhead to engage targets that previously needed
sight with the target and seek cover.[7] multiple Hellre variants. It will replace AGM-114K, M,
[9]
The Hellre II, developed in the early 1990s is a mod- N, and P variants in U.S. service. In October 2012, the
ular missile system with several variants. Hellre IIs U.S. ordered 24,000 Hellre II missiles, [10]
for both the U.S.
semi-active laser variantsAGM-114K high-explosive armed forces and foreign customers.
anti-tank (HEAT), AGM-114KII with external blast frag- The Joint Common Missile (JCM) was to replace Hell-
mentation sleeve, AGM-114M (blast fragmentation), and re II (along with the AGM-65 Maverick) by around
AGM-114N metal augmented charge (MAC)achieve 2011. The JCM was developed with a tri-mode seeker
pinpoint accuracy by homing in on a reected laser beam and a multi-purpose warhead that would combine the ca-
159
160 CHAPTER 31. AGM-114 HELLFIRE
pabilities of the several Hellre variants. In the budget

for FY2006, the U.S. Department of Defense canceled a
number of projects that they felt no longer warranted con-
tinuation based on their cost eectiveness, including the
JCM. A possible new JCM successor called the Joint Air
to Ground Missile (JAGM) is under consideration. Due
to budget reductions, JAGM development was separated
into increments, with Increment 1 focusing on adding a
millimeter wave radar to the Hellre-R to give it a dual-
mode seeker, enabling it to track moving targets in bad
weather.[11][12]
31.2 Combat history

Hellre loaded onto the rails of a United States Marine Corps
AH-1W Super Cobra at Balad Air Base in Iraq in 2005.
Since being elded, Hellre missiles have been used in
combat in Operation Just Cause in Panama, Operation
Desert Storm in Persian Gulf, Operation Allied AH-64 Apache
Force in Yugoslavia, Operation Enduring Freedom in
Agusta A129 Mangusta
Afghanistan, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, where they
have been red from Apache and Super Cobra attack Eurocopter Tiger
helicopters, Kiowa scout helicopters, and Predator
unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs). SH-60 / MH-60R / MH-60S Seahawk
The only known operational air-to-air kill with a Hell- OH-58D Kiowa Warrior
re took place on 24 May 2001. A civilian Cessna 152
aircraft entered Israeli airspace from Lebanon, with un- RAH-66 Comanche
known intentions and refusing to answer or comply with AH-6 Little Bird
ATC repeated warnings to turn back. An Israeli Air
Force AH-64A helicopter red upon the Cessna, result- UH-60 Blackhawk
ing in its complete disintegration,[13] and the death of Es-
Westland WAH-64 Apache
tephan Nicolian, a student pilot.[14]
In 2008, the usage of the AGM-114N variant caused con-
troversy in the United Kingdom when it was reported that 31.3.2 Fixed-wing aircraft
these thermobaric munitions were added to the British
Army arsenal. Thermobaric weapons have been con- Beechcraft Super King Air[20]
demned by human rights groups.[15] The UK Ministry of AC-208 Combat Caravan[21]
Defence refers to the AGM-114N as an enhanced blast
weapon.[15] KC-130J Harvest HAWK[22]
The AGM-114 has been the munition of choice for air- A-29 Super Tucano
borne targeted killings that have included high-prole g-
ures such as Ahmed Yassin (Hamas leader) in 2004 by Air Tractor AT-802U
the Israeli Air Force,[16][17] Anwar al-Awlaki (American-
AC-130W[23]
born Islamic cleric and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Penin-
sula leader) in Yemen in 2011,[18] Abu Yahya al-Libi in
Pakistan in 2012 by the United States, and Moktar Ali Unmanned aircraft
Zubeyr (also known as Ahmad Abdi Godane, leader of
al-Shabaab) in Somalia in September 2014.[19] MQ-1B Predator
MQ-9 Reaper
31.3 Launch vehicles and systems Predator C
MQ-1C Gray Eagle
31.3.1 Manned helicopters
AH-1W SuperCobra 31.3.3 Manned boat

AH-1Z Viper Combat Boat 90
31.5. VARIANTS 161
Pakistan
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Spain
Sweden
Predator launching a Hellre missile
Taiwan (Republic of China)
31.3.4 Experimental platforms Tunisia[29]

The system has been tested for use on the Humvee and the Turkey
Improved TOW Vehicle (ITV). Test shots have also been
red from a C-130 Hercules. Sweden and Norway use the United Arab Emirates
Hellre for coastal defense, and Norway has conducted
United Kingdom
tests with Hellre launchers on Protector (RWS) remotely
controlled weapon systems mounted on the Stridsbt 90 United States
coastal assault boat.[24]
The US Navy is evaluating the missile for use on the
littoral combat ship.[25] The missile will be tested on the 31.5 Variants
LCS in 2014.[26]
AGM-114A Basic Hellre
31.4 Operators Target: Tanks, armored vehicles.

Range: 8,000 m (8,750 yd)
The following nations use the Hellre:[27]
Guidance: Semi-active laser homing (SALH).
Australia
Warhead: 8 kg (18 lb) shaped charge HEAT.
Egypt
Length: 163 cm (64 in)
France Weight: 45 kg (99 lb)
Greece
AGM-114B/C Basic Hellre
Republic of Korea
M120E1 low smoke motor.
India
AGM-114B has electronic SAD (Safe/Arming De-
Indonesia vice) for safe shipboard use.
Iraq Unit cost: $25,000
Israel
AGM-114D/E Basic Hellre
Italy
Jordan Proposed upgrade of AGM-114B/C with digital

autopilotnot built.
Japan
AGM-114F Interim Hellre
Kuwait
Lebanon[28] Target: Tanks, armored vehicles.

Netherlands Range: 7,000 m (7,650 yd)
Norway Guidance: Semi-active laser homing.
Warhead: 9 kg (20 lb) tandem shaped charge AGM-114L Longbow Hellre

HEAT.
Target: All armored threats
Range: 8,000 m (8,749 yd)
Weight: 48.5 kg (107 lb)
Guidance:
AGM-114G Interim Hellre
Fire and forget millimeter wave radar seeker
coupled with inertial guidance
Proposed version of AGM-114F with SADnot
built. Homing capability in adverse weather and the
presence of battleeld obscurants
AGM-114H Interim Hellre Warhead: 9 kg (20 lb) tandem shaped charge high
explosive anti-tank (HEAT)
Proposed upgrade of AGM-114F with digital Length: 176 cm (69.2 in)
autopilotnot built.
Weight: 49 kg (108 lb)
AGM-114J Hellre II
AGM-114M Hellre II
Proposed version of AGM-114F with lighter com-
ponents, shorter airframe, and increased rangenot Target: Bunkers, light vehicles, urban (soft) targets
built. and caves
Range: 8,000 m (8,749 yd)
AGM-114K Hellre II
Guidance:
Semi-active laser homing
Warhead: Blast fragmentation/incendiary
AGM-114N Hellre II
A Hellre II exposed through transparent casing. Target: Enclosures, ships, urban targets, air defense
units
Range: 8,000 m (8,749 yd)
Target: All armored threats
Guidance:
Range: 8,000 m (8,749 yd)
Semi-active laser homing
Guidance:
Warhead: Metal augmented charge (MAC) (Ther-
Semi-active laser homing with electro-optical mobaric)
countermeasures hardening
Digital autopilot improvements allow target Weight: 48 kg (105 lb)
reacquisition after lost laser lock Length: 163 cm (64 in)
New electronic SAD
AGM-114P Hellre II
Warhead: 9 kg (20 lb) tandem shaped charge HEAT
Length: 163 cm (64 in) Version of AGM-114K optimized for use from
UCAVs ying at high altitude.
ATM-114Q Hellre II
Unit cost: $65,000
Essentially the proposed AGM-114J w/ SAD Practice version of AGM-114N with inert warhead.
31.7. SEE ALSO 163
AGM-114R Hellre II Performance:
Operating temperature: 43 C to 63 C (45

Target: Bunkers, light vehicles, urban (soft) targets F to 145 F)
and caves
Storage temperature: 43 C to 71 C (45 F
Range: 8,000 m (8,749 yd) to 160 F)
Guidance: Service life: 20+ years (estimated)
Semi-active laser homing Technical data:
Warhead: Integrated Blast Frag Sleeve (IBFS) Weight: 14.2 kg (31.3 lb)
(combine blast fragmentation and fragment disper- Length: 59.3 cm (23.35 in)
sion). Diameter: 18 cm (7.0 in)
Weight: 50 kg (110 lb) Case: 7075-T73 aluminum
Speed : Mach 1.3 Insulator: R-181 aramid ber-lled EPDM

Nozzle: Cellulose phenolic
AGM-114S Hellre II Propellant: Minimum smoke cross linked dou-
ble based (XLDB)
Practice version of AGM-114K with a spotting
charge instead of a warhead.
31.7 See also
AGM-114T Hellre II
Brimstone missile
AGM-114R with insensitive munition rocket motor Mokopa
and electromagnetic control actuators.
AGM-169 Joint Common Missile
Euromissile HOT
31.6 Rocket motor
Spike (missile)
PARS 3 LR
HJ-10
List of missiles
U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command
AN/PAQ-1
Direct Attack Guided Rocket

Cross section diagram of Hellre rocket motor, showing the rod UMTAS
and tube grain design.
Grin (missile)
Targeted killing
Contractor: Alliant Techsystems
Designation:
31.8 References
M120E3 (Army)
M120E4 (Navy) [1] AGM-114 Hellre Variants. GlobalSecurity.org, 25
November 2005. Retrieved 14 August 2009.
Main features:
[2] AGM-114 Hellre missile. Boeing, Retrieved 3 July
Qualied minimum smoke propellant 2013.
Rod and tube grain design
[3] John Pike. AGM-114 Hellre Modular Missile System
Neoprene bondline system (HMMS)". Retrieved 6 February 2015.
[4] Introduction of the Hellre A Revolutionary Weapon to [24] Norwegian article about the experimental deployment of
defeat the Soviet Armor Threat Ocial US Army video Hellre missiles on coastal patrol boats (from the ocial
at Real Military Flix web site of the Norwegian Armed Forces)
[5] Longbow Hellre. Retrieved 27 September 2011. [25] Muoz, Carlo (14 January 2014). SNA 2014: Navy
Wont Rule Out Army Longbow Hellre for LCS.
[6] AGM-114L Longbow Missile. (shows that the L variant news.usni.org. U.S. NAVAL INSTITUTE. Retrieved 14
is called Longbow). Retrieved 27 September 2011. January 2014.
[7] AGM-114 Hellre Modular Missile System (HMMS)". [26] Osborn, Kris (9 April 2014). Navy Adds Hellre Mis-
Retrieved 27 September 2011. siles to LCS. Monster. Retrieved 9 April 2014.
[8] AGM-114L Longbow Missile. Retrieved 27 September [27] AGM-114 Hellre and Longbow Hellre, Janes
2011. Weapon Systems, Vol. 1: Air-Launched, March 19, 2013.
[9] Army and Lockheed Martin prepare for production [28] Heavy U.S. Military Aid to Lebanon Arrives ahead of
of advanced laser-guided Hellre missile - Mili- Elections. Naharnet Newsdesk. 9 April 2009. Retrieved
taryaerospace.com, 10 April 2012 9 April 2009.
[10] Hella Lotta Hellres - Strategypage.com, October 19, [29] Proposed Foreign Military Sale to Tunisia.
2012
[11] Army Reduces Scope Of Tri-Mode JAGM - Aviation-

week.com, 27 August 2012 31.9 External links
[12] Hellre Replacement Step Closer With Draft JAGM RFP, AGM-114 HellreFederation of American Sci-
Aviationweek.com, 10 June 2014
entists (FAS)
[13] ynet - " . ynet.
HELLFIRE II MissileLockheed Martin
Retrieved 6 February 2015.
LONGBOW FCR and LONGBOW HELLFIRE
[14] Israel shoots down Lebanese civilian plane. CNN. May
2001. MissileLockheed Martin
[15] Smith, Michael (22 June 2008). Army 'vacuum' missile Designation Systems
hits Taliban. London: Times Online. Retrieved 22 June
Global Security
2008.
Archived copy of Navy Fact File
[16] Whitaker, Brian (23 March 2004). Assassination
method: surveillance drone and a Hellre missile. The Janes.com
Guardian (London). Retrieved 4 December 2010.
Hellre Detailed Description and Images
[17] Al Jazeera English The Life And Death Of Shaikh
Yasin. Web.archive.org. Archived from the original on
16 August 2007. Retrieved 20 October 2010.
[18] Kasino, Laura; Mazzetti, Mark; Cowell, Alan (30

September 2011), U.S.-Born Qaeda Leader Killed in
Yemen, The New York Times
[19] Martinez, Michael (5 September 2014). Top Somali mil-

itant killed in U.S. operation, Pentagon says. CNN. Re-
[20] US sends Hellre missiles to Iraq. Belfast Telegraph

(Independent News & Media). 27 December 2013. Re-
[21] New Iraqi Airborne Strike Capability Spotted. Aviation

Week & Space Technology. 14 October 2008. Retrieved
20 May 2010.
[22] KC-130J Harvest Hawk takes on new role in Afghanistan

- DVIDS
[23] The U.S. Air Forces New AC-130 Gunships Are Really
Bomb Trucks. FoxTrot Alpha. 1 June 2014. Retrieved
5 September 2014.
Chapter 32
M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System
The M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System (M270 cal MLRS cluster salvo consisted of three M270 vehicles
MLRS) is an armored, self-propelled, multiple rocket each ring all 12 rockets. With each rocket containing
launcher; a type of rocket artillery. 644 M77 grenades, the entire salvo would drop 23,184
grenades in the target area. However, with a two per-
Since the rst M270s were delivered to the U.S. Army
in 1983, the MLRS has been adopted by several cent dud rate, that would leave approximately 400 undet-
onated bombs scattered over the area that would endanger
NATO countries. Some 1,300 M270 systems have been [4]
manufactured in the United States and in Europe, along friendly troops and civilians.
with more than 700,000 rockets. The production of the In 2006, MLRS was upgraded to re guided rounds.
M270 ended in 2003, when a last batch was delivered to Phase I testing of a guided unitary round (XM31) was
the Egyptian Army. completed on an accelerated schedule in March 2006.
Due to an Urgent Need Statement, the guided unitary
round was quickly elded and used in action in Iraq.[5]
Lockheed Martin also received a contract to convert ex-
32.1 Overview isting M30 DPICM GMLRS rockets to the XM31 uni-
tary variant.[6]
The weapon can re guided and unguided projectiles up A German developmental artillery system, called the
to 42 km (26 mi). Firing ballistic missiles, such as the Artillery Gun Module, has used the MLRS chassis on its
U.S. Army Tactical Missile SystemATACMS, it can developmental vehicles.[7]
hit targets 300 km (190 mi) away; the warhead in such
shots reaches an altitude of about 50 km (164,000 ft). In 2012, a contract was issued to improve the armor of
The M270 can be used in shoot-and-scoot tactics, ring the M270s and improve the re control to the standards
[8]
its rockets rapidly, then moving away to avoid counter- of the HIMARS.
battery re.
MLRS was developed jointly by the United Kingdom,
United States, Germany, and France. It was developed 32.2 Service history
from the older General Support Rocket System (GSRS).
The M270 MLRS weapons system is collectively known
When rst deployed with the U.S. Army, the MLRS
as the M270 MLRS Self-propelled Loader/Launcher
(SPLL). The SPLL is composed of 3 primary subsys- was used in a composite battalion consisting of two bat-
teries of traditional artillery (howitzers) and one battery
tems: the M269 Loader Launcher Module (LLM), which
also houses the electronic Fire Control System, is mated of MLRS SPLLs (self-propelled loader/launchers). The
to the M993 Carrier Vehicle. The M993 is a derivative rst operational organic or all MLRS unit was 6th Bat-
of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle chassis.[1][2] talion, 27th Field Artillery.[9]
The rockets and ATACMS missiles are contained in in- The 6th Battalion, 27th Field Artillery was reactivated as
terchangeable pods. Each pod contains six standard rock- the Armys rst Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS)
ets or one guided ATACMS missile; the two types can- battalion on 1 October 1984, and became known as the
not be mixed. The LLM can hold two pods at a time, Proud Rockets,. In March 1990, the unit deployed to
which are hand-loaded using an integrated winch sys- White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico to conduct the
tem. All twelve rockets or two ATACMS missiles can Initial Operational Test and Evaluation of the Army Tac-
be red in under a minute. One launcher ring twelve tical Missile System. The success of the test provided
rockets can completely blanket one square kilometer with the Army with a highly accurate, long range re support
submunitions. For this reason, the MLRS is sometimes asset.
referred to as the Grid Square Removal System (metric On 2 September 1990, the 6th Battalion, 27th Field Ar-
maps are usually divided up into 1 km grids).[3] A typi- tillery deployed to Saudi Arabia in support of Operation
165
166 CHAPTER 32. M270 MULTIPLE LAUNCH ROCKET SYSTEM
MLRS-System with launch vehicle, loader and a command center

inside an M113-APC
In April 2011, the rst modernized MLRS II and M31

GMLRS rocket were handed over to the German Armys
Artillery School in Idar Oberstein. The German Army
operates the M31 rocket up to a range of 90 km.[11]
The M270 MLRS conducts a rocket launch.
32.3 Versions
Desert Shield. Assigned to the XVIII Airborne Corps Ar-
tillery, the unit played a critical role in the early defense of
Saudi Arabia. As Desert Shield turned into Desert Storm,
the Battalion was the rst U.S. Field Artillery unit to re
into Kuwait. Over the course of the war, the 6th Bat-
talion, 27th Field Artillery provided timely and accurate
rocket and missile res for both U.S. corps in the the-
ater, the 82nd Airborne Division, the 6th French Light
Armored Division, the 1st Armored, 1st Infantry Divi-
sion, the 101st Airborne Division, and the 24th Infantry
Division (Mechanized).
A Btry 92nd Field Artillery (MLRS) was deployed to
the Gulf War in 1990 from Ft.Hood Texas. 3/27th FA Two British M270 MLRS in 2008 in Camp Bastion, Afghanistan
(MLRS) out of Ft. Bragg deployed in support of Opera-
tion Desert Shield in August 1990. A/21st Field Artillery
(MLRS) 1st Cavalry Division Artillery deployed in sup- M270 is the original version, which carries a weapon
port of Operation Desert Shield in September 1990. In load of 12 rockets in two six-pack launch pod con-
December 1990, A-40th Field Artillery (MLRS) 3rd tainers. This armored, tracked mobile launcher uses
Armored Division Artillery (Hanau), 1/27th FA (MLRS) a stretched Bradley chassis and gives the vehicle high
part of the 41st Field Artillery Brigade (Babenhausen) cross-country capability.
and 4/27th FA (MLRS) (Wertheim) deployed in support
of Operation Desert Shield from their bases in Germany M270 IPDS was an interim upgrade applied to a
and 1/158th Field Artillery from the Oklahoma Army select number of launchers to provide the ability to
National Guard deployed in January 1991. re the longer-range GPS-aided ATACMS Block
IA, quick-reaction unitary and Block II missiles un-
In early Feb 91 1/27th FA launched the biggest MLRS til sucient M270A1 launchers were elded.
night re mission in history.[10] It has since been used in
numerous military engagements including the 2003 in- M270A1 was the result of an 2005 upgrade pro-
vasion of Iraq. In March 2007, the British Ministry of gram for the U.S. Army, and later on for sev-
Defence decided to send a troop of MLRS to support on- eral other states. The launcher appears identical
going operations in Afghanistans southern province of to M270, but incorporates an improved re control
Helmand; they will use newly developed guided muni- system (IFCS) and an improved launcher mechan-
tions. ical system (ILMS). This allows for signicantly
32.4. MLRS ROCKETS AND MISSILES 167
faster launch procedures and the ring of new types M30 (United States): Guided MLRS (GMLRS). A
of munitions, including GPS guided rockets. precision guided rocket, range over 60 km with a
standard load of 404 M85 submunitions.
M270B1 is a British Army upgrade, similar to the
A1, but it also includes an enhanced armor package, M31 (United States): Guided Unitary MLRS.
which gives the crew better protection against IED Variant of the M30 with a unitary high-
attacks. explosive warhead for use in urban and moun-
tainous terrain.[12]
M39 (MGM-140) (United States): Army Tactical
32.4 MLRS rockets and missiles Missile System (ATACMS). A large guided missile
using the M270 launcher, with a variety of war-
heads.
Main article: MGM-140 ATACMS
XM135 (United States): Rocket with binary chemi-

cal warhead (VX (nerve agent)). Not standardized.
AT2 (Germany, UK, France): SCATMIN Rocket
with 28 anti-tank mines and range of 38 km.
PARS SAGE-227 F (Turkey): Experimental
Guided MLRS (GMLRS) developed by TUBITAK-
SAGE to replace the M26 rockets.
Steel Rain - M77 DPICM submunition of type used by MLRS

M26 rocket. 644 M77s per rocket. The M77 was developed from 32.4.1 Selected rocket specications
the M483A1 that was developed for artillery shells.
Caliber: 227 mm (8.94 in)
The M270 system can re MLRS Family Of Munition
Length: 3.94 m (12.93 ft)
(MFOM) rockets and artillery missiles, which are man-
ufactured and used by a number of platforms and coun- Motor: Solid-fuel rocket
tries. These include:
M26 (United States): Rocket with 644 M77 32.4.2 Alternative Warhead Program
Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions
(DPICM) submunitions, range of 32 km. In April 2012, Lockheed Martin received a $79.4 mil-
lion contract to develop a GMLRS incorporating an
M26A1 (United States): Extended Range Alliant Techsystems-designed alternative warhead to re-
Rocket (ERR), with range of 45 km and 518 place DPICM cluster warheads. The AW version is
M85 submunitions (an improved version of designed as a drop-in replacement with little modica-
the M77 DPICM submunition). tion needed to existing rockets. An Engineering and
M26A2 (United States): As M26A1, but us- Manufacturing Development (EMD) program will last
ing M77 submunitions. Interim use until M85 36 months, with the alternative warhead GMLRS ex-
submunition entered service. pected to enter service in late 2016.[14] The AW war-
head is a large airburst fragmentation warhead that ex-
M27 (United States): Completely inert training plodes 30 ft (9.1 m) over a target area to disperse pen-
Launch Pod/Container to allow full loading cycle etrating projectiles. Considerable damage is caused to
training. a large area while leaving behind only solid metal pene-
[15]
M28 (United States): Training rocket. M26 with trators and inert rocket fragments from a 200 lb war-
three ballast containers and three smoke marking head containing approximately 160,000 preformed tung-
containers in place of submunition payload. sten fragments.[16]
M28A1 (United States): Reduced Range Prac- On 22 May 2013, Lockheed and ATK test red a
tice Rocket (RRPR) with blunt nose. Range GMLRS rocket with a new cluster munition warhead de-
reduced to 9 km. veloped under the Alternative Warhead Program (AWP),
aimed at producing a drop-in replacement for DPICM
XM29 (United States): Rocket with Sense and De- bomblets in M30 guided rockets. It was red by an M142
stroy Armor (SADARM) submunitions. Not stan- HIMARS and traveled 35 km (22 mi) before detonat-
dardized. ing. The AWP warhead will have equal or greater eect
168 CHAPTER 32. M270 MULTIPLE LAUNCH ROCKET SYSTEM
against materiel and personnel targets, while leaving no Finland: Finnish Army (33 + 1 burned, called
unexploded ordnance behind.[17] 298 RsRakH (Raskas RaketinHeitin) 06, literally
On 23 October 2013, Lockheed conducted the third and heavy rocket launcher)
nal engineering development test ight of the GMLRS
alternative warhead. Three rockets were red from 17 France: French Army (44)
kilometres (11 mi) away and destroyed their ground tar-
gets. The Alternative Warhead Program then moved Germany: German Army (called MARS
to production qualication testing.[18] The fth and - Mittleres Artillerie Raketen System) (50+202)
nal Production Qualication Test (PQT) for the AW
GMLRS was conducted in April 2014, ring four rock- Greece: Hellenic Army (36)
ets from a HIMARS at targets 65 kilometres (40 mi)
away.[19] Israel: Israel Defense Forces (48) (Called
On 28 July 2014, Lockheed successfully completed Menatetz , Smasher)
all Developmental Test/Operational Test (DT/OT) ight
tests for the AW GMLRS. They were the rst tests con- Italy: Italian Army (22)
ducted with soldiers operating the re control system, r-
ing rockets at mid and long-range from a HIMARS. The Japan: Japan Ground Self-Defense Force (99)
Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) exercise
will be conducted in fall 2014.[20] South Korea: Republic of Korea Army (58)
Turkey: Turkish Army (12)

32.5 M993 Launcher specications
United Kingdom: Royal Artillery (42)
Entered service: 1982 (U.S. Army)
United States: United States Army (840+151)
First used in action: 1991 (First Gulf War)
Crew: 3
32.7 Former Operators
Weight loaded: 24,756 kg
Length: 6.86 metres (22 ft 6 in) Denmark: Royal Danish Army (no longer in
service; sold to Finnish Army) (12)
Width: 2.97 metres (9 ft 9 in) [21]
Netherlands: Royal Netherlands Army (out of
Height (stowed): 2.57 m (8 ft 5 in)[22] service since 2004; sold to Finnish Army)
Height (max elevation): not available
Norway: Norwegian Army (12) (no longer in
Max road speed: 64 km/h active service)
Cruise range: 480 km
Reload time: 4 min (M270) 3 min (M270A1) 32.8 Nicknames

Engine: Turbo-charged V8 Cummins VTA903
US military operators refer to the M270 as the comman-
diesel 500 hp ver2.
ders personal shotgun or as battleeld buckshot. It is
Crossdrive turbo transmission fully electronically also commonly referred to as the Gypsy Wagon, be-
controlled cause crews store additional equipment, such as camou-
age netting, cots, coolers, and personal items, on top of
Average unit cost: $2.3 million[23] the vehicle as the launcher itself lacks adequate storage
space for the crew. Within the British military, a com-
mon nickname is Grid Square Removal System, a play
on the initialism GSRS (from the older General Support
32.6 Operators Rocket System). With the adoption of the new M30 GPS
guided rocket, it is now being referred to as the 70 kilo-
Egypt: Egyptian Army (48) meter sniper rie.[24] During the 1991 Gulf War, the
Iraqis referred to the small M77 submunitions rockets as
Bahrain: Royal Bahraini Army (9) the Steel Rain.
32.9 See also [18] Alternative GMLRS Warhead Completes Third Success-
ful Fight Test - Deagel.com, 23 October 2013
Multiple rocket launcher [19] Lockheed Martin GMLRS Alternative Warhead Logs
Successful Flight-Test Series, Shifts To Next Testing
HIMARS
Phase - Lockheed news release, 16 April 2014
M-numbers [20] Lockheed Martin Completes Successful Operational
Flight Tests of GMLRS Alternative Warhead -
Astros II MLRS
Deagel.com, 28 July 2014
[21]
32.10 References [22]
[1] John Pike. M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System - [23] John Pike. M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System -
MLRS. Globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 2013-10-23. MLRS. Globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 2013-10-23.
[2] M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System - MLRS. [24]

Fas.org. Retrieved 2013-10-23.
[3] Ben Rooney, Tank-busting helicopters ready for action,

Daily Telegraph, April 21, 1999. 32.11 External links
[4] After Cluster Bombs: Raining Nails - Wired.com, 30 May Lockheed US MLRS at Army-Technology.com
2008
British MLRS
[5] Guided MLRS Unitary Rocket Successfully Tested, Mi-
crowave Journal, Vol. 49, No. 3 (March 2006), page 39. Designation Systems
[6] Lockheed Gets $16.6M to Convert MLRS Rockets, Diehl BGTGerman developer and manufacturer
Asked to Speed Up GMLRS Production (updated)". De- of GMLRS (site in English)
fense Industry Daily. August 2, 2006. Retrieved 2013-
10-23. Danish M270 MLRS
[7] Defense & Security Intelligence & Analysis: IHS Janes
| IHS. Janes.com. Retrieved 2013-10-23.
[8] USA Moves to Update Its M270 Rocket Launchers.

Defenseindustrydaily.com. 2012-07-01. Retrieved 2013-
10-23.
[9] History for 6th Battalion, 27th Field Artillery (1960s to

Present)". Military.com. Retrieved 2013-10-23.
[10] C-1/27th FA MLRS. YouTube. 2009-11-26. Re-

trieved 2013-10-23.
[11] Rollout MARS II und GMLRS Unitary (in German).

Bwb.org. 2012-07-26. Retrieved 2012-08-06.
[12] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/
GuidedUnitaryMLRSRocket.html
[13] Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS)-

Unitary
[14] GMLRS to Get a New Warhead - Defense-Update.com,

24 April 2012
[15] Army tests safer warhead - Armytechnol-

ogy.Armylive.DoDlive.mil, 2 September 2014
[16] Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) Alter-

native Warhead (GMLRS-AW) XM30A1 - Oce of the
Director, Operational Test & Evaluation. 2014
[17] US Army searches for cluster munitions alternatives.

Dmilt.com. Retrieved 2013-10-23.
Chapter 33
Hydra 70
The Hydra 70 rocket is a weapon derived from the 2.75

inch Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket developed
by the United States Navy for use as a free-ight aerial
rocket in the late 1940s.
33.1 Overview
The Hydra 70 family of WAFAR (Wrap-Around Fin

Aerial Rocket), based on the Mk 66 universal motor, was
developed from the previous 2.75 inch Mk 40 motor-
based folding n aerial rocket. The propellant grain is
longer and of a dierent formulation than that of the
MK40/MK4, however, the stabilizing rod and igniter are
Hydra 70 rockets on an AH-1 Cobra helicopter
essentially the same design. The MK66 motors have a
substantially higher thrust, 1,335 pounds-force (5,940 N)
(Mod 2/3) 1,415 pounds-force (6,290 N) (Mod 4), and a
longer range than the older motors. To provide additional
stability the four rocket nozzles are scarfed at an angle to
impart a slight spin to the rocket during ight. The Mk
40 was used during the Korean and Vietnam wars, being 33.2.1 United States
used to provide close air support to ground forces from
about 20 dierent ring platforms, both xed-wing and
armed helicopters. Today, the OH-58D(R) Kiowa War- In the U.S. Army, Hydra 70 rockets are red from
rior and AH-64D Apache Longbow, as well as the Ma- the AH-64A Apache and AH-64D Apache Longbow
rine Corps AH-1 Cobra, carry the Hydra rocket launcher helicopters using M261 19-tube rocket launchers, and the
standard on its weapon pylons.[3][4] OH-58D Kiowa Warrior using seven-tube M260 rocket
launchers. In the U.S. Marine Corps, either the M260 or
M261 launchers are employed on the AH-1 Cobra and
33.1.1 Mk 66 rocket motor variants future AH-1Z Viper, depending upon the mission. The
M260 and M261 are used with the Mk 66 series of rocket
motor, which replaced the Mk 40 series. The Mk 66 has a
33.2 Service reduced system weight and provides a remote fuze setting
interface. Hydra 70s have also been red from UH-60
The family of Hydra 70 (70 mm) 2.75 inch rockets and AH-6 series aircraft in US Army service.
perform a variety of functions. The war reserve uni- The AH-1G Cobra and the UH-1B Huey used a variety
tary and cargo warheads are used for anti-materiel, anti- of launchers including the M158 seven-tube and M200
personnel, and suppression missions. The Hydra 70 19-tube rocket launchers designed for the Mk 40 rocket
family of folding-n aerial rockets also includes smoke motor; however, these models have been replaced by up-
screening, illumination, and training warheads. Hydra 70 graded variants in the U.S. Marine Corps because they
rockets are known mainly by either their warhead type or were not compatible with the Mk 66 rocket motor. The
by the rocket motor designation, Mk 66 in US military Hydra 70 rocket system is also used by the U.S. Navy,
service. and the U.S. Air Force.
170
33.5. PRECISION GUIDED HYDRA 70 171
1,335 lb (Mod 2/3)

1,415 lb (Mod 4)
Motor burnout range: 1,300 feet (400 m)

Motor burnout velocity: 2,425 ft/s (739 m/s)
Launch spin rate: 10 rps, 35 rps after exiting launcher
Velocity at launcher exit: 148 ft/s (45 m/s)
Acceleration:
6070 g (initial)
95100 g (nal)
Hydra 70s in an M261 launcher on a Dutch AH-64 Apache. The
tips of some of the rockets are white (and the rockets are shorter
Eective Range: 547 to 8,749 yards (500 to 8,000 m)
in length) because they have a dierent type of fuze/warhead.
depending on warhead and launch platform
Maximum Range: 11,483 yards (10,500 m) under opti-
33.2.2 Common U.S. Mk 66 compatible mum conditions
launchers
33.3 Warheads 33.5 Precision guided Hydra 70
Hydra 70 warheads fall into three categories: The Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS)
II is a program to provide a laser guidance to the existing
Hydra 70 systems in service. It was cancelled by the US
Unitary warheads with impact-detonating fuzes or Army in February 2007,[5] but was restarted by the US
remote-set multi-option fuzes. Navy in 2008. Similar programs are the US Navy Low-
Cost Guided Imaging Rocket, Lockheed Martin Direct
Cargo warheads with air burst-range, with setable Attack Guided Rocket and the ATK/Elbit Guided Ad-
fuzes using the wall-in-space concept or xed vanced Tactical Rocket Laser. APKWS has been red
stando fuzes. successfully from the AH-64 Apache by BAE Systems
in trials at Yuma Proving Grounds in early September,
Training warheads.
2013; US Navy trials of the APKWS with the A-10 Thun-
derbolt II, the AV-8B Harrier and the F-16 Fighting Fal-
con led to US Central Command's approval of a modi-
33.3.1 Fuzing options ed version of APKWS to be red from fast-moving jet
aircraft.[6]
33.3.2 Common warheads
NOTE: Though some of the warheads described were de-

signed for the older Mk 40 rocket motor, but most likely
33.6 Users
could work with the Mk 66 motor if upgraded or mod-
ernized models were not available. However, this would Australia
not be necessary, as vast quantities of upgraded models Colombia
exist today.
Japan
Kuwait
33.4 Mk 66 rocket motor technical
Netherlands
data
Philippines,[7] The launchers are mounted on
AS-211 Warrior trainers with secondary combat
Weight: 13.6 pounds (6.2 kg)
capability and 520MG Defender helicopters.[7]
Length: 41.7 inches (1,060 mm)
Singapore
Burn time: 1.051.10 sec
Average thrust (77 F): Thailand
172 CHAPTER 33. HYDRA 70
United Kingdom
United States
South Korea
Egypt
33.7 See also

U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command
CRV-7
FFAR rocket 2.75 in (70 mm)
SNEB rocket (68mm)

Zuni 5 in (127 mm)
33.8 References
[1] Rockets galore
[2] Hydra-70 2.75-inch (70mm) family of rockets (PDF),

General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products,
2012, p. 2.
[3] Hydra 70, Munitions, Military, Global Security.
[4] Hydra 70 (PDF), GDATP.
[5] R&D Budget Request (PDF), US Army, 2008, p. 4.
[6] http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=
/article-xml/asd_10_23_2013_p02-01-629353.xml
[7] http://kalasagnglahi.angelfire.com/main.html
33.9 External links

Hydra 70. GlobalSecurity. Retrieved 2005-09-
01.
Hydra-70 Rockets: From Cutbacks to the Future of

Warfare, Defense Industry Daily, April 2006.
Air-Launched 2.75-Inch Rockets, Designation Sys-
tems.
Hydra-70, Warheads energetics, Weapon Systems,
General Dynamics.
2012 Army Weapon Systems Handbook
Chapter 34
M202 FLASH
The M202 FLASH (FLame Assault SHoulder

Weapon) is an American rocket launcher, designed to
replace the World War IIvintage amethrowers (such
as the M1 and the M2) that remained the militarys
standard incendiary devices well into the 1960s. The
M202 is based on the prototype XM191 napalm rocket
launcher that saw extensive testing in the Vietnam War.
34.1 Description
The M202A1 features four tubes that can load 66 mm
incendiary rockets. The M74 rockets are equipped with Weapons position or stationary vehicle: 200 meters
M235 warheads, containing approximately 1.34 pounds
(0.61 kg) of an incendiary agent. The substance, of- Squad-sized troop formation: 500 meters
ten mistaken for napalm, is in fact TPA (thickened py-
rophoric agent). The M202A1 was issued as needed, generally one per
rie platoon, although the headquarters of rie companies
TPA is triethylaluminum (TEA) thickened with were authorized nine M202A1s. As with most RPGs, no
polyisobutylene. TEA, an organometallic compound, dedicated gunners were trained, the weapon instead be-
is pyrophoric and burns spontaneously at temperatures ing carried in addition to the rieman's standard weapon.
of 1200 C (2192 F) when exposed to air. It burns While vastly more lightweight than the M2 amethrower
white hot because of the aluminum, much hotter it replaced, the weapon was still bulky to use and the am-
than gasoline or napalm. The light and heat emission munition suered from reliability problems. As a result,
is very intense and can produce skin burns from some the weapon had mostly been relegated to storage by the
(close) distance without direct contact with the ame, by mid-1980s, even though it nominally remains a part of
thermal radiation alone. the U.S. Army arsenal.
As the caliber is shared with the contemporary M72 In recent conicts, U.S. forces have used thermobaric
LAW antitank rocket launcher, it would have been theo- munitions[2] as well as pyrophoric weapons. The
retically possible to re HEAT anti-tank rockets in lieu of M202A1 has been among weapons listed on the inven-
the incendiary payload; the XM191 prototype was capa- tory of U.S. units in the War in Afghanistan.[3]
ble of this. No such round was developed for the M202.
The weapon is meant to be red from the right shoul-
der, and can be red from either a standing, crouching, 34.2 Users
or prone position. It has a trigger mode to facilitate r-
ing all four rockets at once, not just one at a time. After Republic of Korea Army[4]
ring, it can be reloaded with a clip housing four rockets.
United States Army
The M202A1 was rated as having a 50% chance of hit
against the following targets at the noted ranges, assuming
all four rockets were red at the same time:
34.3 See also
Bunker aperture: 50 meters FHJ 84
Window: 125 meters RPO-A Shmel (Bumblebee)
173
174 CHAPTER 34. M202 FLASH
34.4 Notes
[1] TC 23-2 66 mm Rocket Launcher M202A1. US Army
Manual, April 1978 (via Scribd)
[2] XM1060 40mm Thermobaric Grenade. GlobalSecu-

rity.org, 25 November 2005. Accessed 27 May 2010.
[3] Hambling, David (May 15, 2009). U.S. Denies Incendi-

ary Weapon Use in Afghanistan. Wired.com. Accessed
27 May 2010.
[4] http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/3318/
km202a1rok02jz6.jpg[]
34.5 References
TC 23-2 66 mm Rocket Launcher M202A1 US
Army Manual, April 1978 (via Scribd)
TM 3-1055-456-12 M202A1 Operators Manual.

U.S. Patent 4,230,509: Pyrophoric ame composi-
tion
34.6 External links

Image of the XM191 in testing at Footnote Viewer
(footnote.com)
M202A1 Flame Assault Shoulder Weapon (Flash)
at Garys U.S. Infantry Weapons Reference Guide]
66 mm Incendiary Rocket M74 at Designation Sys-
tems
TC 23-2 66 mm Rocket Launcher M202A1US

Army Manual, April 1978 (via Scribd)
M202 FLASH grenade launcher / amethrower at

Modern Firearms
M202 FLASH on Youtube

Chapter 35
M139 bomblet
For other uses, see M139. the outside of the device were vanes"; the vanes cre-
The M139 bomblet was a U.S. sub-munition designed ated a spin which armed the impact fuze.[1] This spin-
to-arm type fuze required between 1,000 and 2,000
rotations per minute to arm, which made handling the
bomblets simpler because they were insensitive to normal
movements.[2] The bomblets interior contained a central
explosive burster charge, containing 73 grams (0.16 lb)
of composition B,[2] and two outer compartments which
contained the sarin.[1]
35.3 Tests involving the M139

The M139 bomblet was used by the U.S. Army in at least
two instances of chemical weapons testing. In 1967 there
were two series of tests which sought to learn the ef-
fects of Sarin dropped in the bomblets over two dier-
ent types of forest environment. The rst series of tests,
known as Green Mist, took place March 25April 24,
1967.[3] Conducted in Hawaii, the purpose of the tests
was to ascertain the eect of Sarin-lled M139s being
A view of the interior of an M139 bomblet. dropped and disseminated over a canopy rain forest.[3]
The Hawaii tests used both sarin nerve agent and the sim-
for use in warheads as a chemical cluster bomb. Each ulant methylacetoacetate.[3]
bomblet held 590 grams (1.3 lb) of sarin nerve agent.
Another test using the M139 took place at the Gerstle
River test site, near Fort Greely, Alaska, from June to
July 1967.[4] The purpose of these tests was to determine
35.1 History the eectiveness of Sarin-lled M139 and BLU-19/B23
bomblets when dropped from a SADEYE dispenser in
In 1964, a new warhead size was standardized for the 318 a summer forest environment.[4] The tests were collec-
mm Honest John rocket. The warhead held 52 M139 tively known as Dew Point.[4] Both 1967 testing opera-
bomblets.[1] When the MGM-29 Sergeant was deployed tions were overseen by the U.S. Armys Deseret Test Cen-
in the 1960s, it had the capacity to deliver a warhead ter.[3][4] Both M139 tests were part of Project 112.[5]
carrying 330 M139 bomblets.[1] Subsequent missile sys-
tems, including the Pershing missile, had the capability
to carry warheads with the M139 inside.[1] In total, about 35.4 See also
60,000 M139s were produced and stored; almost all were
destroyed between April and November 1976.[2]
M143 bomblet
35.2 Specications 35.5 References

The M139 was a 11-centimetre (4.5 in) spherical bomblet [1] Smart, Jeery K. Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biolog-
that was lled with 590 grams (1.3 lb) of sarin (GB). On ical Warfare: Chapter 2 - History of Chemical and Bio-
175
176 CHAPTER 35. M139 BOMBLET
logical Warfare: An American Perspective, (PDF: p. 59),

Borden Institute, Textbooks of Military Medicine, PDF
via Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base, accessed November
12, 2008.
[2] Mauroni, Albert J. Chemical Demilitarization: Public

Policy Aspects, (Google Books), Greenwood Publishing
Group, 2003, p. 20, (ISBN 027597796X).
[3] "Fact Sheet Green Mist", Oce of the Assistant Secre-

tary of Defense (Health Aairs), Deployment Health Sup-
port Directorate, accessed November 12, 2008.
[4] "Fact Sheet Dew Point", Oce of the Assistant Secre-

tary of Defense (Health Aairs), Deployment Health Sup-
port Directorate, accessed November 12, 2008.
[5] "Project 112/SHAD Fact Sheets", Force Health Protec-

tion & Readiness Policy & Programs, The Chemical-
Biological Warfare Exposures Site, accessed November
13, 2008.
Chapter 36
Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket
For earlier rockets with the same acronym, see 3.5-Inch destroyer duties against the USAAF's Eighth Air Force
Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket and 5-Inch Forward Fir- heavy bombers.
ing Aircraft Rocket.
The FFAR was developed in the late 1940s by the US
The Mk 4 Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket (FFAR), also Navy Naval Ordnance Test Center and North American
Aviation.
The original Mk 4 FFAR was about 4 ft (1.2 m) long and
weighed 18.5 lb (8.4 kg), with a high-explosive warhead
of about 6 lb (2.7 kg). Like the Third Reich Luftwaes
R4M projectile of World War II, it had folding ns that
ipped out on launch to spin-stabilize the rocket, with the
FFAR using half the number (four) of ns in comparison
to the R4Ms set of eight folding ns. Its maximum ef-
fective range was about 3,700 yards (3,400 m). Because
Mk 4 mod 10 rocket on display at Volkel Air Base. of its low intrinsic accuracy, it was generally red in large
volleys, some aircraft carrying as many as 104 rockets.
known as Mighty Mouse, was an unguided rocket used
FFARs were the primary armament of many NATO
by United States military aircraft. 2.75 inches (70 mm)
interceptor aircraft in the early 1950s, including the F-
in diameter, it was designed as an air-to-air weapon for
86D, F-89, F-94C, and the CF-100. They were also car-
interceptor aircraft to shoot down enemy bombers, but
ried by the F-102 Delta Dagger to supplement its guided
primarily saw service as an air-to-surface weapon.
missile armament.
36.1 History
The advent of jet engines for both ghters and bombers
posed new problems for interceptors. With closing
speeds of 1,500 ft/s (457 m/s) or more for a head-on in- Rocket pod on the wing of a F-94C without its protective ber-
terception, the amount of time available for a ghter pilot glass nose cone
to successfully target an enemy aircraft and inict suf-
cient damage to bring it down was vanishingly small. The Mk 4 was dubbed Mighty Mouse in service, after
Wartime experience had shown that .50 caliber (12.7 the popular cartoon character.
mm) machine guns were not powerful enough to reli-
ably down a bomber, certainly not in a single volley, and The Mighty Mouse was to prove a poor aerial weapon.
heavy cannon did not have the range or rate of re to en- Although it was powerful enough to destroy a bomber
sure a hit. Unguided rocket weapons had been proven with a single hit, its accuracy was abysmal. Its spin rate
eective in ground-attack work during the war, and the was not high enough to compensate for the eects of wind
Luftwae had shown that volleys of their Werfer-Granate and gravity drop, and the rockets dispersed widely on
21 rockets, rst used by elements of the Luftwaes JG launch: a volley of 24 rockets would cover an area the
1 and JG 11 ghter wings on July 29, 1943 against US- size of a football eld.
AAF bombers attacking Kiel and Warnemnde, could be As a result, by the late 1950s it had been largely aban-
a potent air-to-air weapon as well. The introduction in doned as an aircraft weapon in favor of the guided air-
the summer and autumn of 1944 saw the adoption of the to-air missiles then becoming available. The Mk 4 found
folding-n R4M unguided rocket for use underneath the other uses, however, as an air-to-ground weapon, partic-
wings of the Messerschmitt Me 262 jet ghter for bomber ularly for the new breed of armed helicopter. A volley
177
178 CHAPTER 36. FOLDING-FIN AERIAL ROCKET
of FFARs was as devastating as a heavy cannon with far

less weight and recoil, and in the ground-attack role its
marginal long-range accuracy was less important. It was
tted with a more powerful motor to become the Mk 40.
The Mk 40 was a universal motor developed from the Mk
4 2.75 FFAR, and could be tted with dierent warheads
depending on the mission. Pods (typically carrying seven
or 19 rockets) were created for various applications, and
a wide variety of specialized warheads were developed
for anti-personnel, anti-tank, and target-marking use.
The FFAR has been developed into the modern Hydra 70 XM158 Rocket Pod
series, which is still in service.
craft were normally used by Air Cavalry units, not the

36.2 US Mk 40 FFAR Launchers Aerial Rocket Artillery (ARA) units.
Also various ground launchers using discarded aircraft
The United States was the primary user of this type of pods were used for re base defence. A towed cong-
weapon and developed a number of dierent launching uration consisting of six 19-round pods called a Slammer
pods for it. Initially pods were intended to be disposed was tested for airborne infantry support. The range was
of by launching aircraft, either in ight or on the ground approximately 7000 meters using Hydra 70 family rock-
following a mission. With the advent of the armed heli- ets.
copter, the need for launching pods that were reusable be-
came apparent. Though the rocket was initially developed
by the US Navy, the US Air Force and later US Army 36.3 Warheads for the Mk 40 Mo-
were most responsible for the development of rocket pods
for all services. These pods are described as follows: tor
Launchers designated under the US Air Force sys- With the development of the Mk 40 Mod 0 universal mo-
tem: tor came the development of a considerable number of
dierent warheads, as well as, a number of dierent fuz-
Launchers designated under the US Army system: ing options. A list of those warheads believed to be de-
veloped before the replacement of the Mk 40 motor with
the Mk 66 motor is as follows:
36.3.1 Fuzing Options
36.3.2 US military Warheads
36.4 See also

List of rockets
SNEB
XM157 Rocket Pod
Hydra 70
Early UH-1B/UH-1C Gunships had the XM-3 Subsys-
tem using paired 24 round rectangular launchers mounted
CRV-7
near the back edge of the sliding side doors. These pods
were ground reloadable and were semi-permanent air- Aerial Rocket Artillery
craft parts. The mounting point had been used to mount
booms for 3 SS-11 Launchers on each side for anti-tank List of U.S. Army Rocket Launchers By Model
missions. The co-pilot had a roof mounted sight and con- Number
trol box to re these. Later UH-1C and D aircraft had a
mount on each side to carry a 7 round pod coupled with LOCAT - used three FFAR rockets
paired M-60D machine guns. Some carried M-134 Mini-
guns with 3000 rounds per gun instead, though these air- The Battle of Palmdale
36.5 References
36.6 External links

Fighter Fires Rocket Missiles Like Machine Gun Bul-
lets 1951 article about recently introduced 2.75 inch
Mighty Mouse rocket
Chapter 37
T34 Calliope
This article is about the tank-mounted rocket launcher. Panzerwerfer German 15 cm Nebelwerfer barrage
For other uses, see T34 (disambiguation). rocket system, on an armored half-track or its likely
replacement
The Rocket Launcher T34 (Calliope) was a tank- List of U.S. Army Rocket Launchers By Model
mounted multiple rocket launcher used by the United Number
States Army during World War II. The launcher was
placed atop the Medium Tank M4, and red a barrage
of 4.5 in (114 mm) M8 rockets from 60 launch tubes.
It was developed in 1943; small numbers were produced
37.3 External links
and were used by various US armor units in 1944-45. It
adopts its name from the musical instrument "Calliope", Short video of T34 Calliope being loaded and ring
also known as the steam organ, which had similarly lined
pipes.
37.4 References
37.1 Variants Hunting, David. The New Weapons of the World En-
cyclopedia. New York, New York: Diagram Visual
Rocket Launcher T34 (Calliope) - Version carry- Information Ltd., 2007. ISBN 0-312-36832-1
ing 60 4.5 in (114 mm) rockets in arrangement of a
group of 36 tubes on the top, and a pair jettisonable
groups of 12 tubes (24 tubes of jettisonable groups)
on the bottom (Not jettisonable from M4A1 Sherman
variant).
Rocket Launcher T34E1 (Calliope) - Same as
T34 but groups of 12 jettisonable tubes replaced by
groups of 14 tubes.
Rocket Launcher T34E2 (Calliope) - Caliber of
rockets increased from 4.5 in (114 mm) to 7.2 in
(183 mm), number of tubes remains at 60. Saw
combat in 1944-1945.
37.2 See also

Matilda Hedgehog - Australian armoured ghting
vehicle using spigot mortars.
Sherman Tulip - British Sherman with two 60 lb
3-inch rockets mounted on turret.
Mattress - British multiple 3-inch rocket launcher
used by Canadian troops
Katyusha, Soviet truck-mounted rocket launcher
180
Chapter 38
AIR-2 Genie
The Douglas AIR-2 Genie (previous designation MB-

1) was an unguided air-to-air rocket with a 1.5 kt W25
nuclear warhead.[1] It was deployed by the United States
Air Force (USAF 19571985) and Canada (Royal Cana-
dian Air Force 196568, Air Command 196884)[2] dur-
ing the Cold War. Production ended in 1962 after over
3000 were made, with some related training and test
derivatives being produced later.
38.1 Development
Plumbbob John nuclear test, the only live test ever of a Genie
rocket, on 19 July 1957. Fired from a US Air Force F-89J over
Yucca Flats, Nevada Test Site at an altitude of ~15,000 ft (4.5
km).
A Convair F-106 of the California Air National Guard res an
inert version of the Genie
The interception of Soviet strategic bombers was a ma- weapon. To ensure simplicity and reliability, the weapon
would be unguided since the large blast radius made pre-
jor military preoccupation of the late 1940s and 1950s.
The revelation in 1947 that the Soviet Union had pro- cise accuracy unnecessary.
duced a reverse-engineered copy of the Boeing B-29 Su- The resultant weapon carried a 1.5-kiloton W25 nuclear
perfortress, the Tupolev Tu-4 (NATO reporting name warhead and was powered by a Thiokol SR49-TC-1 solid-
Bull), which could reach the continental United States fuel rocket engine of 162 kN (36,500 lbf) thrust. It had a
in a one-way attack, followed by the Soviets developing range of slightly under 10 km (6.2 mi). Targeting, arm-
their own atomic bomb in 1949, produced considerable ing, and ring of the weapon were coordinated by the
anxiety. launch aircrafts re-control system. Detonation was by
The World War II-vintage ghter armament of machine time-delay fuze, although the fuzing mechanism would
guns and cannon were inadequate to stop attacks by not arm the warhead until engine burn-out, to give the
massed formations of high-speed bombers. Firing large launch aircraft sucient time to turn and escape. Lethal
volleys of unguided rockets into bomber formations was radius of the blast was estimated to be about 300 meters
not much better, and true air-to-air missiles were in their (1,000 ft).
infancy. In 1954 Douglas Aircraft began a program to The rst test rings of inert rounds took place in 1956,
investigate the possibility of a nuclear-armed air-to-air and the weapon entered service with the designation MB-
181
182 CHAPTER 38. AIR-2 GENIE
1 in 1957. The popular name was Genie, but it was of-

ten nicknamed Ding-Dong. About 3,150 rounds were
produced before production ended in 1963. In 1962 the
weapon was redesignated AIR-2A Genie. Many rounds
were upgraded with improved, longer-duration rocket
motors, the upgraded weapons sometimes known (appar-
ently only semi-ocially) as AIR-2B. An inert training
round, originally MB-1-T and later ATR-2A, was also
produced in small numbers.
The Montana Air National Guard F-89J that launched the live
Genie.
Safety features included nal arming by detecting the ac-

celeration and deceleration of a fast aircraft at high alti-
tude. The weapon was built too early to use a permissive
action link security device.[2]
The F-89J that was used to launch the only live test is on
static display at the Montana Air National Guard in Great
Falls, Montana.
An F-89 Scorpion ring the live Genie used in the Plumbbob John
test
38.2 Operators
A live Genie was detonated only once, in Operation
Plumbbob on 19 July 1957. It was red by AF Captain Canada
Eric William Hutchison (pilot) and AF Captain Alfred
C. Barbee (radar operator) ying an F-89J over Yucca
Flats. Sources vary as to the height of the blast, but it was Royal Canadian Air Force /Canadian Forces Air
between 18,500 and 20,000 ft above mean sea level.[3] Command (Discontinued)
A group of ve USAF ocers volunteered to stand hat-
less in their light summer uniforms underneath the blast United States
to prove that the weapon was safe for use over populated
areas. They were photographed by Department of De-
fense photographer George Yoshitake who stood there United States Air Force
with them.[4] Gamma and neutron doses received by ob-
servers on the ground were negligible. Doses received by
aircrew were highest for the iers assigned to penetrate
the airburst cloud ten minutes after explosion.[5][6] 38.3 Specications (AIR-2A)
The Genie was cleared to be carried on the F-89 Scor-
pion, F-101B Voodoo, F-106 Delta Dart, and F-104
Starghter in U.S. service. A trapeze launcher was tted
beneath a Starghter, but it was never carried in opera-
tional service. Convair oered an upgrade of the F-102
Delta Dagger that would have been Genie-capable, but it
was not adopted. Operational use of the Genie was dis-
continued in 1988 with the retirement of the F-106 inter-
ceptor.
The only other user was Canada, whose CF-101 Voodoos
carried Genies until 1984 via a dual-key arrangement
where the missiles were kept under United States cus-
tody, and released to Canada under circumstances requir-
ing their use.[2] The RAF briey considered the missile CF-101B of the Canadian Forces ring Genie in 1982
for use on the English Electric Lightning.
38.5. SEE ALSO 183
Length: 2.95 m (9 ft 8 in) Comox Air Force Museum, CFB Comox, 19

Wing, Comox, British Columbia, British Columbia,
Diameter: 0.44 m (17.5 in) Canada
Wingspan: 1.02 m (3 ft 4 in) Vermont National Guard Library and Museum,
Camp Johnson, Colchester, Vermont
Launch weight: 373 kg (c lb)
Jimmy Doolittle Air & Space Museum, Travis Air
Speed: Mach 3.3 Force Base, California
Range: 9.6 km (6 mi) Malmstrom Air Force Base Museum, Great Falls,
Montana
Guidance: Inertial (None)
Warhead: W25 nuclear ssion, 1.5 kiloton yield

38.5 See also
Date deployed: 1957
How to Photograph an Atomic Bomb
Date retired: 1985
List of nuclear weapons
Used with MF-9 Transport Trailer
38.6 References
38.4 Survivors
[1] http://www.boeing.com/history/mdc/genie.html
Below is a list of museums which have a Genie rocket in [2] John Clearwater (1998), Canadian Nuclear Weapons: The
their collection: Untold Story of Canadas Cold War Arsenal, Dundurn
Press Ltd, ISBN 1-55002-299-7, retrieved 2008-11-10
Air Force Armament Museum, Eglin Air Force [3] SHOTS DIABLO TO FRANKLIN PRIME The Mid-
Base, Florida Series Tests of the PLUMBBOB Series 15 JULY - 30
AUGUST 1957
Atlantic Canada Aviation Museum, Halifax, Nova
Scotia [4] Five at Ground Zero. CTBTO. 19 July 1957. Retrieved
17 February 2014.
Hill Aerospace Museum, Ogden, Utah
[5] Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Public Aairs. Fact-
MAPS Air Museum, Akron-Canton Regional Air- sheet. Operation Plumbbob.
port, Ohio ATR-2 with MF-9 trailer [6] Attachment 12. Preliminary report. Operation Plumb-
bob. Nevada Test Site, May-September 1957. Project
Museum of Aviation at Robins Air Force Base,
2.9 NUCLEAR RADIATION RECEIVED BY AIRCREWS
Georgia ATR-2N with MF-9 trailer [7] FIRING THE MB-1 ROCKET.
National Museum of the United States Air Force, [7] Museum of Aviation Website
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio
Oregon Military Museum at Camp Withycombe,

Clackamas, Oregon
Pima Air & Space Museum, Tucson, Arizona Inert

round with trailer
Selfridge Air National Guard Base Museum,

Harrison Township, Michigan
Western Canada Aviation Museum, Winnipeg,

Manitoba, Canada
Ellsworth Air and Space Museum at Ellsworth Air

Force Base, Rapid City, South Dakota
Air Defence Museum, CFB Bagotville, 3rd Wing,

Saguenay, Quebec, Canada
Chapter 39
BOAR
This article is about the nuclear rocket. For other uses,

see Boar (disambiguation).
The Bombardment Aircraft Rocket, also known as

BOAR, the Bureau of Ordnance Aircraft Rocket, and
ocially as the 30.5-Inch Rocket, Mark 1, Mod 0,
was an unguided air-to-surface rocket developed by the
United States Navys Naval Ordnance Test Station during
the 1950s. Intended to provide a stando nuclear capa-
bility for carrier-based aircraft, the rocket entered oper-
ational service in 1956, remaining in service until 1963.
39.1 Design and development BOAR being loaded on AD-7 Skyraider
Following a specication developed during 1951,[1] the BOAR was intended to be an interim weapon;[2] a more
development of the BOAR rocket was started in 1952 advanced development, Hopi, entered ight testing during
at the Naval Ordnance Test Station (NOTS), located at 1958.[4] Hopi, however, failed to enter production, and
China Lake, California.[2] The project was intended to BOAR remained the only stando nuclear air-to-surface
provide a simple means of extending the stand-o range missile elded by the Navy.[2]
of nuclear weapons delivered using the toss bombing
technique, as some slower aircraft still faced marginal es- 225 examples of the BOAR rocket were produced by
cape conditions when delivering ordinary gravity bombs NOTS.[2] In service, the rocket proved unpopular with
even with the use of this technique.[2] the pilots of the aircraft assigned to carry it: the loft-
bombing maneuver, called an idiot loop, was consid-
The rocket that emerged from the development process ered dangerous.[5] By 1963, maintenance issues with the
used a single, solid-fueled rocket motor mated to the W7 solid rocket motor were proving acute, and the rocket was
nuclear weapon, which had a yield of 20 kilotons of TNT removed from the inventory during that year.[2]
(84 TJ).[3] This provided a stand-o range of 7.5 miles
(12.1 km) when released in a steep climb, the aircraft then
completing the toss-bombing pullout to escape the blast;
the rocket, lacking guidance, would follow a ballistic tra-
39.3 References
[1]
jectory to impact following rocket burnout.
39.2 Operational history

Entering ight trials in 1953, BOAR proved
satisfactory.[2] Twenty test rings during the course
of 1955 were conducted without a single failure,[1] and
in 1956 the rocket entered operational service.[1] A BOAR on handling trolley
variety of aircraft carried BOAR operationally but it
was primarily used by the AD Skyraider, the slowest
nuclear-armed aircraft in the Navys inventory.[2] Notes
184
[1] Babcock 2008, p.321-324
[2] Parsch 2003
[3] Polmar 2001, p.527.
[4] Parsch 2003b
[5] Michel 2003, p.27.
Bibliography
Babcock, Elizabeth (2008). Magnicent Mavericks:

transition of the Naval Ordnance Test Station from
rocket station to research, development, test and eval-
uation center, 194858. History of the Navy at
China Lake, California 3. Washington, DC: Gov-
ernment Printing Oce. ISBN 978-0-945274-56-
8. Retrieved 2011-01-07.
Michel, Marshall (May 2003). Exit Strategy. Air
& Space Smitsonian. Retrieved 2011-01-07.
Parsch, Andreas (2003). NOTS BOAR (30.5
Rocket MK1)". Directory of U.S. Military Rock-
ets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Retrieved
2011-01-07.
Parsch, Andreas (2003). NOTS Hopi. Directory
of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-
systems.net. Retrieved 2010-12-29.
Polmar, Norman (2001). The Naval Institute Guide

to the Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet (17th ed.).
Annapolis, MD: U.S. Naval Institute Press. ISBN
978-1-55750-656-6. Retrieved 2011-01-07.
39.4 External links

BOAR at China Lake Museum
AIAA: China Lake Test Station

Chapter 40
Hopi (missile)
For the sounding rocket, see Hopi Dart. 40.3 References
The Hopi was an air-to-surface missile developed by the Notes

United States Navys Naval Ordnance Test Station. In-
tended to provide a medium-range nuclear capability for [1] Parsch 2003
carrier aircraft, the missile reached the ight test stage
[2] Babcock 2008, p.323.
during 1958, but the project was cancelled following test-
ing and no production was undertaken. [3] Jacobs and Whitney 1962, p.80.
[4] 1958 Photo Gallery, Photographic History of NAF &

VX-5 at NOTS China Lake. Accessed 2010-12-29.
40.1 Design and development
Bibliography
Developed by the Naval Ordnance Test Station (NOTS)
at China Lake, California during the mid-to-late 1950s,[1] Babcock, Elizabeth (2008). Magnicent Mavericks:
the Hopi missile was an improved development of the transition of the Naval Ordnance Test Station from
earlier BOAR (Bombardment Aircraft Rocket). BOAR rocket station to research, development, test and eval-
had been developed at China Lake as an unguided, uation center, 1948-58. History of the Navy at
nuclear-armed rocket for use by carrier-based aircraft, China Lake, California 3. Washington, DC: Gov-
seeing limited service in the eet between 1957 and ernment Printing Oce. ISBN 978-0945274568.
1963.[2]
Jacons, Horace; Eunice Engelke Whitney (1962).
In its essentials simply an enlarged version of BOAR,[2] Missile and Space Projects Guide: 1962. New York:
which it was intended to replace in service, Hopi was de- Plenum Press. ASIN B0007E2BBK.
signed as a medium-range weapon capable of being car-
ried by a wide variety of carrier-based ghter and attack Parsch, Andreas (2003). NOTS Hopi. Directory
aircraft.[3] The rocket-powered missile was capable of be- of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-
ing tted with a W50 nuclear warhead capable of pro- systems.net. Retrieved 2010-12-29.
ducing a yield between 60 and 400 kilotons; however, no
details of the planned guidance system for the missile,
or if there even was intended to be guidance at all, have
survived.[1]

Following its development, the Hopi missile was ight-
tested on the China Lake weapons range during 1958.[1]
The missile was test-red from a variety of aircraft, in-
cluding the North American FJ-4 Fury, Douglas AD
Skyraider,[1] Douglas A3D Skywarrior and Douglas A4D
Skyhawk.[4] However, no details of the tests are known
to have survived,[1] and the Hopi project was cancelled
shortly thereafter.[2]
186
Chapter 41
AGM-76 Falcon
41.2 Specications
Length : 3.20 m (10 ft 6 in)
Wingspan : 0.838 m (2 ft 9.0 in)

Diameter : 0.335 m (1-foot 1.2 in)
Speed : Mach 4+ (4,240 km/h or 2,630 mph)
Aerodynamic test model of the AGM-76A on display at the Steven Range : > 160 kilometres (99 miles)
F. Udvar-Hazy Center
Warhead : 250 kt thermonuclear
The AGM-76 Falcon is an air-to-surface missile devel-

oped by the United States of America.
41.3 Operators
United States: The United States Air Force
cancelled the AGM-76 prior to service entry.
41.1 Overview
The AGM-76 was developed as a ground attack version

of the AIM-47 Falcon air-to-air missile, in much the
same way that the AGM-87 Focus was developed from
the AIM-9 Sidewinder. It was planned to use the AGM-
76 to equip the Mach 3 capable North American F-108
ghter. Although the F-108 was ultimately cancelled
the AN/ASG-18 re-control system was transferred to
the Lockheed YF-12, allowing that aircraft to handle the
AIM-47 and AGM-76. Twenty-two XAGM-76A proto-
type missiles were built; ten of these were test red from
YF-12A prototypes.
Guidance for the missile was provided by the AN/ASG-
18 Fire-Control System, which was modied to allow it
to operate in the air to ground role. The AGM-76 had a
range in excess of 160 kilometres (99 mi). The 250 kilo-
ton thermonuclear warhead would normally be detonated
in an air burst above the target.
The test rings were generally successful, and the USAF
planned to acquire the production missiles for the F-12B
in order to allow it to perform in the high speed nu-
clear strike mission. When the F-12B was cancelled, the
AGM-76 program was also halted.
187
Chapter 42
ASALM
The Advanced Strategic Air-Launched Missile 42.2 Operational history

(ASALM) was a medium-range strategic missile pro-
gram, developed in the late 1970s for the United States
Air Force. Intended for use in both the air-to-surface
and anti-AWACS roles, the missiles development
reached the stage of propulsion-system tests before being
cancelled in 1980.
ASALM Propulsion Test Vehicle on an A-7

Starting in October 1979, a series of ight tests of Propul-
Development of the Advanced Strategic Air-Launched sion Technology Validation missiles, using a Marquardt
Missile was initiated in 1976.[1] The ASALM was in- rocket-ramjet, were conducted.[1] Over the course of
tended to replace the AGM-69 SRAM in United States seven test rings, a maximum speed of Mach 5.5 at an
Air Force service, providing improved speed and range altitude of 40,000 feet (12,000 m) was achieved.[1]
over the earlier missile,[1] as well as improved perfor- Despite the successful testing, the ASALM program was
mance against hardened targets.[2] In addition, the re- suspended following the seventh PTV test ight in May
quirement specied that the ASALM should be capa- 1980;[1] reductions in the defense budget, combined with
ble of operating in a secondary air-to-air mode against the development of the subsonic AGM-86 ALCM,[1] led
AWACS radar-warning aircraft.[1] Martin Marietta and to the cancellation of the program later that year.[3]
McDonnell Douglas submitted proposals for the contract,
the formers design using a Marquardt propulsion system; The Martin Marietta ASALM concept was later devel-
the latters, one developed by United Technologies Cor- oped into the AQM-127 SLAT target drone.[1]
poration; the Martin Marietta design was favored by the
Air Force[1]
The size of ASALM was limited by the requirement that
42.3 See also
it use the same launchers as the earlier SRAM.[1] The
missile would be steered by small ns at the tail, but Air-Launched Cruise Missile
lacked wings; the shape of the body combined with the
BrahMos
high ight speed were to provide sucient lift.[3]
Guidance was planned to be provided during mid-course Creative Research On Weapons
ight by an inertial navigation system, while terminal
guidance would use a dual-mode seeker.[1] Propulsion
would be provided by an integrated rocket-ramjet, which 42.4 References
would act as a solid-fuel rocket during boost, with the
rockets casing, following exhaustion of its propellant and
Notes
the ejection of the rocket nozzle and a fairing covering
an air inlet, becoming a combustion chamber for an air-
breathing ramjet,[4] which was planned to use Shelldyne- [1] Parsch 2003
H fuel.[3] The missile was expected to be carried by the [2] Gunston 1983, p.88.
B-1 bomber, or alternatively by a developed version of
the FB-111.[4] [3] Aldridge 1983, pp.150-151.
188
[4] Dornan 1978, p.222.
Bibliography
Parsch, Andreas (2003). Martin Marietta

ASALM. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and
Missiles. designation-systems.net. Archived from
the original on 15 December 2010. Retrieved
2010-12-31.
Aldridge, Robert C. (1999). First Strike! The Pen-

tagons Strategy for Nuclear War. Boston: South
End Press. ISBN 0-89608-154-0.
Dornan, Dr. James E., Jr., ed. (1978). The US
War Machine. London: Salamander Books. ISBN
0-517-53543-2.
Gunston, Bill (1983). An Illustrated Guide to Mod-

ern Airborme Missiles. London: Salamander Books.
ISBN 978-0-86101-160-5.
Chapter 43
Diamondback (missile)
The Diamondback was a proposed nuclear-armed air- [1] Babcock 2008, pp.324-325.
to-air missile studied by the United States Navy's Naval
[2] Bowman 1957, p.103.
Ordnance Test Station during the 1950s. Intended as
an enlarged, nuclear-armed version of the successful [3] Jacobs and Whitney 1962, p.47.
Sidewinder missile, Diamondback did not progress be-
yond the study stage. [4] Besserer and Besserer 1959, p.72.
[5] Parsch 2007
[6] Babcock 2008, p.328.

43.1 Development history
[7] Babcock 2008, pp.387-390
In 1956, studies began at the Naval Ordnance Test Station [8] Babcock 2008, p.537.
(NOTS) at China Lake, California involving an advanced
development of the AAM-N-7 (later AIM-9) Sidewinder Bibliography
air-to-air missile, which was then entering service with
the United States Navy. Originally known as Super
Sidewinder, the program soon gained the name Dia- Babcock, Elizabeth (2008). Magnicent Mavericks:
mondback, continuing China Lakes theme of naming transition of the Naval Ordnance Test Station from
heat-seeking missiles after pit vipers. [1][2] rocket station to research, development, test and eval-
Diamondback was intended to provide increased speed, China Lake, California 3. Washington, DC: Gov-
range and accuracy over that achieved by Sidewinder.[3][4] ernment Printing Oce. ISBN 978-0-945274-56-
The missiles design called for it to be armed with either a 8. Retrieved 2011-01-13.
powerful continuous-rod warhead or a low-yield nuclear
warhead,[5] the latter developed by China Lakes Special Besserer, C.W.; Hazel C. Besserer (1959). Guide to
Weapons Division, and which would have a yield of less the Space Age. Englewood Clis. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
than 1 kiloton of TNT (4.2 TJ)).[6] ASIN B004BIGGO6.
The propulsion system was intended to be a liquid- Bowman, Norman John (1957). The Handbook of
fueled, dual-thrust rocket,[5] using hypergolic, storable Rockets and Guided Missiles. Chicago: Perastadion
propellants.[7] The rocket motor planned for use in the Press. ASIN B002C3SPN2. Retrieved 2011-01-13.
Diamondback missile was based on that developed by
NOTS for the Liquid Propellant Aircraft Rocket (LAR) Jacobs, Horace; Eunice Engelke Whitney (1962).
project.[8] Missile and Space Projects Guide: 1962. New York:
Plenum Press. ASIN B0007E2BBK.
Although the design studies were promising, the Navy
did not have a requirement for a missile of this sort. As Parsch, Andreas (2007). "(Other): Missile Scrap-
a result, the Diamondback project was dropped; studies book"". Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Mis-
came to a halt around 1958,[1] while by the early 1960s siles. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-01-
the project was considered inactive and was allowed to 13.
fade into history.[3][5]
43.2 References
Notes
190
Chapter 44
Sky Scorcher
The Sky Scorcher was a nuclear-armed air-to-air mis- Bibliography

sile proposed to the United States Air Force in the 1950s.
Intended for use as a weapon for the disruption of en- Hansen, Chuck (1995). Swords of Armageddon:
emy bomber formations, it failed to nd favor among Air History of the U.S. Development of Nuclear Weapons
Force planners and did not undergo development. (CD and microsche). Sunnyvale, CA: Chukelea
Publications.
44.1 Development Parsch, Andreas (2007). "(Other): Missile Scrap-

book. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Mis-
siles. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-01-
The Sky Scorcher project was proposed by the Convair 11.
Division of General Dynamics to the United States Air
Force in 1956.[1] The missile was intended to be car- Peacock, Lindsay. Delta Dart...Last of the Century
ried by an advanced, enlarged version of Convairs F-106 Fighters. Air International, Vol. 31, No 4, Octo-
Delta Dart interceptor,[2] which had, at the time, not yet ber 1986, pp. 198206, 217. Stamford, UK: Fine
entered ight testing even in its baseline form.[3] Scroll.
Sky Scorcher was a very large missile, which was pro-
jected to be capable of carrying a thermonuclear warhead
with a yield of two megatons.[2] The oversized warhead
would be used against attacking formations of supersonic
bombers; it was anticipated that fourteen such initiations,
at a distance of approximately 460 miles (740 km) from
the bombers target, would be sucient to disrupt an at-
tack. A force of eighty of the advanced ghters were pro-
posed for carrying the weapon.[2]
Despite Convairs sales pitch and the anticipated eec-
tiveness of the weapon, the Air Force was unenthusias-
tic about the concept; aside from the expense of devel-
oping the aircraft and weapon, the Sky Scorcher missile
also suered from the fact that there would be signicant
eects on the ground below the location of an airburst
of a multi-megaton nuclear warhead.[2] As a result, the
project was abandoned before any signicant work was
undertaken.[2]
44.2 References
Notes
[1] Hansen 1995
[2] Parsch 2007
[3] Peacock 1986, p.200.
191
Chapter 45
Wagtail (missile)
The Wagtail missile, also known as Wag Tail, was a Pye Wacket
short-range nuclear missile developed in the late 1950s by
Minneapolis-Honeywell under a contract awarded by the
United States Air Force. Intended for use as an auxiliary 45.4 References
weapon by bomber aircraft, the missile was successfully
test red in 1958, but the program was cancelled in the
Notes
early 1960s.
[1] American Aviation Publications, 1958. Missiles and
Rockets, Volume 5. p. 26.
[2] Parsch 2003
The Wagtail project was initiated in 1956, with [3] Janes All the Worlds Aircraft 1960, p.463.
Minneapolis-Honeywell being contracted to develop a
short-range, solid-rocket-powered missile.[1] The missile [4] Huisken 1981, p.61.
would be armed with a low-yield nuclear warhead, and
was intended for use as a tactical support missile by su- Bibliography
personic aircraft engaged in low-level attacks.[2][3]
The Wagtail missile was intended to be tted with a Huisken, Ronald (1981). The Origin of the Strategic
guidance system that utilised an inertial navigation sys- Cruise Missile. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
tem and a terrain-following radar, which allowed the ISBN 978-0-03-059378-9.
missile to be red from and navigate at extremely Parsch, Andreas (2003). Minneapolis-Honeywell
low altitudes.[2] The missile was equipped with small Wagtail. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and
retrorockets that retarded the missile following release, Missiles. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2010-
allowing the launching aircraft the opportunity to escape 12-30.
the blast wave from the missiles warhead.[2]

By 1958, the Wagtail project had progressed to the point
of live-re ight testing; the missile was planned to be
tted to the B-58 Hustler bomber in operational ser-
vice, while an alternative conguration was proposed as a
bomber defense missile, which would be red rearwards
from the carrier aircraft.[2] However, in the early 1960s
(prior to scal year 1962), despite the missiles ight test-
ing having proved successful,[4] the Wagtail project was
canceled.[2]
45.3 See also

AGM-69 SRAM
192
Chapter 46
ADR-8
The ADR-8 was an unguided electronic countermeasures ford, England, UK: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-
rocket developed by Tracor for use by the United States 1841760971.
Air Force. It was used to dispense cha from Boeing B-
52 Stratofortress bombers. Parsch, Andreas (2005). Revere (Tracor) RCU-
2/ADR-8. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and
Missiles. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2014-
05-11.
46.1 Development
Originally given the designation RCU-2, the ADR-8
was developed for use by the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress
strategic bomber, to give the aircraft a means of dis-
pensing cha to disrupt enemy radar.[1] Developed by
Tracor under a Quick Reaction Contract, the ADR-8 was
a folding n rocket of 2.75 in (70 mm) diameter. Fol-
lowing successful testing, production of the rocket was
undertaken by Revere Copper and Brass.[1]
46.2 Operational use

The rockets were red from 20-shot AN/ALE-25 rocket
pods mounted on pylons under the wings of the B-52s.
The pods were 13 feet (4.0 m) long and weighed 1,100
pounds (500 kg); the rockets could be red manually or
automatically upon detection of a threat. They were in-
stalled on the nal 18 B-52H aircraft constructed; earlier
B-52Gs and B-52Hs were retrotted with the system.[2]
The ADR-8 and AN/ALE-25 were retired in September
1970,[1] replaced by the Phase VI electronic warfare
suite.[2]
46.3 References
Citations
[1] Parsch 2005
[2] Dorr and Peacock 2000, p.52.
Bibliography
Dorr, Robert F.; Peacock, Lindsay T. (2000). B-

52 Stratofortress: Boeings Cold War Warrior. Ox-
193
Chapter 47
AGR-14 ZAP
The AGR-14 ZAP was an air-to-surface unguided rocket 47.3 References

developed by the United States Navy in the late 1960s.
Intended for use in the suppression of enemy air defenses Notes
role, the rocket reached the ight-testing stage before be-
ing cancelled. [1] Parsch 2002
[2] Goebel 2010
[3] Morison and Rowe 1975, p.218.

Bibliography
A requirement for a new type of unguided rocket, to be
used to suppress enemy anti-aircraft artillery batteries, Goebel, Greg (2010). Unguided Rockets. Dumb
was identied by the United States Navy in 1966. Given Bombs & Smart Munitions. VectorSite. Retrieved
the name HART, (which stands for Hypervelocity Air- 2011-01-29.
craft Rocket, Tactical), the new rocket was intended to
replace the FFAR and Zuni rockets that were then in Morison, Samuel L.; John S. Rowe (1975). The
service.[1] Ships & Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet (10th ed.). An-
HART was intended to be a high-acceleration, high- napolis, MD: United States Naval Institute. ISBN
velocity rocket for launch from aircraft. The increased 0-87021-639-2.
speed of the rocket as opposed to those then in service Parsch, Andreas (2002). Martin Marietta AGR-14
intended to reach or exceed Mach 3[2] was intended ZAP. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Mis-
to remove the possibility that a high-speed aircraft might siles. designation-systems.net. Archived from the
overtake its own weapons after launch, as well as improv- original on 15 December 2010. Retrieved 2011-01-
ing the rockets accuracy through providing a atter tra- 29.
jectory, and reduction in its ight time.[1] Six inches (152
mm) in diameter,[3] HART would be powered by a solid-
fueled rocket, and would use echette anti-personnel war-
heads to provide the greatest possible eect against the
intended targets.[1]
47.2 Development and cancellation
In 1967, a contract for the development of HART

was given to the Martin Marietta corporation, based
in Orlando, Florida; the rocket received the ocial
designation of AGR-14 ZAP, for Zero Anti-Aircraft
Potential,[3] at this time.[1] Initial test rings of the
XAGR-14A prototypes were conducted in late 1969,
with the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk being used as a launch
aircraft.[1] Despite the rocket being tested successfully,
the project was cancelled shortly thereafter, and ZAP
failed to reach operational service.[1]
194
Chapter 48
MQR-13 BMTS
The XMQR-13A Ballistic Missile Target System 48.3 See also

(BMTS) was an unguided target rocket developed by the
United States Army during the 1960s, intended for use Nike-Apache
in the development of missile defense systems. Utilis-
ing o-the-shelf parts in four dierent congurations, Nike-Cajun
the BMTS was utitised in a series of launches in the late
1960s supporting tests of several missile systems.
48.4 References
Notes
48.1 Design and development [1] Parsch 2002
[2] AIAA 1969, p.159.

Developed by the U.S. Army Missile Command (USAM-
ICOM), the Ballistic Missile Target System, or BMTS, [3] Goebel 2010
was intended as a ballistic target rocket, utilising as many
[4] DMS 1978, p. 50.
parts from existing missiles as possible, to be used in the
development and evaluation of defense systems against [5] United States Congress House Committee on Armed Ser-
ballistic missile attack.[1] vices Hearings, 1968, p.9226.
Given the designation XMQR-13A in 1967, the BMTS [6] Parsch 2004
could be launched in four dierent congurations. Con-
guration 1 used the booster from a Nike Ajax surface- [7] Parsch 2002b
to-air missile, with either an Apache (Version 1), Cajun
(version 2), or inert Cajun (version 3) upper stage. Con- Bibliography
guration 2 omitted the upper stage. All four variations
tted a radar enhancer in the nose cone to assist in target
Goebel, Greg (2010). Modern US Target Drones.
acquisition by the targeting missile.[1]
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. vectorsite.net. Re-
trieved 2011-01-05.
Parsch, Andreas (2002). USAMICOM MQR-13

BMTS. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Mis-
48.2 Operational history siles. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-01-
06.
The XMQR-13A was used in a series of test rings be- Parsch, Andreas (2002b). PWN-3. Directory
tween 1966 and 1968, primarily from the White Sands of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-
Missile Range,[1] and using a modied Terrier portable systems.net. Retrieved 2011-01-06.
launcher.[2] The test launches supported a variety of an-
timissile development programs,[3] including that of the Parsch, Andreas (2004). Nike-Apache. Directory
HAWK,[4] and was intended for use in the development of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-
of SAM-D.[5] systems.net. Retrieved 2011-01-06.
The Nike-Apache and Nike-Cajun rocket congurations The Aerospace Year Book. Arlington, VA:
were also use extensively as sounding rockets for experi- Aerospace Industries Association of America.
mental missions conducted by NASA.[6][7] 1969. ASIN B000E39S6K.
195
196 CHAPTER 48. MQR-13 BMTS
Code Name Handbook: Aerospace, Defense, Tech-

nology (Seventh Edition). Defense Marketing Ser-
vices. 1978.
Chapter 49
MQR-16 Gunrunner
The MQR-16A Gunrunner was an unguided rocket de- [1] Morison 1975, p. 218.
veloped by Atlantic Research during the 1960s. Designed
[2] Parsch 2002
with low cost as a priority, the MQR-16A was intended to
act as a target drone for use in the development of man- [3] Parsch 2009
portable surface-to-air missiles, and as a training target
for the missile operators. Proving successful, the rocket [4] Goebel 2010
served in the United States military until the 1980s.
Bibliography
49.1 Design and development Goebel, Greg (2010). Modern US Target Drones.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. vectorsite.net. Re-
Developed in the late 1960s, the Gunrunner was designed trieved 2011-01-05.
as an inexpensive aerial target, unguided and ying on Morison, Samuel L. (1975). The Ships & Aircraft
a ballistic path, for use by the United States Army and of the U.S. Fleet. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute
United States Navy during the development and test- Press. ISBN 978-0-87021-639-8.
ing of the FIM-43 Redeye man-portable surface-to-air
missile.[1] Parsch, Andreas (2002). Atlantic Research MQR-
16 Gunrunner. Directory of U.S. Military Rock-
The design and construction of the Gunrunner was kept
ets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Retrieved
as simple as possible, with the rockets stabilizing ns us-
2011-01-05.
ing plywood in their construction, and the solid-fueled
powerplant being that of the reliable and widely used Parsch, Andreas (2009). Current Designations
High Velocity Aerial Rocket (HVAR).[2] The nose of the of U.S. Unmanned Military Aerospace Vehicles.
rocket was equipped with an infrared enhancer to allow designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-01-05.
for all-aspect target acquisition by the missile that was en-
gaging the target.[2]

Entering operational service in 1969, the Gunrunner was
given the ocial designation of MQR-16A in 1971, and
proved to be a success in service.[2] Used for training sol-
diers in the operation of both the Redeye and the MIM-
72 Chaparral SAMs,[3] the missile was launched from
a frame-type launcher that carried three missiles.[2] Re-
maining in service until the mid-1980s,[2] the Gunrun-
ner was replaced in U.S. Army service by the MTR-15
BATS.[4]
49.3 References
Notes
197
Chapter 50
Ram (rocket)
For the RAM missile, see RIM-116 Rolling Airframe being used in combat for the rst time on August 16,
Missile. 1950.[3] Despite the haste with which the weapon had
been developed, the very rst shipment included a full
The RAM, also known as the 6.5-Inch Anti-Tank Air- set of documentation
[7]
and ring tables for the use of
craft Rocket or ATAR, was an air-to-ground rocket used the rocket. The rst 600 rockets were constructed by
[2]
by the United States Navy during the Korean War. Devel- hand, but a production line was rapidly set up.[3]
oped rapidly, the rocket proved successful but was phased In operational service, the RAM was tted to the F-51
out shortly after the end of the conict. Mustang, F-80 Shooting Star and F4U Corsair aircraft,[8]
and it proved to be moderately eective,[1] with the rst
150 rockets red scoring at least eight conrmed kills
50.1 Design and development of North Korean tanks.[8] However, the rocket proved to
be unpopular with pilots, due to the close approach to the
target required for accurate ring; the HVAR oered a
In 1950, the outbreak of the Korean War resulted in
longer range, while napalm was considered more eec-
the United States Navy urgently requiring an aircraft-
tive if the range had to be closed.[9] With the end of the
launched rocket that would be eective against enemy
war in 1953, the ATAR was withdrawn from service,[9]
tanks,[1] as the existing "Holy Moses" high-velocity air-
improved versions of the HVAR having become available
craft rocket was expected to be ineective against the ar-
[2] as an alternative.[1]
mor of JS-3 heavy tanks.
The development of an improved rocket was undertaken
with remarkable speed; a directive to start work on the 50.3 See also
project was issued on July 6, 1950, and the rst rockets
were delivered to the war zone on July 29.[3] Over the
FFAR
course of those 23 days, the Naval Air Weapons Station
China Lake, located in China Lake, California, devel- Holy Moses (rocket)
oped an improved version of the HVAR, with a new, 6.5
inches (165 mm) shaped-charge warhead replacing the Tiny Tim (rocket)
earlier weapons 5 inches (127 mm) charge.[1] The fuse
for the shaped charge, developed with the same haste as BOAR (rocket)
the rocket itself, was considered dangerous, but proved
to be safe enough in service; it was described as being
"[not] as dangerous as the Russian tanks it was designed 50.4 References
to destroy.[4]
The RAM was described as being superior in armour pen- Notes
etration to the conventional bazooka's warhead,[3] being
capable of penetrating 15 inches (381 mm) to 18 inches [1] Parsch 2004
(457 mm) of armor plate.[5][6]
[2] Babcock 1998, p.177
[3] "Navy Rockets Hit Reds" U.S. Navy: Naval History and
50.2 Operational history Heritage Command. Accessed 2011-01-08
[4] Babcock 1998, p.179

Ocially designated the 6.5-Inch Anti-Tank Aircraft
Rocket (ATAR), and commonly known in service as [5] C. C. Lauritsen, Pre-NOTS Caltech Rocket Programs,
RAM, the new rocket was rushed to the Korean front,[1] The China Laker, Winter 2010, p. 3
198
Ram rockets on a F8F Bearcat
[6] Babcock 1998, p.181
[7] Babcock 1998, p.183
[8] Babcock 1998, p.184
[9] Babcock 1998, p.189
Bibliography

8. Retrieved 2011-01-08.
Parsch, Andreas (2004). NOTS Ram. Directory
Chapter 51
LOCAT
The Low-Cost Aerial Target, or LOCAT, was designed [2] Popular Science, Volume 193, p.108. 1968
as an inexpensive target rocket for use by the United
[3] The Aerospace Year Book, Volume 48, p.155.
States Army during the late 1960s. The missile was tested
by the U.S. Army, but failed to win a production contract. [4] Industrial Research, Volume 10, p.236. Dun-Donnelley
Publishing, 1968.
51.1 Design and development Bibliography
Developed by Philco-Ford in the late 1960s, the LOCAT Parsch, Andreas (2002). Philco-Ford LOCAT.
rocket was intended to be a high-speed, low-cost expend- Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles.
able target rocket for use in the air defense training role, designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-01-07.
being used in training exercises for anti-aircraft gunners
and missile operators by the U.S. Army.[1]
Intended to be extremely simple and inexpensive in its
construction, the fuselage tube of LOCAT was con-
structed from rolled paper tubing,[2] while the rockets
stabilising ns were made of molded plastic. An alu-
minum coating was applied as a surfacing to enhance the
rockets radar signature, and three solid-fuel rockets of
the type used by Folding-Fin Aerial Rockets were used
for propulsion.[1]

Forty examples of the LOCAT rocket were ordered by
the United States Army during 1969, for operational eval-
ulation to determine if they were suitable in the target-
drone role. The contract included an option for ordering
production quantities if the rocket was considered accept-
able for service.[3] Although LOCAT proved to be rea-
sonably satisfactory in the Armys testing, and it was esti-
mated that, even when compared to reusable drones, LO-
CAT oered a 50% savings in cost over other methods
of target training,[4] no production contract was placed,
the MTR-15 BATS being judged superior for the Armys
purposes.[1]
51.3 References
Notes
[1] Parsch 2002
200
Chapter 52
LTV-N-4
The LTV-N-4 was an American experimental rocket, de-

veloped by the Naval Ordnance Test Station for the devel-
opment and testing of large solid-fueled rocket boosters
for ramjet-powered missiles. Described as more power-
ful than the V-2", a number of test ights were conducted
during 1949.[1][2]
52.1 References
Citations
[1] Parsch 2003
[2] Bowman 1957, p.149.
Bibliography
Bowman, Norman John (1957). The Handbook of

Rockets and Guided Missiles. Chicago: Perastadion
Press. ASIN B0007EC5N4.
Parsch, Andreas (2003). NOTS LTV-N-4. Di-
rectory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles Ap-
pendix 1: Early Missiles and Drones. designation-
201
Chapter 53
Gimlet (rocket)
For the missile code-named 'Gimlet', see 9K38 Igla. get aircraft, instead of upon contact.[5] The rocket used a
thin-walled aluminum body, also based on FFAR work;[2]
The Gimlet was an unguided air-to-air and air-to-surface the motor used[6]an eight-point star conguration to ensure
rocket developed by the United States Navy during the even burning.
early 1950s. Although it proved successful in testing and
was ordered into large-scale production, the arrival of the
guided missile as a practical and reliable weapon resulted 53.2 Operational history
in the cancellation of the Gimlet rocket in 1957.

The development of the Gimlet rocket began in 1951,
with the initiation of development of a 1.5-inch (38 mm)
rocket for air-to-air use.[1] Work on the rocket was con-
ducted at the Naval Ordnance Test Station (NOTS) at
China Lake, California, and the project was begun at the
behest of North American Aviation.[1] in addition, the
1.5-inch rocket was felt as the ideal caliber to 'll in a
gap' in the U.S. Navys rocket inventory;[1] studies indi-
cated that aircraft could carry six times the number of
1.5-inch rockets as opposed to the then-in-service 2.75-
inch (70 mm) Folding Fin Aerial Rocket.[2] A FJ-2 Fury launches a Gimlet rocket against a F6F target drone
In 1952, however, the Bureau of Ordnance decided that
Testing of the Gimlet began in 1954.[7] In the initial test,
neither the 1.5-inch or 2.75-inch rocket was required;
an earlier directive to develop a 2-inch (51 mm) rocket a FJ-2 Fury shot down a F6F Hellcat target drone, prov-
ing the rockets eectiveness in the air-to-air role.[6] Early
was still outstanding, and it was felt that standardizing
on a single caliber of rocket would be in the Navys best launchers carried four rockets, while seven- and 19-round
models were developed as well.[8] A six-round clip capa-
interest.[2] NOTS had initiated development of a rocket
of the 2-inch caliber prior to the outbreak of the Korean ble of tting the internal rocket bays of the F4D Skyray
War; the concept had been shelved with the war eort interceptor was also developed.[8]
requiring higher-priority projects such as the Ram anti- Following a yo against the T-214 rocket, which indi-
tank rocket to be prioritized; now, however, the project cated the necessity to modify the rocket motor to reduce
was dusted o and development resumed under the name the Gimlets visual signature,[9] the Navy directed the de-
Gimlet[2] a name that, it was said, meant the rocket velopment of a modied, 'hybrid' rocket, using the T-
was to be a small anti-MiG weapon; Gim being 214s tail; this became known as T-Gimlet.[9] The mod-
MiG backwards, with an added diminutive.[3] ied rocket was considered to be suitable for the Navys
Gimlet was primarily intended for use in the air-to-air purposes; both the original Gimlet and the T-Gimlet were
role.[4] The rocket would use a modied version of the ordered for production, a 5 million dollar USD contract
FFARs fuse, reduced in size to t the smaller rocket;[2] being allotted to start production[9]at the Shumaker Naval
the warhead used for Gimlet took advantage of the latest Ammunition Depot in Arkansas.
advancements in explosives technology, and, combined Despite the seeming success, however, the Gimlet was
with the advanced fuse, would detonate inside the tar- already becoming obsolete; guided missiles were now
202
considered to be the wave of the future. Production of

Gimlet was cancelled in early 1957, after production of
15,000 rockets; that October, the T-Gimlet version was
cancelled as well.[9] Although the missile age meant that
Gimlet did not enter operational service, the production
processes developed for the rocket would be modied and
used in the production of the AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-
air missile.[9]
53.3 References
Notes
[1] Babcock 2008, p. 210.
[2] Babcock 2008, p. 211.
[3] Babcock 2008, p. 536.
[4] Carelone 1993, p. 39.
[5] Babcock 2008, p. 212.
[6] Babcock 2008, p.213.
[7] Parsch 2007
[8] Babcock 2008, p.214.
[9] Babcock 2008, pp.386387.
Bibliography

8. Retrieved 2011-01-08.
Carelone, Joseph (1993). Tactical Missile War-

heads. Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics.
Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics. ISBN 978-1-56347-067-7. Retrieved
2010-01-11.
Parsch, Andreas (2007). "(Other): Missile Scrap-
book. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Mis-
11.
Chapter 54
Zuni (rocket)
The Zuni is a 5.0 in (127.0 mm) unguided rocket de- 54.2 Operational history
ployed by the United States armed forces.[1] The rocket
was developed for both air-to-air and air-to-ground oper-
ations. It can be used to carry various types of warheads,
including cha for countermeasures. It is usually red
from the LAU-10 rocket pod holding four rockets.
54.1 Development
In the early 1950s, U.S. Navy engineers Naval Ordnance

Test Station China Lake began to develop a new 12.7
cm unguided rocket to replace the High Velocity Aircraft
Rocket.
Sailors aboard Forrestal battle a massive ordnance re triggered

by a Zuni rocket.
The Zuni was widely used in the ground-attack role dur-

ing the Vietnam War. However, on 1 May 1967 during
a sortie against Kp Air Base, North Vietnam, LCDR
Theodore R. Swartz of Squadron VA-76, ying from USS
Bon Homme Richard, shot down a MiG-17 with Zuni
rockets. This was the only MiG aircraft to be downed
by a Douglas A-4 Skyhawk during the Vietnam War.[3]
Lieutenant Commander Swartz received the Silver Star
for his action.
In 1967, a Mk 32 Zuni rocket was responsible for a
An VA-113 A-4F launching Zunis during the Battle of Khe Sanh,
serious re aboard the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal (CV-
1968. 59), which led to the loss of 134 lives. A Mk32 was also
responsible for a 1969 re on the aircraft carrier USS En-
terprise (CVN-65), leading to the loss of 27 lives and saw
The Zuni 5-inch Folding-Fin Aircraft Rocket
314 more injured. Fifteen aircraft were destroyed.
(FFAR), was designed as a modular system, to allow
the use of dierent types of warheads and fuzes. One
type of warhead was a proximity fuze, as the rocket was
originally intended to be used as an air-to-air rocket. The 54.3 Student use
Zuni was approved for production in 1957. A number of
dierent launchers were tested for the Zuni, e.g. single The Australian Government has donated its Zuni rock-
launchers tted to the AIM-9 Sidewinder launching ets to the Australian Space Research Institute (ASRI) and
rails of the Vought F-8 Crusader. However, four-tube they are used for student experiments which are launched
LAU-10/A series pods became the most commonly used from the Woomera launching range. Every year a few
launcher.[2] Zunis are launched there.
204
ASRI has also designed and constructed custom [9] MBDA Incorporated. World Class Missile Solutions
nosecones and payload recovery mechanisms for the
Zuni. With a payload of 20 kg, the Zuni has an ap- Bibliography
proximate range of 5.9 km, which it attains in about
40 seconds, experiencing 55 g and 491 m/s (Mach 1.4)
Grossnick, R. and Armstrong W.J. (1997). United
during the ight.
States Naval Aviation, 19101995. Naval Historical
Center. ISBN 0-16-049124-X.
54.4 Laser Guided Zuni Rocket

54.6 External links
The 5 Laser Guided Zuni Rocket is a precision weapon
and an upgrade to the unguided 5 Zuni rocket. The
North American division of MBDA is the only manu-
facturer of the Laser Guided Zuni Rocket [4] similar to
the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System upgrade to
the Hydra 70 system.[5] The Laser Guided Zuni Rocket is
composed of the new WGU-58/B Guidance and Control
Section that is attached to the front end of an unguided
Zuni rocket and warhead. The weapon requires semi-
active laser energy to guide to a precise target.[6] The
Laser Guided Zuni Rocket is on the U.S. Marine Corps
Aviation Weapons Roadmap and Plan[5] and is compati-
ble with any aircraft that is cleared to carry unguided Zu-
nis in a 4-place LAU-10 Launcher, including AV-8B Har-
riers, F/A-18 Hornets, AH-1 Cobra Helicopters and P-3
Orion aircraft.[4] The precision weapon ts in the same
launcher as unguided Zunis and requires only a 28V ring
pulse and a semi active laser designator. The weapon was
developed under a Cooperative Research and Develop-
ment Agreement (CRADA) with the Weapons Division
of the U.S. Navys Air Warfare Center in China Lake,
California (NAWC WD).[7]
In 2009, the Laser Guided Zuni Rocket was successfully
tested against both a stationary[6] and moving targets.[7][8]
The weapon successfully underwent a live re warhead
test ight in September 2010.[9]
54.5 References
Notes
[1] Federation of American Scientists - Zuni rocket
[2] http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/
5in-rockets.html
[3] Grossnick and Armstrong 1997
[4] WGU-58/B Laser Guided Zuni Rocket Data Sheet
[5] 2007 Marine Aviation Plan2007 Marine Aviation Plan.
[6] Video of Laser Guided Zuni Rocket hitting a stationary

target
[7] Video of WGu-58/B equipped Zuni target striking a mov-

ing target in August, 2009
[8]
Chapter 55
Shavetail
For the rank Shavetail is used as slang for, see Second Parsch, Andreas (2007). "(Other): Missile Scrap-
Lieutenant. book"". Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Mis-
19.
Shavetail was an experimental American rocket devel-
oped during the 1950s. Used to evaluate the rapidly de-
veloping technology of rocketry, eleven Shavetail rockets
were red during 1959.

Intended to assist in the development of rocket and mis-
sile technologies, Shavetail was a small, inexpensive, un-
guided solid-fueled rocket that was capable of being mod-
ied to be tested in various congurations.[1] Among the
systems tested was one to ensure precise payload separa-
tion at motor burnout.[2]

A series of eleven launches of the Shavetail rocket were
conducted in late 1959, starting in August and ending in
October.[3] The maximum range of Shavetail was 6 miles
(9.7 km).[1]
55.3 References
Notes
[1] Shavetail. White Sands Missile Range Missile Park.

White Sands Missile Range Museum. Retrieved 2011-
01-19.
[2] Baker 1978, p.142.
[3] Parsch 2007
Bibliography
Baker, David (1978). The Rocket: The History and

Development of Rocket & Missile Technology. New
york: Crown. ISBN 978-0517534045.
206
Chapter 56
BGM-109G Ground Launched Cruise

Missile
GLCM redirects here. For the image processing the Tomahawk missile in use by the U.S. Navy (along
algorithm, see Co-occurrence matrix. with an undeveloped air-launched version, the Medium
Range Air to Surface Missile [MRASM].) Unlike other
The Ground Launched Cruise Missile, or GLCM, (of- variants of the Tomahawk, the GLCM carried only a
cially designated BGM-109G Gryphon) was a ground- W84 thermonuclear warhead ; no conventional capabil-
launched cruise missile developed by the United States ity was provided. The[2]W84 warhead was a 0.2-150kt
Air Force in the last decade of the Cold War. variable-yield weapon. This yield contrasts with the
yield of the W80 warhead found on other versions of the
Tomahawk and on the ALCM from which the W84 was
derived, which had a selectable yield of 5 or 150 kt.[3]
56.1 Overview The Pentagon credited the GLCM with a range of 2000
2500 kilometers. Like other US cruise missiles of this
The BGM-109G was developed as a counter to the mo- period, accuracy after more than 2000 km of ight was
bile medium- and intermediate- range ballistic nuclear within half the width of an American football eld or 100
missiles (SS-20 Saber) deployed by the Soviet Union in ft (approximately 30 meters). The missile was entirely
Eastern Bloc European countries. The GLCM and the subsonic, powered by a turbofan engine with a rocket
U.S. Army's Pershing II may have been the incentives booster assisting at launch.[1]
that fostered Soviet willingness to sign the Intermediate-
Militarily, the GLCM was targeted against xed targets
Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF treaty), and thus
at the outer edge of its range, the missiles ight time with
possibly reduced the threat of nuclear wars in Europe.
its subsonic turbofan was more than 2 hours. The mis-
GLCM is also a generic term for any ground-launched
siles were launched from an elevated launcher, with the
cruise missile. Since the US deployed only one modern
missile ejected from its canister for about 13 seconds of
cruise missile in the tactical role, the GLCM name stuck.
solid rocket booster ight. The ns extended at 4 seconds,
The GLCM was built by General Dynamics.
the air inlet and wings deployed at 10 seconds and the jet
engine started at the end of the boost phase. Flying at
low level, the missile was guided by TERCOM (terrain
56.2 History contour matching) to the target. 3
This contrasted sharply with Pershing II, which had a
56.2.1 Design & employment ight time of 1015 minutes. However, the range of
the GLCM gave it the ability to strike deep within then-
A conventionally congured cruise missile, the BGM-109 Soviet territory, and the missile guidance, and low radar
was essentially a small, pilotless ying machine, powered cross-section would have made it far more dicult to
by a turbofan engine. Unlike ballistic missiles, whose intercept a GLCM even if the launch were detected in
aimpoint is usually determined by gravitic trajectories, time.[lower-alpha 1]
a cruise missile is capable of complicated aerial ma-
BGM-109G personnel were trained at Davis-Monthan
noeuvres, and can y a range of predetermined ight
AFB, Arizona, by the 868th Tactical Missile Training
plans. Also, it ies at much lower altitudes than a bal-
Squadron from 1 July 1981 to 1 October 1985, when it
listic missile, typically with a terrain-hugging ight plan.
became the 868th Tactical Missile Training Group. The
The trade-o for this low-observability ight is strike
group was inactivated on 31 May 1990. An area near Fort
time; cruise missiles travel far more slowly than a ballistic
Huachuca, Arizona was used for eld training for GLCM
weapon, and the GLCM was typical in this regard.
ights. GLCM testing was conducted at the Dugway
GLCM was developed as a ground-launched variant of
207
208 CHAPTER 56. BGM-109G GROUND LAUNCHED CRUISE MISSILE
Proving Ground in Utah, with many of the people in-

volved in the testing going to operational wings as they
were activated.
56.2.2 NATO Deployment & protests
A dispersed launch site for a BGM-109G Gryphon missile TEL
Ground Launched Cruise Missile GAMA (GLCM Alert and

Maintenance Area)
A Soviet inspector examines a BGM-109G ground-launched

cruise missile in 1988 prior to its destruction.
(TMS) which was responsible for operation and deploy-

ment of the missiles, and a Tactical Missile Maintenance
Squadron (TMMS) which was responsible for the sup-
port of the system. Each TMS consisted of several ights,
made up of 69 people and 22 vehicles.[4] The missile was
designed to operate in a ight with sixteen missiles. The
ight would be normally on base, with the missiles and
GAMAs at RAF Molesworth, England. 4 GAMAs, 1 per ight, vehicles secured in the hardened storage area called the
each holding 16 missiles, total 64 missiles. Molesworth was com- GAMA (GLCM Alert and Maintenance Area).
pletely reconstructed between 1981 and 1985, being transformed
Four transporter erector launchers (TEL) each carried
from a largely abandoned World War II Eighth Air Force B-17
four BGM-109G missiles in their containers and ready
base to a modern NATO facility. Note the large World War II
for launch. Two launch control centers (LCC), each with
J type hangar in the upper left. It was retained as a memorial
to the WW II 303d Bombardment Group. Both Bob Hope and two launch ocers, were connected to the TELs and in-
terconnected for launch. Each TEL and LCC was towed
Glenn Miller performed USO shows in that hangar during the
war years. by a large MAN KAT1 8x8 tractor and was capable of
traversing rough terrain. There were 16 support vehicles
BGM-109G missiles would be based at six locations for the ight commander, normally a captain, 19 mainte-
throughout Europe; in the United Kingdom (at RAF nance technicians, a medical technician and 44 security
Greenham Common and RAF Molesworth), Belgium, personnel.[4]
Netherlands, Germany, and Comiso Air Station in Italy. During periods of increased tension, the ights would be
Each location had its own unique problems, but all redeployed to pre-surveyed, classied locations in the coun-
quired extensive construction by the USAF. Initial oper- tryside away from the base. The members of the ight
ating capability (or IOC) occurred in 1983.[4] would dig in, erect camouage netting to hide the vehi-
Normal basing was in blast shelters at military instal- cles and prepare for launch. Flight commanders were
lations. Each BGM-109G station was controlled by tasked to survey and select more than one possible de-
a Wing, that consisted of a Tactical Missile Squadron ployment site, with all details closely held, and the com-
56.2. HISTORY 209
mander selected the location preferred when the ight de- SS-20 Saber, SS-22 Scaleboard B, and SS-23 Spider
ployed from the base. When deployed, the ight was self- MRBM/IRBM/LRBM ballistic missiles, in addition to
sustaining, and secured with special intrusion detection the GLCMs most direct counterpart: the SSC-4 or RK-
radar. The launchers (sans warheads) were sent out on a 55 (dubbed the Tomahawksi in the Western press) and its
number of simulated scrambles.[4] supersonic follow-on, the SSC-X-5 cruise missiles.[7]
Although deployed in the face of a range of Soviet GLCM was removed from Europe beginning in 1988,
IRBMs, including the brand-new and extremely capable and over the next three and a half years all units were
SS-20 Saber, the GLCM (sometimes referred to by its transported to Davis Monthan AFB and destroyed or con-
phonetic nickname, Glick-em) faced widespread public verted into displays by 1991. Eight missiles survive for
protest in Europe. Many anti-nuclear Europeans felt that inert static display only. No follow-on design has been
the United States was deploying weapons meant to win authorized.[4]
a tactical nuclear war, without adequate consideration of
the eects that even a 'victory' would bring. Critics also
argued that the Reagan Administration was unduly esca- 56.2.4 USAF BGM-109G GLCM Units
lating tensions in Central Europe. Between them, GLCM
and Pershing II made a lethal combination. GLCM mis- 38th Tactical Missile Wing - Pydna Missile Base) at
siles could be launched, undetected, followed 2 hours Wschheim AB, West Germany (19851990)
later by a Pershing strike, which would y so quickly that
it was possible no response could be made before the 89th TMS (80 missiles) 500237N
Pershings struck. Aside from presenting a course of ac- 0072532E / 50.04361N 7.42556E
tion to NATO commanders in the event of war, it put
the Kremlin leaders (in range of the GLCM and possibly
the Pershing, even in Moscow) in a position of fearing a 303d Tactical Missile Wing - RAF Molesworth,
decapitating NATO rst strike, which could have moved United Kingdom (19861989)
them toward a launch on warning policy as the only way to
maintain mutually assured destruction.Grier, Peter. The 87th TMS (64 missiles) 522255N
Short, Happy Life of the Glick-Em. Air Force Maga- 0002541W / 52.38194N 0.42806W
zine 85 (July 2002): 7074. However, the USSR did
have submarine-launched missiles (i.e. Golf and Hotel 485th Tactical Missile Wing - Florennes Air Base,
class SSBNs armed with R-27 Zyb and SS-N-5s) avail- Belgium (19841989)
able during this time, so any fears of a decapitating rst
strike were not necessarily justied.[5]
71st TMS (48 missiles) 501334N
0043901E / 50.22611N 4.65028E
56.2.3 Intermediate-Range Nuclear
Forces Treaty 486th Tactical Missile Wing - Woensdrecht Air
Base, Netherlands (19871988)
Main article: Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty
No Tactical Missile Squadron assigned (48
Despite initial fears of greater instability, the deployment missiles assigned/0 Deployed)512621N
of GLCM ultimately caused Soviet leaders to enter into 0042109E / 51.43917N 4.35250E
negotiations for, and nally signature of, the INF treaty.
The recognition by Soviet leaders of the threat posed by 487th Tactical Missile Wing - Comiso Air Base,
the GLCM and Pershing II missiles made them far more Italy (19831991)
inclined to agree to negotiate their own intermediate-
range weapons, especially the SS-20, out of service, in 302d TMS (112 missiles) 365942N
exchange for the elimination of the threat posed by the 0143648E / 36.99500N 14.61333E
GLCM and the Pershing II.[6]
Unlike SALT II or START I, which set limits to 501st Tactical Missile Wing - RAF Greenham Com-
maximum nuclear arsenals, the INF Treaty banned mon, United Kingdom (19821991)
whole categories of intermediate-range tactical nuclear
weapons outright. All ground-launched cruise missiles
and ballistic missiles with ranges greater than 500 but less 11th TMS (96 missiles) 512242N
than 5500 kilometers were barred to the U.S. and USSR 0011807W / 51.37833N 1.30194W
under this treaty. This meant the withdrawal of GLCM
and Pershing II on the American side; the Soviets with- 868th Tactical Missile Training Squadron, Activated
drew the SS-4 Sandal, SS-5 Skean, SS-12 Scaleboard, 1 July 1981
210 CHAPTER 56. BGM-109G GROUND LAUNCHED CRUISE MISSILE
Re-designated: 868th Tactical Missile Train- 56.5 References

ing Group, 1 October 1985
Consisted of: 868th TM Training Squadron, [1] Cochran, Arkin & Hoenig 1984, pp. 179184.
868th TM Maintenance Squadron, 868th Stu- [2] Raytheon (General Dynamics) AGM/BGM/RGM/UGM-
dent Squadron 109 Tomahawk
Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona, inactivated on
[3] http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/W80.
31 May 1990 html The W80 Warhead
An area near Fort Huachuca was used for eld
[4] General Dynamics/McDonnell Douglas BGM-109G
training for GLCM operations
Gryphon Ground-launched Cruise Missile
[8] [5] ICBMs
Note: Each GLCM squadron was further subdivided into [6] Werrell, Kenneth P. (1989). The Weapon the Military
several ights. Each ight included 2 Launch Control Did Not Want: The Modern Strategic Cruise Missile.
Vehicles (LCC) and 4 Transporter Erector Launchers The Journal of Military History 53 (October 1989): 419
(TEL), totalling 16 missiles per ight. Each TEL could 438. doi:10.2307/1986108.
carry 4 missiles. [9][10] [7] INF Theater / Operational Missiles - Russian / Soviet Nu-
clear Forces
38th Tactical Missile Wing
[8] The Short, Happy Life of the Glick-Em
303d Tactical Missile Wing [9] AAFM Newsletter, Volume 12, Number 4, dated Decem-
ber 2004, article GLCM Part I by Col (Ret) Charlie
485th Tactical Missile Wing Simpson.
486th Tactical Missile Wing [10] Association of Air Force Missileers
487th Tactical Missile Wing

This article incorporates public domain material from
501st Tactical Missile Wing websites or documents of the Air Force Historical Re-
search Agency.
868th Tactical Missile Training Group
11th Tactical Missile Squadron

56.6 Bilbiography
71st Tactical Missile Squadron
Cochran, Thomas; Arkin, William M.; Hoenig, Mil-
87th Tactical Missile Squadron ton M. (1984). Nuclear Weapons Databook Volume
89th Tactical Missile Squadron I: U.S. Nuclear Forces and Capabilities. Natural Re-
sources Defense Council. ISBN 0-88410-173-8.
302d Tactical Missile Squadron
868th Tactical Missile Training Squadron 56.7 External links

GLCM (Ground-Launched Cruise Missile): BGM-
56.3 See also 109G Gryphon - Designation Systems
Tomahawk SLCM 485th Tactical Missile Wing

38 TMW Wueschheim Germany
SSC-X-4/RK-55
List of nuclear weapons (incomplete)
56.4 Notes
[1] The Mikoyan MiG-31's Zaslon radar has look-
down/shoot-down function, and was specically designed
to intercept low-ying bombers and cruise missiles. Same
radar function on the Beriev A-50.
Chapter 57
SM-64 Navaho
tic missiles. The missile is named after the Navajo Nation

and is in keeping with North American Aviations habit of
naming projects with code names starting with the letters
NA.
57.1 Development
The Navaho program began as part of a series of guided
missile research eorts started in 1946. Designated MX-
770, the original intent of the program was the develop-
ment of a winged cruise missile that could deliver a nu-
clear (ssion) warhead over a distance of 500 miles (800
km). This was more than double the range of the German
V-1 ying bomb as well as having a larger payload.[1] De-
sign studies showed the promise of still greater ranges and
by 1950 the vehicle had evolved from a 500-mile (800
km) ground-launched winged missile, to a 1,000-mile
(1,600 km) range ramjet powered missile, to a 1,500-
mile (2,400 km) air-launched, ramjet-powered missile
(actually designated XSSM-A-2), to nally a 3,000-mile
(4,800 km) plus rocket boosted ramjet powered cruise
Navaho missile on launch pad missile. The design evolution nally ended in July 1950
with the issuing by the Air Force of Weapon System 104-
A. Under this new requirement the purpose of the pro-
gram was the development of a 5,500-mile (8,900 km)
range nuclear missile.[2]
Under the new requirements of WS-104A, the Navaho
program was broken up into three guided missile eorts.
The rst of these missiles was the North American X-10,
a ying subrange vehicle to prove the general aerodynam-
ics, guidance, and control technologies for vehicles two
and three. The X-10 was essentially an unmanned high
performance jet, powered by two afterburning J-40 tur-
bojets and equipped with retractable landing gear for take
o and landing. It was capable of speeds up to Mach 2
and could y almost 500 miles (800 km). Its success at
Edwards AFB and then at Cape Canaveral set the stage
Navaho on display at CCAFS, Florida for the development of the second vehicle: XSSM-A-4,
Navaho II, or G-26.[3]
The North American SM-64 Navaho was a supersonic Step two, the G-26, was a nearly full-size Navaho nu-
intercontinental cruise missile project built by North clear vehicle. Launched vertically by a liquid-fuel rocket
American Aviation. The program ran from 1946 to 1958 booster, the G-26 would rocket upward until it had
when it was cancelled in favor of intercontinental ballis- reached a speed of approximately Mach 3 and an alti-
211
212 CHAPTER 57. SM-64 NAVAHO
tude of 50,000 ft (15,000 m). At this point the booster las ICBM began ight tests in June and the Jupiter and
would be expended and the vehicles ramjets ignited to Thor IRBMs were showing great promise. These ballis-
power the vehicle to its target. The G-26 made a total tic missiles however would not have been possible without
of 10 launches from Launch Complex 9 (LC-9) at Cape the liquid fuel rocket engine developments accomplished
Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) between 1956 and in the Navaho program. The launch of the Soviet Satel-
1957. Launch Complex 10 (LC-10) was also assigned to lite Sputnik in October 1957 only nished Navaho as the
the Navaho program, but no G-26s were ever launched Air Force shifted its research money into ICBMs. But
from it (it was only used for ground tests of the planned the technologies developed for the Navaho were reused in
portable launcher). 1957 for the development of the AGM-28 Hound Dog,
The nal operational version, the G-38 or XSM-64A, was a nuclear cruise missile which entered in production in
1959.
the same basic design as the G-26 only larger. It incorpo-
rated numerous new technologies: Titanium, gimballed The Soviet Union had been working on parallel projects,
rocket engines, Kerosene/Lox propellant combination, The Myasishchev "Buran" and Lavochkin "Burya" and a
full solid-state, etc. None were ever own, the program little later, the Tupolev Tu-123. The rst two types were
being cancelled before the rst example was completed. also large rocket-boosted ramjets while the third was a
The advanced rocket booster technology went on to be turbojet-powered machine. With the cancellation of the
used in other missiles including the Atlas intercontinental Navaho and the promise of ICBMs in the strategic mis-
ballistic missile and the inertial guidance system was later sile role, the rst two were canceled as well, though the
used as the guidance system on the rst U.S. nuclear- Lavochkin project, which had some successful test ights,
powered submarines. was carried on for R&D purposes and the Tupolev was
Development of the rst-stage rocket engine for the reworked as a big, fast reconnaissance drone.
Navaho began with two refurbished V-2 engines in
1947. That same year, the phase II engine was de-
signed, the XLR-41-NA-1, a simplied version of the 57.3 Operators
V-2 engine made from American parts. The phase
III engine, XLR-43-NA-1 (also called 75K), adopted a United States: The United States Air Force
cylindrical combustion chamber with the experimental canceled the program before accepting the Navaho
German impinging-stream injector plate. Engineers at into service.
North American were able to solve the combustion sta-
bility problem, which had prevented it being used in
the V-2, and the engine was successfully tested at full
power in 1951. The Phase IV engine, XLR-43-NA-3
57.4 Survivors
(120K), replaced the poorly cooled heavy German en-
gine wall with a brazed tubular (spaghetti) construc- One Navaho missile in existence is currently displayed
tion, which was becoming the new standard method for outside the south entrance gate of Cape Canaveral Air
regenerative cooling in American engines. A dual-engine Force Station, Florida. A second Navaho missile is on
version of this, XLR-71-NA-1 (240K), was used in the display at the United States Air Force Museum Annex at
G-26 Navaho. With improved cooling, a more power- Wright-Patterson AFB, OH.
ful kerosene-burning version was developed for the triple-
engine XLR-83-NA-1 (405K), used in the G-38 Navaho.
With all the elements of a modern engine (except a bell- 57.5 Specications
shaped nozzle), this led to designs for the Atlas, Thor and
Titan engines. General characteristics
Length: 67 ft 11 in (20.7 m)
57.2 Operational history Wingspan: 28 ft 7 in (8.71 m)
The rst launch attempt, in November 1956, failed after Height: ()

26 seconds of ight. Ten failed launches followed, be-
fore another got o successfully, on 22 March 1957, for Loaded weight: 64,850 lb (29,420 kg)
4 minutes, 39 seconds of ight. A 25 April attempt ex- Powerplant:
ploded seconds after lifto, while a 26 June ight lasted
only 4 minutes, 29 seconds.[4] 2 XRJ47-W-5 ramjets, 15,000 lbf (67 kN)
Ocially, the program was canceled on 13 July 1957, each
after the rst four launches ended in failure. In reality 2 XLR83-NA-1 rocket boosters, 200,000
the program was obsolete by mid-1957 as the rst At- lbf (890 kN) each
Performance 57.8 External links

Maximum speed: Mach 3 (2,000 kn, 3,700 km/h) The Evolution of the Cruise Missile by Werrell,
Kenneth P.
Range: 3,500 nmi, (6,500 km)
Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles:
Service ceiling: 77,000 ft (23,000 m) North American SM-64 Navaho, by Andreas Parsch
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/navhog26.htm
Thrust/weight (jet): 0.46:1
https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/n19980710_
Armament 981014.html
1 W41 nuclear warhead
57.6 See also

Aircraft of comparable role, conguration and era
SM-62 Snark
North American X-10
Related lists
List of missiles
57.7 References
Notes
[1] Gibson 1996, p. 6.
[2] Gibson 1996, p. 15.
[3] Gibson 1996, pp. 18, 24.
[4] Werrell 1998, p. 98.
Bibliography
Gibson, James N. The Navaho Missile Project: The

Story of the Know-How missile of American Rock-
etry. Altglen, Pennsylvania: Schier Publishing,
1996. ISBN 0-7643-0048-2
Werrell, Kenneth P. The Evolution of the Cruise

Missile. Montgomery, Alabama: Air University,
Maxwell Air Force Base. 1998, First edition 1995.
ISBN 978-1-58566-005-6. Also available in elec-
tronic format.
Chapter 58
SM-62 Snark
The Northrop SM-62 Snark was an early-model Carl Spaatz and the industrialist Jack Northrop saved the
intercontinental range ground-launched cruise missile project. Despite this, its funding by Congress was low,
that could carry a W39 thermonuclear warhead. The and this program was dogged by changes in specications.
Snark was deployed by the United States Air Force's The earliest planned due date in 1953 passed with the de-
Strategic Air Command from 1958 through 1961. The sign still in development, and the Strategic Air Command
Snark took its name from the author Lewis Carroll's char-was gradually becoming less supportive of it. In 1955,
acter the snark.[1] President Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered that top priority
be assigned to ICBMs and their associated guided missile
The Snark missile was developed to present a nuclear
deterrent to the Soviet Union and other potential ene- programs.
mies at a time when Intercontinental ballistic missiles Despite considerable diculties with the development of
(ICBMs) were still in development. The Snark was the the Snark, and reservations from the Department of De-
only surface-to-surface cruise missile with such a long fense towards it, the engineering work continued.[3]
range that was ever deployed by the U.S. Air Force. Fol- In 1957, tests of the Snark showed an estimated circular
lowing the deployment of ICBMs, the Snark was ren- error probable (CEP) of just 17 nautical miles (31.5 kilo-
dered obsolete, and it was removed from deployment in meters). By 1958, the celestial navigation system used
1961. by the Snark allowed its most accurate test, which ap-
peared to fall four nautical miles (7.4 km) short of the tar-
get. However, this apparent failure was at least partially
58.1 Design and development caused by the British Navigation Charts used to deter-
mine the position of Ascension Island being based on po-
sition determinations less accurate than those used by the
Snark. The missile landed where Ascension Island would
be found if more accurate navigation methods had been
used when developing the chart.[4] However, even with
the decreased CEP, the design was notoriously unreli-
able, with the majority of tests suering mechanical fail-
ure thousands of miles before reaching the target. Other
factors, such as the reduction in operating altitude from
150,000 to 55,000 feet (46,000 to 17,000 meters), and
the inability of the Snark to detect countermeasures and
perform evasive maneuvers also made it a questionable
strategic deterrent.
58.1.1 Technical description
The jet propelled 20.5 meter-long Snark missile had a top

Display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force
speed of about 650 m.p.h. (1,046 kilometer/hour) and a
Work on the project began in 1946. Initially there were maximum range of about 5,500 nautical miles (10,200
two missiles designeda subsonic design (the MX775A kilometers). Its complicated celestial navigation system
Snark) and a supersonic design (the MX775B Boo- gave it a claimed CEP of about 8,000 feet (2.4 kilome-
jum).(From the same poem: The snark was a boojum, ters).
you see.[2] ) Budget reductions threatened the project in The Snark was an air-breathing missile, intended to be
its rst year, but the intervention of Air Force General launched from a truck-mounted platform by two solid-
214
58.3. SURVIVORS 215
fueled rocket booster engines. The Snark next switched

to an internal turbojet engine for the rest of its ight. The
engine was a Pratt and Whitney J57, which was the rst
jet engine featuring a thrust of 10,000 pounds (44 kilo-
newtons) or more. Since the Snark lacked a horizontal
tail surface, it used elevons as its primary ight control
surfaces, and it ew with an unusual nose-high angle dur-
ing level ight. During the nal phase of its ight, its
nuclear warhead would have separated from its fuselage
and then followed a ballistic trajectory towards its target.
Due to the abrupt shift in its center of gravity caused by
separation, the fuselage would have performed an abrupt
pitch-up maneuver in order to avoid a collision with the
warhead.
One unusual capability of the Snark missile was its ability
to y away from its launch point for up to 11 hours, and
then return for a landing. If its warhead did not detach
from its body, then the Snark could be own repeatedly.
Lacking any landing gear, it would have been necessary
for the Snark to skid to a stop on a at, level surface. A
runway at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station is still
known as the Skid Strip.

In January 1958, the Strategic Air Command began ac-
cepting delivery of Snark missiles at Patrick Air Force
Base for training, and in 1959, the 702d Strategic Mis-
sile Wing was formed. Multiple launch failures led to the
Atlantic Ocean o Cape Canaveral's being described as
Snark infested waters.
On 27 May 1959, Presque Isle Air Force Base, Maine,
the only Snark missile base, received its rst missile. Ten
months later, on 18 March 1960, a Snark missile went on
alert status. A total of 30 Snarks are known to have been
deployed.[5]
The 702nd Wing was not declared to be fully operational
until February 1961. In March 1961, President John
F. Kennedy declared the Snark to be obsolete and of
marginal military value, and on 25 June 1961, the 702nd
Wing was inactivated.[6]
A photo sequence showing the warheads separation sequence
Many in the U.S. Military were surprised the Snark, due
to its dubious guidance system, was ever operational. In
ight tests many were lost. A missile launched in 1956 Cape Canaveral AFS and cannot be viewed by the
went so far o course that it landed in North-Eastern general public.
Brazil,[7] where it was found in 1983.[8] Many of those National Museum of the United States Air Force,
connected with the program commented in jest That the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio
Caribbean was full of 'Snark infested waters.[9]
Strategic Air & Space Museum, adjacent to Outt
AFB, Ashland, Nebraska
58.3 Survivors Hill Air Force Base, Ogden, Utah
Air Force Space & Missile Museum, Cape National Museum of Nuclear Science & History,
Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida. This pristine adjacent to Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque, New Mex-
artifact is in sequestered storage in Hangar R on ico
216 CHAPTER 58. SM-62 SNARK
[7] Snark ignores Air Force 'orders. Pittsburgh Post-

Gazette, 8 Dececember 1956. Retrieved: 6 January 2013.
[8] Long-lost missile found. The Leader-Post, 15 January

1983. Retrieved: 6 January 2013.
[9] Zaloga 1993, p. 193.
58.5.2 Bibliography
Carroll, Lewis and Martin Gardner. Lewis Carrolls
The Hunting of the Snark: The Annotated Snark.
London: William Kaufmann, 1982. ISBN 978-0-
913232-36-1.
Aerial photo showing the Snarks nose-up attitude in ight Gibson, James N. Nuclear Weapons of the United
States: An Illustrated History. Atglen, Pennsylvania:
Schier Publishing Ltd., 1996. ISBN 0-7643-0063-
City of Presque Isle, Maine static display 6.
Zaloga, Steven J. Chapter 5. Target America: The
Soviet Union and the Strategic Arms Race, 1945
58.4 See also 1964. New York: Presido Press, 1993. ISBN O-
89141-400-2.
Mutual Assured Destruction

58.6 External links
The Evolution of the Cruise Missile by Kenneth P.
Werrell
North American SM-64 Navaho
The Day They Lost The Snark by J.P. Anderson, Air
Vought SSM-N-9 Regulus II Force Magazine article about a Snark that was test-
red and rumored to have been found in Brazil
Related lists
Excellent article on the Snark on FAS.org
List of missiles Our First Guided Missileaires, Popular Mechan-

ics, July 1954, detailed article on Snark and the
List of military aircraft of the United States USAF school to train personnel for it
58.5 References
58.5.1 Notes
[1] Carroll and Gardner 1982, p. 97.
[2] Carroll and Gardner 1982, pp. 14, 53.
[3] Video: Arctic Sentinels. Building Rushed on Radar De-

fense, 1956/04/09. Universal Newsreel, 1956. Retrieved:
20 February 2012.
[4] Personal interview with George F. Douglas, Chief

Project Engineer, c. 1967
[5] Gibson 1996, p. 151.
[6] U.S. Air Force Fact Sheet: Development of the 45SW

Eastern Rqnge. United States Air Force. Retrieved: 12
April 2012.
Chapter 59
SSM-N-8 Regulus
The SSM-N-8A Regulus was a ship- and submarine- its extreme range the missile had to hit within 2.5 nautical
launched, nuclear-armed turbojet-powered cruise missile miles (4.6 km) of its target 50% of the time.
deployed by the United States Navy from 1955 to 1964.
Regulus development was preceded by Navy experiments
Its barrel-shaped fuselage resembled that of numerous with the JB-2 Loon missile, a close derivative of the
ghter aircraft designs of the era, but without a cockpit.
German V-1 ying bomb, beginning in the last year of
When the missile was ready for launch, it was tted with World War II. Submarine testing was performed 1947-
two large booster rockets on the aft end of the fuselage.
53, with USS Cusk (SS-348) and USS Carbonero (SS-
337) converted as test platforms, initially carrying the
missile unprotected, thus unable to submerge until after
59.1 History launch.
Regulus was designed to be 30 feet (9.1 m) long, 10
59.1.1 Design and development feet (3.0 m) in wingspan, 4 feet (1.2 m) in diameter,
and would weigh between 10,000 and 12,000 pounds
(4,500 and 5,400 kg). After launch, it would be guided
toward its target by two control stations, usually sub-
marines with guidance equipment. (Later, with the
Trounce system (Tactical Radar Omnidirectional Un-
derwater Navigational Control Equipment), one subma-
rine could guide it).[2] Army-Navy competition compli-
cated both the Matadors and the Regulus developments.
The missiles looked alike and used the same engine. They
had nearly identical performances, schedules, and costs.
Under pressure to reduce defense spending, the United
States Department of Defense ordered the Navy to de-
termine if Matador could be adapted for their use. The
Navy concluded that the Navys Regulus could perform
the Navy mission better.[3]
A Regulus I missile. Regulus had some advantages over Matador. It re-
quired only two guidance stations while Matador required
In October 1943, Chance Vought Aircraft Company three.[4] It could also be launched quicker, as Matadors
signed a study contract for a 300-mile (480 km) range boosters had to be tted while the missile was on the
missile to carry a 4,000-pound (1,800 kg) warhead. The launcher while Regulus was stowed with its boosters at-
project stalled for four years, however, until May 1947, tached. Finally, Chance Vought built a recoverable ver-
when the United States Army Air Forces awarded Martin sion of the missile, so that even though a Regulus test ve-
Aircraft Company a contract for a turbojet powered sub- hicle was more expensive to build, Regulus was cheaper
sonic missile, the Matador. The Navy saw Matador as to use over a series of tests. The Navy program contin-
a threat to its role in guided missiles and, within days, ued, and the rst Regulus ew in March 1951.
started a Navy development program for a missile that Due to its size and regulations concerning oversize loads
could be launched from a submarine and use the same on highways, Chance Vought collaborated with a rm that
J33 engine as the Matador.[1] In August 1947, the spec- specialized in trucking oversize loads to develop a special
ications for the project, now named Regulus, were tractor trailer combination which could move a Regulus I
issued: Carry a 3,000-pound (1,400 kg) warhead, to a missile.[5]
range of 500 nautical miles (930 km), at Mach 0.85, with
a circular error probable (CEP) of 0.5% of the range. At
217
218 CHAPTER 59. SSM-N-8 REGULUS
USS Tunny launching a Regulus I in 1958.
two purpose-built Regulus submarines, USS Grayback,[6]

USS Growler,[7] and, later, by the nuclear-powered USS
Halibut.[8] So that no target would be left uncovered, four
Regulus missiles had to be at sea at any given time. Thus,
A Regulus I red from USS Los Angeles, 1957. Barbero and Tunny, each of which carried two Regulus
missiles, patrolled simultaneously. Growler and Gray-
back, with four missiles, or Halibut, with ve, could patrol
59.2 Regulus II alone. These ve submarines made 40 Regulus strategic
deterrent patrols between October 1959 and July 1964,
Main article: SSM-N-9 Regulus II when they were relieved by the George Washington-class
submarines carrying the Polaris missile system.[9] Bar-
A second generation supersonic Vought SSM-N-9 Regu- bero also earned the distinction of launching the only de-
lus II cruise missile with a range of 1,200 nautical miles livery of missile mail.
(2,200 km) and a speed of Mach 2 was developed and Regulus was deployed by the US Navy in 1955 in the
successfully tested, but the program was canceled in fa- Pacic on board the cruiser USS Los Angeles. In 1956,
vor of the UGM-27 Polaris nuclear ballistic missile. three more followed: USS Macon, USS Toledo, and USS
The Regulus II missile was a completely new design with Helena. These four Baltimore-class cruisers each carried
improved guidance and double the range, and was in- three Regulus missiles on operational patrols in the West-
tended to replace the Regulus I missile. Regulus II- ern Pacic. Macons last Regulus patrol was in 1958,
equipped subs and ships would have been tted with the Toledos in 1959, Helenas in 1960, and Los Angeless in
Ships Inertial Navigation System (SINS), allowing the 1961.
missiles to be aligned accurately before take-o. Ten aircraft carriers were congured to operate Regu-
Forty-eight test-ights of Regulus II prototypes were car- lus missiles (though only six ever actually launched one).
ried out, 30 of which were successful, 14 partially suc- USS Princeton did not deploy with the missile but con-
cessful and only four failures. A production contract was ducted the rst launch of a Regulus from a warship. USS
signed in January 1958 and the only submarine launch Saratoga also did not deploy but was involved in two
was carried out from the USS Grayback in September demonstration launches. USS Franklin D. Roosevelt and
1958. USS Lexington each conducted one test launch. USS Ran-
dolph deployed to the Mediterranean carrying three Reg-
Due to the high cost of the Regulus II (approx one million ulus missiles. USS Hancock deployed once to the West-
dollars each), budgetary pressure, and the emergence of ern Pacic with four missiles in 1955. Lexington, Han-
the UGM-27 Polaris SLBM (submarine-launched ballis- cock, USS Shangri-La, and USS Ticonderoga were in-
tic missile), the Regulus II program was canceled on 18 volved in the development of the Regulus Assault Mis-
December 1958. At the time of cancellation Vought had sion (RAM) concept. RAM converted the Regulus cruise
completed twenty Regulus II missiles with 27 more on the missiles into an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV): Regulus
production line. Production of Regulus I missiles contin- missiles would be launched from cruisers or submarines,
ued until January 1959 with delivery of the 514th missile, and once in ight, guided to their targets by carrier-based
and it was withdrawn from service in August 1964. pilots with remote control equipment.
59.2.1 Ships tted with Regulus 59.2.2 Replacement and legacy

The rst launch from a submarine occurred in July 1953 Production of Regulus was phased out in January 1959
from the deck of USS Tunny, a World War II eet with delivery of the 514th missile, and it was removed
boat modied to carry Regulus. Tunny and her sister from service in August 1964. A number of the obso-
boat USS Barbero were the United States's rst nuclear lete missiles were expended as targets at Eglin Air Force
deterrent patrol submarines. They were joined in 1958 by Base, Florida. Regulus not only provided the rst nuclear
59.3. OPERATORS 219
strategic deterrence force for the United States Navy dur- US Navy Pacic Missile Range Facility, Barking
ing the rst years of the Cold War and especially during Sands, island of Kauai, Hawaii
Regulus I restored in 2011 on static display inside
the Cuban Missile Crisis, preceding the Polaris missiles,
the North Gate
Poseidon missiles, and Trident missiles that followed, but
it also was the forerunner of the Tomahawk cruise mis-
sile.
59.3 Operators
59.2.3 Surviving examples United States
United States Navy (from 1955 to 1964)
59.4 See also

List of missiles
SSBN Deterrent Patrol insignia
59.5 References
[1] Marshall William Mcmurran, Achieving Accuracy: A
Legacy of Computers and Missiles, Xlibris Corporation,
Regulus I in launch position on USS Growler. 2008. pp 216
The following museums in the United States have Regulus [2] Friedman, p. 178
missiles on display as part of their collections: [3] David K. Stumpf, Regulus: Americas First Nuclear Sub-
marine Missile,Turner Publishing Company, 1996. pp 21-
Carolinas Aviation Museum, Charlotte, North Carolina 22
1956 Chance-Vought SSM-N-9a Regulus II cruise
[4] Friedman, p. 263
missile in launch position at the Carolinas Avia-
tion Museum in Charlotte, North Carolina. It is [5] Build Special Trailer To Move Bulky Missile. Popular
mounted on a catapult launching stand used for Mechanics, June 1954, p. 128.
aircraft carrier launches and was restored late 2006
[6] Stumpf, pp 134
after having been on outdoor display for a number
of years. [7] Stumpf, pp 142
Frontiers of Flight Museum, Dallas Love Field, Texas [8] Stumpf, pp 151
Regulus II missile
[9] Friedman, pp. 177-191
Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum, New York City, New York
Regulus I cruise missile can be seen ready for sim- Friedman, Norman (1994). U.S. Submarines Since
ulated launch on board USS Growler at the Intrepid 1945: An Illustrated Design History. Annapolis,
Sea-Air-Space Museum in New York City. Maryland: United States Naval Institute. ISBN 1-
Point Mugu Missile Park, Naval Air Station Point 55750-260-9.
Mugu, California
The museums collection includes both a Regulus
and a Regulus II missile 59.6 External links
USS Bown Museum, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii
USS Halibut Webpage
Veterans Memorial Museum, Huntsville, Alabama
Regulus II missile US Navy Photos & Documentary lm produced by
Nick T. Spark, Regulus: The First Nuclear Mis-
Smithsonian Institution, National Air and Space Museum sile Submarines which aired initially on the History
Regulus I on display at Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center Channel in Europe.
New Jersey Naval Museum, Hackensack, NJ Carolinas Aviation Museum
Regulus with intact engine
Chapter 60
MGM-13 Mace
The Martin Mace (designated as TM-76 tactical missile Europe (38th Tactical Missile Wing) with just under 200
until 1963, then as MGM-13 for mobile-launched and TM-61s and TM-76s. In South Korea, the 58th Tactical
CGM-13 for container-launched versions) is a tactical Missile Group became combat ready with 60 TM-61s in
cruise missile developed from the MGM-1 Matador. January 1959. It ceased operations in March 1962, only
a few months after the 498th Tactical Missile Group in
December 1961 took up positions in semi-hardened sites
on Okinawa.
60.1 History Development of the B missiles began in 1964 and re-
mained operational in Europe and the Pacic. The two
Development began in 1954 as an improved version of the squadrons of TM-76B/MGM- 13C continued on active
MGM-1 Matador. Like the Matador, the Mace was a tac- duty in USAFE until December 1969. After being taken
tical surface-launched missile designed to destroy ground oine, some missiles were used as target drones because
targets. It was rst designed as the TM-76 and later the their size and performance resembled manned aircraft.
MGM-13.
Mace was launched from a transporter erector launcher
or a hardened bunker using a solid rocket booster for 60.2 Variants
initial acceleration and an Allison J33-A-41 turbojet for
ight. The Goodyear Aircraft Corporation developed
ATRAN (Automatic Terrain Recognition And Naviga- Mace A - equipped with ATRAN (Automatic Ter-
tion, a radar map-matching system) in which the return rain Recognition And Navigation) terrain-matching
from a radar scanning antenna was matched with a series radar navigation.
of maps carried on board the missile which corrected
the ight path if it deviated from the lm map. In Au- Mace B - inertial navigation system, increased range.
gust 1952, Air Materiel Command initiated the mating of
the Goodyear ATRAN with the MGM-1 Matador. This
mating resulted in a production contract in June 1954.
ATRAN was dicult to jam and was not range-limited 60.3 Survivors
by line-of sight, but its range was restricted by the avail-
ability of radar maps. In time, it became possible to con-
struct radar maps from topographic maps.
The Mace was rst launched in 1956 and the missile could
reach Mach 0.7 to 0.85 over a 540-mile range at low
level (as low as 750 feet), and 1,285 miles at high alti-
tude. Development of Mace B missiles began in 1964,
with the B having a longer fuselage, shorter wings, and
more weight than the A. In addition, the B included
a jam-proof inertial guidance system (designated TM-
76B), with range exceeding 1,300 miles. To enhance
mobility, Martin designed the Maces wings to fold for
transport (the Matadors wings were transported sepa-
rately and then bolted on for ight).
The USAF deployed the Mace in West Germany in 1959,
and it served alongside the MGM-1 Matador before the TM-76 Mace missile at the Belleview Park in Englewood, Col-
latter phased out in 1962. Six missile squadrons served in orado
220
60.5. SEE ALSO 221
Below is a list of museums which have a Mace missile in Technical information

their collection:
Launch platform:
Air Force Space & Missile Museum, Cape
Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, TM-76B /
CGM-13B, AF Ser. No. 60-0715, but restored MM1: transporter erector launcher
and marked as AF Ser. No. 59-4871. Originally
assigned to the U.S. Air Force Tactical Missile CGM-13B: con
School, 4504th Missile Training Wing, Orlando
Air Force Base, Florida.[1]
Performance
Air Force Armament Museum, Eglin Air Force
Base, Florida, CGM-13, AF Ser. No. 59-4860
Cruise speed: 650 mph (570 kn, 1,000 km/h)
Museum of Aviation, Robins Air Force Base,
Georgia MGM-13A, AF Ser. No. 58-1465[2] Operating altitude: up to 40,000 ft (12,000 m)
National Museum of the United States Air Force, Range: 1,400 mi (1,200 nmi, 2,300 km)
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio.
This Mace B was based on Okinawa prior to its
delivery to the museum in 1971.[3] Warhead
Indiana Military Museum, Vincennes, Indiana

CGM-13B, AF Ser. No. 59-4871. This Mace B Warhead: Conventional or nuclear
was assigned to the 4504th Missile Training Wing,
Orlando AFB, Florida.[4]
Belleview Park, Englewood, Colorado. Elevated 60.5 See also

outdoor display. AF Serial Number is unknown.
Donated to the city by the Martin Company in the Related development
1960s for use as playground equipment.
White Sands Missile Range Museum, New MGM-1 Matador

Mexico[5]
Public display in Memorial Park, Flagler, Colorado, Related lists

AF Ser. No. 58-1463.
McDermott Post 452, American Legion, Mildred, List of military aircraft of the United States
Pennsylvania
List of missiles
60.4 Specications
60.6 References
General characteristics
Mindling, George, and Bolton, Robert, 'U.S. Air

Length: 44 ft 6 in (13.6 m)
Force Tactical Missiles 19491969 The Pioneers,
Diameter: 4 ft 6 in (1.4 m) 2008, Lulu Press
Launch mass: 18,000 lb (8,200 kg)

[1] http://afspacemuseum.org/displays/MaceB/
Engine [2] MGM13, Aircraft collection, Museum of Aviation.
First stage: 1 Thiokol solid rocket booster [3] US Air Force Museum Foundation. US Air Force Mu-
seum. p. 94.
Thrust: 100,000 lbf (445 kN)
Second stage: 1 Allison J33-A-41 turbojet [4] Indiana Military Museum.
Thrust: 5,200 lbf (23 kN) [5] Matador, Mace, WSMR History.
222 CHAPTER 60. MGM-13 MACE
60.7 External links

Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles
Part One - The Development of the Matador and

Mace Missiles
Part Two - History of the Matador and Mace Mis-

siles
Part Three - Matador and Mace Missile Guidance
and Flight Controls
The FWD MM-1 Teracruzer
Sembach Missileers - 38th TAC Missile Wing Mis-

sileers stationed at Sembach AB, Germany, 1959-
1966
TAC Missileers - Tactical Missile Warriors of the
Cold War
Chapter 61
MGM-1 Matador
Matador (missile)" redirects here. For the anti-tank Lowry AFB, both in Denver Colorado, while the Launch
rocket, see MATADOR (weapon). Training was at Orlando AFB, Florida (later transferred
to the US Navy and renamed NTC Orlando) and Cape
Canaveral AFS, Florida. When the Tainan squadrons
The Martin MGM-1 Matador was the rst opera-
tional surface-to-surface cruise missile built by the United were inactivated, the airframes were made non-yable
by chopping out the attachment points in the bulkheads
States. It was similar in concept to the German V-1, but
the Matador included a radio command that allowed in- of the fuselage sections with axes, and were sold locally
as scrap after having the warheads removed. Most of
ight course corrections. This allowed accuracy to be
maintained over greatly extended ranges of just under the support vehicles, consisting mainly of 2 and 5-ton
trucks, were disposed of on the local market. Presum-
1000 km. To allow these ranges, the Matador was pow-
ered by a small turbojet engine in place of the V-1s much ably, the other sites similarly disposed of their missiles
less ecient pulsejet. and equipment.
When originally introduced, the Air Force referred to

them as bombers, and assigned them the B-61 designa-
tion. It was later re-designated TM-61, for tactical 61.2 Guidance
missile, and nally "'MGM-1 when the US Department
of Defense introduced the Joint Designation System in The missile was piloted via radio link and tracked via
1963. a network of ground-based AN/MSQ-1 radar stations.
This guidance system, with its line-of-sight communica-
tions, limited the guided range to about 400 km (250 mi).
As with all radio communications it was also prone to en-
61.1 History emy radio jamming. While in theory the missile could
be handed o in ight from one guidance station to the
next, in practice that was rarely successful, and deployed
The rst ight of Matador, model XSSM-A-1, occurred
at the White Sands Missile Range on 20 January 1949. missiles did not attempt it.
The rst two production B-61 Matador missiles arrived at In 1954, the USAF started to develop the YTM-61C ver-
Eglin AFB, Florida, in September 1953, under the con- sion which was equipped with the new Shanicle (Short
trol of the 6555th Guided Missile Squadron, for climatic Range Navigation Vehicle) guidance system. It became
testing, although instrumentation and pre-test check-outs operational in 1957 and used ground-based microwave
kept the actual cold-weather tests from beginning until emitters to generate hyperbolic grids for range and
November.[1] At the end of 1953 the rst squadron was azimuth, which were used by the missile guidance system
operational, but not deployed until 1954, as the 1st Pilot- to navigate. Now the guided range could be extended to
less Bomber Squadron, Bitburg Air Base, Germany with the maximum ight range of the missile, about 620 miles
the B-61A armed with the W5 nuclear warhead. The mis- (1,000 km). Anecdotal evidence indicated that the Shan-
sile was capable of carrying a 2000 pound conventional icle system was very accurate, with stories of one missile
warhead, but it is unknown if any of these were actually ying into the ground in the same crater left by a pre-
deployed. By the late 1950s at least, all Matadors carried vious missile during an early exercise in North Africa.
the nuclear warhead. These may or may not be true, but in any case the Shan-
The last Matadors were removed from active service in icle system was soon discontinued on operational mis-
1962, with a total of 1200 missiles produced. At that siles. By the late 1950s, all were using the MSQ-1 (called
time, they were deployed in squadrons at Bitburg AB, MisCue-1 by the crews) ground-based guidance sys-
West Germany, in Tainan, Taiwan, and in various loca- tem.
tions in South Korea. The specic maintenance train- A unique identifying feature of the TM-61C variant was
ing schools were in at the Glenn L. Martin factory and the raised rear section of the fuselage above the jet ex-
223
224 CHAPTER 61. MGM-1 MATADOR
haust, called the doghouse by those who were assigned bled as drivers. All enlisted members other than the Crew
to the missile squadrons. This had originally housed the Chief were usually Airman Second Class (E-3) or Airman
Shanicle electronics, but was retained when those systems (E-2) on their rst enlistment, though there were some-
were removed. The doghouse had no access panels times Sta Sergeants (E-5) or even Technical Sergeants
or doors and was an aerodynamic structural component (E-6) who had already served multiple enlistments. In
added to TM-61C and TM-76A to prevent missile shud- addition, there were similarly-sized Guidance crews on
der and breakup during terminal dive. It contained no remote sites, and a maintenance sta for the missiles, the
functional components. The operational Matadors were guidance equipment, and the vehicles. Because of the
zinc chromate green in their nal versions, but this dog- number of people required to support the missile, a mo-
house was quite often left natural aluminum, as were the bile Matador squadron with ve launch crews could grow
wings and tail group. quite cumbersome. As a result, the squadrons were soon
deployed at xed sites and the idea of a mobile missile
was abandoned.
61.3 Launch crew An individual Matador missile was shipped from the
Martin plant to its unit in seven wooden crates.[2] A sin-
gle Matador missile required many vehicles to move it
and its associated support equipment. There was a Trans-
port Vehicle, which was a short wheelbase semi-trailer
which carried the missile with the wings removed and at-
tached alongside the fuselage, a Launcher, which was a
semi-trailer more than 40 feet (12 m) long weighing more
than 30,000 pounds. There was a Target Selection Van,
a Warhead Van, a 60 kW diesel generator, a tug, a hy-
draulic unit, a mobile Blockhouse, and a truck-mounted
hydraulic crane. There were several 2 and 5 ton trucks
(tractor type) to attach to and tow the launchers, Trans-
port Vehicle, and generator. In some squadrons, each
launch team had a large trailer in which it stored weapons,
A Matador missile on its launcher near Hahn Air Base, West ammunition and supplies.
Germany.
A typical missile launch site had an active, or hot pad
on which was kept the missile most ready to launch. This
pad was manned by the on-duty launch crew. Accord-
ing to the book, this required 15 minutes to do, but some
crews could accomplish it in slightly more than 6 min-
utes. The site usually had a backup pad, on which was a
missile which would require somewhat more eort to get
it launched. This pad was manned by the standby crew,
and if they were on site, could usually be ready to launch
in 2030 minutes. If there was a third pad, it may not
have a missile on it at all. If one of the o-duty crews
could make it to the launch site in time, they would try
to get a missile onto the launcher there, and get it ready
to go. Since all launch sites were within just a few min-
utes ying time of the potential enemy, it was unlikely
that the third missile would actually launch, but all crews
A Matador missile at Gatow, Germany. had multiple practice drills during their periods as duty
and standby crews, trying to reduce the time needed to
The Matador launch crew consisted of eleven members. get the missiles away.
One Launch Ocer, who was usually a 1st Lieutenant
(O-2) or a junior Captain (O-3), one Crew Chief, usu- Often, these drills were accompanied by a yover of a
ally a Technical Sergeant (E-6), two Warhead techs, two T-33 aircraft on which was mounted the MSQ-1 guid-
Flight Control Systems techs, two Guidance techs, two ance system. (F-100 Super Sabres from the 36th and
Airframe and Engine techsone of whom doubled as the 50th TFWs were normally used for launch simulation ex-
crane operator and the other as the launcher tech, and one ercises in Europe). This aircraft would y over the launch
Booster Rocket tech. Since the missile was at least the- pad at very low altitude and then simulate the ight prole
oretically mobile, all launch equipment was mounted of the missile under the control of the Guidance crews.
on trucks and trailers. As a result, in addition to their pri- This gave the Guidance crews needed practice control-
mary duties, most crew members were trained as and dou- ling a missile in ight, as well as giving squadron ocers
61.5. OPERATORS 225
some ight time. TM-61B: Signicant redesign of the TM-61A, ul-

The Matador ight prole was very simple and pre- timately being redesignated as its own system, the
dictable, which no doubt contributed to its demise. When TM-76 Mace.
the Launch Ocer pressed the two launch switches, the TM-61C: Improved TM-61A developed as a stop-
JATO bottle red, accelerating the missile to 250 miles gap as the TM-61B was under development.
per hour in the space of two and a half seconds, at which
point it had own about a quarter mile. At this point the MGM-1C: Redesignation of the TM-61C in 1963
JATO bottle fell away and the missile continued on a pre- to meet new aircraft and missile designation stan-
set heading and rate of climb until it was acquired up by dards adopted by the USAF. Only the TM-61C re-
the guidance crews and their equipment. The missile had quired redesignation as the TM-61A had been fully
no altitude or speed control, continuing to y as fast as withdrawn from service and the TM-61B had been
possible, climbing as the fuel load was burned o, until it redesignated the TM-76 Mace, and ultimately re-
reached its maximum altitude. At a point about six miles ceived the MGM-13 designation.
(10 km) from the intended target, the guidance crews sent
the dump signal, which caused the missile to nose over
into what was called the terminal dive. This dive was 61.5 Operators
near vertical, continuing until the missile reached the pre-
set detonation altitude as determined by the radio altime-
ter, at which point the weapon exploded. Should the radio United States: The United States Air Force
altimeter fail, a backup barometric detonator was used.
Should that fail, there was an impact detonator. 38th Tactical Missile Wing
As with all missiles and bombers of the day, accuracy was 1st Pilotless Bomber Squadron - Bitburg AB,
not good in todays terms. Anything within a mile was Germany
considered a hit. Even though the missile was classied
2d Pilotless Bomber Squadron - Hahn AB,
as a tactical weapon, in fact it was not technically capa-
Germany
ble of hitting individual targets, so it was likely targeted
at cities near which a military installation such as an air- 69th Tactical Missile Squadron
eld existed. Actual targets were classied, and kept from
everyone except the actual guidance ocer. 58th Tactical Missile Group
11th Tactical Missile Squadron

71st Tactical Missile Squadron
61.4 Variants and design stages
310th Tactical Missile Squadron - Osan, Korea
MX-771: Original U.S. Air Force project number. 868th Tactical Missile Squadron - Tainan, Tai-
wan
SSM-A-1: Early proposed designation for opera-
tional missile. This designation was dropped before
the rst operational missiles were completed. Germany: Bundeswehr
XSSM-A-1: First designation applied to rst proto-
types for development of the missile airframe. Flugkrpergruppe 11
YSSM-A-1: First designation applied to prototypes

for development of the guidance system.
61.6 Survivors
B-61: Operational designation proposed to super-
sede SSM-A-1 designation. This designation was Below is a list of museums with a Matador missile in their
designed to classify the missile as a pilotless bomber. collection:
XB-61: Redesignation of the XSSM-A-1
YB-61: Redesignation of the YSSM-A-1 Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida. This pristine
B-61A: First production version of the Matador. artifact is in sequestered storage in Hangar R on
Principal dierence from the XB-61 and YB-61 was Cape Canaveral AFS and cannot be viewed by the
redesign of the airframe with high wings in place of general public.
the previous mid-mounted wings.
Carolinas Aviation Museum, Charlotte, North Car-
TM-61A: Redesignation of the B-61A as the USAF olina. This Matador was formerly on display at the
decided to classify the Matador as a tactical missile Florence Air & Missile Museum in Florence, South
instead of a pilotless bomber. Carolina.
226 CHAPTER 61. MGM-1 MATADOR
Unrestored Matador Missile from Florence Air & Missile Mu- Cruise missile at Pydna
seum at Carolinas Aviation Museum in Charlotte, North Carolina
(KCLT)
XTM-61 Serial #52-1872 is on static dis-
play at Hawkinsville-Pulaski County Airport,
Hawkinsville, Georgia.
61.7 Specications (MGM-1C)

XTM-61 on static display at Hawkinsville-Pulaski County Air- Wingspan: 28 ft 7 in (8.7 m)

port in Hawkinsville, Georgia
Launch mass: 12,000 lb (5,400 kg)

Georgia TM-61A Serial #52-1891[3] Engine
National Air and Space Museum, Dulles Interna- Booster: Aerojet General solid-fuel rocket
tional Airport
Thrust: 52,000 lbf (240,000 kN)
National Museum of the United States Air Force,
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio Cruise: 1 Allison J33-A-37 turbojet
A Bitburg"-Matador survives as a Missile Mon-
Thrust: 4,300lbf (20 kN)
ument at the former 38th Combat Support Wing
GLCM station "Pydna" at Wschheim, Germany
Performance
Luftwaenmuseum der Bundeswehr, Berlin, Ger-
many
Cruise speed: Mach 0.9 (646 mph, 1,040 km/h)
National Museum of Nuclear Science & History,
adjacent to Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, Operating altitude: 43,000 ft (11,000 m)
New Mexico[4]
Warhead
A TM-61C Matador, Serial # 56-1955 is on display
near Pikeville, North Carolina, in the parking lot of
a church. Warhead: 20 kiloton W5 ssion bomb
61.8 See also

Related development
MGM-13 Mace
UB.109T
Related lists
List of missiles
61.9 References
[1] Connors, S.Sgt. J. J., "Guided Missiles: Eglin Tests Mata-
dors In Hangar", Playground News, Fort Walton Beach,
Florida, 12 November 1953, Volume 8, Number 42, page
1.
[2] Pilotless Bomber Shipped in Crates. Popular Mechan-

ics, August 1954, p. 90.
[3] Museum of Aviation Web site
[4] MGM-1. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Mis-

siles.

TAC Missileers - Tactical Missile Warriors of the

Cold War
Pilotless Bomber Can Carry A-Bomb At 700 m.p.h.

detailed 1951 article on the Matador which had re-
cently been declassied
Media related to MGM-1 Matador at Wikimedia

Commons
Chapter 62
Republic-Ford JB-2
A JB-2 being inspected by USAAF personnel at Wendover AAF,

1944.
Ground preparation prior to air launch, 1944
JB-2 being air launched for ight test by a Boeing B-17 during
testing of the weapon at Eglin Field, 1944
A JB-2 being prepared for a test launch at Holloman AFB about

1948.
V-1 ying bomb. Developed in 1944, and planned to be

used in the United States invasion of Japan (Operation
In ight after air launch, 1944 Downfall), the JB-2 was never used in combat. It was the
most successful of the United States Army Air Forces Jet
The Republic-Ford JB-2, also known as the KGW and Bomb (JB) projects (JB-1 through JB-10) during World
LTV-N-2 Loon, was a United States copy of the German War II. Postwar, the JB-2 played a signicant role in the
228
62.1. WARTIME DEVELOPMENT 229
2.[2]
By 8 September, the rst of thirteen complete JB-2s, re-
verse engineered from the material received at Wright
Field in July was assembled at Republic Aviation. The
United States JB-2 was dierent from the German V-1
in only the smallest of dimensions. The wing span was
only 2 inches wider and the length was extended less
than 2 feet (0.61 m). The dierence gave the JB-2 60.7
square feet of wing area versus 55 for the V-1.[1] One of
the few visible dierences between the JB-2 and the V-1
was the shape of the forward pulsejet support pylon
the original V-1 had its support pylon slightly swept back
at nearly the same angle on both its leading and trailing
edges, while the JB-2s pylon had a vertical leading edge
A Loon being red from USS Cusk in 1951
and sharply swept-forward trailing edge.
This was the rst unmanned guided missile in Americas
arsenal. The rst launch of a JB-2 took place at Eglin
development of more advanced surface-to-surface tacti- Army Air Field in Florida by the 1st Proving Ground
cal missile systems such as the MGM-1 Matador and later Group on 12 October 1944. In addition to the Eglin
MGM-13 Mace. group, a detachment of the Special Weapons Branch,
Wright Field, Ohio, arrived at Wendover Field, Utah, in
1944 with the mission of evaluating captured & experi-
mental systems, including the JB-2. Testing was from a
62.1 Wartime development launch structure just south of Wendovers technical site.
The launch area is visible in aerial imagery (404153N
The United States had known of the existence of a new 1140229W / 40.69806N 114.04139W). Parts of
German secret weapon since 22 August 1942 when a crashed JB-2s are occasionally found by Wendover Air-
Danish Naval Ocer discovered an early test version of port personnel.[1]
the V-1 that had crashed on the island of Bornholm, in
In December 1944, the rst JB-1 was ready for launch.
the Baltic Sea between Germany and Sweden. A pho-
The missile was launched by a rocket-propelled sled along
tograph and a detailed sketch of the V-1 test unit, the
a 150 m (500 ft) long track, but seconds after release the
Fieseler Fi 103 V83 was sent to Britain. This led to
JB-1 pitched up into a stall and crashed. This was caused
months of intelligence-gathering and intelligence-sifting
by an incorrectly calculated elevon setting for take-o,
which traced the weapon to Peenemnde, on Germanys
but the JB-1 program was subsequently stopped, mainly
Baltic Coast, the top-secret German missile test and de-
because the performance and reliability of the GE B1 tur-
velopment site.[1]
bojet engines were far below expectations. In addition,
As more intelligence data was obtained through aerial the cost to produce the Ford copy of the Argus pulse-jet
photography and sources inside Germany, it was decided engine of the JB-2 was much less than the GE turbojets.
in 1943 for the United States to develop a jet-powered Subsequently work proceeded on the JB-2 for nal devel-
bomb as well. The United States Army Air Forces gave opment and production.[1][3]
Northrop Aircraft a contract in July 1944 to develop the
An initial production order was 1,000 units, with subse-
JB-1 (Jet Bomb 1) turbojet-powered ying bomb under
quent production of 1,000 per month. That gure was
project MX-543. Northrop designed a ying-wing air-
not anticipated to be attainable until April 1945. Re-
craft with two General Electric B1 turbojets in the center
public had its production lines at capacity for producing
section, and two 900 kg (2000 lb) general purpose bombs
P-47 Thunderbolts, so it sub-contracted airframe manu-
in enclosed bomb containers in the wing roots. To test
facturing to Willys-Overland. Ford Motor Co built the
the aerodynamics of the design, one JB-1 was completed
engine, initially designated IJ-15-1, which was a copy of
as a manned unpowered glider, which was rst own in
the V-1s 900-lb. thrust Argus-Schmidt pulse-jet, later
August 1944.[1]
designated the PJ31. Guidance and ight controls were
However, in July 1944, three weeks after German V- manufactured by Jack and Heintz Company of Cleveland,
1 Buzz Bombs rst struck England on June 12 and Ohio, and Monsanto took on the task of designing a bet-
13, American engineers at Wright Field, red a work- ter launching system, with Northrop supplying the launch
ing copy of the German Argus As 014 pulse-jet en- sleds. Production delivery began in January 1945.[1]
gine, reverse-engineered from crashed German V-1s
An envisioned 75,000 JB-2s were planned for production.
that were brought to the United States from England for
A USAAF launching squadron was formed in anticipa-
analysis. The reverse engineering provided the design
tion for using the weapons both against Nazi Germany
of Americas rst mass-produced guided missile, the JB-
230 CHAPTER 62. REPUBLIC-FORD JB-2
and Japan. However, the end of the European War in 2 as Project EO-727-12 on 23 April 1948, at Holloman
May 1945 meant a reduction of the number of JB-2s to AFB, New Mexico, the former Alamogordo Army Air
be produced, but not the end of the program. Army com- Field. The JB-2 was used for development of missile
manders in Europe had dismissed it as a weapon against guidance control and seeker systems, testing of telemeter-
Nazi Germany, as the strategic bombing concept was im- ing and optical tracking facilities, and as a target for new
plemented and by 1945 the number of strategic targets surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles (ironically fullling
in Germany was becoming limited. However, the JB-2 the former V1s covername, Flakzielgert anti-aircraft
was envisioned as a weapon to attack Japan. A 180-day target device). The JB-2 project used the North Amer-
massive bombardment of the Japanese Home Islands was ican Aviation NATIV (North American Test Instrument
being planned prior to the amphibious landing by the Vehicle) Blockhouse and two launch ramps at Holloman:
most powerful and sustained pre-invasion bombardment a 400 ft (120 m), two-rail ramp on a 3 earth-lled slope,
of the war. Included in the assault were the usual naval and a 40 ft (12 m) trailer ramp. The 40-foot trailer ramp
bombardment and air strikes augmented by rocket-ring was the rst step toward a system which would eventually
aircraft and JB-2s.[1] be adapted for the forthcoming Martin MGM-1 Matador,
A navalized version, designated KGW-1, was planned to rst operational surface-to-surface cruise missile built by
be used against Japan from LSTs (Landing Ship, Tank) as the United States. The program at Holloman was termi-
well as escort carriers (CVEs). In addition, launches from nated on 10 January 1949 after successful development
PB4Y-2 Privateers were foreseen and techniques devel- of a radio guidance and control system that could control
oped. The ocial U.S. Air Force Fact Sheet on the JB-2 and even skid-land a JB-2 [1]
under the control of an airborne
states just before the end of the war, an aircraft carrier en or ground transmitter.
route to the Pacic took on a load of JB-2s for possible The 1st Experimental Guided Missiles Group used JB-2s
use in the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands, in a series of tests in the late 1940s at Eglin Air Force
however the name of the carrier has never been identi- Base, Florida. In the spring of 1949, the 3200th Proof
ed. In addition, according to one Eglin AFB history, an Test Group tested launching JB-2s from the under the
unidentied USAAF unit in the Philippines was prepar- wings of B-36 Peacemaker bombers at Eglin AFB.[4]
ing to launch JB-2s against Japan.[1] The wars end led to About a year later, JB-2s were tested as aerial targets for
the cancellation of Operation Downfall and the produc- experimental infrared gunsights at Eglin.[5]
tion of JB-2s was terminated on 15 September. A total The Navy version was featured in the movie The Flying
of 1,391 units were manufactured.[1] Missile (1951), including submarine launches. The movie
shows the missile being launched from a trolley with four
JATO bottles.
62.2 Postwar testing In the summer of 1992, military crews uncovered the
well-preserved wreckage of a JB-2 at a site on an Air
The U.S. Army Air Forces continued development of Force-owned section of Santa Rosa Island. Most crash
the JB-2 as Project MX-544, with two versions one sites on the barrier island were little more than aky
with preset internal guidance and another with radar con- rust, but after the nd, ocials were planning further
trol. Several launch platforms were developed, includ- searches.[6]
ing permanent and portable ramps, and mobile launching
from beneath the wings of Boeing B-17G or Boeing B-29
bombers, much as the Heinkel He 111H-22 had actually 62.3 JB-2 survivors
done late in the war for the Luftwae. Testing contin-
ued from 1944 to 1947 at Eglin to improve launch and National Museum of the United States Air Force,
guidance. Dayton, Ohio
The U.S. Navys version, the KGW-1, later redesignated
U.S. Air Force Armament Museum, Eglin AFB,
LTV-N-2, was developed to be carried on the aft deck of
Florida
submarines in watertight containers. The rst submarine
to employ them was USS Cusk (SS-348) which success- Evergreen Aviation & Space Museum, McMin-
fully launched its rst Loon on February 12, 1947, o nville, Oregon
Point Mugu, California. USS Carbonero (SS-337) was
also modied to test Loon. (Engine only, operational) Planes of Fame air mu-
seum, Chino, California
After the United States Air Force became a fully inde-
pendent arm of the National Military Establishment 18 A JB-2 is on open-air display at the Museum
September 1947, research continued with the develop- of Alaska Transportation and Industry in Wasilla,
ment of unmanned aircraft and pilotless bombers, includ- Alaska.
ing the already available JB-2. Museum of Transport and Technology (MOTAT),
The USAF Air Materiel Command reactivated the JB- Auckland, New Zealand
Hill Aerospace Museum, Hill AFB, Utah has an 1st Experimental Guided Missiles Group
original JB-2, Wendover Willie
Launch locations
Point Mugu Missile Park, on open-air display at
Naval Air Station Point Mugu, California.
Wendover Air Force Base, Utah JB-2 Testing
Cradle of Aviation Museum, Garden City, New Site (404152N 1140229W / 40.69778N
York. 114.04139W)
National Air and Space Museum at the Steven F. Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico JB-2 Test-
Udvar-Hazy Center, Washington, D.C. ing Site (325333N 1060724W / 32.89250N
106.12333W)
Milford Township Park at Milford, IL.[7]
Santa Rosa Island Range Complex, JB-2 Launch
A JB-2 is on open-air display at the American Le- Sites 302357N 0864221W / 30.39917N
gion post in Wheaton, Minnesota. 86.70583W (302354N 0864133W /
A JB-2 is on open-air display at White Sands Missile 30.39833N 86.69250W)
Range Museum Wagner Field, Florida (Formerly: Eglin Air Force
A JB-2 is on open-air display at the U.S. Army Ar- Auxiliary Field #1) (303946N 0862041W /
tillery Museum, Fort Sill, Oklahoma. 30.66278N 86.34472W)
62.5 References
websites or documents of the Air Force Historical Re-
search Agency.
[1] U.S. Air Force Tactical Missiles, (2009), George Min-

dling, Robert Bolton ISBN 978-0-557-00029-6
[2] USAFHRA document 01014091
[3] Garry R. Pape, John M. Campbell: Northrop Flying

Wings, Schier Publishing Ltd., 1995
[4] USAFHRA Document 00103281
[5] USAFHRA Document 00425257
[6] Associated Press, V-1 copy sparks interest, Northwest

Florida Daily News, Fort Walton Beach, Florida, 1 Octo-
ber 1992, p. 1B
[7] http://www.warbirdsandairshows.com/
illinoisgateguards.htm
JB-2 on display at the National Air and Space Museum,
Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center USAF JB-2 LOON (fact sheet), National Museum.
Mindling, George, and Bolton, Robert, 'U.S. Air
Force Tactical Missiles 19491969: The Pio-
62.4 See also neers, 2008, Lulu Press
Related development
62.6 External links
V-1 (ying bomb)
Early History and Evolution of cruise missiles, JB-2
Aircraft of comparable role, conguration and era Loon development and testing, USAF 38th Tactical
Missile Wing.
Interstate XBDR
JB Series (JB-1 through JB-10) Directory of U.S.
McDonnell LBD Gargoyle Military Rockets and Missiles
232 CHAPTER 62. REPUBLIC-FORD JB-2
V-1 Buzz Bomb"/JB-2 Flying Bomb Fact Sheet at

Hill Air Force Base website
Short JB-2 launch from a B-17 video clip
JB-2 launches video

Chapter 63
Alpha Draco
For the star Alpha Draconis, see Thuban. project proving invaluable to the development of re-entry
vehicles for future intercontinental ballistic missiles.[3]
The Alpha Draco missile, also known as Weapons Sys-
tem 199D (WS-199D), was an experimental ballistic
missile developed by McDonnell Aircraft in the late 63.3 See also
1950s to investigate boost-glide reentry. Three test ights
were conducted in 1959, of which two were successful. Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar
Project Isinglass
Related development
As part of the WS-199 project to develop new strate-
gic weapons for the United States Air Force's Strategic
Air Command, McDonnell Aircraft developed the Al- Bold Orion
pha Draco missile between 1957 and 1959. The purpose High Virgo
of the rocket was to establish whether a strategic missile
using the boost-glide principle of propulsion could be
practically used.[1]
The Alpha Draco missile was a two-stage vehicle, the 63.4 References
rst stage comprising a Thiokol TX-20 solid-fuel rocket
of the type used in the MGM-29 Sergeant theatre ballis- Notes
tic missile, and the second stage using a Thiokol TX-30
solid-fuel rocket. The payload vehicle was aerodynami-
[1] Parsch 2005
cally shaped, using the lifting body principle to provide
[2]
aerodynamic lift; following burnout of the rst stage, [2] Yenne 2005, p.67.
the vehicle would coast for a short time before ignition
of the second stage,[1] burnout of the second stage was [3] Yengst 2010, pp.38-39.
followed by the vehicle entering the glide phase of ight,
which would be terminated by a dive upon the target.[3] Bibliography
Parsch, Andreas (1 November 2005). WS-199.

63.2 Operational history Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles.
designation-systems.net. Archived from the original
Three test launches of the Alpha Draco vehicle were con- on 15 December 2010. Retrieved 20 January 2015.
ducted during 1959,[2] the missile being launched from a Yengst, William (2010). Lightning Bolts: First
land-based gantry. The initial ight, on February 16, was Manuevering [sic] Reentry Vehicles. Mustang, OK:
successful; the second ight, one month later, also ful- Tate Publishing & Enterprises. ISBN 978-1-61566-
lled its test goals. The nal launch of the Alpha Draco 547-1.
on April 30, however, suered a ight-control failure and
was destroyed by range safety command.[3] With the ex- Yenne, Bill (2005). Secret Gadgets and Strange Giz-
penditure of the third and nal vehicle, the program came mos: High-Tech (and Low-Tech) Innovations of the
to a halt,[1] the projects cost having come to a total of ap- U.S. Military. St. Paul, MN: Zenith Press. ISBN
proximately $5 million USD, the knowledge gained in the 978-0-7603-2115-7.
233
234 CHAPTER 63. ALPHA DRACO
63.5 External links

Media related to Alpha Draco at Wikimedia Commons
Chapter 64
Crow (missile)
The Creative Research On Weapons or Crow program

was an experimental missile project developed by the
United States Navy's Naval Air Missile Test Center dur-
ing the late 1950s. Intended to evaluate the solid-fueled
integral rocket/ramjet (SFIRR) method of propulsion as
well as solid-fueled ramjet engines, ight tests were con-
ducted during the early 1960s with mixed success.
64.1 Development and RARE

Crow I on F4D Skyray
Studies of the rocket-ramjet and solid-fueled ramjet con-
cepts began at the U.S. Navys Naval Air Missile Test
Center later the Naval Missile Center at Point Mugu, the booster stage, the rockets casing acted as the duct for
California in 1956, with the intent of increasing the a ramjet engine, with remaining solid fuel being mixed
range of small air-to-air missiles through using the com- with the incoming air to provide thrust.[2]
bined ramjet and rocket propulsion system with solid fu-
The rst ight test, from a Douglas F4D Skyray launch
els only.[1] Following extensive ground testing, the con-
aircraft, was undertaken on January 19, 1961; due to a
cept was considered promising enough for a ight-test ve-
aw in the launch mechanism, the rocket failed to ignite,
hicle to be constructed to fully evaluate the new engine.[2]
and the test was a failure. Modications were made, and
The rst ight test vehicle, known as Ram Air Rocket that November two successful ights of the Crow I vehicle
Engine or RARE, was developed by the Naval Ordnance were conducted.[2]
Test Station at China Lake, California. RARE was con-
structed using a conventional ve-inch (127mm) rocket
tube, 10 feet (3.0 m) in length and weighing 153 pounds 64.3 Controlled Crow
(69 kg).[3] Rocket-sled tests conducted during 1956 in-
dicated that the rocket-ramjet conguration would be
stable;[1] three ight tests were conducted between 1959 With the ballistic Crow I having proved the propulsion
and 1960, with the RARE rocket reaching speeds of concept sound, follow-up work on a modication [2]
of the
Mach 2.3. [4] vehicle to provide guidance was undertaken. The mis-
sile was tted with a simple autopilot, utilizing infrared
horizon-scanning to maintain the missiles attitude in
ight.[2]
64.2 Crow I
Captive ight tests of Crow began in February 1963
Even as testing of RARE was undertaken, the Naval Air aboard a F-4B Phantom II carrier aircraft; on May 29,
Missile Test Center was developing their own test vehicle. the rst test launch was attempted, with three further
Known as CROW, or Creative Research on Weapons, launches taking place through May 1965. None of rst
the NAMTC vehicle was intended to demonstrate that three attempted ights were successful, however; mal-
a solid-fueled rocket-ramjet was capable of delivering a functions in the rocket motor, autopilot, and controls
reasonable payload.[4] A simple unguided rocket, the rst plagued the program.[2] The fourth ight test proved more
Crow vehicle, known as Crow I,[2] was intended for aerial successful, and Crow was considered to have met the
launch at low supersonic speed and an altitude of 50,000 project goals.[4]
feet (15,000 m).[4] After launch, the booster acted as an The Crow project successfully established the solid-
ordinary solid-fueled rocket; however upon burnout of fueled rocket-ramjet as a viable method of propulsion;[2]
235
236 CHAPTER 64. CROW (MISSILE)
consideration of Crow for use as an air-to-air missile or

target drone was undertaken, but this was not pursued.[4]
64.4 See also
Cutaway drawing of RARE TV-1
ASALM
AQM-127 SLAT
BrahMos
64.5 References
Notes
[1] NOTS 1956, p.181.
[2] Parsch 2004
[3] Parsch 2007
[4] Waltrup, White, Zarlingo and Gravlin 1997, p.238
Bibliography
Chapter 6: Propellants and Propulsion for Mis-

siles. Technical Program Review 1956 (PDF).
China Lake, CA: U.S. Naval Ordnance Test Station.
January 1, 1957. Retrieved 2010-01-14.
Parsch, Andreas (2004). Naval Missile Center
Crow. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Mis-
14.
Parsch, Andreas (2007). "(Other): Missile Scrap-
book"". Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Mis-
14.
Waltrup, Paul J.; Michael E. White; Frederick
Zarlino; Edward S. Gravlin (AprilJune 1997).
History of Ramjet and Scramjet Propulsion Devel-
opment for U.S. Navy Missiles (PDF). Johns Hop-
kins APL Technical Digest (Laurel, MD: The Johns
Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory) 18
(2). ISSN 0270-5214. Retrieved 2011-01-14.
Chapter 65
MGM-51 Shillelagh
The Ford MGM-51 Shillelagh was an American anti- the round makes it hard to aim over longer distances. The
tank guided missile designed to be launched from a con- US Army sought to overcome this problem by developing
ventional gun (cannon). It was originally intended to guided missiles with shaped charge warheads that were
be the medium-range portion of a short, medium, long- accurate beyond a few hundred yards.
range system for armored ghting vehicles in the 1960s
and '70s to defeat future armor without an excessively
large gun. Developing a system that could re both shells 65.2 Development
and missiles reliably proved complex and largely unwork-
able. It served most notably as a primary weapon of the
M551 Sheridan light tank, but the missile system was not In 1958 the Army thought that existing knowledge was
issued to units serving in Vietnam. Ultimately very few sucient to begin work on a guided missile with a HEAT
of the 88,000 rounds produced were ever red in combat. warhead, and in June 1959 Sperry and Ford Aeronutronic
were asked for designs to ll the shorter range role. Ford
Shillelagh was considered equal to the later BGM-71 won the contract and started work on the XM13. The
TOW anti-tank wire-guided missile rst produced in rst test shots were red in 1960, and limited produc-
1970 by the U.S, which could not be red from the gun tion started in 1964. The missile was then known as the
but had a simpler guidance system.[5] However Main bat- MGM-51A.
tle tanks of the late 20th century elded improved con-
ventional 100 to 125 mm guns and ammunition which The basic system was quite advanced for its day. The
proved eective against enemy armor threats. While So- missile body consisted of a long tube with fold-out ns
viets designers have developed gun launched missiles, the at the extreme rear, which was propelled from the new
US and NATO were developing guided tank shells. M81 gun with a small charge strapped on the rear. Once
clear of the gun the ns popped open and the engine ig-
The name of the system is that of a traditional wooden nited. In order to keep it from spinning while in the gun
club from Ireland. due to the riing, a small key t into a straight groove in
the ried gun. Aiming the missile was simple; the gunner
simply kept his gunsight on the target, while electronics in
65.1 Background the sighting system tracked the missile optically and sent
corrections through an IR link (similar to a TV remote
control). In general the gunners were able to achieve ex-
With the rapid increase in armor thickness during World cellent hit rates.
War II, tanks were becoming increasingly able to survive
rounds red from even the largest of WWII-era anti-tank Because the system was so advanced, the development of
guns. A new generation of guns, notably the British 105 the Shillelagh was fraught with problems. Ford Aeronu-
mm Royal Ordnance L7, were able to cope with newer tronic underestimated the complexity of the task of de-
tanks, but it appeared that in another generation the guns signing a missile as advanced as this, and there were ma-
needed would be too large to be practical. jor problems with the propellant, igniter, tracker and in-
frared command link of the missile.[6]
To overcome this potential diculty the US Army be-
gan to favor high-explosive antitank (HEAT), or shaped
charge rounds in the 1950s. A shaped charges penetra-
tion is not dependent on the speed of the round, allow- 65.3 The Sheridan
ing rounds to be red at much lower velocities, and thus
from much lighter guns. They also work better at larger The M81/MGM-51 was rst installed on the M551 Sheri-
diameters, and a large-diameter low-velocity gun makes dan. The Sheridan was a light aluminum-armored AFV
for an excellent assault gun that can be mounted on light designed to be air transportable and provide antitank sup-
or medium-weight vehicles. However, the low speed of port for airborne forces.[7] In 1966 the US Army be-
237
238 CHAPTER 65. MGM-51 SHILLELAGH
gun led to cracking after ring only a few shells. After

further study a version with a shallower slot and new bar-
rel was selected, creating the M81E1/MGM-51C.
The new missile was about 45 inches (1,100 mm) long,
about 6 inches (150 mm) in diameter, and weighed 60
pounds (27 kg). It remained in production until 1971, by
which time 88,000 had been produced, probably in an-
ticipation of use by main battle tanks (below). Nearly
a half dozen missiles red at bunkers by Sheridans dur-
ing Operation Desert Storm (Iraq/Kuwait) in January and
February 1991. This was the only time the missile system
was red in combat.
MGM-51 Shillelagh red from a Sheridan 65.4 M60A2 Starship
gan pressing General Westmoreland to eld the tank in

South Vietnam, but he declined, stating that with no
main gun ammunition, the Sheridan was basically noth-
ing more than a $300,000 machine gun platform.[8] In
1968 152mm main gun ammo became available, and the
M551 General Sheridan was deployed to South Vietnam
for combat operations in January 1969.[8] Shillelagh mis-
siles did not prove to be a problem in the Vietnam War:
they were not used.[8]
The Sheridans 152mm main guns were used in com-
bat operations in Vietnam but proved troublesome.[8] The
combustible casings of the 152mm caseless ammunition
rounds did not burn completely, requiring a complicated
and slow gas-driven scavenging system. They were also M60A2 at the American Armored Foundation Museum in
liable to cook o if the vehicle was hit. Firing the gun Danville, Virginia, July 2006.
caused such a large recoil as to result in failures in the del-
icate missile ring electronics on the tank. These prob- Even with its problems the system had shown that it could
lems, in combination with the lack of suitable targets, be used by an airborne tank to destroy a main battle tank.
resulted in the Sheridans deployment to South Vietnam The question of whether or not it could ll its original role
without the complex missile system. as the main armament of all tanks was still open. The
The Shillelagh was considerably larger than a conven- Army had originally started development of a low-prole
tional round, so only a small number could be carried. turret with a short barrel for their existing M60 tanks in
Typical loads consisted of only 9 missiles and twenty the 1960s, but did not place an order for delivery until
M409 HEAT rounds for short-range use. In addition the 1971, when the main problems with the system had been
missile proved to have a very long minimum range. Due resolved. The Shillelagh-equipped M60s entered service
to the layout of the vehicle, the missile did not come into in 1974, but were hampered by reliability problems, and
the sight of the gun/tracker system until it was 800 yards were phased out in 1980. The nal revision of the M60A3
(730 m) from the vehicle, at which point it could start to used the same gun and turret as the M60A1.
be guided. Because of its maximum range of about 2,200
yards (2,000 m), the system was only eective within a
fairly narrow span of combat distances. 65.5 MBT-70
While the maximum range of 2,200 yards (2,000 m) was
acceptable, the Army thought that it could and should be The most ambitious project based on the Shillelagh was
improved. Ford received a contract to develop a longer the MBT-70, an advanced US-German tank. Design
range version in 1963, and returned a slightly larger de- work on the MBT-70 began in 1963. The tank mounted
sign the next year. Test ring of the new MGM-51B a huge auto-loader turret on top of a very short chassis, so
started the next May, and production began in October short that there was no room for a driver in the front hull.
1966. Besides the changes to the missile, the gun was Instead of being located in the conventional position the
modied. In testing it was found that the key slot in the driver was seated in the turret with other crew members,
65.7 External links

Ford M13/MGM-51 Shillelagh - Designation Sys-
tems
MBT-70 prototype test ring an MGM-51
in a rotating cupola that kept him facing forward. The gun

was a new longer-barreled design, the XM-150, which ex-
tended range and performance to the point where it was
useful for sabot type rounds as well. However the project
dragged on, and in 1969 the estimated unit cost had risen
vefold. Germany pulled out of the project. The Army
proposed a cut-down version of the system, the XM-
803, but Congress cancelled it in November 1971. It ini-
tiated and issued funds to the M1 Abrams project the next
month. The M1 design incorporated a conventional gun.
The Soviet KBP Instrument Design Bureau developed the
somewhat similar AT-11 Sniper missile, launched by a
125 mm gun. It utilizes a laser beam rider guidance sys-
tem, and a tandem warhead to defeat explosive reactive
armour as used on the T-80 and T-90 tanks.
65.6 References
[1] M551 Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehi-
cle
[2] Christensen Allan R, et al., TETAM Model Verication

Study. Volume II. Modied Representations of Intervisi-
bility
[3] http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-51.html
[4] R.P.Hunnicutt. Abrams. A History of the American Main

Battle Tank, Vol. 2. Presidio Press, 1990. ISBN 0-
89141-388-X
[5] Cagle, Mary T., History of the TOW Missile System,

OCT 1977
[6] Technology and the American way of war. Thomas G.

Mahnken. Columbia University Press, 2008. ISBN 978-
0-231-12336-5
[7] Starry p. 142
[8] Starry p. 143
Starry, Donn A., General. Mounted Combat in Viet-

nam. Department of the Army, Washington D.C.
1978.
Chapter 66
PGM-17 Thor
Thor was the rst operational ballistic missile deployed orbital insertion. These missiles remain in storage, and
by the U.S. Air Force (USAF). Named after the Norse could be reactivated, though the W-49 Mod 6 warheads
god of thunder, it was deployed in the United Kingdom were all dismantled by June 1976.
between 1959 and September 1963 as an intermediate
range ballistic missile (IRBM) with thermonuclear war-
heads. Thor was 65 feet (20 m) in height and 8 feet (2.4 66.2 Initial development as an
m) in diameter. It was later augmented in the U.S. IRBM
arsenal by the Jupiter. IRBM
A large family of space launch vehiclesthe Thor and
Delta rocketswere derived from the Thor design. The Development of the Thor was initiated by the USAF in
Delta II is still in active service as of 2014 and with the 1954. The goal was a missile system that could deliver a
retirement of Atlas and Titan in the mid-2000s, the last nuclear warhead over a distance of 1,150 to 2,300 miles
surviving heritage launch vehicle in the US eet (being (1,850 to 3,700 km) with a CEP of 2 miles (3.2 km). This
derived from a Cold War-era missile system). range would allow Moscow to be hit from a launch site in
the UK.
The initial design studies were headed by Cmdr. Robert
Truax (US Navy) and Dr. Adolph K. Thiel (Ramo-
66.1 Design and development Wooldridge Corporation, formerly of Redstone Arsenal).
They rened the specs to an IRBM with:
See also: Program 437
A 1,750 miles (2,820 km) range
Fearful that the Soviet Union would deploy a long-range 8 ft (2.4 m) diameter, 65 ft (20 m) long (so it could
ballistic missile before the U.S., in January 1956 the be carried by Douglas C-124 Globemaster)
USAF began developing the Thor, a 1,500 miles (2,400
km) intermediate-range ballistic missile. The program A gross takeo weight of 110,000 lb (50,000 kg)
proceeded quickly, and within three years of inception
the rst of 20 Royal Air Force Thor squadrons became Propulsion provided by half of the Navaho-derived
operational in the UK. The UK deployment carried the Atlas booster engine (due, largely, to the lack of any
codename 'Project Emily'. One of the advantages of the alternatives at this early date)
design was that, unlike the Jupiter IRBM, the Thor could 10,000 mph (4.5 km/s) maximum speed during war-
be carried by the USAFs cargo aircraft of the time, which head reentry
made its deployment more rapid. The launch facilities
were not transportable, and had to be built on site. The Inertial guidance system with radio backup (for low
Thor was a stop-gap measure, and once the rst genera- susceptibility to enemy disruption)
tion of ICBMs based in the US became operational, Thor
missiles were quickly retired. The last of the missiles was On November 30, 1955 three companies were given one
withdrawn from operational alert in 1963. week to bid on the project: Douglas, Lockheed, and
A small number of Thors, converted to Thrust Aug- North American Aviation. They were asked to create
mented Delta launchers, remained operational in the a management team that could pull together existing
anti-satellite missile role as Program 437 until April technology, skills, abilities, and techniques in 'an un-
1975. These missiles were based on Johnston Island in precedented time.'" On December 27, 1955 Douglas was
the Pacic Ocean and had the ability to destroy satellites awarded the prime contract for the airframe and integra-
in low Earth orbit. With prior warning of an impending tion. The Rocketdyne division of North American Avia-
launch, they could destroy a Soviet spy satellite soon after tion was awarded the engine contract, AC Spark Plug the
240
66.4. DEPLOYMENT 241
primary inertial guidance system, Bell Labs the backup Missile 108 (11 October), exploded during launch with-
radio guidance system, and General Electric the nose out prior warning. Engineers were bewildered as to the
cone/reentry vehicle. cause of the failure. After the rst Thor-Able launch
Douglas further rened the design by choosing bolted failed six months later due to a seized turbopump, it was
tank bulkheads (as opposed to the initially suggested concluded to be the cause of 108s demise, although the
welded ones) and a tapered fuel tank for improved aero- missile did not have sucient instrumentation to deter-
dynamics. The engine was developed as a direct descen- mine the exact nature of the failure.
dant of the Atlas MA-3 booster engine. Changes involved The Jupiter, Thor, and Atlas missiles all used a variant
removal of one thrust chamber and a rerouting of the of the Rocketdyne LR-79 engine and all three suered
plumbing to allow the engine to t within the smaller Thor launch failures due to a marginal turbopump design which
boat-tail. Engine tests were being performed as of March resulted in the bearings coming loose and causing the
1956. The rst engineering model engine was available pump to seize (the rst indication of trouble came during
in June, followed by the rst ight engine in September. static rings of LR-79s in mid-1957). In February 1958,
Engine development was complicated by serious turbop- Rocketdyne proposed modifying the bearing retainers,
ump problems. Early Thor engines suered from bear- but the Air Forces Ballistic Missile Division ignored this
ing walking, where the turbopump bearings shift axi- suggestion on the grounds that there was insucient data
ally within their housing, causing rapid wear and bearing regarding the turbopumps performance. Meanwhile, the
seizure. Army Ballistic Missile Agency (in charge of the Jupiter
and Redstone programs) conducted a series of laboratory
tests at Huntsville, Alabama in which it was determined
66.3 First launches that the decrease in air pressure at high altitudes caused
lubricating oil in the bearings to foam, resulting in their
failure. Modications to the existing stock of Jupiter mis-
Thor test launches were to be from LC-17 at Cape siles proved successful and none were lost to turbopump
Canaveral Missile Annex. The development schedule was failures again.
so compressed that plans for the Atlas bunker were used
to allow the completion of the facility in time. Neverthe- General Bernard Schreiver, head of the Air Force Ballis-
less pad LC-17B was just ready for the rst test ight. tic Missile Division (BMD), rejected the idea of sending
Thor and Atlas missiles back to the factory and decided
The rst ight-ready Thor, Missile 101, arrived at Cape that he would only allow in-eld modications so as to not
Canaveral in October 1956. It was erected on LC-17B delay the testing program. Six consecutive Thor and Atlas
and launched 25 January 1957. The Thor failed almost launches failed during February-April 1958, although not
immediately at lifto as the engine lost thrust, dropped all of them could be attributed to turbopump problems.
back onto the pad, and exploded. Engineers could not de- Later in the year, Thor-Able 1 failed in-ght while per-
termine the cause until viewing lm of prelaunch prepa- forming the rst attempted launch of an American lunar
rations that showed crews dragging a LOX ller hose probe on 17 August, followed by Atlas 6B in September.
through a sandy area. It was concluded that debris had After this, the Air Force gave in and agreed to replace the
entered the LOX and contaminated it, causing valve fail- turbopumps in all of their missiles, after which there were
ure. no launch failures due to a turbopump problem. The nec-
Thor 102 was launched on 20 April. The booster was essary modications to the missiles would have taken only
performing normally, but an erroneous console readout one month and not caused any delay to either Thor-Able
caused the Range Safety Ocer to believe that it was 1 or Atlas 6Bs ights, thus those failures were ultimately
headed inland and he initiated the destruct sequence 30 attributed to poor management of the programs.
seconds into the launch. Phase II testing with the AC Spark Plug inertial guidance
The third Thor launch (Missile 103) did not get o the system began 7 December with the rst successful ight
pad. During prelaunch preparations on 22 May, a stuck on 19 December 1957.[1]
valve caused the LOX tank to overpressurize and explode,
once again necessitating repairs to LC-17B.
Missile 104, launched 22 August from the newly-opened 66.4 Deployment
LC-17A, broke up at T+92 seconds when a guidance er-
ror caused it to pitch down. Thor was deployed to the UK starting in August 1958,
Thor vehicle 105 (20 September), 21 months after the operated by 20 squadrons of RAF Bomber Command un-
start of construction, ew 1,100 miles (1,800 km) down- der US-UK dual key control.[2] The rst active unit was
range. Estimated range without the extra load of the R No. 77 Squadron RAF at RAF Feltwell in 1958, with
and D instrumentation was 1,500 miles (2,400 km). the remaining units becoming active in 1959. All were
Missile 107 (3 October) fell back onto LC-17A and ex- deactivated by September 1963.
ploded at launch. All 60 of the Thor missiles deployed in the UK were
242 CHAPTER 66. PGM-17 THOR
Johnston Island Launch Emplacement One (LE1) after a Thor

missile launch failure and explosion contaminated the island with
Plutonium during the Operation Bluegill Prime nuclear test,
July, 1962. The retractable missile shelter (on rails) can be seen
at the rear
stroyed, nuclear device lost.
RAF operational training launch of a PGM-17 Thor IRBM From 9 July 1962, Thor missile 195 launched a Mk4 reen-
Vandenberg AFB, 3 August 1959. try vehicle containing a W49 thermonuclear war-
head to an altitude of 250 miles (400 km). The war-
head detonated with a yield of 1.45 Mt of TNT (6.07
based at above-ground launch sites. The missiles were
PJ). This was the Starsh Prime event of nuclear test
stored horizontally on transporter-erector trailers and
operation Dominic-Fishbowl.
covered by a retractable missile shelter. To re the
weapon, the crew used an electric motor to roll back the
missile shelter (essentially a long shed mounted on steel
rails), then used a powerful hydraulic launcher-erector to 66.6 Launch vehicle
lift the missile to an upright position for launch. Once
it was standing on the launch mount, the missile was fu- Main article: Thor (rocket family)
eled and could be red. The entire launch sequence (from
starting to roll back the missile shelter through to ignition
of the rocket engine and lift-o) took approximately 15 The Thor rocket was also used as a space launch vehicle.
minutes. Main engine burn time was almost 2.5 minutes, It was the rst in a large family of space launch vehicles
boosting the missile to a speed of 14,400 ft/s (4,400 m/s). the Delta rockets. Thors descendants y to this day as the
Ten minutes into its ight the missile reached an altitude Delta II and Delta IV.
of 280 miles (450 km), close to the apogee of its ellipti-
cal ight path. At that point the reentry vehicle separated
from the missile fuselage and began its descent toward 66.7 Operators
the target. Total ight time from launch to target impact
was approximately 18 minutes.
United States
The Thor was initially deployed with a very blunt conical United States Air Force
G.E. Mk 2 'heat sink' re-entry vehicle. They were later
converted to the slender G.E. Mk 3 ablative RV. Both
RVs contained a W-49 thermonuclear warhead with an RAF South Ruislip
explosive yield of 1.44 megatons.
705th Strategic Missile Wing (1958-1960)
66.5 Noteworthy Thor IRBM United Kingdom

ights Royal Air Force
4 June 1962, failed Starsh ight, Thor destroyed, RAF Bomber Command
nuclear device lost.
20 June 1962, failed Bluegill Prime ight, Thor de- see Project Emily Stations and Squadrons
66.9. SEE ALSO 243
66.8 Specications (PGM-17A) Chambers: 1

Chamber Pressure: 4.1 MPa
Family: Thor IRBM, Thor DM-18 (single stage
LV); Thor DM-19 (rocket 1st stage), Thor DM- Area Ratio: 8.00
21 (rocket 1st stage), Thor DSV-2D,E,F,G (subor- Thrust to Weight Ratio: 120.32
bital LV), Thor DSV-2J (anti-ballistic missile), Thor
Country: USA
DSV-2U (orbital launch vehicle).
First Flight: 1958
Overall length: 19.82 m (65.0 ft) Last Flight: 1980
Span: 2.74 m (9.0 ft) Flown: 145.
Weight: 49,800 kg (109,800 lb) Comments: Designed for booster applications.

Gas generator, pump-fed
Empty weight: 3,125 kg (6,889 lb)
Guidance: Inertial
Thrust (vac): 760 kN
Maximum speed: 17,740 km/h (11,020 mph)
Lifto Thrust (sl): 670 kN (150,000 lbf)
Isp: 282 s (2.77 kNs/kg) Development Cost US dollars: $500 million
Isp(sl): 248 s (2.43 kNs/kg) Recurring Price US dollars: $6.25 million
Burn time: 165 s Total Number Built: 224

Core Diameter: 2.44 m Total Development Built: 64
Maximum range: 2,400 km (1,500 mi)
Total Production Built: 160
Ceiling: 480 km (300 mi)
Flyaway Unit Cost: US$750,000 in 1958 dollars
Warhead Launches: 59
One W49 warhead on Mk. 2 reentry vehicle Failures: 14

warhead mass: 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) Success Rate: 76.27%
Yield: equivalent to 1,440 kilotons of TNT (6.02
First Launch Date: 25 January 1957
PJ)
CEP: 1 km (0.62 mi) Last Launch Date: 5 November 1975
Boost Propulsion: Liquid fuelled rocket, LOX and

Kerosene. 66.9 See also
Engines:
Project Emily
Rocketdyne LR79-NA-9 (Model S-3D); 666
kN (150000 lbf) Strategic Air Command
Vernier: 2x Rocketdyne LR101-NA; 4.5 kN
(1000 lbf) each Thor (rocket family)
Propellants: LOX/Kerosene (Thor kerosene Thor-Able
propellant was referred to as 'RP1' by RAF
users) Thor-Agena
Thrust (vac): 760 kN Thor-Delta
Isp: 282 s (2.77 kNs/kg)
Isp (sea level): 248 s (2.43 kNs/kg) Related lists
Burn time: 165 s
Mass Engine: 643 kg
Diameter: 2.44 m List of missiles
244 CHAPTER 66. PGM-17 THOR
66.10 References Maxwell Hunter, Father of the Thor Rocket
YouTube contemporary lm of Thor missiles at

[1] James N. Gibson, Nuclear Weapons of the United States,
An Illustrated History, pp. 167-168, Schier Publishing North Pickenham
Ltd., Atglen, PA, 1996
[2] Sam Marsden (1 August 2013). Locks on nuclear mis-

siles changed after launch key blunder. Daily Telegraph.
Retrieved 6 August 2013.
Boyes, John. Project Emily: The Thor IRBM and

the Royal Air Force 19591963. Prospero, Jour-
nal of the British Rocketry Oral History Programme
(BROHP) No 4, Spring 2007.
Boyes, John. Project Emily: Thor IRBM and the

RAF. Tempus Publishing, 2008. ISBN 978-0-7524-
4611-0.
Boyes, John. The Thor IRBM: The Cuban Mis-

sile Crisis and the subsequent run-down of the Thor
Force. pub: Royal Air Force Historical Society. Jour-
nal 42, May 2008. ISSN 1361 4231.
Forsyth, Kevin S. Delta: The Ultimate Thor. In

Roger Launius and Dennis Jenkins (Eds.), To Reach
The High Frontier: A History of U.S. Launch Ve-
hicles. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky,
2002. ISBN 0-8131-2245-7.
Hartt, Julian. The Mighty Thor: Missile in Readi-

ness. New York: Duell, Sloan, and Pearce, 1961.
For RAF Squadrons list:
Jeord, Wing Commander C.G., MBE, BA,

RAF(Retd.). RAF Squadrons, a Comprehensive
record of the Movement and Equipment of all
RAF Squadrons and their Antecedents since 1912.
Shrewsbury, Shropshire, UK: Airlife Publishing,
1988 (second edition 2001). ISBN 1-85310-053-6.
p. 178.
Wynn, Humphrey. RAF Strategic Nuclear Deterrent

Forces, their Origins, Roles and Deployment 1946-
69. London: HMSO, 1994. ISBN 0-11-772833-0.
p. 449.

Thor from Encyclopedia Astronautica
Thor IRBM History site
History of the Delta Launch Vehicle
UK Thor missile launch sites on Secret Bases web-

site
UK Thor deployment in Lincolnshire

Chapter 67
SM-65 Atlas
Main article: Atlas (rocket family) ight in what would be a long career for the Atlas as
a satellite launcher. Many retired Atlas ICBMs would
be used as launch vehicles, most with an added spin-
The SM-65 Atlas was the rst intercontinental ballistic stabilized solid rocket motor upper stage for polar orbit
missile (ICBM) developed and deployed by the United military payloads. Even before its military use ended in
States. It was built for the U.S. Air Force by Convair 1965, Atlas had placed four Project Mercury astronauts
Division of General Dynamics at the Kearny Mesa asin orbit and was becoming the foundation for a family
sembly plant north of San Diego, California. Atlas be- of successful space launch vehicles, most notably Atlas
came operational as an ICBM in October 1959 and was Agena and Atlas Centaur.
used as a rst stage for satellite launch vehicles for half a
century. The Atlas missiles warhead was over 100 times Mergers led to the acquisition of the Atlas Centaur line
more powerful than the bomb dropped over Nagasaki in by Lockheed Martin which in turn became part of the
1945. United Launch Alliance. Today Lockheed Martin and
ULA support a new Atlas rocket family based on the
An initial development contract was given to larger Atlas V which still uses the unique and highly ef-
Consolidated Vultee Aircraft (Convair) on 16 Jan- cient Centaur upper stage. Atlas V stage one is powered
uary 1951 for what was then called MX-1593, but at a by a Russian RD-180 oxygen/kerosene engine and uses
relatively low priority. The 1953 testing of the rst dry conventional aluminum isogrid tankage rather than the
fuel H-bomb in the Soviet Union led to the project being thin-wall, pressure-stabilized stainless steel tanks of the
dramatically accelerated. The initial design completed original Convair Atlas. Payload weights have increased
by Convair in 1953 was larger than the missile that along with launch vehicle weights over the years so the
eventually entered service. Estimated warhead weight current Atlas V family serves many of the same type
was lowered from 8,000 lb (3,630 kg) to 3,000 lb (1,360 commercial, DoD, and planetary missions as earlier Atlas
kg) based on highly favorable U.S. nuclear warhead tests Centaurs.
in early 1954, and on 14 May 1954 the Atlas program
was formally given the highest national priority. A major
development and test contract was awarded to Convair
on 14 January 1955 for a 10-foot (3 m) diameter missile 67.1 History
to weigh about 250,000 lb (113,400 kg).[1] Atlas devel-
opment was tightly controlled by the Air Forces Western Shortly before his death, John von Neumann headed the
Development Division, WDD, later part of the Air top secret von Neumann ICBM committee. Its purpose
Force Ballistic Missile Division. Contracts for warhead, was to decide on the feasibility of building an ICBM
guidance and propulsion were handled separately by large enough to carry a thermonuclear weapon. Von Neu-
WDD. The rst successful ight of a highly instrumented mann had long argued that while the technical obstacles
Atlas missile to full range occurred 28 November 1958. were indeed formidable, they could be overcome in time.
Atlas ICBMs were deployed operationally from 31 Events were proving him right. The weapons had become
October 1959 to 12 April 1965.[2] smaller, and Diode-transistor logic enabled the construc-
On 18 December 1958, the launch of Atlas 10B tion of compact guidance computers. (Atlas A, B, C, and
sent the missile into orbit around the Earth (without D had no onboard computers, but Atlas E (1960) and F
use of an upper stage) carrying the "SCORE" (Signal (1961) did.) The committee approved a radical reorga-
Communications by Orbiting Relay Equipment) commu- nization and speeding up of the Atlas program. Atlas
nications payload. Atlas 10B/SCORE, at 8,750 lb (3,970 was informally classied as a stage-and-a-half rocket;
kg) was the heaviest man-made object then in orbit, the both engines were started at launch, and there was only a
rst voice relay satellite, and the rst man-made object single set of propellant tanks. One engine was jettisoned
in space easily visible to the naked eye due to the large, about 135 seconds into the ight. (A stage of a liq-
mirror-polished stainless steel tank. This was the rst uid propellant rocket is normally thought of as tanks and
245
246 CHAPTER 67. SM-65 ATLAS
engine(s) together. The jettisoned engine therefore con- Convair to launch the three almost-completed research
stitutes a half stage.) The booster engine consisted of vehicles using the remaining contract funds. The three
two large thrust chambers fed by a single common set of ights were only partially successful. However they did
turbopumps. The sustainer engine consisted of a single show that balloon tanks, and gimbaled rocket engines
large thrust chamber and two small verniers, once again were valid concepts. In the mid-1950s after practical
fed by a single common set of turbopumps. The verniers thermonuclear weapons had been demonstrated and an
provided roll control and nal velocity trim. The total independent design breakthrough drastically reduced the
sea level thrust of all ve thrust chambers was 360,000 weight of such weapons, along with the CIA learning that
lb for Atlas D. Later model Atlas E and F variants were the Soviet ICBM program was making progress, Atlas be-
built with two separate booster engines, each with a sin- came a crash program of the highest national importance.
gle large thrust chamber and its own independent set of
The missile was originally given the military designation
turbopumps. Total sea level thrust for these three-engine XB-65, thus making it a bomber; from 1955 it was redes-
Atlas Es and Fs was 389,000 lb (176,400 kg).
ignated SM-65 ('Strategic Missile 65') and, from 1962, it
The rst Atlas own was the Atlas A in 19571958. It became CGM-16. This letter C stood for con or
was a test model designed to verify the structure and Container, the rocket being stored in a semi-hardened
propulsion system, and had no sustainer engine or sep- container; it was prepared for launch by being raised and
arable stages. This was followed by the Atlas B and C fueled in the open. The Atlas-F (HGM-16) was stored
in 19581959. The B had full engines and booster en- vertically underground, but launched after being lifted to
gine staging capability. An Atlas B was used to orbit the the surface.
SCORE satellite in December 1958, which was the Atlas The penetrating lubricant WD-40 found its rst use as a
rst space launch.[3] The C was a slightly more developed corrosion-resistant coating for the outer skin of the Atlas
model using even thinner skin in the propellant tanks. Fi- missile.[6]
nally, the Atlas D, the rst operational model and the ba-
sis for all Atlas space launchers, debuted in 1959.[4] Atlas
D weighed 255,950 lb (116,100 kg) (without payload)
and had an empty weight of only 11,894 lb (5,395 kg), 67.2 Design
the other 95.35% was propellant. Dropping the 6,720
lb (3,048 kg) booster engine and fairing reduced the dry The Atlas A-D used radio guidance: the missile sent in-
weight to 5,174 lb (2,347 kg), a mere 2.02% of the initial formation from its inertial system to a ground station by
gross weight of the vehicle (still excluding payload). This radio, and received course correction information in re-
very low dry weight allowed Atlas D to send its thermonu- turn. The Atlas E and F had completely autonomous
clear warhead to ranges as great as 9,000 miles (14,500 inertial guidance systems.
km) or orbit payloads without an upper stage.[5] The nal
variants of the Atlas ICBM were the E and F, introduced Atlas was unusual in its use of balloon tanks for fuel, made
in 19601961. E and F had fully self-contained inertial of very thin stainless steel (with the uncoated steel neces-
navigation systems (INS) and were identical to each other sitating the development by Convair of the anti-corrosive
except for interfaces associated with their dierent bas- spray WD-40) with minimal or no rigid support struc-
ing modes (underground silo for F). tures. Pressure in the tanks provides the structural rigid-
ity required for ight. An Atlas rocket would collapse
By 1965, with the second-generation Titan II having under its own weight if not kept pressurized, and had
reached operational status, the Atlas was obsolete as a to have 5 psi (34 kPa) nitrogen in the tank even when
missile system, and was gradually phased out in the mid- not fuelled.[7] The only other known use of balloon tanks
1960s. Many of the retired Atlas D, E and F missiles were at the time of writing is the Centaur high-energy upper
used for space launches into the 1990s. stage, although some rockets (such as the Falcon series)
Atlas, named for the Atlas of Greek mythology and the use partially pressure-supported tanks. The rocket had
contractors parent Atlas Corporation, got its start in 1946 two small thrust chambers on the sides of the tank called
with the award of an Army Air Forces research contract vernier rockets. These provided ne adjustment of ve-
to Consolidated Vultee Aircraft (later Convair) for the locity and steering after the sustainer engine shut down.
study of a 1,500-to-5,000-mile (2,400 to 8,000 km) range Atlas also had a staging system dierent from most
missile that might, at some future date carry a nuclear multistage rockets, which drop both engines and fuel
armed warhead. At the time (the late 1940s), no mis- tanks simultaneously, before ring the next stages en-
sile conceived could carry even the smallest nuclear war- gines. When the Atlas missile was being developed, there
heads then thought possible. The smallest atomic war- was doubt as to whether a rocket engine could be ignited
heads were all larger than the maximum theoretical pay- in space. Therefore, the decision was made to ignite all of
loads of the planned long range missiles. The Convair the Atlas engines at launch; the booster engines would be
team was led by Karel Bossart. This was the MX-774 discarded, while the sustainer continued to burn. Rock-
or Hiroc project. It was for this reason that the contract ets using this technique are sometimes called stage-and-
was canceled in 1947 but the Army Air Forces allowed a-half boosters. This is made possible by the extremely
67.3. VARIANTS 247
light weight of the balloon tanks. The tanks make up such taur launch vehicles. The rst ight of X-12 (Atlas B) was
a small percentage of the total booster weight that the in July 1958. The X-12 pioneered the use of these 1.5-
weight penalty of lifting them to orbit is less than the tech-
stage rocket engines that became a hallmark of the Atlas
nical and weight penalty required to throw half of them rocket program. It was also the rst rocket to achieve a
away mid-ight. ight distance that could be considered intercontinental
Sergey Korolyov made a similar choice for the same rea- when it ew 6,325 miles (10,180 km).
son in the design of the R-7, the rst Soviet ICBM and the Atlas B was rst own on 19 July 1958, and was the rst
launcher of Sputnik and Vostok. The R-7 had a central version of the Atlas rocket to use the stage and a half de-
sustainer section, with four boosters attached to its sides. sign. Ten ights were made. Nine of these were sub-
All engines were started before launch, eliminating the orbital test ights of the Atlas as an Intercontinental Bal-
then unexplored task of igniting a large liquid fuel engine listic Missile, with ve successful missions and four fail-
at high altitudes. Like the Atlas, the R-7 used cryogenic ures. The seventh ight, launched on 18 December 1958,
oxidizer and could not be kept in the state of ight readi- was used to place the SCORE satellite into low Earth or-
ness indenitely. Unlike the Atlas, the R-7 had large side bit, the rst orbital launch conducted by an Atlas rocket.
boosters, which required use of an expensive launch pad All Atlas-B launches were conducted from Cape
and prevented launching the rocket from a silo. Canaveral Air Force Station, at Launch Complexes 11,
13 and 14.[8]
67.3 Variants
67.3.3 SM-65C Atlas
67.3.1 Convair XSM-16A/X-11/SM-65A The SM-65C Atlas, or Atlas C was a prototype of the
Atlas Atlas missile. First own on 24 December 1958, the
Atlas C was the nal development version of the Atlas
The Convair XSM-16A (later X-11) was the rst testbed rocket, prior to the operational Atlas D. It was originally
for what became the Atlas missile. Later the Convair X- planned to be used as the rst stage of the Atlas-Able
12 became a second, more advanced testbed. A total of rocket, but following an explosion during a static test on
12 X-11s were built and tested. The rst three were in- 24 September 1959, this was abandoned in favor of the
volved in static tests only. X-11 Number 4 and 6, were Atlas D.
destroyed in launch accidents. All others performed suc-
Six ights were made. These were all sub-orbital test
cessful test ights. The test series began on June 11, 1957
ights of the Atlas as an Intercontinental Ballistic Mis-
and ended on June 3, 1958.
sile, with three tests succeeding, and three failing.
It was developed into the SM-65A Atlas, or Atlas A,[8]
All Atlas C launches were conducted from Cape
which was the rst full-scale prototype of the Atlas mis-
Canaveral Air Force Station, at Launch Complex 12.
sile, which rst ew on 11 June 1957. Unlike later ver-
sions of the Atlas missile, the Atlas A did not feature the
stage and a half design. Instead, the booster engines were 67.3.4 SM-65D Atlas
xed in place, and the sustainer engine was omitted.
The Atlas A conducted eight test ights, of which four Main article: SM-65D Atlas
were successful. All test ights were conducted from
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, at either Launch Com- The SM-65D Atlas, or Atlas D, was the rst operational
plex 12 or Launch Complex 14.[8] Atlas A ights were version of the Atlas missile. It rst ew on 14 April 1959.
powered by a single engine consisting of two large thrust Atlas D missiles were also used for orbital launches, both
chambers fed by a single set of turbopumps. with upper stages, such as the RM-81 Agena, and on their
own as a stage and a half vehicle. The Atlas D was used
for the orbital element of Project Mercury, launching four
67.3.2 Convair X-12/SM-65B Atlas manned Mercury spacecraft into low Earth orbit.[8] The
modied version of the Atlas D used for Project Mercury
The Convair X-12 was the second, more advanced was designated Atlas LV-3B.
testbed for the Atlas rocket program. It was designed with
2 engines, the booster engine used on the predecessor X- Atlas D launches were conducted from Cape Canaveral
11 plus a sustainer engine. This combination of booster Air Force Station, at Launch Complexes 11, 12, 13 and
plus sustainer engines was designated the MA-1 engine 14, and Vandenberg AFB Launch Complex 576.
system. MA-1 was used in Atlas B and Atlas C. MA-1 Most Atlas D launches were sub-orbital missile tests,
was the direct predecessor of the MA-2 engine system of however several were used for other missions, including
Atlas D which in turn was the direct predecessor of the orbital launches of manned Mercury, and unmanned OV1
MA-5 engine system used in Atlas Agena and Atlas Cen- spacecraft. Two were also used as sounding rockets, as
part of Project FIRE. A number were also used with up- signature of the Mk 4 RV. The Mk 4 plus W-38 had a
per stages to launch satellites.[8] combined weight of 4,050 lb (1,840 kg).
67.3.5 SM-65E Atlas 67.5 Operational deployment

The SM-65E Atlas, or Atlas-E, was the rst 3-engine Strategic Air Command deployed 11 operational Atlas
operational variant of the Atlas missile, the third engine ICBM squadrons between 1959 and 1962. Each of the
resulting from splitting the two booster thrust chambers three missile variants, the Atlas D, E, and F series, were
into separate engines with independent sets of turbop- deployed and based in progressively more secure launch-
umps. It rst ew on 11 October 1960, and was de- ers.
ployed as an operational ICBM from September 1961
until March 1965.[9] Following retirement as an ICBM,
the Atlas-E, along with the Atlas-F, was refurbished for 67.5.1 Atlas-D deployment
orbital launches as the Atlas E/F.[8] The last Atlas E/F
launch was conducted on 24 March 1995, using a rocket To provide the United States with an interim or emer-
which had originally been built as an Atlas-E. gency ICBM capability, in September 1959 the Air Force
Atlas-E launches were conducted from Cape Canaveral deployed three SM-65D Atlas missiles on open launch
Air Force Station, at Launch Complexes 11 and 13, and pads at Vandenberg AFB, California, under the opera-
Vandenberg Air Force Base at OSTF-1, LC-576 and tional control of the 576th Strategic Missile Squadron,
SLC-3.[8] 704th Strategic Missile Wing. Completely exposed to
the elements, the three missiles were serviced by a gantry
crane. One missile was on operational alert at all times.
They remained on alert until 1 May 1964.
67.3.6 SM-65F Atlas
In September 1959 the rst operational Atlas ICBM
The SM-65F Atlas, or Atlas-F, was the nal operational squadron equipped with six SM-65D Atlas missiles based
variant of the Atlas missile. It rst ew on 8 August in above-ground launchers, went on operational alert at
1961, and was deployed as an operational ICBM between F.E. Warren AFB, Wyoming. Three additional Atlas
September 1962 and April 1965. Following retirement D squadrons, two near F.E. Warren AFB, Wyoming
as an ICBM, the Atlas-F, along with the Atlas-E, was re- and one at Outt AFB, Nebraska, were based in above-
furbished for orbital launches as the Atlas E/F.[8] The last ground launchers that provided blast protection against
Atlas E/F launch to use a rocket which had originally been over-pressures of only 5 pounds per square inch (34 kPa).
built as an Atlas-F was conducted on 23 June 1981. These units were:
Atlas-F launches were conducted from Cape Canaveral
389th Strategic Missile Wing
Air Force Station, at Launch Complexes 11 and 13, and
Vandenberg Air Force Base at OSTF-2, LC-576 and
SLC-3.[8] Francis E. Warren AFB, Wyoming (2 Septem-
ber 1960-1 July 1964)
It was also used to launch the Block I series of GPS satel-
564th Strategic Missile Squadron (6 missiles)
lites from 1978 to 1985. The last refurbished Atlas-F ve-
hicle was launched from Vandenberg AFB in 1995 car- 565th Strategic Missile Squadron (9 missiles)
rying a satellite for the Defense Meteorological Satellite
Program. 385th Bombardment (later Strategic Aerospace)
Wing
Out AFB, Nebraska (30 March 1961-1 Oc-

67.4 Warhead tober 1964)
549th Strategic Missile Squadron (9 missiles)
The warhead of the Atlas D was originally the G.E.
Mk 2 heat sink re-entry vehicle (RV) with a W49
thermonuclear weapon, combined weight 3,700 lb (1,680 The rst site at Warren for the 564th SMS consisted of
kg) and yield of 1.44 megatons (Mt). The W-49 was later six launchers grouped together, controlled by two launch
placed in a Mk 3 ablative RV, combined weight 2,420 operations buildings, and clustered around a central guid-
lb (1,100 kg) The Atlas E and F had an AVCO Mk 4 ance control facility. This was called the 3 x 2 congura-
RV containing a W-38 thermonuclear bomb with a yield tion: two launch complexes of three missiles each consti-
of 3.75 Mt which was fuzed for either air burst or con- tuted a squadron.
tact burst. The Mk 4 RV also deployed penetration aids At the second Warren site for the 565th SMS and at
in the form of mylar balloons which replicated the radar Outt AFB, Nebraska for the 549th SMS, the missiles
67.6. SERVICE HISTORY 249
were based in a 3 x 3 conguration: three launchers 67.5.3 Atlas-F deployment

and one combined guidance control/launch facility con-
stituted a launch complex, and three complexes com- The six SM-65F Atlas squadrons were the rst ICBMs to
prised a squadron. At these later sites the combined guid- be stored vertically in underground silos. Built of heavily-
ance and control facility measured 107 by 121 ft (33 by reinforced concrete, the huge silos were designed to pro-
37 m) with a partial basement. A dispersal technique tect the missiles from over-pressures of up to 100 psi (690
of spreading the launch complexes were 20 to 30 miles kPa).
(30 to 50 km) apart was also employed to reduce the risk The Atlas F was the nal and most advanced version of
that one powerful nuclear warhead could destroy multiple the Atlas ICBM and was essentially a quick-ring version
launch sites. of the Atlas E, modied to be stored in a vertical posi-
tion inside underground concrete and steel silos. When
stored, the Atlas F sat atop an elevator. If a missile was
67.5.2 Atlas-E deployment placed on alert, it was fueled with RP-1 (kerosene) liquid
fuel, which could be stored inside the missile for extended
The SM-65E Atlas squadrons deployed later in 1961 periods. If a decision was made to launch the missile, it
were also deployed horizontally, but the majority of the was fueled with liquid oxygen. Once the liquid oxygen
launcher was buried underground. These launchers were fueling was complete, the elevator raised the missile to
designed to withstand over-pressures of 25 psi (170 kPa). the surface for launching.
These units were:
This method of storage allowed the Atlas F to be launched
in about ten minutes, a saving of about ve minutes over
92nd Bombardment (later Strategic Aerospace) the Atlas D and Atlas E, both of which were stored hori-
Wing zontally and had to be raised to a vertical position before
being fueled.
Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington (28
September 1961-17 February 1965)
567th Strategic Missile Squadron, (9 missiles)
The number of Atlas intercontinental ballistic missiles in
21st Strategic Aerospace Division service, by year:
Forbes AFB, Kansas (10 October 1961-4 Jan-

uary 1965) 67.7 Launch history
548th Strategic Missile Squadron, (9 missiles)
67.8 Retirement
389th Strategic Missile Wing
After the solid-fuel LGM-30 Minuteman had become op-
erational in early 1963, the Atlas became rapidly obso-
Francis E. Warren AFB, Wyoming (20
lete. By October 1964, all Atlas D missiles had been
November 1961-4 January 1965)
phased out, followed by the Atlas E/F in April 1965.
566th Strategic Missile Squadron (9 missiles) About 350 Atlas ICBMs of all versions were built, with
a peak deployment level of 129 (30 D, 27 E, 72 F). De-
spite its relatively short life span, Atlas served as the prov-
The major enhancement in the Atlas E was the new all-
ing ground for many new missile technologies. Perhaps
inertial system that obviated the need for ground control
more importantly, its development spawned the organi-
facilities. Since the missiles were no longer tied to a cen-
zation, policies, and procedures that paved the way for all
tral guidance control facility, the launchers could be dis-
of the later ICBM programs.
persed more widely in what was called a 1 x 9 congura-
tion, with one missile silo located at one launch site each After its retirement from operational ICBM service in
for the 9 missiles assigned to the squadron. 1965, the ICBMs were refurbished and used over twenty
years as space launch vehicles.
The Atlas Es were based in semi-hard or con fa-
cilities that protected the missile against over-pressures
up to 25 psi (170 kPa). In this arrangement the mis-
sile, its support facilities, and the launch operations build- 67.9 NASA use
ing were housed in reinforced concrete structures that
were buried underground; only the roofs protruded above Though never used for its original purpose as a weapon,
ground level. Atlas was suggested for use by the United States Air Force
in what became known as Project Vanguard. This sug- Atlas 8A is displayed in front of the Strategic Air
gestion was ultimately turned down as Atlas would not and Space Museum in Nebraska; recongured as an
be operational in time and was seen by many as being Atlas D.
too heavily-connected to the military for use in the U.S.'s
International Geophysical Year satellite attempt.
The Atlas was used as the expendable launch system with Atlas 2E is on display in front of the San Diego Air
both the Agena and Centaur upper stages for the Mariner & Space Museum at Gillespie Field, El Cajon, Cal-
space probes used to explore Mercury, Venus, and Mars ifornia.
(19621973); and to launch ten of the Mercury program
missions (19621963).
Atlas 2D mounted with a Mercury capsule is on dis-
Atlas saw the beginnings of its workhorse status during play in the Rocket Garden at the Kennedy Space
the Mercury-Atlas missions, which resulted in Lt. Col. Center Visitor Complex, Merritt Island, Florida
John H. Glenn Jr. becoming the rst American to orbit
the Earth in 1962 (Major Yuri A. Gagarin, a Soviet cos-
monaut, was the rst human in orbit in 1961.) Atlas was
also used throughout the mid-1960s to launch the Agena
Target Vehicles used during the Gemini program. 67.11 Specications (Atlas ICBM)
Direct Atlas descendants were continued to be used
as satellite launch vehicles into the 21st century. An
Atlas rocket is shown exploding, in the 1983 art lm Length: 75 ft 1 in (22.89 m) with Mk 2 re-entry
Koyaanisqatsi, directed by Godfrey Reggio, in the penul- vehicle, 82 ft 6 in (25.15 m) with Mk 3
timate shot. The vehicle shown in the movie was the rst
launch attempt of an Atlas-Centaur in May 1962.
Span of outboard engine fairings: 16 ft (4.9 m)
67.10 Survivors
HGM-16F Atlas is on display at the National Mu-
seum of the United States Air Force in Dayton,
Ohio. For years the missile was displayed outside Launch weight: 255,950 lb (116,100 kg) for Atlas
the museum. In 1998 it was removed from display. D w/o payload, 260,000 lb (117,900 kg) for Atlas
It was restored by the museums restoration sta and D with Mk 2/3 RV and W49 warhead, 268,000 lb
returned to display in the museums new Missile Silo (121,560 kg) for Atlas E&F with Mk 4 RV and W38
Gallery in 2007. The white nose cone atop the mu- warhead
seums Atlas is an AVCO IV re-entry vehicle built to
contain a nuclear warhead. This nose cone actually
stood alert in defense of the United States, as it was Range: 9,000 mi (14,480 km)[10]
initially installed on an Atlas on 2 October 1962 at
a Denton Valley launch site near Clyde, Texas.
Powerplant: 1 Rocketdyne LR105 rocket engine
(The National Museum of the United States Air Force with 57,000 lbf (254 kN) thrust, 1 Rocketdyne
does not have an Atlas on display currently; they do have XLR89 rocket engine with two 150,000 lbf (670
two in storage, these are visible on the Behind the Scenes kN) thrust chambers (Atlas D), 2 Rocketdyne
Tour.) LR101 vernier rocket engines with 1,000 lbf (4.4
kN) of thrust (propellant feed from LR105 sustainer
Atlas 5A (56-6742) is on display on the lawn in front engine turbopumps); 2 LR89 booster engines (in-
of the Canada Science and Technology Museum in dependent turbopumps) with 165,000 lbf (734 kN)
Ottawa, Canada. (Atlas E&F)
(5A was on display throughout the 1960s at the former

location of the Air Force Museum, at Wright-Patterson Warhead:Mk 2 or Mk 3 re-entry vehicle with W-49
AFB Building 89 near Xenia Drive in Fairborn, Ohio. warhead (1.44 Mt yield) (Atlas D); Mk 4 re-entry
Formerly a static-test article, it is the only surviving Atlas vehicle with W-38 warhead (3.75 Mt yield) (Atlas
in the original A-series conguration, before the boat-tail E&F)
modications that solved thermal issues which caused the
early termination of the rst two Atlas test ights, 4A and
6A.) CEP: 4,600 ft (1,400 m)
67.11. SPECIFICATIONS (ATLAS ICBM) 251
Atlas-B with Score payload, 1958 Launch of an SM-65F Atlas
Convair X-11 being launched

Atlas C missile sitting on its launch pad, 1957/58
Convair X-12 being launched

Launch of an SM-65E Atlas
SM-65 Atlas deployment sites: SM-65D (Red), SM-65E (Purple),

SM-65F (Black)
Atlas-D ICBM launching from semi-hardened con bunker at

Vandenberg AFB, California.
1965 graph of Atlas launches, cumulative by month with failures

highlighted (pink) along with USAF Titan II and NASA use of
ICBM boosters for Projects Mercury and Gemini (blue). Apollo-
Saturn history and projections shown as well.
67.11. SPECIFICATIONS (ATLAS ICBM) 253
Atlas 2E missile, San Diego Aerospace Museum

Chapter 68
SM-68 Titan
See also: Titan (rocket family)
The SM-68 Titan (individual variants later designated

HGM-25 and LGM-25) was the designation for two
American intercontinental ballistic missiles, which were
members of the Titan family of rockets. These consisted
of the Titan I and Titan II missiles, which were opera-
tional between 1962 and 1987, and were a major compo-
nent of the United States eet of missiles during the Cold
War.
Titan was originally built as a backup to the SM-65 At-
las. The Titan I used RP-1 and liquid oxygen propellant,
resulting in a response time of around fteen minutes, re-
quired to fuel the rocket and raise it to a launch position.
It was replaced by the more powerful Titan II, which used
nitrogen tetroxide and hydrazine, allowing it to be stored
with propellant loaded, giving it a much shorter response
time.
68.1 Titan I
Main article: Titan I
The Titan I was the rst version of the Titan family of

rockets. It began as a backup ICBM project in case the The launch of a Titan I missile
Atlas was delayed. It was a two-stage rocket propelled by
RP-1 and liquid oxygen. Using RP-1 and LOX meant that
the Titan I did not have a quick launch sequence. It took 850th Strategic Missile Squadron, Ellsworth AFB,
about fteen minutes to load LOX on the rst missile at a Rapid City, South Dakota
complex, raise it topside and launch it, with the other two
missiles following at about eight-minute intervals. Titan 451st Strategic Missile Wing (formerly 703rd)
I was operational from early 1962 to mid-1965. Lowry AFB, Denver, Colorado
Several US Air Force units operated the Titan I:

68.2 Titan II
568th Strategic Missile Squadron, Larson AFB,
Moses Lake, Washington Main article: LGM-25C Titan II
569th Strategic Missile Squadron, Mountain Home
AFB, Mt Home, Idaho Most Titan rockets were the Titan II, which could carry a
W-53 nuclear warhead with a nine megaton yield, mak-
851st Strategic Missile Squadron, Beale AFB, ing it the most powerful ICBM on-standby in the US nu-
Marysville, California clear arsenal. These were deployed in three squadrons of
254
Krebs, Gunter. Titan-1 (SM-68 / HGM-25A)

ICBM. Gunters Space Page. Retrieved 2008-11-
03.
Krebs, Gunter. Titan-2 (SM-68B / LGM-25B)

ICBM. Gunters Space Page. Retrieved 2008-11-
03.
A Titan II launch
18 missiles each, in Arizona, Kansas, and Arkansas. All

of the ICBM Titan II missile sites have been decommis-
sioned since the retirement of the Titan II as an ICBM
in 1987, but the Titan Missile Museum on Interstate 19
south of Tucson, Arizona, has preserved one deactivated
launch site. The Titan II was a two-stage ICBM that was
used by the US Air Force from the mid-1960s to the mid-
1980s. The Titan II used a hypergolic combination of
nitrogen tetroxide and hydrazine for propellant. In addi-
tion to its use as an ICBM, twelve Titan II missiles were
converted to launch Gemini spacecraft for NASA, ten of
which were manned. Following retirement, a further thir-
teen were converted to the Titan 23G conguration, and
used to launch satellites, and the Clementine Lunar probe.
The last Titan II launch occurred in 2003.
68.3 See also

Titan III
Titan IIIB
Titan 34D
Titan IV
68.4 References
Wade, Mark. Titan. Encyclopedia Astronautica.
Chapter 69
SSM-A-5 Boojum
The XSSM-A-5 Boojum, also known by the project 69.2 Cancellation

number MX-775B, was a supersonic cruise missile devel-
oped by the Northrop Corporation for the United States At the end of 1946, the contracts that had been awarded
Air Force in the late 1940s. Intended to deliver a nuclear to Northrop were revised; the Snark was canceled, while
warhead over intercontinental range, it was determined the Boojum was to be fully developed as an operational
to be too ambitious a project given technical diculties system.[5] Northrop lobbied for the reinstatement of the
with the SM-62 Snark which it was to follow on from, and Snark, however; this was successful in getting the pro-
was canceled in 1951. gram reauthorized during 1947, with the Boojum being
deferred to a follow-on project.[5]
Despite the design having been nalized, the United
States Air Force (which the USAAF had become in
1948) determined that the project was technologically un-
feasible, given continuing development diculties and
technical problems encountered during the Snarks de-
69.1 Development velopment. Accordingly, in 1951, the Boojum project
cancled, before any prototypes of the missile had been
constructed.[1][4]
As part of a United States Army Air Forces eort to de-
velop guided missiles for the delivery of nuclear weapons,
the Northrop Corporation was awarded a development
contract in March 1946 for the design of two long-range
69.3 See also
cruise missiles. Designated MX-775, the contract called
for a subsonic missile, the MX-775A, later designated EKR (missile)
SSM-A-3 Snark; and a more advanced supersonic mis- SM-64 Navajo
sile, MX-775B, which in 1947 was given the name SSM-
A-5 Boojum,[1] Northrop naming the missiles after char- SSM-N-9 Regulus II
acters from the works of Lewis Carroll.[2]
Given the company designation of N-25B, the design of
the Boojum took place over the next several years, and 69.4 References
produced a number of variations on the concept. The
nalized design called for a long, slender missile, tted Notes
with delta wings, and powered by a pair of General Elec-
tric turbojet engines, mounted in nacelles near the tips of [1] A similar conguration would later be used by the
the wing.[1][N 1] Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird reconnaissance aircraft.
The missile was intended to be launched utilizing a rocket
sled; air-launch from a Convair B-36 heavy bomber was Citations
an alternative that was studied.[1] The missile would climb
at subsonic speeds to its operating altitude, then conduct [1] Parsch 2007
a supersonic dash to the target area, being guided using a [2] Collins 2007, p.26.
celestial navigation system.[1] A slipper type drop tank
would be jettisoned halfway through the ight.[3] The [3] Werrell 1985, p.141.
Boojum was intended to be capable of carrying a war-
[4] Polmar and Norris 2009, p.178.
head weighing up to 5,000 pounds (2,300 kg) over a range
between 1,500 to 5,000 miles (2,400 to 8,000 km).[4] [5] Werrell 1985, p.93.
256
Bibliography
Collins, Martin J. (2007). After Sputnik: 50 Years

of the Space Age. New York: HarperCollins. ISBN
978-0-06-089781-9. Retrieved 2011-02-12.
Parsch, Andreas (2007). Northrop SSM-A-5 Boo-

jum. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Mis-
12.
Polmar, Norman; Robert Stan Norris (2009). The

U.S. Nuclear Arsenal: A History of Weapons and
Delivery Systems Since 1945. Annapolis, MD: Naval
Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-55750-681-8. Re-
trieved 2011-02-12.
Werrell, Kenneth. (1985) The Evolution of the
Cruise Missile. Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University
Press. ASIN B000R51FWA. Retrieved 2011-02-12
Chapter 70
Supersonic Low Altitude Missile
Tory II-C
The Supersonic Low Altitude Missile or SLAM (not
to be confused with the U.S. Navy's Stando Land At-
which was developed under the aegis of a separate project
tack Missile) was a canceled U.S. Air Force project con-
code-named Project Pluto, after the Roman god of the
ceived around 1955. Although it never proceeded beyond
underworld. It was a ramjet that used nuclear ssion to
the initial design and testing phase before being declared
superheat incoming air instead of chemical fuel. Project
obsolete, it represented several radical innovations as a
Pluto produced two working prototypes of this engine,
Nuclear delivery system.
the Tory-IIA and the Tory-IIC, which were success-
The SLAM was designed to complement the doctrine of fully tested in the Nevada desert. Special ceramics had
mutually assured destruction, and as a possible replace- to be developed to meet the stringent weight and tremen-
ment for or augment to the Strategic Air Command sys- dous heat tolerances demanded of the SLAMs reactor.
tem. In the event of nuclear war it was intended to y These were developed by the Coors Porcelain Company.
below the cover of enemy radar at supersonic speeds, and The reactor itself was designed at the Lawrence Radiation
deliver thermonuclear warheads to roughly 16 targets. Laboratory.
The use of a nuclear engine in the airframe promised
to give the missile staggering and unprecedented low-
altitude range, estimated to be roughly 113,000 miles
(182,000 km) (over four and a half times the equatorial
circumference of the earth). The engine also acted as a
secondary weapon for the missile: direct neutron radia-
tion from the virtually unshielded reactor would sicken,
injure, and/or kill living things beneath the ight path;
the stream of fallout left in its wake would poison enemy
territory; and its strategically selected crash site would re-
ceive intense radioactive contamination. In addition, the
sonic waves given o by its passage would damage ground
installations.
Tory II-A Another revolutionary aspect of the SLAM was its re-
liance on automation. It would have the mission of a long-
The primary innovation was the engine of the aircraft, range bomber, but would be completely unmanned: ac-
258
cepting radioed commands up to its failsafe point, where- reactor was preheated to 943 F and compressed to 316
after it would rely on a Terrain Contour Matching psi, to simulate ramjet ight conditions.[1]
(TERCOM) radar system to navigate to preprogrammed
targets.
Although a prototype of the airframe was never con- 70.2 References
structed, the SLAM was to be a wingless, n-guided air-
craft. Apart from the ventral ram-air intake it was very [1] http://www.voughtaircraft.com/heritage/special/html/
much in keeping with traditional missile design. Its esti- sslam3.html
mated airspeed at thirty thousand feet was Mach 4.2.
The SLAM program was scrapped on July 1, 1964. By
this time serious questions about its viability had been 70.3 External links
raised, such as how to test a device that would emit copi-
ous amounts of radioactive exhaust from its unshielded The Flying Crowbar from Air And Space Magazine,
reactor core in ight, as well as its ecacy and cost. 1990
ICBMs promised swifter delivery to targets, and because
Vought SLAM entry in the Directory of U.S. Mili-
of their speed (the Thor traveled at roughly Mach 12) and
tary Rockets and Missiles
trajectory were considered virtually unstoppable. The
SLAM was also being outpaced by advances in defensive
ground radar, which threatened to render its stratagem of
low-altitude evasion ineective.
70.1 Reactor design

The reactor had outer diameter of 57.25 in and length
64.24 in; the dimension of the reactor core was 47.24
in diameter and 50.70 in length. The critical mass of
uranium was 59.90 kg, and the reactors power density
averaged at 10 megawatts/cubic foot, with total power of
600 megawatts.
The nuclear fuel elements were made of refractory ce-
ramic based on beryllium oxide, with enriched uranium
dioxide as fuel and small amount of zirconium dioxide for
structural stability. The fuel elements were hollow hexag-
onal tubes about 4 in long with 0.3 in distance between
the outer parallel planes, with inside diameter of 0.227
in. They were manufactured by high-pressure extruding
of the green compact, then sintering almost to its theoret-
ical density. The core consisted of 465000 individual ele-
ments stacked to form 27000 airow channels; the design
with small unattached elements reduced problems related
with thermal stresses. The elements were designed for
average operation temperature of 2330 F (1277 C); the
autoignition point of the reactor base plates was only 150
C higher. The neutron ux was calculated to be 91017
neutrons/cm2 .s in the aft and 71014 neutrons/cm2 .s in
the nose. The gamma radiation level was fairly high due
to the lack of shielding; radiation hardening for the guid-
ance electronics had to be designed.
The reactors were successfully tested at Jackass Flats of
the Nevada Test Site. The Tory II-A reactor, the scaled-
down variant, was tested in mid-1961 and successfully
ran for several seconds on May 14, 1961. A full-scale
variant, the Tory II-C, was run for nearly ve minutes at
full power. The latter test, limited by the air storage fa-
cility capacity, ran for 292 seconds. The air fed to the
Chapter 71
AAM-A-1 Firebird
The AAM-A-1 Firebird was an early American air-to- air missile to reach the ight-test stage outside of World
air missile, developed by the Ryan Aeronautical Com- War II Germany,[6] the Firebird proved to be reasonably
pany. The rst air-to-air missile program developed for successful in testing, with production being projected for
the United States Air Force, the Firebird was extensively the early 1950s;[7] however its command-guidance sys-
tested in the late 1940s; although it proved successful in tem limited it to clear-weather, daytime use only.[1]
testing, it was soon obsolete due to the rapid advances in Although radar beam riding guidance was planned to
aircraft and missile technology at the time and did not solve this,[6] the subsonic speed of the weapon was also
enter production. considered to be insucient to avoid obsolescence; ac-
cordingly, the AAM-A-1s production program was ter-
minated late in 1949,[1] the Hughes Falcon being selected
71.1 Design and development for development as the Air Forces standard intercept
missile instead.[8] The test program was considered to
be successful despite this, as a considerable amount of
The AAM-A-1 project began in 1946 with the award-
knowledge was gained that beneted later programs.[9]
ing of a study contract, under the designation MX-799,
to the Ryan Aeronautical Company for the develop- A Firebird missile is preserved at the Air Force Space &
ment of a subsonic air-to-air missile, which would be Missile Museum at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in
used by interceptor aircraft for the destruction of enemy Florida.[3]
bombers.[1] A contract for the development of the missile,
designated AAM-A-1 Firebird, was awarded in 1947.[1]
The AAM-A-1 Firebird was a two-stage weapon, tted 71.3 References
with cruciform wings and tailns. Control was by dif-
ferential motion of the wings; the tailns were xed.[1] Notes
The missiles fuselage was constructed from aluminum
alloy, while the nosecone and control ns were molded [1] Some sources state the sustainer was also solid-fueled.[3]
from plastic.[2] Firebird was tted with a solid-fuel
booster rocket providing initial thrust, before a liquid- [2] Some sources state the terminal guidance was semi-active
fuel sustainer[N 1] rocket ignited for a 15-second powered radar homing.[1]
[1]
ight time.
Guidance was provided during midcourse ight by radio Citations
command guidance, with an operator in the launching air-
craft transmitting corrections to the missile. Terminal [1] Parsch 2004
guidance used active radar homing, with a small radar set
[2] Popular Science, January 1950, p.144.
being tted in the nose of the missile,[3][4][N 2] with the
missiles warhead being detonated by a proximity fuse, a [3] Space & Missile Museum 2011
backup impact fuze also being tted.[1]
[4] Popular Science, March 1952, p.155.
[5] Ross 1951, p.128.

71.2 Operational history [6] Gunston 1979, p.222.
Flight testing of the XAAM-A-1 prototype missiles be- [7] Bowman 1957, p.113.
gan in October 1947,[1] launched from DB-26 Invader [8] Francillon 1990, p.24.
bomber and DF-82 Twin Mustang aircraft,[1] the latter of
which could carry up to four missiles.[3][5] The rst air-to- [9] Cooke 1951, p.147.
260
Bibliography
Firebird. Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, FL:

Air Force Space & Missile Museum. 2011. Re-
trieved 2011-02-09.
Fighter Fires New Missile. Popular Science (New

York: Popular Science Publishing Co.) 156 (1). Re-
trieved 2011-02-09.
Tiny Radar Steers Missile. Popular Science (New
York: Popular Science Publishing Co.) 160 (1).
March 1952. Retrieved 2011-02-09.
Bowman, Norman John (1958). The Handbook of

Rockets and Guided Missiles. Chicago: Perastadion
Press. ASIN B002C3SPN2.
Cooke, David Coxe; Martin Caidin (1951). Jets,
Rockets, and Guided Missiles. New York: McBride.
ASIN B000MRHQEE. Retrieved 2011-02-09.
Francillon, Ren J. (1990). McDonnell Douglas Air-

craft since 1920: Volume II. Annapolis, MD: Naval
Institute Press. ISBN 1-55750-550-0. Retrieved
2010-12-01.
Gunston, Bill (1979). The Illustrated Encyclopedia
of the Worlds Rockets & Missiles. London: Sala-
mander Books. ISBN 978-0-86101-029-5. Re-
trieved 2011-02-09.
Parsch, Andreas (2004). Ryan AAM-A-1 Fire-
bird. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and
Missiles Appendix 1: Early Missiles and Drones.
designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-02-08.
Ross, Frank (1951). Guided Missiles: Rockets &
Torpedoes. New York: Lothrop, Lee & Shepard.
ASIN B001LGSGX0.
71.4 External links

Air-to-Air Missile for U.S. Planes, Popular Me-
chanics, February 1950.
Chapter 72
AAM-N-4 Oriole
For the Japanese missile see, see AAM-4 (Japanese [1] Gunston 1979, p.221.
missile).
[2] Friedman 1982, p.150.
The AAM-N-4 Oriole was an early American air-to- [3] Parsch 2005
air missile, developed by the Glenn L. Martin Company
[4] Haley 1959, p.130.
for the United States Navy. Designed for launch from
carrier-based aircraft, the missile programme was can- [5] Peck 1950, p.264.
celled before ight testing began, and the missiles pro-
duced were utilized as test vehicles. [6] Bowman 1957, p.169.
[7] Hemsch 1992, p.17.
[8] "Aircraft Armament, Part 2: Missiles and Projectiles".

72.1 Design and development Flight International, 28 January 1955, p.118.
Development of the AAM-N-4 Oriole began in 1947, [9] USPMTC 1989, p.52-53
when a development contract was awarded by the United [10] Fahey 1958, p. 32.
States Navy's Bureau of Ordnance to the Glenn L. Martin
Company to develop a heavy air-to-air missile,[1] utilizing
Bibliography
active radar homing for re and forget operation,[2] for
[3]
launch from aircraft operating from aircraft carriers.
Oriole was intended to utilize a rocket[4] or rocket-ramjet Bowman, Norman John (1957). The Handbook of
propulsion system; the intended range of the weapon was Rockets and Guided Missiles. Chicago: Perastadion
20 miles (32 km),[5] however as tested it was limited to Press. ASIN B0007EC5N4.
a range of approximately 10 miles (16 km).[3] Ready for
Fahey, James Charles (1958). The Ships and
launch, the missile weighed 1,500 pounds (680 kg),[6] and
Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet (7th ed.). Washing-
used cruciform ns at the missiles midbody and at the tail
[7] ton, DC: Ships and Aircraft Publishers. ASIN
for ight control. Flight speed was originally intended
[8] B000XG6YU6.
to be above Mach 3.
In 1948, the Oriole contract was redened to be a guid- Friedman, Norman (1982). U.S. Naval Weapons:
ance development program instead of a project to de- every gun, missile, mine, and torpedo used by the U.S.
velop an operational missile; the program to construct Navy from 1883 to the present day. Annapolis, MD:
test vehicles resumed in 1950 for research and develop- Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-0-87021-735-7.
ment purposes,[9] the missiles being redesignated RTV-
N-16.[3] Flight testing began shortly thereafter at the
of the Worlds Rockets and Missiles. London: Sala-
Naval Air Missile Test Center at Point Mugu, California;
mander. ISBN 978-0861010295.
testing continued through 1953, with 56 ight tests being
[9]
conducted throughout the program; as built the missile Haley, Andrew Gallagher (1959). Rocketry and
proved to be capable of Mach 2.5.[7] The Oriole program Space Exploration. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand
was terminated at the end of 1953.[10] Company. ASIN B000GB0580.
Hemsch, Michael (1992). Tactical Missile Aero-

dynamics: General Topics. Progress in Astronau-
72.2 References tics and Aeronautics. Reston, VA: American Insti-
tute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. ISBN 978-
Citations 1563470158.
262
Nichols, Gina (2011). The Navy at Point Mugu.

Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 978-0-
7385-7532-2.
Parsch, Andreas (2005). Martin AAM-N-4 Ori-

ole. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles
Appendix 1: Early Missiles and Drones. designation-
Peck, James L.H. How Fast Can We Fight?". Pop-

ular Mechanics (Chicago: Popular Mechanics Com-
pany) 94 (6). Retrieved 2013-01-21.
United States Navy Pacic Missile Test Center
(1989). Days of Challenge, Years of Change: a
Technical History of the Pacic Missile Test Cen-
ter. Washington, CC: Government Printing Oce.
ASIN B000S75AFK.
Chapter 73
AAM-N-5 Meteor
The AAM-N-5 Meteor was an early American air-to- [1] Parsch 2003
air missile, developed by the Massachusetts Institute of
[2] Friedman 1982, p.275.
Technology and Bell Aircraft for the United States Navy.
Designed for launch from carrier-based aircraft, the pro- [3] Babcock 2008, p.20-21.
gram proceeded to the ight testing stage before being
cancelled. [4] "Aircraft Armament, Part 2: Missiles and Projectiles".
Flight International, 28 January 1955, p.118.
[5] Ordway and Wakeford 1960, p.187.

73.1 Development
Bibliography
Development of the Meteor was loosely dened at rst,
with both surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles being stud- Babcock, Elizabeth (2008). Magnicent Mavericks:
ied by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology under a transition of the Naval Ordnance Test Station from
contract awarded in November 1945 by the U.S. Navys rocket station to research, development, test and eval-
Bureau of Ordnance; the decision was made to construct uation center, 1948-58. History of the Navy at
the air-to-air version for testing, with construction of the China Lake, California 3. Washington, DC: Gov-
airframe being assigned to Bell Aircraft.[1][2] ernment Printing Oce. ISBN 978-0945274568.
As built, the AAM-N-5 Meteor was a two-stage missile, Friedman, Norman (1982). U.S. Naval Weapons:
utilizing semi-active radar homing;[2] the rst stage con- every gun, missile, mine, and torpedo used by the U.S.
sisted of a solid-fueled rocket booster, with the main sus- Navy from 1883 to the present day. Annapolis, MD:
tainer stage utilizing liquid fuels.[3] It had a range of 25 Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-0-87021-735-7.
miles (40 km), and reached speeds of over Mach 2,[1]
Ordway, Frederick Ira; Ronald C. Wakeford (1960).
with some sources claiming a top speed of Mach 3.[4]
International Missile and Spacecraft Guide. New
Control was provided by cruciform ns.[5]
York: McGraw-Hill. ASIN B000MAEGVC.
Flight testing of the AAM-N-5 began in July 1948 at
the Naval Ordnance Test Station,[2] with Douglas JD- Parsch, Andreas (2003). MIT/Bell AAM-N-5
1 Invader utility aircraft acting as the launching plat- Meteor. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and
form. Starting in 1951, test launches were conducted Missiles Appendix 1: Early Missiles and Drones.
using Douglas F3D Skyknight nightghters as carrier designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2013-01-21.
aircraft;[1] fteen launches were also made from ground
launchers at NOTS' China Lake range.[3] However, in
1953 the program was cancelled, as better missiles were
becoming available.[1]
An advanced version of Meteor, Meteor II, was assigned
to be built by United Aircraft; it was intended to have a
solid-fueled booster rocket with a ramjet sustainer stage,
but was not built.[3]
73.2 References
Citations
264
Chapter 74
AIM-26 Falcon
74.1 Development
Starting in 1956 Hughes Electronics began the develop-

ment of an enlarged version of the GAR-1D Falcon that
would carry a nuclear warhead. It was intended to pro-
Artwork on warhead of AIM-26A on display at the National Mu-
vide a sure kill in attacks on Soviet heavy bomber aircraft.
seum of Naval Aviation.
The original development was for semi-active radar hom-
ing and heat-seeking versions based on the conventional
GAR-1/GAR-2 weapons, under the designations GAR-
5 and GAR-6, respectively. The program was canceled,
but was later revived in 1959.
The resultant GAR-11 (later AIM-26A) entered service
in 1961, carried by Air Defense Command F-102 Delta
Dagger interceptors. It used a radar proximity fuze and
semi-active radar homing.
The GAR-11 used a sub-kiloton (250 ton) W54 war-
head shared with the 'Davy Crockett' M-388 recoilless
rie projectile, rather than the larger W25 warhead of
the AIR-2 Genie nuclear rocket.
Out of concern for the problems inherent in using nuclear
weapons over friendly territory, a conventional version of
the GAR-11, the GAR-11A, was developed, using a 40
lb (18.1 kg) conventional high-explosive warhead.
After 1963 the weapon was redesignated AIM-26. The
nuclear version became AIM-26A, the conventional
model AIM-26B. From 1970 to 1972 the nuclear war-
heads of the AIM-26A weapons were rebuilt for the nu-
clear version of the AGM-62 Walleye glide bomb.
The AIM-26 saw little widespread use in American ser-
vice, retiring in 1972. The conventional AIM-26B was
exported to Switzerland as the HM-55, where it was used
on Swiss Mirage IIIS ghters. The AIM-26B was pro-
The AIM-26 Falcon was a larger, more powerful version duced under license in Sweden as the Rb 27 and modi-
of the AIM-4 Falcon air-to-air missile built by Hughes. It ed, arming Saab Draken J-35F and 35J ghters, plus AJ-
is the only guided U.S. air-to-air weapon with a nuclear 37 Viggen. It was retired in 1998. When Finland bought
warhead, though the unguided AIR-2 Genie was also Saab Draken ghters the license-manufactured Swedish
nuclear-armed. Falcons were included.
265
266 CHAPTER 74. AIM-26 FALCON
74.2 Specications (GAR-11/AIM-

26A)
Length: 84.25 in (2.140 m)
Wingspan: 24.4 in (62 cm)
Diameter: 11.4 in (29 cm)
Weight: 203 lb (92 kg)
Speed: Mach 2
Range: 6 mi (9.7 km)
Guidance: semi-active radar homing
Warhead: W54 nuclear, explosive yield 250 t TNT
equivalent
74.3 Survivors
Below is a list of museums which have an AIM-26 in their
collection:
Museum of Aviation, Warner Robins, Georgia

(AIM-26 A)
National Museum of Naval Aviation, Naval Air Sta-
tion Pensacola, Florida (AIM-26 A)
DVHAA Historical Aircraft Museum, Naval
Air Station Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove,
Pennsylvania (AIM-26 A)
Keski-Suomen ilmailumuseo / Aviation Museum of
Central Finland, Finland (AIM-26 B / RB 27)
Robotmuseum / Robot Museum Arboga, Sweden
(AIM-26 B / RB 27)
Vsters Flygmuseum / Vsters Aviation Museum
Vsters, Sweden (AIM-26 B / RB 27)
74.4 See also

W54 Warhead
List of missiles
Related Development
AIM-4 Falcon
AIM-47 Falcon
AIM-54 Phoenix
74.5 External links

Chapter 75
AIM-47 Falcon
During its development, the capabilities of the new mis-

sile grew tremendously. Growing much larger, the mis-
siles range was extended to 100 miles (160 km), using
the Aerojet-General XM59 solid-fuel motor. Since this
would be beyond the range of eective semi-active radar
homing, a new active-radar terminal seeker was added
to the missile. This seeker was a powerful system of its
own, with no eective maximum range and the resolu-
tion to be able to lock onto a 100-square-foot (9.3 m2 )
target at 63 nm (116 km). Even the seeker was changed
at one point, with the addition of a passive infrared hom-
ing seeker to improve terminal performance. However,
that would have required the missile to grow by 180 lb (82
kg), and in diameter by two inches, making it too large for
An AIM-47A waiting to be loaded aboard a YF-12. the F-108s weapon bay. The W-42 nuclear version was
dropped in 1958 in favor of a 100 pound high-explosive
The Hughes AIM-47 Falcon, originally GAR-9, was a design.[1]
very long-range high-performance air-to-air missile that Problems with the motor during development led to
shared the basic design of the earlier AIM-4 Falcon. the brief consideration of using a storable liquid-fuel
It was developed in 1958 along with the new Hughes rocket design, but was replaced instead by the Lockheed
AN/ASG-18 radar re-control system intended to arm XSR13-LP-1 solid rocket. This lowered the top speed
the Mach 3 XF-108 Rapier interceptor aircraft. It was from Mach 6 to Mach 4. In this form the GAR-9 started
never used operationally, but was a direct predecessor of ground rings in August 1961. For air-launch testing at
the AIM-54 Phoenix. supersonic speeds the Republic XF-103 had originally
been proposed as a test platform, but this aircraft was can-
celled before reaching the prototype stage. Instead, B-58
75.1 Development Hustler s/n 55-665 was modied to house the AN/ASG-
18 radar in a large protruding radome that gave it the
75.1.1 Development for XF-108 nickname Snoopy, and in-ight launches started in May
1962.
In the early 1950s, the United States Air Force developed
a requirements for a high speed, high performance in-
terceptor aircraft, originally called the LRI-X. In 1957, 75.1.2 Development for YF-12
Hughes won the contract to supply the weapons system
for this aircraft. This system consisted of the GAR-X In 1960 Lockheed started development of the Lockheed
missile and the YX-1 radar and re control system. The YF-12 interceptor, as a lower-cost replacement for the F-
original missile design had a range of 15 to 25 miles (25 108. The GAR-9/ASG-18 were moved to this project.
to 40 km), and could be equipped with a conventional The F-12 would have featured four ip-open internal
warhead or a 0.25 kiloton version of the W42 nuclear weapons bays on the chines behind the cockpit, one of
warhead. When the North American XF-108 Rapier was these lled with electronics. The F-12B bays were too
announced as the winner of the LRI-X contest in April small for the GAR-9, so the GAR-9B was developed with
1958, the Hughes entries were redesignated GAR-9 and ip-out ns to reduce its diameter. It weighed 365 kilo-
AN/ASG-18 on the same day. The F-108 was cancelled grams (805 lb).[2]
in September 1959, but the Air Force decided to continue Test rings of the GAR-9A from the prototype F-12As
development of the missile system with both warheads.[1] resulted in six kills from seven launches, the lone miss due
267
to a missile power failure (there were several non-guiding

test launches as well). The missile was renamed AIM-47
in the fall of 1962 as part of the transition to common
naming for aerospace vehicles across the U.S. Depart-
ment of Defense in 1962. The last launch was from a
YF-12 ying at Mach 3.2 and an altitude of 74,400 feet
(22,677 m) at a QB-47 target drone 500 feet (152 m) o
the ground.[3]
In 1966, the F-12 project was cancelled just as the F-108
had been. Another project which expressed an interest
in the design was the XB-70 Valkyrie, a bomber which
could have carried the AIM-47 for self-defense. This
aircraft was also cancelled after Soviet deployment of
eective high-altitude surface-to-air missiles made high-
altitude attacks on the Soviet Union impractical.
In all, Hughes had built some 80 pre-production AIM-47
missiles.
75.2 Legacy
The AIM-47 was used as a base for the AIM-54 Phoenix
(originally the AAM-N-11), intended for the General Dy-
namics F-111B. This project was also canceled in 1968,
but the weapon system nally found a home on the F-14
Tomcat, entering service in the early 1970s.
In 1966, the basic airframe was adapted with the seeker
from the AGM-45 Shrike and the 250 lb (110 kg) war-
head from the Mk. 81 bomb to create the high-speed
AGM-76 Falcon anti-radar missile, although this did not
see service.[4]
75.3 See also

Missile designation
75.4 References
[1] Sean O'Connor, Hughes GAR-9/AIM-47 Falcon, Direc-
tory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles, 2004
[2] AIM-47 (GAR-9) Falcon long-range air-to-air missile.

Testpilot.ru. Retrieved 2015-01-25.
[3] B. Rich, Skunk Works (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co.,

1994), p. 236
[4] Andreas Parsch, Hughes AGM-76 Falcon, Directory of

U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles, 2004
75.5 External links

AIM-47 Falcon missile launch
Chapter 76
AIM-54 Phoenix
The AIM-54 Phoenix is a radar-guided, long-range air-

to-air missile (AAM), carried in clusters of up to six mis-
siles on the Grumman F-14 Tomcat, its only launch plat-
form. The Phoenix was the United States only long-range
air-to-air missile. The combination of Phoenix missile
and the AN/AWG-9 guidance radar was the rst aerial
weapons system that could simultaneously engage multi-
ple targets. Both the missile and the aircraft were used
by the United States Navy and are now retired, the AIM-
54 Phoenix in 2004 and the F-14 in 2006. They were
replaced by the shorter-range AIM-120 AMRAAM, em-
ployed on the F/A-18 Hornet and F/A-18E/F Super Hor-
net. Following the retirement of the F-14 by the U.S.
Navy, the weapons only current operator is the Islamic An AIM-54A launched from the NA-3A-testbed in 1966
Republic of Iran Air Force. Brevity code Fox Three
was used when ring the AIM-54.
76.1.2 AIM-54
In the early 1960s Navy made the next interceptor at-

76.1 Development tempt with the F-111B, and they needed a new missile
design. At the same time, the USAF canceled the projects
for their land-based high-speed interceptor aircraft, the
76.1.1 Background North American XF-108 Rapier and the Lockheed YF-
12, and left the capable AIM-47 Falcon missile at a quite
advanced stage of development, but with no eective
Since 1951, the Navy faced the initial threat from launch platform.
the Tupolev Tu-4K 'Bull' carrying[2] anti-ship missiles.
The AIM-54 Phoenix, developed for the F-111B eet air
Eventually, during the height of the Cold War, the
threat would have actually expanded into regimental- defense ghter, had an airframe with four cruciform ns
that was a scaled-up version of the AIM-47. One charac-
size raids of Tu-16 Badger and Tu-22M Backre
bombers equipped with low-ying, long-range, high- teristic of the Missileer ancestry was that the radar sent
speed, nuclear-armed cruise missiles and considerable it mid-course corrections, which allowed the re control
Electronic Counter Measures (ECM) of various types. system to loft the missile up over the target into thinner
air where it had better range.
The Navy would require a long-range, long-endurance
interceptor aircraft to defend carrier battle groups against The F-111B was canceled in 1968. Its weapons system,
this threat. The proposed F6D Missileer was intended the AIM-54 working with the AWG-9 radar, migrated to
to fulll this mission and oppose the attack far from the the new U.S. Navy ghter project, the VFX, which would
eet it was defending. The weapon needed for interceptor later become the F-14 Tomcat.
aircraft, the Bendix AAM-N-10 Eagle, was to be an air- In 1977, development of a signicantly improved
to-air missile of unprecedented range when compared to Phoenix version, the AIM-54C, was developed to bet-
contemporary AIM-7 Sparrow missiles. It would work ter counter projected threats from tactical anti-naval air-
together with Westinghouse AN/APQ-81 radar. How- craft and cruise missiles, and its nal upgrade included
ever, the Missileer project was cancelled in December a re-programmable memory capability to keep pace with
1960. emerging ECM.[3]
269
270 CHAPTER 76. AIM-54 PHOENIX
76.2 Usage in comparison to other

weapon systems
The AIM-54/AWG-9 combination had multiple track ca-

pability (up to 24 targets) and launch (up to 6 Phoenixes
can be launched nearly simultaneously); the large 1,000
lb (500 kg) missile is equipped with a conventional war-
head.
On the F-14, 4 missiles can be carried under the fuselage
tunnel attached to special aerodynamic pallets, plus 2 un-
der glove stations. A full load of 6 Phoenix missiles and
the unique launch rails weigh in at over 8,000 lb (3,600
kg), about twice the weight of Sparrows, so it was more
common to carry a mixed load of 4 Phoenix, 2 Sparrow AIM-54 Phoenix seconds after launch (1991)
and 2 Sidewinder missiles.
Most other US aircraft relied on the smaller, semi-active 76.3 Service history
medium range AIM-7 Sparrow. Semi-active guidance
meant the aircraft no longer had a search capability while
supporting the launched Sparrow, reducing situational 76.3.1 U.S. combat experience
awareness.
The Tomcats radar could track up to 24 targets in Track-
While-Scan mode, with the AWG-9 selecting up to six
potential targets for the missiles. The pilot or Radar In-
tercept Ocer (RIO) could then launch the Phoenix mis-
siles once launch parameters were met. The large Tactical
Information Display (TID) in the RIOs cockpit gave in-
formation to the aircrew (the pilot had the ability to mon-
itor the RIOs display) and the radar could continually
search and track multiple targets after Phoenix missiles An AIM-54 hitting a QF-4B target drone, 1983.
were launched, thereby maintaining situational awareness
of the battlespace.
The Gulf of Sidra incident (1981), in which Amer-
The Link-4 datalink allowed US Navy Tomcats to share
ican F-14s shot down 2 Libyan Su-22s, is some-
information with the E-2C Hawkeye AEW aircraft, and
times thought to have involved AIM-54s. However,
during Desert Shield in 1990, the Link-4A was intro-
the engagement was conducted at short ranges us-
duced and allowed the Tomcats to have a ghter-to-ghter
ing the AIM-9 Sidewinder.[5] The other US F-14
datalink capability, further enhancing overall situational
ghter to ghter engagement, the Gulf of Sidra inci-
awareness. The F-14D entered service with the JTIDS
dent (1989), used AIM-7 Sparrow and Sidewinder
that brought the even better Link-16 datalink picture to
missiles, but not the Phoenix.[6]
the cockpit.
On January 5, 1999, a pair of US F-14s red two
Phoenixes at Iraqi MiG-25s southeast of Baghdad.
Both AIM-54s rocket motors failed and neither
76.2.1 Active guidance missile hit its target.[7][8]
The Phoenix has several guidance modes and achieves On September 9, 1999 another US F-14 launched an
its longest range by using mid-course updates from the AIM-54 at an Iraqi MiG-23 that was heading south
F-14A/B AWG-9 radar (APG-71 radar in the F-14D) into the No-Fly Zone from Al Taqaddum air base
as it climbs to cruise between 80,000 ft (24,000 m) and west of Baghdad. The missile missed, eventually
100,000 ft (30,000 m) at close to Mach 5. Phoenix uses going into the ground after the Iraqi ghter reversed
this high altitude to gain gravitational potential energy, course and ed north.[9]
which is later converted into kinetic energy as the mis-
sile dives at high velocity towards its target. At around The AIM-54 Phoenix was retired from USN service on
11 miles (18 km) from the target, the missile activates its September 30, 2004. F-14 Tomcats were retired on
own radar to provide terminal guidance.[4] Minimum en- September 22, 2006. They were replaced by shorter-
gagement range for the Phoenix is around 2 nmi (3.7 km) range AIM-120 AMRAAMs, employed on the F/A-
and active homing would initiate upon launch.[4] 18E/F Super Hornet. Both the F-14 Tomcat and AIM-54
76.4. VARIANTS 271
use of its 79 F-14A Tomcats (delivered prior to 1979)

in most western outlets; the exception being a book re-
leased by Osprey Publishing titled Iranian F-14 Tomcats
in Combat by Tom Cooper and Farzad Bishop.[10] Most
of the research contained in the book was based on pilot
interviews. Reports vary on the use of the 285 missiles
supplied to Iran,[11] during the IranIraq War, 198088.
Some claim that it is unlikely that the Phoenix was
used operationally. First, as dicult as the missile and
An AIM-54 Phoenix being attached to an F-14 wing pylon before
re control systems were to operate, Iran had hired
the forward ns were installed (2003).
many American technicians. Upon leaving, they took
most of the knowledge about how to operate and main-
Phoenix missile continue in the service of the Islamic Re- tain these complex weapon systems with them. Also,
public of Iran Air Force, although the operational abilities without a steady supply of engineering support from
of these aircraft and the missiles are questionable, since Hughes Aircraft Missile Systems Group and correspond-
the US refused to supply spare parts and maintenance af- ing spares and upgrades, even a technically competent op-
ter the 1979 revolution, except for a brief period during erator would have extreme diculty elding operational
the Iran-Contra Aair. weapons.
Despite the much-vaunted capabilities, the Phoenix was Others claim that the primary use of the F-14 was as an
rarely used in combat, with only two conrmed launches airborne early warning aircraft, guarded by other ght-
and no conrmed targets destroyed in US Navy service, ers. Supporters of these claims point to the fact that, in
though a large number of kills were claimed by Iranian the 1991 Gulf War, Iraqi ghter pilots consistently turned
F-14s during the IranIraq War. The USAF F-15 Eagle and ed as soon as American F-14 pilots turned on their
had responsibility for overland Combat Air Patrol (CAP) ghters very distinctive AN/AWG-9 radars, which sug-
duties in Desert Storm in 1991, primarily because of the gests that Iraqi pilots had learned to avoid the F-14.
onboard F-15 IFF capabilities. The Tomcat did not have According to Cooper, the Islamic Republic of Iran Air
the requisite IFF capability mandated by the JFACC to Force was able to keep its F-14 ghters and AIM-54
satisfy the Rules of Engagement (ROE) to utilize the missiles in regular use during the entire IranIraq War,
Phoenix capability at Beyond Visual Range (BVR). From though periodic lack of spares grounded at times large
an engineering and service standpoint, the Phoenix could parts of the eet. At worst, during late 1987, the stock
be said to be a notable success. As the only surviving of AIM-54 missiles was at its lowest, with less than 50
member of the Falcon missile family, it was not adopted operational missiles available. The missiles needed fresh
by any other nation besides Iran, any other US armed ser- thermal batteries that could only be purchased from the
vice, or used on any other aircraft. It was heavy, large, US. Iran found a clandestine buyer that supplied it with
expensive and not practical in close combat compared to batteries though those did cost up to US$10,000 each.
the Sparrow or AMRAAM. Iran did receive spares and parts for both the F-14s and
AIM-54s from various sources during the IranIraq War,
and has received more spares after the conict. Iran
76.3.2 Iranian combat experience started a heavy industrial program to build spares for the
planes and missiles, and although there are claims that it
no longer relies on outside sources to keep its F-14s and
AIM-54s operational, there is evidence that Iran contin-
ues to procure parts clandestinely.[12]
Iran claims to be working on building an equivalent
missile.[13]
76.4 Variants
AIM-54A original model that became operational with
the U.S. Navy in about 1974, and it was also ex-
ported to Iran in modest numbers before the Iran
Two F-14 Tomcats of the IRIAF, armed with dierent types of hostage crisis beginning in 1979.
air-to-air missiles, including AIM-54 Phoenixes.
AIM-54B Also known as the 'Dry' missile. A version
There is very little information available regarding Irans with simplied construction and no coolant condi-
272 CHAPTER 76. AIM-54 PHOENIX
would have consisted of one AWG-9 radar, with as-

sociated controls and displays, and a xed 12-cell
launcher for the Phoenix missiles. In the case of
an aircraft carrier, for example, at least three sys-
tems would have been tted in order to give overlap-
ping coverage throughout the full 360.[15] Both land
and ship based tests of modied Phoenix (AIM-54A)
missiles and a containerised AWG-9 (originally the
14th example o the AN/AWG-9 production line)
were successfully carried out from 1974 onwards.[16]
AIM-54B A land based version for the USMC was also

proposed. It has been suggested that the AIM-54B
would have been used in operational Sea Phoenix
An AIM-54A Phoenix missile on display at Grumman Memo- systems, although that version had been cancelled by
rial Park in New York State. the second half of the 1970s. Ultimately, a mix of
budgetary and political issues meant that, despite be-
ing technically and operationally attractive, further
tioning. Did not enter series production. Develop- development of the Sea Phoenix did not proceed.
mental work started in January 1972. 7 X-AIM-54B
missiles were created for testing, 6 of them by mod- Fakour 90 In February 2013 Iran reportedly tested
ifying pilot production IVE/PIP rounds. After two an indigenous long-range air-to-air missile.[17] In
successful test rings, the 'Dry' missile eort was September 2013 it displayed Fakour 2013 on a mil-
cancelled for being not cost eective.[14] itary parade which looked almost identical to AIM-
54 Phoenix.[18]
AIM-54C lone improved model was ever produced. It
used digital electronics in the place of the analog
electronics of the AIM-54A. This model had better
abilities to shoot down low and high-altitude antiship
76.5 Characteristics
missiles. This model took over from the AIM-54A
beginning in 1986.
AIM-54 ECCM/Sealed round more capabilities in

electronic counter-countermeasures. It did not
require coolant conditioning during ights on
board F-14s and not red (the usual situation).
Deployed beginning in 1988. Because the AIM-54
ECCM/Sealed received no coolant, F-14s carrying
this version of the missile could not exceed a
specied airspeed.
There were also test, evaluation, ground training, and cap-

tive air training versions of the missile; designated ATM- A technical drawing of AIM-54C
54, AEM-54, DATM-54A, and CATM-54. The ight
versions had A and C versions. The DATM-54 was not
The following is a list AIM-54 Phoenix specications:[19]
made in a C version as there was no change in the ground
handling characteristics.
Primary function: Long-range air-launched air in-
tercept missile
Sea Phoenix A 1970s proposal for a ship launched ver-
sion of the Phoenix as an alternative/replacement Contractor: Hughes Aircraft Company and
for the Sea Sparrow point defense system. It would Raytheon Corporation
also have provided a medium range SAM capabil-
ity for smaller and/or non-Aegis equipped vessels Unit cost: About $477,000, but this varied greatly
(such as the CVV). The Sea Phoenix system would
have included a modied shipborne version of the Power Plant: Solid propellant rocket motor built by
AN/AWG-9 radar. Hughes Aircraft touted the fact Hercules Incorporated
that 27 out of 29 major elements of the standard Length: 13 ft (4.0 m)
(airborne) AN/AWG-9 could be used in the ship-
borne version with little modication. Each system Weight: 1,0001,040 pounds (450470 kg)
Diameter: 15 in (380 mm) [6] Magnuson, Ed; Chavira, Ricardo; Van Voorst, Chavira.
(1989, January 16). Chemical Reaction: The US presses
Wing span: 3 ft (910 mm) Libya over a nerve-gas plant. Time Europe. Retrieved
28 November 2010.
Range: over 100 nautical miles (120 mi; 190 km)*
[7] DoD News Brieng January 5, 1999
Speed: 3,000+ mph (4,680+ km/h)
[8] Parsons, Dave, George Hall and Bob Lawson. (2006).
Guidance system: Semi-active and active radar Grumman F-14 Tomcat: Bye-Bye Baby...!: Images &
homing Reminiscences From 35 Years of Active Service. Zenith
Press, p. 73. ISBN 0-7603-3981-3.
Warheads: Proximity fuze, high explosive
[9] Tony Holmes, US Navy F-14 Tomcat Units of Operation
Warhead weight: 135 pounds (61 kg) Iraqi Freedom, Osprey Publishing (2005). Chapter One
OSW, pp. 167.
Users: US (U.S. Navy), Iran (IRIAF)
[10] Book: Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat. Acig.
Date deployed: 1974 Archived from the original on 30 January 2010. Retrieved
3 February 2010.
Date retired (U.S.): September 30, 2004
[11] Iranian Air Force F-14. Aerospace Web. Retrieved 3
Actual Range Classied February 2010.
[12] Theimer, Sharon. Iran Gets Army Gear in Pentagon

76.6 See also Sale. Forbes. Archived from the original on 19 January
2007. Retrieved 17 January 2007.
AIM-152 AAAM (Proposed successor.) [13] Iran eyes missile stronger than Phoenix, IR: Press TV.
AIM-47 Falcon [14] Budget estimates descriptive summaries, Supporting

data for scal year 1983, Department of the Navy.
Vympel R-33 (AA-9 Amos), the Russian air-to-air
missile most similar to the AIM-54 Phoenix) [15] Weapon Systems, Janes, 1977.
[16] Tarpgaard, PT (1976), The Sea PhoenixA Warship

List of missiles
Design Study, ASNE 88 (2): 3144.
Missile designation
[17] Iran test-res latest air-to-air missile, IR: Press TV, Feb
Combat history of the F-14 10, 2013.
[18] Farouk missile, The Avionist, Sep 26, 2013.

Related lists
[19] Fact File: AIM-54 Phoenix Missile. U.S. Navy.
Archived from the original on 29 June 2011. Retrieved
List of military aircraft of the United States 14 July 2011.
List of missiles
76.8 External links

76.7 References
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center - Phoenix
[1] the great book of modern warplanes. New York, New
Missile Hypersonic Testbed
York: Salamander Books Ltd. 1987.
[2] Zaloga, S.J.; Laurier, J. (2005). V-1 Flying Bomb, 1942-

52: Hitlers Infamous Doodlebug. Osprey Publishing,
Limited. ISBN 9781841767918. Retrieved 3 October
2014.
[3] Raytheon AIM-54 Phoenix. designation-systems.net.

Retrieved 3 October 2014.
[4] AIM-54. (2004) Directory of US Military Rockets and

Missiles. Retrieved 28 November 2010.
[5] A Country Study of Libya. (1987, December). US De-

partment of State. Chapter 5, Encounters with the United
States. Retrieved 28 November 2010.
Chapter 77
AIM-68 Big Q
There have been attempts to reuse the 68 designation;

The AIM-68 is an American air-to-air missile design. It
never entered production. notably the U.S. Navy wanted their new Standard Block
V missile to be known as the RIM-68A. This failed (the
designation RIM-156A was used instead). In 1995, the
77.1 Overview Navy tried to change it againapparently wanting an op-
erational missile to have a continuous run with the RIM-
66 Standard MR and RIM-67 Standard ER designations.
The Big Q began life in 1963 as a replacement for the The request was refused again.
AIR-2 Genie rocket. The Genie was unguided, and had
generally poor ight performance characteristics. The
Big Q was to be a much more capable weapon, intended
to engage Soviet bombers. 77.2 Specications
Big Q is actually a nickname only. The right to name the
Length : 2.92 m (9 ft 7 in)
missile was given to the initial designer, 1st Lt John Mc-
Masters, who chose the name of the Aztec serpent god Wingspan : 86 cm (2 ft 10 in) (with the wings ex-
Quetzalcoatl. This led to a tremendous number of pro- tended)
nunciation and spelling errors until virtually everybody
associated with the project referred to it as Big Q for Diameter : 35 cm (1 ft 2 in)
short.
Weight : 225 kg (496 lb)
In 1965 the ZAIM-68A designation was assigned to the
missile. A 20% model was successfully tested in a wind Speed : Mach 4
tunnel during that year and in June a contract was awarded Range : 65 km (40 mi)
to National Tapered Wing Engineering Company to pro-
duce 20 fuselage sections for prototype missiles. Propulsion : Solid-fuel rocket
The AIM-68 was designed with a dual-thrust solid- Warhead : W-30 nuclear (0.5 kt)
propellant rocket and was capable of reaching speeds of
Mach 4 over its 65-kilometre (40 mi) range. The pro-
totypes were tted with infrared guidance systems from
GAR-2A/B (AIM-4C/D) Falcon missiles; the rocket mo-
77.3 External links
tor from the AGM-12 Bullpup was used for propulsion.
The warhead was a W30 0.5 kiloton nuclear warhead, Air Force Weapons Lab AIM-68 Big Q - Designa-
smaller than the 1.5 kiloton model used on the Genie. The tion Systems
guidance system allowed the missile to be used against
maneuvering targets, including single bombers, rather
than whole formations as was the case for the Genie.
The reduced yield and greater range also made using the
weapon a far less hazardous prospect for the launching
aircraft.
Potential users of the Big Q included the F-101B, F-
102A, F-106A, F-4C. The size of the missile was dictated
by these choices, as some of the aircraft carried weapons
in an internal bay. As part of the eort to keep the size
down, the missile was tted with fold-out sections on the
main wings.
274
Chapter 78
AIM-82
The AIM-82 was a missile planned by the United States 78.3 See also
of America but cancelled before any prototypes were
built. AIM-9 Sidewinder
AIM-95 Agile
List of missiles
78.1 Overview
78.4 References
In 1969 the US Air Force was developing the F-15 Ea-
gle ghter. Planned as the ultimate air superiority air-
craft, the F-15 was intended to be as perfect as possible
in every respect. Rather than rely on the existing AIM-
9 Sidewinder, it was decided to develop an entirely new
short-range air-to-air missile to equip the aircraft. The
AIM-82 was to be an all-aspect missile, capable of lock-
ing onto the target from any angleSidewinders of this
period could only achieve a target lock if red from al-
most directly behind the target where the heat of the en-
gines provided a large infrared signature to the missiles
seeker head. Infra red guidance would give the missile
a re-and-forget capability, allowing the ring aircraft to
break contact as soon as it was launched.
In 1970 a development contract was awarded to General
Dynamics, Hughes Aircraft and Philco-Ford. Proposals
were submitted later that year, but in that September the
AIM-82 was canceled. The main reason was the exis-
tence of the United States Navy AIM-95 Agile program,
which was developing a new short range air-to-air missile
for the F-14 Tomcat. Inter-service rivalry aside, there
seemed little point in developing two missiles to perform
essentially identical roles, so development on the AIM-
95 was authorized. Eventually the AIM-95 was also can-
celed and the AIM-9 was updated to remain in service
and indeed remains in service to this day.
78.2 Specications
The AIM-82 was canceled at a stage where the basic de-

sign had not been selected; as a result, no specications
exist for the proposed missile.
275
Chapter 79
AIM-4 Falcon
The Hughes AIM-4 Falcon was the rst operational also hoped to use them on the Avro CF-105 Arrow inter-
guided air-to-air missile of the United States Air Force. ceptor; however, this was never realized because of the
Development began in 1946; the weapon was rst tested Arrows cancellation.
in 1949. The missile entered service with the USAF in Fighters carrying the Falcon were often designed with in-
1956. ternal weapons bays for carrying this missile. The Scor-
Produced in both heat-seeking and radar-guided versions, pion carried them on wingtip pods, while the Delta Dag-
the missile served during the Vietnam War with USAF ger and Delta Dart had belly bays with a trapeze mech-
McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II units. Designed to anism to move them into the airstream for launch (see
shoot down slow bombers with limited maneuverability, it picture above). The F-101B had an unusual bay arrange-
was ineective against maneuverable ghters over Viet- ment where two were stored externally, and then the bay
nam. Lacking proximity fusing, the missile would only door would rotate to expose two more missiles. It is likely
detonate if a direct hit was scored. Only ve kills were the F-111 Aardvark's internal bay would have accommo-
recorded. dated the missile as well, but by the time of service, the
With the AIM-4s poor kill record rendering the F-4 in- Air Force had already dropped the Falcon for use against
eective at air-to-air combat, the ghters were modi- ghters, as well as the idea of using the F-111 as an air
ed to carry the AIM-9 Sidewinder missile instead. The combat ghter.
Sidewinder was much more eective and continues to The GAR-1 had semi-active radar homing (SARH), giv-
serve the armed forces of the United States to this day. ing a range of about 5 mi (8.0 km). About 4,000 mis-
siles were produced. It was replaced in production by the
GAR-1D (later AIM-4A), with larger control surfaces.
About 12,000 of this variant were produced, the major
79.1 Development production version of the SARH Falcon.
The GAR-2 (later AIM-4B) was a heat-seeker, generally
Development of a guided air-to-air missile began in 1946.
limited to rear-aspect engagements, but with the advan-
Hughes Aircraft was awarded a contract for a subsonic
tage of being a 're and forget' weapon. As would also
missile under the project designation MX-798, which
be Soviet practice, it was common to re the weapon in
soon gave way to the supersonic MX-904 in 1947. The
salvos of both types to increase the chances of a hit (a
original purpose of the weapon was as a self-defense
heat-seeking missile red rst, followed moments later
weapon for bomber aircraft, but after 1950 it was decided
by a radar-guided missile). The GAR-2 was about 1.5 in
that it should arm ghter aircraft instead, particularly in
(40 mm) longer and 16 lb (7 kg) heavier than its SARH
the interception role.
counterpart. Its range was similar. It was replaced in pro-
The rst test rings took place in 1949, at which time it duction by the GAR-2A (laterd AIM-4C), with a more
was designated AAM-A-2 and given the popular name sensitive infrared seeker. A total of about 26,000 of the
Falcon. A brief policy of awarding ghter and bomber infrared-homing Falcons were built.
designations to missiles led it to be redesignated F-98 in
All of the early Falcons had a small 7.6 lb (3.4 kg) war-
1951. In 1955, the policy changed again, and the missile
head, limiting their lethal radius. Also limiting them tac-
was again redesignated GAR-1.
tically was the fact that Falcon lacked a proximity fuze:
The initial GAR-1 and GAR-2 models entered ser- the fuzing for the missile was in the leading edges of the
vice in 1956.[1] It armed the Northrop F-89 Scorpion, wings, requiring a direct hit to detonate.
McDonnell F-101B Voodoo and Convair F-102 Delta
In 1958, Hughes introduced a slightly enlarged version of
Dagger and F-106 Delta Dart interceptors. The only
the Falcon, initially dubbed Super Falcon, with a more
other users were Canada, Finland, Sweden and Switzer-
powerful, longer-burning rocket engine, increasing speed
land, whose CF-101 Voodoo, Saab 35 Draken and
and range. It had a larger warhead (28.7 lb / 13 kg)
Dassault Mirage IIIS carried the AIM-4 Falcon. Canada
276
79.2. OPERATIONAL HISTORY 277
2 weapon with the improved IR seeker of the GAR-

4A/AIM-4G.
A larger version of the Falcon carrying a 0.25-kiloton nu-
clear warhead was developed as the GAR-11 (later des-
ignated the AIM-26 Falcon), while a long-range version
was developed for the North American XF-108 Rapier
and Lockheed YF-12 interceptors as the GAR-9 (later
AIM-47 Falcon).

119th Fighter Wing weapons handlers with an AIM-4C, 1972. The Air Force deployed AIM-4 in May 1967 during the
Vietnam War on the new F-4D Phantom II, which car-
ried it on the inner wing pylons and was not wired to
carry the AIM-9 Sidewinder. The missiles combat per-
formance was very poor. The Falcon, already operational
on Air Defense Command aircraft, was designed to be
used against bombers, and its slow seeker cooling times
(as much as six or seven seconds to obtain a lock on a tar-
get) rendered it largely ineective against maneuvering
ghters. Moreover, it could only be cooled once. Lim-
ited coolant supply meant that once cooled, the missile
would expend its supply of liquid nitrogen in two min-
utes, rendering it useless on the rail. The missile also
had a small warhead, and lacked proximity fusing. As
a result, only ve kills were scored, all with the AIM-4D
version.[2] (The Falcon was also experimentally red by
the F-102 Delta Dagger against ground targets at night
using its infrared seeker.)
AIM-9B and J next to HM-55 and HM-58

All used by the SwAF
A New Jersey ANG F-106A launching an AIM-4, 1984.

and better guidance systems. The SARH versions were
GAR-3 (AIM-4E) and the improved GAR-3A (AIM- The weapon was unpopular with pilots from the onset and
4F). The infrared version was the GAR-4A (AIM-4G). was supplemented or partially withdrawn in 1969, to be
About 2,700 SARH missiles and 3,400 IR Super Fal- replaced in the F-4D by the Sidewinder after retrotting
cons were produced, replacing most earlier versions of the proper wiring. Col. Robin Olds, commanding the
the weapon in service. F-4D-equipped 8th Tactical Fighter Wing, was an out-
spoken critic of the missile and said of it:
The Falcon was redesignated AIM-4 in September 1962.
The nal version of the original Falcon was the GAR- By the beginning of June, we all hated
2B (later AIM-4D), which entered service in 1963. This the new AIM-4 Falcon missiles. I loathed
was intended as a ghter combat weapon, combining the damned useless things. I wanted my
the lighter, smaller airframe of the earlier GAR-1/GAR- Sidewinders back. In two missions I had red
seven or eight of the bloody things and not Swedish Air Force (Licence built by SAAB)
one guided. They were worse than I had an-
ticipated. Sometimes they refused to launch;
sometimes they just cruised o into the blue Switzerland
without guiding. In the thick of an engage-
ment with my head twisting and turning, try-
ing to keep track of friend and foe, I'd forget Swiss Air Force
which of the four I had (already) selected and
couldn't tell which of the remaining was perk- United States
ing and which head was already expiring on its
launch rail. Twice upon returning to base I had
the tech rep go over the switchology and ring
sequences. We never discovered I was doing United States Air Force
anything wrong.[3]
Greece
Col. Olds became exasperated with the Falcons poor
combat performance. He ordered his entire ghter wing
rewire the F-4Ds to carry more reliable Sidewinders. Al- Hellenic Air Force
though it was an unauthorized eld modication, the en-
tire air force eventually followed his example. An eort
to address the limitations of AIM-4D led to the devel- Turkey
opment in 1970 of the XAIM-4H, which had a laser
proximity fuze, new warhead, and better maneuverabil-
ity. It was cancelled the following year without entering Turkish Air Force
service.
79.2.1 Vietnam War: U.S. AIM-4 Falcon 79.4 Specications (GAR-1D/ 2B

Air to Air Victories / AIM-4C/D)
The AIM-4F/AIM-4G Super Falcon remained in USAF
and ANG service, primarily with Convair F-102 Delta
Dagger and F-106 Delta Dart interceptors, until the nal
retirement of the F-106 in 1988.
The AIM-4C was also produced as the HM-58 for the
Swiss Air Force for use on the Dassault Mirage IIIS,
and license-manufactured in Sweden for the Swedish Air
Force (as the Rb 28) to equip the Saab 35 Draken and 37
Viggen. The seeker of the missile was also re-designed.
79.3 Operators
Length: 78 in (2.0 m) / 79.5 in (2.02 m)
Canada
Wingspan: 20 in (510 mm)
Royal Canadian Air Force Diameter: 6.4 in (160 mm)
Canadian Forces Weight: 119 lb (54 kg) / 135 lb (61 kg)
Speed: Mach 3
Finland
Range 6 mi (9.7 km)
Finnish Air Force (Swedish built missiles) Guidance: semi-active radar homing / rear-aspect
infrared homing
Sweden
Warhead: 7.6 lb (3.4 kg) high explosive
79.5 See also

Related Development:
AIM-26 Falcon
AIM-47 Falcon
AIM-54 Phoenix
79.6 References
79.6.1 Notes
[1] Cyprus Riots, 1956/05/31 (1956). Universal Newsreel.
1956. Retrieved February 22, 2012.
[2] Davies, Peter E: USAF F-4 Phantom II MiG Killers

1965-68, page 86. Osprey Publishing, 2004
[3] Olds, Robin. (2010) Fighter Pilot: The Memoirs of Leg-

endary Ace Robin Olds , St. Martins Press, ISBN 978-0-
312-56023-2, p. 314.
[4] McCarthy Jr. p. 152, 153
[5] Michel III p. 156
79.6.2 Bibliography
The history of the Falcon missile, and its vari-
ous congurations, is examined in Gart, Jason H.
Electronics and Aerospace Industry in Cold War
Arizona, 1945-1968: Motorola, Hughes Aircraft,
Goodyear Aircraft. Phd diss., Arizona State Uni-
versity, 2006.
McCarthy Jr. Donald J. MiG Killers, A Chronology
of U.S. Air Victories in Vietnam 1965-1973. 2009,
Specialty Press. ISBN 978-1-58007-136-9.
Michel III, Marshall L. Clashes, Air Combat Over

North Vietnam 1965-1972. 1997, Naval Institute
Press. ISBN 978-1-59114-519-6.
Chapter 80
AIM-7 Sparrow
AIM7 redirects here. For the AIM7 systems bench- The Sparrow emerged from a late-1940s United States
mark, see AIM Multiuser Benchmark. Navy program to develop a guided rocket weapon for
Sparrow missile redirects here. For the Israeli ballistic air-to-air use. In 1947 the Navy contracted Sperry to
target missile, see Sparrow (target missile). build a beam riding version of a standard 5-inch (127
mm) HVAR, the standard unguided aerial rocket, un-
der Project Hotshot. The weapon was initially dubbed
The AIM-7 Sparrow is an American, medium-range
semi-active radar homing air-to-air missile operated by KAS-1, then AAM-2, and, from 1948 on, AAM-N-2.
The airframe was developed by Douglas Aircraft Com-
the United States Air Force, United States Navy and
United States Marine Corps, as well as other various air pany. The diameter of the HVAR proved to be inade-
forces and navies. Sparrow and its derivatives were the quate for the electronics, leading Douglas to expand the
Wests principal beyond visual range (BVR) air-to-air missiles airframe to 8-inch (203 mm) diameter. The pro-
missile from the late 1950s until the 1990s. It remains totype weapon began unpowered ight-tests in 1947, and
in service, although it is being phased out in aviation ap- made its rst aerial interception in 1952.[1]
plications in favor of the more advanced AIM-120 AM- After a protracted development cycle the initial AAM-
RAAM. The Self-Defence Forces of Japan also employ N-2 Sparrow entered limited operational service in 1954
with specially modied Skyknights all weather carrier
the Sparrow missile, though it is being phased out and re-
placed by the Mitsubishi AAM-4. NATO pilots use the night ghters.[3] And in 1956, they were carried by the
brevity code Fox One in radio communication to signal F3H-2M Demon and F7U Cutlass ghter aircraft. Com-
launch of a Semi-Active Radar Homing Missile such as pared to the modern versions, the Sparrow I was more
the Sparrow.[2] streamlined and featured a bullet-shaped airframe with a
The Sparrow was used as the basis for a surface-to-air long pointed nose.
missile, the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow, which is used by a num- Sparrow I was a limited and rather primitive weapon. The
ber of navies for air defense of its ships. limitations of beam-riding guidance (which was slaved to
an optical sight on single seater ghters and a radar with
night ghters) restricted the missile to attacks against tar-
80.1 Development gets ying a straight course and made it essentially useless
against a maneuvering target. Only about 2,000 rounds
were produced to this standard.
80.1.1 Sparrow I
80.1.2 Sparrow II
As early as 1950 Douglas examined equipping the Spar-

row with an active radar seeker, initially known as
XAAM-N-2a Sparrow II, the original retroactively be-
coming Sparrow I. In 1952 it was given the new code
AAM-N-3. The active radar made the Sparrow II a re
and forget weapon, allowing several to be red at sepa-
rate targets at the same time.
By 1955 Douglas proposed going ahead with develop-
ment, intending it to be the primary weapon for the F5D
Skylancer interceptor. It was later selected, with some
controversy, to be the primary weapon for the Canadian
Sparrow Is during tests on a F3D Skyknight in the early 1950s Avro Arrow supersonic interceptor, along with the new
280
Astra re-control system. For Canadian use and as a

second source for US missiles, Canadair was selected to
build the missiles in Quebec.
The small size of the missile forebody and the K-band
AN/APQ-64-radar limited performance, and it was never
able to work in testing. After considerable development
and test rings in the U.S. and Canada, Douglas aban-
doned development in 1956. Canadair continued devel-
opment until the Arrow was cancelled in 1959.
80.1.3 Sparrow X
A subvariant of the Sparrow I armed with the same nu-
clear warhead as the MB-1 Genie was proposed in 1958,
but was cancelled shortly thereafter.
80.1.4 Sparrow III

Concurrently with the development of the Sparrow I, in
1951, Raytheon began work on the semi-active radar
homing version of Sparrow family of missiles, the AAM-
N-6 Sparrow III. The rst of these weapons entered
United States Navy service in 1958.
The AAM-N-6a was similar to the 6, but used a new
Thiokol liquid-fuel rocket engine for improved perfor-
mance. It also included changes to the guidance electron-
ics to make it eective at higher closing speeds. The 6a
was also selected to arm the Air Forces F-110A Spectre
(F-4 Phantom) ghters in 1962, known to them as the
AIM-101. It entered production in 1959, with 7500 be-
ing built.
Another upgrade reverted to a Rocketdyne solid-fuel mo-
tor for the AAM-N-6b, which started production in 1963.
The new motor signicantly increased maximum range to
35 kilometres (22 mi) for head-on attacks.
During this year the Navy and Air Force agreed on stan-
dardized naming conventions for their missiles. The
Sparrows became the AIM-7 series. The original Spar-
row I and aborted Sparrow II became the AIM-7A and
AIM-7B, despite both being out of service. The 6, 6a
and 6B became the AIM-7C, AIM-7D and AIM-7E
respectively. F3H Demon launching a Sparrow III in 1958
25,000 AIM-7Es were produced, and saw extensive use
during the Vietnam War, where its performance was gen-
erally considered disappointing. The mixed results were In 1969 an improved version, the E-2, was introduced
a combination of reliability problems (exacerbated by with clipped wings and various changes to the fuzing.
the tropical climate), limited pilot training in ghter-to- Considered a dogght Sparrow, the AIM-7E-2 was in-
ghter combat, and restrictive rules of engagement that tended to be used at shorter ranges where the missile was
generally prohibited BVR (beyond visual range) engage- still travelling at high speeds, and in the head-on aspect,
ments. The P (kill probability) of the AIM-7E was making it much more useful in the visual limitations im-
less than 10%; US ghter pilots shot down 59[Note 1] air- posed on the engagements. Even so, its kill rate was only
craft out of the 612 Sparrows red.[4] Of the 612 AIM- 13% in combat, leading to a practice of ripple-ring all
7D/E/E-2 missiles red, 97 (or 15.8%) hit their targets, four at once in hopes of increasing kill probability. Its
resulting in 56 (or 9.2%) kills. Two kills were obtained worst tendency was that of detonating prematurely, ap-
beyond visual range.[5] proximately a thousand feet in front of the launching air-
282 CHAPTER 80. AIM-7 SPARROW
craft, but it also had many motor failures, erratic ights, 80.2 Foreign versions
and fuzing problems. An E-3 version included additional
changes to the fuzing, and an E-4 featured a modied
80.2.1 Canada
seeker for use with the F-14 Tomcat.
As part of the Avro Arrow program, Canadair part-
nered with Douglas in the development of the Sparrow II
80.1.5 U.S. AIM-7 Sparrow Aerial Com- (AIM-7B). After Douglas dropped out of this program,
bat Victories in the Vietnam War Canadair continued on with it until the termination of the
1965-1973 Arrow.
Improved versions of the AIM-7 were developed in the

1970s in an attempt to address the weapons limitations. 80.2.2 Italy
The AIM-7F, which entered service in 1976, had a dual-
stage rocket motor for longer range, solid-state electron- Main article: Alenia Aspide
ics for greatly improved reliability, and a larger warhead.
Even this version had room for improvement, leading The Italian company Finmeccanica, Alenia Difesa li-
British Aerospace and the Italian rm Alenia to develop censed the AIM-7E Sparrow technology from the US,
advanced versions of Sparrow with better performance and produced its own improved version called Aspide.
and improved electronics as the BAe Skyash and Alenia
Aspide, respectively.
The most common version of the Sparrow today, the
80.2.3 UK
AIM-7M, entered service in 1982 and featured a new
Main article: Skyash
inverse monopulse seeker (matching the capabilities of
Skyash), active radar fuse, digital controls, improved
ECM resistance, and better low-altitude performance. It British Aerospace (BAe) licensed the AIM-7E2 tech-
was used to good advantage in the 1991 Gulf War, where nology in the 1970s, producing the Skyash missile.
it scored many USAF air-to-air kills. Of 44 missiles red, Skyash used a Marconi XJ521 monopulse Semi-Active
30 (68.2%) hit their intended targets resulting in 24/26 seeker together with improvements to the electronics. It
(54.5%/59.1%) kills. 19 kills were obtained beyond vi- was powered by the Aerojet Mk52 mod 2 rocket engine
sual range.[7] (later by the Rocketdyne Mk38 mod 4). Skyash en-
tered service with the Royal Air Force (RAF) on their
The AIM-7P is similar in most ways to the M versions,
Phantom FG.1/FGR.2 in 1978, and later on the Tornado
and was primarily an upgrade program for existing M-
F3. Skyash was also exported to Sweden for use on their
series missiles. The main changes were to the software,
Viggen ghters.
improving low-level performance. A follow-on Block II
upgrade added a new rear receiver allowing the missile An upgraded version with active radar seeker, called Ac-
to receive mid-course correction from the launching air- tive Sky Flash was proposed by BAe and Thomson-CSF,
craft. Plans initially called for all M versions to be up- but did not receive funding because the RAF opted for
graded, but currently Ps are being issued as required to other missiles.[8]
replace Ms lost or removed from the inventory.
The nal version of the missile was to have been the
80.2.4 Peoples Republic of China
AIM-7R, which added an infrared homing seeker to an
otherwise unchanged AIM-7P Block II. A general wind-
Main article: PL-10
down of the budget led to it being cancelled in 1997.
Sparrow is now being phased out with the availability of
The LY-60/FD-60/PL-10 is a family of PRC missiles de-
the active-radar AIM-120 AMRAAM, but is likely to re-
veloped by the Shanghai Academy of Science and Tech-
main in service for several years.
nology, largely based on the Italian Aspide missile - a ver-
sion of the Sparrow.[9][10] There are four versions of the
AIM-7Es being loaded on a Hawaii ANG F-4C in basic design, three of which are surface-to-air and one
1980 air-to-air.
AIM-7Fs on a 37th TFW F-4G in 1988

80.3 Design
Wings being installed on an AIM-7
The Sparrow has four major sections: guidance section,
An AIM-7M being loaded warhead, control, and rocket motor (currently the Her-
cules MK-58 solid-propellant rocket motor). It has a 80.7 References

cylindrical body with four wings at mid-body and four
tail ns. Although the external dimensions of the Spar- Footnotes
row remained relatively unchanged from model to model,
the internal components of newer missiles represent ma- [1] Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles:
jor improvements, with vastly increased capabilities. The Raytheon AIM-7/RIM-7 Sparrow. Designation Systems.
warhead is of the continuous-rod type.
[2] Multi-service Air-Air, Air-Surface, Surface-Air brevity
As with other semi-active radar guided missiles, the mis- codes. Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC).
sile does not generate radar signals, but instead homes in 25 April 1997. p. 14. Retrieved 12 April 2012.
on reected continuous-wave signals from the launch plat-
forms radar. The receiver also senses the guidance radar [3] Guided Missiles Ride Navy Jet. Popular Mechanics,
to enable comparisons that enhance the missiles resis- November 1954, p. 116.
tance to passive jamming. [4] Michel III p. 286, 287
[5] Barry D. Watts: Six Decades of Guided Munitions,

Precision Strike Association, 25 January 2006, p.
80.4 Principle of guidance (semi- 5 http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006psa_winter_roundtable/
watts.pdf
active version)
[6] McCarthy Jr., p. 148-157
The launching aircraft will illuminate the target with its [7] Barry D. Watts: Six Decades of Guided Munitions,
radar. In radars of the 1950s these were single target Precision Strike Association, 25 January 2006, p.
tracking devices using a nutating horn as part of the an- 7 http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006psa_winter_roundtable/
tenna. This caused the beam to be swept in a small cone. watts.pdf
Signal processing would be applied to determine the di-
rection of maximum illumination and so develop a signal [8] https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/skyflash.
htm
to steer the antenna toward the target. The missile de-
tects the reected signal from the target with a high gain [9] LY-60 / PL-10. FAS.org. Retrieved 2014-11-15.
antenna in a similar fashion and steers the entire missile
toward closure with the target. The missile guidance also [10] Barrie, Douglas (1996-11-27). Chinese AAM aspira-
samples a portion of the illuminating signal via rearward tions may build on Alenia Aspide. FlightGlobal.
pointing waveguides. The comparison of these two sig-
nals enabled logic circuits to determine the true target Bibliography
reection signal, even if the target were to eject radar-
reecting cha. Bonds, Ray and David Miller. AIM-7 Sparrow.
Illustrated Directory of Modern American Weapons.
Zenith Imprint, 2002. ISBN 0-7603-1346-6.
80.5 See also McCarthy Jr., Donald J. MiG Killers, A Chronology
of U.S. Air Victories in Vietnam 1965-1973. 2009;
AIM-9 Sidewinder Specialty Press, USA. ISBN 978-1-58007-136-9.
Michel (III), Marshall L. (1997). Clashes: Air Com-
AIM-54 Phoenix bat Over North Vietnam, 1965-1972. US Naval In-
stitute Press. ISBN 978-1-55750-585-9.
Sparoair
Brazo (missile) 80.8 External links

Vympel R-27 Aero Arrow Recovery Canada
List of missiles GlobalSecurity.org
Designation-Systems.Net
80.6 Notes
[1] Figure includes probables and bi-planes, which some

sources sometime exclude
Chapter 81
AIM-9 Sidewinder
The AIM-9 Sidewinder is a short-range air-to-air mis- The Sidewinder introduced several new technologies that
sile developed by the United States Navy in the 1950s. made it simpler and much more reliable than its United
Entering service in 1956, variants and upgrades remain States Air Force (USAF) counterpart, the AIM-4 Falcon,
in active service with many air forces after ve decades. under development during the same period. After disap-
The United States Air Force purchased the Sidewinder af- pointing experiences with the Falcon in the Vietnam War,
ter the missile was developed by the United States Navy the Air Force replaced its Falcons with Sidewinders.
at China Lake, California.[3] Nearly 100,000 of the rst generation (AIM-9B/C/D/E)
The majority of Sidewinder variants utilize infrared hom- of the Sidewinder were produced with Raytheon and
ing for guidance; the AIM-9C variant used semi-active General Electric as major sub-contractors.[7] Philco-Ford
radar homing and served as the basis of the AGM-122 produced the guidance and control sections of the early
Sidearm anti-radar missile. The Sidewinder is the most missiles.[7] The NATO version of the rst generation mis-
widely used missile in the West, with more than 110,000 sile was built under licence in Germany by Bodenseewek
missiles produced for the U.S. and 27 other nations, of Geratetechnik, 9,200 examples were built.[7] A second
which perhaps one percent have been used in combat. It generation of the missile (AIM-9G/H/J) was introduced
has been built under license by some other nations in- during 1970 and these were followed from the mid-
cluding Sweden. The AIM-9 is one of the oldest, least seventies by the AIM-9L/P) which was a substantial
expensive, and most successful air-to-air missiles, with improvement on the early versions particularly with an
an estimated 270 aircraft kills in its history of use.[4] improved SR-116 reduced-smoke rocket motor.[7] The
The missile was designed to be simple to upgrade.[5][6] third generation of the missile (AIM-9L/M) are all-aspect
The United States Navy hosted a 50th anniversary cel- missile which [7]
share little in common with the earlier
ebration of its existence in 2002. Boeing won a con- missiles.
tract in March 2010 to support Sidewinder operations
through 2055, guaranteeing that the weapons system will
remain in operation until at least that date. Air Force 81.1.1 Name selection
Spokeswoman Stephanie Powell noted that due to its rela-
tive low cost, versatility, and reliability it is very possible The name Sidewinder was selected in 1950 and is
that the Sidewinder will remain in Air Force inventories the common name of Crotalus cerastes, a venomous
through the late 21st century. rattlesnake which uses infrared sensory organs to hunt
warm-blooded prey.[7][8]
81.1 Origins 81.2 Design

The development of the Sidewinder missile began in
1946 at the Naval Ordnance Test Station (NOTS), In- The AIM-9 is made up of a number of dierent com-
yokern, California, now the Naval Air Weapons Station ponents manufactured by dierent companies, including
China Lake, California as an in-house research project Aerojet and Raytheon. The missile is divided into four
conceived by William B. McLean. McLean initially main sections: guidance, target detector, warhead, and
called his eort Local Fuze Project 602 using labora- rocket motor.
tory funding, volunteer help and fuze funding to develop The Guidance and Control Unit (GCU) contains most of
what it called a heat-homing rocket. It did not receive the electronics and mechanics that enable the missile to
ocial funding until 1951 when the eort was mature function. At the very front is the IR seeker head uti-
enough to show to Admiral William Deak Parsons, the lizing the rotating reticle, mirror, and ve CdS cells or
Deputy Chief of the Bureau of Ordnance (BuOrd). It pan and scan focal-plane array (AIM-9X), electric mo-
subsequently received designation as a program in 1952. tor, and armature, all protruding into a glass dome. Di-
284
81.2. DESIGN 285
z
w2
y
An AIM-9E Sidewinder missile on display at the National Air and
w1
Space Museum
x
mounted nitrogen bottle. The AIM-9X model contains

a Stirling cryo-engine to cool the seeker elements. Two
electric servos power the canards to steer the missile (ex-
sensor cept AIM-9X). At the back of the GCU is a gas grain
generator or thermal battery (AIM-9X) to provide elec-
trical power. The AIM-9X features High-O-Boresight
capability; together with JHMCS (Joint Helmet Mounted
Cueing System), this missile is capable of locking on to
a target that is in its eld of regard said to be up to 90 de-
rotating mirror grees o boresight. The AIM-9X has several unique de-
sign features including built-in-test to aid in maintenance
and reliability, an electronic safe and arm device, an ad-
Geometric arrangement of mirror, IR detector and target
ditional digital umbilical similar to the AMRAAM and
jet vane control.
Next is a target detector with four IR emitters and
detectors that detect if the target is moving farther away.
When it detects this action taking place, it sends a sig-
nal to the Warhead Safe and Arm device to detonate the
warhead. Versions older than the AIM-9L featured an
inuence fuze that relied on the targets magnetic eld as
input. Current trends in shielded wires and non-magnetic
metals in aircraft construction rendered this obsolete.
An AIM-9B hitting an F6F-5K drone at China Lake, 1957.
A Sidewinder hitting a QF-4B drone, 1974.

rectly behind this are the electronics that gather data, in-
terpret signals, and generate the control signals that steer The AIM-9H model contained a 25-pound (11 kg)
the missile. An umbilical on the side of the GCU at- expanding rod-blast fragmentary warhead. All other
taches to the launcher, which detaches from the missile models up to the AIM-9M contained a 22-pound (10 kg)
at launch. To cool the seeker head, a 5,000 psi (35 MPa) annular blast fragmentary warhead. The missiles war-
argon bottle (TMU-72/B or A/B) is carried internally in head rods can break rotor blades (an immediately fatal
Air Force AIM-9L/M variants while the Navy uses a rail event for any helicopter).
286 CHAPTER 81. AIM-9 SIDEWINDER
Recent models of the AIM-9 are congured with an an- pulse of infrared.
nular blast fragmentation warhead, the WDU-17B by Ar- The Sidewinder also included a dramatically improved
gotech Corporation. The case is made of spirally wound guidance algorithm. The Enzian attempted to y directly
spring steel lled with 8 pounds (4 kg) of PBXN-3 explo- at its target, feeding the direction of the telescope into
sive. The warhead features a safe/arm device requiring the control system as it if were a joystick. This meant the
ve seconds at 20 g (~200 m/s) acceleration before the missile always ew directly at its target, and under most
fuze is armed, giving a minimum range of approximately conditions would end up behind it, chasing it down.
2.5 kilometers. This meant that the missile had to have enough of a speed
The Mk36 solid propellant rocket motor provides propul- advantage over its target that it did not run out of fuel dur-
sion for the missile. A reduced smoke propellant makes ing the interception.
it dicult for a target to see and avoid the missile. This The Sidewinder is not guided on the actual position
section also features the launch lugs used to hold the mis- recorded by the detector, but on the change in position
sile to the rail of the missile launcher. The forward of since the last sighting. So if the target remained at 5 de-
the three lugs has two contact buttons that electrically ac- grees left between two rotations of the mirror, the elec-
tivate the motor igniter. The ns provide stability from tronics would not output any signal to the control system.
an aerodynamic point of view, but it is the rollerons at Consider a missile red at right angles to its target; if the
the end of the wings providing gyroscopic precession that missile is ying at the same speed as the target it should
prevents the serpentine motion that gave the Sidewinder lead it by 45 degrees, ying to an impact point far in
its name in the early days. The wings and ns of the front of where the target was when it was red. If the
AIM-9X are much smaller to accommodate one in each missile is traveling four times the speed of the target, it
side bay of the F-22 Raptor as originally planned, AIM- should follow an angle about 11 degrees in front. In ei-
9X control surfaces are reversed from earlier Sidewinders ther case, the missile should keep that angle all the way
with the control section located in the rear, while the to interception, which means that the angle that the tar-
wings up front provide stability. The AIM-9X also fea- get makes against the detector is constant. It was this
tures vectored thrust or jet vane control to increase ma- constant angle that the Sidewinder attempted to maintain.
neuverability and accuracy, with four vanes inside the ex- This "proportional pursuit" system is very easy to imple-
haust that move as the ns move. The last upgrade to the ment, yet it oers high-performance lead calculation al-
missile motor on the AIM-9X is the addition of a wire most for free and can respond to changes in the targets
harness that allows communication between the guidance ight path,[9] which is much more ecient and makes the
section and the control section, as well as a new 1760 bus
missile lead the target.
to connect the guidance section with the launchers digital
umbilical.
The Sidewinder incorporated a number of innovations
over the independently developed World War II-era
Madrid IR range fuze used by Messerschmitt's Enzian
experimental surface-to-air missile, that enabled it to be
successful. The rst innovation was to replace the steer-
ing mirror with a forward-facing mirror rotating around
a shaft pointed out the front of the missile. The detector
was mounted in front of the mirror. When the long axis
of the mirror, the missile axis and the line of sight to the
target all fell in the same plane, the reected rays from
the target reached the detector (provided the target was
not very far o axis). Therefore, the angle of the mirror
at the instant of detection (w1) estimated the direction of
the target in the roll axis of the missile.
Gyro-actuated rollerons of the sidewinder
The yaw/pitch (angle w2) direction of the target depended
on how far to the outer edge of the mirror the target was. However this system also requires the missile to have a
If the target was further o axis, the rays reaching the xed roll axis orientation. If the missile spins at all, the
detector would be reected from the outer edge of the timing based on the speed of rotation of the mirror is no
mirror. If the target was closer on axis, the rays would be longer accurate. Correcting for this spin would normally
reected from closer to the centre of the mirror. Rotating require some sort of sensor to tell which way is down
on a xed shaft, the mirrors linear speed was higher at and then adding controls to correct it. Instead, small con-
the outer edge. Therefore if a target was further o-axis trol surfaces were placed at the rear of the missile with
its ash in the detector occurred for a briefer time, or spinning disks on their outer surface; these are known
longer if it was closer to the center. The o-axis angle as rollerons. Airow over the disk spins them to a high
could then be estimated by the duration of the reected speed. If the missile starts to roll, the gyroscopic force of
81.3. OPERATIONAL HISTORY & DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 287
the disk drives the control surface into the airow, can- In a highly secret eort, the United States provided a few
celling the motion. Thus the Sidewinder team replaced dozen Sidewinders to ROC forces and an Aviation Ord-
a potentially complex control system with a simple me- nance Team from the U. S. Marine Corps to modify their
chanical solution. Sabres to carry the Sidewinder. In the rst encounter on
24 September 1958, the Sidewinders were used to am-
bush the MiG-17s as they ew past the Sabres thinking
81.3 Operational history & design they were invulnerable to attack. The MiGs broke for-
mation and descended to the altitude of the Sabres in
development swirling dogghts. This action marked the rst success-
ful use of air-to-air missiles in combat, the downed MiGs
being their rst casualties.[10]
During the Taiwan Strait battles of 1958, a Taiwanese
AIM-9B hit a Chinese MiG-17 without exploding; the
missile lodged in the airframe of the MiG and allowed
the pilot to bring both plane and missile back to base. So-
viet engineers later admitted that the captured Sidewinder
served as a university course in missile design and sub-
stantially improved Soviet air-to-air capabilities. They
were able to reverse-engineer a copy of the Sidewinder,
which was manufactured as the Vympel K-13/R-3S mis-
sile, NATO reporting name AA-2 Atoll. There may have
been a second source for the copied design: according to
Ron Westrum in his book Sidewinder,[11] the Soviets ob-
tained the plans for Sidewinder from a Swedish Air Force
Colonel, Stig Wennerstrm. (According to Westrum, So-
viet engineers copied the AIM-9 so closely that even the
part numbers were duplicated, although this has not been
conrmed from Soviet sources.)
The Vympel K-13 entered service with Soviet air forces
Prototype Sidewinder-1 missile on an AD-4 Skyraider during
in 1961.
ight testing
In 1972, when the Finnish Air Force started using
Originally called the Sidewinder 1 the rst live ring was Sidewinder (AIM-9P) in their Saab 35 Draken ght-
on 3 September 1952.[7] On the 11 September 1953 was ers, they were already using Soviet-made Atoll in their
the rst time the missile intercepted a drone.[7] The mis- MiG-21s; Finns found the two so similar that they tested
sile carried out 51 guided ights in 1954 and in 1955 pro- Sidewinders in MiGs and Atolls in Drakens.
duction was authorised.[7]
In 1954 the United States Air Force carried out trials with 81.3.2 Development during early 1960s
the original AIM-9A and the improved AIM-9B at the
Holloman Air Development Center.[7] The rst opera-
tional use of the missile was by Grumman F9F-8 Cougars
and FJ-3 Furies of the United States Navy in the middle
of 1956.[7]
81.3.1 Combat debut: Taiwan Strait, 1958

The rst combat use of the Sidewinder was on Septem-
ber 24, 1958, with the air force of the Republic of China
(Taiwan), during the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis. Dur-
ing that period of time, ROCAF North American F-
86 Sabres were routinely engaged in air battles with the
Peoples Republic of China over the Taiwan Strait. The
PRC MiG-17s had higher altitude ceiling performance
and in similar fashion to Korean War encounters between (Top: AIM-9A; Bottom: AIM-9C) Early Sidewinders mounted on
the F-86 and earlier MiG-15, the PRC formations cruised an F-8D Crusader.
above the ROC Sabres, immune to their .50 cal weaponry
and only choosing battle when conditions favored them. The Sidewinder subsequently evolved through a series
MiGs began challenging strike groups, the F-105 Thun-

derchief also carried the Sidewinder for self-defense. The
USAF opted to carry only AIM-4 Falcon on their F-4D
model Phantoms introduced to Vietnam service in 1967,
but disappointment with combat use of the Falcon led to a
crash eort to recongure the F-4D so that it could carry
Sidewinders.
Performance of the 454 Sidewinders launched[12] during
the war, and the AIM-7 Sparrow was not as satisfactory
as hoped. Both the USN and USAF studied the per-
formance of their aircrews, aircraft, weapons, training,
and supporting infrastructure. The USAF conducted the
classied Red Baron Report while the Navy conducted
a study concentrating primarily on performance of air-
(From top to bottom) The U.S. Navys AIM-9B, AIM-9D, and to-air weapons that was informally known as the "Ault
AIM-9C in the early 1970s Report". The impact of both studies resulted in modi-
cations to the Sidewinder by both services to improve its
performance and reliability in the demanding air-to-air
of upgraded versions with newer, more sensitive seek- arena.
ers with various types of cooling and various propulsion,
fuse, and warhead improvements. Although each of those
versions had various seeker, cooling, and fusing dier- US Navy develops AIM-9D/G/H
ences, all but one shared infrared homing. The excep-
tion was the U.S. Navy AAM-N-7 Sidewinder IB (later
AIM-9C), a Sidewinder with a semi-active radar homing
seeker head developed for the F-8 Crusader. Only about
1,000 of these weapons were produced, many of which
were later rebuilt as the AGM-122 Sidearm anti-radiation
missile.
81.3.3 USAF adoption from 1964
The original USAF nomenclature for the Sidewinder was

the GAR-8, although it too later adopted the name AIM-
9. Although originally developed for the USN and a
competitor to the USAF AIM-4 Falcon, the Sidewinder
AIM-9Ds armed F-4B of VF-111 on the USS Coral Sea.
was subsequently introduced into USAF service. The
US DoD directed that the F-4 Phantom be adopted
by the USAF. The Air Force originally borrowed F-4B The Navy Sidewinder design progression went from the
model Phantoms, which were equipped with AIM-9B early production B model to the D model that was used
Sidewinders as the short-range armament. extensively in Vietnam. The G and H models followed
with new forward canard design improving ACM per-
The rst production USAF Phantoms were the F-4C formance and expanded acquisition modes and improved
model, which carried the AIM-9B Sidewinder, from De- envelopes. The Hotel model followed shortly after the
cember 1964. During the 1960s the USN and USAF pur- Golf and featured a solid state design that improved re-
sued their own separate versions of the Sidewinder, but liability in the carrier environment where shock from cat-
cost considerations later forced the development of com- apult launches and arrested landings had a deteriorating
mon variants beginning with the AIM-9L. eect on the earlier vacuum tube designs. The Ault report
had a strong impact on Sidewinder design, manufacture,
and handling.
81.3.4 Vietnam War service 19651973
When air combat started over North Vietnam in 1965, US Air Force develops AIM-9E/J/N/P
Sidewinder was the standard short range missile carried
by the US Navy on its F-4 Phantom and F-8 Crusader Once the Air Force adopted the Sidewinder as part of
ghters and could be carried on the A-4 Skyhawk and its arsenal, it developed the AIM-9E, introducing it in
on the A-7 Corsair for self-defense. The US Air Force 1967. The Echo was an improved version of the ba-
also used the Sidewinder on its F-4C Phantoms and when sic AIM-9B featuring larger forward canards as well as a
more aerodynamic IR seeker and an improved rocket mo- The next major advance in IR Sidewinder development
tor. The missile, however still had to be red at the rear was the AIM-9L (Lima) model which was in full
quarter of the target, a drawback of all early IR missiles. production in 1977.[15] This was the rst "all-aspect"
Signicant upgrades were applied to the rst true dog- Sidewinder with the ability to attack from all directions,
ght version, the AIM-9J, which was rushed to the South- including head-on, which had a dramatic eect on close
East Asia Theatre in July 1972 during the Linebacker in combat tactics. Its rst combat use was by a pair of
campaign, in which many aerial encounters with North US Navy F-14s in the Gulf of Sidra in 1981 versus two
Vietnamese MiGs occurred. The Juliet model could be Libyan Su-22 Fitters, both of the latter being destroyed by
launched at up to 7.5g (74 m/s) and introduced the rst AIM-9Ls. Its rst use in a prolonged conict was by the
solid state components and improved actuators capable United Kingdom during the 1982 Falklands War; in this
of delivering 90 lbft (120 Nm) torque to the canards, campaign the Lima reportedly achieved a kill ratio of
thereby improving dogght prowess. In 1973, Ford began around 80%, a dramatic improvement over the 1015%
production of an enhanced AIM-9J-1, which was later levels of earlier versions, scoring 17 kills and 2 shared
redesignated the AIM-9N. The AIM-9J was widely ex- kills against Argentine aircraft.[16]
ported. The J/N evolved into the P series, with ve ver-
In combat uses of the AIM-9L, opponents had not devel-
sions being produced (P1 to P5) including such improve-
oped tactics for the evasion of head-on missile shots with
ments as new fuzes, reduced-smoke rocket motors, and it, making them more vulnerable.[17] The AIM-9L was
all-aspect capability on the latest P4 and P5. BGT in Ger-
also the rst Sidewinder that was a joint variant used by
many has developed a conversion kit for upgrading AIM-both the US Navy and Air Force since the AIM-9B. The
9J/N/P guidance and control assemblies to the AIM-9L Lima was distinguished from earlier Sidewinder vari-
standard, and this is being marketed as AIM-9JULI. Theants by its double delta forward canard conguration and
core of this upgrade is the tting of the DSQ-29 seeker
natural metal nish of the guidance and control section.
unit of the AIM-9L, replacing the original J/N/P seeker
The Lima was also built under license in Europe by a team
to give improved capabilities. headed by Diehl BGT Defence. There are a number of
Lima variants in operational service at present. First
developed was the 9L Tactical, which is an upgraded ver-
Summary of Vietnam War AIM-9 aerial combat kills
sion of the basic 9L missile. Next was the 9L Genetic,
which has increased infra-red counter counter measures
USN AIM-9 Sidewinder aerial combat kills [13] (IRCCM); this upgrade consisted of a removable mod-
ule in the Guidance Control Section (GCS) which pro-
USAF AIM-9 Sidewinder aerial combat kills [13] vided are-rejection capability. Next came the 9L(I),
which had its IRCCM module hardwired into the GCS,
providing improved countermeasures as well as an up-
In total 452 Sidewinders were red during the Vietnam
[14] graded seeker system. Diehl BGT also markets the AIM-
War, resulting in a kill probability of 0.18.
9L(I)1 which again upgrades the 9L(I)GCS and is con-
sidered an operational equivalent to the initially US only
AIM-9M.
81.3.5 Introduction of all-aspect
Sidewinders
81.3.6 Developments since 1982
AIM-9L
AIM-9M
AIM-9L Captive air training missile with part/section in blue AIM-9M Sidewinder with distinctive Dash-9 lettering being pre-
color, denoting inert warhead and rocket motor, for training pur- ighted by a USAF pilot. Note the blue stripe, which indicates that
poses. this example has an inert warhead intended for training purposes
The subsequent AIM-9M (Mike) has the all-aspect BOA/Boxoce

capability of the L model while providing all-around
higher performance. The M model has improved capa-
bility against infrared countermeasures, enhanced back-
ground discrimination capability, and a reduced-smoke
rocket motor. These modications increase its ability to
locate and lock-on to a target and decrease the chance
of missile detection. Deliveries of the initial AIM-9M-
1 began in 1982. The only changes from the AIM-9L
to the AIM-9M were related to the Guidance Control
Section (GCS). Several models were introduced in pairs
with even numbers designating Navy versions and odd
for USAF: AIM-9M-2/3, AIM-9M-4/5, and AIM-9M-
6/7 which was rushed to the Persian Gulf area during
Operation Desert Shield (1991) to address specic threats
expected to be present.
The AIM-9M-8/9 incorporated replacement of ve cir- Testing compressed carriage Sidewinder BOA conguration at
cuit cards and the related parentboard to update in- China Lake
frared counter counter measures (IRCCM) capability to
improve 9M capability against the latest threat IRCM. China Lake developed an improved compressed car-
The rst AIM-9M-8/9 modications, elded in 1995, in- riage control conguration titled BOA. (Compressed
volved deskinning the guidance section and substitution carriage missiles have smaller control surfaces to allow
of circuit cards at the depot level, which is labor-intensive more missiles to t in a given space.[18] The surfaces may
and expensiveas well as removing missiles from inven- be permanently clipped, or may fold out when the mis-
tory during the upgrade period. The AIM-9X concept is sile is launched.)
to use reprogrammable software to permit upgrades with-
The BOA design reduced size of control surfaces, elim-
out disassembly.
inating the rollerons, and returned to simple forward-
canard design. Although the Navy and Air Force had
AIM-9R jointly developed and procured AIM-9L/M, BOA was a
Navy-only eort supported by internal China Lake In-
dependent Research & Development (IR&D) funding.
Meanwhile, the Air Force was pursuing a parallel eort
to develop a compressed carriage version of Sidewinder,
called Boxoce, for the F-22. The Joint Chiefs of Sta
directed that the services collaborate on AIM-9X, which
ended these separate eorts. The results of BOA and
Boxoce were provided to the industry teams compet-
ing for AIM-9X, and elements of both can be found in
the AIM-9X design.
AIM-9X
After looking at advanced short range missile designs dur-

ing the AIM portion of the ACEVAL/AIMVAL Joint
AIM-9R test ring from an F/A-18C at Naval Air Weapons Sta- Test and Evaluation at Nellis AFB in the 1974-78 time-
tion China Lake frame, the Air Force and Navy agreed on the need
for the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile
The Navy began development of AIM-9R, a Sidewinder AMRAAM. But agreement over development of an Ad-
seeker upgrade in 1987 that featured a Focal Plane Array vanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile ASRAAM was
(FPA) seeker using video-camera type charge-coupled problematic and disagreement between the Air Force and
device (CCD) detectors and featuring increased o- Navy over design concepts (Air Force had developed
boresight capability. The technology at the time was re- AIM-82 and Navy had ight-tested Agile and own it
stricted to visual (daylight) use only and the USAF did in AIMVAL). Congress eventually insisted the services
not agree on this requirement, preferring another tech- work on a joint eort resulting in the AIM-9M, thereby
nology path. AIM-9R reached ight test stage before it compromising without exploring the improved o bore-
was cancelled and subsequently both services agreed to sight and kinematic capability potential oered by Agile.
join a joint development of the AIM-9X variant. In 1985, the Soviet Union did eld a short range mis-
sile (SRM) (AA-11 Archer/R-73) that was very similar

to Agile. At that point, the Soviet Union took the lead in
SRM technology and correspondingly elded improved
InfraRed Counter Measures (IRCM) to defeat or reduce
the eectiveness of the latest Sidewinders. With the re-
unication of Germany and improved relations in the af-
termath of the Soviet Union, the West became aware of
how potent both the AA-11 and IRCM were and SRM
requirements were readdressed.
An AIM-9X on an 422d Test & Evaluation Squadron F-15C,

2002.
can point the AIM-9X missiles seeker and lock on by

The rst guided launch of an AIM-9X occurred in 1999 from a simply looking at a target, thereby increasing air com-
VX-9 F/A-18C and shot-down a QF-4 Drone bat eectiveness.[19] It retains the same rocket motor,
fuze and warhead of the 9-"Mike, but its lower drag
For a brief period in the late 1980s, an ASRAAM eort gives it improved range and speed.[20] AIM-9X also in-
led by a European consortium was in play under a MOA cludes an internal cooling system, eliminating the need
with the United States in which AMRAAM development for use of launch-rail nitrogen bottles (U.S. Navy and
would be led by the US and ASRAAM by the Europeans. Marines) or internal argon bottle (USAF). It also features
The UK working with the aft end of the ASRAAM and an electronic safe and arm device similar to the AM-
Germany developing the seeker (Germany had rst-hand RAAM, allowing reduction in minimum range and re-
experience improving the Sidewinder seeker of the AIM- programmable InfraRed Counter Counter Measures (IR-
9J/AIM-9F). By 1990, technical and funding issues had CCM) capability that coupled with the FPA provide im-
stymied ASRAAM and the problem appeared stalled, so proved look down into clutter and performance against
in light of the threat of AA-11 and improved IRCM, the the latest IRCM. Though not part of the original re-
US embarked on determining requirements for AIM-9X quirement, AIM-9X demonstrated potential for a Lock-
as a counter to both the AA-11 and improved IRCM fea- on After Launch capability, allowing for possible internal
tures. The rst draft of the requirement was ready by use for the F-35, F-22 Raptor and even in a submarine-
1991 and the primary competitors were Raytheon and launched conguration for use against ASW platforms.[21]
Hughes. Later, the UK resolved to revive the ASRAAM The AIM-9X has been tested for a surface attack capa-
development and selected Hughes to provide the seeker bility, with mixed results.[22]
technology in the form of a high o-boresight capable Testing work on the AIM-9X Block II version began in
Focal Plane Array. However, the UK did not choose to September 2008.[23] The Block II adds Lock-on After
improve the turning kinematic capability of ASRAAM to Launch capability with a datalink, so the missile can be
compete with AA-11. As part of the AIM-9X program, launched rst and then directed to its target afterwards
the US conducted a foreign cooperative test of the AS- by an aircraft with the proper equipment for 360 degree
RAAM seeker to evaluate its potential, and an advanced engagements, such as the F-35 and F-22.[24] By January
version featuring improved kinematics was proposed as 2013, the AIM-9X Block II was about halfway through its
part of the AIM-9X competition. In the end, the Hughes- operational testing and performing better than expected.
evolved Sidewinder design, featuring virtually the same NAVAIR reported that the missile was exceeding per-
British funded seeker as used by ASRAAM, was selected formance requirements in all areas, including lock-on af-
as the winner. ter launch (LOAL). The Block II performed as designed
The AIM-9X Sidewinder, developed by Raytheon engi- in 21 of 22 combined developmental and live re tests,
neers, entered service in November 2003 with the USAF with 17 of the tests resulting in the missile guiding to a
(lead platform is the F-15C; the USN lead platform is the lethal target intercept in aggressive scenarios. Since the
F/A-18C) and is a substantial upgrade to the Sidewinder beginning of operational testing, 5 of 7 live re attempts
family featuring an imaging infrared focal plane array had guided to a lethal target intercept. One area where
(FPA) seeker with claimed 90 o-boresight capability, the Block II needs improvement is helmetless high o-
compatibility with helmet-mounted displays such as the boresight (HHOBS) performance. It is functioning well
new U.S. Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System, and on the missile, but performance is below that of the Block
a totally new three-dimensional thrust-vectoring control I AIM-9X. The HHOBS deciency does not impact any
(TVC) system providing increased turn capability over other Block II capabilities, and is planned to be improved
traditional control surfaces. Utilizing the JHMCS, a pilot upon by a software clean-up build. Objectives of the op-
erational test are due to be completed by the third quarter 81.4.1 TC-1 Republic of China (Taiwan)
of 2013.[25] However, as of May 2014 there have been
plans to resume operational testing and evaluation (in- CSIST TC-1 is a Taiwanese development of the AIM-9L
cluding surface-to-air missile system compatibility).[26] originally meant to arm the ROCAFs indigenous F-CK-1
As of June 2013, Raytheon has delivered 5,000 AIM-9X ghter. A ground-launched version was since developed
missiles to the armed services.[27] as part of the Antelope air defence system, being car-
ried on a Humvee-based launcher vehicle. The Pelican-
Hardigg Technical Packaging division of Pelican Prod-
Block III ucts Inc. has designed, qualied, and now manufactures
a single missile AUR (All Up Round) Container for this
In September 2012, Raytheon was ordered to continue missile. The Pelican-Hardigg Missile Container has been
developing the Sidewinder into a Block III variant, even designed to be light enough for the loaded container to be
[33]
though the Block II had not yet entered service. The USN physically handled by 6 men.
projected that the new missile would have a 60 percent
longer range, modern components to replace old ones,
and an insensitive munitions warhead, which is more sta- 81.4.2 Chaparral
ble and less likely to detonate by accident, making it safer
for ground crews. The need for the AIM-9 to have an A version for the U.S. Army with a launcher for four
increased range was from digital radio frequency mem- AIM-9D missiles mounted on a tracked vehicle and
ory (DRFM) jammers that can blind the onboard radar called the MIM-72/M48 Chaparral was also developed.
of an AIM-120D AMRAAM, so the Sidewinder Block In this conguration an operator sat in a protected capsule
IIIs passive imaging infrared homing guidance system that was incorporated into the launcher assembly that ro-
was a useful alternative. Although it could supplement tated as an integrated unit. The Chaparral was introduced
the AMRAAM for beyond visual range (BVR) engage- into service in 1969 and remained an integral part of the
ments, it would still be capable at performing within vi- Armys air defense network until 1998.
sual range (WVR). Modifying the AIM-9X was seen as a
cost-eective alternative to developing a new missile in
a time of declining budgets. To achieve the range in- 81.4.3 AGM-122A Sidearm
crease, the rocket motor would have a combination of
increased performance and missile power management. Main article: AGM-122 Sidearm
The Block III would leverage the Block IIs guidance
unit and electronics, including the AMRAAM-derived
The Sidewinder was also the basis for the AGM-122A
datalink. The Block III was scheduled to enter the en-
Sidearm anti-radiation missile utilizing an AIM-9C
gineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase
guidance section modied to detect and track a ra-
in 2016, with developmental testing in 2018 and opera-
diating ground-based air defense system radar. The
tional tests in 2020, and achieve initial operational capa-
target-detecting device is modied for air-to-surface use,
bility (IOC) in 2022. The Block III development schedule
employing forward hemisphere acquisition capability.
followed the increased number of F-35 Lightning II Joint
[28][29] Sidearm stocks have apparently been expended, and the
Strike Fighters to enter service. The Navy pressed
weapon is no longer in the active inventory.
for this upgrade in response to a projected threat which
analysts have speculated will be due to the diculty of
targeting upcoming Chinese Fifth-generation jet ghters
(Chengdu J-20, Shenyang J-31) with the radar guided
AMRAAM.[30] Specically, analysts predict that Chi-
nese advances in electronics will mean Chinese ghters
will use their AESA radars as jammers to degrade the
AIM-120s kill probability.[31] However, the Navys FY
2016 budget would cancel the AIM-9X Block III as they
cut down buys of the F-35C, as it was primarily intended
to permit the ghter to carry six BVR missiles; the insen-
sitive munition warhead will be retained for the AIM-9X
program.[32]
81.4 Other Sidewinder develop-

Experimental use of an AIM-9L against tanks at China Lake,
ments 1971.
81.5. OPERATORS 293
81.4.4 Anti-tank variant Kuwait

Malaysia
China Lake experimented with Sidewinder in the air-to-
ground mode including use as an anti-tank weapon. Start- Mexico
ing from 2008, the AIM-9X demonstrated its ability as a
successful light air-to-ground missile.[34] Morocco
Netherlands
81.4.5 Larger rocket motor Oman
Under the High Altitude Project, engineers at China Lake Pakistan

mated a Sidewinder warhead and seeker to a Sparrow Philippines
rocket motor to experiment with usefulness of a larger
motor. Poland
Qatar
81.5 Operators Saudi Arabia[39]
81.5.1 Current operators Singapore[40]
South Korea
Argentina
Taiwan
Australia[35]
Switzerland
Portugal AIM-9B/J/P/L/M
Thailand
Belgium Turkey[41]
Bahrain Tunisia
Brazil United Kingdom
Canada United States
Chile Venezuela
Colombia
81.5.2 Former operators
Czech Republic[36]
Austria
Denmark
Cameroon
Egypt
France
Ethiopia
Germany
Finland[37]
Italy
Hungary
New Zealand
Greece Norway
Indonesia South Africa[42]
Iran[38] Spain
Iraq Sweden
Israel South Vietnam
Japan Zimbabwe
Jordan Please note that this list is not exhaustive.

81.6 Notable pilots 81.8 References

Wally Schirra was an early Sidewinder test pilot when 81.8.1 Notes
he was stationed at NOTS between 1952 to 1954. Dur-
ing one ight, Schirra red the Sidewinder missile and 81.8.2 Citations
the missile doubled back and started to chase his jet.
Schirra, through skillful ying, avoided the Sidewinder. [1] Sea Power (January 2006). Wittman, Amy; Atkinson, Pe-
He later went on to join NASA's Mercury program as one ter; Burgess, Rick, eds. Air-to-Air Missiles 49 (1). Ar-
of the rst seven American astronauts to y into space.[43] lington, Virginia: Navy League of the United States. pp.
9596. ISSN 0199-1337.
[2] GAO-13-294SP DEFENSE ACQUISITIONS Assess-

81.7 See also ments of Selected Weapon Programs. US Government
Accountability Oce. March 2013. p. 43. Retrieved 26
May 2013.
Missile designation
[3] Babcock, Elizabeth (September 1999). Sidewinder Inven-
tion and Early Years. The China Lake Museum Foun-
Related development dation. The Air Force subsequently procured Sidewinder
AIM-9B missiles for its hottest tactical and strategic air-
AGM-87 Focus craft, p. 21
[4] Raytheon AIM-9 Sidewinder. www.

Diamondback, a proposed enlarged, nuclear-armed designation-systems.net. Archived from the origi-
version of Sidewinder nal on 9 February 2010. Retrieved 2 February 2010.
K-13 (AA-2 Atoll) [5] Military Technology (August 2008). News Flash 32 (8).
Heilsbachstrae 26 53123 Bonn-Germany: Mnch Pub-
AIM-95 Agile, Developed in the 1970s to (unsuc- lishing Group. pp. 9396. ISSN 0722-3226. Alliant
cessfully) replace the AIM-9 Techsystems and RUAG Aerospace have signed a teaming
agreement to provide full-service and upgrade support of
the AIM-9P-3/4/5 Sidewinder family of IR-guided short-
Related lists range air-to-air missiles.
[6] Air Weapons: Beyond Sidewinder. www.strategypage.

List of missiles com. Archived from the original on 3 February 2010. Re-
trieved 2 February 2010.
Comparable missiles [7] Tom Hildreth (MarchApril 1988). The Sidewinder
Missile. Air-Britain Digest (Air-Britain) 40 (2): 3940.
ASRAAM ISSN 0950-7434.
[8] U.S. Naval Museum of Armament & Technology. Re-

IRIS-T
trieved 26 March 2015.
MAA-1 Piranha [9] Interestingly, echo-locating bats as they pursue ying in-
sects also adopt such a strategy, see this PLoS Biology
MICA report: Echo-locating Bats Use a Nearly Time-Optimal
Strategy to Intercept Prey. Public Library of Science. 18
R550 Magic April 2006. Retrieved 10 August 2010.
Red Top [10] Sidewinder AIM-9. Retrieved 26 March 2015.
[11] Westrum, Ron (2013). Sidewinder: Creative Missile De-

PL-9 velopment at China Lake. Annapolis, Maryland: U.S.
Naval Institute. ISBN 9781591149811.
Python 5
[12] Michel III p. 287
R-73
[13] McCarthy Jr. p. 148-157
Shafrir [14] Friedman, Norman, The Naval Institute Guide to World
Naval Weapon Systems Naval Institute Press, Anapolis,
Fatter MD, 1989, ISBN 1-55750-262-5, p. 439.
AAM-1/3/5 [15] Bonds 1989, p. 229.

[16] F-16 Armament - AIM-9 Sidewinder. Retrieved 26 [40] SIPRI arms transfer database. Stockholm International
March 2015. Peace Research Institute. 19 March 2012. Retrieved 27
April 2012.
[17] zetaboards.com Mainly Military web forum
[41] Turkey Buys 127 AIM-9X Sidewinder Missiles
[18] http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADP010957
[42] AIM-9B Sidewinder. South African Air Force Associ-
[19] Doty, Steven R. (2008-02-29). Kunsan pilots im- ation. Archived from the original on 27 June 2008. Re-
prove capability with AIM-9X missile. Air Force Link. trieved 2008-08-04.
Archived from the original on 2 March 2008. Retrieved
2008-02-29. [43] Test Pilot. WallySchirra.com. Retrieved 2012-01-26.
[20] Sweetman, Bill, Warming trend, Aviation Week and

Space Technology, July 8, 2013, p.26 81.8.3 Bibliography
[21] Raytheon Press Release Bonds, Ray ed. The Modern US War Machine. New
[22] Raytheon AIM-9X Block II Air/Air Missile. Defense York, New York: Crown Publishers, 1989. ISBN
Update, 20 September 2011. 0-517-68802-6.
[23] Raytheon Press Release, September 18, 2008 Bonds, Ray and David Miller. AIM-9 Sidewinder.
[24] Raytheon AIM-9X Block II Missile Completes First Zenith Imprint, 2002. ISBN 0-7603-1346-6.
Captive Carry Flight. Retrieved 26 March 2015.
Clancy, Tom. Ordnance: How Bombs Got
[25] AIM-9X Block II performing better than expected - 'Smart'". Fighter Wing. London: HarperCollins,
Flightglobal.com, January 28, 2013 1995. ISBN 0-00-255527-1.
[26] David C. Isby (May 2014). AIM-9X Block II resumes Doty, Steven R. (2008-02-29). Kunsan pilots im-
IOT&E. Janes International Defense Review 47: 16. prove capability with AIM-9X missile. Air Force
ISSN 2048-3449.
Link. Archived from the original on 2 March 2008.
[27] Raytheon Delivers 5,000th AIM-9X Sidewinder Air-to- Retrieved 2008-02-29.
Air Missile - Deagel.com, 15 June 2013
Babcock, Elizabeth (1999). Sidewinder Invention
[28] US Navy hopes to increase AIM-9X range by 60%. - and Early Years. The China Lake Museum Founda-
Flightglobal.com, 18 July 2013 tion. 26 pp. A concise record of the development of
the original Sidewinder version and the central peo-
[29] New Sidewinder Tweaks - Strategypage.com, September ple involved in its design.
5, 2012
McCarthy, Donald J. Jr. MiG Killers, A Chronol-
[30] Sweetman, Bill (June 19, 2013). Raytheon Looks At
ogy of U.S. Air Victories in Vietnam 1965-1973.
Options For Long-Range AIM-9. Aviation Week. Re-
trieved 2013-06-23.
2009, Specialty Press, North Branch, MN, U.S.A.
ISBN 978-1-58007-136-9
[31] Sweetman, Bill, Warming Trend, Aviation Week and
Space Technology, July 8, 2013, p.26 Michel III, Marshall L. Clashes, Air Combat Over
North Vietnam 1965-1972. 1997. ISBN 978-1-
[32] F-35Cs Cut Back As U.S. Navy Invests In Stando 59114-519-6.
Weapons - Aviationweek.com, 3 February 2015
Westrum, Ron (1999). "SidewinderCreative mis-
[33] marketing redirect. Retrieved 26 March 2015. sile development at China Lake. Naval Institute
Press. ISBN 978-1-55750-951-2
[34] AIM-9X Sidewinder demonstrates Air-To-Surface capa-
bility. Retrieved 26 March 2015.
[35] La Franchi, Peter (27 March 2007). Australia conrms 81.9 External links
AIM-9X selection for Super Hornets. Flight Interna-
tional. Retrieved 20 April 2011.
Defense Industry Daily - AIM-9X Block II: The
[36] Czech Air force ordered 100 AIM-9M New Sidewinder Missile
[37] Finland Ordering 150 AIM-9X Sidewinders Encyclopdia Britannica
[38] Taking On Irans Air Force - Defense Tech. Retrieved AIM-9 Sidewinder on GlobalSecurity.org
26 March 2015.
Raytheon AAM-N-7/GAR-8/AIM-9 Sidewinder
[39] 150 AIM-9 Sidewinder Missiles for Saudi Arabia Designation Systems
The Sidewinder Story
Sidewinder at Howstuworks.com
NAMMO Raufoss Nordic Ammunition Company
F-15As launching AIM-9 Sidewinders at QF-4 on

YouTube
Rolleron demonstration on YouTube

Fox Two!" From Aviation History magazine,
March 2013. Includes photos & video
Chapter 82
Brazo
For other uses, see Brazo (disambiguation). Elimination) project was cancelled,[8] and no air-to-air
For the US-Mexico work program, see Bracero Program. antiradiation missiles would enter service in the West.[9]
The Brazo missile was an American project, intended to

produce an anti-radiation missile for air-to-air use. De- 82.3 See also
veloped by Hughes Aircraft and based on the AIM-7
Sparrow air-to-air missile, the Brazo underwent a series AIM-7 Sparrow
of successful test rings; however, the program was ter-
minated at the end of its test program. AIM-97 Seek Bat
R-27 (air-to-air missile)

A joint development project between Hughes Aircraft
82.4 References
and the United States Navy,[1] the Brazo missile (named
as a pun by one of the projects Navy developers, a Notes
Hispanic; Brazo is Spanish for Arm, the acronym
for an Anti-Radiation Missile[2] ) project was initiated in [1] Parsch 2003
1972, as a proof-of-concept demonstration of the util-
ity of an air-to-air, anti-radar missile.[1] In 1973, the [2] Stevenson 2001, p.18.
United States Air Force's Pave Arm project, a program
[3] Friedman 1982, p.179.
with similar goals, was merged into the Brazo program,
with the Air Force assuming responsibility for testing the [4] Morison and Rowe 1975, p.282.
missile.[3]
[5] Fitzsimons 1978, p.425.
The rst air-to-air anti-radiation missile developed by the
United States,[4] the Brazo utilised the airframe of the [6] Gunston 1977, p.96.
existing AIM-7E Sparrow air-to-air missile, tted with
a new, Hughes-built passive radar seeker head developed [7] International Aeronautic Federation (1974). Interavia
by the Naval Electronics Center.[5] The seeker was in- volume 29, p.603.
tended to detect and home on enemy radar emissions,
such as those on interceptor and AWACS aircraft.[6] [8] Bidwell 1978, p.165.
[9] Sweetman 1987, p.160.
82.2 Operational history Bibliography
The rst test ring of the Brazo missile was conducted Bidewell, Shelford (1978). World War 3: A Mil-
in April 1974, with the missile, launched from a USAF itary Projection Founded on Todays Facts. Lon-
F-4D Phantom II,[7] successfully shooting down a BQM- don: Hamlyn Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-600-
34 Firebee drone; four follow-up tests over the fol- 39416-7.
lowing year continued the missiles successful record,
with none of the test shots failing[1] despite dicult test Fitzsimons, Bernard (1978). The Illustrated Ency-
conditions.[3] However, despite the Brazos success, the clopedia of 20th Century Weapons and Warfare.
follow-on ERASE (Electro-magnetic RAdiation Source Columbia House. ASIN B000RUOW6Q.
297
298 CHAPTER 82. BRAZO
Friedman, Norman (1982). U.S. Naval Weapons:

Every gun, missile mine and torpedo used by the US
Navy from 1883 to the present day. Annapolis, MD:
Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-0-87021-735-7.
Gunston, Bill (1977). F-4 Phantom. New York:
Scribner. ISBN 978-0-684-15298-1.
Morison, Samuel L.; John S. Rowe (1975). The
Ships & Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet (10th ed.). An-
napolis, MD: United States Naval Institute. ISBN
0-87021-639-2.
Parsch, Andreas (2003). Hughes Brazo. Directory
Stevenson, James Perry (2001). The $5 Billion Mis-

understanding: The Collapse of the Navys A-12
Stealth Bomber Program. Annapolis, MD: Naval In-
stitute Press. ISBN 978-1-55750-777-8.
Sweetman, Bill (1987). Advanced Fighter Tech-
nology: The Future of Cockpit Combat. Osceola,
WI: Motorbooks International. ISBN 978-0-87938-
265-0.
Chapter 83
Pye Wacket
Pye Wacket was the codename for an experimen- Development Center,[3] a radically unconventional de-
tal lenticular-form air-to-air missile developed by the sign emerged that featured a lenticular, wedge-shaped
Pomonas Convair Division of the General Dynamics airframe.[3] The lenticular design was considered to
Corporation [1] in 1957. Intended as a defensive mis- have the best handling characteristics at extremely high
sile for the B-70 Valkyrie Mach 3 bomber, the program angles of attack, and would theoretically possess ideal
saw extensive wind-tunnel testing and seemed promising; mass distribution, giving the missile outstanding termi-
however the cancellation of the B-70 removed the re- nal agility.[3] In addition, the lenticular design allowed for
quirement for the missile, and the project was cancelled. omnidirectional launching from the carrying aircraft.[2]
Following the feasibility studies, a contract for the devel-
opment of the DAMS design was awarded to the Con-
83.1 Genesis vair division of the General Dynamics Corporation in
Pomona, California in 1959.[3][9] Wind tunnel testing of
Project Pye Wacket, ocially known as the Lenticu- several options for control of the missile resulted in an ar-
lar Defense Missile (LDM) Program and by the project rangement of six small rocket thrusters being selected for
number WS-740A,[2] was instituted in 1958 in response reaction control.[3] The airframe of the missile was con-
to a US Air Force request for a Defensive Anti-Missile structed of magnesium alloy, and main power would be
System (DAMS) to protect the proposed B-70 Valkyrie provided by three Thiokol M58A2 solid-fuel rockets.[3]
strategic bomber from high-speed, high-altitude surface-
to-air missiles (SAMs) and interceptor aircraft.[3]
The extreme speed and operating altitude of the Valkyrie
83.3 Cancellation
was considered sucient protection against Soviet inter-
ceptors of the time.[4] However it was anticipated that fu- Pye Wacket was planned to be tested using a rocket sled
ture aircraft and missile developments would reduce the launcher,[3] with a Mach 5 booster rocket being used
B-70s margin of superiority,[3] especially following the later in the test program.[2] There are unconrmed re-
SA-2 Guideline SAM being displayed during the 1957 ports that some tests were conducted in 1960.[3] How-
May Day parade.[5] Intelligence reports indicated that ever the high cost and perceived vulnerability of the
SAMs were being deployed in large numbers throughout B-70 against the projected performance of Soviet air
Russia,[6] and it was believed the SA-2 was capable of defenses,[10] combined with the 1960 U-2 incident in
being tted with a nuclear warhead.[7] Therefore, it was which a high-ying spyplane had been shot down, led to
decided that the B-70 would need an interceptor missile the decision that intercontinental ballistic missiles would,
to defend itself against the perceived threat.[3] in the future, be the primary nuclear delivery force of the
United States, and therefore the B-70 project was can-
celled in early 1961.[11] Pye Wacket, its delivery vehi-
cle no longer available, is believed to have been cancelled
83.2 Design soon after,[3] although the ultimate fate of the program
remains classied.[2]
The specications for the proposed DAMS called for an
air-launched defensive missile, capable of engaging in-
coming missiles at relative speeds of up to Mach 7,[3] 83.4 See also
surviving a rate of acceleration between 60 g to 250 g,
and being able to undertake rapid terminal-phase guid- Flying saucer
ance changes in any direction.[8]
Lenticular Reentry Vehicle
Following initial studies and wind-tunnel testing at the
Air Proving Ground Center and Arnold Engineering North American XB-70 Valkyrie
299
300 CHAPTER 83. PYE WACKET
83.5 References Rees, Ed (October 17, 1960). The Furor Over Fan-
tastic Plane. Life (TIME Inc) 49 (16). Retrieved
Notes 2010-12-02.
Parsch, Andreas (2005). Convair Pye Wacket.

[1] http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/325216.pdf (a Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles,
document from ARMED SERVICES TECHNICAL Appendix 4: Undesignated Vehicles. designation-
INFORMATION AGENCY) systems.net. Retrieved 2010-12-02.
[2] USAF 1961. US Air Force (1961) History of the Arnold Engi-
neering Development Center: July - December 1960.
[3] Parsch 2005
II-24, IL-25. Reproduced per request to Air Force
[4] Rees 1960, p.125. Historical Research Agency. Retrieved on May 22,
2009.
[5] Hannah 2001, p.68.
[6] Crabtree 1994, p.107.
[7] Cochran et al. 1989, p.32.
[8] General Dynamics 1961.
[9] http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&
metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0325216 Pye
Wacket: Feasibility Test Vehicle Study. Summary.
Volume 1. General Dynamics, July 1961.
[10] Greenwood 1995, p.289.
[11] Kennedy, John F. Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy,

Horton Plaza, San Diego, CA , November 2, 1960. The
American Presidency Project at ucsb.edu. Retrieved: 6
April 2009.
1961 Budget Message. Kennedy Archives, 28 March
1961, pp. I-38.
Bibliography
Cochran, Thomas B.; William M. Arkin; Robert

S. Norris; Jerey Sands (1989). Nuclear Weapons
Databook, Volume IV: Soviet Nuclear Weapons.
Pensacola, FL: Ballinger. ISBN 978-0-88730-048-
6.
Crabtree, James D. (1994). On Air Defense. West-

port, CT: Praeger. ISBN 978-0-275-94792-7.
General Dynamics; Convair/Pomona Division (July

1961). Pye Wacket. Feasibility Test Vehicle Study.
Summary. Volume 1. Reproduced by Defense
Technical Information Center. Retrieved on May
22, 2009.
Greenwood, John T., ed. (1995). Milestones of Avi-

ation: National Air and Space Museum. Westport,
CT: Hugh Lauter Levin Associates. ISBN 0-88363-
661-1.
Hannah, Craig C. (2001). Striving for air superior-

ity: the Tactical Air Command in Vietnam. College
Station, TX: TAMU Press. ISBN 978-1-58544-
146-4. Retrieved 2010-12-02.
Chapter 84
AGM-86 ALCM
The AGM-86 ALCM is an American subsonic air- tional blast/fragmentation payload rather than a nuclear
launched cruise missile (ALCM) built by Boeing and op- payload. The AGM-86C/D uses an onboard Global Posi-
erated by the United States Air Force. This missile was tioning System (GPS) coupled with its inertial navigation
developed to increase the eectiveness and survivability system (INS) to navigate in ight. This allows the mis-
of the Boeing B-52H Stratofortress bomber. In combi- sile to guide itself to the target with pinpoint accuracy.
nation, the missile dilutes an enemys forces and compli- Litton Guidance and Control, and Interstate Electronics
cates air defense of its territory.[2] Corp. were the guidance contractors for the C-model.[2]
Examples of the AGM-86A and AGM-86B are on dis-
play at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center of the National
Air and Space Museum, near Washington, D.C.[3]
84.2 Development
84.1 Design
84.2.1 AGM-86A/B
All variants of the AGM-86 missile are powered by a
Williams F107 turbofan jet engine that propels it at sus-
tained subsonic speeds and can be launched from aircraft In February 1974, the U.S. Air Force entered into con-
at both high and low altitudes. The missile deploys its tract to develop and ight-test the prototype or proof-of-
folded wings, tail surfaces and engine inlet after launch. concept vehicle AGM-86A air-launched cruise missile,
which was slightly smaller than the later B and C mod-
AGM-86B/C/D missiles increase exibility in target se- els. The 86A model did not go into production; it was
lection. AGM-86B missiles can be air-launched in large designed to t the weapon bay of the B-1A, which was
numbers by the bomber force. B-52H bombers carry cancelled (to be later resurrected as the B-1B). Now be-
six AGM-86B or AGM-86C missiles on each of two ex- ing free of the length restriction of the B-1A weapon bay,
ternally mounted pylons and eight internally on a rotary the Air Force began full-scale development of the AGM-
launcher, giving the B-52H a maximum capacity of 20 86B in January 1977, which greatly enhanced the B-52s
missiles per aircraft. capabilities and helped the USA maintain a strategic de-
An enemy force would have to counterattack each of the terrent.
missiles, making defense against them costly and com- Production of the initial 225 AGM-86B missiles began in
plicated. The enemys defenses are further hampered by scal year 1980 and production of a total 1,715 missiles
the missiles small size and low-altitude ight capability, was completed in October 1986. The air-launched cruise
which makes them dicult to detect on radar.[2] missile had become operational four years earlier, in De-
cember 1982. More than 100 launches have taken place
since then, with a 90% approximate success rate. The
84.1.1 AGM-86B missiles ight path is pre-programmed and it becomes
totally autonomous after launch.
The nuclear armed AGM-86B uses a terrain contour-
matching guidance system (TERCOM) to y to its as- In June 1986 a limited number of AGM-86B mis-
signed target.[2] siles were converted to carry a high-explosive
blast/fragmentation warhead and an internal GPS.
They were redesignated as the AGM-86C CALCM.
84.1.2 AGM-86C/D This modication also replaced the B models terrain
contour-matching guidance system (TERCOM) and
The AGM-86C/D CALCM diers from the AGM-86B integrated a GPS capability with the existing inertial
air-launched cruise missile in that it carries a conven- navigation computer system.[2]
301
302 CHAPTER 84. AGM-86 ALCM
tinued hostilities against the Kurds in northern Iraq, the

Air Force launched 13 CALCMs in a joint attack with
the Navy. This mission has put the CALCM program in
the spotlight for future modications. Operation Desert
Strike was also the combat debut of the B-52H and the
carriage of the CALCM on the weapons bay-mounted
Common Strategic Rotary Launcher (CSRL). During the
Operation Desert Storm, the CALCM had been carried
on the B-52G and wing-mounted pylons.
The CALCM was also used in Operation Desert Fox in
1998, Operation Allied Force in 1999, and Operation
Iraqi Freedom in 2003. Operation Iraqi Freedom
was also the combat debut of the AGM-86D, a fur-
ther development of the missile which replaced the
blast/fragmentation warhead of the AGM-86C with a
penetrating warhead.
84.4 Future of the ALCM
Up to 20 AGM-86B missiles could be loaded onto one B-52

bomber.
84.2.2 AGM-86C/D
The AGM-86C is a Conventional Air-Launched
Cruise Missile (CALCM) and is a conventional
blast/fragmentation derivative of the nuclear armed
AGM-86B. The D is the Penetrator version of the
CALCM which is designed to attack deeply buried
targets.
Loading an AGM-86 ALCM on a B-52 at Minot Air Force Base
In 1996 and 1997, 200 additional CALCMs were pro-
duced from excess ALCMs. These missiles, designated
Block I, incorporate improvements such as a larger and In 2007, the USAF announced its intention to retire all of
improved conventional payload (3,000 pound blast class), its AGM-129 ACMs, and to reduce the ALCM eet by
a multi-channel GPS receiver and integration of the more than 500 missiles, leaving 528 nuclear cruise mis-
buer box into the GPS receiver. The upgraded avionics siles. The ALCM force will be consolidated at Minot Air
package was retrotted into all existing CALCM (Block Force Base, North Dakota, and all excess cruise missile
0) so all AGM-86C missiles are electronically identical.[2] bodies will be destroyed.
The reductions are in part a result of the Strategic Of-
fensive Reductions Treaty requirement to go below 2,200
84.3 Operations deployed nuclear weapons by 2012, with the AGM-129
ACM chosen because it has reliability problems and also
[4]
The CALCM became operational in January 1991 at the higher maintenance costs.
onset of Operation Desert Storm. Seven B-52Gs from Even with the SLEP, the remaining AGM-86s were to
Barksdale AFB launched 35 missiles at designated launch reach their end of service by 2020, leaving the B-52 with-
points in the U.S. Central Command's area of responsibil- out a nuclear mission.[5] However in 2012, the USAF an-
ity to attack high-priority targets in Iraq. These round- nounced plans to extend the useful life of the missiles un-
robin missions marked the beginning of the operations til at least 2030.[6]
Air Force component and were the longest known aircraft The USAF planned to award a contract for the develop-
combat sorties in history at the time (more than 14,000 ment of the replacement Long-Range Stand-O (LRSO)
miles and 35 hours of ight). weapon in 2015.[7] Unlike the AGM-86, the LRSO will
CALCMs next employment occurred in September 1996 be carried on multiple aircraft, including the B-52, the B-
during Operation Desert Strike. In response to Iraqs con- 2 Spirit, and the Long Range Strike Bomber.[8] Like the
84.6. SEE ALSO 303
AGM-86, the LRSO can be armed with either a conven- [12] Guarino, Douglas P. (29 April 2014). GOP De-
tional or nuclear warhead. The LRSO program is to defense Bill Pushes Back Against Proposed Nuclear-
velop a weapon that can penetrate and survive integrated Modernization Delays. www.nti.org (Nuclear Threat Ini-
air defense systems and prosecute strategic targets. Both tiative). Archived from the original on 30 April 2014. Re-
conventional and nuclear versions of the weapon are retrieved 29 April 2014.
quired to reach initial operational capability (IOC) before [13] Long-Range Stando Missile Development Pushed Back
the retirement of their respective ALCM versions, around By Three Years - Insidedefense.com, 5 March 2014
2030.[9]
The technology development contracts were to be sub-
mitted before the end of 2012.[10] In March 2014 a fur- 84.6 See also
ther 3-year delay in the project was announced by the De-
partment of Defense, delaying a contract award until s- Strategic Air Command
cal year 2018.[11] The House Armed Services Commit-
tee moved to reject this delay.[12] The delay was caused
by nancial pressures and an uncertain acquisition plan, 84.7 External links
and allowed by the long remaining service life left for the
AGM-86 and lack or urgent necessity compared to other
defense needs.[13] Boeing.com ALCM/CALCM Photo Gallery
Designation Systems Directory of U.S. Military

Rockets and Missiles: AGM-86
84.5 References Global Securitys AGM-86C/D Conventional Air
Launched Cruise Missiles
[1] Factsheets: AGM-86B/C/D Missiles. U.S. Air Force.
United States Air Force, 2010. Web. Accessed 14 Dec
2012. Archived 1 August 2013 at the Wayback Machine
[2] Factsheet: AGM-86B/C/D MISSILES. United States

Air Force. Archived from the original on 10 July 2008.
[3] Missile, Cruise, Air-launched, AGM-86B. Collections

Database. Smithsonian Institution. Archived from the
original on 23 July 2009. Retrieved 7 October 2008.
[4] AIR FORCE Magazine, August 2007.
[5] Air Force Next-Generation Bomber: Background and Is-

sues for Congress, page 8 Archived 2 May 2014 at the
Wayback Machine
[6] Weisgerber, Marcus. USAF Outlines Nuke Weapon In-

ventory Modernization. Defense News, 24 May 2012.
[7] Air Force plans two-year delay in developing new Cruise

Missile. Archived 5 November 2013 at the Wayback Ma-
chine
[8] Kristensen, Hans (22 April 2013). B-2 Stealth Bomber

To Carry New Nuclear Cruise Missile. fas.org. Feder-
ation of American Scientists. Archived from the original
on 22 April 2014. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
[9] USAFs LRSO missile may reach IOC around 2030 -

Flightglobal.com, 7 January 2014
[10] USAF to develop new cruise missile. Archived 5

November 2013 at the Wayback Machine
[11] USAF delays LRSO again, this time by three years -

3/13/2014 - Flight Global Archived 15 March 2014 at the
Wayback Machine
Chapter 85
AGM-12 Bullpup
The AGM-12 Bullpup is an air-to-ground missile which one problem quickly discovered by pilots in Vietnam was
was used on the A-4 Skyhawk, A-6 Intruder, F-105 that gunners on the ground could simply re at the smoke
Thunderchief and F-4 Phantom among others. It has trail of the missiles are and have a fairly good chance
been superseded by more advanced weapons, notably the of hitting the aircraft that had launchedand was still
AGM-62 Walleye and AGM-65 Maverick. guidingthe missile. Thus, to try to protect their own
aircraft, the pilot would jig slightly o of the missiles
path and hopefully avoid the anti-aircraft re.
85.1 Design
The Bullpup was the rst mass-produced air-surface com-
85.3 Variants
mand guided missile, rst deployed by the United States
Navy in 1959 as the ASM-N-7, until it was redesignated Later versions of the missile included upgrades such as
the AGM-12B in 1962. It was developed as a result of a larger 1000 lb (450 kg) warhead, improved rocket mo-
experiences in the Korean War where US airpower had tors, and improved guidancethe latter originally devel-
great diculty in destroying targets which required pre- oped as part of the GAM-79 White Lance project for an
cise aiming and were often heavily defended, such as improved, enlarged Bullpup for the US Air Forceand,
bridges. in one late version, the ability to carry a nuclear warhead,
also pioneered as part of the GAM-79 project.[2]
Although they could hit targets fairly accurately, pilots
found that the warhead of the AGM-12 was not very ef- The weapon was phased out of US service in the
fective against the massive concrete structures of large 1970s but was still used by other countries much later.
bridges in North Vietnam. However, in at least one spe- Some militaries currently still use some as inert practice
cic instance, the Bullpup proved its value when a pilot weapons.
guided one into the cave entrance of a large ammunition
dump dug into a mountain. Previous attacks with con-
ventional, unguided (dumb) bombs had been ineec- 85.4 Operators
tive against the mountain surface, but when the Bullpup
missile entered the cave and detonated, it set o a huge Australia
secondary explosion of the stored ammunition.[1]
Royal Australian Air Force

85.2 Operation
Denmark
The Bullpup had a Manual Command Line Of Sight guid-
ance system with roll-stabilization. In ight the pilot or
weapons operator tracked the Bullpup by watching a are Royal Danish Air Force
on the back of the missile and used a control joystick to
steer it toward the target using radio signals. It was ini- Greece
tially powered by a solid fuel rocket motor, and carried a
250 lb (110 kg) warhead.
After launching the Bullpup, best accuracy was main- Hellenic Air Force
tained by continuing to y the same track, so that the pi-
lot could sight down the smoke trail and steer the missile Israel
from directly behind as much as possible. Unfortunately,
304
Israel Defense Forces
Norway
Royal Norwegian Air Force
Taiwan (Republic of China)
Republic of China Air Force
Turkey An AGM-12C at the National Museum of the United States Air

Force
Turkish Air Force AS-20 similar French missile developed in the late
1950s
United Kingdom AJ 168 Martel missile contemporary Anglo-
French missile with TV guidance
Royal Air Force Martin Pescador MP-1000 an Argentinian guided

missile with similar guidance system
Royal Navy
Related lists

List of missiles by nation
85.6 References
[1] http://www.history.navy.mil/shiphist/e/cvn-65/1967.pdf
[2] Parsch, Andreas (2007). Martin AGM-12 Bullpup. Di-

rectory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-
85.7 External links

A US Navy A-4E of VA-164 from USS Oriskany (CVA-34) over
North Vietnam in November 1967. The Bullpup missile is clearly
visible under the port wing
Designation Systems.Net website
Federation of American Scientists webpage
United States
United States Navy
85.5 See also

Kh-23 (AS-7 'Kerry') a Soviet command-guided
missile inspired by the Bullpup
Chapter 86
AGM-131 SRAM II
The SRAM II (Short-Range Attack Missile) was a warhead, the W91 thermonuclear warhead and was to be
nuclear air-to-surface missile intended as a replacement carried by the F-15E.
for the AGM-69 SRAM, but it was cancelled by Presi-
dent George H.W. Bush for geopolitical reasons just as
the rst ight-test missile was delivered. 86.2 Cancellation
The mission of the SRAM family is to deliver the warhead
to the target without the need for the penetrating bomber Both SRAM II and SRAM T were cancelled in Septem-
to directly overy the target. The SRAM family of ber 1991 by President George H.W. Bush, along with the
weapons had an extremely small radar signature and were W89 and W91 warheads.
near-impossible to counter. SRAM ensured the airborne
Stated reasons were political (nuclear arms reduction in
leg of the US nuclear triad (the others being land-based
the face of a disintegrating Soviet Union) and technical
ICBMs and SLBM) and was the penetrating airlaunched
diculties with the rocket motor.
strategic nuclear weapon for the B-1 Lancer and B-2
Spirit.
In 1977, the USAF planned to develop an upgrade of the 86.3 Specication[1]
SRAM for the forthcoming B-1A bomber as AGM-69B
SRAM B. When the B-1A was cancelled in 1978, the
Length: 3.18 meters
AGM-69B was dropped, too. After the resurrection of
the B-1 program (as B-1B) in 1981, it was decided to Diameter: 39 centimeters
develop an entirely new weapon, the SRAM II.
Weight: 900 kilograms
In 1986, Boeing was nally awarded a development con-
tract for the AGM-131A SRAM II. The AGM-131A was Speed: Mach 2
planned to have only about 2/3 the size of an AGM-69A,
so that 36 missiles could be carried by the B-1B, as com- Range: 400 kilometers
pared to 24 AGM-69As. The nal design of the SRAM
Propulsion: Solid-fueled rocket
II ended up with the II version roughly equal to the A
version in size and about 80% of the weight. One new Warhead: W-89
feature of SRAM II was a lighter, simpler, and more re-
liable two-pulse solid rocket motor designed by Hercules
for increased range and age stability. 86.4 See also
The SRAM II was slated to use the newly developed W89
thermonuclear warhead, which being much newer, was AGM-69 SRAM
also much safer to operate than the W-69 of the AGM-
69. The W89 had a 200 kiloton design yield, W89
Initial Operational Capability for the AGM-131A was W91
planned for 1993, but before ight tests could take place,
the program was cancelled in 1991.
86.5 References
86.1 SRAM-T [1] http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-131.html
The SRAM II air vehicle was also the basis for a tactical
nuclear variant - the SRAM T which employed a dierent
306
Chapter 87
AGM-28 Hound Dog
For other uses, see Hound Dog (disambiguation). pabilities was called for in General Operational Require-
ment 148, which was released on March 15, 1956, known
as WS-131B.[1][2] GOR 148 called for a supersonic air-
The North American Aviation AGM-28 Hound Dog
was a supersonic, Turbojet propelled, air-launched cruise to-surface cruise missile with a weight of not more than
5,700 kilograms (12,500 lb) (fully fueled and armed) to
missile. The Hound Dog missile was rst given the des-
ignation B-77, then redesignated GAM-77, and nally as be carried in pairs by the B-52 Stratofortress.[3] Each B-
52 would carry two of the missiles, one under each wing,
AGM-28. The Hound Dog was conceived as a tempo-
rary stando missile for the B-52 Stratofortress bomber, on a pylon located between the B-52s fuselage and its
inboard pair of engines.[4]
to be used until the GAM-87 Skybolt air-launched bal-
listic missile was available. Instead, the Skybolt missile Both Chance Vought and North American Aviation sub-
was cancelled within a few years, and the Hound Dog mitted GAM-77 proposals to the USAF in July 1957, and
was deployed for 15 years until the missile was replaced both based on their earlier work on long-range ground-
by newer weapons, including the SRAM missile and the launched cruise missiles. Voughts submission was for
AGM-86 Air-Launched Cruise Missile. an air-launched version of the Regulus missile, developed
for the US Navy,[3] while North Americans was adapted
from their Navaho missile.[5] On August 21, 1957, North
American Aviation was awarded a contract to develop
87.1 Development Weapon System 131B, which included the Hound Dog
missile.[5]
During the 1950s the US became aware of develop- The importance of Hound Dog in penetrating the Soviet
ments regarding the Soviet Union's surface-to-air missiles air-defense system was later described by Senator John
(SAMs), notably at large installations being constructed F. Kennedy in a speech to the American Legion conven-
around Moscow. At the time the entire nuclear deter- tion in Miami, Florida, on October 18, 1960: We must
rent of the United States was based on manned strategic take immediate steps to protect our present nuclear strik-
bombers, both with the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. ing force from surprise attack. Today, more than 90 per-
Navy, and the deployment of large numbers of SAMs cent of our retaliatory capacity is made up of aircraft and
placed this force at some risk of being rendered inef- missiles which have xed, un-protectable bases whose lo-
fective. One solution to this problem is to extend the cation is known to the Russians. We can only do this
range of the bomb, either through glide bomb techniques, by providing SAC with the capability of maintaining a
or more practically, by mounting them in a short-to- continuous airborne alert, and by pressing projects such
medium-range missile. as the Hound Dog air-ground missile, which will enable
manned bombers to penetrate Soviet defenses with their
The Air Forces solution to this problem was the introduc-
weapons".[6]
tion of stand-o missiles. Since the Soviet air-defenses
were static and easy to spot from aerial reconnaissance
or satellite reconnaissance photos, the plan was to use a
long-range cruise missile to attack these air-defense bases
before the bombers got into range of them. The SA-2
87.2 Design
Guideline missile had a maximum range of about 30 kilo-
meters at that time, but since the bombers would be ap- The Hound Dog missiles engine, airframe, and warhead
proaching the sites, their own guided missiles would have were all adaptations of technology developed in the SM-
to be launched well-before it entered this SAM range. 64 Navaho missile, adapted for launching from the B-
If the American missile was to be used to attack enemy 52.[5][7] The Hound Dogs design was based on that of the
air bases as well, an extended range of several hundred Navaho G-38 missile, which featured small delta wings
kilometers would be needed. A missile with these ca- and forward canards.[3]
307
308 CHAPTER 87. AGM-28 HOUND DOG
High Altitude Attack: The Hound Dog would have

own at a high altitude (up to 17,000 metres (56,000
ft) depending on the amount of jet fuel on board the
missile) all the way to the immediate area of its tar-
get, then diving to its nuclear warhead's preset deto-
nation altitude.
Low Altitude Attack: The Hound Dog would have

own at a low altitude - below 1,500 metres (5,000
ft) (air-pressure altitude) to its target where its nu-
clear warhead would have detonated. In this mode
of operation, the Hound Dog had a shortened range
Hound Dog and its mounting pylon, which includes electronics of about 640 kilometres (400 mi) when this ight
and refueling systems prole was used. The missile would not carry out
terrain following in this ight prole. No major ter-
rain obstructions could exist at the preset altitude
along the missiles ight path.
A Pratt & Whitney J52-P-3 turbojet propelled the Hound
Dog, replacing the Navahos ramjet engine. The J52 en-
Low Altitude Attack: The GAM-77B (later AGM-
gine was located in a pod located beneath the rear fuse-
28B) could y a low RADAR altitude, from 914 to
lage, giving it an appearance similar to the Lockheed X-7
30 metres (3,000 to 100 ft) above the ground. As
high-speed experimental drone. The J52-P-3 used in the
mentioned above in the GAM-77A model descrip-
Hound Dog, unlike J52s installed in aircraft like the A-
tion, this shortened range. However, the improve-
4 Skyhawk or the A-6 Intruder, was optimized to run at
ment of ying in the weeds, was such that the mis-
maximum power during the missiles ight. As a result,
sile could be own down in ground clutter (radar)
the Hound Dogs version of the J52 had a short operat-
thus nearly invisible to radar detection. Eventually,
ing lifetime of only six hours.[6] However, in combat, the
all A model GAM-77s were given this modication
Hound Dog was expected to self-destruct in less than six
as well.
hours.
A derivative of the Navahos NAA Autonetics Division
A Dogleg Attack: The Hound Dog would have own
N-6 inertial navigation system (INS), the N5G, was used
along a designated heading (at either high or low
in the Hound Dog. A Kollsman Instruments Company
altitudes) to a preset location. At that location the
star-tracker located in the B-52s pylon was used to cor-
missile would have turned left or right and then pro-
rect inertial navigation system orientation errors with
ceeded to its target. The intention of this maneuver
celestial observations while the Hound Dog was being
was to attempt to draw defensive ghter planes away
carried by the B-52.[3] The INS could also be used to de-
from the missiles target.
termine the bombers position after the initial calibration
and leveling process, which took about 90 minutes. The
Hound Dog had a circular error probable (CEP) of 3.5 The rst air-drop test of a dummy Hound Dog was car-
kilometres (2.2 mi), which was acceptable for a weapon ried out in November 1958. 52 GAM-77A missiles were
equipped with a nuclear warhead.[1] launched for testing and training purposes between 23
The thermonuclear warhead carried by the Hound Dog April 1959 and 30 August 1965. Hound Dog launches
occurred at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, at Eglin
was the W28 Class D bomb.[6] The W28 warhead could
be preset to yield an explosive power of between 70 kilo- Air Force Base, Florida,[3]
and at the White Sands Missile
tons and 1.45 megatons. Detonation of the Hound Dogs Range, New Mexico.
W28 warhead could be programmed to occur on impact The Hound Dog missiles development was completed in
(Ground burst) or air burst at a preset altitude. An air only 30 months.[7] North American received a production
burst would have been used against a large area, soft tar- contract to build Hound Dogs on 16 October 1958.[4] The
get. A surface impact would have been used against a rst production Hound Dog missile was then delivered to
hard target such as a missile site or command and control the Air Force on 21 December 1959. 722 Hound Dog
center. missiles were produced by North American Aviation be-
[3]
The Hound Dog could be launched from the B-52 Strato- fore its production of them ended in March 1963.
fortress at high altitudes or low altitudes, but not below In May 1961, an improved Hound Dog missile was
1,500 metres (5,000 ft) in altitude. Initially, three dier- test-own for the rst time. This upgrade incorpo-
ent ight proles for the Hound Dog were available for rated improvements to reduce its radar cross-section.[8]
selection by the commander and the bombardier of the The Hound Dog already had a low head-on radar cross-
bomber (though other options were added later): section because of its highly swept delta wings. This
low radar cross-section was lowered further by replac- Hound Dog missile.[4] Just two months later in February,
ing its nose cap, its engine intake spike, its engine duct SAC test-launched its rst unarmed Hound Dog at Eglin
with new radar-absorbent material components that scat- Air Force Base.
tered or absorbed radar energy. It has been reported that In July 1960, the Hound Dog reached initial operational
these radar cross-section improvements were removed as capability with the rst B-52 unit. The Hound Dog was
Hound Dogs were withdrawn from service. used on airborne alert for the rst time in January 1962.
The GAM-77A version of the GAM-77 also included a In 1962, SAC activated missile maintenance squadrons
new Kollsman Instruments KS-140 star-tracker that was to provide maintenance for both the Hound Dog and the
integrated with the N-6 inertial navigation system. This ADM-20 Quail decoy missile. Full operational capabil-
unit replaced the celestial navigation star-tracker that had ity was achieved in August 1963 when 29 B-52 bomber
been located in the B-52s wing pylon. The fuel capacity wings were operational with the Hound Dog.
of the GAM-77A was increased during this upgrade. A
In 1960, SAC developed procedures so that the B-52
radar altimeter was added to the missile to provide (verti-
could use the Hound Dogs J52 engine for additional
cal) terrain-following radar capability to the Hound Dog.
thrust while the missile was located on the bombers two
428 Hound Dog missiles were upgraded to the GAM-77A
pylons. This helped heavily laden B-52s y away from
conguration by North American.[9] their airbases faster, before enemy nuclear weapons oblit-
66 GAM-77A Hound Dog missiles were launched for erated them. The Hound Dog could then be refueled from
testing and training up through April 1973.[6] the B-52s wing fuel tanks.[9]
In June 1963 the GAM-77 and GAM-77A were re- One Hound Dog missile crashed near the town of
designated AGM-28A and AGM-28B, respectively. Samson, Alabama, when it failed to self-destruct after a
In 1971, a Hound Dog missile was test-own with a newly test launch from Eglin Air Force Base, Florida.[6] In 1962,
developed Terrain Contour Matching (TERCOM) navi- a Hound Dog was accidentally dropped to the ground dur-
gation system. Reportedly, the designation AGM-28C ing an underwing systems check.[6]
was reserved for this version of the Hound Dog if de- In May 1962, operation Silk Hat was conducted at Eglin
velopment had been continued. While a Hound Dog Air Force Base. During this exercise, a Hound Dog
with TERCOM was never deployed, this technology, with test launch was conducted before an audience of national
much better electronics and digital computers, was later and international dignitaries headed by President John F.
used in both the Air Forces Air Launched Cruise Missile Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon B. Johnson.[6]
and the Navys Tomahawk (missile).[10] On September 22, 1966, Secretary of Defense Robert
In 1972, the Bendix Corporation was awarded a contract McNamara recommended retiring all of the remaining
to develop an anti-radiation missile passive radar seeker Hound Dog missiles, within a few years. The Hound
to guide the Hound Dog missile to antennas transmitting Dogs would be retained pending the outcome of the Ter-
radar signals. A Hound Dog with this radar seeker was rain Contour Matching (TERCOM) guidance system de-
test-own in 1973, but never mass-produced.[11] velopment program. Secretary McNamaras recommen-
dation was not acted upon, and the Hound Dog remained
in service [6]
87.3 Operational history After thirteen years of service with the Air Force, the last
Hound Dog missile was removed from alert deployment
on June 30, 1975. The Hound Dog missiles were kept
in dead storage for a number of years. The last Hound
Dog was retired for scrapping on June 15, 1978, from the
42nd Bomb Wing at Loring Air Force Base, Maine.[4]
No Hound Dog missile was ever used in combat, since it
was strictly a weapon for nuclear warfare.
87.3.1 Missile Tail Numbers

[1]
B-52F takeo with AGM-28 Hound Dog missiles
On December 21, 1959, General Thomas S. Power, the 87.3.2 Numbers in Service
Commander in Chief of the U.S. Air Forces Strategic Air
Command (SAC), formally accepted the rst production The number of Hound Dog missiles in service, by year:
87.4 Variants 28th Bombardment Squadron

28th Bombardment Wing, Heavy Ellsworth AFB,
B-77 Redesignated GAM-77 prior to production.
South Dakota
XGAM-77 25 prototype missiles produced 77th Bombardment Squadron
GAM-77 697 missiles produced. 39th Bombardment Wing Eglin AFB, Florida
GAM-77A 452 missiles upgraded from GAM- 62d Bombardment Squadron
77 to GAM-77A conguration.
42d Bombardment Wing, Heavy Loring AFB,
AGM-28A The GAM-77 was redesignated the Maine
AGM-28A in June 1963
69th Bombardment Squadron
AGM-28B The GAM-77A was redesignated the
AGM-28B in June 1963
68th Bombardment Wing Seymour Johnson AFB,
AGM-28C Proposed Hound Dog that would
North Carolina
have been equipped with a TERCOM guidance sys-
tem. 51st Bombardment Squadron
70th Bombardment Wing Clinton-Sherman AFB,
Oklahoma
87.5 Operator
United States
72d Bombardment Wing, Heavy Ramey AFB,
Puerto Rico
United States Air Force 60th Bombardment Squadron
92d Bombardment Wing, Heavy Fairchild AFB,
87.5.1 Units using the Hound Dog Washington
2d Bombardment Wing Barksdale AFB,
Louisiana 97th Bombardment Wing, Heavy Blytheville
20th Bombardment Squadron AFB, Arkansas
62d Bombardment Squadron 340th Bombardment Squadron
306th Bombardment Wing McCoy AFB, Florida
5th Bombardment Wing, Heavy Travis AFB, 367th Bombardment Squadron
California / Minot AFB, North Dakota
319th Bombardment Wing, Heavy Grand Forks
23d Bombardment Squadron AFB, North Dakota
6th Bombardment Wing, Heavy Walker AFB, 46th Bombardment Squadron
New Mexico
320th Bombardment Wing Mather AFB,
24th Bombardment Squadron California
441st Bombardment Squadron
11th Bombardment Wing, Heavy Altus AFB,
340th Bombardment Wing Bergstrom AFB, Texas
Oklahoma
379th Bombardment Wing, Heavy Wurtsmith
17th Bombardment Wing, Heavy Wright-
AFB, Michigan
Patterson AFB, Ohio
397th Bombardment Wing Dow AFB, Maine
19th Bombardment Wing, Heavy Homestead
AFB, Florida / Robins AFB Georgia 341st Bombardment Squadron
87.6. SURVIVORS 311
410th Bombardment Wing K. I. Sawyer AFB, 335th Bombardment Squadron

Michigan
4133d Strategic Wing Grand Forks AFB, North
644th Bombardment Squadron Dakota
416th Bombardment Wing Griss AFB, New 30th Bombardment Squadron

York
4134th Strategic Wing Mather AFB, California
72d Bombardment Squadron
449th Bombardment Wing Kincheloe AFB,
4135th Strategic Wing Eglin AFB, Florida
Michigan
301st Bombardment Squadron
4136th Strategic Wing Minot AFB, North Dakota
450th Bombardment Wing Minot AFB, North
Dakota 525th Bombardment Squadron
721st Bombardment Squadron 4137th Strategic Wing Robins AFB, Georgia
454th Bombardment Wing Columbus AFB, 342d Bombardment Squadron
Mississippi
4138th Strategic Wing Turner AFB, Georgia
456th Bombardment Wing Beale AFB, California
4228th Strategic Wing Columbus AFB,
744th Bombardment Squadron Mississippi
465th Bombardment Wing Robins AFB Georgia 492d Bombardment Squadron
781st Bombardment Squadron 4238th Strategic Wing Barksdale AFB, Louisiana
484th Bombardment Wing Turner AFB Georgia 436th Bombardment Squadron
864th Bombardment Squadron 4239th Strategic Wing Kincheloe AFB, Michigan
4038th Strategic Wing Dow AFB, Maine 93d Bombardment Squadron
341st Bombardment Squadron 4241st Strategic Wing Seymour Johnson AFB,

North Carolina
4039th Strategic Wing Griss AFB, New York
[12]
4042d Strategic Wing K.I. Sawyer AFB, Michigan
[13]
4043d Strategic Wing Wright-Patterson AFB,
Ohio 87.6 Survivors
AGM-28 S/N 60-2176 located at the Eighth Air
4047th Strategic Wing McCoy AFB, Florida Force Museum, Barksdale Air Force Base, Bossier
City, Louisiana, United States.
AGM-28 located at the Aerospace Museum of
4123d Strategic Wing Clinton-Sherman AFB, California, former McClellan Air Force Base,
Oklahoma Sacramento, California, United States.
98th Bombardment Squadron AGM-28 located at the Air Force Space & Mis-
4126th Strategic Wing Beale AFB, California sile Museum, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station,
Florida, United States.
31st Bombardment Squadron Beale AFB,
California AGM-28 S/N 33792 located at the Air Force Space
& Missile Museum, Cape Canaveral Air Force Sta-
4130th Strategic Wing Bergstrom AFB, Texas tion, Florida, United States.
AGM-28 S/N 62-0003 located at the Castle Air AGM-28 S/N 60-2110 located at the U.S. Space and
Museum, former Castle Air Force Base, Atwater, Rocket Center, Huntsville, Alabama, United States.
California, United States.
AGM-28 located at the Strategic Air and Space Mu-
AGM-28 S/N 60-2192 located at the Dyess Lin- seum, adjacent to Outt Air Force Base, Omaha,
ear Air Park, Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, United Nebraska, United States.
States.
AGM-28 located at the American Legion in
AGM-28 marked as S/N 59-2794, located at the Air Tecumseh, Oklahoma, United States.
Force Armament Museum, Eglin Air Force Base,
Florida, United States. XGAM-77 located at the Travis Air Museum,
Travis Air Force Base, California, United States.
AGM-28 located at Grand Forks Air Force Base,
North Dakota, United States. AGM-28 S/N 59-2847 located at the Veterans
Home of Wyoming in Bualo, Wyoming, United
AGM-28 located at the Joe Davies Heritage Air- States.
park, Air Force Plant 42, Palmdale, California,
United States AGM-28 located at the White Sands Missile Range
Missile Park, New Mexico, United States.
AGM-28 located at Mars Hill Town Park, Mars Hill,
North Carolina, United States AGM-28 S/N 60-2971 located at the Wings of
Eagles Discovery Center, Horseheads, New York,
AGM-28 S/N 61-2206 located at Minot Air Force United States.
Base, North Dakota, United States

AGM-28 S/N 60-2141 located at the National
Atomic Museum, adjacent to Kirtland Air Force
Base, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States.
87.7 Popular culture
AGM-28 S/N 62-0007 located at the National Mu-
seum of the United States Air Force, Wright- Where it received the name Hound Dog has been the
Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio, United source of argument for decades. In recent years however
States. It was transferred to the museum in 1975. people have given credit to fans in the Air Force of Elvis
[3]
AGM-28 S/N 60-505 located at the New England Presley's version of Hound Dog (song).
Air Museum, Windsor Locks, Connecticut, United
States.
87.8 See also
AGM-28 S/N 59-2796 located at the Octave
Chanute Aerospace Museum, former Chanute Air Aircraft of comparable role, conguration and era
Force Base, Rantoul, Illinois, United States.
AGM-28 S/N 59-2866 located at the Pima Air P-270 Moskit
& Space Museum, adjacent to Davis-Monthan Air
Force Base, Tucson, Arizona, United States. Raduga Kh-20
Raduga K-10S
AGM-28 S/N 60-2092 located at the Pima Air
& Space Museum, adjacent to Davis-Monthan Air
Force Base, Tucson, Arizona, United States. Related lists
AGM-28 located at the Pratt & Whitney Engine List of military aircraft of the United States
Museum and Hangar, East Hartford, Connecticut,
United States. List of missiles
AGM-28 located at Veterans Park in Presque Isle,

Maine, United States.
87.9 References
AGM-28 S/N 61-2148 located at the Museum of
Aviation, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, United Citations
States.
[1] AGM-28 Missile Hound Dog Missile Hound Dog Ac-
AGM-28 S/N 59-2791 located at the South Dakota
cess date: 8 October 2007.
Air and Space Museum, Ellsworth Air Force Base,
Rapid City, South Dakota, United States. [2] AGM-28A Hound Dog Access date: 8 October 2007.
[3] A Brief Account of the Beginning of the Hounddog North American AGM-28B Hound Dog, Aviation
(GAM 77)" Access date: 28 October 2007. Enthusiast Corner Website, retrieved on October
21, 2007.
[4] AGM-28 Hound Dog Missile Access date: 8 October
2007. The USAF and the Cruise Missile Opportunity or
Threat, Kenneth P. Werrell, Technology and the Air
[5] Mark Wade. Navaho. Encyclopedia Astronautica Web-
Force A Retrospective Assessment, Air Force His-
site. Access date: 20 October 2007.
tory and Museums Program, 1997
[6] AGM-28 Missile Memos Access date: 8 October 2007.
Airpower Theory and Practice, Edited by John
[7] Mongrel Makes GoodTime Magazine. Access date: 21 Gooch, Frank Cass Publishing, 1995, ISBN 0-7146-
October 2007. 4186-3.
[8] David C. Aronstein and Albert C. Piccirillo. Have Blue Association of the Air Force Missileers: Victors in
and the F-117A: Evolution of the Stealth Fighter, AIAA, the Cold War, Turner Publishing Company, 1998,
1997, ISBN 1-56347-245-7. ISBN 1-56311-455-0
[9] National Museum of the Air Force. North American
AGM-28B Hound Dog. Access date: 20 October 2007.
[10] Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. AGM-

28. Access date: 28 October 2007.
[11] IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN WEBSITE. [3.0] Cruise

Missiles Of The 1950s & 1960s. Access date: 28 Oc-
tober 2007.
[12] Dorr, R. & Peacock, L.B-52 Stratofortress: Boeings Cold

War Warrior, Osprey Aviation: Great Britain. ISBN 1-
84176-097-8
[13] Enchanted Forest Web Page Design Service. AMMS

Bases. Ammsalumni.org. Retrieved 2011-09-28.
Bibliography
Hound Dog, Historical Essay by Andreas Parsch,

Encyclopedia Astronautica website, retrieved Octo-
ber 8, 2007.
Indoor Exhibits, Travis Air Museum website, re-

trieved October 8, 2007
The Navaho Project A Look Back, North American

Aviation Retirees Bulletin, Summer 2007.
Complete List of All U.S. Nuclear Weapons, Nu-

clear Weapon Archive Website, retrieved October
13, 2007.
B-52 Stratofortress: Boeings Cold War Warrior,

Dorr, R. & Peacock, L., Osprey Aviation: Great
Britain. ISBN 1-84176-097-8
Hound Dog Fact Sheet, Space Line Website, re-

trieved on October 14, 2007
Angle of Attack: Harrison Storms and the Race to the

Moon, Mike Gray, Penguin, 1994, ISBN 978-0-14-
023280-6
GAM-77 Hound Dog Missile, Boeing Corporate

Website, retrieved on October 14, 2007,
Chapter 88
AGM-65 Maverick
The AGM-65 Maverick is an air-to-ground tactical mis- for further development and testing of the missile; at
sile (AGM) designed for close air support. The most the same time, contract options called for 17,000 mis-
widely produced precision-guided missile in the Western siles to be procured.[7] Hughes conducted a smooth de-
world,[4] it is eective against a wide range of tactical tar- velopment of the AGM-65 Maverick, culminating in the
gets, including armor, air defenses, ships, ground trans- rst, and successful, ring of the AGM-65 on a tank at
portation and fuel storage facilities. Originally designed Air Force Missile Development Center at Holloman Air
and built by Hughes Missile Systems, development of the Force Base, New Mexico, on 18 December 1969.[7] In
AGM-65 spanned from 1966 to 1972, after which it en- July 1971, the USAF and Hughes signed a $69.9 million
tered service with the United States Air Force in August contract for 2,000 missiles,[7] the rst of which was de-
1972. Since then, it has been exported to more than 30 livered in 1972.[6]
countries and is certied on 25 aircraft.[5] The Maverick Although early operational results were favorable, mil-
served during the Vietnam, Yom Kippur, IranIraq and itary planners predicted that the Maverick would fare
Gulf Wars, along with other smaller conicts, destroy- less successfully in the hazy conditions of Central Eu-
ing enemy forces and installations with varying degrees rope, where it would have been used against Warsaw Pact
of success. forces.[8] As such, development of the AGM-65B began
Since its introduction into service, numerous Maver- in 1975 before it was delivered during the late 1970s.
ick versions had been designed and produced, using When production of the AGM-65A/B was ended in 1978,
electro-optical, laser, charge-coupled device and infra- more than 35,000 missiles had been built.[2]
red guidance systems. The AGM-65 has two types of More versions of the Maverick appeared, among which
warhead: one has a contact fuze in the nose, the other was the laser-guided AGM-65C/E. Development of the
has a heavyweight warhead tted with a delayed-action AGM-65C started in 1978 by Rockwell, who built a num-
fuze, which penetrates the target with its kinetic energy ber of development missiles for the USAF.[2][8] Due to
before detonating. The Maverick shares the same cong- high cost, the version was not procured by the USAF,
uration as Hughess AIM-4 Falcon and AIM-54 Phoenix, and instead entered service with the United States Ma-
and measures more than 2.4 m (8 ft) in length and 30 cm
rine Corps (USMC) as the AGM-65E.[2][8] Another ma-
(12 in) in diameter. jor development was the AGM-65D, which employed
an imaging infrared (IIR) seeker and thus is all-weather
operable.[2] The ve-year development period of the
88.1 Development AGM-65D started in 1977 and ended with the rst deliv-
ery to the USAF in October 1983.[2] The version received
[1]
The Mavericks development history began in 1965, when initial operating capability in February 1986.
the United States Air Force (USAF) began a program to The AGM-65F is a hybrid Maverick combining the
develop a replacement to the AGM-12 Bullpup.[6] With a AGM-65Ds IIR seeker and warhead and propulsion
range of 16.3 km (8.8 nmi), the radio-guided Bullpup was components of the AGM-65E.[2] Deployed by the United
introduced in 1959 and was considered a silver bullet States Navy (USN), the AGM-65F is optimized for mar-
by operators. However, the launch aircraft was required itime strike roles.[2] The rst AGM-65F launch from the
to y straight towards the target during the missiles ight P-3C took place in 1989, and in 1994, the USN awarded
instead of performing evasive maneuvers, thus risking the Unisys a contract to integrate the version with the P-
crew.[6] 3C.[4][9] Meanwhile, Hughes produced the AGM-65G,
From 1966 to 1968, Hughes Missile Systems and which essentially has the same guidance system as the D,
Rockwell competed for the contract to build the new mis- with some software modications that track[1]larger tar-
sile. Each were allocated $3 million for preliminary de- gets, coupled with a shaped-charge warhead.
sign and engineering work of the Maverick in 1966.[7] In the mid-1990s to early 2000s, there were several ideas
In 1968, Hughes emerged with the $95 million contract
314
88.3. VARIANTS 315
of enhancing the Mavericks potential. Among them was and a cylindrical body, reminiscent of the AIM-4 Falcon
the stillborn plan to incorporate the Maverick millimeter and the AIM-54 Phoenix.[3]
wave active radar homing, which can determine the ex- Dierent models of the AGM-65 have used electro-
act shape of a target.[10] Another study called Longhorn optical, laser, and infra-red guidance systems. The
Project[10] was conducted by Hughes, and later Raytheon AGM-65 has two types of warheads: one has a contact
following the absorption of Hughes into Raytheon, looked fuze in the nose, the other has a heavyweight warhead t-
a Maverick version equipped with turbojet engines in- ted with a delayed-action fuze, which penetrates the tar-
stead of rocket motors. The Maverick ER, as it was get with its kinetic energy before detonating. The latter is
dubbed, would have a signicant increase in range
most eective against large, hard targets. The propulsion
compared to the Mavericks current range of 25 kilo- system for both types is a solid-fuel rocket motor behind
metres (16 mi).[11] The proposal was abandoned, but if
the warhead.[1]
the Maverick ER had entered production, it would have
replaced the AGM-119B Penguin carried on the MH- The Maverick missile is unable to lock onto targets on its
60R.[11] own; it has to be given input by the pilot or Weapon Sys-
tems Ocer (WSO) after which it follows the path to the
target autonomously, allowing the WSO to re and for-
get. In an A-10 Thunderbolt, for example, the video fed
from the seeker head is relayed to a screen in the cockpit,
where the pilot can check the locked target of the mis-
sile before launch. A crosshair on the head-up display is
shifted by the pilot to set the approximate target while
the missile will then automatically recognize and lock on
to the target. Once the missile is launched, it requires no
further assistance from the launch vehicle and tracks its
target automatically. This re-and-forget property is not
shared by the E version that uses semi-active laser hom-
ing.[2]
88.3 Variants
An AGM-65 test-red against an M-48 tank (1978)
The most modern versions of the Maverick are the AGM-

65H/K, which were in production as of 2007.[1] The
AGM-65H was developed by coupling the AGM-65B
with a charge-coupled device (CCD) seeker optimized
for desert operations and which has three times the range
of the original TV-sensor;[2][11] a parallel USN program
aimed at rebuilding AGM-65Fs with newer CCD seek- Laser AGM-65 Maverick on a USN F/A-18C, 2004
ers resulted in the AGM-65J.[2] The AGM-65K, mean-
while, was developed by replacing the AGM-65Gs IR Maverick A is the basic model and uses an electro-
guidance system with an electro-optical television guid- optical television guidance system. No longer in
ance system.[1] U.S. service.
Maverick B is similar to the A model, although the
88.2 Design B model added optical zooming to lock onto small
or distant targets.
The Maverick has a modular design construction, allow- Maverick C was to be a laser-guided variant for the
ing a dierent combination of the guidance package and United States Marine Corps (USMC). It was can-
warhead to be attached to the rocket motor section to pro- celed before production, however its requirement
duce a dierent weapon.[1] It has long-chord delta wings was later met by the Maverick E.
316 CHAPTER 88. AGM-65 MAVERICK
Maverick D replaced the electro-optical guidance

with an imaging infrared system which doubled the
practical ring distance and allowed for its use at
night and during bad weather. A reduced smoke
rocket engine was also introduced in this model. It
achieved its initial operation capability in 1983.
Maverick E uses a laser designator guidance system

optimized for fortied installations and heavier pen-
etrating blast-fragmentation warhead (140 kg (300
lb) vs. 57 kg (125 lb) in older models). It achieved
IOC in 1985 and was used mainly by USMC avia-
tion.
An A-10 ring a Maverick missile
Maverick F, designed specially for US Navy, it uses
a modied Maverick D infrared guidance system op-
timized for tracking ships tted onto a Maverick-E In June 1975, during a border confrontation, Iranian
body and warhead. troops red twelve Mavericks, all successful, at Iraqi
tanks.[17] Five years later, during Operation Pearl as part
Maverick G model essentially has the same guid- of the IranIraq War, Iranian F-4s used Mavericks to sink
ance system as the D with some software modica- three OSA II missile boats and four P-6 combat ships.[18]
tion that enables the pilot to track larger targets. The Due to weapons embargoes, Iran had to equip its AH-1J
G models major dierence is its heavier penetrator SeaCobra helicopters with AGM-65 Maverick missiles
warhead taken from the Maverick E, compared to and used them with some success in various operations
the D models shaped-charge warhead. It completed such as Operation Undeniable Victory whereas Iranian
tests in 1988. AH-1Js red 11 Mavericks.[19][20][21]
Maverick H model is an AGM-65B/D missile up- In August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. In early 1991, the
graded with a new charge-coupled device (CCD) US-led Coalition executed Operation Desert Storm during
seeker better suited for the desert environment. which Mavericks played a crucial role in the ousting of
Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Employed by F-15E Strike Ea-
Maverick J model is a Navy AGM-65F missile up- gles, F-18 Hornets, AV-8B Harriers, F-16 Fighting Fal-
graded with the new CCD seeker. However, this cons and A-10 Thunderbolts, but used mainly by the last
conversion is not conrmed. two, more than 5,000 Mavericks were deployed to at-
tack armored targets.[1][22] The most-used variant by the
Maverick K model is an AGM-65G upgraded with USAF was the IIR-guided AGM-65D.[22] The reported
the CCD seeker; at least 1,200, but possibly up to hit rate by USAF Mavericks was 8090%, while for the
2,500 AGM-65G rounds are planned for conversion USMC it was 60%.[2] The Maverick was used again in
to AGM-65K standard.[2] Iraq during the 2003 Iraq War, during which 918 were
red.[9]
Maverick E2/L model incorporates a laser-guided
seeker that allows for designation by the launch air- The rst time the Maverick were red from a Lockheed
craft, another aircraft, or a ground source and can P-3 Orion at a hostile vessel was when the USN and coali-
engage small, fast moving, and maneuvering targets tion units came to the aid of Libyan rebels to engage the
on land and at sea.[12][13] Libyan Coast Guard vessel Vittoria in the port of Misrata,
Libya, during the late evening of 28 March 2011. Vitto-
ria was engaged and red upon by a USN P-3C Maritime
88.4 Deployment Patrol aircraft with AGM-65 Maverick missiles.[23]
The Maverick was declared operational on 30 August

1972 with the F-4D/Es and A-7s initially cleared for the 88.5 Launch platforms
type;[7] the missile made its combat debut four months
later with the USAF in the Vietnam War.[14] During the 88.5.1 United States
Yom Kippur War in October 1973, the Israelis used Mav-
ericks to destroy and disable enemy vehicles.[8] Deploy- LAU-117 Maverick launchers have been used on USN,
ment of early versions of the Mavericks in these two wars USAF, and USMC aircraft:
were successful due to the favorable atmospheric condi-
tions that suited the electro-optical TV seeker.[8] Ninety- Bell AH-1W SuperCobra[24]
nine missiles were red during the two wars, eighty-four
of which were successful.[15][N 1] Boeing AH-64 Apache[4]
88.5. LAUNCH PLATFORMS 317
88.5.2 Export
The Maverick has been exported to at least 30 countries:
Royal Australian Air Force: F/A-18[27]
Belgian Air Component: F-16 (AGM-65G)

Royal Canadian Air Force: CF-18[28]
Chilean Air Force: F-16 AM/BM MLU, F-16

Block 50+
Czech Air Force: L-159[29]
US Navy F/A-18C Hornet armed with AGM-65 Maverick Royal Danish Air Force:[9] F-16
Egyptian Air Force:[9] F-4 and F-16 (AGM-

65A/B/E)
Hellenic Air Force: F-4[26] and F-16 Blocks

30, 50, and 52+
Hungarian Air Force: JAS 39
Indonesian Air Force: F-16A/B Block 15

OCU, Hawk 209
Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force: F-4E[26]
and SH-3D; Islamic Republic of Iran Army Avia-
tion: AH-1J SeaCobra
Israeli Air Force: F-4E[26] and F-16
An IRIAF F-4E Phantom II carrying four AGM-65 Mavericks
Italian Navy:[9] AV-8B
Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet[25] Royal Jordanian Air Force:[9] F-16 MLU and
F-5E/F
Douglas A-4M Skyhawk[26] Kuwait Air Force.[9]
Grumman A-6 Intruder[24] Royal Malaysian Air Force: F/A-18D,[30] and

Hawk 208
Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II[22]
Royal Moroccan Air Force:[9] F-16 Block 52+,
F-5E/F
General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark[24]
Royal Netherlands Air Force: F-16 MLU
General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon[22]
Royal New Zealand Navy: SH-2G;[31] and
Kaman SH-2G Seasprite[24] Royal New Zealand Air Force: A-4 (after being up-
graded in the late 1980s under Project Kahu, retired
Lockheed P-3 Orion[23] 2001)[32]
Pakistan Air Force:[9] F-16

LTV A-7 Corsair II[7]
Polish Air Force: F-16 Block 50/52+
McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II[22]
Portuguese Air Force:[9] F-16A/B Block 15
McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II[7] OCU and F-16AM/BM MLU
Romanian Air Force:[9] F-16A/B Block 15
McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle[22] MLU
McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet[22] Royal Saudi Air Force: F-5E[26]
318 CHAPTER 88. AGM-65 MAVERICK
Serbian Air Force: J-22[33] and G-4[34] [1] AGM-65 Maverick. United States Air Force. 16
November 2007. Archived from the original on 2013-08-
Republic of Singapore Air Force: A-4SU, F- 01. Retrieved 19 December 2011.
5S, F-16C/D Block 52 and F-15SG
[2] Raytheon (Hughes) AGM-65 Maverick. Designation-
systems.net. 7 April 2005. Archived from the original on
Republic of Korea Air Force: FA-50,TA-
2013-10-04. Retrieved 19 December 2011.
50,[35] F-16C/D Block 52D, F-15K, F-4[26]
[3] Bonds & Miller 2002, p. 230.
Spanish Air Force:[9] F/A-18; and Spanish
Navy: AV-8B [4] AGM-65 Maverick (PDF). Raytheon. 2001. Archived
from the original on 2013-11-04. Retrieved 22 December
Swedish Air Force: AJ37[26] JAS 39 2011.
[5] AGM-65 Maverick (PDF). Raytheon. 2007. Archived

Swiss Air Force: F-5E and Hunter[26]
from the original on 2012-07-28. Retrieved 22 December
Republic of China Air Force (Taiwan):[9] F- 2011.
16A/B Block 20 (AGM-65G), and F-5E/F (AGM- [6] Clancy 1995, p. 163.
65B)
[7] Maverick: smarter than average. Flight International.
Royal Thai Air Force:[9] F-16A/B Block 15 23 November 1972. Archived from the original on 2013-
OCU/ADF and JAS 39 11-05. Retrieved 20 December 2011.
Turkish Air Force: F-16 and F-4[26] [8] Clancy 1995, p. 164.
Tunisian Air Force [9] Friedman 2006, p. 562.
[10] Clancy 1995, p. 166.

Royal Air Force: Harrier GR7[36]
[11] Lewis, Paul (30 April 6 May 2002). Raytheon consid-
JMSDF: P-1[37] ers turbojet as part of Maverick missile upgrade package.
Archived from the original on 2014-04-08. Retrieved 21
December 2011.
88.6 See also [12] U.S. Air Force Completes Developmental Testing of
Raytheon Laser-Guided Maverick - Raytheon news re-
Joint Air-to-Ground Missile lease, 9 August 2011
AGM-114 Hellre [13] Laser Maverick Missile Will Hit Pirates - Ainonline.com,
15 February 2012
Kh-29
[14] Clancy 1995, pp. 163164.
C-704
[15] Air-to-ground: Hughes AGM-65 Maverick. Flight In-
ternational. 2 August 1980. Archived from the original
Related lists on 2013-11-05. Retrieved 20 December 2011.
[16] Laur & Llanso 1995, pp. 273274.

[17] Laur & Llanso 1995, p. 274.
List of missiles
[18] Operation Morvarid. Iinavy.org. Archived from the
original on 2012-02-11. Retrieved 22 December 2011.
88.7 References [19] http://axgig.com/images/79016160811542429413.jpg

Archived May 16, 2013 at the Wayback Machine
Notes [20] Welcome Shahed Magazines Archived February 2, 2014
at the Wayback Machine
[1] Laur and Llanso claim that 18 Mavericks were launched
for 13 hits during the Vietnam War from January to Febru- [21] http://www.aja.ir/portal/File/ShowFile.aspx?ID=
ary 1973, while the Israelis launched 50 Mavericks dur- 3b14fc31-0ee4-4e3f-8809-664c181e3b6d Archived
ing the Yom Kippur War for 42 hits and ve deliberate February 3, 2014 at the Wayback Machine
misses.[16]
[22] Elliott, Simon. The Missiles That Worked. Flight Inter-
national. p. 38. Archived from the original on 2014-04-
Citations 08. Retrieved 20 December 2011.
[23] U.S. 6th Fleet Public Aairs (31 March 2011). Navy Clancy, Tom (1995). Ordnance: How Bombs Got
Firsts During Odyssey Dawn. United States European 'Smart'". Fighter Wing. London: HarperCollins.
Command. Archived from the original on 2014-04-09. ISBN 978-0-00-255527-2.
Retrieved 20 December 2011.
Friedman, Norman (2006). The Naval Institute
[24] LAU-117 Maverick Launcher. FAS Military Analysis
guide to world naval weapon systems. Annapo-
Network. 23 April 2000. Archived from the original on
2014-04-08. Retrieved 21 December 2011. lis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-
55750-262-9. Archived from the original on 2014-
[25] F/A-18 fact le. United States Navy. 13 October 2006. 04-09.
December 2011. Karim, Afsir (1996). Indo-Pak relations: view-
points, 19891996. New Delhi: Lancer Publishers.
[26] Hughes AGM-65 Maverick. Flight International. 5
February 1983. p. 324. Archived from the original on ISBN 978-1-897829-23-3.
Laur, Timothy M.; Llanso, Steven L (1995). En-
[27] Karim 1996, p. 71. cyclopedia of modern U.S. military weapons. New
York City: Berkley Books. ISBN 978-0-425-
[28] Technical Specications: CF-188 Hornet. Air-
14781-8.
force.forces.gc.ca. 26 March 2007. Archived from the
[29] L-159 calls the shots in Norway. Flight International.
2329 June 1999. Archived from the original on 2014-
88.8 External links
04-08. Retrieved 21 December 2011.
Video clip of a T50 trainer ring a Maverick
[30] Malaysia asks for more F-18s. Flight International. 14
20 September 1994. Archived from the original on 2014- Video clip detailing the Mavericks operation
04-08. Retrieved 21 December 2011.
[31] Australian navy makes avionics software deal. Flight In-
ternational. 2026 February 2001. Archived from the
[32] Kahu Skyhawk res Maverick. Flight International. 13
May 1989. Archived from the original on 2014-04-08.
Retrieved 21 December 2011.
[33] Soko J-22 Orao Ground Attack and Reconnais-
sance Aircraft, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Airforce-
technology.com. Archived from the original on
[34] Soko G-4 Super Galeb Military Trainer and Ground
Attack Aircraft, Serbia. Airforce-technology.com.
December 2011.
[35] Sung-Ki, Jung (15 February 2008). S. Korea Speeds Up
Air Changes. DefenseNews.com. Retrieved 21 Decem-
ber 2011.
[36] Hoyle, Craig; Hasharon, Ramat (1420 December 2004).
UK considers decoy for Harriers. Flight International.
December 2011.
[37] " (XP-1) ". Technical Research and
Development Institute. 2012-06. Check date values in:
|date= (help)
Bibliography
Bonds, Ray; Miller, David (2002). AGM-65 Mav-

erick. Illustrated Directory of Modern American
Weapons. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zenith Imprint.
ISBN 978-0-7603-1346-6. Archived from the orig-
inal on 2013-05-27.
Chapter 89
AGM-69 SRAM
The Boeing AGM-69 SRAM (Short-range attack mis- of 24 missiles, all internal. The smaller FB-111A could
sile) was a nuclear air-to-surface missile designed to re- carry two missiles internally and four more missiles under
place the older AGM-28 Hound Dog stand-o missile. the aircrafts swing-wing. The externally mounted mis-
siles required the addition of a tailcone to reduce aerody-
The requirement for the weapon was issued by the
Strategic Air Command of the United States Air Force namic drag during supersonic ight of the aircraft. Upon
rocket motor ignition, the missile tailcone was blown
in 1964, and the resultant AGM-69A SRAM contract
was awarded to Boeing in 1966,[1] After delays and tech- away by the exhaust plume.
nical aws during testing,[2] it was ordered into full pro- About 1,500 missiles were built at a cost of about
duction in 1971 and entered service in August 1972.[3] It $592,000 each by the time production ended in 1975.
was carried by the B-52, FB-111A, and, for a very short The Boeing Company sub-contracted with the Lockheed
period starting in 1986, by B-1Bs based at Dyess AFB Propulsion Company for the propellants, which subse-
in Texas. SRAMs were also carried by the B-1Bs based quently closed with the end of the SRAM program.
at Ellsworth AFB in South Dakota, Grand Forks AFB in An upgraded AGM-69B was proposed in the late 1970s,
North Dakota, and McConnell AFB in Kansas up until with an upgraded motor to be built by Thiokol and a W80
late 1993. warhead, but it was cancelled by President Jimmy Carter
SRAM had an inertial navigation system as well as a radar (along with the B-1A) in 1978. Various plans for alterna-
altimeter which enabled the missile to be launched in ei- tive guidance schemes, including an anti-radar seeker for
ther a semi-ballistic or terrain-following ight path. The use against air defense installations and even a possible
SRAM was also capable of performing one major ma- air-to-air missile version, came to nothing.
neuver during its ight which gave the missile the ca- A new weapon, the AGM-131 SRAM II, began develop-
pability of reversing its course and attacking targets that
ment in 1981, intended to arm the resurrected B-1B, but
were behind it, sometimes called an over-the-shoulder it was cancelled in 1991 by President George Bush, along
launch. The missile had a Circular Error Probable (CEP)
with most of the U.S. Strategic Modernization eort (in-
of about 1,400 feet (430 m) and a maximum range of 110 cluding Peacekeeper Mobile (Rail) Garrison, Midgetman
nautical miles (200 km). The SRAM used a single W69 small ICBM and Minuteman III modernization) in an ef-
nuclear warhead with a variable yield of 17 kilotons as a fort by the U.S. to ease nuclear pressure on the disinte-
ssion weapon, or 210 kilotons as a fusion weapon with grating Soviet Union.
Tritium boost enabled. The aircrew could turn a switch
on the Class III command to select the destructive yield In June 1990, Defense Secretary Dick Cheney ordered
required. the missiles removed from bombers on alert pending a
safety inquiry.[4][5] A decade earlier in September 1980,
The SRAM missile was completely coated with 0.8 in A B-52H on alert status at Grand Forks AFB in north-
(2.0 cm) of soft rubber, used to absorb radar energy and eastern North Dakota experienced a wing re that burned
also dissipate heat during ight. The three ns on the tail for three hours, fanned by evening winds of 26 mph (42
were made of a phenolic material, also designed to min- km/h). Fortunately, the wind direction was parallel to
imize any reected radar energy. All electronics, wiring, the fuselage, which likely had SRAMs in the main bay.
and several safety devices were routed along the top of Eight years later, weapons expert Roger Batzel testied
the missile, inside a raceway. to a closed U.S. Senate hearing that a change of wind di-
On the B-52, SRAMs were carried externally on 2 wing rection could have led to a conventional explosion and a
pylons (6 missiles on each pylon) and internally on an widespread scattering of radioactive plutonium.[6]
eight-round rotary launcher mounted in the bomb bay; The AGM-69A was nally retired in 1993 over grow-
maximum loadout was 20 missiles. The capacity of the ing concerns about the safety of its warhead and rocket
B-1B was 8 missiles on up to three rotary launchers (one motor. With the end of the Cold War it is unlikely to
in each of its three stores bays) for a maximum loadout be replaced in the immediate future. There were serious
320
89.3. SEE ALSO 321
concerns about the solid rocket motor, when several mo- Maximum range: 35105 miles (56169 km) de-
tors suered cracking of the propellant, thought to occur pending on ight prole
due to the hot/cold cycling year after year. Cracks in the
propellant could cause catastrophic failure once ignited. Powerplant: 1 Lockheed SR75-LP-1 two stage
solid-fuel rocket motor
The SRAM was eectively replaced by the AGM-86
cruise missile, which has longer range, though easier to Guidance: General Precision/Kearfott KT-76 IMU
intercept. and Stewart-Warner radar altimeter
CEP: 1,400 ft (430 m)
89.1 Service history Warhead: W69 thermonuclear (170-200 kt of
TNT)
The number of AGM-69 missiles in service, by year:
1972 - 227 89.3 See also

1973 - 651 Strategic Air Command
1974 - 1149
1975 - 1451 89.4 References
1976 - 1431
[1] Boeing wins missile contract. The Day (New London,
1977 - 1415 CT). Associated Press. November 2, 1966. p. 26.
1978 - 1408 [2] Missile aws called xed. Toledo Blade. Associated
Press. July 23, 1971. p. 6.
1979 - 1396
[3] Missile study won by Boeing. Spokane Daily Chronicle.
1980 - 1383 Associated Press. October 16, 1972. p. 19.
1981 - 1374 [4] Schaefer, Susanne M. (June 9, 1990). Cheney orders
missiles removed from bombers pending safety inquiry.
1982 - 1332 Schenectady Gazette. Associated Press. p. A1.
1983 - 1327 [5] Some missiles ordered removed. Eugene Register-
Guard. (Washington Post). June 9, 1990. p. 3A.
1984 - 1309
[6] Karaim, Reed (August 13, 1991). A Brush With Nuclear
1985 - 1309 Catastrophe. Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved May 11,
1986 - 1128 2014.
1987 - 1125 Gunston, Bill (1979). Illustrated Encyclopedia of the

1988 - 1138 Worlds Rockets & Missiles. London: Salamander
Books. ISBN 0-517-26870-1
1989 - 1120
1990 - 1048 (deactivated by President George H.W.
Bush)
89.5 External links
Air University and the 42nd Air Base Wing
89.2 Specications Strategic Air Command
Length: 15 ft 10 in (4.83 m) with tail fairing, 14 ft

0 in (4.27 m) without tail fairing
Diameter: 17.5 in (0.44 m).
Wing span: 2 ft 6 in (0.76 m).
Launch weight: 2,230 lb (1,010 kg).
Maximum speed: Mach 3.5
Chapter 90
AGM-79 Blue Eye
The AGM-79 Blue Eye was a missile developed by the

United States of America.
90.1 Overview
The Blue Eye was a development of the AGM-12
Bullpup, intended to provide a more advanced homing
system. The Bullpup was manually steered onto the tar-
get, whereas the guidance system in the Blue Eye was an
optical area correlation seeker. A TV camera in the mis-
siles nose provided an image to the pilot; he used this
to select the target and lock the missile on before ring.
Once launched the area correlation system could detect
any deviation of the picture compared to the locked im-
age and correct the missiles course accordingly.
The Blue Eye used the same airframe as the AGM-
12C/E. A radar altimeter was tted to allow the warhead
to explode in an air burst mode.
Firing trials took place in late 1968, with the prototype
missile designated XAGM-79A. After several years of
development the missile was cancelled in the early 1970s.
90.2 Specications
Wingspan: 4 feet (1.22 m)

Diameter: 1 foot 6 in (0.46 m)
90.3 Operators
United States: The AGM-79 was cancelled be-
fore entering service.
322
Chapter 91
ASM-N-5 Gorgon V
For earlier missiles in the Gorgon series, see Gorgon 91.2 References
(missile family).
Notes
The ASM-N-5 Gorgon V was an unpowered air-to-
surface missile, developed by the Glenn L. Martin Com- [1] One source indicates that the weapon may have been
pany during the early 1950s for use by the United States command-guided based on a television signal from the
Navy as a chemical weapon delivery vehicle. Developed missile.[3]
from the earlier PTV-N-2 Gorgon IV test vehicle, the
program was cancelled without any Gorgon Vs seeing Citations
service.
[1] Parsch 2005
[2] Friedman 1982, p.201.
[3] Fahey 1958, p.32.
91.1 Design and development [4] Gunston 1979, p.121.
Bibliography
The Gorgon V project was begun in 1950 as a project
to develop an air-to-surface missile capable of dispersing
Fahey, James Charles. The Ships and Aircraft of the
chemical warfare agents over a combat area.[1] The de-
U.S. Fleet (7 ed.). Washington, D.C.: Ships and Air-
sign of the missile was contracted to the Glenn L. Mar-
craft Publishers. ASIN B000XG6YU6. Retrieved
tin Company, which used the companys earlier PTV-N-2
2011-02-11.
Gorgon IV ramjet test missile as a basis for the weapons
design.[1] The Gorgon V was to be a long, slender mis- Friedman, Norman (1982). U.S. Naval Weapons:
sile, with swept wings and conventional tail.[1] The Gor- every gun, missile, mine, and torpedo used by the U.S.
gon IVs ramjet engine, slung underneath the missiles Navy from 1883 to the present day. Annapolis, MD:
tail, was replaced in the Gorgon V with a X14A aerosol Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-0-87021-735-7.
generator, developed by the Edo Aircraft Corporation.[2]
Operational use of the Gorgon V was intended to be based of the Worlds Rockets & Missiles. London: Sala-
on two missiles being carried by a launching aircraft.[2] mander Books. ISBN 0-517-26870-1.
These would be released at an altitude of 35,000 feet
(11,000 m), the Gorgon V would be piloted by autopilot Parsch, Andreas (2005). Martin ASM-N-5 Gorgon
in a high-subsonic dive.[2][N 1] Upon reaching an altitude V. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles
of 500 feet (150 m) or less, as measured by a radar altime- Appendix 1: Early Missiles and Drones. designation-
ter, the aerosol generator would be activated, dispersing systems.net. Retrieved 2011-02-11.
chemical agent over an area of up to 12 mi (20 km) by
5.6 mi (9 km).[1]
Development of the Gorgon V continued throughout the
Korean War; in 1953, it was projected that the weapon
would be ready for operational service by 1955.[2] How-
ever later that year, the Gorgon V was cancelled by the
U.S. Navy;[4] it is unknown if any prototype vehicles had
been constructed before the termination of the project.[1]
323
Chapter 92
Bold Orion
The Bold Orion missile, also known as Weapons Sys- motor of the missile itself, allowed the missile to achieve
tem 199B (WS-199B), was a prototype air-launched bal- its maximum range, or, alternatively, to reach space.[9]
listic missile (ALBM) developed by Martin Aircraft dur- A twelve-ight test series of the Bold Orion vehicle was
ing the 1950s. Developed in both one- and two-stage
conducted;[3] however, despite suering only one outright
designs, the missile was moderately successful in testing, failure, the initial ight tests of the single-stage rocket
and helped pave the way for development of the GAM-
proved less successful than hoped.[3] Authorisation was
87 Skybolt ALBM. In addition, the Bold Orion was used received to modify the Bold Orion to become a two-
in early anti-satellite weapons testing, performing the rst
stage vehicle; in addition to the modications improving
interception of a satellite by a missile. the missiles reliability, they increased the range of Bold
Orion to over 1,000 miles (1,600 km).[4][10] Four of the
nal six test rings were of the two-stage vehicle; these
92.1 Design and development were considered completely successful, and established
that the ALBM was a viable weapon.[2][3]
The Bold Orion missile was developed as part of
Weapons System 199, initiated by the United States Air
Force (USAF) in response to the U.S. Navys Polaris 92.2.1 ASAT test
program,[1] with funding authorised by the United States
Congress in 1957.[2] The purpose of WS-199 was the de- The nal test launch of Bold Orion, conducted on Oc-
velopment of technology that would be used in new strate- tober 13, 1959, was a test of the vehicles capabilities
gic weapons for the USAFs Strategic Air Command, in the anti-satellite role.[11][12] Launched from an alti-
not to deliver operational weapons; a primary emphasis tude of 35,000 feet (11,000 m) from its B-47 mother-
was on proving the feasibility of an air-launched ballistic ship, the missile successfully intercepted the Explorer 6
missile.[2][3][4] satellite,[13] passing its target at a range of less than 4
miles (6.4 km) at an altitude of 156 miles (251 km).[2][3]
The designation WS-199B was assigned to the project Had the missile been tted with a nuclear warhead, the
that, under a contract awarded in 1958 to Martin Aircraft, satellite would have been destroyed.[9][14]
would become the Bold Orion missile.[3] The design of
Bold Orion was simple, utilizing parts developed for other The Bold Orion ASAT test was the rst interception of
missile systems to reduce the cost and development time a satellite by any method, [11][15]
proving that anti-satellite mis-
[3]
of the project. The initial Bold Orion conguration was siles were feasible. However this test, along with
a single-stage vehicle, utilising a Thiokol TX-20 Sergeant an earlier, unsuccessful test of the High Virgo missile
solid-fuel rocket. [3][5]
Following initial testing, the Bold in the anti-satellite role, had political repercussions; the
Orion conguration was altered to become a two-stage Eisenhower administration sought to establish space as a
vehicle, an Allegany Ballistics Laboratory Altair upper neutral ground for everyones usage, and the indication
stage being added to the missile.[3][6] of hostile intent the tests were seen to give was frowned
upon, with anti-satellite weapons development being cur-
tailed shortly thereafter.[9][16]
92.2.2 Legacy
Having been given top priority by the Air Force,[7] the
rst ight test of the Bold Orion missile was conducted The results of the Bold Orion project, along with those
on May 26, 1958, from a Boeing B-47 Stratojet carrier from the testing of the High Virgo missile, also devel-
aircraft,[3][8] which launched the Bold Orion vehicle at the oped under WS-199, provided data and knowledge that
apex of a high-speed, high-angle climb.[3][9] The zoom assisted the Air Force in forming the requirements for the
climb tactic, combined with the thrust from the rocket follow-on WS-138A, which would produce the GAM-87
324
Skybolt missile.[3][17] [6] Smith 1981, p.178.
[7] Missiles and Rockets, volume 5. Washington Countdown.

p.9.
92.3 Launch history
[8] Friedman 2000, p.122.
[9] Temple 2004, p.111.
[10] Besserer and Besserer 1959, p.34.
[11] Peebles 1997, p. 65.
[12] Chronology 1961, p.89.
[13] Bowman 1986, p.14.
[14] Bulkeley and Spinardi 1986, p.17.
[15] Hays 2002, p.84.
[16] Lewis and Lewis 1987, pp.9395.
[17] International Aeronautic Federation. Interavia volume 15,

p.814.
[18] Bold Orion. Encyclopedia Astronautica. Accessed 2011-

Bold Orion on B-47 carrier aircraft
01-19.
Bibliography
92.4 See also
1st Session. House Committee On Science And As-
Terra-3 tronautics. U.S. Congress. 87th Congress (1961).
A Chronology of Missile and Astronautic Events.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Oce.
Related development ASIN B000M1F3O0. Retrieved 2011-01-19.
Ball, Desmond (1980). Politics and Force Levels:
Alpha Draco The Strategic Missile Program of the Kennedy Ad-
ministration. Berkely, CA: University of California
High Virgo
Press. ISBN 0-520-03698-0. Retrieved 2011-01-
19.
Comparable weapons Besserer, C.W.; Hazel C. Besserer (1959). Guide to

the Space Age. Englewood Clis. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
ASM-135 ASAT ASIN B004BIGGO6.
GAM-87 Skybolt Bowman, Robert (1986). Star Wars: A Defense

Insiders Case Against the Strategic Defense Initia-
NOTS-EV-2 Caleb tive. Los Angeles: Tarcher Publications. ASIN
B000NQI6B6. Retrieved 2011-01-19.
Bulkeley, Rip; Graham Spinardi (1986). Space
Weapons: Deterrence or Delusion?. Totowa, NJ:
92.5 References Barnes & Noble Books. ISBN 0-389-20640-7. Re-
trieved 2011-01-19.
Citations
Friedman, Norman (2000). Seapower and Space:
[1] Ball 1980, p.226. From the Dawn of the Missile Age to Net-Centric
Warfare. London: Chatham Publishing. ISBN 978-
[2] Yengst 2010, p.37. 1-86176-004-3.
[3] Parsch 2005 Hays, Peter L. (2002). United States Military Space:
Into the Twenty-First Century. INSS Occasional Pa-
[4] Stares 1985, p.109.
pers 42. Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press.
[5] Ordway and Wakeford 1960, p.30. Retrieved 2011-01-19.
326 CHAPTER 92. BOLD ORION
Lewis, John S.; Ruth A. Lewis (1987). Space Re-

sources: Breaking the Bonds of Earth. New York:
Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-06498-5.
Parsch, Andreas (2005). WS-199. Directory of
U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-
Peebles, Curtis (1997). High Frontier: The U.S. Air
Force and the Military Space Program. Washington,
D.C.: Air Force Historical Studies Oce. ISBN
978-0-7881-4800-2. Retrieved 2010-12-28.
Smith, Marcia S. (1981). United States Civilian
Space Programs, 19581978; Report Prepared for
the Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications
1. Washington, DC: Government Printing Oce.
ASIN B000VA45WS.
Stares, Paul B. (1985). The Militarization of Space:
U.S. Policy, 19451984. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell Uni-
versity Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-1810-5.
Temple, L. Parker, III (2004). Shades of Gray: Na-
tional Security and the Evolution of Space Reconnais-
sance. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronau-
tics and Astronautics. ISBN 978-1-56347-723-2.
Yengst, William (2010). Lightning Bolts: First
Manuevering [sic] Reentry Vehicles. Mustang, OK:
Tate Publishing & Enterprises. ISBN 978-1-61566-
547-1.
Yenne, Bill (2005). Secret Gadgets and Strange Giz-
mos: High-Tech (and Low-Tech) Innovations of the
U.S. Military. St. Paul, MN: Zenith Press. ISBN
978-0-7603-2115-7.
Further reading
Armagnac, Alden P. (Jun 1961). U.S. Plans First

Warship In Space. Popular Science (New York:
Popular Science Publishing) 178 (6). Retrieved
2011-01-19.
92.6 External links

Bold Orion ALBM (WS-199B), Gunters Space
Page.
Bold Orion (2 Stage) ALBM (WS-199B), Gunters
Space Page.
Bold Orion, spaceline.org.
Chapter 93
GAM-63 RASCAL
For other uses, see Rascal. MX-776B. 22 X-9 missiles were launched between April
1949 and January 1953.[2]
The GAM-63 RASCAL is a supersonic Air-to-surface
missile that was developed by the Bell Aircraft Com-
pany. The RASCAL was the United States Air Force's 93.2 Design
rst nuclear armed stando missile. The RASCAL was
initially designated the ASM-A-2, then re-designated the In May 1947, the USAAF awarded the Bell Aircraft
B-63 in 1951 and nally re-designated the GAM-63 in Company a contract for the construction of a super-
1955. The name RASCAL was the acronym for RAdar sonic air-to-surface missile [2] compatible with the B-29
SCAnning Link, the missiles guidance system.[1] The Superfortress, the B-36 bomber, and the B-50 Super-
RASCAL project was cancelled in September 1958. fortress bomber. The missile was to have a range of 100
miles.,[1][5][6] Bells development eort was led by Walter
R. Dornberger.[7]
93.1 Development The RASCAL design used the X-9s canard aerodynamic
conguration and a rocket engine derived from the X-
During World War II, Nazi Germany air-launched 1,176 9s rocket-propulsion system.[4] The RASCAL was larger
V-1 missiles from Heinkel He 111 bombers. The United than the X-9 with a fuselage that was 9 feet (2.7 m)
States Army Air Forces (USAAF) studied this weapon longer and 2 feet (0.61 m) larger in diameter. The RAS-
system. Testing was conducted in the United States using CALs ight controls included forward and rear surfaces.
B-17 bombers and the JB-2 Doodle Bug, a locally pro- Forward surfaces include xed horizontal stabilizers and
duced copy of the V-1. Successful testing of this combi- movable dorsal and ventral surfaces. Rear surfaces in-
nation led to the release of requirements to the aerospace clude wings with ailerons and xed dorsal and ventral
industry for an air-to-surface missile on 15 July 1945.[2] stabilizers. The aft lower stabilizer could be folded for
ground handling.
In March 1946 the USAAF began work on Project
Masti, a nuclear armed air-to-surface drone or self- The RASCAL was powered by a XLR67-BA-1 rocket
controlled air-to-surface missile. Northrop Corporation, engine also developed by Bell. The XLR-67 provided
Bell, and Republic Aviation were invited by the US- 10,440 pounds-force (46.4 kN) [8] of thrust using three
AAF to submit proposals for Masti.[3] Bell was awarded vertical in-line thrust chambers. All three thrust cham-
a feasibility study contract by the USAAF on 1 April bers of the XLR67 were operated during the missiles
1946. Bell studied the feasibility of developing a subsonic boost phase which could last up to two minutes. At the
pilot-less bomber carrying a substantial payload over a conclusion of the boost phase the upper and lower cham-
distance of 300 miles (480 km).[4] bers of the XLR-67 were shut down and thrust was sus-
tained by the center chamber alone.[1] Fuel for the XLR-
After 18 months of study, Bell concluded that rocket 67 included 600 US gallons (2,300 l) of white fuming
propulsion was not capable of providing the performance nitric acid oxidizer and 293 US gallons (1,110 l) of JP-
needed to boost the missile the AAF wanted to a range of 4 jet fuel.[1] The oxidizer was stored in a series of tube
300 miles.[4] The range requirement was reduced to 100 bundles instead of a spherical storage tank. It is believed
miles (160 km) (160.9 km) but other technical problems this conguration was chosen because it weighed less than
surfaced.[4] a spherical tank of the same volume. [9] Propellant was
The USAAF started Project MX-776. As a risk re- provided to the thrust chambers by a turbine driven pro-
duction measure, Project MX-776 was divided into two pellant pump. A gas generator powered the propellant
sub projects. The MX-776A development developed the pump. The propellants were glow plug ignited. Bell con-
RTV-A-4 Shrike later re-designated the X-9 as a testbed tracted with Purdue University for the glow plug ignition
for the RASCAL that would be developed under project system. Aerojet provided the pump drive assemblies.[9]
327
328 CHAPTER 93. GAM-63 RASCAL
The GAM-63 used a command guidance control sys- cylinder 3.8 feet (1.2 m) in diameter and 6.25 ft (1.9 m)
tem where the RASCAL was remotely controlled by the long. The USAF also wanted the ability to use the RAS-
bombardier in the launching bomber. The RASCAL CAL as a standard gravity bomb if the missile could not
guidance system was developed jointly by Bell, Federal be readied for launch.[3]
Communications/Radio Corporation of America (RCA) In January 1950, Bell began to study what nuclear war-
and Texas Instruments.[1] The initial version of the con- heads were available for RASCAL.[3] The W-5 Nuclear
trol system provided an accuracy or circular error proba- Warhead was to initially considered. On 20 August
ble (CEP) of 3,000 feet (910 m). Adequate for a missile 1950 the Special Weapons Development Board (SWDB)
equipped with a nuclear weapon.
authorized a W-5/RASCAL integration eort.[3] The
The bomber carrying the missile was modied with an Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was responsible for
additional antenna and equipment at the bombardiers po- developing the fuzing system for the RASCAL warhead.
sition needed to guide the RASCAL. During the ight No provision was made for surface burst at this time.[3] In
to the launch point, the bombardier transferred wind April 1952 fuze development was shifted to Bell which
and navigation data periodically to the missile. Prior to resulted because it was USAF policy to make airframe
launch the bombardier tuned a video relay receiver, alti- contractors responsible for nuclear weapons fuzing since
tude phasing, and adjusted the terminal guidance tracking this system needed to be integrated with the missiles guid-
indicator. Missile control surfaces were also checked to ance system.[3] Bell developed two complete fuzing sys-
make sure they were functional.[1] tems, airburst or surface burst.[3] Then in March 1956 the
Prior to the bomber taking o, the RASCAL was pre- W-5/RASCAL program was canceled.[3]
programmed for a given ight path. The bomber ew In July 1955, the W-27 Nuclear Warhead was considered
along a heading towards the target. A computer in the as a replacement for the W-5 for the RASCAL.[11] USAF
RASCAL tracked the aircraft heading and azimuth to the requirements for the W-27 called for a 2,800 lb (1,300
target and automatically dropped the missile at the launch kg) nuclear warhead with either electronic countermea-
point. After launch, a lanyard connecting the RASCAL sures equipment, infrared countermeasures equipment, or
to the bomber was used to start the missiles rocket en- extra fuel to increase the range of the RASCAL...[3] A de-
gine. In the event the lanyard failed an automatic timer sign for the adaption kit between the W-27 and the RAS-
would count down and start the engine. The RASCAL CAL was completed in January 1957 before the RAS-
was air-launched above 40,000 feet (12,000 m).[1] CAL was canceled.[3]
After launch, the bomber turned away from the target. Three bombers were originally considered as RASCAL
The missile would climb from the launch altitude to launch platforms. The B-29 was removed from front
50,000 feet (15,000 m). Video providing radar imaging line service while the RASCAL was in development.[2] In
of the target would be transmitted back to the bomber. March 1952, the USAF then turned to the B-36 and B-
As the missile approached the target the detail in the radar 47 as RASCAL missile carriers.[4] The B-36 was assigned
video transmitted from the missile improved. The missile rst priority for the RASCAL.[4] The USAF Strategic Air
began a terminal dive about 20 miles from the target.[10] Command did not agree with the decision to use the B-
The command guidance system did not send a directional 47 to carry the RASCAL. SAC wished to substitute the
signal and was not encrypted which made it susceptible to B-47 with the B-50 proposing to eld a single squadron
detection and jamming.[1] each of RASCAL equipped B-50s and B-36s. It was de-
An inertial guidance system developed by Bell was used termined that RASCAL-carrying B-50s would need to be
in the later GAM-63A version of the RASCAL. This based outside the United States because the B-50 would
improved guidance system decreased the CEP of RAS- have less range while carrying the RASCAL.[1] The deci-
CAL to 1,500 feet (457 m).[2] This system received ref- sion to eliminate the B-50 as a RASCAL carrier was not
erence information from the bomber prior to launch.[1] reached until June 1956.[1] A single B-50 was used as a
The accuracy claims of the inertial guidance system have launch platform in support of the RASCAL test program
until 1955. A cradle lowered the RASCAL from the B-
been questioned by sources.,[1][2] This system could also
be used to guide the missile throughout its ight to the 50s bomb bay before launch. The rst powered RAS-
CAL was launched from the test B-50 on 30 September
target.[1]
1952 at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico in the
The RASCALs forward section was interchangeable for United States[1]
dierent targets. Using this capability the RASCAL
could be equipped with nuclear, biological, chemical, In May 1953, 12 DB-36H director-bombers were or-
blast, or incendiary warheads.[3] The requirements for bi- dered from Convair.[1] Each bomber would be equipped
ological and chemical warheads were dropped at the end to carry a single RASCAL missile. The RASCAL occu-
of 1953.[3] On 5 December 1949, requirements for the pied both of the B-36s aft bomb bays where it was carried
RASCAL called for a nuclear warhead weighing between semi-submerged. A portion of the missile was located
3,000 pounds (1,400 kg) and 5,000 pounds (2,300 kg).[3] inside the aircraft and a portion of the missile hung be-
The RASCAL warhead compartment accommodated a low the aircraft. One forward bomb bay was used to hold
equipment required by the RASCALs guidance system. 93.3 Operational history

The retractable antenna for the command guidance sys-
tem was installed in the rear of the aircraft. In early 1956, the USAF limited DB-47E production
[4]
The rst YDB-36H was own on 3 July 1953. Six captive to just two aircraft. In May 1957 the USAF de-
carry ights were own between 31 July 1953 and 16 Au- cided to eld only one instead of two DB-47 squadrons
[4]
gust 1953.[1] The addition of the missile to the B-36 did equipped with the RASCAL missile. Strategic Air
not increase drag or change the handling characteristics Command leadership believed the RASCAL was already
[1][4]
of the bomber.[1] An un-powered RASCAL was dropped obsolete., By December 1957, the USAF 445th
from a YDB-36H on 25 August 1953. On 21 Decem- Bomb Squadron of the USAF 321st Bomb Wing was
ber 1954, a DB-36H was delivered to the Air Force for training with the RASCAL. The rst production RAS-
use in the RASCAL test program at Holloman Air Force CAL was accepted at Pinecastle Air Force Base on 30
[1]
Base, New Mexico in the United States.[1] By June 1955, October 1957. Funding shortages would prevent facil-
at least two missiles had been launched from the B-36 ities from being built at Pinecastle Air Force Base until
and Convair had completed manufacturing modication 1959. In August 1958 a review of the previous 6 months
kits for the 12 planned aircraft. Two kits had been in- RASCAL testing revealed that out of 65 scheduled test
stalled on B-36 aircraft when the USAF decided to carry launches only one launch was a success. More than half
the RASCAL only on the B-47 bomber.[1] of the test launches were canceled and most of the others
were failures.[4]
Before the end of 1952, Boeing received a contract from
the USAF to modify two B-47Bs into prototype RAS- On 29 September 1958 the USAF terminated the RAS-
[1][4]
CAL missile carriers. A removable missile support strut CAL program.,
was installed on the right side of the B-47. Extra in- The AGM-28 Hound Dog replaced the GAM-63 pro-
ternal structure was installed to support the loads of the gram. The rst ight tests of the Hound Dog were in April
strut and missile. While carrying the RASCAL, the B- 1959, and the rst operational Hound Dog was delivered
47 could not carry other weapons.[1] The guidance equip- to the USAF in December 1959. The rst Hound Dog
ment for RASCAL was added to the B-47 bomb bay. The equipped SAC squadron reached initial operational ca-
retractable antenna needed by RASCAL was added to the pability in July 1960. The Hound Dog oered a weapon
rear fuselage.[1] Both aircraft were sent to Holloman Air with nearly ve times the range of the RASCAL, with-
Force Base to support the RASCAL test program. After out command guidance, and without hazardous fuels to
completion of the two DB-47B prototypes, the delays in contend with.
the RASCALs development eectively placed the DB-
47 modication eort on hold until March 1955.[4] Then
in June 1955, Boeing received a contract to modify 30
DB-47Bs to carry the RASCAL.
93.4 Variants
The Strategic Air Command was concerned that exter- ASM-A-2 - RASCAL designation under the USAF
nally mounting the RASCAL and the associated inter- 1947 to 1951 designation system.
nal equipment needed to support the missile would se-
riously degrade the performance of the bomber. The B-63 - RASCAL designation under the USAF 1951
performance impact was great enough to make the B- to 1955 designation system.
47/RASCAL combination of questionable value.[4] SAC
also argued the B-47/RASCAL combination might never XGAM-63 - 75 Prototype RASCALs (Serial Num-
work well. Since the equipment being added to the B-47 bers 53-8195 through 53-8269)[1]
to guide the missile added more complexity to the already
GAM-63A - 58 Production RASCALs (Serial
complex B-47.[4] Then the modication costs required to
Numbers 56-4469 through 56=4506)[1]
carry the RASCAL added nearly $1 million US dollars
to the cost of every B-47.[4] To SAC these costs seemed
premature considering the state of the RASCALs devel-
opment at that time.[4] Finally SAC considered it unwise 93.5 Operator
to commit aircraft and to start training crews before the
missiles development had been completed.[4] United States
The USAF then decided to use the B-47E as a RASCAL United States Air Force
missile carrier. Boeing was contracted to convert two
B-47E into YDB-47E aircraft. The rst YDB-47E ew
in January 1954.[4] The rst successful RASCAL launch
from a DB-47E occurred in July 1955.[1] 93.6 Survivors
RASCAL Test Launches at White Sands Missile
GAM-63 - American Legion Post 170, Midwest
Range
City, Oklahoma, United States.[12]
330 CHAPTER 93. GAM-63 RASCAL
GAM-63 - Air Force Space & Missile Museum, [10] National Museum of the Air Force Website YDB-47E, ,
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, United retrieved on November 22, 2007.
States. This pristine artifact is in sequestered stor-
[11] Federation of American Scientists Website, Complete List
age in Hangar R on Cape Canaveral AFS and cannot of all U.S. Nuclear Weapons, , retrieved on December 8,
be viewed by the general public. 2007.
GAM-63 - Castle Air Museum, Atwater, [12] http://www.facebook.com/pages/
California, United States. American-Legion-Post-170-Midwest-City-OK/
404232636306095?ref=stream
XGAM-63 - National Museum of the United
States Air Force, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
Dayton, Ohio, United States.
93.9 External links
93.7 See also GAM-63 Raskcal Mark Fishers Model Rocket
Headquarters
Aircraft of comparable role, conguration and era Shakit 1/72 scale model of the GAM-63
AGM-28 Hound Dog Bertram Andres Flugzeugmodelle (Airplane Mod-

els)
AGM-69 SRAM
The Brookings Institution RASCAL page
Related lists
Bell ASM-A-2/B-63/GAM-63 Rascal Directory of
List of military aircraft of the United States U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles
List of missiles Rascal Encyclopedia Astronautica
GAM-63 Rascal Federation of American Scientists
93.8 References Declassied Military Records on the GAM-63

RASCAL
[1] Jenkins, Dennis R. (July 1, 2006). Little RASCAL: the rst
stand-o weapon. Airpower, p. 44
[2] Gibson, James N. (1996). Nuclear Weapons of the United
States - An Illustrated History. Schier Publishing. ISBN
0-7643-0063-6.
[3] Hansen, Chuck (1988). U.S. Nuclear Weapons - The Se-
cret History. Aerofax, Arlington Texas. ISBN 0-517-
56740-7
[4] Knaack, Marcelle Size (1988). Encyclopedia of U.S. Air
Force Aircraft and Missile Systems Volume II - Post-
World War II Bombers 1945-1973. Oce of Air Force
History, USAF, Washington D.C. ISBN 0-912799-59-5
[5] Mark Wade, RASCAL, , retrieved on December 6, 2007.
[6] Aeronautical Systems Division History Oce Website
Development to Combat - Additional Technical Develop-
ments Chapter 7, , retrieved on December 6, 2007.
[7] Time Magazine Website. Changes of the week Nov 25,
1957, , retrieved on December 29, 2007.
[8] National Museum of the United States Air Force Web-
site. BELL XGAM-63 RASCAL retrieved on December
26, 2007.
[9] Emresman, C.M. and Boorady Fredrick A. (2007). Bell
Aircraft Company from a Modest Beginning to a Ma-
jor Aerospace Innovator. 43rd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE
Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit 811 July 2007,
Cincinnati, OH
Chapter 94
GAM-87 Skybolt
The Douglas GAM-87 Skybolt (AGM-48 under the tack while they "loitered" awaiting orders. With in-air
1962 Tri-service system) was an air-launched ballistic refuelling, the loiter times were on the order of a day if
missile (ALBM), equipped with a thermonuclear war- need be.
head, developed by the United States during the late
In addition, the inaccuracy of missiles in the 1950s made
1950s. The UK joined the program in 1960, intending them useless as precision strike weapons. They could at-
to use it on their V bomber force. A series of test fail-
tack area targets like cities, but could not reliably and ac-
ures and the development of submarine-launched ballis- curately attack precision strike targets like enemy bomber
tic missiles (SLBMs) eventually led to its cancellation in
bases, hardened command and control centers, naval
December 1962.[1] The UK had decided to base its en- bases, or weapons storage areas. Initially, western bal-
tire 1960s deterrent force on Skybolt, and its cancellation listic missiles could not even reach such targets, which
led to a major disagreement between the UK and US, would be located deep within interior of the Sino-Soviet
known today as the Skybolt Crisis. This was resolved land mass in Asia. Therefore the potential integration
during a series of meetings that led to the Royal Navy of aircraft with the invulnerability of the ballistic missile
gaining the UGM-27 Polaris missile and construction of was an intriguing prospect to 1950s military planners.
the Resolution-class submarines to launch them.
94.1.2 ALBMs
94.1 History
Basing the strike package on aircraft oered a exibility
94.1.1 Background that missiles could not match. For instance, the bombers
could stand o from the targets and wait for instructions
Nuclear weapons theorists had speculated about how to from secure command centers to attack targets that were
integrate the exibility of the manned bomber with the missed in an initial strike. Additionally, the bombers
could use long-range weapons to strike known air de-
invulnerability (in the attack) of the ballistic missile. The
introduction of useful surface-to-air missiles in the 1950s fenses, and then overy them to deliver precision strikes
with freefall nuclear bombs.
rendered ight over enemy territory much more dan-
gerous and had greatly reduced the eective deterrent Secondly, and most importantly, this mode of deploy-
power of a bomber force. Yet the Air Force and mili- ment meant that the strike force was rendered almost in-
tary planners were, in the mid-1950s, reluctant to simply vulnerable. The bombers could y to staging areas well
hand over the nuclear strike capability to missiles. After outside the range of even the longest-legged defenses, and
launch, missiles were no longer under positive control, strike with impunity. This allowed for gradual escala-
could not be recalled or redirected, and would reach their tion and a possible backing down through diplomacy. A
targets within a matter of minutes after the order to re. ground-based missile cannot be used in the same fashion;
Bombers, in comparison, could be re-directed in ight, it is either launched or not. If threatened with a nuclear
and their longer ight times oered greater chance of a strike, this presents their owners with the 'use them or
negotiated settlement during the attack. lose them' predicament.
Furthermore the missiles of the day were all required to For the British, their dilemma was a matter of geogra-
be loaded with their fuels immediately prior to launch, phy and nancial resources. No xed land-based mis-
and they could only be launched from above ground af- sile system could be credibly installed in the British Isles;
ter long pre-launch checkouts. This made them vulnera- they were well within the range of Soviet air strikes. The
ble to attack from the air while they prepared the rst limited land mass available meant it would be relatively
ICBMs, Atlas 1 and Titan 1 were of this type. In contrast, easy for missile sites to be spotted no matter what security
a bomber could be ordered into the air long in advance of measures were taken. Suitable locations for construction
an attack, rendering them eectively invulnerable to at- also carried a social and political cost. Fixed land based
331
332 CHAPTER 94. GAM-87 SKYBOLT
ballistic missile sites need many thousands of acres per icans were given nuclear submarine basing facilities in
squadron (typically ten missiles); and the squadrons need Scotland.[2] Following the agreement the Blue Streak pro-
to be apportioned over many thousands of square miles, gramme was formally cancelled in April 1960 and in May
so that no single attack could conceivably destroy them 1960 an agreement for an initial order of 100 Skybolts
all in one strike. was concluded.[2]
Avro were made an associate contractor to manage the
94.1.3 Development Skybolt programme for the United Kingdom and four dif-
ferent schemes were submitted to nd a platform for the
In 1958 several American contractors demonstrated that missile.[2] A number of dierent aircraft platforms were
large ballistic missiles could be launched from strategic considered including a variant of the Vickers VC10 air-
bombers at high altitude. The use of astronavigation sys- liner and two of the current V bombers, the Avro Vul-
tems for mid-ight corrections of an inertial guidance can and Handley Page Victor.[2] It was decided to use the
platform (astro-inertial guidance), similar to that of the Vulcan to initially carry two missiles each on hardpoints
US Navy's SLBM systems, led to an accuracy similar to outboard of the main landing gear.[2]
that of their existing ground-based missiles.
The US Air Force was interested and began accepting 94.1.4 Tests
bids for development systems in early 1959. Douglas Air-
craft received the prime contract in May, and in turn sub- By 1961, several test articles were ready for testing from
contracted to Northrop for the guidance system, Aerojet USAF B-52 bombers, with drop-tests starting in January.
for the propulsion system, and General Electric for the In January 1961 a Vulcan visited the Douglas plant at
reentry vehicle. The system was initially known as WS- Santa Monica to make sure the modications to the air-
138A and was given the ocial name GAM-87 Skybolt craft were electrically compatible with the missile. In
in 1960. Britain, compatibility trials with mockups started on the
Vulcan.[2] Powered tests started in April 1962, but the
test series went badly, with the rst ve trials ending in
failure of one sort or another. The rst fully successful
ight occurred on December 19, 1962.
94.1.5 Cancellation
By this point the value of the Skybolt system had been
seriously eroded. The US Navys Polaris submarine-
launched ballistic missile had recently gone into service,
with overall capabilities similar to Skybolt, but with loi-
ter times on the order of months instead of hours. Addi-
tionally, the US Air Force itself was well into the pro-
cess of developing the Minuteman missile, whose im-
Skybolt at RAF Museum Cosford Showing the RAF roundel and proved accuracy reduced the need for any bomber at-
the manufacturer (Douglas Aircraft) logo tacks. Robert McNamara was particularly opposed to the
bomber force and repeatedly stated he felt that the combi-
At the same time the Royal Air Force was having prob- nation of SLBMs and ICBMs would render them useless.
lems with their MRBM missile project, the Blue Streak, He pressed for the cancellation of Skybolt as an unneces-
which was long overdue. At the same time, they faced the sary program.
same problems with the dwindling survivability of their The British, on the other hand, had cancelled all other
existing nuclear deterrent, the V bomber eet. The long- projects to concentrate fully on Skybolt. When Mc-
range Skybolt would eliminate the need for both the Blue Namara informed them that they were considering can-
Streak and the Blue Steel II stando missile, then under celling the program in November 1962, a restorm of
development. The Blue Steel II was cancelled in Decem- protest broke out in the House of Commons. Jo Grimond
ber 1959 and the British cabinet had decided in February noted Does not this mark the absolute failure of the pol-
1960 to cancel the Blue Streak. icy of the independent deterrent? Is it not the case that
Prime Minister Macmillan met President Eisenhower in everybody else in the world knew this, except the Conser-
March 1960 and agreed to purchase 144 Skybolts for vative Party in this country?"[3] President Kennedy o-
the RAF. By agreement, British funding for research cially cancelled the program on December 22, 1962.[1]
and development was limited to that required to mod- As the political row grew into a major crisis, an emer-
ify the V bombers to take the missile, but the British gency meeting between parties from the US and UK was
were allowed to t their own warheads and the Amer- called, leading to the Nassau agreement.
94.6. FURTHER READING 333
Over the next few days a new plan was hammered out that [2] Brooks 1982, pp. 114-123
saw the UK purchase the Polaris SLBM, but equipped
[3] Hansard 17 December 1962, SKYBOLT MISSILE
with British warheads that lacked the dual-key system.
(TALKS)", Hansard, 17 December 1962
The UK would thus retain its independent deterrent force,
although its control passed from the RAF largely to the [4] John Dumbrell, A special relationship: Anglo-American
Royal Navy. The Polaris, a much better weapon system relations from the Cold War to Iraq, Palgrave Macmillan,
for the UK, was a major scoop and has been referred to 2006, p. 174
as almost the bargain of the century[4] The RAF kept a
[5] http://archive.is/20120716163108/http://www.af.mil/
tactical nuclear capability with the WE.177 which armed
information/heritage/milestones.asp?dec=1960&sd=01/
V bombers and later the Panavia Tornado force. The 01/1960&ed=12/31/1969
Skybolt Crisis was a major event in the eventual down-
fall of the Macmillan government.
A B-52G launched last XGAM-87A missile down the 94.5.1 Bibliography
Atlantic Missile Range a day after the program was
cancelled.[5] In June 1963, the XGAM-87A was redes- Brookes, Andrew (1982). V Force The History of
ignated as XAGM-48A. Britains Airborne Deterrent. London: Book Club
Associates.
94.2 Description
The GAM-87 was powered by a two-stage solid-fuel
rocket motor. Each B-52 was to carry four missiles, two Neustadt, Richard E. Report to JFK: The Skybolt Cri-
under each wing on side-by-side pylons, while the Avro sis in Perspective. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Vulcan carried one each on smaller pylons. The missile Press, 1999. ISBN 0-8014-3622-2.
was tted with a tailcone to reduce drag while on the py-
lon, which was ejected shortly after being dropped from
the plane. After rst stage burnout, the Skybolt coasted 94.7 External links
for a while before the second stage ignited. First stage
control was by eight movable tail ns, while the second Skybolt, Encyclopedia Astronautica
stage was equipped with a gimballed nozzle.
Guidance was entirely by inertial platform. The current
position was constantly updated from the host aircraft
though accurate xes, meaning that the accuracy of the
platform inside the missile was not as critical.
94.3 Survivors
RAF Museum Cosford, Shropshire
Dayton, Ohio
Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida.
94.4 See also

List of missiles by nation
94.5 References
[1] http://www.af.mil/search/generalsearch.asp?q=skybolt&
site=AFLINK
Chapter 95
High Virgo
The High Virgo, also known as Weapons System 199C 95.2 Operational history
(WS-199C), was a prototype air-launched ballistic mis-
sile (ALBM) jointly developed by Lockheed and the
Convair division of General Dynamics during the late Four test ights of the High Virgo missile were con-
1950s. The missile proved moderately successful and ducted; due to development problems, the rst two did
aided in the development of the later GAM-87 Skybolt not include the inertial guidance system, instead being t-
ALBM; in addition, it was used in early test of anti- ted with a simple autopilot guiding the weapon on a pre-
satellite weapons. programmed course.[1][3] Launched from its B-58 carrier
aircraft at high altitude and supersonic speed, the ini-
tial ight, conducted on September 5, 1958, was a fail-
ure when the missiles controls malfunctioned; the sec-
ond test, three months later, proved more successful, with
the missile ying over a range of nearly 200 miles (320
km). The third ight test, the following June, utilized the
inertial guidance system for the rst time; it, too, was a
successful ight.[1]
As part of the WS-199 project to develop new strategic

weapons for the United States Air Force's Strategic Air
Command, the Lockheed Corporation and the Convair
division of General Dynamics proposed the development 95.2.1 Anti-satellite test
of an air-launched ballistic missile, to be carried by the
Convair B-58 Hustler supersonic medium bomber.[1] In
early 1958 the two companies were awarded a contract The fourth High Virgo missile was utilized in a test mis-
sion intended to demonstrate the capability of the missile
for development of the weapon, designated WS-199C and
given the code-name High Virgo.[2] While the project for use as a satellite interceptor, or anti-satellite missile
(ASAT).[1] the missile, modied with cameras to record
was intended to be strictly a research-and-development
exercise, it was planned that the weapon would be quickly the results of the test, was initially targeted at the Explorer
4 satellite, but due to errors in calculating the satellites
capable of being developed into an operational system if
required.[2] orbit Explorer 5 was targeted instead.[1]
The High Virgo missile was a single-stage weapon, The ASAT test mission, the nal ight of the High Virgo
powered by a solid-fueled Thiokol TX-20 rocket, and missile, was conducted on September 22, 1959; less than
was equipped an advanced inertial guidance system de- a minute after the launch of the missile from its B-58 car-
rived from that of the AGM-28 Hound Dog cruise mis- rier aircraft at Mach 2,[4] the telemetry signal was lost.[5]
sile.[3] Four tailns in a cruciform arrangement pro- No data was recovered from the test, and the camera
vided directional control.[1] The missile was developed data, intended to be recovered afterward, was not located;
by Lockheed, utilising components developed for several therefore the test was inconclusive.[1]
existing missiles in order to reduce the cost of the project, No further test rings of High Virgo were conducted,
and also to reduce the development time required, while the research project having been concluded. However
Convair was responsible for development of a pylon for the Air Force was already undertaking work on what
carriage and launching of the missile from the prototype would become the GAM-87 Skybolt missile, which in-
B-58, the pylon replacing the aircrafts normal weapons corporated lessons learned from the WS-199 project in
pod.[1] its construction.[1]
334
95.3 Launch history Temple, L. Parker, III (2004). Shades of Gray: Na-
tional Security and the Evolution of Space Reconnais-
sance. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronau-
95.4 See also tics and Astronautics. ISBN 978-1-56347-723-2.
Terra-3
Yengst, William (2010). Lightning Bolts: First
Manuevering [sic] Reentry Vehicles. Mustang, OK:
Tate Publishing & Enterprises. ISBN 978-1-61566-
Related development 547-1.
Yenne, Bill (2005). Secret Gadgets and Strange Giz-

Alpha Draco
mos: High-Tech (and Low-Tech) Innovations of the
Bold Orion U.S. Military. St. Paul, MN: Zenith Press. ISBN
978-0-7603-2115-7.
Comparable weapons
ASM-135 ASAT
GAM-87 Skybolt
NOTS-EV-2 Caleb
95.5 References
Notes
[1] Altitude at which telemetry was lost.[5]
Citations
[1] Parsch 2005
[2] Yengst 2010, p.37.
[3] McMurran 2008, p.266
[4] Temple 2004, p.111.
[5] Yenne 2005, p.67.
[6] High Virgo. Encyclopedia Astronautica. Accessed 2011-

01-19.
Bibliography
McMurran, Marshall William (2008). Achieving

Accuracy: A Legacy of Computers and Missiles.
Bloomington, IN: Xlibris. ISBN 978-1-4363-8107-
9. Retrieved 2011-10-03.
Parsch, Andreas (20058). WS-199. Directory

systems.net. Retrieved 2010-12-28. Check date
values in: |date= (help)
Chapter 96
AGM-123 Skipper II
AGM-123 Skipper II is a short-range laser-guided mis-

sile developed by the United States Navy.
96.1 Overview
The Skipper is a short range missile intended for precision
strikes. It is composed of a Mark 83 bomb, tted with a
Paveway kit, and an attached rocket propulsion system to
allow it to be dropped at greater distances from the target.
Tandem mounted Mk 78 solid propellant rockets which
both re simultaneously on launch provide propulsion.
The increased range of the weapon compared to a free-
fall bomb gives the delivery aircraft a degree of protection
from surface-to-air-missiles and anti-aircraft artillery in
the vicinity of the target. The Skipper was intended as an
anti-ship weapon, capable of disabling the largest vessels
due to the powerful 1000 lb (450 kg) impact fuzed war-
head of the Mk 83 bomb. It could be carried by the A-6E
Intruder, A-7 Corsair II, and F/A-18.
The AGM-123 was developed at the China Lake Naval
Weapons Center.
96.2 External links

Designation systems - Emerson Electric AGM-123
Skipper II
Federation of American Scientists - AGM-123
Skipper II
336
Chapter 97
Harpoon (missile)
The Harpoon is an all-weather, over-the-horizon, anti- The Harpoon has also been adapted for carriage on sev-
ship missile system, developed and manufactured by eral aircraft, such as the P-3 Orion, the A-6 Intruder, the
McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing Defense, Space & Se- S-3 Viking, the AV-8B Harrier II, and the F/A-18 Hor-
curity). In 2004, Boeing delivered the 7,000th Harpoon net and U.S. Air Force B-52H bombers. Harpoon was
unit since the weapons introduction in 1977. The missile purchased by many American allies, including Pakistan,
system has also been further developed into a land-strike Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, the United Arab
weapon, the Stando Land Attack Missile (SLAM). Emirates and most NATO countries. It has been carried
by several U.S. Air Force aircraft, including the B-52H
The regular Harpoon uses active radar homing, and a low-
level, sea-skimming cruise trajectory to improve surviv- bomber and F-16 Fighting Falcon.
ability and lethality. The missiles launch platforms in- The Royal Australian Air Force is capable of ring
clude: AGM-84 series missiles from its F/A-18F Super Hornets,
F/A-18A/B Hornets, and AP-3C Orion aircraft, and pre-
Fixed-wing aircraft (the AGM-84, without the viously from the now retired F-111C/Gs. The Royal Aus-
solid-fuel rocket booster) tralian Navy deploys the Harpoon on major surface com-
batants and in the Collins-class submarines. The Spanish
Surface ships (the RGM-84, tted with a solid-fuel Air Force and the Chilean Navy are also AGM-84D cus-
rocket booster that detaches when expended, to al- tomers, and they deploy the missiles on surface ships,
low the missiles main turbojet to maintain ight) and F/A-18s, F-16s, and P-3 Orion aircraft. The British
Royal Navy deploys the Harpoon on several types of sur-
Submarines (the UGM-84, tted with a solid-fuel face ship.
rocket booster and encapsulated in a container to en-
able submerged launch through a torpedo tube);
Coastal defense batteries, from which it would be

red with a solid-fuel rocket booster.
97.1 Development
In 1965 the U.S. Navy began studies for a missile in the
45 km (25 nm) range class for use against surfaced sub-
marines. The name Harpoon was assigned to the project
(i.e. a harpoon to kill whales, a naval slang term for
submarines). The sinking of the Israeli destroyer Eilat The Canadian frigate HMCS Regina res a Harpoon anti-ship
in 1967 by a Soviet-built Styx anti-ship missile shocked missile during a Rim of the Pacic (RIMPAC) sinking exercise
senior United States Navy ocers, who until then had
not been conscious of the threat posed by anti-ship mis- The Royal Canadian Navy carries Harpoon missiles on its
siles. In 1970 Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Elmo Halifax-class frigates. The Royal New Zealand Air Force
Zumwalt accelerated the development of Harpoon as part is looking at adding the capability of carrying a stand-
of his Project Sixty initiative, hoping to add much o missile, probably Harpoon or AGM-65 Maverick, on
needed striking power to US surface combatants. Har- its six P-3 Orion patrol planes once they have all been
poon was primarily developed for use on US Navy war- upgraded to P3K2 standard.
ships such as the Ticonderoga-class cruiser as their prin- The Republic of Singapore Air Force also operates ve
cipal anti-ship weapon system. modied Fokker 50 Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA)
337
338 CHAPTER 97. HARPOON (MISSILE)
which are tted with the sensors needed to re the Har- 97.1.3 Harpoon Block 1J
poon missile. The Pakistani Navy carries the Harpoon
missile on its naval frigates and P-3C Orions. The Turkish Block 1J was a proposal for a further upgrade,
Navy carries Harpoons on surface warships and Type 209 AGM/RGM/UGM-84J Harpoon (or Harpoon 2000), for
submarines. The Turkish Air Force will be armed with use against both ship and land targets.
the SLAM-ER.
At least 339 Harpoon missiles were sold to the Republic
of China Air Force (Taiwan) for its F-16 A/B Block 97.1.4 Harpoon Block II
20 eet and the Taiwanese Navy, which operates
four guided-missile destroyers and eight guided-missile
frigates with the capability of carrying the Harpoon, in-
cluding the eight former U.S. Navy Knox-class frigates
and the four former USN Kidd-class destroyers which
have been sold to Taiwan. The two Zwaardvis/Hai Lung
submarines and 12 P-3C Orion aircraft can also use the
missile. The eight Cheng Kung-class frigate, despite be-
ing based on the US Oliver Hazard Perry-class class, have
Harpoon capabilities deleted from their combat systems,
and funding to restore it has so far been denied.
The Block 1 missiles were designated
AGM/RGM/UGM-84A in US service and UGM- Loading Mk 141 canister launcher
84B in the UK. Block 1B standard missiles were
designated AGM/RGM/UGM-84C, Block 1C missiles
In production at Boeing facilities in Saint Charles, Mis-
were designated AGM/RGM/UGM-84D. Block 1
souri, is the Harpoon Block II, intended to oer an
used a terminal attack mode that included a pop-up to
expanded engagement envelope, enhanced resistance
approximately 1800m before diving on the target; Block
to electronic countermeasures and improved targeting.
1B omitted the terminal pop-up; and Block 1C provided
Specically, the Harpoon was initially designed as an
a selectable terminal attack mode.[2]
open-ocean weapon. The Block II missiles continue
progress begun with Block IE, and the Block II missile
provides the Harpoon with a littoral-water anti-ship ca-
pability.
97.1.1 Harpoon Block 1D The key improvements of the Harpoon Block II are
obtained by incorporating the inertial measurement
unit from the Joint Direct Attack Munition program,
This version featured a larger fuel tank and re-attack ca-
and the software, computer, Global Positioning Sys-
pability, but was not produced in large numbers because
tem (GPS)/inertial navigation system and GPS an-
its intended mission (warfare with the Warsaw Pact coun-
tenna/receiver from the SLAM Expanded Response
tries of Eastern Europe) was considered to be unlikely fol-
(SLAM-ER), an upgrade to the SLAM.
lowing the events of 199192. Range is 278 km. Block
1D missiles were designated RGM/AGM-84F. In Block The US Navy awarded a $120 million contract to Boe-
1D ing in July 2011 for the production of about 60 Block
II Harpoon missiles, including missiles for 6 foreign
militaries.[1] Boeing lists 30 foreign navies as Block II
customers.[1]
India acquired 24 Harpoon Block II missiles to arm its
97.1.2 SLAM ATA (Block 1G) maritime strike Jaguar ghters in a deal worth $170 mil-
lion through the Foreign Military Sales system.[4] In De-
This version, under development, gives the SLAM a re- cember 2010, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency
attack capability, as well as an image comparison capa- (DSCA) notied U.S. Congress of a possible sale of 21
bility similar to the Tomahawk cruise missile; that is, the additional AGM-84L HARPOON Block II Missiles and
weapon can compare the target scene in front of it with associated equipment, parts and logistical support for a
an image stored in its on-board computer during termi- complete package worth approximately $200 million; the
nal phase target acquisition and lock on (this is known as Indian government intends to use these missiles on its
DSMAC).[3] Block 1G missiles AGM/RGM/UGM-84G; Indian Navy P-8I Neptune maritime patrol aircraft.[5]
the original SLAM-ER missiles were designated AGM- Indian Navy is also planning to upgrade the eet of four
84H (2000-2002) and later ones the AGM-84K (2002 submarines Shishumar class submarine with tube-
onwards). launched Harpoon missiles.[6]
97.3. OPERATORS 339
Harpoon Block 2 missiles are designated Jagvivek, a 250 ft (76 m) long Indian-owned ship, dur-
AGM/RGM/UGM-84L. ing an exercise at the Pacic Missile Range near Kauai,
Hawaii. A Notice to Mariners had been issued warn-
ing of the danger, but Jagvivek left port before receiving
97.1.5 Harpoon Block III the communication and subsequently strayed into the test
range area, and the Harpoon missile, loaded just with an
Harpoon Block III was intended to be an upgrade pack- inert dummy warhead, locked onto it instead of its in-
age to the existing USN Block 1C missiles and Com- tended target.
mand Launch Systems (CLS) for guided-missile cruis-
In June 2009, it was reported by an American newspaper,
ers, guided-missile destroyers, and the F/A-18E/F Super
citing unnamed ocials from the Obama administration
Hornet ghter aircraft. After experiencing an increase
and the U.S. Congress, that the American government
in the scope of required government ship integration, test
had accused Pakistan of illegally modifying some older
and evaluation, and a delay in development of a data-link,
Harpoon missiles to strike land targets. Pakistani ocials
the Harpoon Block III program was canceled by the U.S.
denied this and they claimed that the US was referring
Navy in April 2009.
to a new Pakistani-designed missile. Some international
experts were also reported to be skeptical of the accu-
sations. Robert Hewson, editor of Janes Air Launched
97.2 Operational history Weapons, pointed out that the Harpoon is not suitable for
the land-attack role due to deciency in range. He also
Block I coastal missile defense system truck, in ser- stated that Pakistan was already armed with more sophis-
vice in the Danish Navy 19882003. ticated missiles of Pakistani or Chinese design and, there-
fore, beyond the need to reverse-engineer old US kit.
A Harpoon missile is launched from the Hewson oered that the missile tested by Pakistan was
Ticonderoga-class cruiser USS Shiloh during a part of an undertaking to develop conventionally armed
live-re exercise in 2014. missiles, capable of being air- or surface-launched, to
counter its rival Indias missile arsenal.[12][13][14] It was
later stated that Pakistan and the US administration had
In 1981 and 1982 there were two accidental launches of
reached some sort of agreement allowing US ocials to
Harpoon missiles. One by the USN and another by the
inspect Pakistans inventory of Harpoon missiles,[15][16]
Danish Navy, which destroyed and damaged buildings in
and the issue had been resolved.[17]
the recreational housing area Lumss. The Danish mis-
sile was later known as the hovsa-missile (hovsa being the
Danish term for oops).
97.3 Operators
In November 1980 during Operation Morvarid Iranian
missile boats attacked and sank two Iraqi Osa-class mis-
sile boats; one of the weapons used was the Harpoon mis- Australia
sile.
In 1986, the United States Navy sank at least two Libyan Royal Australian Air Force
patrol boats in the Gulf of Sidra. Two Harpoon mis-
siles were launched from the USS Yorktown with no con- F/A-18 Hornet
rmed results and several others from A-6 Intruder air- F/A-18F Super Hornet
craft that were said to have hit their targets.[7][8] Initial AP-3C Orion
reports claimed that the USS Yorktown scored hits on a
patrol boat, but action reports indicated that the target Royal Australian Navy
may have been a false one and that no ships were hit by
Adelaide class frigate
those missiles.[9]
Anzac class frigate
In 1988, Harpoon missiles were used to sink the Iranian
frigate Sahand during Operation Praying Mantis. An- Collins class submarine
other was red at the Kaman-class missile boat Joshan,
but failed to strike because the fast attack craft had al- Belgium
ready been mostly sunk by RIM-66 Standard missiles.
An Iranian-owned Harpoon missile was also red at the
guided missile cruiser USS Wainwright. The missile was Belgian Navy
successfully lured away by cha.[10] Karel Doorman class frigate
In December 1988, a Harpoon launched by an F/A-18
Hornet ghter from the aircraft carrier USS Constella- Brazil
tion[11] killed one sailor when it struck the merchant ship
Ivar Huitfeldt class frigate
Egypt
Egyptian Air Force

Egyptian Navy
Germany
German Navy
Sachsen class frigate (F124)
Bremen class frigate (F122)
Greece
Hellenic Navy
Elli class frigate
Hydra class frigate
Type 209 submarine, Glafkos class (1100) and
Poseidon class (1200)
Australia Anzac-class frigate, HMAS Toowoomba
Papanikolis Type 214 class submarine
Brazilian Air Force Iran

P-3AM
Islamic Republic of Iran Navy (nearly retired, most

Canada replaced by Russian-made AS-20 and Chinese-
made C-802 ASMs)
Royal Canadian Air Force

Israel
CF-18 Hornet
CP-140 Aurora
Israeli Air Force
Royal Canadian Navy
Israeli Navy
Halifax class frigate
India
Chile
Indian Navy
Chilean Navy
Boeing P-8I Neptune
Chilean Air Force
Shishumar class submarine (Type-209)[18]
Denmark Indian Air Force

Jaguar aircraft
Royal Danish Navy
Japan
Absalon class support ship
97.3. OPERATORS 341
Japan Maritime Self Defense Force Republic of Singapore Air Force
Republic of Singapore Navy

Republic of Korea
Spain
Republic of Korea Air Force
F-15K Spanish Air Force
KF-16
Spanish Navy
Republic of Korea Navy
Sejong the Great Class destroyer Taiwan
Chungmugong Yi Sun-shin class destroyer
Gwanggaeto the Great class destroyer Republic of China Air Force
Son Won-Il class Submarine
Republic of China Navy
Chang Bogo class Submarine
Malaysia
Royal Malaysian Air Force
Mexico
Mexican Navy
Netherlands
Royal Netherlands Navy

British Type 23 frigate HMS Iron Duke ring a Harpoon
Pakistan
Thailand
Pakistan Navy
Poland Royal Thai Navy
Turkey
Polish Navy
Portugal Turkish Air Force
Turkish Navy
Portuguese Navy
Saudi Arabia
United Kingdom
Royal Saudi Navy

Royal Navy
Singapore
Royal Air Force (retired)
United States
United States Navy
United States Coast Guard(retired)
AGM-84D being prepared for P-3 Orion weapons pylon.
Air-launched: 3.8 metres (12 ft)

Surface and submarine-launched: 4.6 me-
tres (15 ft)
Weight:
Air-launched: 519 kilograms (1,144 lb)

Submarine or ship launched from box or
canister launcher: 628 kilograms (1,385 lb)
Diameter: 340 millimetres (13 in)

Harpoon Block II test ring from USS Thorn.
Wing span: 914 millimetres (36.0 in)
Maximum altitude: 910 metres (2,990 ft) with

booster ns and wings
Range: Over-the-horizon (approx 50 nautical

miles)
AGM-84D (Block 1C): 220 km (120 nmi)

RGM/UGM-84D (Block 1C): 140 km (75
nmi)
AGM-84E (Block 1E) : 93 km (50 nmi)
AGM-84F (Block 1D): : 315 km (170 nmi)
RGM-84F (Block 1D): 278 km (150 nmi).
RGM/AGM-84L (Block 2): 278 km (150
nmi)
AGM-84H/K (Block 1G / Block 1J): 280 km
UGM-84 submarine launch (150 nmi)
Speed: High subsonic, around 850 km/h (460

Primary function: Air-, surface-, or submarine- knots, 240 m/s, or 530 mph)
launched anti-surface (anti-ship) missile
Guidance: Sea-skimming cruise monitored by
Contractor: The McDonnell Douglas Astronautic radar altimeter, active radar terminal homing
Company East
Warhead: 221 kilograms (487 lb), penetration
Power plant: Teledyne CAE J402 turbojet, high-explosive blast
660 lb (300 kg)-force (2.9 kN) thrust, and a Unit cost: US$527,416
solid-propellant booster for surface and submarine
launches Date deployed:
Length: Ship-launched (RGM-84A): 1977

Air-launched (AGM-84A): 1979 [13] Redi.com / PTI. Pakistan illegally modied Harpoon
missile: Report. August 30, 2009.
Submarine-launched (UGM-84A): 1981
SLAM (AGM-84E): 1990 [14] The Times of India / PTI. Harpoon missile modication
by Pak very serious: US. September 1, 2009.
SLAM-ER (AGM-84H): 1998 (delivery);
2000 (initial operational capability (IOC)) [15] Dawn News. http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/
SLAM-ER ATA (AGM-84K): 2002 (IOC) connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/
09-pakistan-allows-us-to-inspect-harpoons--szh-11
[16] India TV News. http://www.indiatvnews.com/main/

97.5 See also newsdetails.php?id=3479&pg=index
[17] http://thenews.jang.com.pk/updates.asp?id=87764
Exocet
[18] US agrees to sell 22 Harpoon missiles to India for $200
Brahmos Mn. IANS. news.biharprabha.com. Retrieved 3 July
2014.
Sea Eagle
RBS-15
97.7 External links
SS-N-25
C-802 Ocial Harpoon information Boeing website
Type 90 Ship-to-Ship Missile Detailed information of all Harpoon versions and

upgrades From Encyclopedia Astronautica
Long Range Anti-Ship Missile
AGM-84 variants
McDonnell-Douglas AGM-84A Harpoon and

97.6 References AGM-84E SLAM
[1] Backgrounder Harpoon Block II. Boeing. Retrieved FAS Harpoon article
2014-05-11.
Global Security Harpoon article
[2] Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. An-
dreas Parsch. Boeing Harpoon Block III Press Release
[3] Global Security Harpoon article Boeing Harpoon Block II Backgrounder
[4] Military pacts on hold but India, US continue with exer- Royal Netherlands Navy launches Harpoons from
cises, arms deals. The Times Of India. September 22, new frigate HMS De Ruyter (Defense-Aerospace)
2010.
[5] India to Receive AGM-84L HARPOON Block II Mis-

siles Worth $200 Million. defpro.com. December 23,
2010.
[6] Navy plans missiles for four submarines. Jun 20, 2012.
[7] Time (magazine). High-Tech Firepower. April 7, 1986.
[8] Ronald Reagan. Letter to the Speaker of the House of

Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the
Senate on the Gulf of Sidra Incident. March 26, 1986.
[9] The New York Times. PENTAGON REVISES LIBYAN

SHIP TOLL. March 27, 1986.
[10] The New York Times. U.S. STRIKES 2 IRANIAN OIL

RIGS AND HITS 6 WARSHIPS IN BATTLES OVER
MINING SEA LANES IN GULF. April 19, 1988.
[11] The New York Times / AP. U.S. Rocket Hits Indian Ship
Accidentally, Killing Crewman. December 13, 1988.
[12] The New York Times. US Says Pakistan Made Changes

to Missiles Sold for Defense August 29, 2009
Chapter 98
UGM-89 Perseus
For the Anglo-French supersonic cruise missile, see missile warhead payload would be a new 21-inch (533
Perseus (missile). mm) diameter homing torpedo to be developed concur-
rently with the UGM-89 Perseus missile.[2][5]
The UGM-89 Perseus was a proposed U.S. Navy By 1971, the STAM project had evolved into a long-
submarine-launched anti-ship (AShM) and anti- range advanced cruise missile (ACM) program capable
submarine (ASW) cruise missile that was developed of undertaking a variety of combat missions, including
under the Submarine Tactical Missile (STAM) project, strategic nuclear strike (see table below).[4] The proposed
which was also referred to as the Submarine Anti-ship ACM versions of the UGM-89 Perseus STAM would use
Weapon System (STAWS). This missile system was a slightly enlarged launch tube (40 x 400 inches, or 101.6
to be the centerpiece for a proposed third-generation x 1016 cm), and 1979 would have been the date for its
nuclear-powered cruise missile submarine championed initial operational capability (IOC).[4]
by then-Vice Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, the in-
uential but controversial head of the Navys nuclear
propulsion program.[3][4] 98.3 Cancellation
The UGM-89 Perseus missile system was cancelled in
98.1 Development 1973, and its proposed nuclear-powered cruise missile
submarine platform was ocially cancelled in 1974, with
The Navy issued the STAM requirement in March 1969, the Navy deciding to build the less expensive Los Angeles-
and the Lockheed Missiles and Space Company (LMSC) class nuclear-powered attack submarines, which would
responded to this proposal, which included the forma- subsequently carry both the Harpoon and Tomahawk
tion of an undersea warfare program organization in cruise missiles.[2][3][4][5] The ASW component of the
Sunnyvale, California.[1][2][5] It is unclear if this was to UGM-89 Perseus would later serve as the baseline for the
be an entirely new organization or part of the Lockheed proposed Sea Lance stand-o ASW missile system.[4][6]
Underwater Missile Facility (LUMF) which had been re-
sponsible for the design and development of the Polaris,
Poseidon, and Trident submarine-launched strategic bal- 98.4 See also
listic missile (SLBM) systems for the U.S. Navy.[7]
In February 1970, the missile designation ZUGM-89A BGM-109 Tomahawk
Perseus was reserved for the U.S. Navy presumably for
the STAM/STAWS missile development program.[5][8] RUR-5 ASROC
UGM-84 Harpoon
98.2 Design overview UUM-44 SUBROC

UUM-125 Sea Lance
Because of its large size, the UGM-89 Perseus missile
could not be launched from the Navys standard 21-inch
(533 mm) submarine torpedo tubes, but would be car-
ried in a vertical launch system (VLS) housed within the
98.5 Notes
proposed cruise missile submarines hull. Twenty VLS
[1] Lockheeds Tactical Undersea Missile. Flight Interna-
tubes would be located in a separate compartment sit-
tional. 29 May 1969. p. 911. Retrieved 2009-08-26.
uated between the submarines operations and reactor
compartments.[3][4] The individual launcher tube would [2] UGM-89 Perseus. Directory of US Military Rockets
be 30 x 300 inches (76.2 x 762 cm) in dimension.[4] The and Missiles. 24 October 2002. Retrieved 2009-08-26.
344
[3] Polmar, Norman; J.K. Moore (2004). Cold War Sub-

marines: The Design and Construction of U.S. and So-
viet Submarines. Washington, DC: Potomac Books, Inc.
pp. 274275, 376n40. ISBN 1-57488-530-8. Retrieved
2009-08-26.
[4] Friedman, Norman (1994). U.S. Submarines Since 1945:

An Illustrated Design History. Annapolis, Maryland:
Naval Institute Press. pp. 270271. ISBN 1-55750-260-
9. Retrieved 2009-08-26.
[5] UGM-89 Perseus. Encyclopedia Astronautica. Re-

trieved 2009-08-26.
[6] Boeing RUM/UUM-125 Sea Lance. Directory of US

Military Rockets and Missiles. 28 May 2002. Retrieved
2009-08-26.
[7] Francillon, Ren J. (1988). Lockheed Aircraft since 1913.

Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. pp. Ap-
pendix D, p. 558564. ISBN 0-87021-897-2.
[8] Missile Design Series. Military. GlobalSecurity.org. 2

March 2009. Retrieved 2009-08-26.
98.6 References
Francillon, Ren J. (1988). Lockheed Aircraft since
1913. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press.
ISBN 0-87021-897-2.
Friedman, Norman (1994). U.S. Submarines Since

1945: An Illustrated Design History. Annapolis,
Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-55750-
260-9.
Polmar, Norman; J.K. Moore (2004). Cold War

Submarines: The Design and Construction of U.S.
and Soviet Submarines. Washington, DC: Potomac
Books, Inc. ISBN 1-57488-530-8.
98.7 External links

UGM-89 Perseus - Directory of US Military Rock-
ets and Missiles
UGM-89 Perseus - Harpoon series

UGM-89 Perseus - Encyclopedia Astronautica
Missile Design Series - GlobalSecurity.org

Lockheeds Tactical Undersea Missile - Flight In-
ternational - May 29, 1969
Chapter 99
AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER
The AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER (Stando Land Attack F-15K Slam Eagle, has been capable of launching and
Missile-Expanded Response) is a precision-guided, air- controlling the SLAM-ER since 2006 in test exercises.[7]
launched cruise missile produced by Boeing Defense,
Space & Security for the United States Armed Forces
and their allies. Developed from the AGM-84E SLAM 99.2 Users
(Stando Land Attack Missile), the SLAM-ER is ca-
pable of attacking land and sea targets at medium-
Saudi Arabia[8]
to-long-ranges (155 nautical miles/250 km maximum).
The SLAM-ER relies on the Global Positioning System South Korea[9]
(GPS) and infrared imaging for its navigation and control,
and it can strike both moving and stationary targets. Turkey[10]
The SLAM-ER, can be remotely controlled while in United Arab Emirates[8]
ight, and it can be redirected to another target after
launch if the original target has already been destroyed, or United States of America
is no longer considered to be dangerous (command guid-
ance).[1][4] The SLAM-ER is a very accurate weapon, as
of 2009 it had the best circular error probable (CEP) of 99.3 References
any missile used by the U.S. Navy.[1]
[1] SLAM-ER Missile. The US Navy Fact File. United
States Navy, 20 Feb. 2009. Web. 22 July 2013.
99.1 History [2] Parsch, Andreas. AGM/RGM/UGM-84. Directory of
U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. 2008. Web. 22 July
The SLAM-ER obtained initial operating capability in 2013.
June 2000. A total of three SLAM-ER missiles were
red by the U.S. Navy during the Iraq War,[5] and the [3] AGM-84 Harpoon / SLAM [Stand-O Land Attack
Missile."] Military Analysis Network. Federation of
missile was also used during Operation Enduring Free-
American Scientists, 22 July 2013. Web. 22 July 2013.
dom in Afghanistan.
The General Electric Company provides an Automatic [4] Boeing SLAM-ER Home: Overview
Target Recognition Unit (ATRU) for the SLAM-ER[6] [5] Cordesman, Anthony H. The Iraq War: Strategy, Tactics,
that processes prelaunch and postlaunch targeting data, and Military Lessons. (Washington: CSIS Press, 2003)
allows high speed video comparison (DSMAC), and en- 296.
ables the SLAM-ER to be used in a true "re and for-
get" manner. It also includes a "man-in-the-loop" mode, [6] GE - Automatic Target Recognition Unit (ATRU)
where the pilot or weapons system ocer can designate
[7] Boeing: F-15K Makes History with SLAM-ER Re-
the point of impact precisely, even if the target has no dis- lease. St. Louis: 27 Mar 2006. Web. Accessed 15 Jan
[4]
tinguishing infrared signature. It can be launched and 2013.
controlled by a variety of aircraft including the F/A-18
Hornet, F/A-18 Super Hornet, and P-3C Orion, as well [8] Washington Beef up the Gulf States with 10,000 Strike
as by the U.S. Air Force's F-15E Strike Eagle. Before the Weapons Worth US$10 Billion. Defense Update. 17 Oc-
retirement of the S-3B Viking, it was also able to launch tober 2013. Retrieved 21 October 2013.
and control the SLAM-ER, and it is anticipated that the
[9] Republic of Korea Chooses Boeing SLAM-ER Missile.
U.S. Navys new land-based patrol plane, the Boeing P-8 Boeing.
Poseidon will carry the SLAM-ER as well.[4] The South
Korean Air Force's version of the F-15E Strike Eagle, the [10] SLAM-ER and Harpoon Foreign Military Sales.
346
99.4 External links

Boeing (McDonnell-Douglas) AGM/RGM/UGM-
84 Harpoon, Designation Systems
SLAM-ER, Boeing
Chapter 100
Bat (guided bomb)
Not to be confused with bat bomb. 100.2 Development

The ASM-N-2 Bat was a United States Navy World War
The Bat was the production version which combined the
original NBS airframe with a 1,000-pound (454 kg) GP
bomb, the same basic ordnance that was used in the con-
temporary Azon guided munition, and the Pelican active
radar system.[6] Gyrostabilized with an autopilot supplied
by Bendix Aviation, the steerable tail elevator was pow-
ered by small wind-driven generators. The Navys Bureau
of Ordnance[6] in partnership with the Massachusetts In-
stitute of Technology (MIT) supervised development and
the NBS was in charge of the overall development. Flight
tests were conducted at the Naval Air Ordnance Test
Station at Chincoteague Island, Virginia. Hugh Latimer
Dryden won the Presidents Certicate of Merit for the
development of the Bat,[3] which was ight tested by a
small unit based at Philadelphia against targets in New
Jersey.[7]
A Bat on its hoist
II radar-guided unpowered missile[3][4] which was used in 100.3 Deployment

combat beginning in April 1944.
100.1 Background
In January 1941 RCA proposed a new TV-guided anti-
shipping weapon called Dragon for which an operator
would use the TV image sent from the nose of the weapon
and operate aerodynamic controls during the weapons
fall. The National Bureau of Standards (NBS) would
provide the airframe for use with a standard bomb, and
was the same guidable ordnance airframe design used for
the earlier, abortive Project Pigeon weapons program.[5]
The Pelican was a June 1942 modication to instead drop
depth charges against submarines using semi-active radar
homing. By mid-1943, the design was changed again to
use a new active radar homing system from Western Elec- A Bat weapon on a bomb cart, with its nose radome removed
tric with a 2,000-pound (907 kg) general-purpose (GP)
bomb, the same basic ordnance unit as used for the heav- The antiship variant of the Bat (SWOD, for Special
ier USAAF VB-2 version of the Azon radio-controlled Weapons Ordnance Device,[8] Mark 9 Modication 0)
ordnance. This Pelican version entered testing in sum- eventually saw combat service beginning in April 1945
mer 1944 at Naval Air Station New York, where it hit its o Borneo, dropped by PB4Y Privateers[6] (one bomb
target ship in two out of four drops. mounted under each wing) at altitudes of 15,000 to
348
25,000 feet (4,6007,600 m) at airspeeds of 140 to 210 [3] Missile, Air-to-Surface, Bat. Rockets and Missiles.
knots (260390 km/h). Several Japanese ships were sunk Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. Archived
and the kaibokan Aguni was damaged from a range of from the original on 7 May 2009. Retrieved 2009-05-12.
20 nmi (37 km), which is frequently miscredited as be- [4] Newman, Michael E. Students Help Renovate a Part of
ing sunk and as being a destroyer.[9] Several Bats were WWII-and NIST-History. NIST Tech Beat - February
also tted with modied radar systems (SWOD Mark 9 2001 - Preservation. National Institute of Standards and
Model 1) and dropped on Japanese-held bridges in Burma Technology. Retrieved March 19, 2015.
and other land-based targets. The Bats pioneering radar
guidance system was easily confused by radar land clut- [5] Neilster (July 14, 2006). Pigeon guidance system.
ter, particularly against targets close to shore. ww2aircraft.net. Retrieved June 7, 2013.
After the war, the naval designation ASM-N-2 was ap- [6] Fahrney, Delmar S., RADM USN (December 1980).
plied to the unit. The Birth of Guided Missiles. United States Naval In-
stitute Proceedings. p. 60.
The Privateer was the primary launch platform for the
Bat, but other aircraft were also modied to launch the [7] Merrill, Capt Grayson (undated anecdote). Innovation
weapon, including the F4U Corsair, SB2C Helldiver, and Wins Wars. Your story - Class of 1934. USNA
TBF Avenger. The primary post-World War II aircraft to Alumni Association and Foundation. Retrieved 2013-01-
07. BAT was ight tested by a small unit based at Philadel-
carry the weapon was the P-2 Neptune.
phia against targets in New Jersey. Check date values in:
|date= (help)
100.4 Existing missiles [8] SWOD
[9] http://www.combinedfleet.com/Aguni_t.htm
The original NBS test airframe of the Bat was renovated
[10] The Bat Missile. NIST. Archived from the original on
in 2001 to resemble the real missile and is currently on 27 May 2010. Retrieved 7 June 2010.
display at the museum of the National Institute of Stan-
dards and Technology,[10] the successor to the earlier US
National Bureau of Standards.
Andreas Parschs Directory of US Military Rockets
100.5 See also & Missiles entry on the Bat
Fritz X
Henschel Hs 293
Azon
VB-6 Felix
McDonnell LBD-1 Gargoyle
Project Pigeon
GB-8
Related lists
List of anti-ship missiles
100.6 References
[1] ASM-N-2. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Mis-
siles. Archived from the original on 13 November 2007.
[2] Kopp, Dr Carlo. The Dawn of the Smart Bomb. Air

Power Australia. Retrieved 2007-12-24.
Chapter 101
GT-1 (missile)
The GT-1 (Glide Torpedo 1) was an early form of missile Following the end of World War II, the aerial torpedo
developed by the United States Army Air Forces during rapidly fell out of favor as a weapon of war against surface
World War II. Intended to deliver an aerial torpedo at a ships, and the 'GT' category of weapons was abolished in
safe range from the launching aircraft, the weapon proved 1947.[8]
successful enough in testing to be approved for opera-
tional use, and the GT-1 saw limited use in the closing
stages of the war. 101.3 References
Notes
[1] Parsch 2003
The GT-1 was derived from the GB-1 series of glide
bombs, developed by Aeronca for the United States Army [2] Esquire 1947; Volume 28, p.70.
Air Forces.[1] The weapons airframe was inexpensive and
[3] Army Ordnance, Volume 30, 1946. American Defense
simply designed, with a basic wing and twin tails attached
Preparedness Association. p.384.
to a cradle for carrying the payload.[1] The ight path of
the GT-1 was determined by a preset autopilot that kept [4] Cate and Craven 1958, p.259.
the weapon on a steady course after release.[1]
[5] Daso 1997, p.82.
The GT-1 was usually released from its carrier aircraft
at an altitude of 10,000 feet (3,000 m); this provided a [6] Goebel 2010
stando range of as much as 25 miles (40 km) under ideal
conditions.[2][3] The GT-1s warload consisted of a Mark [7] Hanle 2011
13 Mod 2A aerial torpedo. The GT-1 was tted with a
paravane, trailing 20 feet (6.1 m) below the main body of [8] Mann 2008, p.256.
the craft; upon the paravanes striking the surface of the
water, explosive bolts would re to release the torpedo, Bibliography
which would then execute a preset search pattern to locate
and destroy its target.[1][2]
Craven, Wesley F.; James L. Cate (1958). USAF
Historical Division, ed. Men and Planes. The Army
Air Forces in World War II 6. Chicago: University
101.2 Operational history of Chicago Press. ASIN B000ZIBK5G.
Daso, Dik A. (1997). Architects of American Air

Initially tested during 1943,[1][4] the GT-1 proved to Supremacy: General Hap Arnold and Dr. Theodore
be successful,[5] and was issued to operational units for von Krmn. Maxwell Air Force Base, AL: Air
service.[6] Launched from North American B-25 Mitchell University Press. ASIN B0006F9WT4. Retrieved
bombers,[1][7] the GT-1 saw brief operational service late 2011-02-02.
in the war;[1][4] three missions are known to have been
own using the weapon from Okinawa in late 1945.[7] Goebel, Greg (2010). World War II Glide Bombs.
On one mission, against Kagoshima, eleven of thirteen Dumb Bombs & Smart Munitions. VectorSite. Re-
GT-1s launched successfully entered the water; three hits trieved 2011-02-02.
were recorded, against a eet carrier, a light carrier, and
a freighter.[7] The Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress was also Hanle, Donald J. (January 2011). Hail November.
capable of carrying the GT-1.[3] Air Force Magazine 94 (1). Retrieved 2011-02-02.
350
Mann, Robert A. (2008). Aircraft record cards of

the United States Air Force: How to Read the Codes.
Jeerson, NC: McFarland & Company. ISBN 978-
0-7864-3782-5. Retrieved 2011-02-02.
Parsch, Andreas (2003). GB Series. Directory of
U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles Appendix 1: Early
Missiles and Drones. designation-systems.net. Re-
trieved 2011-02-02.
Chapter 102
LBD Gargoyle
The McDonnell LBD-1 Gargoyle (later KBD-1) was an Related lists

American air-to-surface missile developed during World
War II . It was one of the precursors of modern anti-ship List of anti-ship missiles
missiles.
Following German success with the Hs-293 and Fritz-X,
the U.S. began work on a series of similar weapons, based 102.2 Sources
on its own success with the Azon guided ordnance. These
included Bat, Felix, GB-8, and Gargoyle. This article contains material that originally came
Gargoyle had a 450 kilograms (1,000 lb) warhead (M65 from the placard at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Cen-
general purpose or M59 semiarmor piercing), intended ter.
to be launched from carrier-borne aircraft in conditions
Fitzsimons, Bernard, editor. Gargoyle, in The
of good visibility, against maneuvering targets. Launched
Illustrated Encyclopedia of Weapons and Warfare,
from 4,600 m (15,000 ft), it had a range of almost 9.3
Volume 10, p. 1090. London: Phoebus Publishing,
13.0 kilometres (57 nmi), and could be controlled at up
1978.
to 52 kilometres (28 nmi).
A launch speed of at least 320 kilometres per hour (200
mph) was necessary, so its low wings would not stall; 102.3 External links
a 4,400 newtons (1,000 lbf) static thrust 8AS1000 jet-
assisted takeo (JATO) bottle in the tail boosted it to a
Gargoyle Missile at the National Air and Space Mu-
maximum speed of 970 km/h (600 mph).
seum
Operated by radio command guidance, Gargoyle was
tracked visually by means of ares in the tail, much as Allied & German guided weapons of WW2
Fritz-X was; this limited its maximum range to how far
The Dawn of the Smart Bomb
the ares could be seen. Gargoyle was capable of sus-
taining a 4 g0 (39 m/s2 ) turn, for a turning circle of 777.2 Guided weapons of WW2
metres (2,550 ft).
GB series weapons
Production by McDonnell Aircraft began in 1944 and the
missile was tested from March to July 1945, but the war
ended before it entered operational service. Testing con-
tinued, however, until it was cancelled in 1947.
102.1 See also

Fritz X
Henschel Hs 293
Azon
VB-6 Felix
GB-8
352
Chapter 103
Long Range Anti-Ship Missile
The Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) is a get without the presence of prior, precision intelligence,
stealthy anti-ship cruise missile under development for or supporting services like Global Positioning Satellite
the US Navy by the Defense Advanced Research Projects navigation and data-links. These capabilities will en-
Agency (DARPA).[4] The LRASM is intended as a re- able positive target identication, precision engagement
placement for the US Navys current anti-ship missile, of moving ships and establishing of initial target cueing
the Harpoon, which has been in service since 1977. Var- in extremely hostile environment. The missile will be de-
ious launch platform congurations are being evaluated. signed with advanced counter-countermeasures to eec-
LRASM is anticipated to pioneer autonomous targeting tively evade hostile active defense systems.[7]
capabilities for anti-ship missiles.
The LRASM is based on the AGM-158B JASSM-ER,
The Navy was authorized by the Pentagon to put but incorporates a multi-mode radio frequency sensor,
the LRASM into limited production as an operational a new weapon data-link and altimeter, and an uprated
weapon in February 2014 as an urgent capability stop- power system. It can be directed to attack enemy ships
gap solution to address range and survivability problems by its launch platform, receive updates via its datalink,
with the Harpoon anti-ship missile and to prioritize de- or use onboard sensors to nd its target. LRASM will y
feating enemy warships, which has been neglected since towards its target at medium altitude then drop to low alti-
the end of the Cold War but taken on importance with the tude for a sea skimming approach to counter anti-missile
modernization of the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army defenses. DARPA states its range is greater than 200 nmi
Navy. The Navy will hold a competition for the Oen- (370 km; 230 mi).[8] Although the LRASM is based on
sive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW)/Increment 2 anti- the JASSM-ER, which has a range of 500 nmi (930 km;
ship missile as a follow-on to LRASM to enter service in 580 mi), the addition of the sensor and other features will
2024.[5] somewhat decrease that range.[9]
Competitors to Lockheed Martin had protested the de- To ensure survivability to and eectiveness against a
cision to award them a contract for 90 LRASMs given target, the LRASM is equipped with a BAE Systems-
the circumstances of selection and competition for the designed seeker and guidance system, integrating jam-
missile. Raytheon claimed their JSOW-ER had compa- resistant GPS/INS, passive RF and threat warning re-
rable capabilities with lower costs. The Navy responded ceiver, an imaging infrared (IIR infrared homing) seeker
by saying Lockheeds LRASM program was limited in with automatic scene/target matching recognition, a data-
scope, the decision to move ahead with them was made link, and passive Electronic Support Measure (ESM) and
after an initial DARPA contract award, and that it was radar warning receiver sensors. Articial intelligence
an urgent need to face future threats. The OASuW In- software combines these features to locate enemy ships
crement 2 competition will be completely open and start and avoid neutral shipping in crowded areas. Automatic
by FY 2017.[6] It is expected the LRASM will com- dissemination of emissions data is classied, located, and
pete against the joint Kongsberg/Raytheon oering of the identied for path of attack; the data-link allows other
Joint Strike Missile (JSM) for air-launch needs and an up-assets to feed the missile a real-time electronic picture
graded Raytheon Tomahawk cruise missile for surface- of the enemy battlespace. Multiple missiles can work to-
launch needs.[1] gether to share data to coordinate an attack in a swarm.
Aside from short, low-power data-link transmissions, the
LRASM does not emit signals, which combined with
the stealthy JASSM airframe and low IR signature re-
103.1 Design duces detectability. Unlike previous radar-only seeker-
equipped missiles that went on to hit other vessels if di-
verted or decoyed, the multi-mode seeker ensures the cor-
Unlike current anti-ship missiles the LRASM will be ca-
rect target is hit in a specic area of the ship. An LRASM
pable of conducting autonomous targeting, relying on on-
can nd its own target autonomously by using its active
board targeting systems to independently acquire the tar-
353
354 CHAPTER 103. LONG RANGE ANTI-SHIP MISSILE
radar homing to locate ships in an area, then using passive On July 11, 2013, Lockheed reported successful com-
measures once on terminal approach. Like the JASSM, pletion of captive-carry testing of the LRASM on a B-1
the LRASM is capable of hitting land targets.[10][11] Lancer.[8]
LRASM is designed to be compatible with the Mk On August 27, 2013, Lockheed conducted the rst ight
41 Vertical Launch System used on many US Navy test of the LRASM, launched from a B-1.[21] Halfway
ships[12] and to be red from aircraft,[13] including the to its target, the missile switched from following a pre-
B-1 bomber.[14] For surface launches, LRASM will be t- planned route to autonomous guidance. It autonomously
ted with a modied Mk 114 jettison-able rocket booster detected its moving target, a 260 ft unmanned ship out
to give it enough power to reach altitude. Although pri- of three in the target area, and hit it in the desired lo-
ority development is on air and surface-launched vari- cation with an inert warhead. The purpose of the test
ants, Lockheed is exploring the concept of a submarine- was to stress the sensor suite, which detected all the tar-
launched variant.[8] As part of OASuW Increment 1, the gets and only engaged the one it was told to. Two more
LRASM will be used only as an air-launched missile to ight tests were planned the year, involving dierent al-
be deployed from the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and B-1B titudes, ranges, and geometries in the target area. Two
Lancer.[5] launches from vertical launch systems were planned for
Some naval advisors have proposed increasing the summer 2014.[22] The missile had a sensor designed by
LRASMs capabilities to serve dual functions as a ship- BAE Systems. The sensor is designed to enable targeted
based land attack weapon in addition to anti-ship roles. attacks within a group of enemy ships protected by so-
By reducing the size of its 1,000 lb (450 kg) warhead to phisticated air defense systems. It autonomously located
increase range from some 300 mi (480 km) to 1,000 mi and targeted the moving surface ship. The sensor uses ad-
(1,600 km), the missile would still be powerful enough vanced electronic technologies to detect targets within a
destroy or disable warships while having the reach to hit complex signal environment, and then calculates precise
inland targets. With the proper guidance system, a single target locations for the missile control unit.[23]
missile would increase the Navys exibility rather than On September 17, 2013, Lockheed launched an LRASM
needing two missiles specialized for dierent roles.[15] Boosted Test Vehicle (BTV) from a Mk 41 VLS canis-
ter. The company-funded test showed the LRASM, tted
with the Mk-114 rocket motor from the RUM-139 VL-
ASROC, could ignite and penetrate the canister cover and
103.2 History perform a guided ight prole.[24]
On November 12, 2013, an LRASM scored a direct hit
The program was initiated in 2009 and started along two
on a moving naval target on its second ight test. A B-
dierent tracks. LRASM-A is a subsonic cruise mis-
1B bomber launched the missile, which navigated using
sile based on Lockheed Martins 500 nm-range AGM-
planned waypoints that it received in-ight before transi-
158 JASSM-ER - Lockheed Martin was awarded initial
tioning to autonomous guidance. It used onboard sensors
development contracts.[16] LRASM-B was planned to be
to select the target, descend in altitude, and successfully
a high-altitude supersonic missile along the lines of the
impact.[25][26]
Indo-Russian Brahmos, but it was cancelled in January
2012. Captive carry ight tests of LRASM sensors be- In January 2014, Lockheed demonstrated that the
gan in May 2012; a missile prototype was planned to y LRASM could be launched from a Mk 41 VLS with only
in early 2013 and the rst canister launch was intended modied software to existing shipboard equipment.[27]
for end 2014.[17] On 4 February 2015, the LRASM conducted its third suc-
On October 1, 2012, Lockheed received a contract mod- cessful ight test, conducted to evaluate low-altitude per-
ication to perform risk reduction enhancements in ad- formance and obstacle avoidance. Dropped from a B-1B,
vance of the upcoming ight test of the air-launched the missile navigated a series of pre-planned waypoints,
LRASM A version.[18] On March 5, 2013, Lockheed re- then detected, tracked, and avoided an object deliberately
ceived a contract to begin conducting air and surface- placed in the ight pattern in the nal portion of the ight
launch tests of the LRASM. Three air-launched tests were to demonstrate obstacle-avoidance algorithms.[28]
scheduled for 2013, with one from a B-1 Lancer. Two
surface-launch tests were scheduled for 2014. The con-
tract includes risk reduction eorts, such as electromag- 103.3 See also
netic compatibility testing of the missile and follow-on
captive carry sensor suite missions.[19] List of anti-ship missiles
On June 3, 2013, Lockheed successfully conducted push
through tests of a simulated LRASM on the Mk 41
Vertical Launch System (VLS). Four tests veried the 103.4 References
LRASM can break the canisters forward cover without
damaging the missile.[20] [1] Arming New Platforms Will Push Up Value Of Missiles
Market - Aviationweek.com, 5 January 2015 [21] SAM FELLMAN. "DARPA Testing New Ship-Killing
Missile" DefenseNews, October 10, 2013. Accessed: Oc-
[2] Lockheed Martin Completes Captive Carry Tests with tober 20, 2013.
LRASM - Navyrecognition.com, 12 July 2013
[22] Darpa Tests Jassm-Based Stealthy Anti-Ship Missile -
[3] Congressional Research Service (23 Apr 2013). U.S. Aviationweek.com, 6 September 2013
Air Force Bomber Sustainment and Modernization: Back-
ground and Issues for Congress (by Michael A Miller). [23] BAE Sensor Hits the Mark in Live Long-Range Missile
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Library of Congress. p. 33. Re- Flight Test - Asdnews.com, 10 October 2013
trieved 16 Aug 2014. LRASM is based on the AGM-
[24] First LRASM Boosted Test Vehicle Successfully
158B JASSM and has an unclassied range of 500 nauti-
Launched from Mk41 Vertical Launch System -
cal miles.
Deagel.com, 17 September 2013
[4] DARPA - Tactical Technology Oce (TTO)". 21 May
[25] Air-Launched LRASM Successfully Completes Second
2010. Retrieved 27 Apr 2011.
Flight Test - Deagel.com, 14 November 2013
[5] Majumdar, Dave (13 Mar 2014). Navy to Hold Contest [26] LRASM Prototype Scores 2nd Successful Flight Test -
for New Anti-Surface Missile. usni.org. U.S. NAVAL Darpa.mil, 3 December 2013
INSTITUTE. Retrieved 13 Mar 2014.
[27] Lockheed Martin Successfully Tests LRASM MK 41 Ver-
[6] US Navy plans competition for next-generation missile tical Launch System Interface - Deagel.com, 15 January
Reuters.com, 26 Mar 2014 2014
[7] Next Generation Missiles - LRASM. 18 Nov 2010. Re- [28] LRASM Prototype is Three-for-Three on Successful
trieved 18 Nov 2010. Flight Tests - Darpa.mil, 9 February 2015
[8] Majumdar, Dave (11 July 2013). Lockheed LRASM

completes captive carry tests. The DEW Line. Flight-
global. Retrieved 16 August 2014. 103.5 External links
[9] Lockheed dishes 30m for key LRASM test - breakingde- Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) United
fense.com, 9 September 2013
States of America
[10] Gresham, John D. LRASM: Long Range Maritime Strike
LRSASM on Naval-technology.com
for Air-Sea Battle. Defense Media Network. Faircount
Media Group, 2 Oct 2013. Web. 16 Aug 2014.
[11] The Navys Smart New Stealth Anti-Ship Missile Can

Plan Its Own Attack - Foxtrotalpha.Jalopnik.com, 4 De-
cember 2014
[12] LRASM / Long Range Anti-Ship Missile. Retrieved

2010-11-14.
[13] Ewing, Philip. The Navys advanced weapons shopping

list Military.com, 3 July 2012.
[14] B-1B To Test New Oensive Anti-Surface Missile.
[15] 47 Seconds From Hell: A Challenge To Navy Doctrine -

Breakingdefense.com, 21 November 2014
[16] Lockheed Snags DARPA Anti-Ship Missile Award.

AVIATION WEEK. Retrieved 2010-11-14.
[17] Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM)". DARPA.

2012. Retrieved 30 June 2012.
[18] Lockheed LRASM contract - GCACnews.com, October

1, 2012
[19] Lockheed Martin Receives $71 Million Long Range Anti-

Ship Missile Contract - Lockheed press release, March 5,
2013
[20] LRASM Successfully Completes Vertical Launch System

Tests - Deagel.com, June 3, 2013
Chapter 104
Boeing Ground-to-Air Pilotless Aircraft
Boeing's Ground-to-Air Pilotless Aircraft (GAPA) dropped to zero. As early as 1942, German ak comman-
was a short-range anti-aircraft missile (SAM) developed ders were keenly aware of the problem, and expecting to
in the late 1940s by the US Army Air Force, and then the face jet bombers, they began a missile development pro-
US Air Force after 1948. It was given the reference num- gram to supplant their guns.[5]
ber SAM-A-1, the rst Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) in
Of the many programs that resulted, the designs fell into
the 1947 tri-service designation system. By 1950 over two categories. One used a high-speed missile that ew
100 test rockets had been launched using a variety of con-
directly up at the target. With enough speed the missile
gurations and power plants, with one launch in 1949 set- did not have to lead the target, the bomber moved only
ting the altitude record for a ramjet powered vehicle at
a short distance in the time between launch and intercep-
59,000 ft (18,000 m). tion. A second class used low-speed designs that were
GAPA faced strong competition from the US Army's rst boosted to altitude in front of the bombers, then ew
Nike missile system, and was eventually cancelled in level at them on intercept courses at much lower speeds.
favour of Nike for deployment. The GAPA work was These were essentially radio-guided drone versions of the
later re-used by the Boeing and Project Wizard team at Messerschmitt Me 163 rocket-propelled interceptor air-
the Michigan Aeronautical Research Center to develop a craft carrying very large warheads.
much longer-ranged missile, the CIM-10 Bomarc. Bo-
marc would end up competing with the Armys Hercules
missile, and was deployed only in small numbers. 104.1.2 US Army program
The western allies maintained air superiority for much

104.1 History of the war and development of new anti-aircraft systems
was not as urgent. Nevertheless, by the mid-war period
the US Army had reached the same conclusion as their
104.1.1 German work German counterparts; ak was simply no longer useful.[6]
Accordingly, in February 1944 the Army Ground Forces
The inherent inaccuracy of anti-aircraft artillery means sent the Army Service Forces (ASF) a request for in-
that when shells reach their targets they are randomly dis- formation on the possibility of building a major caliber
tributed in space. This distribution is much larger than anti-aircraft rocket torpedo. The ASF concluded that
the lethal radius of the shells, so the chance that any one it was simply too early to tell if this was possible, and
shell will successfully hit the target is very small. Suc- suggested concentrating on a program of general rocket
cessful anti-aircraft gunnery therefore requires as many development instead.[6]
rounds to be red as possible, increasing the chances that The introduction of German jet-powered bombers late
one of the rounds will get a hit. German gunners es- in 1944 led to a re-evaluation of this policy, and on 26
timated that an average of 2,800 shells were required to January 1945 the Army Chief of Ordnance issued a re-
down a single Boeing B-17.[4] quirement for a new guided missile weapon system. Like
Flying faster means that the aircraft passes through the the German eorts, the Army designs quickly fell into
range of a gun more rapidly, reducing the number of two groups, high-speed line-of-sight weapons for short
rounds a particular gun can re at that aircraft. Flying at ranges, and airplane-like systems that ew at lower speeds
higher altitudes has a similar eect, as it requires larger but oered longer range. Eventually two such programs
shells to reach those altitudes, and this typically results were selected; Bell Labs, a world leader in radar, ra-
in slower ring rates for a variety of practical reasons. dio control and automated aiming systems (see Hendrik
Aircraft using jet engines basically double the speed and Wade Bode)[7] won the contract for a short-range weapon
altitude of conventional designs, so limiting the number known as Project Nike. Boeing led development of
of shells that the chance of hitting the bomber essentially an aircraft-like longer range system, GAPA, designated
356
104.2. DESCRIPTION 357
project MX-606.[3] 104.1.4 Computer work
Boeing built two computers to aid with development of

the GAPA eort. The rst was the BEMAC, Boeing
Electro-Mechanical Analog Computer, which was used
104.1.3 GAPA for various calculations and aerodynamic research. The
second, BEAC, the Boeing Electronic Analog Computer,
Although GAPA was based on similar principles as ear- was developed in 1949 in Seattle to aid calculations in
lier German designs, it evolved into an entirely dierent the GAPA project. BEAC proved so useful that other
concept; GAPA designs were long and thin and looked divisions within the company started asking for time
like missiles, not aircraft. Aerojet was selected to build on the system. This led the Physical Research Unit to
solid-fuel boosters, while Boeing tried a wide variety of build further examples of improved models of BEAC for
engine designs for the upper stage. The rst test shot of anthe Acoustics and Electrical Department, Aerodynamics,
unguided GAPA airframe design took place on 13 June Power Plant, Mechanical Equipment and Structures De-
1946 from a 100 ft 100 ft (30 m 30 m) launch pad partment. Given the success of the BEAC design, the
at the WWII Wendover Bombing and Gunnery Range on company began to oer it commercially in 1950. Sales
the western edge of the Bonneville Salt Flats.[8] These continued through the 1950s.[20]
early Model 600 designs were for aerodynamic testing
only, and used solid fuel in both stages.[9] Over the fol-
lowing two week period, a total of 38 launches were con- 104.1.5 Bomarc
ducted, ending on 1 July.
The new MX-1599 also ran into development and fund-
In a report to the Presidents Air Policy Commission in
ing problems, and repeated early history when the project
October, Boeing reported the range of the system at 30
was joined by the team from the Michigan Aeronauti-
miles (48 kilometres). The need for a 50 mile range,
cal Research Center (MARC) working on Project Wiz-
Mach 0.9 version was identied for the interim air de-
ard. Wizard was based on a high performance missile,
fense system.[10] In early 1948 the USAF was ready to
existing only on paper, able to intercept missiles travel-
buy complete GAPA missiles for test and training pur-
ling at up to 4,000 mph (6,400 km/h) at altitudes up to
poses, [but] guidance components were not available,
500,000 ft (150 km). Wizard had also put considerable
and of the planned $5.5 million for GAPA, only $3 mil-
thought into the problem of early detection and commu-
lion was provided in July 1948.[11]
nications needed for interceptions that lasted only min-
At the end of 1948, Air Material Command was in- utes. The combination of the two teams, from Boeing
structed to buy 70 test vehicles.[12] Over 74 launches took and MARC, resulted in the new BOMARC name. At the
place at the Alamogordo Guided Missile Test Base[13] be- time the Air Force considered missiles to be unmanned
ginning on 23 July 1947 (the 39th launch).[14] A ramjet aircraft, and assigned the new missile the F-99 name,
powered Model 602 rst ew on 14 November 1947, and considering its role to be the same as a ghter aircraft.
a liquid-fuel rocket Model 601 on 12 March 1948.[15] By This was later changed to Interceptor Missile, IM-99.
the end of the test program in 1950, 114 launches were and nally CIM-10 Bomarc when the 1962 United States
carried out, with the last on 15 August 1950.[16] Tri-Service missile and drone designation system was
[21]
By 1949 the performance of the competing Nike design introduced.
had demonstrated capabilities similar to GAPA, at about Bomarc development dragged on, and by 1956 less than
25 miles (40 kilometres), and was much closer to be- 25 test launches had taken place, many of them failures.
ing ready for deployment. The Department of Defense By this point the Army had begun early production of
(DoD) saw no need for two systems with similar per- its greatly improved Nike Hercules missile, which of-
formance, and inter-service ghting since the 1948 cre- fered high supersonic speeds, intercept altitudes as high
ation of the Air Force was a constant problem for the as 100,000 ft (30 km), and ranges on the order of 75 mi
DoD. They eventually decided the matter in 1949 when (121 km). Although Bomarcs range was much greater
the Joint Chiefs of Sta determined that each branch than Hercules, the mission of protecting cities was ade-
of the armed forces would conduct missile development quately served, and Hercules was dramatically simpler,
according to its mission[17] and handed the Army con- cheaper and more reliable (Bomarc was estimated to be
trol of all short-range air defences, whether missile or ready to re 25% of the time or less).[22]
gun.[12] GAPA was cancelled outright,[18] and a new con-
tract for a much longer-range weapon was created un-
der MX-1599. To keep GAPA development alive in the
meantime, the US Air Force re-directed funding from an 104.2 Description
anti-ballistic missile program, Project Thumper, which
was being ended in favour of a more advanced system, There were three main models of the GAPA vehicle, and
Project Wizard.[19] their layout diered considerably. All were missile like
358 CHAPTER 104. BOEING GROUND-TO-AIR PILOTLESS AIRCRAFT
with four cropped-delta ns at the extreme rear of a cylin- [15] Bushnell 1986, p. 2.
drical fuselage capped with an ogive nose cone. Aerody-
[16] Bushnell 1986, p. 3.
namic lift for control was provided by a long wing running
along the upper surface of the fuselage, only slightly wider [17] HAER 1966.
that the body. The wing tapered to a point just behind the
nose cone. The booster was about the same length as the [18] McMullen 1980, p. 91.
missile, although slightly larger in diameter and featuring [19] McMullen 1980, pp. 90-91.
much larger cropped-delta ns.
[20] Small, James. The Analogue Alternative... pp. 4748.
GAPA used beam riding guidance, in which the missile Retrieved 2013-08-09.
attempts to keep itself centred in the middle of a radar
signal that is pointed directly at the target. This system [21] Parsch 2002
allows a single powerful radar to act as both the tracking
[22] Cagle 1973, pp. 144-148.
and guidance system. However, beam riding also means
that the missile has to y directly at its target, and there-
fore cannot lead it to a calculated intercept point. This Bibliography
means of guidance is generally inecient as it requires
the missile to continue maneuvering throughout the ap- ACC (1996). HAFB Report #1996-006 Build-
proach as the radar is moved to continue tracking the tar- ings 107, 289, And 291 Demolition Habs/Haer Ar-
get. This can be signicant in the case of high-speed air- chitectural Assessment Holloman Air Force Base
craft. Otero County, New Mexico (Report).
Bushnell (1986-08-25). GAPA: Hollomans First
Missile Program (Scribd.com image) (Report). Air
104.3 See also Force Missile Development Center: Historical
Branch. IRIS 00169113. Retrieved 2013-08-11.
IM-99 BOMARC
Cagle, Mary (1973). History of the Nike Hercules
SA-2 Guideline Weapon System. Redstone Arsenal: U.S. Army Mis-
sile Command. Retrieved 1 January 2014.
Federation of American Scientists (29 June 1999).

104.4 References Nike Ajax (SAM-A-7) (MIM-3, 3A)".
Citations Historical background. Los Pinetos Nike Missile

Site. Historic American Engineering Record (HAER
[1] Parsch 2004. No. CA-56). 1966.
[2] Boeing: GAPA (Ground-to-Air Pilotless Aircraft)". McMullen, Richard (25 January 1980). History of
boeing.com. 2014. Retrieved 31 January 2014. Air Defense Weapons 19461962 (Report). ADC
Historical Study No. 14. Historical Division, Oce
[3] Rosenberg 1964, p. 76. of information, HQ ADC. Retrieved 2014-01-01.
[4] Westerman 2001, p. 197. Parsch, Andreas (2002). Boeing F-99/IM-69/IM-
[5] Westerman 2001, p. 11.
99/CIM-10 Bomarc. Directory of U.S. Military
Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Re-
[6] Cagle 1973, I. trieved 2014-05-08.
[7] FAS 1999. Parsch, Andreas (2004). Boeing SAM-A-1
GAPA. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and
[8] ACC 1996, p. 11. Missiles Appendix 1: Early Missiles and Drones.
[9] Bushnell 1986, pp. 1-2. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2014-02-01.
[10] McMullen 1980, p. 50. Rosenberg, Max (1964). The development of ballis-
tic missiles in the United States Air Force 1944-1950.
[11] McMullen 1980, p. 51. USAF Historical Division Liaison Oce.
[12] McMullen 1980, p. 90. Westerman, Edward (2001). Flak: German Anti-
Aircraft Defenses, 19141945. University Press of
[13] Bushnell 1986, p. 1.
Kansas. ISBN 0700614206.
[14] Rocket Trials Center Moved. Eugene Register-Guard.
24 July 1947. p. 6.
Chapter 105
CIM-10 Bomarc
This article is about the USAF surface-to-air missile. For system.

Boeings previous research SAM, see Boeing Ground-to- Launches were from Florida test range sites (AFMTC &
Air Pilotless Aircraft. Eglins Santa Rosa Island) and controlled by AN/GPA-
The Boeing CIM-10 Bomarc (IM-99 Weapon Sys-
35 and/or AN/FSQ-7 computers, e.g., the Montgomery
SAGE Center commanded three BOMARCs simulta-
neously in-ight during a May 1960 test.[3] BOMARC
launches as target drones began at Vandenberg Air Force
Base on 25 August 1966[15] (the 1st Vandenberg BO-
MARC launch was 14 October 1964).[16]

In 1946, Boeing started to study surface-to-air guided
missiles under the United States Army Air Forces project
MX-606. By 1950, Boeing had launched more than 100
test rockets in various congurations, all under the desig-
nator XSAM-A-1 GAPA (Ground-to-Air Pilotless Air-
craft). Because these tests were very promising, Boeing
tem[8] prior to September 1962)[9] was a supersonic received a USAF contract in 1949 to develop a pilotless
ramjet powered interceptor for Cold War air defense of interceptor (a term then used by the USAF for air-defense
North America which, in addition to being the rst long- guided missiles) under project MX-1599. The MX-1599
range anti-aircraft missile (cf. proposed WIZARD pre- missile was to be a ramjet-powered, nuclear-armed long-
decessor), was the only SAM deployed by the United range surface-to-air missile to defend the Continental
States Air Force. It used the same Marquardt RJ43 as the United States from high-ying bombers. The Michigan
Lockheed X-7 hypersonic prototype and the Lockheed Aerospace Research Center (MARC) was added to the
AQM-60 drone.[10] Its models had a range of 250 to 440 project soon afterward, and this gave the new missile its
miles.[11] name Bomarc (for Boeing and MARC). In 1951, the
Stored horizontally in a launcher shelter with movable USAF decided to emphasize its point of view that mis-
roof, the missile was erected, red vertically using rocket siles were nothing else than pilotless aircraft by assign-
boosters and then ramjet-powered during midcourse ing aircraft designators to its missile projects, and anti-
command guidance to a dive point. During the homing aircraft missiles received F-for-Fighter designations. The
dive,[1] the missiles onboard AN/DPN-34 radar[12] al- Bomarc became the F-99.[17]
lowed the BOMARC to guide itself to the target (e.g., Test ights of XF-99 test vehicles began in September
enemy bomber or formation) and a radar proximity 1952 and continued through early 1955. The XF-99
fuze detonated the warhead (conventional or 10 kiloton tested only the liquid-fueled booster rocket, which would
nuclear W-40). After the 17 May 1957, $7 million[2] ini- accelerate the missile to ramjet ignition speed. In Febru-
tial contract for operational aircraft;[13] the Interceptor ary 1955, tests of the XF-99A propulsion test vehicles
Missile was deployed at launch areas[14] in Canada and began. These included live ramjets, but still had no guid-
the United States (e.g., the 1960 Fort Dix IM-99 accident ance system or warhead. The designation YF-99A had
contaminated a launch area.) Boeing indicated: Dif- been reserved for the operational test vehicles. In Au-
ferences in the Langley Base layout are due to planning gust 1955, the USAF discontinued the use of aircraft-
for accommodation of the advanced missile system [(IM- like type designators for missiles, and the XF-99A and
99B) ground equipment with equipment for] the IM-99A YF-99A became XIM-99A and YIM-99A, respectively.
359
360 CHAPTER 105. CIM-10 BOMARC
Originally the USAF had allocated the designation IM- ing of the Bomarc missiles, which were housed in a con-
69, but this was changed (possibly at Boeings request to stant combat-ready basis in individual launch shelters in
keep number 99) to IM-99 in October 1955. In October remote areas. At the height of the program, there were
1957, the rst YIM-99A production-representative pro- 14 Bomarc sites located in the United States and two in
totype ew with full guidance, and succeeded to pass the Canada.[17]
target within destructive range. In late 1957, Boeing re- The liquid-fuel booster of the Bomarc A was no opti-
ceived the production contract for the IM-99A Bomarc mal solution. It took two minutes to fuel before launch,
A interceptor missile, and in September 1959, the rst which could be a long time in high-speed intercepts,
IM-99A squadron became operational.[17]
and its hypergolic propellants (hydrazine and nitric acid)
The IM-99A had an operational radius of 200 miles (320 were very dangerous to handle, leading to several serious
km) and was designed to y at Mach 2.52.8 at a cruis- accidents.[17]
ing altitude of 60,000 feet (18 km). It was 46.6 ft (14.2 As soon as high-thrust solid-fuel rockets became a real-
m) long and weighed 15,500 pounds (7,000 kg). Its ar- ity in the mid-1950s, the USAF began to develop a new
mament was either a 1,000 pounds (450 kg) conventional solid-fueled Bomarc variant, the IM-99B Bomarc B. It
warhead or a W40 nuclear warhead (710 kiloton yield). used a Thiokol XM51 booster, and also had improved
A liquid-fuel rocket engine boosted the Bomarc to Mach Marquardt RJ43-MA-7 (and nally the RJ43-MA-11)
2, when its Marquardt RJ43-MA-3 ramjet engines, fueled ramjets. The rst IM-99B was launched in May 1959,
by 80-octane gasoline, would take over for the remainder but problems with the new propulsion system delayed the
of the ight.[17] rst fully successful ight until July 1960, when a super-
sonic KD2U-1/MQM-15A Regulus II drone was inter-
cepted. Because the new booster took up less space in the
missile, more ramjet fuel could be carried, increasing the
range to 710 km (440 mi). The terminal homing system
was also improved, using the worlds rst pulse Doppler
search radar, the Westinghouse AN/DPN-53. All Bo-
marc Bs were equipped with the W-40 nuclear warhead.
In June 1961, the rst IM-99B squadron became opera-
tional, and Bomarc B quickly replaced most Bomarc A
missiles.[17] On 23 March 1961, a Bomarc B successfully
intercepted a Regulus II cruise missile ying at 100,000
ft, thus achieving the highest interception in the world up
to that date.
Boeing built 570 Bomarc missiles between 1957 and
1964, 269 CIM-10A, 301 CIM-10B.[17]
October 1960, BOMARCs in New Jersey (BOMARC Site No. 1)
The operational IM-99A missiles were based horizon-

tally in semi-hardened shelters, nicknamed cons. Af-
ter the launch order, the shelters roof would slide open,
and the missile raised to the vertical. After the missile
was supplied with fuel for the booster rocket, it would be
launched by the Aerojet General LR59-AJ-13 booster.
After sucient speed was reached, the Marquardt RJ43-
MA-3 ramjets would ignite and propel the missile to
its cruise speed and altitude of Mach 2.8 at 20,000 m
(66,000 ft).[17]
When the Bomarc was within 16 km (9.9 mi) of the tar-
get, its own Westinghouse AN/DPN-34 radar guided the
missile to the interception point. The maximum range of
the IM-99A was 400 km (250 mi), and it was tted with
either a conventional high-explosive or a 10 kiloton W-40
nuclear ssion warhead.[17]
The Bomarc relied on the Semi-Automatic Ground En-
vironment (SAGE), an automated control system used
by NORAD for detecting, tracking and intercepting en-
emy bomber aircraft. SAGE allowed for remote launch- 4751st ADMS (Training) Emblem
In September 1958 Air Research & Development Com- contamination.[19] In 2002, the concrete at the site was
mand decided to transfer the Bomarc program from its removed and transported to Lakehurst Naval Air Station
testing at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station to a new fa- for transport by rail to a site for proper disposal.
cility on Santa Rosa Island, immediately south of Eglin In 1962, the US Air Force started using modied A-
AFB Hurlburt Field on the Gulf of Mexico. To operate models as drones; following the October 1962 tri-service
the facility and to provide training and operational evalu- redesignation of aircraft and weapons systems they be-
ation in the missile program, Air Defense Command es- came CQM-10As. Otherwise the air defense missile
tablished the 4751st Air Defense Wing (Missile) (4751st squadrons maintained alert while making regular trips to
ADW) on 15 January 1958. The rst launch from Santa
Santa Rosa Island for training and ring practice. After
Rosa took place on 15 January 1959.[17] the inactivation of the 4751st ADW(M) on 1 July 1962
and transfer of Hurlburt to Tactical Air Command for air
commando operations the 4751st Air Defense Squadron
105.2 Operational history (Missile) remained at Hurlburt and Santa Rosa Island for
training purposes.[17]
105.2.1 United States In 1964, the liquid-fueled Bomarc-A sites and squadrons
began to be inactivated. The sites at Dow and Suolk
The rst USAF operational Bomarc squadron was the County closed rst. The remainder continued to be op-
46th Air Defense Missile Squadron (ADMS), organized erational for several more years while the government
on 1 January 1959 and activated on 25 March. The 46th started dismantling the air defense missile network. Nia-
ADMS was assigned to the New York Air Defense Sec- gara Falls was the rst BOMARC B installation to close,
tor at McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey. The training in December 1969; the others remained on alert through
program, under the 4751st ADW used technicians act- 1972. In April 1972, the last Bomarc B in U.S. Air
ing as instructors and was established for a four-month Force service was retired at McGuire and the 46th ADMS
duration. Training included missile maintenance; SAGE inactivated.[17]
operations and launch procedures, including the launch
of an unarmed missile at Eglin. In September 1959
the squadron assembled at their permanent station, the
Bomarc site near McGuire AFB, and trained for oper-
ational readiness. The rst Bomarc-A went operational
at McGuire on 19 September 1959 with Kincheloe AFB
getting the rst operational IM-99Bs. While several of
the squadrons replicated earlier ghter interceptor unit
numbers, they were all new organizations with no pre-
vious historical counterpart.[18]
ADCs initial plans called for some 52 Bomarc sites
around the United States with 120 missiles each but as
defense budgets decreased during the 1950s the number
of sites dropped substantially. Ongoing development and
reliability problems didn't help, nor did Congressional de-
bate over the missiles usefulness and necessity. In June
1959, the Air Force authorized 16 Bomarc sites with 56
missiles each; the initial ve would get the IM-99A with
the remainder getting the IM-99B. However, in March
1960, HQ USAF cut deployment to eight sites in the
United States and two in Canada.[17]
Within a year of becoming operational, a Bomarc-A with
a nuclear warhead caught re at McGuire AFB on 7 June
1960 following the explosive rupture of its onboard he- A CQM-10B drone launched at Vandenberg Air Force Base,
lium tank. While the missiles explosives didn't detonate, 1977.
the heat melted the warhead, releasing plutonium, which
the re crews spread. The Air Force and the Atomic En- The Bomarc, designed to intercept relatively slow
ergy Commission cleaned up the site and covered it with manned bombers, had become a useless asset in the era
concrete. This was the only major incident involving the of the intercontinental ballistic missile. The remaining
weapons system.[17] The site remained in operation for Bomarc missiles were used by all armed services as high-
several years following the re. After its closure in 1972, speed target drones for tests of other air-defense missiles.
the accident resulted in the area remaining o limits to The Bomarc A and Bomarc B targets were designated as
the present day, primarily due to low levels of plutonium CQM-10A and CQM-10B, respectively.[17]
Notably, due to the accident, the McGuire complex has squadron became fully operational from 31 December
never been sold or converted to other uses and remains 1963, when the nuclear warheads arrived, until disband-
in Air Force ownership, making it the most intact site of ing on 31 March 1972. All the warheads were stored sep-
the eight in the US. It has been nominated to the National arately and under control of Detachment 1 of the USAF
Register of Historic Sites. Although a number of IM- 425th Munitions Maintenance Squadron. During oper-
99/CIM-10 Bomarcs have been placed on public display, ational service, the Bomarcs were maintained on stand-
concerns about the possible environmental hazards of the by, on a 24-hour basis, but were never red, although the
thoriated magnesium structure of the airframe have re- squadron test-red the missiles at Eglin AFB, Florida on
sulted in several being removed from public view.[20] annual winter retreats.[26]
Russ Sneddon, director of the Air Force Armament Mu- No. 447 SAM Squadron operating out of RCAF Station
seum, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida provided informa- La Macaza, Quebec was activated on 15 September 1962
tion about missing CIM-10 exhibit airframe serial 59- although warheads were not delivered until late 1963.
2016, one of the museums original artifacts from its The squadron followed the same operational procedures
founding in 1975 and donated by the 4751st Air De- as No. 446, its sister squadron. With the passage of time
fense Squadron at Hurlburt Field, Eglin Auxiliary Field the operational capability of the 1950s-era Bomarc sys-
9, Eglin AFB. As of December 2006, the suspect missile tem no longer met modern requirements; the Department
was stored in a secure compound behind the Armaments of National Defence deemed that the Bomarc missile de-
Museum. In December 2010, the airframe was still on fense was no longer a viable system, and ordered both
premises, but partially dismantled. squadrons to be stood down in 1972. The bunkers and
ancillary facilities remain at both former sites.[27]
105.2.2 Canada
105.3 Variants
The Bomarc Missile Program was highly controversial in
Canada.[21] The Progressive Conservative government of XF-99 (experimental for booster research)
Prime Minister John Diefenbaker initially agreed to de-
ploy the missiles, and shortly thereafter controversially XF-99A/XIM-99A (experimental for ramjet re-
scrapped the Avro Arrow, a supersonic manned intercep- search)
tor aircraft, arguing that the missile program made the YF-99/YIM-99[12] (service-test)
Arrow unnecessary.[21]
IM-99A (initial production)
Initially, it was unclear whether the missiles would be
equipped with nuclear warheads. By 1960 it became IM-99B (advanced[14] )
known that the missiles were to have a nuclear payload,
and a debate ensued about whether Canada should accept CQM-10 (target drone)[28]
nuclear weapons.[22] Ultimately, the Diefenbaker govern-
ment decided that the Bomarcs should not be equipped
with nuclear warheads.[23] The dispute split the Diefen- 105.4 Operators
baker Cabinet, and led to the collapse of the government
in 1963.[23] The Ocial Opposition and Liberal Party / Canada
leader Lester Mike Pearson originally was against nu-
clear missiles, but reversed his personal position and ar-
gued in favor of accepting nuclear warheads.[24] He won Royal Canadian Air Force from 19551968 /
the 1963 election, largely on the basis of this issue, and Canadian Forces from 19681972
his new Liberal government proceeded to accept nuclear-
armed Bomarcs, with the rst being deployed on 31 De-
446 SAM Squadron: 28 IM-99B, CFB North Bay,
cember 1963.[25] When the nuclear warheads were de-
Ontario 19621972[26][29]
ployed, Pearsons wife, Maryon, resigned her honorary
membership in the anti-nuclear weapons group, Voice of Bomarc site located at 462546N
Women.[22] 0792816W / 46.42944N
Canadian operational deployment of the Bomarc in- 79.47111W
volved the formation of two specialized Surface/Air Mis- 447 SAM Squadron: 28 IM-99B, La Macaza, Quebec
sile squadrons. The rst to begin operations was No. (La Macaza Mont Tremblant International Air-
446 SAM Squadron at RCAF Station North Bay, On- port) 19621972[27][30]
tario which was the command and control center for both
squadrons.[25] With construction of the compound and re- Bomarc site located at 462441N
lated facilities completed in 1961, the squadron received 0744608W / 46.41139N
its Bomarcs in 1961, without nuclear warheads.[25] The 74.76889W (Approximately)
105.5. SURVIVING MISSILES 363
United States Reference for BOMARC units and locations:[31]
6th ADMS
United States Air Force Air (later Aerospace) De-
fense Command 22d ADMS
26th ADMS
Air Force Systems Command
30th ADMS
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station,
Florida 35th ADMS
Launch Complex 4 (LC-
37th ADMS
4) was used for Bomarc
testing and development 46th ADMS
launches 2 February
1956 15 April 1960 (17 74th ADMS
Launches). 282759N
0803208W 4751st ADMS
/ 28.46639N
RCAF 446 Sqdn
80.53556W
Vandenberg Air Force Base, Cali- RCAF 447 Squdn
fornia
Two launch sites, BOM-1
and BOM-2 were used by 105.5 Surviving missiles
the United States Navy
for Bomarc launches
against aireal targets.
The rst launch taking
place on 25 August
1966. The last two
launches occurred on
14 July 1982. BOM1
49 launches; BOM2 38
launches. 344802N
1203557W
/ 34.80056N
120.59917W
Locations under construction but not activated. Each site

was programmed for 28 IM-99B missiles:
Camp Adair, Oregon 444208N 1231200W /

44.70222N 123.20000W
Charleston AFB, South Carolina
Ethan Allen AFB, Vermont 443038N
0730949W / 44.51056N 73.16361W
Paine Field, Washington 475443N 1221555W
/ 47.91194N 122.26528W
Travis AFB, California 382914N 1215307W
/ 38.48722N 121.88528W
Truax Field, Wisconsin 431127N 0890915W Bomarc B on display at the Canada Aviation and Space Museum
/ 43.19083N 89.15417W Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, c. 2006.
Vandenberg AFB, California 344347N Below is a list of museums or sites which have a Bomarc
1203015W / 34.72972N 120.50417W missile on display:
Air Force Armament Museum, Eglin Air Force 105.7 References

Base, Florida
[1] The SAGE/Bomarc Air Defense Weapons System: An
Illustrated Explanation of What it is and How it Works
Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida. This pristine (fact sheet) (Report). New York: International Business
artifact is in sequestered storage in Hangar R on Machines Corporation. 1959. Archived from the original
Cape Canaveral AFS and cannot be viewed by the on 23 April 2013. Retrieved 23 April 2013. BOMARC
general public. Crew training was activated January 1, 1958. The oper-
ator requests an engagement prediction point from the
Alberta Aviation Museum, Edmonton, Alberta, IBM computer. Missile guidance information is relayed
Canada via leased lines to Cape Canaveral, and via radio to the
Canada Aviation and Space Museum, Ottawa, BOMARC missile. AN/FPS-20 long-range search radar
at Patrick Air Force Base (cited by History of Strategic Air
Ontario, Canada
and Ballistic Missile Defense: Volume I, p. 257.)
Hill Aerospace Museum, Hill Air Force Base, Utah
[2] BOMARC: Boeings Long-range A.A. Missile. Flight
Historical Electronics Museum, Linthicum, Mary- Global: 687. 24 May 1957. Retrieved 4 August 2013.
land (display of AN/DPN-53, the rst airborne Development of the electronic guidance was assisted by
pulse-doppler radar, used in the Bomarc) simulated IM-99 nose sections, pressurized by nitrogen
and cooled by ammonia, tted to a T-33 and a B-57,
Illinois Soldiers & Sailors Home, Quincy, Illinois the pilot of these aircraft cutting out the guidance and
breaking away from the collision course as the target was
Keesler Air Force Base, Biloxi, Mississippi neared. 70 per cent subcontracted): prime contractor,
Boeing (assembly of missiles at the main Seattle plant, Pi-
lotless Aircraft Division); cruise propulsion, Marquardt;
Warner Robins, Georgia boost propulsion, Aerojet-General; guidance and control,
National Museum of Nuclear Science & History, Westinghouse Air Arm Division; ground control gear,
Westinghouse Electronics Division; ground-support and
Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, New Mex-
test gear, Farnsworth Division of I.T. and T.; airborne
ico
electronic intelligence, Lear (LearCal and Grand Rapids
National Museum of the United States Air Force, Divisions); nose of missile, Pastushin (glass bre, leaves
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio radar beams undistorted).
Octave Chanute Aerospace Museum (former [3] McMullen, R. F. (15 February 1980). History of Air
Chanute Air Force Base), Rantoul, Illinois Defense Weapons 19461962 (Report). ADC Historical
Study No. 14. Historical Division, Oce of information,
Peterson Air and Space Museum, Peterson Air HQ ADC. p. 312. Development of a long-range intercep-
Force Base, Colorado tor missile to be known as BOMARC was approved by
the Research and Development Board of the Department
Strategic Air and Space Museum, Ashland, Ne- of Defense in December 1950. BOMARC ight testing
braska got o to a shaky start on 10 September 1952 when the
rst missile was launched from the Florida test center that
U.S. Air Force History and Traditions Museum, later became known as Cape Canaveral. the BOMARC
Lackland Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas Weapons System Project Ocer (WSPO), an ARDC of-
cial, gave permission for the launching of 12 YIM-99A
Vandenberg Air Force Base (Space and Missile Her- (the Y designated experimental missiles). The rst at-
itage Center), California. Bomarc not for public ac- tempt at SAGE control of BOMARC occurred 7 August
cess. 1958 Because of split radar returns, SAGE was not
able to give the missile the proper commands and [then a]
GPA-35 took control. The missile malfunctioned, how-
105.6 See also ever, and [crashed] into the Atlantic. Air Force Missile
Employment Facility at Hurlburt Field, Florida, Hurlburt
(ocially designated Eglin Auxiliary Field No. 9) [with
Related development launchers] was on a narrow strip of sand known as Santa
Rosa Island. In August 1960, the BOMARC Weapons
MGM-1 Matador System Project Oce (AMC) had assured the BOMARC
General Ocers Board that $100,000 would be available
MGM-13 Mace to pay for Boeing help. Bomarc Alternate Boost Pro-
SSM-N-8 Regulus gram at React ion Motors, Inc., 3 July 1953 Msg,
WWXDBE-FA 18-5-47, IM-99 Field Test Sec to USAF,
19 May 1960 [Doc 304 to Hist of ADC, Jan-Jun 1960].
[4] Preface by Buss, L. H. (Director) (1 May 1960). North
Bristol Bloodhound American Air Defense Command and Continental Air
Defense Command Historical Summary: JulyDecember and guided in a line abreast type formation.with target
1959 (Report). Directorate of Command History: Of- seekers operating in search mode. This would provide a
ce of Information Services. On 7 October 1959, NO- capability to patrol a given area where targets were sus-
RAD provided guidance on this to ADC as follows. Gap pected but where denite tracks had not been established.
llers will be redeployed to provide low altitude cover- Check date values in: |date= (help)
age (500 feet) 230 nautical Jl1il~s forward and 150 miles
to the rear of all BOMARC launch sites Criteria for [9] Baugher, Joe. Boeing/MARC F-99. JoeBaugher.com.
BOMARC coverage is that no lateral gaps exceed 25 nau- Retrieved 4 August 2013.
tical miles (normal terrain) at a curve of constant altitude
of 300 feet Directional antennas and high power am- [10] Skarrup, Harold A. Florida Warplanes. Bloomington, In-
pliers tor the ground-to-air transmitter sites will be pro- diana: IUniverse, 2010. ISBN 978-1-4502-64457.
grammed and deployed only as required to support BO-
MARC operations. NORAO Objective Plan 1961-1965 [11] Gibson 1996, pp. 200201
called for an F-101 squadron for Comox AB, Canada,
[12] Bomarc. Encyclopedia Astronautica. Retrieved 7
and a BOMARC squadron for Paine AFB, Washington.
August 2013. Promising [GAPA] results led to Boe-
To control these squadrons, NORAD also provided for
ing receiving a USAF contract in 1949 to develop the
an AN/FPS-28 for the Queen Charlotte Islands. total
exotic MX-1599 ramjet-powered, nuclear-armed long-
o-shore coverage, available from ALRI and land-based
range surface-to-air missile for defense of the continen-
sources, would permit use of the BOMARC B only to ap-
tal United States from high-altitude bombers. The last
proximately 70 per cent of its low-altitude and 50 per cent
Bomarc A was phased out in December 1964. In April
of its high-altitude range capability. In the last six months
1972 the last Bomarc B was retired. Test ights of XF-
of 1959. two IM-99A squadrons became operational and
99 test vehicles began in September 1952 and continued
assumed an air defense role. The rst was the 46th Air
through early 1955. The XF-99 tested only the liquid-
Defense Missile Squadron (BOMARC) based at McGuire
fueled booster rocket, which would accelerate the missile
AFB, New Jerseyactivated on 1 January 1959, opera-
to ramjet ignition speed. In February 1955, tests of the
tional on 1 September 1959 with three missiles. the
XF-99A propulsion test vehicles began. These included
6th Air Defense Missile Squadron (BOMARC) at Suf-
live ramjets, but still had no guidance system or warhead.
folk 6th ADMS activated on 1 February 1959, opera-
The designation YF-99A had been reserved for the oper-
tional on 1 December 1959. As of 1 January 1960. the
ational test vehicles. In August 1955, the USAF discon-
McGuire squadron had 24 IM-39A missiles and the Suf-
tinued the use of aircraft-like type designators for mis-
folk squadron had four missiles available for air defense.
siles, and the XF-99A and YF-99A became XIM-99A and
The 26th ADMS, activated at Otis AFB, Massachusetts,
YIM-99A.
on 1 March 1359; the 30th ADMS, activated on 1 June
1959 at Dow AFB. Maine; and the 22nd ADMS, acti-
[13] Rice, Helen. History of Ogden Air Material Area, 1934
vated on 1 September 1959 at Langley AFB, Virginia.
1960 (Scribd image) (Report). p. 204. Retrieved 22 July
These units were expected to become operational in 1960.
2013. Boeing completed the rst production model of
NADOP 1959-1963, dated 16 December 1958 [planned
the IM-99A Bomarc in 1957, accepted by the AF on 30
for] FY 1963 of 36 IM-99B sites and 2,772 launchers.
December. After repairing [a test-damaged XIM-99A in
[32] in the U. S. (excluding Alaska), two in the [Alaska]
1958 Ogden (OOMWA) shipped it to the USAF Orienta-
64th Air Div1sion area, and two in Canada. In March
tion Group at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. Ogdens facil-
1960, the JCS told NORAD that they were considering
ity capability to support the Bomarc included 26 buildings
reducing the BOMARC program to eight U.S. and two
and scores of pieces of special equipment. Fourteen of the
Canadian squadrons.
buildings were in the West Area Complex. The special
[5] http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2007/ facilities and skilled technicians at the AF-Marquardt Jet
june/i_history.pdf Laboratory at Little Mountain.
[6] Big Bite. newspaper tbd (photo P24418 caption, tail [14] IM-99A Bases Manual. Boeing: Pilotless Aircraft Divi-
number AF58-5968 with 100 below BOEING). 18 sion (Seattle, Washington), 12 March 1959.
March 1960. as it was loaded aboard an Air Force trans-
portthis was the 100th production Model A missile, [15] BOMARC in California. Militarymuseum.org. Re-
Boeing has built more than 100 additional experimental trieved: 18 August 2013.
and service-test Bomarc units.
[16] Vandenberg BOM1. Astronautix.com. Retrieved: 18
[7] Boyne. Beyond the Wild Blue ... p. 132. The Bomarc was August 2013.
highly successful against many high-speed drone targetsg,
and 570 were built. [17] Gibson 1996, pp. 200201.
[8] IM-99 Weapon System: 26 October - 28 November 1958 [18] 46th Air Defense Missile Squadron. NYADS 1960 Year-
(Report). Approved 17 December 1958, declassied. Re- book. Retrieved 28 September 2010.
trieved 4 August 2013. technical training facility at Eglin
Air Force Auxiliary Field Number 9. The IM-99A and [19] Gambardello, Joseph A. Plutonium Spill Neither Gone
IM-99B warheads (W-40) The IM-99B had been designed Nor Forgotten, 40 Years Later. The Philadelphia In-
to include a Pattern Patrol type operation. Missiles quirer, 1 June 2000, p. A01. Retrieved: 26 December
could be launched in multiples, or at very close intervals 2009.
[20] Young, Gord. Cold War relic on the move. North Bay Jenkins, Dennis R. and Tony R. Landis. Experimen-
Nugget, 12 September 2009. Retrieved: 24 December tal & Prototype U.S. Air Force Jet Fighters. North
2009. Branch, Minnesota: Specialty Press, 2008. ISBN
978-1-58007-111-6.
[21] Buteux, Paul. Bomarc Missile Crisis. The Cana-
dian Encyclopedia. Toronto: Historica Foundation, 2012. Nicks, Don, John Bradley and Chris Charland. A
Archived from the original on 11 August 2012. Retrieved
History of the Air Defence of Canada 19481997.
11 August 2012.
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Commander Fighter
[22] CBC Digital Archives. Voice of Women protest nuclear Group, 1997. ISBN 0-9681973-0-2.
testing. CBC News, 26 March 2012 (Toronto). Archived
from the original on 11 August 2012. Retrieved 11 August Pedigree of Champions: Boeing Since 1916, Third
2012. Edition. Seattle, Washington: The Boeing Com-
pany, 1969.
[23] The Nuclear Question in Canada (19571963)". Diefen-
baker Canada Centre. Regina, Saskatchewan: University Winkler, David F. Searching the Skies: The Legacy
of Saskatchewan. Archived from the original on 11 Au- of the United States Cold War Defense Radar Pro-
gust 2012. Retrieved 11 August 2012. gram. Langley Air Force Base, Virginia: United
States Air Force Headquarters Air Combat Com-
[24] Cold War Canada: The Voice of Women. Canada: A
Peoples History, 2001 (Toronto: CBC). Archived from mand, 1997. ISBN 978-1-907521-91-1.
the original on 11 August 2012. Retrieved 11 August
2012.
[25] Special to The Star: Canadas Bomarcs get atom war-

heads. The Toronto Daily Star, 2 January 1964, pp. 1,
4. RCAF 446 SAM Squadron
[26] Nicks et al. 1997, pp. 8485. BOMARC Missile Sites
[27] Nicks et al. 1997, pp. 8587. Boeing Company History, Bomarc
[28] Factsheets : Boeing XF-99. Nationalmuseum.af.mil. Astronautix.com
Retrieved: 18 September 2013.
Bomarc pictures
[29] 446 SAM Squadron. radomes.org. Retrieved: 12
September 2010. Bomarc Video Clip
[30] 447 SAM Squadron. radomes.org. Retrieved: 12
September 2010.
[31] Bomarc Missile Sites. radomes.org. Retrieved: 26 De-

cember 2009.
105.7.1 Bibliography
Clearwater, John. Canadian Nuclear Weapons:
The Untold Story of Canadas Cold War Arsenal.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Dundern Press, 1999.
ISBN 1-55002-299-7.
Clearwater, John. U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Canada.

Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Dundern Press, 1999.
ISBN 1-55002-329-2.
Cornett, Lloyd H., Jr. and Mildred W. Johnson.

A Handbook of Aerospace Defense Organization
19461980. Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado:
Oce of History, Aerospace Defense Center, 1980.
No ISBN.
Gibson, James N. Nuclear Weapons of the United

States: An Illustrated History. Atglen, Pennsylvania:
Schier Publishing Ltd., 1996. ISBN 0-7643-0063-
6.
Chapter 106
LIM-49 Nike Zeus
Nike Zeus was an anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system sion surrounding the ABM system. In 1963, the Secretary
developed by the US Army during the late 1950s and of Defense, Robert McNamara, decided to cancel Zeus
early 1960s, designed to destroy Soviet Intercontinental as it would be ineective. McNamara directed funding
ballistic missile warheads before they could hit targets in towards studies of new ABM concepts being considered
the United States. It was designed by Bells Nike team, by ARPA, selecting the Nike-X concept, a layered sys-
and was initially based on the earlier Nike Hercules anti- tem with more than one type of missile. To Zeus, Nike-X
aircraft missile. The original Zeus A, given the tri-service added a short range missile, the Sprint, along with greatly
identier XLIM-49, was designed to intercept warheads improved radars and computer systems that provided de-
in the upper atmosphere, mounting a 25 kiloton W31 fense over a wide area. The Zeus test site at Kwajalein
nuclear warhead to guarantee a kill. During development was briey used as an anti-satellite weapon.
it was greatly enlarged and extended into a totally new de-
sign, Zeus B, intended to intercept warheads over a much
larger area, and mounting a 400 kiloton W50 warhead. In
several successful tests, the B model proved itself able to 106.1 History
intercept warheads, and even satellites.
The nature of the strategic threat changed dramatically 106.1.1 Early ABM studies
during the period that Zeus was being developed. Orig-
inally expected to face only a few dozen ICBMs, a na- The rst known concerted eort to attack ballistic mis-
tionwide defense was feasible, although expensive. In siles was carried out by the Army Air Force in 1946,
1957, growing fears of a Soviet sneak attack led it to when two contracts were sent out as Project Wizard and
be positioned primarily as a way to protect Strategic Air Project Thumper to consider the problem of shooting
Command's bomber bases. When the Soviets claimed to down missiles of the V-2 type.[1] These projects identi-
be building hundreds of missiles, the US raced to close ed the main problems; the target could approach from
this mythical missile gap. Building more Zeus missiles to anywhere within a vast area, and reached its targets in
match the Soviet eet would be expensive, more expen- only ve minutes. To start with, existing radar systems
sive than building US ICBMs and ignoring the defense of would have diculty seeing the missile launch at ranges
the bombers. Adding to the concerns, a number of tech- in the hundreds of miles. Assuming one had detection of
nical problems emerged that suggested Zeus would have the missile, existing command and control arrangements
would have serious problems forwarding that information
little capability against any sort of sophisticated attack.
to any behind-the-lines battery in time for them to nd it
The system was the topic of intense debate and interser- on their local radars and attack. The task appeared im-
vice rivalry throughout its lifetime. When the ABM role possible at that time.[2]
was given to the Army in 1958, the US Air Force be-
gan a long series of attacks on Zeus, both within defense However, the early results also noted that the system
circles as well as in the press. The Army returned these might be able to work against longer-ranged missiles,
[2]
attacks in kind, taking out full page spreads in popular where they would have much longer times to prepare.
mass market news magazines to promote Zeus, as well Both projects were allowed to continue as research ef-
as spreading development contracts across many states in forts, and were transferred to the US Air Force when the
order to garner the maximum political support. As de- Air Force separated from the Army. The Air Force faced
ployment neared in the early 1960s, the debate became signicant budget constraints and cancelled Thumper in
a major political issue. The question ultimately became 1949 in order to use its funds to continue their GAPA
whether or not a system with limited eectiveness would surface-to-air missile (SAM). The next year they merged
be better than nothing at all. the Wizard and GAPA projects to develop a new long-
range SAM design, which would emerge a decade later
The decision whether to proceed with Zeus eventually fell as the CIM-10 Bomarc. ABM research at the Air Force
to President Kennedy, who was fascinated by the indeci- essentially, although not ocially, ended.[2][3]
367
368 CHAPTER 106. LIM-49 NIKE ZEUS
106.1.2 Nike II 95 and 100% of the time in order to be worthwhile. They

considered attacks against the warhead while the missile
was in the midcourse, just as it reached the highest point in
its trajectory and was traveling at its slowest speed. Prac-
tical limitations eliminated this possibility, as it required
the ABM to be launched at about the same time as the
ICBM in order to meet in the middle, and they could not
imagine a way to arrange this. Working at much shorter
ranges seemed the only possible solution.[8] In the termi-
nal phase, the ICBM warhead would approach at rates
on the order of 5 miles (8.0 km) per second; in order to
have enough time to maneuver for the nal approach, an
active seeker in the warhead would have to be very pow-
erful, and thus very heavy. Instead, a command guided
solution like the earlier Nikes was selected.[9]
Bell returned a further study, delivered on 4 January
1956, that demonstrated the need to intercept the incom-
ing warheads at 100-mile (160 km) altitude, and sug-
gested that this was within the abilities of an upgraded
version of the Nike Hercules missile.[10] The 5 mile per
second approach speed of the ICBM warhead, combined
the tens of seconds that it took for the Nike missile to
climb to the warheads altitude, required that the war-
head be initially detected at about 1,000 miles (1,600
km) range in order to leave enough time to it to be in-
The Nike missile family, with the Zeus B in front of the Hercules tercepted. Warheads are relatively small and have lim-
and Ajax ited radar cross sections, so this requirement demanded
radars of extremely high power.[10]
By the early 1950s the Army was rmly established in
The interceptor would lose maneuverability as it climbed
the surface-to-air missile eld with their Nike and Nike
out of the atmosphere and its aerodynamic surfaces be-
B missile projects. These projects had been led by Bell
came less eective, so it should be directed onto the target
Labs, working with Douglas.[4]
as rapidly as possible, leaving only minor ne tuning later
The Army contacted the Johns Hopkins University in the engagement. This required that accurate tracks be
Operations Research Oce (ORO) to consider the task developed for both the warhead and outgoing missile very
of shooting down ballistic missiles using a Nike-like sys- quickly in comparison to a system like Hercules where the
tem. The ORO report took three years to complete, and guidance could be updated throughout the engagement.
the resulting The Defense of the United States Against Air- This demanded new computers and tracking radars with
craft and Missiles was comprehensive.[5] While this study much higher processing rates than the systems used on
was still progressing, in February 1955 the Army had con- earlier Nikes. Bell suggested that their transistor oered
cluded that missile systems had advanced enough to at- the solution to the data processing problem.[11] After run-
tack ICBMs, and in March they contracted Bells Nike ning 50,000 simulated intercepts on analog computers,
team to begin a detailed 18 month study of the problem Bell returned a nal report on the concept in October
under the name Nike II.[3] 1956, indicating that the system was within the state of
[10]
The rst section of the Bell study was returned to the the art.
Army Ordnance department at the Redstone Arsenal on A 13 November 1956 memo gave new names to the en-
2 December 1955. It considered the full range of threats tire Nike series; the original Nike became Nike Ajax,
including existing jet aircraft, future ramjet powered air- Nike B became Nike Hercules, and Nike II became Nike
craft ying at up to 3,000 knots (5,600 km/h), short- Zeus.[12][13]
range ballistic missiles of the V-2 type ying at about the
same speed, and an ICBM warhead traveling at 14,000
knots (26,000 km/h).[6] They suggested that a single 106.1.3 Army vs. Air Force
rocket booster could be equipped with either of two upper
stages, one with ns for use in the atmosphere against air-
The Army and Air Force had been involved in interser-
craft, and another with vestigial ns and thrust vectoring
vice ghting over missile systems since they split in 1947.
for use above the atmosphere against missiles.[7] The Army considered surface-to-surface missiles (SSM)
Considering the ICBM problem, the study went on to sug- an extension of artillery and surface-to-air designs as the
gest that the system would have to be eective between modern replacement for their anti-aircraft artillery. The
106.1. HISTORY 369
Air Force considered the nuclear SSM to be an extension

of their strategic bombing role, and any sort of long-range
anti-aircraft system to be their domain as it would inte-
grate with their ghter eet. Both forces were developing
missiles for both roles, leading to considerable duplica-
tion of eort which was widely seen as wasteful.[14] Al-
though the Air Force had earlier abandoned their ABM
eorts, as soon as the Nike II program was announced in
1955 they reactivated Wizard. This time the program was
not aimed at V-2 class battleeld missiles, but called for
a long-range anti-ICBM system of much greater perfor-
mance than Zeus.[15] This was added to a growing list of
tit-for-tat projects, which included the Armys Hercules
vs. Air Force Bomarc, and the Armys Jupiter missile
which prompted the Air Force to start their own IRBM Projected numbers of Soviet ICBMs over time. Program A: CIA,
eort, Thor.[16] B: USAF, C: Army & Navy.
In a 26 November 1956 memorandum, US Secretary of

Defense Charles Erwin Wilson attempted to end the ght- While the report was being prepared, in August 1957 the
ing and prevent duplication. His solution was to limit Soviets successfully launched their R-7 Semyorka (SS-6)
the Army to weapons with 200-mile (320 km) range, and ICBM, and followed this up with the successful launch
those involved in surface-to-air defense to only 100 miles of Sputnik 1 in October. Over the next few months,
(160 km).[17] The memo also placed limits on Army air a series of intelligence reviews resulted in ever increas-
operations, severely limiting the weight of the aircraft ing estimates of the Soviet missile force. National In-
they were allowed to operate. To some degree this sim- telligence Estimate (NIE) 11-10-57, issued in Decem-
ply formalized what had largely already been the case in ber 1957, stated that the Soviets would have perhaps 10
practice, but Jupiter fell outside the range limits and theprototype missiles in service by mid-1958. But after
Army was forced to hand them to the Air Force.[18] Nikita Khrushchev claimed to be producing them like
[23][lower-alpha 1]
The result was another round of ghting between the two sausages, the numbers began to rapidly in-
forces. Jupiter had been designed to be a highly accurate ate. NIE 11-5-58, released in August 1958, suggested
weapon able to attack Soviet military bases in Europe,[19] there would be 100 ICBMs in service by 1960, and 500
[25]
as compared to Thor, which was intended to attack Soviet by 1961 or 1962 at the latest.
[20]
cities and had accuracy on the order of several miles. With the NIEs suggesting the existence of the gap
Losing Jupiter, the Army was eliminated from any oen- Gaither predicted, near panic broke out in military cir-
sive strategic role. In return, the Air Force complained cles. In response, the US began to rush its own ICBM ef-
that Zeus was too long ranged and the ABM eort should forts, centered on the SM-65 Atlas. These missiles would
center on Wizard. But the Jupiter handover meant that be less susceptible to attack by ICBM than bombers, es-
Zeus was now the only strategic program being carried pecially in future versions which would be launched from
out by the Army, and its cancellation would mean vir- underground silos. But even as Atlas was rushed, it ap-
tually the surrender of the defense of America to the peared there would be a missile gap; during the period
U.S.A.F at some future date.[21] from about 1959 to 1963 the NIE estimates suggested
the Soviets would have signicantly more ICBMs than
the US. To ensure this did not happen, the Gaither Re-
106.1.4 Gaither Report, missile gap port called for the installation of active defenses at SAC
bases, Hercules in the short term and an ABM for the
1959 period, along with new early warning radars for
In May 1957, Eisenhower tasked the Presidents Science
ballistic missiles to allow alert aircraft to get away be-
Advisory Committee (PSAC) to provide a report on the
fore the missiles hit.[26] Even Zeus would come too late
potential eectiveness of fallout shelters and other means
to cover this period, and some consideration was given to
of protecting the US population in the event of a nuclear
an adapted Hercules or a land based version of the Navys
war. Chaired by Horace Rowan Gaither, the PSAC team
RIM-8 Talos as an interim ABM.[27]
completed their study in September, publishing it o-
cially on 7 November as Deterrence & Survival in the Nu-
clear Age, but today known as the Gaither Report. Af-
ter ascribing an expansionist policy to the USSR, along 106.1.5 Zeus B
with suggestions that they were more heavily developing
their military than the US, the Report suggested that there Douglas Aircraft had been selected to build the missiles
would be a signicant gap in capability in the late 1950s for Zeus, known under the company designation DM-
due to spending levels.[22] 15. This was essentially a scaled up Hercules with an
speeds while still in the lower atmosphere, so the mis-

sile fuselage had to be covered over completely with a
phenolic ablative heat shield to protect the airframe from
melting.[33][lower-alpha 2] The new DM-15B Nike Zeus B
(the earlier model retroactively becoming the A) received
a go ahead for development on 16 January 1958,[34] the
same date the Air Force was ocially told to stop all work
on a Wizard missile.[27]
On 22 January 1958, the National Security Council gave
Zeus S-Priority, the highest national priority.[35][36] Addi-
tional funds were requested to the Zeus program to ensure
an initial service date in the fourth quarter of 1962, but
these were denied, delaying service entry until some time
in 1963.[37]
The Nike Zeus project oce at Redstone Arsenal, home of the
earlier Nike eorts as well
106.1.6 Exchange ratio and other prob-
lems
improved, more powerful single piece booster replac-
ing Hercules cluster of four smaller boosters. Intercepts
With their change of fortunes after McElroys 1958 de-
could take place at the limits of the Wilson requirements, cision, Army General James M. Gavin stated that Zeus
at ranges and altitudes of about 100 miles (160 km), but
would soon replace strategic bombers as the nations main
accuracy limits reduced this to about 75 miles (121 km). deterrent. In response to this turn of events, the Air Force
Prototype launches were planned for 1959. For more stepped up their policy by press release eorts against the
rapid service entry there had been some consideration Army, as well as agitating behind the scenes within the
given to an interim system based on the original Hercules Defense Department.[38]
missile, but these eorts were dropped. Likewise, early
requirements for a secondary anti-aircraft role were also As part of their Wizard research, the Air Force had devel-
eventually dropped.[28] oped a formula that compared the cost of an ICBM to the
ABM needed to shoot it down. The formula, later known
In early 1957 Wilson signaled his intentions to retire, and as the cost-exchange ratio, produced a dollar gure; if the
Eisenhower began looking for a replacement. During his cost of the ICBM was less than that gure, the economic
exit interview, only four days after Sputnik, Wilson told advantage was in favor of building more ICBMs, and an
Eisenhower that trouble is rising between the Army and adversary could win an oensive/defensive arms race. A
the Air Force over the 'anti-missile-missile'.[29] The new variety of scenarios demonstrated that it was almost al-
Secretary of Defense, Neil McElroy, took oce on 9 Oc- ways the case that the oense had the advantage. This
tober 1957. McElroy was previously president of Procter problem had been conveniently ignored during Wizard,
& Gamble and was best known for the invention of the
but as soon as the Army was handed sole control of the
concept of brand management and product dierentia- ABM eorts, the Air Force immediately submitted it to
tion.[30] He had little federal experience, and the launch
McElroy. McElroy identied this as an example of inter-
of Sputnik left him little time to ease into the position.[31] service ghting, but was concerned that the formula might
Shortly after taking oce, McElroy formed a panel to be correct.[39]
investigate ABM issues. The panel examined the Army For an answer, McElroy turned to the Re-entry Body
and Air Force projects, and found the Zeus program con- Identication Group (RBIG), a sub-group of the Gaither
siderably more advanced than Wizard. McElroy told the Committee led by William E. Bradley, Jr. that had been
Air Force to stop work on ABM missiles and use Wizard studying the issue of penetrating a Soviet ABM system.
funding for the development of long range radars for early The RBIG delivered an extensive report on the topic on 2
warning and raid identication. These were already un- April 1958 which suggested that defeating a Soviet ABM
der development as the BMEWS network. The Army was system would not be dicult. Their primary suggestion
handed the job of actually shooting down the warheads, was to arm US missiles with more than one warhead, a
and McElroy gave them free hand to develop an ABM concept known as Multiple Re-entry Vehicles (MRV),
system as they saw t, free of any range limitations.[32] and ensure they would separate by more than a mile dur-
The team designed a much larger missile with a greatly ing their ight. Combined with radiation hardening of
enlarged upper fuselage and three stages, more than dou- the warhead, this would ensure that multiple intercep-
bling the launch weight. This version extended range, tor missiles would be needed to attack them. The US
with interceptions taking place as far as 200 miles (320 could overwhelm a Soviet ABM system for relatively low
km) downrange and over 100 miles (160 km) in altitude. cost.[39] The arguments would remain the primary argu-
An even larger booster took the missile to hypersonic ments against ABMs for the next two decades.[39]
106.1. HISTORY 371
Turning this argument about, they delivered a report to The problem here is the usual prob-
McElroy that agreed with the Air Forces original claims lem between defense and oenses, measures,
on cost.[39] But they then considered the Zeus system it- countermeasures, counter-counter measures,
self, and noted that its use of mechanically steered radars, et cetera, in which it has been my judgement
with one radar per missile, meant that Zeus could only and still is that the battle is so heavily weighted
launch a small number of missiles at once. If the So- in favor of the oense that it is hopeless against
viets deployed MRV, several warheads would arrive at a determined oense and that incidentally ap-
the same time, and the Zeus would simply not have time plies to our position with regard to an anti-
to shoot at them all. Only four warheads arriving within missile that they might build. I am convinced
one minute would result in one of them hitting the Zeus that we can continue to have a missile system
base 90% of the time.[40] The RBIG noted that an ABM that can penetrate any Soviet defense.[42]
system demands such a high rate of re from an active
defense system, in order to intercept the numerous reen- When this report was received, McElroy then charged
try bodies which arrive nearly simultaneously, that the ARPA to begin studying long term solutions to the ICBM
expense of the required equipment may be prohibitive. defense, looking for systems that would avoid the appar-
They went on to question the ultimate impossibility of ently insurmountable problem presented by the exchange
an ABM system.[41] ratio.[43]
ARPA responded by forming Project Defender, initially
106.1.7 Project Defender considering a wide variety of far out concepts like particle
beam weapons, lasers and huge eets of space-borne in-
terceptor missiles, the later known as Project BAMBI. In
May 1958, York also began working with Lincoln Labs,
MIT's radar research lab, to begin researching ways to
distinguish warhead from decoy by radar or other means.
This project emerged as the Pacic Range Electromag-
netic Signature Studies, or Project PRESS.[29]
106.1.8 More problems
In the midst of the growing debate over Zeus abilities,

the US conducted its rst high yield, high altitude tests
Hardtack Teak on 1 August 1958, and Hardtack Or-
ange on 12 August. These demonstrated a number of pre-
viously unknown or underestimated eects, notably that
nuclear reballs grew to very large size and caused all of
the air in or immediately below the reball to become
opaque to radar signals. This was extremely worrying for
any system like Zeus, which would not be able to track
warheads in or behind such a reball.[44]
If this were not enough, there was a growing aware-
ness that simple radar reectors could be launched along
with the warhead that would be indistinguishable to Zeus
radars. This problem was rst alluded to in 1958 in
public talks that mentioned Zeus inability to discrimi-
nate targets.[45] If the decoys spread apart further than
the lethal radius of the Zeus warhead, several intercep-
tors will be required to guarantee that the warhead hiding
Herbert York led studies of the ABM concept, and would from
then on be a vocal opponent of any deployment.
among the decoys will be destroyed.[46] Decoys are light
weight, and would slow down when they began to reenter
McElroy responded to the RBIG report in two ways. the upper atmosphere, allowing them to be picked out, or
First, he turned to the newly created ARPA group to ex- decluttered. But by that time it would be so close to the
amine the RBIG report. APRA, directed by Chief Scien- Zeus base that there might not be time for the Zeus to
tist Herbert York, returned another report broadly agree- climb to altitude.[46]
ing with everything they said.[39] Considering both the In 1959 the Defense Department ordered one more study
need to penetrate a Soviet ABM and a potential US ABM on the basic Zeus system, this time by the PSAC. They
system, York noted that: put together a heavyweight group with some of the most
President Kennedy was fascinated by the debate over Zeus, and

became an expert on all aspects of the system.
Hans Bethe's work with PSAC led to a famous 1968 article in

enough to solve the looming missile gap.[25][lower-alpha 3]
Scientic American outlining the major problems facing any After his win in the 1960 elections he was ooded with
ABM defensive system. calls and letters urging that Zeus be continued. This was
a concentrated eort on the part of the Army, who was
ghting back against similar Air Force tactics. They also
famous and inuential scientists forming its core, in- used the now common tactic of deliberately spreading the
cluding Hans Bethe who had worked on the Manhattan Zeus contracts over 37 states in order to gain as much po-
Project and later on the hydrogen bomb, Wolfgang litical and industrial support as possible, while taking out
Panofsky, the director of the High-Energy Physics Lab advertisements in major mass-market magazines like Life
at Stanford University, Harold Brown, director of the and The Saturday Evening Post promoting the system.[50]
Lawrence Livermore weapons lab, among similar lumi- Kennedy appointed Army General Maxwell D. Taylor as
naries. The PSAC report was almost a repeat of the his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Sta. Taylor, like
RBIG. They recommended that Zeus should not be built, most Army brass, was a major supporter of the Zeus pro-
at least without signicant changes to allow it to better gram. Kennedy and Taylor initially agreed to build a huge
deal with the emerging problems.[39] Zeus deployment with seventy batteries and 7,000 mis-
Throughout, Zeus was the focus of erce controversy siles. McNamara was also initially in favor of the system,
in both the press and military circles. Even as testing but suggested a much smaller deployment of twelve bat-
started, it was unclear if development would continue.[33] teries with 1,200 missiles. A contrary note was put forth
President Eisenhowers defense secretaries, McElroy by Jerome Wiesner, recently appointed as Kennedys sci-
(195759) and Thomas S. Gates, Jr. (195961), were entic advisor, and chair of the 1959 PSAC report. He
unconvinced that the system was worth the cost. Eisen- began to educate Kennedy on the technical problems in-
hower was highly skeptical, questioning whether an ef- herent to the system. He also had lengthy discussions with
fective ABM system could be developed in the 1960s.[47] David Bell, the budget director, who came to realize the
Another harsh critic on cost grounds was Edward Teller, enormous cost of any sort of reasonable Zeus system.[51]
who simply stated that the exchange ratio meant the so- Kennedy was fascinated by the Zeus debate, especially
lution was to build more ICBMs.[48] the way that scientists were lined up on diametrically op-
posed positions for or against the system. He commented
to Wiesner, I dont understand. Scientists are supposed
106.1.9 Kennedy and Zeus to be rational people. How can there be such dier-
ences on a technical issue?"[52] His fascination grew and
John F. Kennedy campaigned on the platform that Eisen- he eventually compiled a mass of material on Zeus which
hower was weak on defense and that he was not doing took up one corner of a room where he spent hundreds
106.1. HISTORY 373
of hours becoming an expert on the topic. In one meet- multiple decoys. Saturation of the target is an-
ing with Edward Teller, Kennedy demonstrated that he other possibility as ICBMs become easier and
knew more about the Zeus and ABMs than Teller. Teller cheaper to produce in coming years. Finally,
then expended considerable eort to bring himself up it is a very expensive system in relation to the
to the same level of knowledge.[53] Wiesner would later degree of protection that it can furnish.[58]
note that the pressure to make a decision built up until
Kennedy came to feel that the only thing anybody in the Looking for a near term solution, McNamara once again
country was concerned about was Nike-Zeus.[52] turned to ARPA, asking them to consider the Zeus system
in depth. They returned a new report in April 1962 that
To add to the debate, it was becoming clear that the mis-
contained four basic concepts. First was the Zeus system
sile gap was ctional. The rst Corona spy satellite mis-
in its current form, outlining what sort of role it might
sion in August 1960 put limits on their program that ap-
play in various war ghting scenarios. Zeus could, for
peared to be well below the lower bound of any of the
instance, be used to protect SAC bases, thereby requiring
estimates, and a follow-up mission in late 1961 clearly
the Soviets to expend more of their ICBMs to attack the
demonstrated the US had a massive strategic lead.[54] A
base. This would presumably mean less damage to other
new intelligence report published in 1961 reported that
targets. Another considered the addition of new passive
the Soviets had no more than 25 ICBMs and would not
electronically scanned array radars and computers to the
be able to add more for some time.[55][lower-alpha 4]
Zeus, which would allow it to attack dozens of targets at
Nevertheless, the system continued slowly moving to- once over a wider area. Finally, in their last concept, they
wards deployment. On 22 September 1961, McNa- replaced Zeus with a new very high speed, short range
mara approved funding for continued development, and missile designed to intercept the warhead at altitudes as
approved initial deployment of a Zeus system pro- low as 20,000 feet (6.1 km), by which time any decoys or
tecting twelve selected metropolitan areas. These in- reballs would be long gone.[59] This last concept became
cluded Washington/Baltimore, New York, Los Ange- the Nike-X system.
les, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, Ottawa/Montreal,
Boston, San Francisco, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and
Toronto/Bualo. However, the deployment was later 106.1.11 Perfect or nothing
overturned, and in January 1962 only the development
funds were released.[57]
106.1.10 Nike-X
Main article: Nike-X
In 1961, McNamara agreed to continue development

funding through FY62, but declined to provide funds for
production. He summed up both the positives and the
concerns this way:
Successful development [of Zeus] may

force an aggressor to expend additional re-
sources to increase his ICBM force. It would
also make accurate estimates of our defensive
capabilities more dicult for a potential
enemy and complicate the achievement of a
successful attack. Furthermore, the protection
that it would provide, even if for only a portion
of our population, would be better than none
at all ...
Robert McNamara ultimately decided Zeus simply didn't oer
There is still considerable uncertainty as to enough protection given its cost.
its technical feasibility and, even if success-
fully developed, there are many serious oper- As work on Nike-X began, high-ranking military and
ating problems yet to be solved. The system, civilian ocials began to press for Zeus deployment as
itself, is vulnerable to ballistic missile attack, an interim system in spite of the known problems. The
and its eectiveness could be degraded by the system could then be upgraded in-place as new technolo-
use of more sophisticated ICBMs screened by gies became available. McNamara was opposed to early
deployment, while Congressman Daniel J. Flood would 106.1.12 Cancellation and the ABM gap
be a prime force for immediate deployment.[60]
McNamaras argument against deployment basically By 1963 McNamara had convinced Kennedy [64]
that the
rested on two primary issues. One was the apparent inef- Zeus was simply not worth deploying. The earlier
fectiveness of the system, and especially its benet-cost concerns about cost and eectiveness, as well as new
ratio compared to other options. For instance, fallout diculties in terms of attack size and decoy problems,
shelters would save more Americans for far less money, led McNamara
[46][65]
to cancel the Zeus project on 5 January
and he was adamant that no ABM system should be built 1963. In its place they decided to continue work
[66]
without funding shelters as well. [61]
The second, ironi- on Nike-X. Nike-X development was based in the
cally, was the concerns about a Soviet ABM system. The existing Nike Zeus Project Oce until their name was
USs existing SM-65 Atlas and SM-68 Titan both used changed to Nike-X on 1 February 1964.[65]
re-entry vehicles with blunt noses that greatly slowed the While reporting to the Senate Armed Services Commit-
warheads as they entered the lower atmosphere and made tee in February, McNamara noted that they expected the
them relatively easy to attack. The solution was the LGM- Soviets to have an initial ABM system deployed in 1966,
30 Minuteman missile, which used new sharp nosed reen- and then later stated that the Nike-X would not be ready
try shapes that traveled at much higher terminal speeds, for use until 1970. Noting a defensive gap, Strom Thur-
and included a number of decoy systems that were ex- mond began an eort to deploy the existing Zeus as an
pected to make interception very dicult for the Soviet interim system. Once again the matter spilled over into
ABMs. If there was a budget choice to be made, McNa- the press.[67]
mara supported Minuteman, although he tried not to say
On 11 April 1963, Thurmond led the Congress in an ef-
this.[62]
fort to fund deployment of Zeus. In the rst closed session
In one particularly telling exchange between McNamara of the Senate in twenty years, Zeus was debated and the
and Flood, McNamara initially refuses to choose one op- decision was made to continue with the planned develop-
tion over the other: ment of Nike-X with no Zeus deployment.[66] The Army
continued the testing program until December 1964 at
Flood: Which comes rst, the chicken or White Sands Missile Range, and May 1966 at Kwajalein
the egg? Which comes rst, Minuteman be- Missile Range.[68]
cause he may develop a good Zeus, or our own
Zeus?
McNamara: I would say neither comes rst. I
would carry on each simultaneously with the 106.2 Testing
maximum rate of activity that each could ben-
et from.[63] As the debate over Zeus raged, the Nike team was making
rapid progress developing the actual system. Test rings
But later, Flood managed to get a more accurate state- of the original A models of the missile began in 1959
ment out of him: at White Sands Missile Range. The rst attempt on 26
August 1959 was of a live booster stage and dummy sus-
Flood: I thought we had broken through tainer, and broke up shortly before booster/sustainer sep-
this problem in this country, of wanting things aration. A similar test on 14 October was a success, fol-
to be perfect before we send them to the lowed by the rst two stage attempt on 16 December.[69]
troops. I have an enemy who can kill me and The rst complete test of both stages with active guid-
I cannot defend myself against him, and I say ance and thrust vectoring was successfully carried out on
I should hazard all risks within the rule of 3 February 1960.[70] Data collected from these tests led to
reason, to advance this by 2 or 3 years. changes to the design to improve speed during the ascent.
The rst test of the Zeus B took place in May 1961.[71]
McNamara: We are spending hundreds of Additional tracking tests were carried out by TTRs at
millions of dollars, not to stop things but to Bells Whippany, NJ labs and an installation on Ascension
accelerate the development of an anti-ICBM Island. The latter was rst used in an attempt to track
system... I do not believe it would be wise for a SM-68 Titan on 29 March 1961, but the data down-
us to recommend the procurement of a system load from Cape Canaveral simulating ZAR information
which might not be an eective anti-ICBM failed. A second test on 28 May was successful. Later
device. That is exactly the state in which we in the year the Ascension site tracked a series of four
believe the Zeus rests today. test launches, two Atlas, two Titan, generating tracking
information for as long as 100 seconds.[72] A ZAR at
Flood: ... You may not be aware of it, but White Sands reached initial operation in June 1961, and
you have just about destroyed the Nike-Zeus. was tested against balloons, aircraft, parachutes deployed
That last paragraph did that.[63] from sounding rockets and Hercules missiles. A TTR
106.2. TESTING 375
A Nike Zeus A missile being test launched at White Sands illus- A Nike Zeus B missile is launched from the Pacic Missile Range
trates the similarities between the A model and the earlier Her- at Point Mugu on 7 March 1962. This was the ninth launch of a
cules. Zeus from the Pt. Mugu site, today known as Naval Base Ventura
County.
A Nike Zeus B missile stands on static display at White Sands

while another Zeus B is being test launched in the background.
followed and in November, and all-up testing began that

month. On 14 December a Zeus passed within 100 feet
(30 m) of a Nike Hercules being used as a test target, a
success that was repeated in March 1962.[73]
Many test rings were conducted through the early 1960s, A view of Kwajalein during the Zeus era. Mount Olympus is in
but White Sands was too close to its own launch sites to the lower center of the image, with the Battery Control up and
truly test an ICBM ight prole. By this time launches to the left. The ZDR is the square building in the two concentric
were being carried out at Point Mugu in California where circles, with the two TTRs just above it, under construction. At
the Zeus missiles could y to their maximum range over the opposite end of the runway the two large circles are the ZARs
the Pacic. Consideration was given to using Point Mugu transmitter and receiver.
to launch against ICBMs ying from Cape Canaveral,
but range safety requirements placed limits on the poten-
tial tests. The Atlantic Test Range, to the northeast of switched to clutter mode, which watched the TTR data for
Canaveral, had a high population density and little land any derivation from the originally calculated trajectory,
available for building accurate downrange tracking sta- which would indicate that it had begun tracking debris. It
tions, Ascension being the only suitable location. Even- also continued to predict the location of the warhead, and
tually Kwajalein Island was selected, as it was 4,800 miles if the system decided it was tracking debris, it would wait
from California, perfect for ICBMs, and already had a US for the debris and warhead to separate enough to begin
Navy base with considerable housing and an airstrip.[74] tracking them again. However, the system failed to prop-
A minor Army-Air Force ght then broke out about what erly indicate when the warhead was lost, and tracking was
never regained.[73]
targets would be used for the Kwajalein tests. The Army
favored using its Jupiter design, red from Johnston Atoll, A second test on 19 July was a partial success,[lower-alpha 6]
while the Air Force recommended using Atlas red from with the Zeus passing within 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) of the
Vandenberg AFB. The Army had already begun convert- target. The control system ran out of hydraulic uid dur-
ing the former Thor launchers to Jupiter when an Ad Hoc ing the last 10 seconds of the approach, causing the large
Panel considered the issue. On 26 May 1960 they decided miss distance, but the test was otherwise successful. The
in favor of Atlas, and this was made ocial on 29 June guidance program was updated to stop the rapid control
when the Secretary of Defense ended pad conversion and cycling that led to the uid running out. A third attempt
Jupiter production was earmarked for Zeus testing.[75] on 12 December successfully brought the missile to very
A key development of the testing program was a miss- close distances, but the second missile of the planned two
distance indicator system, which independently measured missile salvo failed to launch due to an instrument prob-
the distance between the Zeus and the target at the in- lem. A similar test on 22 December also suered a failure
stant the computers initiated the detonation of the war- in the second missile, but the rst passed only 200 metres
[76]
head. For testing, a small conventional warhead was used, (660 ft) from its target.
which provided a ash that could be seen on long expo- Of the tests carried out over the two year test cycle, ten
sure photographs of the interceptions. There were con- of them were successful in bringing the Zeus within its
cerns that if the Zeus own radars were used for this rang- lethal range.[79][lower-alpha 7]
ing measure, any systematic error in ranging would also
be present in the test data, and thus would be hidden.[76]
The solution was the use of a separate UHF-frequency
transmitter in the warhead reentry vehicle, and a receiver
106.3 Anti-satellite use
in the Zeus. The received signal was retransmitted to
the ground, where its Doppler shift was examined to ex- In April 1962, McNamara asked the Nike team to con-
tract the range information. These instruments eventu- sider using the Zeus site on Kwajalein as an operational
ally demonstrated that the Zeus own tracking information anti-satellite base after the main Zeus testing had com-
was accurate.[77][lower-alpha 5] pleted. The Nike team responded that a system could be
readied for testing by May 1963. The concept was given
The Zeus site, known as the Kwajalein Test Site, was o-
the name Project Mudap.[80]
cially established on 1 October 1960. As it grew in size, it
eventually led to the entire island complex being handed Development was a straightforward conversion of the
over to the Army from the Navy on 1 July 1964.[74] The DM-15B into the DM-15S. The changes were mainly
site took up a considerable amount of the empty land concerned with providing more upper stage maneuver-
to the north side of the aireld. The launchers were lo- ability through the use of a new two-stage hydraulic
cated on the far southwestern corner of the island, with pump, batteries providing 5 minutes of power instead of
the TTR, MTR and various control sites and generators 2, and an improved fuel in the booster to provide higher
running along the northern side of the aireld. The ZAR peak altitudes. A test of the new booster with a DM-
transmitter and receiver were some distance away, also 15B upper was carried out at White Sands on 17 De-
on the northern edge of the aireld but at the eastern end cember 1962, reaching an altitude of 100 nautical miles
of it.[78] On 24 January 1962, the Zeus Acquisition Radar (190 km), the highest of any launch from White Sands to
at Kwajalein achieved its rst returns from an ICBM tar- that point. A second test with a complete DM-15S on 15
[77]
get, and on 18 April was used to track Kosmos 2. On February 1963 reached 151 nautical miles (280 km).
the 19 January it reacquired Kosmos 2 and successfully Testing then moved to Kwajalein. The rst test on 21
transferred the track to one of the TTRs.[59] March 1963 failed when the MTR failed to lock onto the
On 26 June the rst all-up test against an Atlas target was missile. A second on 19 April also failed when the bea-
attempted. The ZAR began successfully tracking the tar- con failed 30 seconds before intercept. The third test,
get at 446 nautical miles (826 km) and handed o im- this time using an actual target consisting of an Agena-D
mediately to a TTR. The TTR switched tracks from the upper stage equipped with a Zeus miss-distance transmit-
missile fuselage to the warhead at 131 nautical miles (243 ter, was carried out on 24 May 1963, and was a complete
km). When the fuselage began to break up, the computer success. From that point until 1964, one DM-15S was
kept in a state of instant readiness and teams continually
trained on the missile.[81]

After 1964 the Kwajalein site was no longer required to
be on alert, and returned primarily to Zeus testing. The
system was kept active in a non-alert role between 1964
and 1967, known as Program 505. In 1967 it was re-
placed by a Thor based system, Program 437.[82] A to-
tal of 12 launches, including those at White Sands, were
carried out as part of the 505 program between 1962 and
1966.
106.4 Description
The Zeus Acquisition Radars triangular transmitter is in the fore-
ground, with the dome covered receiver in the background.
bit le including location, velocity, time of measure and

a measure of the quality of the data. Clouds of objects
were tracked as a single object with additional data indi-
cating the width and length of the cloud. Tracks could be
updated every ve seconds while the target was in view,
but the antenna rotated at a relatively slow 4 RPM so tar-
gets moved signicantly between rotations. Each FAR
could feed data to up to three Zeus sites.[83]
Each Zeus Defense Center was based around its Zeus
Acquisition Radar, or ZAR, which provided wide area
early warning and initial tracking information.[84] This
The basic Zeus system included long-range and short-range enormously powerful radar was driven by multiple 1.8
radars and the missiles, spread over some distance. MW klystrons and broadcast through three 80-foot (24
m) wide antennas arranged as the outside edges of a ro-
Nike Zeus was originally intended to be a straightforward tating equilateral triangle. The ZAR spun at 10 RPM,
development of the earlier Hercules system giving it the simulating a single antenna rotating three times as fast.
ability to hit ICBM warheads at about the same range and The entire transmitter was surrounded by a 65-foot (20
altitude as the maximum performance of the Hercules.[10] m) high fence located 350 feet (110 m) away from the an-
In theory, hitting a warhead is no more dicult than an tenna. The signal was received on a separate set of three
aircraft; the interceptor does not have to travel any fur- antennas, situated at the centre of an 80 foot (24 m) diam-
ther or faster, the computers that guide it simply have to eter Luneburg lens, which rotated synchronously with the
select an intercept point farther in front of the target to broadcaster under a 120-foot (37 m) diameter dome.[84]
compensate for the targets much higher speed. In prac- Multiple feed horns were used in the receiver to allow re-
tice, the diculty is detecting the target early enough that ception from many vertical angles at once. Around the
the intercept point is still within range of the missile. This receiver dome was a large eld of wire mesh, forming a
demands much larger and more powerful radar systems, reector.[84] The ZAR also operated in the UHF on var-
and faster computers.[4] ious frequencies between 495605 MHz. ZAR had de-
tection range on the order of 460 nautical miles (850 km)
on a 0.1 m2 target, but greatly increased data collection
106.4.1 Early detection to every two seconds, and did not lose sight of targets as
the antenna turned.[83]
In order to provide the maximum warning time, some
consideration was given to the design of a Forward Acqui-
sition Radar (FAR). These would be deployed 300 to 700 106.4.2 Battery layout
miles (4801,130 km) ahead of the Zeus bases to provide
early warning of up to 200 to 300 seconds of tracking Data from the ZARs were passed to the appropriate Zeus
data on up to 200 targets. The system broadcast 10 MW Firing Battery to attack, with each ZAR being able to
pulses at UHF between 405495 MHz, allowing it to de- send its data to up to ten batteries. Each battery was self-
tect a 1 square metre radar reection at 1,020 nautical contained after hando, including all of the radars, com-
miles (1,890 km) or a more typical 0.1 m2 target at 600 puters and missiles needed to perform an intercept. In a
nautical miles (1,100 km). Each track was stored as a 200 typical deployment, a single Zeus Defense Center would
by passing each frequency in the chirp to a separate range

gate. The range resolution was 0.25 microseconds, about
75 metres (246 ft).[86] As the signal was spread out over
the entire cloud, it had to be very powerful; the ZDR pro-
duced 40 MW 2 s pulses in the L-band between 1270
1400 MHz.[87] To ensure no signal was lost by scanning
areas that were empty, the ZDR used a Cassegrain re-
ector that could be moved to focus the beam as the
cloud approached to keep the area under observation
constant.[88][89]
Data from the ZDR was passed to the All-Target Pro-
cessor (ATP), which ran initial processing on as many as
625 objects in a cloud. As many as 50 of these could be
picked out for further processing in the Discrimination
and Control Computer (DCC), which ran more tests on
Two TTRs are closest to the camera at the bottom, and the ZDR
is centered. The MTRs are located on the building in the distant
those tracks and assigned each one a probability of be-
background. ing the warhead or decoy. The DCC was able to run 100
dierent tests. For exoatmospheric signals the tests in-
cluded measure of radar return pulse-to-pulse to look for
tumbling objects, as well as variations in signals strength
due to changes in frequency. Within the atmosphere, the
primary method was examining the velocities of the ob-
jects to determine their mass.[86]
Any target with a high probability was then passed to the
Battery Control Data Processor (BCDP), which selected
missiles and radars for an attack.[90] This started with the
assignment of a Target Tracking Radar (TTR) to a target
passed to it from the DCC. TTRs operated in the C-band
from 52505750 MHz at 10 MW, allowing tracking of
a 0.1 m2 target at 300 nautical miles (560 km), which
they expected to be able to double with a new maser-
based receiver design. Once targets were being success-
fully tracked and a ring order received, the BCDP se-
The MTRs were very small as they homed in on strong signals lected available Zeus missiles for launch and assigned a
from a transmitter in the missile. Missile Tracking Radar (MTR) to follow them. These
were much smaller radars operating in the X-band be-
tween 85009600 MHz and assisted by a transponder on
the missile, using only 300 MW to provide missile track-
ing to 200 nautical miles (370 km). Information from
the ZDR, TTR and MRTs was all fed to the Target In-
tercept Computer (TIC) which handled the interceptions.
This used twistor memory for ROM and core memory for
RAM. Guidance commands were sent to the missiles in-
ight via modulation of the MTR signal.[91]
The nominal battery consisted of three TTR/ZDR pairs,
Photo of Mount Olympus, the Nike-Zeus launcher complex on with one normally operating as a hot backup. The site
Kwajalein Island. The built-up hill allowed full-sized Zeus silos also included ten MTRs, with one of those a backup.
to be built into land only feet above sea level. This meant that a single Zeus site would normally attack
two targets, although a third could be attacked if needed.
Each could be attacked by three missiles, although a nor-
be connected to three to six batteries, spread out by as mal salvo used two.[92]
much as 100 miles (160 km).[85]
It was expected that the ZAR would take 20 seconds to
Targets picked out by the ZAR were then illuminated by develop a track and hand o a target to one of the TTRs,
the Zeus Discrimination Radar (ZDR, also known as De- and 25 seconds for the missile to reach the target. With
coy Discrimination Radar, DDR or DR). ZDR imaged these sorts of salvo rates, a Zeus installation was expected
the entire cloud using a chirped signal that allowed the to be able to successfully attack 14 bare warheads per
receiver to accurately determine range within the cloud
minute.[89] Its salvo rate against warheads with decoys is eects, like the Hercules, and was to be armed with a
not recorded, but would depend on the ZDRs process- relatively small nuclear warhead. As the range and alti-
ing rate more than any physical limit. The actual en- tude requirements grew, along with a better understand-
gagement would normally take place at about 75 nautical ing of weapons eects at high altitude, the Zeus B in-
miles (139 km) due to accuracy limitations, beyond that tended to attack its targets through the action of neutron
missiles could not be guided accurately enough to bring heating. This relied on the interceptors warhead releas-
them within their lethal 800 foot (240 m) range against a ing a huge number of high energy neutrons (similar to
shielded warhead.[93][94] the neutron bomb), some of which would hit the enemy
warhead. These would cause ssion to occur in some of
the warheads own nuclear fuel, rapidly heating the pri-
106.4.3 Zeus missiles mary, hopefully enough to cause it to melt.[96] For this
to work, the Zeus mounted the W50, a 400 kt enhanced
radiation warhead, and had to maneuver within 1 km of
the target warhead. Against shielded targets, the warhead
would be eective to as little as 800 feet (0.24 km).[93]
When Zeus B was upgraded into the Zeus EX that worked
at even higher altitudes and longer ranges, a new type of
attack became possible. In the vacuum of space, where
the EX operated, x-rays travel long distances and can be
used for an attack over a wide area, larger than a practical
neutron weapon. To ll this need a much larger gold tam-
pered warhead was developed, the 5 Mt W71.[97] For the
short range Sprint that operated closer to the ground, the
much smaller W66 was created, operating much the same
way as the Zeus W50 but with a much lower (still classi-
ed but ~1 kt) yield. The W66 is widely reported as the
rst neutron bomb, although any dierences compared to
the W50, other than yield, are unclear.[98]
106.5 Specications
Dierent sources appear to confuse measures
between the Zeus A, B and Spartan. The A and
Spartan gures are taken from US Strategic and
West Point Cadets pose in front of a Zeus at White Sands. The Defensive Missile Systems 19502004,[99] B
three stages of the missile are clearly evident, as well as details from the Bell Labs history.[100]
of the movable upper stage thrusters.
The original D-15 Zeus A was similar to the original 106.6 See also
Hercules, but featured a revised control layout and gas
puers for maneuvering at high altitudes where the at- Project Wizard was the US Air Forces on-again,
mosphere was too thin for the aerodynamic surfaces to be o-again ABM system that was ultimately replaced
eective. The Zeus B interceptor was longer at 14.7 me- by Nike Zeus.
tres (48 ft), 2.44 metres (8 ft 0 in) wide, and 0.91 metres
(3 ft 0 in) in diameter. This was so much larger than the The A-35 anti-ballistic missile system was a Soviet
earlier Hercules that no attempt was made to have them t system roughly equivalent to the Nike Zeus.
into the existing Hercules/Ajax launchers. Instead, the B The A-135 anti-ballistic missile system replaced the
models were launched from silos, thus the change of num- A-35, and is roughly equivalent of NIke-X.
bering from MIM (mobile surface launched) to LIM (silo
launched). Since the missile was designed to intercept its
targets in space, it did not need large maneuvering ns
of the A model. Rather, it featured a third rocket stage
106.7 Notes
with small control jets to maneuver in space. Zeus B had
a maximum range of 250 miles (400 km) and altitude of [1] When Khrushchevs son asked why he made this state-
ment, Khrushchev explained that the number of missiles
200 miles (320 km).[95]
we had wasnt so important. The important thing was
Zeus A was designed to attack warheads through shock that Americans believed in our power.[24]
[2] The outer layer of the missile can be seen turning black in [19] MacKenzie 1993, p. 113.
the Bell Labs lm.
[20] MacKenzie 1993, p. 121.
[3] Kennedy publicly introduced the term missile gap as
part of a August 1958 speech.[49] [21] Technical Editor (6 December 1957). Missiles 1957.
Flight International: 896.
[4] It was later demonstrated the actual number of ICBMs in
the Soviet eet at that time was four.[56] [22] Gaither 1957, p. 5.
[5] This result proved useful during later tests of the Sprint [23] Thielmann, Greg (May 2011). The Missile Gap Myth
missile, where changes in frequency and demands to en- and Its Progeny. Arms Control Today.
crypt all data made the adaption of this simple method
[24] Khrushchev, Sergei (200). Nikita Khrushchev and the
much more dicult. Instead, the TTR radars from the
Creation of a Superpower. Pennsylvania State University
original Zeus site were used, as the original tests had
Press. p. 314. ISBN 0271043466.
demonstrated the TTR data to be accurate.[77]
[25] Preble 2003, p. 810.
[6] Leonard incorrectly states this took place on 19 June.[59] It
is one of a number of mistakes in the Chronology section, [26] Gaither 1957, p. 6.
which indicates references from this list should be checked
against other references. [27] Leonard 2011, p. 332.
[7] Canavan mentions there being 14 tests, Bells history [28] Leonard 2011, p. 183.
shows only 13 in the table.
[29] Slayton 2013, p. 52.
[30] P&G: Changing the Face of Consumer Marketing. Har-

106.8 References vard Business School. 2000.
[31] Neil H. McElroy (19571959): Secretary of Defense.

106.8.1 Citations University of Virginia Miller Center.
[32] Kaplan 2006, p. 7.

[1] Walker, Bernstein & Lang 2003, p. 20.
[33] Zeus 1962, p. 170.
[2] Jayne 1969, p. 29.
[34] Berhow 2005, p. 31.
[3] Leonard 2011, p. 180.
[4] Zeus 1962, p. 165.
[36] Leonard 2011, p. 331.
[5] Jayne 1969, p. 30.
[37] Leonard 2011, p. 182.
[6] Bell Labs 1975, p. 1.2.
[38] Kaplan 2008, p. 80.
[7] Bell Labs 1975, p. 1.3.
[39] Kaplan 2008, p. 81.
[8] Bell Labs 1975, pp. 1.31.4.
[40] WSEG 1959, p. 20.
[9] Bell Labs 1975, p. 1.4.
[41] Kaplan 1983, p. 344.
[10] Zeus 1962, p. 166.
[42] Yanarella 2010, pp. 7273.
[11] Jayne 1969, p. 32.
[43] Broad, William (28 October 1986). "'Star Wars Traced
[12] Nike Ajax (SAM-A-7) (MIM-3, 3A)". Federation of
To Eisenhower Era. The New York Times.
American Scientists. 29 June 1999.
[44] Garvin & Bethe 1968, pp. 2830.
[13] Leonard 2011, p. 329.
[45] Leonard 2011, pp. 186187.
[14] Kaplan 2006, p. 4.
[46] Baucom 1992, p. 19.
[15] Jayne 1969, p. 33.
[47] Kaplan 2006, p. 68.
[16] MacKenzie 1993, p. 120.
[48] Papp 1987.
[17] Larsen, Douglas (1 August 1957). New Battle Looms
Over Armys Newest Missile. Sarasota Journal. p. 35. [49] US Military and Diplomatic Policies - Preparing for the
Retrieved 18 May 2013. Gap. JFK Library and Museum. 14 August 1958.
[18] Trest, Warren (2010). Air Force Roles and Missions: A [50] Kaplan 2008, p. 82.
History. Government Printing Oce. p. 175. ISBN
9780160869303. [51] Kaplan 1983, p. 345.
[52] Kaplan 2006, p. 9. [85] Bell Labs 1975, p. II, 1.1.
[53] Brown 2012, p. 91. [86] Bell Labs 1975, p. II, 1.14.
[54] Day, Dwayne (3 January 2006). Of myths and missiles: [87] Bell Labs 1975, p. II, 1.12.
the truth about John F. Kennedy and the Missile Gap. The
Space Review. pp. 195197. [88] Bell Labs 1975, p. II, 1.11.
[55] Heppenheimer, T. A. (1998). The Space Shuttle Decision. [89] Program For Deployment Of Nike Zeus (Technical report).
NASA. pp. 195197. 30 September 1961.
[56] Day 2006. [90] Bell Labs 1975, p. II, 1.25.
[57] Leonard 2011, p. 334. [91] Zeus 1962, pp. 167,170.
[58] Yanarella 2010, p. 68.
[92] WSEG 1959, p. 10.
[59] Leonard 2011, p. 335.
[93] Bell Labs 1975, p. 1.1.
[60] Yanarella 2010, pp. 6869.
[94] WSEG 1959, p. 160.
[61] Yanarella 2010, p. 87.
[95] Nike Zeus. Encyclopedia Astronautica. Retrieved 18
[62] Yanarella 2010, p. 69. May 2013.
[63] Yanarella 2010, p. 70. [96] Kaplan 2006, p. 12.
[64] JFK Accepts McNamara View On Nike Zeus. Sarasota [97] Johnson, Wm. Robert (6 April 2009). Multimegaton
Herald-Tribune. 8 January 1963. p. 20. Weapons.
[98] Berhow 2005, p. 32.
[66] Kaplan 2006, p. 13.
[99] Berhow 2005, p. 60.
[67] Allan, Robert; Scott, Paul (26 April 1963). McNamara
Lets Reds Widen Antimissile Gap. Evening Independent. [100] Bell Labs 1975, p. 133.
p. 3-A.
[68] Kaplan 2006, p. 14. 106.8.2 Bibliography

[69] Gibson 1996, p. 205.
Bell Labs (October 1975). ABM Research and
[70] Walker, Bernstein & Lang 2003, p. 42. Development at Bell Laboratories, Project History
(Technical report). Retrieved 13 December 2014.
[72] Bell Labs 1975, p. 1.23. Berhow, Mark (2005). US Strategic and Defensive
Missile Systems 19502004. Oxford: Osprey. ISBN
[73] Bell Labs 1975, p. 1.24. 978-1-84176-838-0. OCLC 62889392.
[74] Walker, Bernstein & Lang 2003, p. 41. Baucom, Donald (1992). The Origins of SDI,
[75] Leonard 2011, p. 333. 19441983. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press
of Kansas. ISBN 978-0-7006-0531-6. OCLC
[76] Bell Labs 1975, p. 1.26. 25317621.
[77] Bell Labs 1975, p. 1.31. Brown, Harold (2012). Star Spangled Security: Ap-
[78] Kaplan 2006, p. 10. plying Lessons Learned over Six Decades Safeguard-
ing America. Brookings Institution Press. ISBN
[79] Canavan 2003, p. 6. 9780815723837. Retrieved 13 Dec 2014.
[80] Hubbs, Mark (February 2007). Where We Began the Canavan, Gregory (2003). Missile Defense for the
Nike Zeus Program. The Eagle. p. 14.
21st Century. Heritage Foundation. ISBN 0-89195-
[81] Bell Labs 1975, p. 1.32. 261-6. OCLC 428736422.
[82] Program 505. Encyclopedia Astronautica. Retrieved 18 Garvin, Richard; Bethe, Hans (March 1968). Anti-
May 2013. Ballistic-Missile Systems. Scientic American 218
(3): pp. 2131. Bibcode:1968SciAm.218c..21G.
[83] WSEG 1959.
doi:10.1038/scienticamerican0368-21. Retrieved
[84] Zeus 1962, p. 167. 13 December 2014.
Gibson, James (1996). Nuclear Weapons of the Technical Editor (2 August 1962). Nike Zeus.
United States: An Illustrated History. Atglen, Penn- Flight International: pp. 165170. ISSN 0015-
sylvania: Schier Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7643- 3710. Retrieved 13 May 2013.
0063-9. OCLC 35660733.
Jayne, Edward Randolph (1969). The ABM de-
bate: strategic defense and national security (Techni- 106.9 External links
cal report). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
OCLC 19300718. Retrieved 13 December 2014. Nike Zeus. Nuclearabms.info. Retrieved 18 May
2013.
Kaplan, Fred (1983). The Wizards of Armageddon.
Stanford University Press. ISBN 9780804718844. AT&T Archives: Nike Zeus Missile System, made
early in the program
Kaplan, Fred (2008). Daydream Believers: How a
Few Grand Ideas Wrecked American Power. John The Range Goes Green, movie of a Zeus test launch
Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9780470121184. at White Sands
Kaplan, Lawrence (2006). Nike Zeus: The U.S.
Armys First ABM. Falls Church, Virginia: Missile
Defense Agency. OCLC 232605150. Retrieved 13
May 2013.
Leonard, Barry (2011). History of Strategic and Bal-
listic Missile Defense: Volume II: 19561972. DI-
ANE Publishing. Retrieved 13 May 2013.
MacKenzie, Donald (1993). Inventing Accuracy:
A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance.
MIT Press. ISBN 9780262631471.
Papp, Daniel (Winter 198788). From Project
Thumper to SDI. Airpower Journal.
Preble, Christopher (December 2003). Who Ever
Believed in the 'Missile Gap'" John F. Kennedy and
the Politics of National Security. Presidential Stud-
ies Quarterly: 801. JSTOR 27552538.
Security Resources Panel of the Science Advisory
Committee (7 November 1957). Deterrence & Sur-
vival in the Nuclear Age (Technical report). Re-
Slayton, Rebecca (2013). Arguments that Count:
Physics, Computing, and Missile Defense, 1949
2012. MIT Press. ISBN 9780262019446. Re-
Walker, James; Bernstein, Lewis; Lang, Sharon
(2010). Seize the High Ground: The U. S. Army in
Space and Missile Defense. Washington, D.C.: Cen-
ter of Military History. ISBN 9780813128092. Re-
Yanarella, Ernest (2010). The Missile Defense Con-
troversy: Technology in Search of a Mission. Uni-
versity Press of Kentucky. ISBN 9780813128092.
US Army Weapons Systems Evaluation Group (23
September 1959). Potential Contribution of Nike-
Zeus to Defense of the U.S. Population and its Indus-
trial Base, and the U.S. Retaliatory System (Techni-
cal report). Retrieved 13 December 2014.
Chapter 107
LIM-49 Spartan
The LIM-49A Spartan was a United States Army anti- with aims to deploy the rst operational sites in 1963.
ballistic missile, designed to intercept attacking nuclear
To fully test the system, the Army took control of
warheads from Intercontinental ballistic missiles at long Kwajalein Island from the US Navy, and began building
range and while still outside the atmosphere. For de-
an entire Zeus site on the island. By 1962 the system was
ployment, a defensive ve-megaton atomic warhead was ready for testing, and after some initial problems, demon-
planned to destroy the incoming ICBM.[1] It was part of
strated its ability to intercept warheads launched from
the Safeguard Program. California. Eventually fourteen all up tests were carried
Spartan was the ultimate development in a long series of out over the next two years, with ten of them bringing the
missile designs from the team of Bell Laboratories and missile within the lethal radius of its warhead, sometimes
Douglas Aircraft Company that started in the 1940s with within a few hundred meters.
the Nike. Spartan was developed directly from the pre-
ceding LIM-49 Nike Zeus, retaining the same tri-service
identier, but growing larger and longer ranged, from the 107.1.2 Cancellation
Zeus 250 miles (400 km) to about 450 miles (720 km).
Spartan was initially developed as part of the Nike-X In spite of Zeus smooth testing program and successful
project, later becoming the Sentinel Program. This was interceptions, it was becoming increasingly clear that the
eventually cancelled and replaced with the much smaller system would not be eective in a real war scenario. This
Safeguard Program. Spartans were deployed as part of was due primarily to two problems; decoys would shield
the Safeguard system from October 1975 to early 1976. the warhead from detection until it was too late to inter-
cept it, and the rapid increase in the number of ICBMs
threatened to overwhelm the system.
The former problem was becoming increasingly obvious
107.1 History from about 1957. Missiles designed to carry a specic
warhead found themselves with excess throw-weight as
107.1.1 Zeus warhead physics improved and they became smaller and
lighter. Even a small amount of excess capacity could
The US Army started their rst serious eorts in the anti- be used to throw radar decoys or cha, which are very
ballistic missile arena when they asked the Bell Labs mis- light weight, and would provide additional radar returns
sile team to prepare a report on the topic in February that would make it dicult to pick out the warhead. As
1955. The Nike team had already designed the Nike Ajax long as the decoys spread out or blocked an area larger
system that was in widespread use around the US, as well than the lethal radius of the interceptor, several intercep-
as the Nike Hercules that was in the late stages of develop- tors would have to be launched to guarantee the warhead
ment as the Ajaxs replacement. They returned an initial would be hit. Adding more decoys was extremely inex-
study on Nike II in January 1956, concluding that the ba- pensive, requiring very expensive ABMs to be added in
sic concept was workable using a slightly upgraded ver- response.
sion of the Hercules missile, but requiring dramatically At the same time, both the US and USSR were in
upgraded radars and computers to handle interceptions the midst of introducing their rst truly mass produced
that took place at thousands of miles an hour. ICBMs, and their numbers were clearly going to grow
Work began on the resulting LIM-49 Nike Zeus system in dramatically during the early 1960s. Zeus, like Her-
January 1957, initially at a low priority. However, several cules and Ajax before it, used mechanically directed radar
developments that year, including the development of the dishes that could track only one target and one intercep-
rst Soviet ICBMs and the launch of Sputnik I, caused the tor at once. It was planned that Zeus bases would actu-
schedule to be pushed up several times. In January 1958 ally consist of several launcher sites connected to a cen-
Zeus was given S-Priority, the highest national priority, tral control, but even in this case the site might be able to
383
384 CHAPTER 107. LIM-49 SPARTAN
guide perhaps four to six missiles at once. With the ICBM 107.2 Survivors
eet reaching hundreds even before Zeus could become
operational, it would be easy to simply overwhelm the de- The Air Defense Artillery museums at Fort Bliss,
fense by ying enough warheads over it that it couldn't Texas and the ADA park at Fort Sill, Oklahoma,
guide interceptions rapidly enough. have both Safeguard missiles on display, the Sprint
and Spartan.[3][4][5]
107.1.3 Nike X
107.3 Photo gallery
The solution to both of these problems is to improve
speed, both of the defending missiles and the defense sys-
tem as a whole.
Decoys are less dense than warheads, and not aerody-

namic. Therefore they are subject to more deceleration
when they begin the re-enter the upper atmosphere. The
warhead, which is dense and streamlined, experiences
less deceleration from air resistance, eventually ying out
in front of the decoys. The rate at which this happens de-
pends on the types of decoys used, but the warhead will
have pulled past even advanced types by the time it is be-
tween 250,000100,000 feet (76,00030,000 m). At that 107.4 See also
point the warhead is open to attack, but leaves only 5 to
10 seconds before impact. To handle these scenarios, a Sprint (missile)
very high speed missile was required. Zeus was simply
not fast enough to perform such an attack, it was designed Nike-Hercules missile
for interceptions lasting about two minutes.
Nike Zeus
Likewise, the solution to dealing with massive numbers of
warheads was to use faster computers and radars, allow-
ing many interceptors to be in ight at once. Zeus was Aircraft of comparable role, conguration and era
being developed just as digital computers were starting
a massive improvement in performance through parallel PGM-17 Thor
processing, and radar systems were likewise introduc-
ing the rst phased array radar (Passive electronically
scanned array) systems. Combining the two would al- Related lists
low hundreds of warheads and interceptors to be tracked
and controlled at once. As long as the interceptor mis- List of military aircraft of the United States
sile wasn't signicantly more expensive than the ICBM,
which was likely given to their relative sizes, overwhelm- List of missiles
ing such a system would be a losing proposition.
Studying all of this, ARPA outlined four potential ap-
proaches to an ABM system. The rst was Nike Zeus 107.5 References
in its current form. The second was Zeus combined with
a new radar system, the third included new radars and
computers. Finally, the X plan called for all of these [1] http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/
changes, as well as a new short-range missile. As the Allbombs.html
shorter range missile would overlap with Zeus, X also
[2] James Walker, Lewis Bernstein, Sharon Lang (2005).
called for Zeus to be modied for even greater range as Seize the High Ground: The U.S. Army in Space and
Zeus EX. After considerable debate, the decision was Missile Defense. Government Printing Oce. ISBN
made to cancel the existing Zeus deployment and move 0160723086. The SPARTAN test program began on 30
ahead with the X plan. March 1968
[3] http://www.city-data.com/articles/
US-Army-Air-Defense-Artillery-Museum-El.html
107.1.4 Testing
[4] http://srmsc.org/mis2050.html
The rst test-launch of the Spartan occurred at Kwajalein
Missile Range on 30 March, 1968.[2] [5] ADA park (Fort Sill), photo journal of Daniel DeCristo

a further development of the Nike Zeus B missile

index of pictures
Mickelsen Safeguard Complex
W71 nuclear warhead for the Spartan

Chapter 108
Nike-X
titude where decoys or explosions had any eect. Nike-X

also used a new radar system that could track hundreds of
objects at once, allowing salvos of many Sprints. Dozens
of ICBMs would need to arrive at the same time in order
to overwhelm the system. Nike-X considered retaining
the longer range Zeus missile, and later developed an ex-
tended range version known as Zeus EX. It played a sec-
ondary role in the Nike-X system, intended primarily for
use in areas outside the Sprint protected regions.
Nike-X required at least one interceptor missile to at-
tack each incoming warhead. As the USSRs missile eet
grew, the cost of implementing Nike-X began to grow as
well. Looking for lower-cost options, a number of studies
carried out between 1965 and 1967 examined a variety of
The Sprint missile was the main weapon in the Nike-X system, scenarios where a limited number of interceptors might
intercepting enemy ICBM warheads only seconds before they ex- still be militarily useful. Among these, the I-67 concept
ploded. suggested building a lightweight defense against very lim-
ited attacks. When the Chinese exploded their rst H-
Nike-X was a proposed US Army anti-ballistic mis- bomb in 1967, I-67 was promoted as a defense against a
sile (ABM) system designed to protect major cities in Chinese attack, and this system became Sentinel in Oc-
the United States from attacks by the Soviet Union's tober. Nike-X development, in its original form, ended.
Intercontinental ballistic missile eet. The name referred
to its experimental basis, and it was intended it would be
replaced by a more appropriate name when the system 108.1 History
was put into production. This never came to pass; the
original Nike-X concept was canceled and replaced by a
much thinner defense system known as the Sentinel Pro- 108.1.1 Nike Zeus
gram that used some of the same equipment.
As early as 1955 the US Army began considering the
Nike-X was a response to the failure of the earlier Nike possibility of further upgrading their Nike B surface-to-
Zeus system. Zeus had been designed to face a few dozen air missile (SAM) system to intercept ICBMs. Bell was
Soviet ICBMs in the 1950s, and its design would mean it asked to consider the issue, and returned a report noting
was largely useless by mid-1960s when it would be fac- that the missile could be upgraded to the required per-
ing hundreds. It was calculated that a salvo of only four formance relatively easily. However, in order to detect
ICBMs would have a 90% chance of hitting the Zeus the warhead while it was still far enough away to give the
base, whose radars could only track a few warheads at missile time to launch would require extremely powerful
the same time. Worse, the attacker could use radar re- radar systems. All of this appeared to be within the state
ectors or high-altitude nuclear explosions to obscure the of the art, and in early 1957 Bell was given the go-ahead
warheads until they were too close to attack, making a to develop what was then known as Nike II.[1] Lingering
single warhead attack highly likely to succeed. inter-service rivalries between the Army and Air Force
Nike-X addressed these concerns by basing its defense on led to the Nike II being re-dened several times. When
a very fast, short-range missile known as Sprint. Large these were swept aside in 1957 after the launch of the R-7
numbers would be clustered near potential targets, allow- Semyorka, the rst Soviet ICBM, the design was further
ing successful attack right up to the few last seconds of upgraded, given the name Zeus, and assigned the highest
the warheads re-entry. They would operate below the al- development priority.[2]
386
108.1. HISTORY 387
The Zeus system required two separate radars for each missile it
launched, with extras for redundancy.
108.1.2 Zeus problems
Zeus had initially been proposed to defend widely-

dispersed Strategic Air Command (SAC) bases against
attacks by a few dozen missiles, or as a wider defense in-
volving attacks with two ICBMs being launched at each
The Nike missile family included Ajax (Nike, front), Hercules
major US city.[6] But by the time Zeus could be deployed
(Nike B, middle) and Zeus (Nike II, rear).
in the early-to-mid 1960s it was expected a nuclear war
would consist of ICBMs red in the hundreds.[7][8]
Zeus used mechanically steered radars, like the Nike
SAMs before it. A typical Zeus site would have between
two and six Target Tracking Radars, limiting the num-
Zeus was generally similar to the two Nike designs that ber of launches it could carry out at one time.[9] A study
preceded it, using a long range search radar to pick up by the Weapons Systems Evaluation Group (WSEG) cal-
targets, separate radars to track the target and interceptor culated that the Soviets had a 90% chance of success-
missiles in ight, and a computer to calculate intercept fully hitting a Zeus base by ring only four warheads at
points. While similar in concept, Zeus was dierent in it. These did not even have to land close to destroy the
form. The missile itself was much larger, with a range base, due to the diculty of hardening the mechanical
of up to 200 miles (320 km), compared to Hercules 75 radars in any reasonable fashion.[10][11] This meant that
4 Soviet ICBMs could eliminate 100 Zeus missiles, a su-
miles (121 km). It ew so fast it burned the outer layer
of its skin o while climbing through the lower atmo- perb exchange ratio.[12]
sphere. To ensure a kill at 100,000 feet (30 km) altitude,If this were not enough, a number of technical problems
where there was little atmosphere to carry a shock wave, arose that appeared to make the Zeus almost trivially easy
it mounted a large 400 kt warhead. The search radar was to defeat. One problem, discovered in tests during 1958,
a 120 foot (37 m) wide triangle able to pick out warheads was that nuclear reballs expanded to very large sizes at
while still over 600 nautical miles (1,100 km) away (an high altitudes, rendering everything behind them invisible
especially dicult problem given the small size of a typ- to radar. This was known as nuclear blackout. Exploding
ical warhead), and a new digital computer was used to be one warhead just outside the Zeus maximum range, or
even the explosion of the Zeus own warhead, would allow
able to calculate trajectories for intercepts taking place at
relative velocities over 5 miles (8.0 km) per second.[3] warheads following it to approach unseen. By the time the
Test rings of the missile started in 1959 at White Sands warheads passed through the reball, about 60 kilometres
Missile Range (WSMR) and were generally successful. (37 mi) above the base, it would be too late for the radar[13] to
Longer range testing took place at Naval Air Station lock on and re a Zeus before the warhead hit its target.
Point Mugu. For full-scale tests, the Army built a new It was also possible to deploy radar decoys to confuse the
base on Kwajalein Island in the Pacic, where it could defense. Decoys are made of lightweight materials, of-
be tested against ICBMs launched from Vandenberg Air ten strips of aluminum or mylar balloons, which can be
Force Base in California. Test rings at Kwajalein began packed in with the RV for little additional cost in terms of
in June 1962, and were generally very successful, pass- throw weight. In space, these are ejected to create radar
ing within hundreds of yards of the warheads,[4] and even returns that are indistinguishable from the RV. The re-
low-ying satellites.[5] sult is a large number of radar objects stretched out in a
388 CHAPTER 108. NIKE-X
threat tube approaching a given target, a few kilometers NX Defense Center would provide protection over large
across and tens of kilometers long. Zeus had to get within metropolitan areas. The system optionally retained Zeus,
about 1,000 feet (300 m) to kill a warhead, which could which could be used in areas away from cities.[16] The
be anywhere in the tube. Zeus inability to distinguish name Nike-X was apparently an ad hoc suggestion by
decoys from high-quality decoys was considered to be a Jack Ruina, who was tasked with presenting the options to
major problem,[4] and the WSEG suggested that a single the Presidents Science Advisory Committee (PSAC).[17]
ICBM with good quality decoys would almost certainly The time for a decision on Zeus came in late 1962.
be able to hit a Zeus base.[12] Considering the issues, in January 1963 McNamara an-
nounced that the construction funds allocated for Zeus
would not be released, and the Zeus development fund-
108.1.3 Nike-X ing would instead be used for development of the new
system.[18]
ARPA, today known as DARPA, was initially formed in
1958 by President Eisenhower's Secretary of Defense,
Neil McElroy in reaction to Soviet rocketry advances. 108.1.4 System concept
ARPA was formed to oversee all missile development
across the forces, in order to avoid duplicated eort and Decoys are lighter than the reentry vehicle
the huge expenditures that were apparently accomplish-
(RV),[lower-alpha 1] so they will suer higher atmo-
ing little in comparison to the Soviets. As the prob- spheric drag as they begin to reenter the atmosphere.[19]
lems with Zeus became clear, McElroy asked ARPA
This will eventually cause the RV to move out in front of
to consider the ABM problem and come up with other the decoys, opening it to attack. But the RV can often
solutions.[10]
be picked out before this by examining the threat tube as
The resulting Project Defender was extremely broad in a whole and watching for portions of it that have higher
scope, considering everything from minor upgrades to speeds.[20] This process, known as atmospheric ltering,
the Zeus system, to far-out concepts like antigravity and or more generally, decluttering, will not provide accurate
the then-new laser.[14] One improvement to Zeus had al- information until the threat tube begins to reenter the
ready been suggested; a new phased-array radar replacing denser portions of the atmosphere.[21] Nike-X intended
Zeus mechanical ones would greatly increase the number to wait until this point, and then launch a high-speed
of targets and interceptors that a single site could han- missile at the RV, meaning the interceptions would take
dle, as well as allowing them to be hardened to much place only seconds before the warheads hit their targets,
greater strengths. Known as the Zeus Multi-function Ar- between 5 and 30 miles (8.048.3 km) away from the
ray Radar, or ZMAR, initial studies at Bell Labs started in base.[22]
1960. In June 1961, Western Electric and Sylvania were Low-altitude intercepts would also have the advantage of
selected to build a prototype, with Sperry Rand Univac reducing the problem with nuclear radar blackout. This
providing the control computer.[10] eect occurs at similar altitudes as decluttering, about 60
By this time a decision on whether or not to deploy Zeus km. Operating well below this altitude meant that delib-
was looming. President Kennedy's Secretary of Defense, erate attempts to create nuclear blackout would not eect
Robert McNamara once again turned to ARPA to study the operation of the Sprint. Just as importantly, because
the Zeus system and oer any suggestions they might have the Sprints own warheads would be going o well be-
to improve its eectiveness. ARPA returned a report out- low this altitude, their reballs would be much smaller
lining four basic concepts. First was a study of the exist- and only black out a small portion of the sky. The radar
ing Zeus system considering various scenarios where it would have to survive the electrical eects of blackout,
might be used eectively. The next replaced Zeus with including EMP, but this was not considered a dicult
a shorter-range but higher-speed missile to allow it to at- problem. It also meant that the threat tube trajectories
tack warheads that had approached closer to the ground, would have to be developed rapidly, before or between
which would help with both decoys and nuclear blackout. blackout periods.[23]
The next used a new short-range phased-array radar that The upside to this approach was that Nike-X did not have
allowed for greatly increased salvo rates, while still using to launch multiple missiles in order to ensure the warhead
Zeus long-range radar for early detection.[15] would be hit, although in practice two would be launched
The fourth concept, NX, combined the new missile and at every target for redundancy reasons. This had been
radar. NX was based around the ZMAR radar, used for the concept with Zeus as well, but the introduction of de-
tracking everything from the incoming warheads to out- coys upset this, with one Army study suggesting that every
going interceptors. The interceptors would be a short- ICBM would require as many as twenty Zeus missiles to
range missile for point defense, known as Sprint. New be launched at it to ensure the warhead was hit.[6] This
computers would track hundreds of incoming targets and meant that every missile the Soviets added to their eet
outgoing interceptors, and communicate that information would require twenty new Zeus. A 20-to-1 exchange rate
between widely distributed missile batteries. A single may sound bad enough, but because the Soviets can target
108.1. HISTORY 389
that single ICBM anywhere in the US, it actually means was making the cost of such a system very expensive, in
that every Zeus base would have to add twenty new mis- spite of a reasonable cost-exchange ratio on the order of
siles. This terrible cost-exchange ratio was one of the pri-1 to 1.[27] This led to further studies of the system to try
mary reasons Zeus was abandoned.[10] to determine whether an ABM would be the proper way
The centerpiece of the Nike-X system was the MAR, the to save lives, or if there was some other plan that would
Z having been dropped from the name with the ending do the same for less money.
of the Zeus program. MAR used the then-new active In the case of Zeus, for instance, it was clear that build-
electronically scanned array (AESA) concept to allow it ing more fallout shelters would both be less expensive and
to generate multiple virtual radar beams, simulating any save more lives than Zeus.[28] A major report on the topic
number of mechanical radars needed. While one beam by PSAC in October 1961 made this blunt, suggesting
scanned the sky for new targets, others were formed to ex- that Zeus without shelters was useless, and that having
amine the threat tubes and generate high-quality tracking Zeus might lead the US to introduce dangerously mis-
information very early in the engagement, and then addi- leading assumptions concerning the ability of the U. S.
tional beams were formed to track the RVs once picked to protect its cities.[29] They concluded that there was no
out, and more to track the Sprints on their way to the way to justify the large scale deployment of Zeus, which
interceptions. To make all of this work, MAR also re- at that time called for 70 Zeus bases under the control of
quired data processing capabilities on an unprecedented NORAD.[29]
level. In the era of individual transistors and small-scale This led to a series of increasingly sophisticated models
integrated circuits, the computers required were huge and to better predict the eectiveness of an ABM system and
expensive. For this reason, Nike-X centralized the battle what the oence would do to improve their performance
control systems at their Defense Centers, consisting of a against it. A key development was the Prim-Read theory,
MAR and its associated Defense Center Data Processing which provided an entirely mathematical solution to gen-
System (DCDPS).[24] erating the ideal defensive layout. Using a Prim-Read lay-
Because the Sprint was designed to operate at short range, out for Nike-X, Air Force Brigadier General Glenn Kent
a single base could not provide protection over a typi- began considering Soviet responses. His 1964 report pro-
cal US city, given urban sprawl. This required the Sprint duced a cost-exchange ratio that required $2 of defense
launchers to be distributed around the defended area. Be- for every $1 of oence if one wanted to limit US casu-
cause the missile might not be visible to the MAR during alties to 30% of the population, which increased to 6-to1
the initial stages of the launch, Bell proposed building a if the US wished to limit that to 10%. The ABM system
much simpler radar at most launch sites, the Missile Site would only be cheaper than the ICBMs if the US was will-
Radar (MSR). MSR would have just enough power and ing to allow over half its population die in the exchange.
logic to generate tracks for its outgoing Sprint missiles, When he realized he was using outdated exchange rates
and would hand that information o to the DCDPS over for the Soviet ruble, the exchange ratio for the 30% casu-
voice quality phone lines. Bell noted that the MSR could alty rate jumped to 20-to-1.[30][31]
also provide a useful second-angle look at threat tubes, As the cost of defeating Nike-X was less than the cost
which might allow the decoys to be picked out earlier, as of building Nike-X, many reviewers concluded that the
well as oering a way to triangulate jammers within the construction of an ABM system would simply prompt
tube.[25] the Soviets to build more ICBMs.[29] This led to serious
When the system was rst being proposed it was not concerns about a new arms race, which it was believed
clear whether the phased-array systems could provide would increase the chance of an accidental war.[32] When
the accuracy needed to guide the missiles to a success- the numbers were presented to McNamara, according to
ful interception at very long ranges. Early concepts re- Kent, he;
tained Zeus Missile Tracking Radars and Target Track-
ing Radars (MTRs and TTRs) for this purpose. In the ...observed that this was a race that we
end the new radars proved more than capable and these probably would not win and should avoid. He
radars were dropped.[26] However, this capability proved noted that it would be dicult indeed to stay
useful during testing; while the new radars were still be- the course with a strategy that aimed to limit
ing built, early launches used the MTRs built during the damage. The detractors would proclaim that,
Zeus test program. with 70 percent surviving, there would be up-
wards of 60 million dead.[30]
108.1.5 Problems McNamara was convinced of the validity of cost-benet

analysis, which suggested the ABM was simply a bad deal.
Nike-X had been dened in the early 1960s as a system to While reporting to Congress on the issue in the spring of
defend US cities and industrial centers against a heavy So- 1964, McNamara noted that:
viet attack during the 1970s. By 1965 the growing eets
of ICBMs in the inventories of both the US and USSR It is estimated that a shelter system at a cost
of $2 billion would save 48.5 million lives. The

cost per life saved would be about $40.00. An
active ballistic missile defense system would
cost about $18 billion and would save an es-
timated 27.8 million lives. The cost per life
saved in this case would be about $700. [He
later added that] I personally will never rec-
ommend an anti-ICBM program unless a fall-
out program does accompany it. I believe that
even if we do not have an anti-ICBM program,
we nonetheless should proceed with the fallout
shelter program.[33]
From about 1965, the ABM became what one historian

calls a technology in search of a mission.[34] As the only
strategic system being developed by the US Army (as op-
posed to tactical systems like Pershing), they were un-
willing to concede defeat and allow the program to be
cancelled. As the cost of deploying a complete Nike-X
system grew, it became clear that it would never survive
through Congress and be deployed. In early 1965, the
Army launched a series of studies to nd a mission con-
cept that would lead to deployment.[27]
Hardpoint, Hardsite, and VIRADE
See also: HIBEX, Hardsite and Sentry Program

One of the main deployment plans for Zeus had been
a defensive system for SAC, but the Air Force argued
against such a system. They noted that adding a Zeus to
a missile eld required the Soviets to use another missile
to attack that eld, but the same was true if you added
another ICBM. The Air Force was far more interested
in building its own missiles than the Armys, especially For even higher performance, the Hardsite concept replaced
for a system that appeared likely to be of little practical Sprint with HiBEX, which could accelerate at up to 400 g.
eect.[35]
Things had changed by the early 1960s. McNamara
had already placed limits on the Air Force eet, 1000 sile elds. Most follow-up work focused on the HSD-II
concept.[38]
Minuteman missiles and 54 Titan II's. This meant that
the Air Force could not respond to new Soviet missiles Hardsite proposed building small Sprint-only bases close
simply by building more of their own. An even greater to Minuteman elds. Incoming warheads would be
existential threat than Soviet missiles was the US Navy's tracked until the last possible moment, decluttering them
Polaris missile eet, which was considered to be largely completely and generating highly accurate tracks. Since
invulnerable to attack, and led some to question the need the warheads had to land within a certain distance of a
for any ground-based ICBM. If the ICBM was to oer missile silo to damage it, any warheads that could be seen
value, there had to be the expectation that it could sur- as falling outside that area were simply ignored. This was
vive a Soviet attack in enough numbers for a successful expected to be true for well over half the Soviet warheads
counterstrike. An ABM might provide that assurance.[36] of that era. This acted as a force multiplier, allowing a
A fresh look at this concept started at ARPA around small number of Sprints defend against a large number
196364 under the name Hardpoint. This proved inter- of ICBMs; one might need to launch [38]
only 30 interceptors
esting enough for the Army and Air Force to collaborate to counter a force of 100 ICBMs.
on a follow-up study, Hardsite.[37] The rst Hardsite con- To counter this system, the attacker would have to as-
cept, HSD-I, considered defending bases within urban ar- sign additional missiles to each silo to use up the sup-
eas that would have Nike-X protection anyway. An ex- ply of Sprints, which would require several missiles in
ample might be a SAC command and control center, or order to place enough inside the area that would cause
an aireld on the outskirts of a city. The second, HSD- a Sprint launch. Although there was no expectation
II, considered the protection of isolated bases like mis- that the system would actually stop a major attack if at-
108.1. HISTORY 391
tempted, the idea was simply to force any counterforce along with a simplied data processing system known
attack to use many more warheads than an undefended as the Local Data Processor (LDP). This was essentially
site, and thereby eliminate a number of low-cost attack the DCDP with fewer modules installed, reducing the
scenarios.[37] number of tracks it could compile and the amount of
Unfortunately, this also leads to the possibility of defeat- decluttering it could handle.[25] To further reduce costs,
ing the system by attacking the radar. In this case it is still Bell later replaced the cut-down MAR with an upgraded
possible for the Hardsite to ignore any warheads that will MSR, TACMSR.[41] They studied a wide variety of po-
fall outside its own lethal area, but as radars are dicult tential deployments, starting with systems like the origi-
nal Nike-X proposal with no SCDs, to deployments oer-
to protect to the same level as a silo, a smaller number
of warheads would be needed to ensure they fell within ing complete continental US protection with a large num-
ber of SCD modules of various types and sizes. The de-
their larger lethal range. As the various Hardsite studies
progressed, the MSR was progressively hardened, but it ployments were arranged to be able to be built in phases,
working up to complete coverage.[42]
was never enough. This problem led to the Virtual Radar
Defense system (VIRADE), which included radars that One issue that emerged from these studies was the prob-
would be moved between sites on railways, forcing addi- lem of providing early warning to the SCD sites. MAR
tional warheads to be expended to attack each potential had been carefully tuned to provide just enough warn-
site. This would be extremely expensive to deploy.[38] ing for their systems to complete the interception, and
Another problem identied during the Hardpoint studies did not oer any sort of very long range warning. The
was the data processing requirements were beyond even SCDs MSR radars provided detection at perhaps 100
the large machines envisioned for Nike-X. This was also miles (160 km), which meant targets would appear on
becoming a problem even for a baseline city defense, as their radars only seconds before launches would have to
the number of ICBMs grew. This led to further stud- be carried out. In a sneak attack scenario there would not
ies on units able to handle much higher processing loads, be enough time to receive command authority for the re-
and resulted in the Parallel Element Processing Ensem- lease of nuclear weapons, which meant the bases would
ble computer, or PEPE, one of the earlier experiments in have to have launch on warning authority, which was po-
parallel processing.[39] litically unacceptable.[43]
Although initially supportive of the concept, by 1966 the This led to proposals for a new radar dedicated solely
to the early warning role, developing tracks only accu-
Air Force came to reject Hardpoint largely for the same
reasons it had rejected Zeus in the same role. If money rately enough to determine which MAR or SCD would
was to be spent on protecting Minuteman, they felt that ultimately have to deal with the threat. Used primarily
money would be better spent by the Air Force than the in the rst minutes of the attack, and not responsible for
Army. As Morton Halperin noted: the engagements, the system could be considered dispos-
able and did not need anything like the sophistication of
In part this was a reex reaction, a desire the MAR. This led to the Perimeter Acquisition Radar
not to have Air Force missiles protected by (PAR), which would operate at VHF frequencies in order
'Army' ABMs. [...] The Air Force clearly pre- to greatly lower the cost of the electronics.[44]
ferred that the funds for missile defense be used
by the Air Force to develop new hard rock silos
or mobile systems.[40] Zeus EX
Through late 1964 Bell was considering the role of Zeus

Small City Defense, PAR in the Nike-X system. A January 1965 report[lower-alpha 2]
noted that new understanding of high-altitude nuclear
See also: AN/FPQ-16 PARCS explosions might signicantly improve the value of the
Zeus. When a nuclear warhead explodes it gives o a
During the projects development phase, ghting broke huge number of high-energy x-rays which normally re-
out over the siting of the Nike-X bases.[15] Originally in- act with any nearby matter, including air, causing the air
tended to protect only the largest urban areas, smaller to ionize and block further progress of the x-rays. In the
cities complained that they were not only being left open highest layers of the atmosphere there simply isn't enough
to attack, but that their lack of defences might make them matter for this to occur, and the x-rays can travel long
primary targets. This led to a series of studies on the distances. Enough of these hitting a re-entry vehicle can
Small City Defense (SCD) concept. By 1964 SCD had cause damage to its heat shields.[45]
become part of the baseline Nike-X deployment, with ev- To take full advantage of this eect, the Zeus would
ery city with a population over 100,000 being provided have to have a much larger warhead dedicated to the
some level of defensive system.[25] production of x-rays, and would have operate at higher
SCD would consist primarily of a single autonomous bat- altitudes.[46] A major advantage was that accuracy needs
tery centered on a cut-down MAR called TACMAR, were much reduced, from a minimum of about 800 feet
(240 m) for the original Zeus neutron based attack, to 108.1.6 Continued pressure to deploy
something on the order of a few miles. This meant that
the range limits of the original Zeus, which were dened
by the accuracy of the radars to about 75 miles (121 km),
were greatly eased and attacks could take place at much
greater range. This Extended Range Nike Zeus, or Zeus
EX for short, would be able to provide protection over a
wider area, reducing the number of bases needed to pro-
vide full-country defense. These missiles would also be
expensive.[46]
Nth country, DEPEX, I-67
In February 1965 the Army asked Bell to consider dif-

ferent deployment concepts under the Nth country study.
This examined what sort of system would be needed to
provide protection against an unsophisticated attack with
a limited number of warheads. Using the Zeus EX, a
small number of bases could provide coverage for the en-
tire US. The system would be unable to deal with large
numbers of warheads, but that was not a concern for a
system that would not be tasked with beating a deliberate
Soviet attack.[46]
With only small numbers of targets, the full MAR was Robert McNamara had resisted pressure to deploy Zeus knowing
not needed and Bell initially proposed TACMAR to ll it would have little real-world eect, and faced the same problem
this need. This would have shorter detection range, so with Nike-X four years later.
a long range radar like PAR would be needed for early
detection.[46] The missile sites would consist of a sin- The basic outlines of these various studies were becoming
gle TACMAR along with about 20 Zeus EX missiles.[47] clear by 1966. The heavy defense from the original Nike-
In October 1965 the TACMAR was replaced by the X proposals would cost about $40 billion ($291 billion to-
TACMSR from the SCD studies. Since this radar had day) and oer limited protection and damage prevention.
even shorter range than TACMAR, it could not be ex- The thin defense of Nth country would be much less ex-
pected to generate tracking information in time for a Zeus pensive, around $5 billion ($36 billion today), but could
launch. PAR would thus have to be upgraded to have only have any eect at all under certain limited scenarios.
higher accuracy and the processing power to generate Finally, the Hardsite concepts would cost about the same
tracks that would be handed o to the TACMSRs. Dur- as the thin defence, and provide some protection against
ing this same time, Bell had noted problems with long a counterforce attack.[49]
wavelength radars in the presence of radar blackout. Both None of these concepts appeared to be worth deploy-
of these issues argued for a change from VHF to UHF ing, but there was considerable pressure from Congres-
frequencies for the PAR.[44] sional groups dominated by hawks who continued to force
Further work along these lines led to the Nike-X Deploy- development of the ABM even when McNamara and
ment Study, or DEPEX. DEPEX described a system sim- President Johnson didn't ask for it.[50] Further support for
ilar to that initially considered under Nth Country, but deployment came from the Joint Chiefs of Sta (JCS),
was designed to grow as the nature of the threat changed. who used the Soviet construction of ABM systems around
They imagined a four-phase deployment sequence that Tallinn and Moscow as an argument to demand their own.
added more and more terminal defenses as the sophisti- This was the rst strong vote of support from the JCS
cation of the Nth country missiles increased over time.[26] for ABM; previously the Air Force had been dead-set
In December 1966, the Army asked Bell to prepare a de- against any Army system, and had publicly blasted their
tailed deployment concept combining the light defense of earlier eorts in the press.[51] According to one historian,
Nth country with the point defense of Hardsite. On 17 this was likely due to the rapid improvement of the US
January 1967 this became the I-67 project, which deliv- Navys missile eet, which could survive any conceivable
ered its results on 5 July. I-67 was essentially Nth country attack, and led the Air Force to support any way to im-
but with additional bases near Minuteman elds, armed prove the survivability of their own defenses.[52] The de-
primarily with Sprint. The wide-area Zeus and short- bate spilled over into public and led to comments about an
range Sprint bases would both be supported by the PAR ABM gap, especially by Republican Governor George
network.[48] W. Romney.[31]
108.2. TESTING 393
McNamara attempted to short-circuit deployment in

early 1966 by stating that the only program that had any
reasonable cost-eectiveness was the thin defense against
the Chinese, and then noting there was no rush to build
such a system as it would be some time before they had an
ICBM. Overruling him, Congress provided $167.9 mil-
lion ($1 billion today) for immediate production of the
original Nike-X concept. McNamara and Johnson met
on the issue on 3 November 1966, and McNamara once
again convinced Johnson that the system simply wasn't
worth deploying. He then headed o the expected coun-
terattack from Romney by calling a press conference on
the topic of Soviet ABMs and stating that the new Min-
uteman III and Poseidon SLBM would ensure the Soviet
system would be overwhelmed.[49]
MAR-I was built at White Sands, seen here looking south-
Another meeting on the issue was called on 6 Decem- southwest. The transmitter is on the small dome on the right, with
ber 1966, attended by Johnson, McNamara, the deputy its associated receiver on the main dome above it. The elements
Secretary of Defense Cyrus Vance, Walt Rostow and the ll only a small area of the original antenna outlines.
Joint Chiefs. Rostow took the side of the JCS and it ap-
peared that development would start. However, McNa-
mara once again outlined the problems and stated that 108.2.1 MAR
the simplest way to close the ABM gap was to simply
build more ICBMs, rendering the Soviet system impo- Work on the ZMAR radar was already progressing by the
tent and a great waste of money. He then proposed that time McNamara cancelled Zeus in 1963. Two experi-
the money sidelined by Congress for deployment be used mental systems had been built consisting of a single row
for initial deployment studies while the US attempted to of elements, essentially a slice from a larger array. One,
negotiate an arms limitation treaty. Johnson agreed with built by Sylvania, used MOSAR phase-shifting using time
this compromise, and ordered Dean Rusk to open nego- delays, while the other, by General Electric, used a novel
tiations with the Soviets.[49] modulation scanning system.[53] Sylvanias system won
a contract for a test system, MAR-I.[54]
To save money, the prototype MAR-I would only in-
stall antenna elements for the inner section of the orig-
inal 40 foot (12 m) diameter antenna, populating the
108.1.7 Nike-X becomes Sentinel central 25 feet (7.6 m). This had the side-eect of re-
ducing the number of antenna elements from 6,405 to
By 1967 the debate over ABM systems had become a 2,245, but would not change the basic control logic. A full
major public policy issue, with almost continual debate sized, four sided MAR would require 25,620 parametric
on the topic in newspapers and magazines. It was in the ampliers to be individually wired by hand, so building
midst of these debates, on 17 June 1967, that the Chinese the smaller MAR-I greatly reduced cost and construction
tested their rst H-bomb in Test No. 6. Suddenly the Nth time.[55] The transmitter face was similarly reduced. Both
country concept was no longer simply theoretical. McNa- antennas were built full sized and could be expanded out
mara seized on this event as a solution to the problem of to full MAR performance at any time.
a Nike-Xs lack of mission. On 18 September 1967 he
A test site for MAR-I had already been selected at
announced that Nike-X would now be known as Sentinel,
WSMR, about a mile o of U.S. Route 70, and some 25
and outlined deployment plans broadly following the I-67
[50] miles (40 km) north of the Armys main missile launch
concept.
sites along WSMR Route 2 (Nike Avenue).[56] A new
road, WSMR Route 15, was built to connect the MAR-
I to Launch Complex 38 (LC38), the Zeus launch site.
MAR-Is northern location meant that the MAR would
see the many unrelated rocket launches taking place at
108.2 Testing the Army sites to the south, as well as the target missiles
that were launched towards them from the north. This
[57]
Although the original Nike-X concept was cancelled, a provided the test program with numerous free targets.
number of its components were built and tested both as Since MAR was central to the entire Nike-X system, it
part of Nike-X and the follow-on Sentinel. The following had to survive attacks directed at the radar itself. At the
section discusses the main developments during the Nike- time, the response of hardened buildings to nuclear shock
X period. was not well understood, and the MAR-I building was
dramatically over-designed. It consisted of a large central vaged by Colgates New Mexico Tech. A number found
hemispherical dome of 10 foot (3.0 m) thick reinforced their way into the astronomy eld, including Colgates
concrete with similar but smaller domes arranged on the supernova detector, SNORT.[63]
corners of a square bounding the central dome. The cen- About 2,000 of these remained in storage at New Mexico
tral dome held the receiver arrays, and the smaller domes Tech until 1980. An assay at that time discovered that
the transmitters. The concept was designed to allow a there was well over one ounce of gold in each one, and the
transmitter/receiver pair to be built into any of the faces remaining stocks were melted down to produce $941,966
to provide wide coverage around the radar site. As a test for the university ($3 million today). The money was used
site, MAR-I only installed the equipment on the north-
to build a new wing on the universitys Workman Center,
west facing side, although provisions were made for a sec- known unocially as the Gold Building.[64]
ond set on the north-east side that was never used. A tall
metal clutter fence surrounded the building, preventing re-
ections from nearby mountains.[56] 108.2.2 MSR
Groundbreaking on the MAR-I site started in March
1963 and proceeded rapidly. The radar was powered up
for the rst time in June 1964.[56] However, this demon-
strated very low reliability in the transmitters travelling
wave tube (TWT) ampliers, which led to an extremely
expensive re-design and re-installation. Once upgraded,
MAR-I demonstrated the system would work as ex-
pected; it could generate multiple virtual radar beams,
could simultaneously generate dierent types of beams
for detection, tracking and discrimination at the same
time, and had the accuracy and speed needed to gener-
ate many tracks.[20]
By this time work had already begun on MAR-II on Kwa-
jalein, which diered in form and in its beam steer-
ing system.[58][lower-alpha 3] The prototype MAR-II was
built on reclaimed land just west of the original Zeus
site. Having learned more about nuclear hardening, this The TACMSR at Mickelsen was the only complete MSR built. Note
version was built of thinner concrete and had provi- that the antenna elements only ll the center of the circular areas;
sions for antennas on only two faces, built into a hor- the larger area was intended for possible future expansion.
izontally truncated pyramid.[59] Like MAR-I, in order
to save money MAR-II would be equipped with only Bell ran a number of studies to identify the sweet spot for
one set of transmitter/receiver elements installed, but the MSR that would allow it to have enough functionality
with all the wiring in place in case it had to be up- to be useful at dierent stages of the attack, as well as
being inexpensive enough to justify its existence in a sys-
graded in the future.[60][lower-alpha 4] Nike-X was cancelled
before MAR-II was complete, and the semi-completed tem dominated by MAR. This led to an initial proposal
building was instead used as a climate-controlled storage for an S band system using passive scanning (PESA) that
facility.[57][lower-alpha 5] was sent out in October 1963.[65] Of the seven propos-
als received, Raytheon won the development contract in
Testing on MAR-I lasted until 30 September 1967. It
December 1963, with Varian providing the high-power
continued to be used at a lower level as part of the Sen-
klystrons (twystrons) for the transmitter.[16]
tinel developments. This work ended in May 1969, when
the facility was mothballed. In November, the building An initial prototype design was developed between Jan-
[65]
was re-purposed as the main fallout shelter for everyone uary and May 1964. When used with MAR, the MSR
at the Holloman Air Force Base, about 25 miles (40 km) needed only short range, enough to hand o the Sprint
to the east. To hold the 5,800 sta and their dependents, missiles. This led to a design with limited radiated power.
the radar and its underground equipment areas had to be For Small City Defense, this would not oer enough
completely emptied. Starting in 1970, the radar began to power to acquire the warheads at reasonable range. This
be dismantled.[61] led to an upgraded design with ve times the transmitter
power, which was sent to Raytheon in May 1965.[66] A
Stirling Colgate wrote a letter to Science bemoaning
further upgrade in May 1966 included the battle control
MARs salvaging as he felt it would make an excellent
[62] computers and other features of the TACMSR system.[66]
radio astronomy instrument. With minor re-tuning it
could be used to observe the hydrogen line. This did not As it was expected that the Sprint and Zeus missiles would
come to be, but over 2000 of the Western Electric para- be ready in time for the MSR to be used with them, the
metric ampliers driving the system ended up being sal- decision was made to skip construction of an MSR at
White Sands and build the rst example at Kwajalein. As
108.2. TESTING 395
the earlier Zeus system had taken up most of the avail- around the missile.[70] The development program was re-
able land on Kwajalein Island itself, the missile launch- ferred to as pure agony.[16]
ers and MSR were to be built on Meck Island, about 20 In the original Nike-X plans, Sprint was the primary
miles (32 km) north. This site would host a complete weapon, and thus was considered to be an extremely
TACMSR, allowing the Army to test both MAR-hosted high-priority development. To speed development, a sub-
(using MAR-II) and autonomous MSR deployments.[41] scale version of Sprint, known as Squirt, was tested from
A second launcher site was built on Illeginni Island, 17.5 Launch Complex 37 at White Sands, the former Nike
miles (28.2 km) northwest of Meck, with two Sprint and Ajax/Hercules test area.[71] A total of ve Squirts were
two Spartan launchers.[67] Three camera stations built to
red between 1964 and 1965. The rst Sprint Propulsion
record the Illeginni launches were installed, and used for Test Vehicle (PTV) was launched from another area at the
tracking long after the program shut down.[68]
same Complex on 17 November 1965, only 25 months
Construction of the launch site on Meck began in late after the nal design was signed o. Sprint testing pre-
1967. As the island is only a few feet over sea level, it dated construction of an MSR, and the missiles were ini-
was decided not to build the MSR in the form it would tially guided by Zeus TTR and MTR radars.[72] Testing
have in a deployment system, where the computers and continued under Safeguard, with a total of 42 test ights
operations would be underground. Instead, the majority at White Sands and another 34 at Kwajalein.[70]
of the system was built above ground in a single-oor rect-
angular building. The MSR was built in a boxy extension
on the north-western corner of the roof, with two sides 108.2.4 Zeus EX/Spartan
angled back to form a half-pyramid shape where the an-
tennas were mounted. Small clutter fences were build to Main article: LIM-49 Spartan
the north and northwest, the western side faced out over
the water which was only a few tens of meters from the
Zeus B had been test red at both White Sands and the
building.[69] Illeginni did not have a radar site, it was op-
Zeus base on Kwajalein. For Nike-X, the extended range
erated remotely from Meck.[67]
EX model was planned, replacing Zeus second stage with
a larger model that provided more thrust through the mid-
108.2.3 Sprint section of the boost phase. Also known as the DM-15X2,
the EX was renamed Spartan in January 1967. The Spar-
tan never ew as part of the original Nike-X, and its rst
ight in March 1968 took place under Sentinel.[45]
108.2.5 Re-entry testing
One of the reasons for the move from Zeus to Nike-X

was concern that the Zeus radars would not be able to tell
the dierence between the warhead and a decoy until it
was too late to launch. One solution to this problem was
the Sprint missile, which had the performance required
to wait until decluttering was complete. Another poten-
tial solution was to look for some sort of signature of the
re-entry through the highest levels of the atmosphere that
The sub-scale Squirt was used to test Sprint concepts. might dier between a warhead and decoy; specically,
it appeared that the ablation of the heat shield might pro-
Main article: Sprint (missile) duce a clear signature pointing out the warhead.[73]
The re-entry phenomenology was of interest both to the
On 1 October 1962, Bells Nike oce sent specications Army, as it might allow long-range decluttering to be car-
for a high-speed missile to three contractors. The re- ried out, as well as to the Air Force, whose own ICBMs
sponses were received on 1 February 1963, and Martin might be at risk of long-range interception if the Soviets
Marietta was selected as the winning bid on 18 March.[16] exploited a similar concept.[73] A program to test these
Sprint ultimately proved to be the most dicult techni- concepts was a major part of ARPAs Project Defender,
cal challenge of the Nike-X system. Designed to inter- especially Project PRESS, which started in 1960. This
cept incoming warheads at an altitude of about 45,000 led to the construction of a number of high-power radar
feet (14,000 m), it had to y so quickly that its outer systems on Roi-Namur, the northernmost point of the
layer became hotter than an oxy-acetylene welding torch. Kwajalein atoll. Although the results remain classied,
This caused enormous problems in materials, controls, a number of sources mention the failure to nd a reliable
and even receiving radio signals through the ionized air signature of this sort.[73][lower-alpha 6]
In 1964, Bell Labs formulated their own set of require- The receivers had three channels, one tuned to each part
ments for radar work in relation to Nike-X. Working of the pulse chain.[78] After reception and conversion to
with the Army, Air Force, Lincoln Labs and ARPA, intermediate frequency, the signals were sent to two units,
Nike-X ran a long series of reentry measurements with the Search Signal Processor (SSP) and Video Pulse Con-
the PRESS radars, especially TRADEX.[74] By the late verter (VPC). The SSP examined the long range detection
1960s it was clear that discrimination of decoys was an signal to extract rough range, direction and speed through
unsolved problem, but that the techniques might still be doppler shift. The VPC received the tracking signal and
useful against less sophisticated decoys. This work ap- digitized it for processing in the accurate tracking and dis-
pears to be one of the main reasons that the thin defense crimination systems.[78]
of I-67 was considered worthwhile. At that time, in 1967, MAR operated in two modes, surveillance and engage-
ARPA passed the PRESS radars to the Army.[75]
ment. In surveillance mode the range of the radar was
maximized, and the system scanned the entire sky every
20 seconds.[lower-alpha 7] Returns were fed into systems that
108.3 Description automatically extracted the range and velocity of the ob-
ject, and if the return was deemed interesting, the sys-
A typical Nike-X deployment around a major city would tem automatically began a track for threat verication.
consist of a number of missile batteries.[76] One of these During the threat verication phase, the radar spent more
would be equipped with the MAR and its associated time examining the returns in an eort to more accurately
DCDP computers, while the others would optionally determine the trajectory, and then eliminated any objects
have an MSR. The sites were all networked together us- that would not be falling into the area defended by the
ing communications equipment working at normal voice MAR.[54]
bandwidths. A number of the smaller bases would be Those targets that did pose a threat to the Defense Cen-
built north of the MAR to provide protection to this centers area automatically triggered the switch to engage-
tral station.[24] ment mode. In this mode the radars range was reduced to
Almost every aspect of the battle would be managed by allow more accurate tracking of the target. As the return
the DCDPS at the MAR base.[24] The reason for this cen- strength grew, a sub-beam was generated and left staring
tralization was two-fold; one was that the radar system at the target. By rapidly changing the tuning of the re-
was extremely complex and expensive and could not be ceiver delays, the system could sweep through the threat
built in large numbers, the second was that the transistor- tube in range while keeping the width constant, thereby
[79]
based computers needed to process the data were likewise maximizing the energy being sent into the tube. In
very expensive. Nike-X thus relied on a small number of contrast, a conventional radar antenna with a xed an-
very expensive sites, and a large number of greatly sim- gle would put less energy onto more distant targets as a
plied batteries.[42] side-eect of the inverse square law. Data from those el-
ements being used in the monopulse precision tracking
mode was sent to the Coherent Signal Processing System
108.3.1 MAR (CSPS). The CSPS extracted velocity data to attempt to
pick out the warhead as the decoys slowed in the atmo-
MAR was an L band active electronically scanned array sphere. One CSPS was built but not installed on MAR-
phased-array radar. The original MAR-I had been built I, it was instead connected to [20] the Zeus Discrimination
into a strongly reinforced dome, but the later designs con- Radar on Kwajalein for testing.
sisted of two half-pyramid shapes, with the transmitters Nike-X originally planned to alternately use a cut down
in a smaller pyramid in front of the receivers. The reduc- version of MAR known as TACMAR. This was essen-
tion in size and complexity was the result of a number tially a MAR with half of the elements hooked up, reduc-
of studies on nuclear hardening, especially those carried ing its price considerably at the cost of shorter detection
out as part of Operation Prairie Flat in Alberta, where a range. The processing equipment was likewise reduced in
500 ton ball of TNT was constructed to simulate a nuclear complexity, lacking some of the more sophisticated dis-
explosion.[77] crimination processing. TACMAR was designed from
MAR used separate transmitter and receivers, a necessity the start to be able to be upgraded to full MAR perfor-
at the time due to the size of the individual transmit and mance if needed, especially as the sophistication of the
receive units and the required switching systems. Both threat grew.[60] MAR-II is sometimes described as the
systems worked in concert to be able to generate multi- prototype TACMAR, but there is considerable confusion
ple steerable beams. Each transmitter antenna was fed on this point in existing sources.[lower-alpha 8]
by its own power amplier using travelling wave tubes
with switching diodes and strip lines performing the de-
lays. The signal generally consisted of a single pulse
chain modulated at dierent frequencies so the single
pulse could be used for search, track and discrimination.
108.3.2 MSR information by sending tracking data from site to site.[87]
As initially conceived, MSR was a short-range system 108.3.3 Sprint

for tracking Sprint missiles before they appeared in the
MARs view, as well as oering a secondary target and
jammer tracking role. In this initial concept, the MSR
would have limited processing power, just enough to fol-
lowing instructions from the MAR and create tracks to
feed back to the MAR.[65]
The MSR was an S band PESA phased-array radar, un-
like the actively scanned MAR. In the PESA system, a
single signal is sent and received to the entire radar face,
and delay systems in the antenna elements achieve steer-
ing. This means a PESA system cannot generate dierent
waveforms in dierent directions, but this level of sophis-
tication was not needed in the MSR role. The upside is
that this eliminates the need for a separate oscillator and
amplier for each antenna element; instead one, or more
commonly a small number, of active elements feeds the
entire array.[81] The delays were based on diode shifters
with 16 possible shifts held in a 4 bit register in the con-
trol computer.[82] Additionally, the same antenna array
can easily be used for both transmit and receive, as the
area behind the array is much less cluttered and has ample
room for switching in spite of the large radio frequency
switches needed at this level of power.[83]
After some consideration, a solution to feeding the mi-
crowave energy to the antenna elements was found in a
concept known as a space array. This consisted of a
large empty chamber behind the antenna face with sepa- Sprint was the centrepiece of the original Nike-X concept, but
rate feed horns from the klystron amplier[lower-alpha 9] and relegated to a secondary role in Sentinel.
receivers at the back of the chamber. The feed horns
were aimed at the back of the face where the delay units Sprint was the primary weapon of Nike-X as originally
were positioned, feeding the signal through to the trans- conceived, and would be placed in clusters around the
mit/receive antennas on the outside face of the array.[81] targets being defended by the MAR system. Each missile
was housed in an underground silo and was driven into the
An advantage to this design is that the signal is supplied
through the air, meaning that the individual elements only air before launch by a gas-powered piston.[88] The missile
was initially tracked by the local MSR, which would hand
need to be supplied with power, the RF does not have to
come through a cable. This allowed the elements to be o tracking to the MAR as soon as it became visible. A
transponder in the missile could respond to signals from
packaged into long tubular containers that could be in-
dividually removed from the exterior of the building.[85] either the MAR or MSR for accurate tracking.[89]
Replacement did not take place until a number of units Although a primary concern of the Sprint missile was
had failed, at which point all the failed units were replaced high speed, the design is actually not optimized for maxi-
at once, a task that took about two minutes per unit.[81] mum energy, but instead relies on the rst stage (booster)
Failures were tracked both electronically for basic faults, to provide as much thrust as possible. This leaves the
as well as the periodic sending and receiving a test sig- second stage (sustainer) lighter than optimal, in order to
nal to and from a nearby antenna at each of the sixteen improve its maneuverability. Staging is under ground
dierent shift values.[82] control, with the booster being cut away from the mis-
Unlike the MAR, which would be tracking targets pri- sile body by explosives. The sustainer is not necessar-
marily from the north, the MSR would be tracking its ily ignited immediately, depending on the ight prole.
interceptors in all directions. MSR was thus built into For control, the rst stage used a system that injected
a four-faced truncated pyramid, with any of all of the Freon into the exhaust to cause thrust vectoring to con-
faces carrying radar arrays.[86] Isolated sites, like the one trol the ight. The second stage used small air vanes for
considered for Hawaii, would normally have arrays on all control.[90]
four faces. Those that were networked into denser sys- The required acceleration was such that the solid fuel had
tems could reduce the number of faces and get the same to burn ten times as fast as contemporary designs like
the Pershing or Minuteman. Both the burning fuel and (MAR-II), and TACMAR, again suggesting these were
skin friction created so much heat that radio signals were dierent systems.[80]
strongly attenuated through the resulting ionized plasma
[9] There were two klystrons in the MSR, normally acting in
around the missile body.[91] It was expected that the av-
concert, but either was able to take over if the other failed.
erage interception would take place at about 40,000 feet This produced a 3 dB loss of power, but could be brought
(12,000 m) at a range of 10 nautical miles (19 km; 12 mi) rapidly back to operation by replacing the failed unit while
after 10 seconds of ight time.[88] the other continued to operate. Each klystron is about the
size of a refrigerator.[84]
108.4 See also

108.6 References
Project Nike, the technical oce that ran Nike-X.
The A-135 anti-ballistic missile system was the So- 108.6.1 Citations
viet equivalent to Nike-X.
[1] Bell Labs 1975, p. I-2.
[2] Bell Labs 1975, p. I-15.

108.5 Notes
[3] Zeus 1962, pp. 166168.
[1] Which is the whole reason to use them. If your missile [4] Bell Labs 1975, p. I-24.
has enough extra throw-weight to carry another warhead,
that serves the same purpose in terms of overwhelming [5] Bell Labs 1975, p. I-31.
the ABM system but does not suer problems at lower
altitudes, while also increasing the chance the target will [6] Kent 2008, p. 202.
be destroyed and potentially allowing attacks against more
[7] Baucom 1992, p. 21.
than one target. This is not always the case; the UKs
Chevaline system removed one warhead from the Polaris [8] Pursglove 1964, p. 125.
missile bus and used that space and weight to carry a large
number of advanced decoys, ensuring that even a small [9] Moeller 1995, p. 7.
number of missiles would overwhelm the Moscow ABM
system. [10] Bell Labs 1975, p. I-33.
[2] Bell says the rst report on this was in December 1964. [11] Pursglove 1964, p. 218.
[3] The Bell document is not clear on what sort of beam- [12] WSEG 1959, p. 20.
steering system was used in MAR-II,[58] but as it was built
by General Electric it might use their novel modulation [13] Garvin & Bethe 1968, pp. 2830.
technique.
[14] Murdock 1974, p. 117.
[4] Bells document is somewhat confusing; although it states
only one of the two faces was installed, the text can also [15] Bell Labs 1975, p. I-36.
be read to suggest that they also installed half as many
[16] Bell Labs 1975, p. I-37.
elements, like they had on MAR-I.[60]
[5] Piland claims that the MAR-II was actually the prototype [17] Reed 1991, p. 1-14.
of something called CAMAR, a single-antenna version [18] Baucom 1992, p. 13.
of MAR. This claim can be found on many web sites.
However, the MAR-II building clearly has separate trans- [19] Garvin & Bethe 1968, pp. 2729.
mit/receive antennas, and the Bell documents all refer to
this being a MAR system. CAMAR may have been a [20] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-19.
planned upgrade while MAR-II was under construction,
[21] Garvin & Bethe 1968, p. 27.
but if this is the case it is not recorded in the Bell history.
[6] Bells history makes several mentions of PRESS and later [22] Baucom 1992, p. 22.
eorts failures in this regard.
[23] Garvin & Bethe 1968, p. 28.
[7] This was for the four-face MAR-I design, examples with
fewer installed faces, including MAR-II, would take less [24] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-5.
time to scan. [25] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-6.
[8] Bells ABM history separates the MAR-II and TACMAR
[26] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-11.
sections, but the TACMAR section does appear to de-
scribe a system very similar to what was installed at MAR- [27] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-10.
II.[60] It then concludes its discussion of the MAR con-
cepts by referring to MAR, the Kwajalein prototype [28] WSEG 1959, p. 13.
[29] Panofsky 1961. [64] Hayward 2011, p. 28.
[30] Kent 2008, p. 49. [65] Bell Labs 1975, p. 7-3.
[31] Ritter 2010, p. 153. [66] Bell Labs 1975, p. 7-4.
[32] Ritter 2010, p. 149. [67] Bell Labs 1975, p. 5-20.
[33] Yanarella 2010, p. 87. [68] Bell Labs 1975, p. 5-25.
[34] Yanarella 2010. [69] Bell Labs 1975, p. 7-1.
[35] Kaplan 2009, pp. 8081. [70] Bell Labs 1975, p. 9-1.
[36] MacKenzie 1993, pp. 203224. [71] Squirt Missile Ready to Fire. White Sands Missile Range
Museum.
[37] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-12.
[72] Bell Labs 1975, Figure I-35.
[38] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-13.
[73] Reed 1991, p. 1-13.
[39] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-14.
[74] Reed 1991, p. 1-16.
[40] Freedman, Lawrence (2014). U.S. Intelligence and the So-
[75] Reed 1991, p. 1-17.
viet Strategic Threat. Princeton University Press. p. 123.
ISBN 9781400857999. [76] Bell Labs 1975, Figure 2-2.
[41] Bell Labs 1975, p. I-38. [77] Bell Labs 1975, p. 6-13.
[42] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-7. [78] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-21.
[43] Holst, John (2013). Missile Defense: Implications for Eu- [79] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-18.
rope. Elsevier. pp. 191192.
[80] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-24.
[44] Bell Labs 1975, p. 8-1.
[81] Bell Labs 1975, p. 7-6.
[45] Bell Labs 1975, p. 10-1.
[82] Bell Labs 1975, p. 7-7.
[46] Bell Labs 1975, p. I-41.
[83] Bell Labs 1975, p. 7-14.
[47] Bell Labs 1975, p. I-43.
[84] Bell Labs 1975, p. 7-5.
[48] Bell Labs 1975, p. I-45.
[85] Bell Labs 1975, Figure 7-7.
[49] Ritter 2010, pp. 154.
[50] Ritter 2010, pp. 175.
[51] Air Force Calls Army Unt to Guard Nation. New York [88] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-9.
Times. 21 May 1956. p. 1.
[89] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-8.
[52] MacKenzie 1993, Chapter 5.
[90] Bell Labs 1975, p. 9-4.
[53] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-16.
[91] Bell Labs 1975, p. 9-3.
[54] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-17.
[55] Hayward 2011, pp. 3738.

[56] Piland 2006, p. 1.
Baucom, Donald (1992). The Origins of SDI,
[57] Piland 2006, p. 3. 19441983. University Press of Kansas. ISBN
[58] Bell Labs 1975, p. I-40.
9780700605316. OCLC 25317621.
[59] Bell Labs 1975, p. I-39. Bell Labs (October 1975). ABM Research and
[60] Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-22.
Development at Bell Laboratories, Project History
(Technical report).
[61] Hayward 2011, p. 11.
[62] Hayward 2011, p. 2.

Garvin, Richard; Bethe, Hans (March 1968). Anti-
Ballistic-Missile Systems. Scientic American: 21
[63] Hayward 2011, p. 15. 31. Retrieved 13 December 2014.
Garvin, Richard; Bethe, Hans (March 1968). Anti-

Ballistic-Missile Systems. Scientic American: 21
31. Retrieved 13 December 2014.
Kaplan, Lawrence (2009). Nike-X Missile Antibal-

listic Missile System. unpublished (Technical report).
Hayward, Bob (2011). The Colgate Paramp (Tech-

nical report). Radio Astronomy & the ISM.
Kent, Glenn (2008). Thinking About Americas De-

fense. RAND. ISBN 9780833044525.

A Historical Sociology of Missile Guidance. MIT
Press. ISBN 9780262631471.
Moeller, Stephen (MayJune 1995). Vigilant and

Invincible. ADA Magazine.
Murdock, Clark (1974). Defense Policy Forma-

tion: A Study and Translation. SUNY Press. ISBN
9781438413945.
Panofsky, Wolfgang (21 October 1961). WKHP-

61-24: Limited Deployment, NIKE-ZEUS (Technical
report).
Piland, Doyle (2006). Way Back When.... Hands

Across History (White Sands Missile Range Histor-
ical Foundation): pp. 13. ISSN 0015-3710.
Pursglove, S. David (January 1964). Cold War

Race for a Missile Killer. Popular Mechanics: 122
125, 216, 218.
Technical Editor (2 August 1962). Nike Zeus.

Flight International: 165170. ISSN 0015-3710.
US Army Weapons Systems Evaluation Group (23

September 1959). Potential Contribution of Nike-
Zeus to Defense of the U.S. Population and its Indus-
trial Base, and the U.S. Retaliatory System (Techni-
cal report). Retrieved 13 December 2014.
Reed, Sidney (1991). DARPA Technical Accom-

plishments, Volume 2. Institute for Defense Anal-
yses.
Ritter, Scott (2010). Dangerous Ground: Americas

Failed Arms Control Policy, from FDR to Obama.
Nation Books. ISBN 9780786727438.
Yanarella, Ernest (2010). The Missile Defense Con-

troversy: Technology in Search of a Mission. Uni-
versity Press of Kentucky. ISBN 9780813128092.
Chapter 109
RIM-2 Terrier
The Convair RIM-2 Terrier was a two-stage medium- 1958. The wings were replaced with xed strakes, and the
range naval surface-to-air missile (SAM), and was among tail became the control surface. The BT-3 also had a new
the earliest surface-to-air missiles to equip United States motor, and featured extended range, Mach 3 speed, and
Navy ships. It underwent signicant upgrades while in better maneuverability. The RIM-2D Terrier BT-3A(N)
service, starting with a beam-riding system with 10 nmi used a W45 1kt nuclear warhead, but all other variants
range at a speed of Mach 1.8, and ending as a semi-active used a 218 lb (99 kg) controlled-fragmentation warhead.
radar homing system with a range of 40 nmi at speeds as The RIM-2E introduced semi-active radar homing, for
high as Mach 3. It was replaced in service by the RIM-67 greater eectiveness against low-ying targets. The nal
Standard ER (SM-1ER). version, the RIM-2F, used a new motor which doubled
Terrier has also been used as a sounding rocket. eective range to 40 nmi (74 km; 46 mi).
The Terrier was the primary missile system of most US
Navy cruisers built during the 1960s. It could be in-
109.1 History stalled on much smaller ships than the much larger and
longer-ranged RIM-8 Talos. A Terrier installation typ-
ically consisted of the Mk 10 twin-arm launcher with a
The Terrier was a development of the Bumblebee Project,
40-round rear-loading magazine, but some ships had ex-
the Navys eort to develop a surface-to-air missile to
tended magazines with 80 or 120 rounds, and the installa-
provide a middle layer of defense against air attack (be-
tion in Boston and Canberra used a bottom-loading mag-
tween carrier ghters and antiaircraft guns). It was test
azine of 72 rounds.
launched from USS Mississippi (AG-128) ex (BB-41) on
January 28, 1953, and rst deployed operationally on The French Navys Masurca missile was developed with
the Boston-class cruisers, USS Boston (CAG-1) and USS some technology provided by the USN from Terrier.
Canberra (CAG-2) in the mid-1950s, with Canberra be- The Terrier was replaced by the extended range RIM-67
ing the rst to achieve operational status June 15, 1956. Standard missile. The RIM-67 oered the range of the
Its US Navy designation was SAM-N-7 until 1963 when much larger RIM-8 Talos in a missile the size of the Ter-
it was re-designated RIM-2. rier.
For a brief time during the mid-1950s the USMC had Terrier has also been used, typically as a rst stage, for
two Terrier battalions equipped with specially modied conducting research. The Terrier can be equipped with
twin sea launchers for land use that red the SAM-N-7. various upper stages, like the Asp, the TE-416 Toma-
The Terrier was the rst surface-to-air missile operationalhawk (not to be confused with the similarly named BGM-
with the USMC. The launchers were reloaded by a special 109 Tomahawk cruise missile) or the Orion. The booster
vehicle that carried two Terrier reloads. [1] also served as the basis for the MIM-3 Nike Ajax booster,
Initially, the Terrier used radar beam-riding guidance, which was slightly larger but otherwise similar, which has
wing control, and a conventional warhead. It had a top also seen widespread use in sounding rockets.
speed of only Mach 1.8, a range of only 10 nautical
miles (19 km), and was only useful against subsonic tar-
gets. Originally, the Terrier had a launch thrust of 23 kN
(5,200 lbf), and weight of 1,392 kg (3,069 lb). Its origi- 109.2 Terrier versions
nal dimensions were a diameter of 340 mm, a length of
8.08 m, and a n span of 1.59 m. Cost per missile in 1957
was an estimated $60,000. [2] 109.3 Operators
Before it was even in widespread service it was seeing ma-
jor improvements. The RIM-2C, named the Terrier BT- Marina Militare
3 (Beam-riding, Tail control, series 3) was introduced in
401
402 CHAPTER 109. RIM-2 TERRIER
Italian cruiser Giuseppe Garibaldi 109.7 External links

Andrea Doria-class cruiser
Media related to RIM-2 Terrier at Wikimedia Commons
Italian cruiser Vittorio Veneto
US Marines Terrier YouTube video
HNLMS De Zeven Provincin
United States Navy
109.4 Gallery
Early-model Terrier.
Early Model Terrier launched from test vessel USS
Mississippi.
A P4Y-2K drone being shot down by a Terrier,
1956.
USS Canberra (CAG-2) launching a Terrier, 1960.
RIM-2 aboard USS Providence (CLG-6), 1962.
RIM-2 launch from USS Constellation (CVA-64),
1962.
Terrier launch from USS Dale (DLG-19), 1964.
109.5 See also

USS Norton Sound (AVM-1)
RIM-8 Talos
RIM-24 Tartar
RIM-67 Standard
Terasca
Masurca
109.6 References
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/terrier.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/terrier.htm
http://www.nsroc.com
General Dynamics (Convair) SAM-N-7/RIM-2
Terrier
[1] Rockets & Missiles by Bill Gunston, p. 201, Crescent

Books 1979, ISBN 0-517-26870-1
[2] Shell Cost Soars Popular Mechanics, July 1957, p. 115.
Chapter 110
RIM-8 Talos
The Bendix RIM-8 Talos was a long-range naval surface- could accommodate the large missiles with the AN/SPW-
to-air missile, and was among the earliest surface-to-air 2 missile guidance radar and the AN/SPG-49 target illu-
missiles to equip United States Navy ships. The Talos mination and tracking radar.[2] Indeed, the 11.6-meter-
used radar beam riding for guidance to the vicinity of its long, 3-tonne missile was similar in size to a ghter air-
target, and semiactive radar homing (SARH) for termi- craft.[3] The Talos Mark 7 launcher system was installed
nal guidance. The array of four antenna which surround in three Galveston-class cruisers (converted Cleveland
the nose are SARH receivers which functioned as a con- class light cruisers) with 14 missiles in a ready-service
tinuous wave interferometer. Initial thrust was provided magazine and up to 30 unmated missiles and boosters in a
by a solid rocket booster for launch and a Bendix ramjet storage area above the main deck. Nuclear-powered USS
for ight to the target with the warhead doubling as the Long Beach and three Albany-class cruisers (converted
ramjets compressor. Baltimore class heavy cruisers) carried Mark 12 launch-
ers fed from behind by a 46-round magazine below the
main deck.
The initial SAM-N-6b/RIM-8A had an eective range
of about 50 nm, and a conventional warhead. The SAM-
N-6bW/RIM-8B was a RIM-8A with a nuclear warhead;
terminal guidance was judged unnecessary for a nuclear
warhead, so the SARH antenna were omitted. The SAM-
N-6b1/RIM-8C was introduced in 1960 and had nearly
double the range, and a more eective conventional
continuous-rod warhead. The RIM-8D was the nuclear-
warhead version of the 8C. The SAM-N-6c/RIM-8E
Unied Talos had a warhead that could be swapped
while embarked, eliminating the need to waste maga-
Last Talos missile launched by USS Oklahoma City (CLG-5) in zine capacity carrying dedicated nuclear warhead vari-
1979. ants. The RIM-8E also carried an improved continuous-
wave terminal homing seeker, and had a higher ceiling.
Some RIM-8Cs were retrotted with the new seeker, and
designated RIM-8F. The RIM-8G and RIM-8J had fur-
110.1 History ther radar homing improvements. The RIM-8H Talos-
ARM was a dedicated anti-radar homing missile for use
Talos was the end product of Operation Bumblebee, the against shore-based radar stations. Initial testing of the
Navys 16-year surface-to-air missile development pro- RIM-8H was performed in 1965, and soon after it was
gram for protection against guided anti-ship missiles like deployed in Vietnam on Chicago, Oklahoma City, and
Henschel Hs 293 glide bombs, Fritz X, and kamikaze Long Beach, attacking North Vietnamese SAM radars.
aircraft.[1] The Talos was the primary eort behind the The surface-to-air versions also saw action in Vietnam, a
Bumblebee project, but was not the rst missile the pro- total of three MiGs being shot down by Chicago and Long
gram developed; the RIM-2 Terrier was the rst to en- Beach. The Talos missile also had surface-to-surface
ter service. The Talos was originally designated SAM-N- capabilities.[4]
6, and was redesignated RIM-8 in 1963. The airframe
structure was manufactured by McDonnell Aircraft in St.
Louis; nal assembly was by Bendix Missile Systems in
Mishawaka, Indiana.
The Talos saw relatively limited use due to its large size
and dual radar antenna system; there were few ships that
403
404 CHAPTER 110. RIM-8 TALOS
110.2 Variants 110.3 Chronology

SAM-N-6 Development and prototype missiles; pre-
1962 US Navy designation of the Talos missile.
110.4 Fate
SAM-N-6a Development and prototype missiles; pre- Talos was phased out of eet service in 1976, though
1962 US Navy designation of the Talos missile. the ships carrying the system soldiered on a few more
years with the launchers left in place until they (Albany-
SAM-N-6b Production missiles deployed with conven- class, and Oklahoma City) were retired in 1980, after
tional explosive warheads; re-designated RIM-8A. Long Beach had her Talos launcher removed in 1978. Af-
SAM-N-6bw The 6b missile with nuclear warhead, ter 22 years of eet service, the missile was replaced by
omitting terminal guidance and SARH antennae; re- the RIM-67 Standard missile, which was red from the
designated RIM-8B. smaller Mk10 launcher.
A Talos missile is displayed in the atrium of the South
SAM-N-6b1 An improved 6b with much greater Bend Regional Airport (historically known as Bendix
range and continuous rod conventional warhead; re- Field).
designated RIM-8C.
Another example can be seen at the Patriots Point Naval
SAM-N-6c Unied Talos with interchangeable nu- & Maritime Museum, located at Mount Pleasant, South
clear / conventional warheads eliminating the need Carolina.
for storage of both missile types, also tted with im-
proved terminal homing and higher operating ceil-
ing; re-designated RIM-8E. 110.5 Gallery
RIM-8A Talos Production missiles deployed with con-
ventional explosive warheads; re-designated from Talos missile guidance radars, AN/SPG-49.
SAM-N-6b.
RIM-8A and 8B missile launch.
RIM-8B Talos The RIM-8A missile with nuclear war-
head, omitting terminal guidance and SARH anten- A Talos shortly before hitting a B-17 target drone in
nae; re-designated from SAM-N-6bw. 1957.
RIM-8C Talos An improved RIM-8A with much USS Little Rock (CLG-4) res a Talos, 4 May 1961.
greater range and continuous rod conventional
warhead; re-designated from SAM-N-6b1. Talos missiles on USS Little Rock (CLG-4), Novem-
ber 1960.
RIM-8D Talos The RIM-8C with nuclear warhead.
MQM-8G Vandal launch from San Nicolas Island,
RIM-8E Talos Unied Talos with interchangeable in 1999.
nuclear / conventional warheads eliminating the
need for storage of both missile types, also tted RIM-8 Talos missile loading conveyor aboard USS
with improved terminal homing and higher operat- Little Rock (CLG-4).
ing ceiling; re-designated from SAM-N-6c.
RIM-8 Talos magazine racks in USS Little Rock
RIM-8F Talos Some RIM-8C missiles retro-tted with (CLG-4).
the new seeker from the RIM-8E.
RIM-8G Talos Variant with further homing improve-

ments. 110.6 See also
RIM-8H Talos-ARM A dedicated surface-to-surface RIM-2 Terrier
anti-radar homing version for deployment on ships
already tted out for the Talos SAM. RIM-24 Tartar
RIM-8J Talos Variant with further homing improve-

ments.
110.7 Notes
MQM-8G Vandal Talos missiles remaining after re-
moval from active service were converted to super- [1] A Brief History of White Sands Proving Ground 1941-
sonic drone targets, with the inventory being ex- 1965. New Mexico State University. Retrieved 2010-
hausted circa 2008. 08-19.
[2] Polmar, Norman (December 1978). The U.S.Navy:

Shipboard Radars. United States Naval Institute Pro-
ceedings.
[3] The contemporary Soviet MiG-15 jet ghter was 10.1 me-
ters long and weighted 5 tonnes.
[4] USS Oklahoma City - Talos Missile Firing Operations.

[5] Welcome Aboard. USS Columbus Veterans Associa-

tion. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
[6] Chronology - U.S.S. Galveston CL-93 / CLG-3. USS

Galveston Shipmates Association. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
[7] A Brief History of the USS Little Rock. USS Little

Rock Association. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
110.8 References
Friedman, Norman (1982). The 3 T Pro-
gramme. Warship (London: Conway Maritime
Press) VI (223): 158166, 181185. ISBN 0-
87021-981-2.

Designation systems.net - RIM-8 Talos
Talos missile and launching system, Talos history
Talos Missile Handling, Cruiser Installation Film

Chapter 111
RIM-24 Tartar
The General Dynamics RIM-24 Tartar was a medium- 111.3 Ships carrying Tartar re
range naval surface-to-air missile (SAM), and was among
the earliest surface-to-air missiles to equip United States
control systems
Navy ships. The Tartar was the third of the so-called
3 Ts, the three primary SAMs the Navy elded in the Audace-class destroyer (Italy)
1960s and 1970s, the others being the RIM-2 Terrier and
Impavido-class destroyer (Italy)
RIM-8 Talos.
Charles F. Adams-class destroyer / Ltjens-class
destroyer (Germany) / Perth-class destroyer
(Australia)
111.1 History Albany-class cruiser
The Tartar was born of a need for a more lightweight sys- Mitscher-class destroyer (guided missile modica-
tem for smaller ships, and something that could engage tion)
targets at very close range. Essentially, the Tartar was
Forrest Sherman-class destroyer (guided missile
simply a RIM-2C Terrier without the secondary booster.
modication)
The Tartar was never given a SAM-N-x designation, and
was simply referred to as Missile Mk 15 until the unied Brooke-class frigate
Army-Navy designation system was introduced in 1963.
The Tartar was used on a number of ships, of a variety California-class cruiser
of sizes. Initially the Mk 11 twin-arm launcher was used,
Virginia-class cruiser
later ships used the Mk 13 and Mk 22 single-arm launch-
ers. Early versions proved to be unreliable. The Improved Kidd-class destroyer
Tartar retrot program upgraded the earlier missiles to
the much improved RIM-24C standard. Further develop- T 47-class destroyer (guided missile modication)
ment was canceled and a new missile, the RIM-66 Stan-
dard, was designed to replace it. Even after the upgrade Cassard-class frigate
to a new missile, ships were still said to be Tartar ships
Tromp-class frigate with Mk.13 missile launcher
because they carried the Tartar Guided Missile Fire Con-
(retired from service)
trol System.
111.4 Operators
111.2 Variations
Australia
RIM-24A: Original missile

Royal Australian Navy
RIM-24B: Improved Tartar

France
RIM-24C: Improved Tartar Retrot (ITR) aka. Tar-

tar Reliability Improvement Program (TRIP) French Navy
406
Germany
German Navy
Italy
Italian Navy
Japan
Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force
Netherlands
United States
United States Navy

html
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/tartar.htm
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/
kn10000/kn11658c.htm (Potential image source)
Chapter 112
RIM-66 Standard
See also: Standard Missile 112.1.2 Standard missile 2
The RIM-66 Standard MR (SM-1MR/SM-2MR) is a The RIM-66C/D Standard MR (SM-2MR Block I), was
medium range surface-to-air missile (SAM) originally developed in the 1970s and was a key part of the Aegis
developed for the United States Navy (USN). The SM- combat system and New Threat Upgrade (NTU). The
1 was developed as a replacement for the RIM-2 Ter- SM-2MR introduced inertial and command mid-course
rier and RIM-24 Tartar that were deployed in the 1950s guidance. The missiles autopilot is programmed to y
on a variety of USN ships. The RIM-67 Standard (SM- the most ecient path to the target and can receive course
1ER/SM-2ER), is an extended range version of this mis- corrections from the ground. Target illumination for
sile with a solid rocket booster stage. The Standard can semi-active homing is needed only for a few seconds in
also be used as an anti-ship missile. the terminal phase of the interception. This capability
enables the Aegis combat system and New Threat Up-
grade equipped vessels to time share illumination radars,
greatly increasing the number of targets that can be en-
gaged in quick succession. Mk 41 VLS adopts modu-
112.1 Description lar design concept, which result in dierent versions that
vary in size and weight. The length comes in three sizes:
The Standard missile program was started in 1963 to pro- 209 inches for the self-defense version, 266 inches for the
duce a family of missiles to replace existing guided mis- tactical version, and 303 inches for the strike version. The
siles used by the Terrier, Talos, and Tartar guided missile empty weight for an 8-cell module is 26,800 pounds for
launch systems. The intention was to produce a new gen- the self-defense version, 29,800 pounds for the tactical
eration of guided missiles that could be retrot to existing version, and 32,000 pounds for the strike version.
guided missile systems.[3] In the middle 1980s, the SM-2MR was deployed via Mk
41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) aboard USS Bunker
Hill, the rst U.S. Navy ship to deploy a vertical launcher.
VLS has, since 2003, been the only launcher used for the
112.1.1 Standard missile 1 Standard missile in the U.S. Navy aboard Ticonderoga-
class cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.
The RIM-66A is the medium ranged version of the Stan- The United States Navy is committed to keeping the Stan-
dard missile and was initially developed as a replace- dard Missile 2 medium range viable until 2035.[4]
ment for the earlier RIM-24C as part of the Mk74 Tar-
tar Guided Missile Fire Control System. It used the The SM-1 and SM-2 were continuously upgraded through
same fuselage as the earlier Tartar missile, for easier use Blocks (see below).
with existing launchers and magazines for that system. The Standard can also be used against ships, either at line-
The RIM-66A/B while looking like the earlier RIM-24C of-sight range using its semi-active homing mode, or over
on the exterior is a dierent missile internally with re- the horizon using inertial guidance and terminal infrared
designed electronics and a more reliable homing system homing.[5]
and fuse that make it more capable than its predecessor.
The RIM-66A/B Standard MR, (SM-1MR Block I to V)
was used during the Vietnam War. The only remaining
version of the Standard missile 1 in service is the RIM- 112.2 Contractors
66E (SM-1MR Block VI). While no longer in service
with the USN, the RIM-66E is still in service with many Standard missiles were constructed by General Dynam-
navies globally and is expected to remain in service until ics Pomona Division until 1992, when it became part of
2020. the Hughes Missile Systems Company. Hughes formed
408
112.4. DEPLOYMENT HISTORY 409
a joint venture with Raytheon called Standard Missile 112.4.1 SM-1 Medium Range Block
Company (SMCo). Hughes Missile Systems was even- I/II/III/IV, RIM-66A
tually sold to Raytheon making it the sole contractor.[6]
The First Standard missiles entered service in the USN
in 1967. Blocks I, II, and III were preliminary versions.
Block IV was the production version. This missile was a
112.3 Operational history replacement for the earlier RIM-24C Tartar missile.
The Standard missile one became operational in 1968.

The missile was utilized by ships equipped with the Tartar 112.4.2 SM-1 Medium Range Block V,
Guided Missile Fire Control System. The missile saw RIM-66B
its rst combat use in the early 1970s in the Vietnam
war. The Standard missile two became operational in The RIM-66B introduced changes that resulted in higher
the late 1970s and was deployed operationally with the reliability. A new faster reacting autopilot, a more pow-
Aegis Combat System in 1983. Both Standard one and erful dual thrust rocket motor, and a new warhead were
two were used against both surface and air targets dur- added. Many RIM-66A missiles were re-manufactured
ing Operation Praying Mantis. On July 3, 1988, USS into RIM-66B.
Vincennes mistakenly shot down Iran Air Flight 655,
an Airbus A300B2, using two SM-2MR missiles from
her forward launcher.[7] In 1988 the Iranian Kaman-class 112.4.3 SM-1 Medium Range Blocks
missile boat Joshan was disabled by RIM-66 Standard VI/VIA/VIB, RIM-66E
missiles during Operation Praying Mantis.[8]
The RIM-66E was the last version of the standard mis-
sile one medium range. This version entered service
in 1983[9] with the United States Navy and export cus-
tomers. The RIM-66E was used by all remaining Tartar
vessels that were not modied to use the New Threat Up-
grade and Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates which con-
trolled it with the Mk92 re control system. Production
of this missile ended in 1987. The missile was retired
from USN service in 2003; however there are a large
number of this model in service abroad and it is expected
to remain viable until 2020.[10]
112.4.4 SM-2 Medium Range Block I,

RIM-66C/D
The RIM-66C was the rst version of the Standard mis-

sile two. The missile became operational in 1978 with
the Aegis combat system tted to the Ticonderoga-class
cruiser. The RIM-66D was the SM-2 medium range
block I version for the New Threat Upgrade. The SM-
2 incorporates a new autopilot giving it inertial guidance
in all phases of ight except for the terminal intercept
where semi-active radar homing is still used. This ver-
sion is no longer in service; remaining missiles have ei-
ther been remanufactured into later models or have been
put in storage.
RIM-66M Standard launching
112.4.5 SM-2 Medium Range Block II,

RIM-66G/H/J
112.4 Deployment history The Block II missile was introduced in 1983 with a new
rocket motor for longer range and a new warhead. The
The Standard missile is designated by blocks depending RIM-66G is for the Aegis combat system and the Mk26
upon their technological package. missile launcher. The RIM-66H is for Aegis and the
410 CHAPTER 112. RIM-66 STANDARD
Mk41 vertical launcher. The RIM-66J is the version for

the New Threat Upgrade. Block II missiles are no longer
manufactured, and have been withdrawn from service.
The remainder have either been put in storage, scrapped
for spare parts, or remanufactured into later models.
112.4.6 SM-2 Medium Range Block

III/IIIA/IIIB, RIM-66K/L/M
The RIM-66M is the version of the Standard missile
two medium range (SM-2MR) currently in service with
the USN aboard Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Arleigh
Burke-class destroyers. The missile is specically de- A RIM-66 being assembled.
signed for the Aegis Combat System and the Mk41 Verti-
cal launch system. The Block III missiles dier from ear-
lier blocks by the addition of the MK 45 MOD 9 target California-class cruiser (Mk74 Missile Fire Control
detecting device, for improved performance against low SM-1/later New Threat Upgrade for SM-2)
altitude targets. The Block IIIB missile additionally has
Virginia-class cruiser (Mk74 Missile Fire Control
a dual semi-active/infrared seeker for terminal homing.
SM-1/later New Threat Upgrade for SM-2)
The dual seeker is intended for use in high-ECM envi-
ronments, against targets over the horizon or with a small Ticonderoga-class cruiser (Aegis Combat System )
radar cross section.[10] The seeker was originally devel-
oped for the canceled AIM-7R Sparrow air-to-air missile. Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (Aegis Combat Sys-
All USN Block III and IIIA missiles are to be upgraded tem )
to Block IIIB. Block IIIA missiles are operated by the
Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force on its Kong-class
and Atago-class Aegis destroyers. Aegis equipped vessels RIM-66 has also been widely exported and is in service
in the Spanish and South Korean navies use it as well. The in other navies worldwide.
Dutch and German Navies have added it to the Anti-Air
Warfare system, which uses the Thales Nederland Active
Phased Array Radar and Smart-L radar. South Korean 112.5 Surface to air variants
KDX-II destroyers use the block IIIA with a New Threat
Upgrade compatible guided missile re control system.
Table sources, reference material:[1][9][10][11]
Block III variants for Aegis and arm launchers are desig-
nated RIM-66L. Block III missiles for New Threat Up-
grade systems are designated RIM-66K. Block IIIB mis-
siles were not produced for the New Threat Upgrade. 112.6 Land Attack Standard Mis-
Blocks IIIA and IIIB are the current production versions. sile
The Thales Nederland STIR 1.8 and 2.4 re control sys-
tems are also supported.[2]
The RGM-165 LASM, also given the designation SM-
4, was intended as means to give long range precision
112.4.7 Deployment res in support of the US Marine Corps. Intended as an
adaptation of the RIM-66, it retained the original MK
In the US Navy, RIM-66 Standard was deployed on ships 125 warhead and MK 104 rocket motor, with the radar
of the following classes, replacing RIM-24 Tartar in some seeker replaced by GPS/INS guidance. While test red
cases: in 1997 using three modied RIM-66K SM-2MR Block
III missiles, with 800 missiles set for replacement and
IOC expected for 2003/2004, it was cancelled in 2002
Charles F. Adams-class destroyer (Mk74 Missile
due to limited capabilities against mobile or hardened
Fire Control)
targets.[12][13]
Albany-class cruiser (Mk74 Missile Fire Control)
Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate (Mk 92 Missile

Fire Control)
112.7 Current operators
Kidd-class destroyer (Mk74 Missile Fire Control Australia
SM-1/later New Threat Upgrade for SM-2)
112.7. CURRENT OPERATORS 411
Chilean Navy (Onboard Jacob van Heemskerck-

class frigates)
Denmark
Royal Danish Navy (Onboard Iver Huitfeldt-class

frigates)
France
A RIM-66 being launched in 2006 from the Spanish frigate Ca-
narias
French Navy (Onboard Cassard-class frigates)
Germany
German Navy (Onboard Sachsen-class air defense

frigates)
Iran
Islamic Republic of Iran Navy (on frigates and a few

of Kaman/Sina-class missile boats)
German Sachsen-class frigate Sachsen launching a RIM-66.
Italy
Italian Navy (Onboard Durand de la Penne-class de-

stroyers)
Japan
Japan Maritime Self Defense Force (Onboard

Hatakaze-class, Kong-class & Atago-class destroy-
ers)
Netherlands
HNLMS De Zeven Provincin launching a RIM-66.
Royal Netherlands Navy (Onboard De Zeven
Royal Australian Navy(Onboard Adelaide-class Provincin-class frigates)
frigates & Hobart-class destroyers)
Poland
Canada
Polish Navy (onboard Oliver Hazard Perry-class

Royal Canadian Navy(Onboard Iroquois-class de- frigates)
stroyers)
South Korea
Chile
Republic of Korea Navy (onboard Chungmugong Yi 112.10 References

Sun-sin-class & Sejong the Great-class destroyers)
[1] United States Navy,US Navy Fact File:Standard Missile,
October 11, 2002. Accessed June 5, 2006.
Spain
[2] Raytheon,Raytheon.com, March 17, 2009, Accessed Au-
gust 24, 2009.
Spanish Navy (onboard Santa Mara-class & lvaro
de Bazn-class frigates)
[4] Raytheon Press Release December 17, 2012. Accessed
May 19, 2013.
Taiwan
[5] Canadian Forces Maritime Command. Standard missile.
Accessed June 5, 2006.
ROC Navy (onboard Cheng Kung-class & Chi Yang-
class frigates, Kee Lung-class destroyers) [6] GlobalSecurity.org - Standard specs Designation systems
RIM-66.
Turkey [7] United States Navy. Formal Investigation into the Cir-
cumstances Surrounding the Downing of Iran Air Flight
655 on 3 July 1988 (PDF). Retrieved 2007-01-28.
Turkish Navy (Onboard G-class frigates) [8] The New York Times. Surface Combatant Weapon Sys-
tem RIM-67 / RIM-156 Standard Missile ER SM-1ER /
SM-2ER
United States
[9] Raytheon RIM-66 Standard MR
[10] USNI Combat Fleets 2005-2006, Wertheim, Eric; Editor,

USN section Naval Institute Press 2005
112.8 Former operators
[11] SM-2 RIM-66 / RIM-67 Standard Missile
Greece [12] http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-165.html
[13] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/
Hellenic Navy (onboard Charles F. Adams-class de- munitions/lasm.htm
stroyers 1991-2004)

112.9 See also
Raytheon Standard missile website, mfr of Standard
Aegis combat system missiles
AGM-78 Standard ARM Navy Fact le - Standard Missile 2
NAVAIR War ghters encyclopedia - Standard mis-

Mk 74 Tartar Guided Missile Fire Control System
sile
Mk 92 Guided Missile Fire Control System
Designation systems.net RIM-66
New Threat Upgrade
FAS - SM-2
RIM-2 Terrier
GlobalSecurity.org - SM-2
RIM-8 Talos
RIM-24 Tartar - predecessor
RIM-67 Standard Extended Range
RIM-156 Standard SM-2ER Block IV
RIM-161 Standard SM-3
RIM-174 Standard SM-6 Extended Range Active

Missile
Chapter 113
SAM-N-2 Lark
The Lark project was a high-priority, solid-fuel boosted,

liquid-fueled rocket surface-to-air missile developed by
the United States Navy to meet the kamikaze threat.[2]
After Lark conguration was established by the Bureau
of Aeronautics in January 1945 Fairchild Aircraft was
given a contract to produce 100 missiles in March 1945.
Fairchild used radio command guidance with a semi-
active radar homing AN/DPN-7. A backup contract for
another 100 missiles was given to Convair in June 1945.
Convair used beam riding guidance with AN/APN-23
active radar homing.[3] Neither version was successful.
Six of the Convair airframes were given to Raytheon to
explore use of velocity-gated continuous wave doppler
radar for guided missile target seekers, while most other
United States investigators used range-gated pulse radar.
One of these Raytheon guidance systems in a Convair air-
frame scored the rst successful United States surface-
to-air missile interception of a ying target in January
1950.[2]
113.1 Early guided missile develop-

ment Lark missile launch at NOTS China Lake.
The Lark never proceeded past the prototype stage. Fur- 113.2 References
ther Lark development was halted by the Bureau of Ord-
nance in late 1950 in favor of the RIM-2 Terrier being [1] Lark. Smithsonian Air and Space Museum.
developed by Operation Bumblebee. A subsonic missile
was of doubtful use against anticipated supersonic targets; [2] Peck, Merton J. & Scherer, Frederic M. The Weapons Ac-
but three successful Lark interceptions by the Raytheon quisition Process: An Economic Analysis (1962) Harvard
guidance system[2] generated interest within the Army Business School pp.232-233&659
and Air Force. Modied Larks were used for guidance [3] SAM-N-2/SAM-N-4. Andreas Parsch. Retrieved
system development testing by all three services through 2013-04-17.
the early 1950s.[3] The Bureau of Aeronautics Sparrow
program began in 1950 using the Lark target seeker in
air-to-air missiles.[2] The Army used Lark components
investigating guidance options for the MGM-18 Lacrosse
surface-to-surface missile. Changing roles during a pe-
riod of changing nomenclature created a confusing num-
ber of designations for Lark. Fairchild production was
identied as KAQ, SAM-N-2, and CTV-N-9. Convair
production was identied as KAY, SAM-N-4, and CTV-
N-10. Army test versions were designated RV-A-22.[3]
413
Chapter 114
Sprint (missile)
The Sprint was a two-stage, solid-fuel anti-ballistic 114.1 Design predecessors

missile, armed with a W66 enhanced radiation
thermonuclear warhead. It was designed as the See also: Nike Zeus
short-range high-speed counterpart to the longer-range The HIBEX (HIgh Boost EXperiment) missile is con-
LIM-49 Spartan as part of the Sentinel program.
Sentinel never became operational, but the technology
was deployed briey in a downsized version called the
Safeguard program. The Sprint, like the Spartan, was
in operational service for only a few months in the
Safeguard program, from October 1975 to early 1976.
Congressional opposition and high costs linked to its
questionable economics and ecacy against the then
emerging MIRV warheads of the Soviet Union, resulted
in a very short operational period.
The Sprint accelerated at 100 g, reaching a speed of Mach
10 in 5 seconds.[1][2] It was designed for close-in defense
against incoming nuclear weapons. As the last line of
defense it was to intercept the reentry vehicles that had
not been destroyed by the Spartan, with which it was de-
ployed. HIBEX rocket
The conical Sprint was stored in and launched from a silo.
To make the launch as quick as possible, the cover was sidered to be somewhat of a design predecessor and com-
blown o the silo by explosive charges, then the missile petitor to the Sprint missile, as it was a similar high ac-
was ejected by an explosive-driven piston. As the missile celeration missile in the early 1960s, with a technological
cleared the silo, the rst stage red and the missile was transfer from that program to the Sprint development pro-
tilted toward its target. The rst stage was exhausted after gram occurring.[4] Both were tested at the White Sands
only 1.2 seconds, but produced 2,900 kN (650,000 lbf) Launch Complex 38. Although HIBEXs initial acceler-
of thrust. The second stage red within 1 2 seconds of ation rate in Gs was higher at near 400 G, its role was to
launch. Interception at an altitude of 1,500 m to 30,000 intercept reentry vehicles at a much lower altitude than
m took at most 15 seconds. Sprint, 6,100 m, and it is considered to be a last ditch
ABM missile in a similar vein to Sprint.[5]
The Sprint was controlled by ground-based radio
command guidance, which tracked the incoming reentry The small Thunderbird rocket of 1947 produced an ac-
vehicles with phased-array radar and guided the missile celeration of 100 G with a polysulde composite propel-
to its target. lant, star-grained cross section solid rocket motor.[6]
The Sprint was armed with an enhanced radiation nuclear
warhead with a yield reportedly of a few kilotons, though
the exact number has not been declassied. The warhead 114.2 Engines & Propellant
was intended to destroy the incoming reentry vehicle pri-
marily by neutron ux.
The rst stage, Hercules X-265 engine, is believed to have
The rst test of the Sprint missile took place at White contained alternating layers of zirconium staples em-
Sands Missile Range on 17 November 1965.[3] bedded in nitrocellulose powder, followed by gelatinizing
with nitroglycerine, thus forming a higher thrust double-
base powder.[7][8]
414
114.3 Survivors Nike Sprint dual launch during a salvo test at Kwa-
jalein Atoll test range
The Air Defense Artillery museums at Fort Bliss,
Video of Nike Sprint launch (2 MB .mpg)
Texas and the ADA park at Fort Sill, Oklahoma,
have both Safeguard missiles on display, the Sprint Encyclopedia Astronautica - Sprint
and Spartan.[9][10][11]
Chapter 9: Sprint Missile Subsystem from ABM
Research and development at Bell Labs
114.4 See also Nike Sprint and Spartan Photo Gallery
53T6
Anti-ballistic missile
Surface-to-air missile
LIM-49 Spartan
Nike-Hercules missile
Project Nike
Safeguard Program
114.5 References
[1] Sprint
[2] Designation-systems Directory of U.S. Military Rockets

and Missiles. Martin Marietta Sprint
[3] James Walker, Lewis Bernstein, Sharon Lang (2005).

Seize the High Ground: The U.S. Army in Space and
Missile Defense. Government Printing Oce. ISBN
0160723086. 17 November 1965 First guided SPRINT
ight test took place at WSMR
[4] III. HIBEX - UPSTAGE
[5] Sprint
[6] http://www.astronautix.com/articles/comlants.htm
[7] Up-ship. Sprint missile
[8] DTIC. by SB Moorhead - 1974
[9] http://www.city-data.com/articles/
US-Army-Air-Defense-Artillery-Museum-El.html
[10] http://srmsc.org/mis2050.html
[11] ADA park (Fort Sill), photo journal of Daniel DeCristo

Sprint
Terminal defense using the Sprint
Sprint missile launch
Chapter 115
AIM-120 AMRAAM
The AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-tobe dicult or dangerous in air-to-air combat.

Air Missile, or AMRAAM (pronounced am-ram),
is a modern beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile
(BVRAAM) capable of all-weather day-and-night opera- 115.1.2 AIM-54 Phoenix LRM
tions. Designed with the same form-and-t factors as the
previous generation of semi-active guided Sparrow mis- The US Navy later developed the AIM-54 Phoenix long
siles, it is a re-and-forget missile with active guidance. range missile (LRM) for the eet air defense mission. It
When an AMRAAM missile is being launched, NATO was a large 1,000 lb (500 kg) Mach 4 missile designed
pilots use the brevity code Fox Three.[7] to counter cruise missiles and the bombers that launched
them. Originally intended for the straight-wing Douglas
F6D Missileer and then the navalized version of the F-
111B, it nally saw service with the Grumman F-14 Tom-
115.1 Origins cat, the only ghter capable of carrying such a heavy mis-
sile. Phoenix was the rst US re-and-forget multiple
115.1.1 AIM-7 Sparrow MRM launch radar-guided missile: one which used its own ac-
tive guidance system to guide itself without help from the
The AIM-7 Sparrow medium range missile (MRM) launch aircraft when it closed on its target. This in theory
was purchased by the US Navy from original developer gave a Tomcat with a six-Phoenix load the unprecedented
Howard Hughes[8] in the 1950s as its rst operational air- capability of tracking and destroying up to six targets be-
to-air missile with beyond visual range (BVR) capabil- yond visual range, as far as 100 miles (160 km) away
ity. With an eective range of about 12 miles (19 km), it the only US ghter with such capability.
was introduced as a radar beam riding missile and then it A full load of six Phoenix missiles and its 2,000 pounds
was improved to a semiactive radar guided missile which (910 kg) dedicated launcher exceeded a typical Vietnam-
would home in on reections from a target illuminated era bomb load. Its service in the US Navy was primar-
by the radar of the launching aircraft. It was eective ily as a deterrent, as its use was hampered by restric-
at visual to beyond visual range. The early beam riding tive Rules of engagement in conicts such as Operations
versions of the Sparrow missiles were integrated onto the Desert Storm, Southern Watch and Iraqi Freedom. The
F3H Demon and F7U Cutlass, but the denitive AIM-7 US Navy retired the Phoenix in 2004[9] in light of avail-
Sparrow was the primary weapon for the all-weather F-4 ability of the AIM-120 AMRAAM on the F/A-18 Hornet
Phantom II ghter/interceptor, which lacked an internal and the pending retirement of the F-14 Tomcat from ac-
gun in its U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, and early U.S. tive service in late 2006.
Air Force versions. The F-4 carried up to four AIM-7s
in built-in recesses under its belly.
Although designed for use against non-maneuvering tar- 115.1.3 ACEVAL/AIMVAL
gets such as bombers, due to poor performance against
ghters over North Vietnam, these missiles were pro- The Department of Defense conducted an extensive eval-
gressively improved until they proved highly eective in uation of air combat tactics and missile technology from
dogghts. Together with the short range infrared guided 197478 at Nellis AFB using the F-14 Tomcat and F-
AIM-9 Sidewinder, they replaced the AIM-4 Falcon IR 15 Eagle equipped with Sparrow and Sidewinder mis-
and radar guided series for use in air combat by the USAF siles as blue force and Aggressor F-5E aircraft equipped
as well. A disadvantage to semi-active homing was that with AIM-9L all-aspect Sidewinders as the Red force.
only one target could be illuminated by the launching This Joint Test and Evaluation (JT&E) was designated
ghter plane at a time. Also, the launching aircraft had to Air Combat Evaluation/Air Intercept Missile Evaluation
remain pointed in the direction of the target (within the (ACEVAL/AIMVAL). A principal nding was the ne-
azimuth and elevation of its own radar set) which could cessity to produce illumination for the Sparrow until im-
416
pact resulted in the Red Force being able to launch their 115.2 Development
all-aspect Sidewinders before impact thereby resulting in
mutual kills. What was needed was Phoenix type mul-
tiple launch and terminal active capability in a Sparrow
size airframe. This led to a Memorandum of Agree-
ment (MOA) with European allies (principally the UK
and Germany for development) for the US to develop
an Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AM-
RAAM) with the USAF as lead service. The MOA also
assigned responsibility for development of an Advanced
Short Range Air-to-Air Missile to the European team
this would become the British ASRAAM.
115.1.4 Requirements
First successful test at the White Sands Missile Range, New Mex-
ico 1982
Surface-to-air mounting (shown: CATM-120C captive training

AMRAAM was developed as the result of an agreement
variant)
(the Family of Weapons MOA, no longer in eect by
1990), among the United States and several other NATO
By the 1990s, the reliability of the Sparrow had improved nations to develop air-to-air missiles and to share produc-
so much from the dismal days of Vietnam that it action technology. Under this agreement the U.S. was to
counted for the largest number of aerial targets destroyed develop the next generation medium range missile (AM-
in Desert Storm. But while the USAF had passed on the RAAM) and Europe would develop the next generation
Phoenix and their own similar AIM-47/YF-12 to opti- short range missile (ASRAAM). Although Europe ini-
mize dogght performance, they still needed a multiple- tially adopted the AMRAAM, an eort to develop the
launch re-and-forget capability for the F-15 and F-16. MBDA Meteor, a competitor to AMRAAM, was begun
AMRAAM would need to be tted on ghters as small in Great Britain. Eventually the ASRAAM was devel-
as the F-16, and t in the same spaces that were de- oped solely by the British, but using another source for
signed to t the Sparrow on the F-4 Phantom. The its infrared seeker. After protracted development, the de-
European partners needed AMRAAM to be integrated ployment of AMRAAM (AIM-120A) began in Septem-
on aircraft as small as the Sea Harrier. The US Navy ber 1991 in US Air Force F-15 Eagle ghter squadrons.
needed AMRAAM to be carried on the F/A-18 Hornet The US Navy soon followed (in 1993) in its F/A-18 Hor-
and wanted capability for two to be carried on a launcher net squadrons.
that normally carried one Sparrow to allow for more air- The eastern counterpart of AMRAAM is the somewhat
to-ground weapons. similar Russian Air Force AA-12 Adder, sometimes re-
The AMRAAM became one of the primary air-to-air ferred to in the West as the AMRAAMski. Likewise,
weapons of the new F-22 Raptor ghter, which needed to France began its own air-to-air missile development with
place all of its weapons into internal weapons bays in or- the MICA concept that used a common airframe for sep-
der to help achieve an extremely low radar cross-section. arate radar-guided and infrared-guided versions.
418 CHAPTER 115. AIM-120 AMRAAM
115.3 Operational features sum- speed. The missile uses this information to y on an in-
terception course to the target using its built in inertial
mary navigation system (INS). This information is generally
obtained using the launching aircrafts radar, although it
AMRAAM has an all-weather, beyond-visual-range could come from an Infra-red search and track system,
(BVR) capability. It improves the aerial combat capabil- from a data link from another ghter aircraft, or from an
ities of US and allied aircraft to meet the threat of enemy AWACS aircraft.
air-to-air weapons as they existed in 1991. AMRAAM
serves as a follow-on to the AIM-7 Sparrow missile se- After launch, if the ring aircraft or surrogate continues
ries. The new missile is faster, smaller, and lighter, and to track the target, periodic updatessuch as changes in
has improved capabilities against low-altitude targets. It the targets direction and speedare sent from the launch
also incorporates a datalink to guide the missile to a point aircraft to the missile, allowing the missile to adjust its
where its active radar turns on and makes terminal inter- course so that it is able to close to a self-homing distance
cept of the target. An inertial reference unit and micro- where it will be close enough to catch the target aircraft
computer system makes the missile less dependent upon in the basket (the missiles radar eld of view in which it
the re-control system of the aircraft. will be able to lock onto the target aircraft, unassisted by
the launch aircraft).
Once the missile closes in on the target, its active radar
guides it to intercept. This feature, known as re-and- Not all armed services using the AMRAAM have elected
forget, frees the aircrew from the need to further provide to purchase the mid-course update option, which lim-
guidance, enabling the aircrew to aim and re several mis- its AMRAAMs eectiveness in some scenarios. The
siles simultaneously at multiple targets and perform eva- RAF initially opted not to use mid-course update for its
sive maneuvers while the missiles guide themselves to the Tornado F3 force, only to discover that without it, test-
targets. ing proved the AMRAAM was less eective in BVR en-
gagements than the older semi-active radar homing BAE
The missile also features the ability to Home on Skyash weaponthe AIM-120s own radar is necessar-
Jamming,[10] giving it the ability to switch over from ac- ily of limited range and power compared to that of the
tive radar homing to passive homing homing on jam- launch aircraft.
ming signals from the target aircraft. Software on board
the missile allows it to detect if it is being jammed, and
guide on its target using the proper guidance system. 115.4.2 Terminal stage and impact
Once the missile closes to self-homing distance, it turns

115.4 Guidance system overview on its active radar seeker and searches for the target air-
craft. If the target is in or near the expected location, the
missile will nd it and guide itself to the target from this
115.4.1 Interception course stage point. If the missile is red at short range (typically vi-
sual range), it can use its active seeker just after launch,
making the missile truly re and forget. However, this
tactic is considerably risky the now-active AMRAAM
will acquire and home in on the rst target it sees, regard-
less of friend or foe.
115.4.3 Boresight mode
Apart from the slave mode, there is a free guidance mode,

called boresight. This mode is radar guidance-free, the
missile just res and locks the rst thing it sees. This
mode can be used for defensive shot, i.e. when the enemy
has numerical superiority.
Grumman F-14 Tomcat carrying an AMRAAM during a 1982 115.5 Kill probability and tactics
test
AMRAAM uses two-stage guidance when red at long 115.5.1 General considerations
range. The aircraft passes data to the missile just before
launch, giving it information about the location of the tar- The kill probability (P ) is determined by several factors,
get aircraft from the launch point and its direction and including aspect (head-on interception, side-on or tail-
115.6. VARIANTS AND UPGRADES 419
chase), altitude, the speed of the missile and the target, AMRAAM-equipped aircraft can turn and re-engage, al-
and how hard the target can turn. Typically, if the mis- though they will be at a disadvantage compared to the
sile has sucient energy during the terminal phase, which chasing aircraft due to the speed they lose in the turn, and
comes from being launched at close range to the target would have to be careful that they are not being tracked
from an aircraft with an altitude and speed advantage, it with SARH missiles.
will have a good chance of success. This chance drops
as the missile is red at longer ranges as it runs out of
overtake speed at long ranges, and if the target can force 115.5.3 Similarly armed targets
the missile to turn it might bleed o enough speed that it
can no longer chase the target. Operationally, the missile, The other main engagement scenario is against other air-
which was designed for beyond visual range combat, has craft with re-and-forget missiles like the R-77 (NATO
a P of 46% when red at targets beyond visual range (13 AA-12 Adder) perhaps MiG-29s, Su-27s or, more
missiles for 6 kills). In addition, the targets lacked mis- likely and recently, Chinese J-15/J-16 with PL-12. In
sile warning systems, were not maneuvering, and were this case engagement is very much down to teamwork and
not attempting to engage the ghter that red the AM- could be described as a game of chicken. Both ights of
RAAM. One of the targets was a US Army Blackhawk aircraft can re their missiles at each other beyond visual
helicopter.[11] range (BVR), but then face the problem that if they con-
tinue to track the target aircraft in order to provide mid-
course updates for the missiles ight, they are also ying
115.5.2 Lower-capability targets into their opponents missiles. This assumes of course
that all aircraft will detect each other.
This leads to two main engagement scenarios. If the tar-
get is not armed with any medium or long-range re-and-
forget weapons, the attacking aircraft need only get close 115.6 Variants and upgrades
enough to the target and launch the AMRAAM. In these
scenarios, the AMRAAM has a high chance of hitting, es-
pecially against low-maneuverability targets. The launch
distance depends upon whether the target is heading to-
wards or away from the ring aircraft. In a head-on en-
gagement, the missile can be launched at longer range,
since the range will be closing fast. In this situation, even
if the target turns around, it is unlikely it can speed up
and y away fast enough to avoid being overtaken and An AIM-120 AMRAAM missile on display at the U.S. National
hit by the missile (as long as the missile is not released Air and Space Museum
too early). It is also unlikely the enemy can outmaneuver
the missile since the closure rate will be so great. In a
tail-on engagement, the ring aircraft might have to close
to between one-half and one-quarter maximum range (or
maybe even closer for a very fast target) in order to give
the missile sucient energy to overtake the targets.
If the targets are armed with missiles, the re-and-forget
nature of the AMRAAM is valuable, enabling the launch-
ing aircraft to re missiles at the target and subsequently
take defensive actions. Even if the targets have longer-
range semi-active radar homing (SARH) missiles, they
will have to chase the launching aircraft in order for the
missiles to track them, eectively ying right into the
AMRAAM. If the target aircraft res missiles and then
turns and runs away, those missiles will not be able to
hit. Of course, if the target aircraft have long range mis-
siles, even if they are not re-and-forget, the fact that AIM-120 AMRAAM (right) tted in a weapons bay of a F-22
they force the launching aircraft to turn and run reduces Raptor
the kill probability, since it is possible that without the
mid-course updates the missiles will not nd the target
aircraft. However the chance of success is still good 115.6.1 Air-to-air missile versions
and compared to the relative impunity the launching air-
craft enjoy, this gives the AMRAAM-equipped aircraft There are currently four main variants of AMRAAM, all
a decisive edge. If one or more missiles fail to hit, the in service with the United States Air Force, United States
Navy, and the United States Marine Corps. The AIM- 161 Standard Missile 3.[14]
120A is no longer in production and shares the enlarged The 120A and 120B models are currently nearing the
wings and ns with the successor AIM-120B. The AIM- end of their service life while the 120D variant has just
120C has smaller clipped aerosurfaces to enable inter-entered full production. AMRAAM was due to be re-
nal carriage on the USAF F-22 Raptor. AIM-120B de- placed by the USAF, the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Marine
liveries began in 1994. Corps after 2020 by the Joint Dual Role Air Dominance
The AIM-120C deliveries began in 1996. The C-variant Missile (Next Generation Missile). This was unexpect-
has been steadily upgraded since it was introduced. The edly terminated in the 2013 budget plan,[15] and so the
AIM-120C-6 contained an improved fuse (Target Detec- future replacement is uncertain.
tion Device) compared to its predecessor. The AIM-
120C-7 development began in 1998 and included im-
provements in homing and greater range (actual amount 115.6.2 Ground-launched systems
of improvement unspecied). It was successfully tested
in 2003 and is currently being produced for both do-
mestic and foreign customers. It helped the U.S. Navy
replace the F-14 Tomcats with F/A-18E/F Super Hor-
nets the loss of the F-14s long-range AIM-54 Phoenix
missiles (already retired) is oset with a longer-range
AMRAAM-D. The lighter weight of the advanced AM-
RAAM enables an F/A-18E/F pilot greater bring-back
weight upon carrier landings.
The AIM-120D is an upgraded version of the AM-
RAAM with improvements in almost all areas, includ-
ing 50% greater range (than the already-extended range
AIM-120C-7) and better guidance over its entire ight
envelope yielding an improved kill probability (P ). Battery of four SL-AMRAAM on HMMWV
Raytheon began testing the D model on August 5, 2008,
the company reported that an AIM-120D launched from Raytheon successfully tested launching AMRAAM mis-
an F/A-18F Super Hornet passed within lethal distance of siles from a ve-missile carrier on a M1097 Humvee.
a QF-4 target drone at the White Sands Missile Range.[12] This system will be known as the SLAMRAAM (Sur-
The AIM-120D (P3I Phase 4, formerly known as AIM- face Launched (SL) and AMRAAM). They receive their
120C-8) is a development of the AIM-120C with a two- initial guidance information from a radar not mounted
way data link, more accurate navigation using a GPS- on the vehicle. Since the missile is launched without the
enhanced IMU, an expanded no-escape envelope, im- benet of an aircrafts speed or high altitude, its range is
proved HOBS (High-Angle O-Boresight) capability, considerably shorter. Raytheon is currently marketing an
and a 50% increase in range. The AIM-120D is a joint SL-AMRAAM EX, purported to be an extended range
USAF/USN project, and is currently in the testing phase. AMRAAM and bearing a resemblance to the RIM-162
The USN will eld it from 2014, and AIM-120D will be ESSM.
carried by all Pacic carrier groups by 2020, although the The Norwegian Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Sys-
2013 sequestration cuts could push back this later date to tem (NASAMS), developed by Kongsberg Defence &
2022.[13] Aerospace, consists of a number of vehicle-pulled launch
There are also plans for Raytheon to develop a ramjet- batteries (containing six AMRAAMs each) along with
powered derivative of the AMRAAM, the Future separate radar trucks and control station vehicles.
Medium Range Air-Air Missile (FMRAAM). It is not While still under evaluation for replacement of current
known whether the FMRAAM will be produced since the US Army assets, the SL-AMRAAM has been deployed
target market, the British Ministry of Defence, has cho- in several nations military forces. The United Arab
sen the Meteor missile over the FMRAAM for a BVR Emirates (UAE) has requested the purchasing of SL-
missile for the Euroghter Typhoon aircraft. AMRAAM as part of a larger 7 billion dollar foreign
Raytheon is also working with the Missile Defense military sales package. The sale would include 288 AM-
[16]
Agency to develop the Network Centric Airborne De- RAAM C-7 missiles.
fense Element (NCADE), an anti-ballistic missile derived The US Army has test red the SL-AMRAAM from a
from the AIM-120. This weapon will be equipped with HIMARS artillery rocket launcher as a common launcher,
a Ramjet engine and an infrared homing seeker derived as part of a move to switch to a larger and more survivable
from the Sidewinder missile. In place of a proximity- launch platform.[17][18]
fused warhead, the NCADE will use a kinetic energy hit-
The National Guard Association of the United States has
to-kill vehicle based on the one used in the Navys RIM-
sent a letter asking for the United States Senate to stop
115.8. FOREIGN SALES 421
the Armys plan to drop the SLAMRAAM program be- 115.8 Foreign sales
cause without it there would be no path to modernize the
Guards AN/TWQ-1 Avenger Battalions.[19] Canadair, now Bombardier, had largely helped with the
On January 6, 2011, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates development of the AIM-7 Sparrow and Sparrow II, and
announced that the U.S. Army has decided to terminate assisted to a less extent in the AIM-120 development.
acquisition of the SLAMRAAM as part of a budget- Canada had placed an order for 256 AIM-120s, but can-
cutting eort.[20] celled half of them after engine ignition problems due to
cold weather conditions. The AIM-9X & AIM-7 were
On February 22, 2015 Raytheon announced an Extended
ordered as replacements.
Range upgrade to NASAMS-launched AMRAAM, call-
ing it AMRAAM-ER. In early 1995 South Korea ordered 88 AIM-120A mis-
siles for its KF-16 eet. In 1997 South Korea ordered
additional 737 AIM-120B missiles.[25][26]
In 2006 Poland received AIM-120C-5 missiles to arm its
new F-16C/D Block 52+ ghters.[27]
In early 2006, the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) ordered 500
115.7 Operational history AIM-120C-5 AMRAAM missiles as part of a $650 mil-
lion F-16 ammunition deal to equip its F-16C/D Block
50/52+ and F-16A/B Block 15 MLU ghters. The PAF
The AMRAAM was used for the rst time on Decem- got the rst three F-16C/D Block 50/52+ aircraft on
ber 27, 1992, when a USAF F-16D shot down an Iraqi July 3, 2010 and rst batch of AMRAAMs on July 26,
[28]
MiG-25 that violated the southern no-y-zone.[21] Inter- 2010.
estingly enough, this missile was returned from the ight In 2007, the United States government agreed to sell 218
line as defective a day earlier. AMRAAM gained a sec- AIM-120C-7 missiles to Taiwan as part of a large arms
ond victory in January 1993 when an Iraqi MiG-23 was sales package that also included 235 AGM-65G-2 Mav-
shot down by a USAF F-16C. erick missiles. Total value of the package, including
The third combat use of the AMRAAM was in 1994, launchers, maintenance, spare parts, support and train-
when a Republika Srpska Air Force J-21 Jastreb aircraft ing rounds, was estimated at around US$421 million.
was shot down by a USAF F-16C that was patrolling the This supplemented an earlier Taiwanese purchase of 120
[27]
UN-imposed no-y-zone over Bosnia. In that engage- AIM-120C-5 missiles a few years ago.
ment at least 3 other Serbian aircraft were shot down by 2008 has brought announcements of new or additional
USAF F-16C ghters using AIM-9 missiles (see Banja sales to Singapore, Finland, Morocco and South Korea;
Luka incident for more details). At that point three in December 2010 the Swiss government requested 150
launches in combat resulted in three kills, resulting in AIM-120C-7 missiles.[29] Sales to Finland have stalled,
the AMRAAM being informally named slammer in the because the manufacturer has not been able to x a mys-
second half of the 1990s. terious bug that causes the rocket motors of the missile to
[30]
In 1998 and 1999 AMRAAMs were again red by USAF fail in cold tests.
F-15 ghters at Iraqi aircraft violating the No-Fly-Zone,
but this time they failed to hit their targets. During
the spring of 1999, AMRAAMs saw their main com-
bat action during Operation Allied Force, the Kosovo
115.9 Cold weather malfunctions
bombing campaign. Six Serbian MiG-29 were shot down
[31]
by NATO (4 USAF F-15C, 1 USAF F-16C, 1 Dutch F- Finnish Defence Forces reported on September 3,
16A MLU), all of them using AIM-120 missiles (the kill 2012 that the United States had not delivered any of the
by the F-16C may have happened due to friendly re, AMRAAM anti-aircraft missiles they had ordered due to
from SA-7 MANPAD red by Serbian infantry). [22] a mysterious engine malfunction in cold weather. The
manufacturer, Raytheon, has not been able to determine
As of mid 2008, the AIM-120 AMRAAM has shot the cause of the problem. Colonel Kari Renko, an engi-
down nine aircraft (six MiG-29s, one MiG-25, one neer at the Finnish Air Force, was quoted[31] by Helsingin
MiG-23, and one Soko J-21 Jastreb).[22] An AMRAAM Sanomat as saying, The problem involves the rocket en-
was also involved in a friendly-re incident in 1994 gines which have been in use for decades and that Finland
when F-15 ghters patrolling the Northern No-Fly Zone rst was told of the problems by the Americans about two
inadvertently shot down a pair of U.S. Army Black Hawk years ago. The reason for the malfunction has been de-
helicopters.[23] termined to be a change in the chemical formula of the
Since 2007 Raytheon has continued to slip on AMRAAM rocket propellant to comply with new environmental reg-
deliveries, leading the USAF to withhold $621 million in ulations. The change caused the supplier of AMRAAM
2012 on account of 193 missiles not delivered.[24] rocket motors, Alliant Techsystems, to produce motors
that were unreliable, especially in cold conditions where [5] Aim-120c-5, Designation Systems
aircraft carrying them would y. ATK has been unable
[6] -[Foreign air to air
to nd a solution, and no new AMRAAM missiles had
missiles], Rusarm (in Russian) (2), 2008, retrieved July
been delivered to the USAF since 2010 as a result. In
21, 2010
late 2012, Raytheon solved the problem by selecting Nor-
wegian ammunition manufacturer Nammo Raufoss to be [7] Multi-service Air-Air, Air-Surface, Surface-Air brevity
their new supplier of AMRAAM rocket motors.[32] codes (PDF). DTIC. April 25, 1997. p. 14. Retrieved
April 12, 2012.
[8] Howard Hughes Medical Institute sells Hughes Aircraft

115.10 Operators Company. Archived from the original on October 26,
2010. Retrieved April 30, 2014.
115.11 See also [9] Navy Retires AIM-54 Phoenix Missile, US: Navy
[10] Military Analysis Network: AIM-120 AMRAAM Slam-

BVRAAM mer. FAS. April 14, 2000. Retrieved April 12, 2012.
FMRAAM [11] Assessing the Evidence Provided by AVM Kym Osley,
New Air Combat Capability Project Manager (Date: 10
List of missiles May 2012)". Parliament of Australia. Retrieved June 10,
2012.
115.11.1 Similar weapons [12] Raytheon Press Release, 5 August 2008
AIM-7 Sparrow [13] Greenert, Admiral Jonathan (September 18, 2013).

Statement Before The House Armed Services Commit-
AAM-4 tee on Planning For Sequestration in FY 2014 And Per-
spectives of the Military Services on the Strategic Choices
Derby And Management Review (PDF). US House of Repre-
sentatives. Retrieved September 21, 2013.
R-27EA
[14] Defense Industry Daily report, 20 November 2008. De-
R-77 fenseindustrydaily.com. November 20, 2008. Retrieved
April 12, 2012.
MICA
[15] USAF cancels AMRAAM replacement. Flight Interna-
Meteor tional. February 14, 2012. Retrieved April 12, 2012.
Sky Sword II [16] DSCA Announces Billions in Military Sales. Aviation

Week. September 11, 2008. Retrieved April 12, 2012.
PL-12
[17] HIMARS Launcher Successfully Fires Air Defense Mis-
Astra sile
[18] Raytheon, Army test new SLAMRAAM platform.

Upi.com. September 10, 2010. Retrieved April 12, 2012.
115.12 References
[19] U.S. Army Recommends SLAMRAAM Termination.
Notes Defensenews.com. Retrieved April 12, 2012.
[20] Statement on Department Budget and Eciencies

[1] United States Department Of Defense Fiscal Year 2015 (PDF). U.S. Department of Defense. January 6, 2011.
Budget Request Program Acquisition Cost By Weapon Archived from the original on July 11, 2011. Retrieved
System (pdf). Oce Of The Under Secretary Of De- July 13, 2011.
fense (Comptroller)/ Chief Financial Ocer. March
2014. p. 53. [21] Bjorkman, Eileen, Small, fast and in your face, Air &
Space, February/March 2014, p,35
[2] Updated Weapons File (PDF). Defense Technical Infor-
mation Center (DTIC). 20032004. Retrieved April 12, [22] Air Power Australia. Air Power Australia: Technical Re-
2012. port APA-TR-2008-0301. Ausairpower.net. Retrieved
April 12, 2012.
[3] M-120, Designation Systems
[23] R. GORDON, MICHAEL (April 15, 1994). U.S. JETS
[4] Richardson, Doug (2002), Stealth Unsichtbare Flugzeuge OVER IRAQ ATTACK OWN HELICOPTERS IN ER-
(in German), Dietkion-Zrich: Stocker-Schmid, ISBN 3- ROR; ALL 26 ON BOARD ARE KILLED. New York
7276-7096-7 Times. Retrieved March 18, 2010.
[24] Farrell, Michael B. Air Force holding back $621m from

Raytheon. Boston Globe. March 21, 2012.
[25] http://newslibrary.naver.com/viewer/index.nhn?
articleId=1995081400329102011&editNo=40&
printCount=1&publishDate=1995-08-14&officeId=
00032&pageNo=2&printNo=15510&publishType=
00010
[26] http://www.deagel.com/equipment/Air-to-Air-Missiles/
AIM-120-AMRAAM.htm
[27]
[28] Raytheon Press Release, 15 January 2007
[29] defence.professionals. defpro.com. Retrieved Decem-

ber 27, 2010.
[30] Outo vika pysytti ohjuskaupan Kotimaa Helsingin

Sanomat
[31] Helsingin Sanomat International Edition Home
[32] Nammo is a 50/50 joint venture of the state of Nor-

way and the Finnish partly state-owned Patria corporation.
Norwegian Rocket Makers Save AMRAAM Strategy-
page.com, December 22, 2012
[33] Gurney, Kyra (15 August 2014). Inltration of Chile

Air Force Emails Highlights LatAm Cyber Threats. In-
SightCrime.
[34] Czech Air force has bought 24 AMRAAMs. Radio.cz.

Retrieved April 12, 2012.
Bibliography
Bonds, Ray; Miller, David (2002). AIM-120 AM-

RAAM. Illustrated Directory of Modern American
Weapons. Zenith. ISBN 0-7603-1346-6.
Clancy, Tom (1995). Ordnance: How Bombs Got
'Smart'". Fighter Wing. London: Harper Collins.
ISBN 0-00-255527-1.

AIM-120 at Designation-Systems.
Chapter 116
AN/TWQ-1 Avenger
The Avenger Air Defense System, designated The rst operational deployment of the system occurred
AN/TWQ-1 under the Joint Electronics Type Designa- during the buildup for the Persian Gulf War. With the
tion System, is an American self-propelled surface-to-air
success of this deployment, the U.S. Army signed an ad-
missile system which provides mobile, short-range ditional contract for another 679 vehicles, bringing the to-
air defense protection for ground units against cruisetal order to 1,004 units. The Avenger was again success-
missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, low-ying xed-wing
fully deployed in support of NATO operations during the
aircraft, and helicopters.[1] Bosnian War.[3] The Avenger system received widespread
The Avenger was originally developed for the United public exposure when it was placed around the Pentagon
during the rst anniversary of the September 11 attacks
States Armed Forces and is currently used by the U.S. [5]
Army. The Avenger system was also used by the U.S. of 2001. The Avenger has also been deployed during
Marine Corps.[2] the U.S. militarys operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.[3]
116.2 Overview
116.1 History
Originally developed as a private venture by Boeing in
the 1980s, the Avenger was developed over a period of
only 10 months from initial concept to delivery for test-
ing to the U.S. Army. Initial testing was conducted in
May 1984 at the Armys Yakima Training Center in the
U.S. state of Washington. During testing three FIM-92
Stinger missiles were red. During the rst test ring the
system achieved a direct hit while moving at 20 mph (30
km/h).[1]
The second test ring, conducted at night while station-
ary, also achieved a direct hit. The third test ring, con-
ducted while on the move and in the rain, did not achieve
a direct hit, but did however, pass within the missiles kill
range and the shot was scored as a tactical kill. All three
test shots were conducted by operators who had never A Stinger missile being launched from an Avenger platform at
red the missile before.[1] Onslow Beach, North Carolina, in April 2000.
In 1987, the U.S. Army awarded the rst production

contract for 325 units.[3] In 1989, the system began its The Avenger comes mainly in three congurations, the
Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) series Basic, Slew-to-Cue, and the Up-Gun.
of tests. The tests were conducted in two stages with The Basic conguration consists of a gyro-stabilized air
Stage 1 consisting of acquisition and tracking trials at Fort defense turret mounted on a modied heavy Humvee.
Hunter Liggett, California and Stage 2 consisting of live- The turret has two Stinger missile launcher pods, each ca-
re testing at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. pable of ring up to 4 re-and-forget infrared/ultraviolet
In February 1990, the Avenger system was deemed op- guided missiles in rapid succession.[1] The Avenger can
erationally eective and began replacing the M163 and be linked to the Forward Area Air Defense Command,
M167 VADS.[4] Two variants were deployed based on the Control, Communications and Intelligence (FAAD C3I)
Humvee chassis: M998 HMMWV Avenger and M1097 system, which permits external radar tracks and messages
Heavy HMMWV Avenger. to be passed to the re unit to alert and cue the gunner.[4]
424
The Slew-to-Cue (STC) subsystem allows the comman- Avenger has been pressed into this role.[8] The FLIR/laser
der or gunner to select a FAAD C3I reported target for rangender combined with the .50 cal machine gun has
engagement from a display on a Targeting Console de- proven very eective, but is limited by no-re zones, par-
veloped from VT Miltopes Pony PCU.[6] Once the tar- ticularly to the front of the vehicle.[9] A program was
get has been selected, the turret can be automatically instituted to remove one of the missile pods and move
slewed directly to the target with limited interaction by the machine gun to that position to enable a 360 eld
the gunner.[4] of re.[10] This upgrade also increased the ammunition
The Up-Gun Avenger was developed specically for the capacity to 650 rounds.
3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment for the Regiments 2005
deployment to Iraq. The modication was designed to al- 116.3.4 Avenger DEW
low the Avenger to perform unit and asset defense in ad-
dition to its air defense mission. The right missile pod was Another potential variant proposed by Boeing is an
removed and the M3P .50 cal machine gun was moved to Avenger with a Directed Energy Weapon (DEW). Boe-
the pods former position. This allowed for the removal ing completed an initial test of a 1 kilowatt laser mounted
of the turrets cab safety limits which enabled the gun where the right missile pod would be.[11] The M3P .50 cal
to be red directly in front of the HMMWV.[7] Eight of has been replaced by the M242 Bushmaster as its close
the units Avengers were modied to this conguration.[3] defense weapon.
With the 3rd ACRs redeployment from Iraq, the Up-Gun
Avenger completed its role in Operation Iraqi Freedom
and the Avengers have been scheduled to be converted 116.3.5 Avenger Multi-Role Weapon Sys-
back to STC systems. tem
Test ring demonstrations took place in 2004 of this vari-
116.3 Variants ant modied by re-locating the M3P machine gun over
the turret cab to allow a 360-degree eld of re, increas-
116.3.1 Boeing/Shorts Starstreak Avenger ing ready-use machine gun ammunition stowage to 600
rounds, and providing the option to substitute launch-
Boeing teamed with Shorts Brothers PLC to oer the ers for [12]
2 FGM-148 Javelin missiles in place of 1 Stinger
Avenger system modied by replacing 1 Stinger pod with pod.
a pod of 4 Shorts Starstreak Hyper-velocity laser-guided
missiles in the hopes of attracting a U.S. Army contract
116.3.6 Accelerated Improved Interceptor
under the Forward Area Air Defense System Line-of-
Sight Rear (FAADS-LOS-R) program. Test installation Initiative (AI3)
was carried out in mid-1990 and ring trials followed
from mid-1991 in the U.K. Starstreak would comple- In February 2012 Raytheon was awarded a contract to
[13]
ment the Stinger by improving the overall systems ability develop the AI3.
to deal with low hovering helicopters which frequently In 2013, The US Army decided to not buy the system.[14]
do not provide enough contrast for lock-on by infrared
In 2014 the system successfully intercepted a cruise mis-
guided missiles. Starstreak also has the ability to be used
sile target in a test. [15]
against un-armored and lightly armored ground vehicles.
116.3.7 Other variants

116.3.2 Boeing/Matra Guardian
Boeing have proposed that the Avenger PMS turret could
In the 1990s Boeing teamed with Matra of France to of-
be mounted on other vehicles such as Unimog truck, BV-
fer the Avenger modied by the substitution of standard
206 all-terrain vehicles, M113 APC, and M548 tracked
triple launcher boxes for Matra Mistral missiles in place
cargo carrier as well as being used as a stationary ground
of the quadruple Stinger pods of the standard Avenger.
mount on a pallet for defense of static targets. The
One demonstrator vehicle was built in 1992 and test r-
Avenger PMS has been demonstrated with a mock-up of
ings took place in France. The project was dropped
two 70 mm helicopter-type rocket pods carrying a total of
around 1997.
36 rockets to give the system greater multi-mission util-
ity. Other missiles such as the Bofors RBS 70/Bolide have
116.3.3 Avengers during the Iraq War been proposed for use on the Avenger PMS.
Due to the lack of serious airborne threats during much

of the Iraq War, along with the pressing need for ground 116.4 Specications
assets for combat roles such as convoy protection, the
426 CHAPTER 116. AN/TWQ-1 AVENGER
116.4.1 Dimensions 116.6 See also

Length 16 ft 3 in (4.95 m) Anti-aircraft warfare
Width 7 ft 2 in (2.18 m) Atlgan PMADS
Height 8 ft 8 in (2.64 m) FIM-92 Stinger
Weight 8,600 lb (3,900 kg) Joint Electronics Type Designation System
Crew 2 (Basic), 3 (STC) United States Army Aviation and Missile Command
Road speed 55 mph (89 km/h)

116.6.1 Comparable systems
Range 275 miles (440 km)
Type 93 Surface-to-air missile
Engine Detroit Diesel cooled V-8
9K35 Strela-10
Engine power output 135 hp (99 kW)
SA-9 Gaskin
116.4.2 Sensors
Forward Looking Infrared Receiver (FLIR)

116.7 References
Eye Safe Laser rangender [1] Avenger AN/TWQ-1 (United States) - Janes Land Based
Air Defense
Optical sight
[2] - Details of Avenger use by the USMC
[3] Avenger Low Level Air Defense System, USA- Army

116.4.3 Weapons Technology
4/8 ready-to-re FIM-92 Stinger missiles [4] Avenger (Pedestal Mounted Stinger) - GlobalSecurity.org
1 M3P machine gun built by FN Herstal,[16] a variant [5] Stinger Missile In Nations Capital - Life
of the Browning AN/M3 developed for aviation use [6] Pony PCU (United States) - Janes C4I Systems
during World War II. It is a .50 caliber machine gun
with an electronic trigger that can be red from both [7] Boeing Frontiers Online - Boeing team gives troops in
the remote control unit (RCU) located in the drivers Middle East extra repower
cab, and from the handstation located in the Avenger
[8] Air Defense Artillery April-June 2005
turret. It has a 950 to 1200 rounds per minute ring
rate. Loads one box of 200250 rounds at a time. [9] FM 44-44 - AVENGER PLATOON, SECTION, AND
SQUAD OPERATIONS
[10] Giving Troops Extra Firepower - Boeing

116.5 Operators
[11] Popular Mechanics - Boeing Laser Avenger - Humvee
Hunts IEDs and Bombs in Tests
Bahrain Received in 2003
[12] Javelin Avenger Variant Testing Details - Defense Update
Chile To receive 36 AN/TWQ-1 Avenger
units plus 578 Stinger missiles [13] Accelerated Improved Interceptor Initiative (AI3)"
Egypt [14] Fein, Geo (21 October 2013). AUSA 2013: US Army
halts AI3 C-RAM buy despite successful tests. IHS
Janes Defence Weekly. Retrieved 4 September 2014.
Iraq 40 on order plus 681 Stinger missiles
[15] Forrester, Anna (August 29, 2014). Thomas Bussing:
Lithuania Received in 2007 Raytheon AI3 Missile Built to Complement Army Ground
Weapon System. ExecutiveBiz. Retrieved 4 September
Taiwan 2014.
United States Used by the U.S. Army [16] FN Herstal Airborne Gun Systems.

U.S. Army Technology Avenger Project Details
U.S. Army Fact File

Chapter 117
GTR-18 Smokey Sam
The GTR-18A, commonly known as the Smokey Sam,

is a small unguided rocket developed by Naval Air War-
fare Center Weapons Division (NAWCWD) in China
Lake, California as a threat simulator for use during
military exercises. Widely used in training, the Smokey
Sam remains in operational service with the United States
military.

The GTR-18 was conceived in the late 1970s by Robert
A. McLellan, a Weapons Range Scientist working with A GTR-18 is launched at the Crow Valley Range Complex.
RED FLAG at Nellis AFB. He rst searched for a com-
mercially available system that would perform as he en-
visioned. It quickly became apparent that no commercial Receiving the altered designation DGTR-18A in the
product would perform adequately, so the development early 1990s, the Smokey Sam remains in production and
of the GTR-18 was undertaken by the Naval Weapons operational service, being extensively used by the U.S.
Center (NWC) during the early 1980s, with the intent of military.[1]
developing Mr. McLellans idea of a simple and inexpen-
sive rocket for visually simulating the launch of surface-
to-air missiles (SAMs) during training exercises.[1] 117.3 References
Constructed from phenolic paper and styrofoam, the
Smokey Sam is designed for minimal cost and, in the Notes
event of accidentally striking low-ying aircraft, to cause
minimal damage.[1] [1] Parsch 2002
[2] Kiteld 1995, p.166.
117.2 Operational history [3] Taylor 2006
The complete launch system, known as the Smokey Sam Bibliography

Simulator, includes single- and four-rail launching pads,
an AN/VPQ-1 radar set, and the GTR-18A rockets them- Kiteld, James (1995). Prodigal Soldiers: How
selves, making up the SMU-124/E system as a whole.[1] the Generation of Ocers Born of Vietnam Revo-
When launched, the GTR-18s rocket motor produces a lutionzed the American Style of War. New York: Si-
distinctive white plume, providing a realistic simulation mon & Schuster. ISBN 0-671-76925-1.
of the launch of a surface-to-air missile.[2] While the or- Parsch, Andreas (2002). NWC GTR-18 Smokey
dinary GTR-18A has a simple, model rocket type mo- Sam. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Mis-
tor, an improved 'Dual Thrust Smokey Sam' tested in the siles. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-01-
early 2000s featured a modied rocket motor, providing a 05.
1.5 second boost period, followed by a lower-thrust sus-
tainer burn with burnout occurring at 7.1 seconds after Taylor, Bill (9 March 2006). Dual Thrust Modied
launch.[3] Smokey Sam for Low Cost Testing and Simulation.
428
NDIA 22nd National Test & Evaluation Conference.

Sensor Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory.
Chapter 118
Operation Bumblebee
Not to be confused with Operation Bumblebee (UK). Talos. The Terrier was later modied as a short-range
Operation Bumblebee was a US Navy eort to develop missile system for smaller ships, entering service in 1963
as the RIM-24 Tartar. Together, the three missiles were
known as the 3 Ts.
Bumblebee was not the only early Navy SAM project; the
SAM-N-2 Lark was rushed into production as a short-
range counter to the Kamikaze threat, but never matured
into an operational weapon.
118.1 Origin
Navy ships were hit by air-launched Henschel Hs 293

glide bombs and Fritz X anti-ship missiles during 1943.
A ramjet-powered anti-aircraft missile was proposed to
destroy aircraft launching such weapons while remain-
ing beyond the range of shipboard artillery.[3] Initial
performance goals were target intercept at a horizon-
tal range of 10 miles and 30,000 feet altitude, with a
300 to 600 pound warhead for a 30 to 60 percent kill
probability.[4] Heavy shipping losses to Kamikaze attacks
during the Battle of Okinawa provided additional incen-
RIM-8 Talos test ring tive for guided missile development.[3]
surface to air missiles (SAMs) to provide a mid-range

layer of anti-aircraft defence, between anti-aircraft guns
in the short range and ghter aircraft operating at long
range. A major reason for the Bumblebee eorts was the
need to attack bombers before they could launch stando 118.2 Field testing
anti-shipping weapons, as these aircraft might never enter
the range of the shipboard guns. In addition to initial tests at the Island Beach, New Jer-
Bumblebee originally concentrated on a ramjet pow- sey, and Fort Miles, Delaware, temporary sites,[5] Camp
ered design, and the initial Applied Physics Lab PTV- Davis, North Carolina, was used for Operation Bumble-
N-4 Cobra/BTV (Propulsion Test Vehicle/Burner Test bee from c. June 1, 1946, to July 28, 1948.[6] Topsail
Vehicle)[1] was own in October 1945.[2] The Cobra Island, North Carolina, became the permanent Bumble-
eventually emerged as the RIM-8 Talos, which entered bee testing and launch facility in March 1947.[5] The Top-
service on 28 May 1958 aboard the USS Galveston. As sail Historical Society hosts the Missiles and More Mu-
part of the development program, several other vehicles seum at the site. Testing was transferred to Naval Air
were also developed. One of these developed into the Weapons Station China Lake and then to White Sands
RIM-2 Terrier, which gained operational status on the Missile Range in 1951 where USS Desert Ship (LLS-1)
USS Canberra on 15 June 1956, two years before the was built as a prototype Talos launch facility.[3]
430
118.3 Program results

The RIM-2 Terrier, devised as a test vehicle, became op-
erational as a eet anti-aircraft missile aboard USS Boston
in 1955, and evolved into the RIM-66 Standard. Talos be-
came operational with the eet aboard USS Galveston in
February, 1959, and saw combat use during the Vietnam
War. Ramjet knowledge acquired during the program
aided development of the XB-70 Valkyrie and the SR-
71 Blackbird. Solid fuel boosters developed to bring the
ramjet to operational velocity formed the basis for larger
solid fuel rocket motors for ICBMs, satellite launch vehi-
cles and the space shuttle.[4]
118.4 References
[1] Parsch, Andreas. PTV-N-4. Retrieved 2009-07-30.
[2] Parsch, Andreas. Cobra-BTV. astronautix.com. Re-

trieved 2009-03-19.
[3] A Brief History of White Sands Proving Ground 1941-

1965. New Mexico State University. Retrieved 2010-
08-19.
[4] Talos Missile History. Hays, Philip R. Retrieved 2010-

08-19.
[5] US Naval Ordnance Test Facilities, Topsail Island MPS.

From Sand Dunes to Sonic Booms. NPS.gov. Retrieved
2009-03-19.
[6] Jones, Wilbur D. (Jr) (2005). The Journey Continues:

The World War II Home Front. Shippensburg, PA: White
Mane Books. p. 83. ISBN 1-57249-365-8.

Topsail Historical Societys Missiles and More Mu-
seum
Chapter 119
RIM-50 Typhon
The RIM-50 Typhon LR was a missile that was intended

to be a Terrier missilesized replacement to the Talos
missile to be used with the Typhon combat system.[1] The
RIM-50 was canceled in 1963 along with the medium
range RIM-55, when the Typhon combat system was can-
celed. The technology in development for this missile was
incorporated in to the RIM-67 Standard missile.
119.1 See also

AN/SPG-59
119.2 References
[1] Bendix RIM-50 Typhon LR

RIM-50 TyphonGlobalSecurity.org
Bendix SAM-N-8/RIM-50 Typhon LRDirectory

of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles
Bendix SAM-N-9/RIM-55 Typhon MR

432
Chapter 120
RIM-67 Standard
See also: Standard Missile (disambiguation) retained. This design change was made so that missiles
could time share illumination radars and enable equipped
The RIM-67 Standard ER (SM-1ER/SM-2ER) is an ships to defend against saturation missile attacks.
extended range surface-to-air missile (SAM) and anti Terrier ships reequipped as part of the New Threat Up-
ship missile originally developed for the United States grade were ret to operate the RIM-67B (SM-2ER Block
Navy (USN). The RIM-67 was developed as a replace- II) missile. However, Aegis ships were not equipped with
ment for the RIM-8 Talos, a 1950s system deployed on a launchers that had space enough for the longer RIM-67B.
variety of USN ships, and eventually replaced the RIM- The RIM-156A Standard SM-2ER Block IV with the Mk
2 Terrier as well since it was of a similar size and tted 72 booster was developed to compensate for the lack of a
existing Terrier launchers and magazines. The RIM-66 long range SAM for the Ticonderoga-class of Aegis cruis-
Standard MR was essentially the same missile without ers. The Mk72 booster allows the RIM-156A to t into
the booster stage, designed to replace the RIM-24 Tar- the Mk41 guided missile launch system. This congura-
tar. The RIM-66/67 series thus became the US Navys tion can also be used for Terminal phase Ballistic Missile
universal SAM system, hence Standard Missile. Defense.[1]
120.1 RIM-67A SM-1 Extended

Range
The RIM-67A (SM-1ER Block I) was the Navys re-
placement for RIM-8 Talos missile. Improved technol-
ogy allowed the RIM-67 to be reduced to the size of
the earlier RIM-2 Terrier missile. Existing ships with
the Mk86 guided missile re control system, or Terrier
were adapted to employ the new missile in place of the
older RIM-2 Terrier missile. Ships that switched from
the RIM-2 Terrier to the RIM-67A were still referred to
as Terrier ships even though they were equipped with the
newer missile. An SM-2ER on the rail inside USS Mahan (DDG-42).
There was a plan to build a nuclear armed standard missile

120.2 RIM-67 and RIM-156 SM-2 mounting a W81 nuclear warhead as a replacement for
the earlier Nuclear Terrier missile (RIM-2D). The USN
Extended Range rescinded the requirement for the nuclear armed missile
in the 1980s, and the project was canceled.[2]
The second generation of Standard missile, the Standard
Missile 2, was developed for the Aegis combat system, The Standard can also be used against ships, either at line-
and New Threat Upgrade program that was planned for of-sight range using its semi-active homing mode, or over
existing Terrier and Tartar ships. USS Mahan (DDG- the horizon using inertial guidance and terminal infrared
42) served as the test platform for the development of the homing.[3]
CG/SM-2 (ER) missile program project. The principal A new generation of Standard extended range missiles is
change over the Standard missile 1 is the introduction of expected to become operational in 2011. This missile is
inertial guidance for each phase of the missiles ight ex- covered in a separate article. Please see RIM-174 Stan-
cept the terminal phase where semi-active homing was dard ERAM for details.
433
120.3 Operational history RIM-67 Standard was deployed on ships of the follow-
ing classes, replacing the RIM-2 Terrier, and it never was
During the IranIraq War (19801988) the United States VLS-capable. All of the ships used the AN/SPG-55 for
had deployed Standard missiles to protect its navy, as well guidance. The Mk10 guided missile launching system
as other ships in the Persian Gulf from the threat of Ira- was used as the launching system. New Threat Upgrade
nian attacks. According to the Iranian Air Force, its F-4 equipped vessels operated the RIM-67B which used in-
Phantom IIs were engaged by SM-2ERs but managed to ertial guidance for every phase of the intercept except for
evade them, with one aircraft sustaining non-fatal dam- the terminal phase where the AN/SPG-55 radar illumi-
age due to shrapnel.[4] During the same war United States nates the target.
navy accidentally shot down an Iranian civilian airliner,
Iran Air Flight 655 using two SM-2 missiles. USS Long Beach (CGN-9) SM-1ER later SM-2ER
On April 18, 1988, during Operation Praying Mantis, with NTU.
USS Simpson (FFG-56) red four RIM-66 Standard mis- Farragut class destroyers SM-1ER later SM-2ER
siles and USS Wainwright (CG-28) red two RIM-67 with NTU (USS Mahan only).
Standard missiles at Joshan, an Iranian (Combattante II)
Kaman-class frigate. The attacks destroyed the Iranian Leahy-class cruisers SM-1ER later SM-2ER with
ships superstructure but did not sink it. NTU.
USS Bainbridge (CGN-25) SM-1ER later SM-2ER

120.3.1 Deployment with NTU.
Belknap-class cruisers SM-1ER later SM-2ER with

NTU.
USS Truxtun (CGN-35) SM-1ER later SM-2ER

with NTU.
Italian cruiser Vittorio Veneto SM-1ER Only.
The RIM-156 Standard Block IV, is a version that has

been developed for Aegis Combat System it has a smaller
compact sized booster stage for ring from the Mk41
Guided missile launch system. Like the earlier RIM-
67B it employs inertial/command guidance with terminal
semi-active homing.
Ticonderoga-class cruisers (VLS units only)
Arleigh Burke-class destroyers

RIM-67A Launching
The last vessel to operate the RIM-67 was the Italian
cruiser Vittorio Veneto which was retired in 2003. The
RIM-174 Standard ERAM or Standard Missile Six has
superseded the RIM-156A in production. The RIM-
156A remains in service as of 2010.
RIM-67 Standard missiles have been withdrawn from ser-
vice, remaining rounds are being re-manufactured in to
GQM-163 Coyote supersonic targets.
120.4 Surface to air variants
120.5 Gallery
Blue training missiles on the rails of a MK-10
RIM-67 intercepting Firebee drone in 1980 test. GMLS on USS Josephus Daniels (CG-27)
[2] Raytheon RIM-67 Standard ER
[3] Canadian Forces Maritime Command. Standard missile.

Accessed June 5, 2006.
[4] . Accessed October 7, 2007.

Raytheon Standard missile website, mfr of Standard
missiles
Designation systems.net - RIM-67

FAS - SM-2ER
GlobalSecurity.org - SM-2
Navweaps.com
A RIM-156A (VLS version of the RIM-67) launching from a VLS

cell on USS Lake Erie in 2008.
USS Worden (CG-18) showing the Mk 10 GMLS.

Note the launcher at left, the blast doors behind
launcher where the missiles exit the launcher feeder
and AN/SPG-55 radars at middle right.
An SM-2ER in the magazine area, on a ready service
ring of the Mk-10 GMLS on USS Mahan (DDG-42)
120.6 See also

RIM-2 Terrier - predecessor
RIM-8 Talos - predecessor
RIM-24 Tartar
AGM-78 Standard ARM
RIM-66 Standard Medium Range
RIM-161 Standard SM-3
RIM-174 Standard ERAM - successor
120.7 References
[1] Aegis BMD Project Oce. Standard missile. Accessed
September 26, 2009.
Chapter 121
RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile
For the earlier weapon named Ram, see Ram (rocket). 121.2 Service
The RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) is a The RIM-116 is in service on several American and
small, lightweight, infrared homing surface-to-air missile 30 German warships. All new German Navy war-
in use by the American, German, South Korean, Greek, ships will be equipped with the RAM, such as the
Turkish, Japan, Saudi and Egyptian navies. It was in- new Braunschweig-class corvettes, which will mount two
tended originally and used primarily as a point-defense RAM launchers per ship. The Greek Navy has equipped
weapon against anti-ship cruise missiles. The missile is the new Super Vita class fast attack craft with the RAM.
so-named because it rolls around its longitudinal axis to South Korea has signed license-production contracts for
stabilize its ight path, much like a bullet red from a ri- their navys KDX-II, KDX-III, and Dokdo-class amphibi-
ed barrel. It is the only US Navy missile to operate in ous assault ship.[3]
this manner.[2]
The Rolling Airframe Missiles, together with the Mk 49
Guided Missile Launching System (GMLS) and support
equipment, comprise the RAM Mk 31 Guided Missile 121.2.1 US Navy
Weapon System (GMWS). The Mk-144 Guided Missile
Launcher (GML) unit weighs 5,777 kilograms (12,736
The U.S. Navy plans to purchase a total of about 1,600
lb) and stores 21 missiles. The original weapon cannot
RAMs and 115 launchers to equip 74 ships. The mis-
employ its own sensors prior to ring so it must be in-
sile is currently active aboard Gerald R. Ford-class air-
tegrated with a ships combat system, which directs the
craft carriers, Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, Wasp-class
launcher at targets. On American ships it is integrated
amphibious assault ships, Tarawa-class amphibious as-
with the AN/SWY-2 Ship Defense Surface Missile Sys-
sault ships, San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock
tem (SDSMS) and Ship Self Defense System (SSDS) Mk
ships, Whidbey Island-class dock landing ship, Harpers
1 or Mk 2 based combat systems. SeaRAM, a weapon
Ferry-class dock landing ships, and littoral combat ships
system model equipped with independent sensors, is un-
(LCS).[4]
dergoing testing.
121.3 Variants
121.1 Development
121.3.1 Block 0
The RIM-116 was developed by General Dynamics
Pomona and Valley Systems divisions under a July 1976 Also known as RIM-116A in US service, the original
agreement with Denmark and West Germany (the Gen- version called Block 0 whose design is based on that of
eral Dynamics missile business was later acquired by the AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missile, from which it
Hughes Aircraft and is today part of Raytheon). Den- took its rocket motor, fuze, and warhead. Block 0 mis-
mark dropped out of the program, but the USN joined in siles initially home in on active radiation emitted from a
as the major partner. The Mk 49 launcher was evaluated target (such as the radar of an incoming anti-ship mis-
on board the destroyer USS David R. Ray (DD-971) in sile). Then, the terminal guidance is done by an infrared
the late 1980s.[2] The rst 30 missiles were built in FY85 seeker derived from that of the FIM-92 Stinger missile.
and they became operational on 14 November 1992, on In test rings, the Block 0 missiles achieved hit rates of
board USS Peleliu (LHA-5). over 95%.
436
121.3. VARIANTS 437
siles in a salvo and directly hitting the target. This veri-

ed the command and control capabilities of the system,
upgraded kinematic performance, guidance system, and
airframe capabilities. Raytheon was scheduled to deliver
25 Block 2 missiles during the integrated testing phase of
the program.[6][7] The Block 2 RAM was delivered to the
U.S. Navy in late August 2014,[8] with 502 missiles to be
acquired from 2015 to 2019.[9]
121.3.4 HAS Mode
In 1998, a memorandum of understanding was signed

by the defense departments of Germany and the United
States to improve the system, so that it could also en-
gage so-called HAS, Helicopter, Aircraft, and Surface
Sailors handle the rolling airframe missile system aboard the targets. As developed, the HAS upgrade just required
Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75). software modications that can be applied to all Block
1 RAM missiles.
121.3.5 SeaRAM (weapon system)
The aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71)

launches a Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM)
121.3.2 Block 1
The Block 1 (RIM-116B) is an improved version of the

RAM missile that adds an overall infrared-only guidance
system that enables it to intercept missiles that are not
emitting any radar signals. The Block 0s radar homing
capabilities have been retained.
121.3.3 Block 2 SeaRAM
The RAM Block 2 is an upgraded version of the Rolling The SeaRAM combines the radar and electro-optical
Airframe Missile (RAM) ship self-defense missile sys- system[2] of the Phalanx CIWS Mk-15 Block 1B (CRDC)
tem. The RAM Block 2 missile upgrade aim is to with an 11-cell RAM launcher to produce an autonomous
more eectively counter the emerging threat of more system - one which does not need any external informa-
maneuverable anti-ship missiles. The US Navy awarded tion to engage threats. Like the Phalanx, SeaRAM can
Raytheon Missile Systems a $105 million Block 2 RAM be tted to any class of ship. In 2008 a SeaRAM sys-
development contract on 8 May 2007, with the missile tem was delivered to be installed on USS Independence
development expected to complete by December 2010. (LCS-2).[10] As of December 2013, one SeaRAM is t-
LRIP began in 2012.[5] 51 missiles were initially or- ted to each Independence-class vessel.[11] In late 2014,
dered. On 22 October 2012, the RAM Block 2 com- the Navy revealed it had chosen to install the SeaRAM
pleted its third guided test vehicle ight, ring two mis- on its Small Surface Combatant LCS follow-on ships.[12]
438 CHAPTER 121. RIM-116 ROLLING AIRFRAME MISSILE

(Block 1)
Surface-to-air (SAM) missile being red from USS Green Bay

(LPD-20)
Primary Function: Surface-to-Air Missile
Contractor: Raytheon, Diehl BGT Defence
Length: 2.79 m (9 ft 2 in) RAM Launcher on fast attack craft Ozelot of the German Navy.
Diameter: 127 mm (5.0 in)
Fin span: 434 mm (1 ft 5.1 in) Turkey
Speed: Mach 2.0+ United Arab Emirates

Warhead: 11.3 kg (24.9 lb) blast fragmentation
United States
Launch Weight: 73.5 kg (162 lb)
Range: 9 km (5.6 mi) Germany
Guidance System: three modespassive radio fre-

quency/infrared homing, infrared only, or infrared
dual mode enabled (radio frequency and infrared
121.6 References
homing)
Notes
Unit Cost: $998,000
Date Deployed: 1992 [1] United States Department Of Defense Fiscal Year 2015
Budget Request Program Acquisition Cost By Weapon
System (pdf). Oce Of The Under Secretary Of De-
121.5 Operators 2014. p. 63.
[2] Norman Polmar (2005). Ships and Aircraft of the U.S.

Egypt Fleet. The Naval Institute. p. 519.
[3] PGM - Precision Guided Munitions. LigNex1.com.

Saudi Arabia Retrieved 31 October 2014.
[4]
Greece
[5] Raytheons RAM Strikes Twice During Back-to-Back
Japan [13] Tests. Raytheon, 39 January 2012.
[6] RAM Block 2 Missile Successful in Double-re Test -

South Korea Deagel.com, 22 October 2012
[7] Rolling Airframe Missile Block 2 completes initial eet

ring. 12 August 2013.
[8] Raytheon delivers rst Block 2 Rolling Airframe Missiles

to US Navy - Raytheon news release, 27 August 2014
[9] Navy to Accept New Rolling Airframe Missile - DoD-

Buzz.com, 19 May 2014
[10] Raytheon Company has delivered its SeaRAM anti-ship

missile defense weapon system for installation aboard the
littoral combat ship USS Independence (LCS-2)" (Press
release). Raytheon. Retrieved 15 September 2010.
[11] Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) High-Speed Surface Ship.

www.naval-technology.com. Retrieved 14 December
2013.
[12] Hagel Approves Navys Proposal to Build More Lethal

LCS Variant - Military.com, 11 December 2014
[13] SeaRAM, Close-In Weapon System - Japanese Example

Ship. military-today.com. Retrieved 2013-08-13.
Bibliography
Norman, Polmar (15 January 2005). The Naval In-

stitute Guide to the Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet
(Hardcover, 18th ed.). Annapolis, Maryland: Naval
Institute Press. p. 519. ISBN 978-1-59114-685-8.
retrieved 15 September 2010.

RIM-116 RAM Rolling Airframe Missile - Glob-
alSecurity.org
RIM-116 RAM - Rolling Airframe Missile - waf-
fenHQ.de
Raytheon (General Dynamics) RIM-116 RAM -
Designation Systems
RAM on the Homepage of German developer and
manufacturer Diehl BGT (in English)
Chapter 122
RIM-161 Standard Missile 3
See also: Standard Missile (disambiguation) rean attack with fewer deployed ships but it is also the
key element of the EPAA phase 3 deployment in Europe.
The RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) is a ship- The Block IIA is being jointly developed by Raytheon
and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries; the latter manages the
based missile system used by the US Navy to intercept
short-to intermediate-range ballistic missiles as a part of third-stage rocket motor and nose cone. The U.S. [8] bud-
[4] geted cost to date is $1.51 billion for the Block IIA.
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. Although pri-
marily designed as an anti-ballistic missile, the SM-3 has
also been employed in an anti-satellite capacity against a
satellite at the lower end of low Earth orbit.[5] The SM-3 122.2 Operation and performance
is primarily used and tested by the United States Navy and
also operated by the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force. The ships AN/SPY-1 radar nds the ballistic missile tar-
get and the Aegis weapon system calculates a solution
on the target. When the missile is ordered to launch,
the Aerojet MK 72 solid-fuel rocket booster launches the
122.1 Motivation and development SM-3 out of the ships Mark 41 vertical launching sys-
tem (VLS). The missile then establishes communication
The SM-3 evolved from the proven SM-2 Block IV de- with the launching ship. Once the booster burns out, it
sign. The SM-3 uses the same solid rocket booster and detaches, and the Aerojet MK 104 solid-fuel dual thrust
dual thrust rocket motor as the Block IV missile for the rocket motor (DTRM) takes over propulsion through the
rst and second stages and the same steering control sec- atmosphere. The missile continues to receive mid-course
tion and midcourse missile guidance for maneuvering in guidance information from the launching ship and is aided
the atmosphere. To support the extended range of an exo- by GPS data. The ATK MK 136 solid-fueled third-stage
atmospheric intercept, additional missile thrust is pro- rocket motor (TSRM) res after the second stage burns
vided in a new third stage for the SM-3 missile, containing out, and it takes the missile above the atmosphere (if
a dual pulse rocket motor for the early exo-atmospheric needed). The TSRM is pulse red and provides propul-
phase of ight.[6] sion for the SM-3 until 30 seconds to intercept.
Initial work was done to adapt SM-3 for land deploy- At that point the third stage separates, and the
ment (Aegis ashore) to especially accommodate the Is- Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile (LEAP) kinetic
raelis, but they then chose to pursue their own system, the warhead (KW) begins to search for the target using point-
NATO code-name Arrow 3. A group in the Obama ad- ing data from the launching ship. The Aerojet throttleable
ministration envisioned a European Phased Adaptive Ap- divert and attitude control system (TDACS) allows the
proach (EPAA) and SM-3 was chosen as the main vector kinetic warhead to maneuver in the nal phase of the en-
of this eort because the competing U.S. THAAD does gagement. The KWs sensors identify the target, attempt
not have enough range and would have required too many to identify the most lethal part of the target and steers
sites in Europe to provide adequate coverage. Compared the KW to that point. If the KW intercepts the target, it
to the GMD's Ground-Based Interceptor however, the provides 130 megajoules (96,000,000 ftlbf, 31 kg TNT
SM-3 Block I has about 1 5 to 1 6 of the range. A sig- equivalent) of kinetic energy at the point of impact.[9]
nicant improvement in this respect, the SM-3 Block II Independent studies by some physics experts have raised
variant widens the missiles diameter from 0.34 m (13.5 some signicant questions about the missiles success rate
in) to .53 m (21 in), making it more suitable against in hitting targets.[10][11][12] In a published response, the
intermediate-range ballistic missiles.[7] Defense Department claimed that these ndings were in-
The Block IIA missile is largely new sharing only the rst- valid, as the analysts used some early launches as their
stage motor with the Block I. The Block IIA was de- data, when those launches were not signicant to the
signed to allow for Japan to protect against a North Ko- overall program.[13] The DoD stated:
440
122.3. VARIANTS 441
...the rst tests [used] prototype intercep- medium-range ballistic missile target at the highest alti-
tors; expensive mock warheads werent used tude of any test to date. The test was the 26th success-
in the tests since specic lethality capability ful intercept for the SM-3 program and the fth back-to-
wasnt a test objectivethe objective was to hit back successful test of the SM-3 Block IB missile. Post-
the target missile. Contrary to the assertions of mission data showed that the intercept was slightly lower
Postol and Lewis, all three tests resulted in suc- than anticipated, but the systems adjusted to ensure the
cessful target hits with the unitary ballistic mis- missile intercepted the target. The SM-3 Block IB is ex-
sile target destroyed. This provided empirical pected to be delivered for service in 2015.[16]
evidence that ballistic missile intercepts could
in fact be accomplished at sea using intercep-
tors launched from Aegis ships. 122.3 Variants
After successful completion of these early
developmental tests, the test program pro-
The SM-3 Block IA version provides an incremental up-
gressed from just hitting the target to one
grade to improve reliability and maintainability at a re-
of determining lethality and proving the oper-
duced cost.
ationally congured Aegis SM-3 Block I and
SM-3 Block 1A system. These tests were the The SM-3 Block IB, due in 2010, oers upgrades which
MDAs most comprehensive and realistic test include an advanced two-color infrared seeker, and a 10-
series, resulting in the Operational Test and thruster solid throttling divert and attitude control system
Evaluation Forces October 2008 Evaluation (TDACS/SDACS) on the kill vehicle to give it improved
Report stating that Aegis Ballistic Missile De- capability against maneuvering ballistic missiles or war-
fense Block 04 3.6 System was operationally heads. Solid TDACS is a joint Raytheon/Aerojet project,
eective and suitable for transition to the Navy. but Boeing supplies some components of the kinetic war-
Since 2002, a total of 19 SM-3 mis- head. With Block IB and associated ship-based upgrades,
siles have been red in 16 dierent test the Navy gains the ability to defend against medium range
events resulting in 16 intercepts against threat- missiles and some Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles.
representative full-size and more challenging SM-3 Block II will widen the missile body to 21 in and
subscale unitary and full-size targets with sepa- decrease the size of the maneuvering ns. It will still t
rating warheads. In addition, a modied Aegis in Mk41 vertical launch systems, and the missile will be
BMD/SM-3 system successfully destroyed a faster and have longer range.
malfunctioning U.S. satellite by hitting the
satellite in the right spot to negate the haz- The SM-3 Block IIA is a joint Raytheon/Mitsubishi
ardous fuel tank at the highest closure rate of Heavy Industries project, Block IIA will add a larger di-
any ballistic missile defense technology ever at- ameter kill vehicle that is more maneuverable, and car-
tempted. ries another sensor/ discrimination upgrade. Its currently
The authors of the SM-3 study cited only scheduled to debut around 2015, whereupon the Navy
tests involving unitary targets, and chose not will have a weapon that can engage some intercontinental
to cite the ve successful intercepts in six at- ballistic missiles.[17]
tempts against separating targets, which, be- Table sources, reference material:[18][19][20]
cause of their increased speed and small size,
A further SM-3 Block IIB was conceived for elding in
pose a much more challenging target for the
Europe around 2022.[21] In March 2013, Defense Secre-
SM-3 than a much larger unitary target mis-
tary Chuck Hagel announced that the development pro-
sile. They also did not mention the fact the sys-
gram of the SM-3 Block IIB, also known as the next
tem is successfully intercepting targets much
generation AEGIS missile (NGAM), was undergoing re-
smaller than probable threat missiles on a rou-
structuring. Under Secretary James N. Miller was quoted
tine basis, and have attained test scores that
saying that We no longer intend to add them [SM-3
many other Defense Department programs as-
Block IIB] to the mix, but well continue to have the same
pire to attain.[13]
number of deployed interceptors in Poland that will pro-
vide coverage for all of NATO in Europe, explaining that
In an October 25, 2012 test, a SM-3 Block IA failed to in- Poland is scheduled instead for the deployment of about
tercept a SRBM.[14] In May 2013 however a SM-3 Block 24 SM-3 IIA interceptors same timeline, same footprint
IB was successful against a complex, separating short- of U.S. forces to support that.[22] A US defense ocial
range ballistic missile target with a sophisticated sepa- was quoted saying that The SM3 IIB phase four inter-
rating mock warhead, making it the third straight suc- ceptors that we are now not going to pursue never existed
cessful test of Raytheons SM-3 Block IB, after a target other than on Power Points; it was a design objective.[23]
was missed on its rst intercept attempt in September Daniel Nexon connected the backpedaling of the admin-
2011.[15] istration on the Block IIB development with pre-election
On 4 October 2013, an SM-3 Block IB eliminated the promises made by Obama to Dmitry Medvedev.[24] Pen-
442 CHAPTER 122. RIM-161 STANDARD MISSILE 3
tagon spokesman George E. Little denied however that

Russian objections played any part in the decision.[25]
122.4 Operators
122.4.1 United States
Missile defense
In September 2009, President Obama announced plans

to scrap plans for missile defense sites in East Eu-
rope, in favor of missile defense systems located on
US Navy warships.[26] On 18 September 2009, Rus-
sian Prime Minister Putin welcomed Obamas plans for
missile defense which may include stationing American
Aegis armed warships in the Black Sea.[27][28] This de-
ployment began to occur that same month, with the de-
ployment of Aegis-equipped warships with the RIM-161
SM-3 missile system, which complements the Patriot sys-
tems already deployed by American units.[29][30]
In February 2013, a SM-3 intercepted a test IRBM target
using tracking data from a satellite for the rst time.[31][32]
An SM-3 launched to destroy a failed satellite
On 23 April 2014, Raytheon announced that the U.S.
Navy and the Missile Defense Agency had started to de-
ploy the SM-3 Block 1B missile operationally. The de- 122.4.2 Japan
ployment starts the second phase of the Phased Adaptive
Approach (PAA) adopted in 2009 to protect Europe from In December 2007, Japan conducted a successful test of
Iranian ballistic missile threats.[33] an SM-3 block IA aboard JDS Kong against a ballis-
tic missile. This was the rst time a Japanese ship was
employed to launch the interceptor missile during a test
of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. In pre-
Anti-satellite vious tests the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force had
provided tracking and communications.[40][41]
Further information: Anti-satellite weapon
On February 14, 2008, U.S. ocials announced plans In November 2008 a second Japanese-American joint
test was performed from JDS Chkai which was unsuc-
to use a modied SM-3 missile launched from a group
of three ships in the North Pacic to destroy the failed cessful. Following a failure review board, JFTM-3 oc-
curred launching from JDS Myk resulting in a success-
American satellite USA-193 at an altitude of 130 nautical [42]
miles (240 kilometers) shortly before atmospheric reen- ful intercept in October 2009.
try, stating that the intention was to reduce the danger October 28, 2010 a successful test was performed from
to human beings due to the release of toxic hydrazine JDS Kirishima. The U.S. Navys Pacic Missile Range
fuel carried on board.[34][35] A spokesperson stated that Facility on Kauai launched the ballistic missile target.
software associated with the SM-3 had been modied to The crew of Kirishima, operating o the coast of Kauai,
enhance the chances of the missiles sensors recognizing detected and tracked the target before ring a SM-3
that the satellite was its target, since the missile was not Block IA missile.[43][44]
designed for ASAT operations. The Japanese Defense Ministry is considering allocating
On February 21, 2008 at 3:26 am (UTC), the money in the scal 2015 state budget for research on
Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Lake Erie introducing the ground-based SM-3. Japanese ballistic
red a single SM-3 missile, hit and successfully destroyed missile defense strategy involves ship-based SM-3s to in-
the satellite, with a closing velocity of about 22,783 mph tercept missiles in space, while land-based Patriot PAC-
(36,667 km/h) while the satellite was 247 kilometers (133 3 missiles shoot down missiles SM-3s fail to intercept.
nautical miles) above the Pacic Ocean.[36][37] USS De- Due to concern that PAC-3s could not respond to mas-
catur, USS Russell as well as other land, air, sea and sive numbers of missiles red simultaneously, and that
space-based sensors were involved in the operation.[38][39] the Maritime Self-Defense Force needs Aegis destroyers
122.5. IN MEDIA 443
for other missions, basing SM-3s on land would be able to best basing option is in the North Sea, but making the
intercept more missiles earlier. With a coverage radius of SM-3 Block 2B ship compatible could add signicantly
500 km (310 mi), three missile posts could defend all of to its cost.[51] The troubles of the Block IIB program
Japan; launch pads can be disassembled, moved to other however do not aect the planned Block IB deployments
locations, and rebuilt in 510 days. Ground-basing of the in Romania.[23][52]
SM-3 is dubbed Aegis ashore.[45]
122.4.5 Turkey
122.4.3 Poland
The Turkish Navy is considering the SM-3s for its up-
On July 3, 2010, Poland and the United States signed coming TF-2000 frigate program. Instead of Aegis guid-
an amended agreement for missile defense under whose ance, Turkey plans on integrating a more advanced ver-
terms land-based SM-3 systems would be installed in sion of Havelsan's Genesis architecture and a phased ar-
Poland at Redzikowo. This conguration was accepted ray radar built by Aselsan.[53] Genesis is currently jointly
as a tested and available alternative to missile intercep- oered with Raytheon as a C4ISR upgrade for Oliver
tors that were proposed during the Bush administration Hazard Perry-class frigates around the world.[54]
but which are still under development. U.S. Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton, present at the signing in Krakw
along with Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, 122.5 In media
stressed that the missile defense program was aimed at
deterring threats from Iran, and posed no challenge to In 2012 Japanese anime movie, 009 RE:Cyborg,
Russia.[46] As of March 2013, Poland is scheduled to Zumwalt-class DDG named USS Sentinel, deployed
host about 24 SM3 IIA interceptors[22] in 2018.[47] This RIM-161 Standards missiles as part of its weapon
deployment is part of phase 3 of the European Phased load. In the lm, the Sentinel was hijacked by 00
Adaptive Approach (EPAA).[48] Cyborgs to use the ships anti-ballistic missile ca-
pacities to shoot down a ight of nuclear-armed
intercontinental ballistic missiles launched from a
122.4.4 Romania
rogue US SSBN. The lm showcases in detail the
SM-3s intercepting inbound missiles in a dramatic
Main article: NATO missile defence system
sequence.
In 2010/2011 the US government announced plans to sta-

tion mobile land-based SM-3s (Block IB) in Romania 122.6 Gallery
at Deveselu starting in 2015,[49][50] part of phase 2 of
EPAA.[48] There are some tentative plans to upgrade
SM-3 launch from USS Lake Erie, 2005
them to Block IIA interceptors around 2018 as well
(EPAA phase 3). In March 2013, a US defense ocial SM-3 launch from USS Shiloh, 2006
was quoted saying The Romanian cycle will start out in
2015 with the SM-3 IB; that system is in y testing now SM-3 climb from USS Decatur, 2007
and doing quite well. We are very condent it is on track
SM-3 climb from USS Lake Erie, 2008
and on budget, with very good test results. We are fully
condent the missile we are co-developing with Japan,
the SM-3 IIA, will have proved in y testing, once we get
to that phase. Assuming success in that y testing, then 122.7 See also
we will have ready the option of upgrading the Romanian
site to the SM-3 IIA, either all of the interceptor tubes Arrow 3, Israels home-grown alternative
or we'll have a mix. We have to make that decision. But
both options will be there.[23] THAAD, US Armys solution
The SM-3 Block IIB (currently in development for EPAA Indian Ballistic Missile Defence Programme, Indias
phase 4[48] ) was considered for deployment to Romania 2 Tier ABM system.
as well (around 2022[21] ), but a GAO report released
Feb. 11, 2013 found that SM-3 Block 2B interceptors
launched from Romania would have diculty engaging 122.8 References
Iranian ICBMs launched at the United States because of
unspecied ight path issues. Poland is a better option, [1] Range and ceiling gures based on absolute 700s ca-
but only if the interceptors can be launched early enough pability shown for Block IIA missile in Figure 4 at
to hit targets in their boost phase, an engagement sce- linked source"Breaking Defense.[3] Intercept capabil-
nario that presents a whole new set of challenges. The ity against an SS-19 Stiletto launched from Kaliningrad
444 CHAPTER 122. RIM-161 STANDARD MISSILE 3
against New York is shown as approximately 1200 km [15] David Wichner (2013-05-17). Raytheon missile passes
range and 900 km ceiling for a North Sea intercept. an important test ight. Arizona Daily Star. Retrieved
Range and ceiling against a hypothetical Iranian ICBM 2013-06-13.
launched against the same target is shown as approxi-
mately 1200 km and 1050 km respectively in Figure 3 of [16] Raytheons newest SM-3 intercepts medium-range ballis-
the same source for an intercept coming from Redzikowo, tic missile target at highest altitude to date. Navyrecogni-
Poland.designFlight ceiling Block IA/B ~500 km (311 tion.com. 4 October 2013.
miles) [17] Land-Based SM-3s for Israel - and Others?". 2009. Re-
Block IIA ~1500 km (933 miles)[3] Speed Block IA/B ~3 trieved 2009-11-10.
km/s
Block IIA ~4.5 km/sn exo-atmospherWhy Russia Keeps [18] Raytheon RIM-161 Standard SM-3. Designation-
Moving the Football on European Missile Defense. systems.net. Retrieved 2013-10-25.
Breaking Defense. October 17, 2013. Retrieved 2013-
10-19. [19] RIM-161 SM-3 (AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense)".
2008. Retrieved 2008-02-22.
[1] Ronald O'Rourke (2011-04-19). Navy Aegis Ballistic [20] Raytheon Standard Missile-3 Block IB Completes Major
Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues Development Milestone
for Congress (PDF). Federation of American Scientists.
Retrieved 2011-05-29 [21] Oswald, Rachel. U.S. Looking Very Hard at Fu-
ture of Missile Interceptor: Pentagon | Global Security
[2] United States Department Of Defense Fiscal Year 2015 Newswire. NTI. Retrieved 2013-06-13.
[22] Eshel, Tamir. Alaskas Ground Based Interceptors to
Pivot US Defenses Against North Korea - Defense Up-
date - Military Technology & Defense News. Defense
2014. p. 47.
Update. Retrieved 2013-06-13.
[3] [23] US defence ocial: The Deveselu base will be equipped
with SM-3 IB interceptors by 2015, later on to be up-
[4] Raytheon Completes SM-3 Test Flight Against Interme-
graded | ACTMedia. Actmedia.eu. 2013-03-25. Re-
diate Range Ballistic Missile, Raytheon Company, Re-
trieved 2013-06-13.
trieved 6 September 2011
[24] Nexon, Daniel (2013-03-17). Washington Cancels
[5] Pentagon news brieng of February 14, 2008 (video,
Fourth Stage of European Phased Adaptive Approach
transcript): although no name for the satellite is given, the
Duck of Minerva. Whiteoliphaunt.com. Retrieved
launch date of December 14, 2006 is stated
2013-06-13.
[6] RIM-161 SM-3 Upgrades. 2008. Retrieved 2009-11- [25] Herszenhorn, David M.; Gordon, Michael R. (16 March
10. 2013). U.S. Cancels Part of Missile Defense That Russia
Opposed. New York Times. Retrieved 2014-01-07.
[7] SM-3 BMD, in from the Sea: EPAA & Aegis Ashore.
Defenseindustrydaily.com. 2013-03-15. Retrieved 2013- [26] NY Times article, 9/18/09.
06-13.
[27] Russias Putin praises Obamas missile defense decision,
[8] MDA Still Sees 2018 Deployment In Restructured SM-3 LA Times, 9/19/09.
IIA Plan
[28] No missile defense in Eastern Europe, foreignpolicy.com,
[9] Raytheons SM-3 fact sheet 9/17/09.
[10] Review Cites Flaws in U.S. Antimissile Program, By [29] Obama sharply alters missile defense plans By William H.
WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER, New McMichael, Sep 19, 2009, navytimes.com.
York Times, May 17, 2010.
[30] Article on Sm-3 missile system, strategypage.com,
[11] Obamas 'Proven' SM-3 Missile Interceptor May Only 10/4/09.
Succeed 20 Percent of the Time, Say Physicists, By Clay [31] Navy Uses Raytheon SM-3 and Space Sensor to Destroy
Dillow, Popular Science, 05.18.2010. Missile Target.
[12] A Flawed and Dangerous U.S. Missile Defense Plan, [32] Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Intercepts Target Using
George N. Lewis and Theodore A. Postol. Space Tracking and Surveillance System-Demonstrators
Data.
[13] Lehner, Richard (May 18, 2010). Missile Defense
Agency Responds to New York Times Article. DoD Live. [33] U.S. Deploys First SM-3 Block IB Missile -
Archived from the original on July 18, 2011. Retrieved News.USNI.org, 23 April 2014
October 13, 2012
[34] Lolita C. Baldor, The Associated Press (2008-02-15).
[14] defensetech (2012-12-19). MDA lays out 2013 testing US to Try to Shoot Down Spy Satellite. Washington
plans. Defense Tech. Retrieved 2013-06-13. Post.
[35] DefenseLink News Transcript: DoD News Brieng 122.9 External links
with Deputy National Security Advisor Jerey, Gen.
Cartwright and NASA Administrator Grin. 2008. Re- Pros and Cons of Missile Shield in Romania 2010
trieved 2008-02-22.
U.S. Navy Fact File: Standard Missile
[36] Satellite Shoot Down: How It Will Work. Space.com.
February 19, 2008. Retrieved 2008-02-21. Designation-systems - RIM-161 Standard SM-3
[37] Navy Hits Satellite With Heat-Seeking Missile. GlobalSecurity.org - RIM-161 Standard SM-3
Space.com. February 21, 2008. Retrieved 2008-02-21.
Astronautix.com - Raytheon RIM-161 Standard
[38] DoD Succeeds In Intercepting Non-Functioning Satellite
(Release No. 0139-08)" (Press release). U.S. Department
SM-3
of Defense. February 20, 2008. Retrieved 2008-02-20. Obama Shifts Gears on Missile Defense, by Cole
[39] Navy Succeeds In Intercepting Non-Functioning Satel- Harvey, armscontrol.org, October 2009.
lite (Release NNS080220-19)" (Press release). U.S.
Navy. February 20, 2008. Retrieved 2008-02-20.
[40] AFP: Japan shoots down test missile in space: defence

minister. 2008. Retrieved 2008-02-22.
[41] MDA press release. 17 December 2007.
[42] JFTM-2 & 3 dates
[43] Japan Achieves Third Ballistic Missile Intercept.

Spacedaily.com. Retrieved 2013-06-13.
[44] Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Media Gallery.

Mda.mil. Retrieved 2013-09-17.
[45] Defense ministry mulls introducing ground-based SM-3

interceptor missiles - Mainichi.jp, 12 August 2014
[46] US, Poland Sign Revised Missile Defense Accord

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/2010/
space-100703-voa01.htm
[47] US drops key European missile defense component

RT News. Rt.com. 2013-03-16. Retrieved 2013-06-13.
[48] Ballistic Missile Defense | EUCOM, Stronger Together.

Eucom.mil. 2009-09-17. Retrieved 2013-06-13.
[49] Romania Agrees to Host Ballistic Missile Interceptor

http://www.america.gov/st/eur-english/2010/February/
20100204155405esnamfuak0.8593866.html
[50] Joint Press Availability With Romanian Foreign Minister

Teodor Baconschi. State.gov. 2011-09-13. Retrieved
2013-06-13.
[51] Editorial | Rethink the SM-3 Block 2B. Space-

News.com. 2013-02-25. Retrieved 2013-06-13.
[52] de Andrei Luca POPESCU (2013-05-06). EXCLUSIV.

Frank Rose, negociatorul scutului de la Deveselu:
Schimbrile din programul american de aprare antira-
chet au fost determinate de ameninarea Coreei de Nord
" - Gandul. Gandul.info. Retrieved 2013-06-13.
[53] Lockheed Martin remains sole bidder for new frigates.

TR Defence. 2012-05-21. Retrieved 2013-06-13.
[54] Raytheon and HAVELSAN Partner for FFG 7

Fleet Modernization With GENESIS Program.
Raytheon.mediaroom.com. 2009-04-28. Retrieved
2013-06-13.
Chapter 123
RIM-174 Standard ERAM
See also: Standard Missile (disambiguation) ries missiles, primarily being able to intercept very high
altitude or sea-skimming anti-ship missiles; the missile
The RIM-174 Standard Extended Range Active Mis- is also slated to perform terminal phase ballistic missile
defense. It can discriminate targets using its dual-mode
sile (ERAM), or Standard Missile 6 (SM-6) is a mis-
sile in current production for the United States Navy. It seeker, with the semi-active seeker relying on a ship-
based illuminator to highlight the target, and the active
was designed for extended range anti-air warfare (ER-
AAW) purposes providing capability against xed and seeker having the missile itself send out an electromag-
netic signal; the active seeker has the ability to detect
rotary-wing aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, and anti-
ship cruise missiles in ight, both over sea and land. The a land-based cruise missile amid ground features, even
from behind a mountain. The multi-mission SM-6 is en-
missile uses the airframe of the earlier SM-2ER Block IV
(RIM-156A) missile,[7] adding the active radar homing gineered with the aerodynamics of an SM-2, the propul-
seeker from the AIM-120C AMRAAM in place of the sion booster stack of the SM-3, and the front end cong-
semi-active seeker of the previous design. This will im- uration of the AMRAAM.[11]
prove the capability of the Standard missile against highly
agile targets, and targets beyond the eective range of the
launching vessels target illumination radars. Initial oper- 123.2 History
ating capability was planned for 2013 and has been suc-
cessfully achieved on November 27, 2013.[8] The SM-6 Raytheon entered a contract in 2004 to develop this mis-
is not meant to replace the SM-2 series of missiles, along- sile for the United States Navy, after the cancellation
side which it will serve, but does give extended range and of the Standard missile two extended range block IVA
increased repower.[9] The SM-6 is to have a range out to (RIM-156B). Development started in 2005, followed by
230 miles (370 km), according to Janes Naval Weapon testing in 2007. The missile was ocially designated
Systems.[10] RIM-174A in February 2008. Initial low rate produc-
tion was authorized in 2009.[12]
Raytheon received a $93 million contract to begin pro-
123.1 Description duction of the RIM-174A in September 2009.[13] The
rst low-rate production missile was delivered in March
[14]
The Standard ERAM is a two-stage missile with a booster 2011. SM-6 was approved for full-rate production in
stage and a second stage. It is similar in appearance to the May 2013 and the rst full-production missile will be de-
RIM-156A Standard missile. The radar seeker is an en- livered in April 2015.[15]
larged version adapted from the AIM-120C AMRAAM As of 2013 the program is scheduled to build 1200 mis-
seeker (13.5 inches versus 7 inches). siles at a total cost of $6,167.8m, at a yaway cost of
$4.3m.[5]
The missile may be employed in a number of modes: in-
ertial guided to target with terminal acquisition using ac- On October 3, 2013 Raytheon was awarded a contract
tive radar seeker, semi-active radar homing all the way, for 89 Standard Missile-6 Block I all up rounds, spares,
or an over the horizon shot with Cooperative Engagement containers and services by the U.S. Navy.[16]
Capability. The missile is also capable of terminal ballis- On November 27, 2013 Standard ERAM achieved IOC
tic missile defense as a supplement to the Standard missile (Initial Operating Capability) when it was elded on
three (RIM-161). board USS Kidd (DDG-100).[8]
Unlike other missiles of the Standard family, the Standard During exercises from 18-20 June 2014, USS John Paul
ERAM can be periodically tested and certied without Jones (DDG-53) red four SM-6 missiles. One part of
removal from the VLS cell. the exercise, designated NIFC-CA AS-02A, resulted in
The SM-6 oers extended range over previous SM-2 se- the longest surface-to-air engagement in naval history.[17]
446
The exact range of the intercept was not publically [11] Navy Missile Hits Subsonic Target Over Land - De-
released.[18] fensetech.org, 20 August 2014
On 14 August 2014, an SM-6 was test red against a sub- [12] Raytheon RIM-174 ERAM (SM-6), designation-
sonic, low-altitude cruise missile target and successfully systems.net, November 24, 2009.
intercepted it over land. A key element of the test was to
assess its ability to discern a slow-moving target among [13] U.S. Navy Awards Raytheon $93 Million Contract for
Standard Missile-6 Raytheon Media Center: Press Re-
ground clutter.[11]
lease, September 9, 2009. Accessed November 8, 2009.
On 24 October 2014, Raytheon announced that two SM-
[14] Raytheon Delivers First Standard Missile-6 to U.S. Navy
6 missiles intercepted anti-ship and cruise missile targets
Raytheon Media Center: Press Release, April 25, 2011.
during engage on remote scenarios. A low-altitude, Accessed April 27, 2011.
short-range supersonic GQM-163A and a low-altitude,
medium-range subsonic BQM-74E were shot down by [15] Defense Acquisition Board approves Standard Missile-6
SM-6s red from a guided-missile cruiser using targeting full-rate production. Raytheon Company. 22 May 2013.
information provided by a guided-missile destroyer. Ad-
[16] http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Raytheon_awarded_
vanced warning and cueing from other ships allows the Standard_Missile_6_contract_999.html
missiles over-the-horizon capability to be more greatly
utilized so a single ship is able defend a larger area.[19] [17] US Navy destroyer conducts longest ever surface-air en-
gagement with new SM-6 missiles - Defense-Update.com,
28 June 2014
123.3 See also [18] SM-6 Goes Long - Strategypage.com, 10 July 2014
[19] Raytheon SM-6s Intercept Targets in Engage on Remote

RIM-66 Standard Medium Range
Tests - Navyrecognition.com, 24 October 2014
RIM-67 Standard Extended Range
RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 123.5 External links

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/
123.4 References munitions/sm-6.htm
[1] Australian Defence White Paper 2009 http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-174.

html
[2]
[3] S. Korea to deploy new surface-to-air missiles for Aegis

destroyers - Yonhapnews.co.kr, 12 June 2013
[4] United States Department Of Defense Fiscal Year 2015

2014. p. 64.

ments of Selected Weapon Programs. US Government
Accountability Oce. March 2013. pp. 1234. Re-
[6] http://www.janes.com/article/40550/
us-navy-s-sm-6-and-over-the-horizon-fire-control-score-intercepts-at-sea
[7] Raytheon Missile Systems Standard Missile 6, Accessed

February 10, 2011.
[8] http://www.navsea.navy.mil/NewsView.aspx?nw=
NewsWires&id=337
[9] Non-Standard: Navy SM-6 Kills Cruise Missiles Deep In-

land - Breakingdefense.com, 19 August 2014
[10] http://www.janes.com/article/40550/
us-navy-s-sm-6-and-over-the-horizon-fire-control-score-intercepts-at-sea
Chapter 124
BGM-75 AICBM
The ZBGM-75 Advanced Intercontinental Ballistic Sta recommended to Secretary of Defense Robert Mc-
Missile, also known as Weapons System 120A (WS- Namara that the ZBGM-75 be funded starting in Fiscal
120A), was a program to develop an intercontinental bal- Year (FY) 1969, with a projected entry into service by
listic missile (ICBM), proposed by the United States Air 1973. This recommendation came after the Air Force
Force in the 1960s as a replacement for the LGM-30 had completed the preliminary studies on the missiles
Minuteman as the Air Forces standard ICBM. Funding and the new, hardened silos. McNamara instead kept
was not allocated for the program and the project was can- the missile in advanced development, which stopped all
celled in 1967. work on the project. Only development of the new super-
hardened silos was approved for funding; these would be
used by the Minuteman missiles.[5] As a result the mis-
124.1 Background siles development was cancelled.[2] McNamaras ratio-
nale for cancelling the program was the destabilizing in-
uence of the new missile, which could have rendered
The Department of Defense began the STRAT-X study existing Soviet anti-ballistic missile defenses ineective.
on 1 November 1966 to evaluate a new ballistic mis- McNamara saw relative parity between the two powers
sile proposal from the Air Force,[1] which was des- the strategic basis for mutually assured destructionas
ignated the Advanced Intercontinental Ballistic Missile the best method to keep the Soviet Union in a position
(AICBM). The project was intended to provide a suc- where it must negotiate with the United States.[8]
cessor to the LGM-30 Minuteman ICBM then in United
States Air Force service.[2] The program was ocially After the cancellation of WS-120A, the Air Force made
launched in April of 1966, and in June the project re- no further development of new ICBMs until 1972. In that
ceived the designation ZBGM-75,[2] the Z prex indi- year the M-X project was begun, which resulted in the de-
cating a project in the planning stage.[3] velopment of the LGM-118 Peacekeeper.[2] The Peace-
keeper entered service in the mid-1980s and served until
The specications for the ZBGM-75 called for a large 2005;[9] the Minuteman III is still in service, and has out-
[4]
solid-fuel-powered missile, which would be tted with lasted both of its planned replacements.[10]
between 10 and 20 multiple independently targetable
reentry vehicles (MIRVs).[5] The missiles would be based
in silo launchers, which were specied to be hardened by
a factor of 10 over the existing silos used by Minuteman 124.3 References
missiles.[6] In addition, there was also a plan to develop
a railroad-based deployment system for the AICBM.[2] Notes
Improvements in accuracy over existing missiles, com-
bined with penetration aids under development to en- [1] Friedman 1994, p.202.
hance the eectiveness of each missile, were expected
to make the AICBM capable of defeating existing and [2] Parsch 2003
projected Soviet anti-ballistic missile systems.[5] [3] Parsch 2009
[4] Tammen 1973, p.88.
124.2 Cancellation [5] Auten 2008, pp.4243.
[6] Hartunian 2003

Ultimately, the Navy won the STRAT-X competition
with the design that would become the Ohio-class ballistic [7] Friedman 1994, p.204.
missile submarines. Nevertheless, the nal report, is-
[8] Auten 2008, p.43.
sued in August 1967, recommended that the ZBGM-75
also be developed.[7] Accordingly, the Joint Chiefs of [9] Edwards 2005
448
[10] AICBM. Encyclopedia Astronautica. Archived from

the original on 7 January 2010. Retrieved 2009-12-07.
Bibliography
Auten, Brian J. (2008). Carters Conversion: the

hardening of American defense policy. Columbia,
MO: University of Missouri Press. ISBN 978-0-
8262-1816-2. Retrieved 2010-12-07.
Edwards, Joshua S. (2005-09-20). Peacekeeper
missile mission ends during ceremony. United
States Air Force. Retrieved 2010-12-07.
Friedman, Norman (1994). US Submarines Since

MD: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1557502609.
Hartunian, Richard (2003). Ballistic Missiles and
Reentry Systems: The Critical Years. Crosslink. El
Segundo, CA: The Aerospace Company. Archived
from the original on 2012-03-05. Retrieved 2010-
12-07.
Parsch, Andreas (2003). BGM-75 AICBM.

Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles.
on 15 December 2010. Retrieved 2010-12-07.
Parsch, Andreas (2009). Current Designations
of U.S. Unmanned Military Aerospace Vehicles.
Tammen, Ronald L. (1973). MIRV and the Arms

Race: An Interpretration of Defense Strategy. West-
port, CT: Praeger. ASIN B000JNG51G.
Chapter 125
Davy Crockett (nuclear device)
Davy Crockett was a recoilless gun on a tripod for ring the M- US ocials view a W54 nuclear warhead, as used on the Davy
388 atomic round Crockett. The unusually small size of the warhead is apparent.
The M-28 or M-29 Davy Crockett Weapon System(s)

was a tactical nuclear recoilless gun (smoothbore) for r- The M-388 round used a version of the W54 warhead,
ing the M-388 nuclear projectile that was deployed by the a very small sub-kiloton ssion device. The Mk-54
United States during the Cold War. Named after Amer- weighed about 51 lb (23 kg), with a yield equivalent to
ican soldier, congressman, and folk hero Davy Crockett, somewhere between 10 or 20 tons of TNT very close
it was one of the smallest nuclear weapon systems ever to the minimum practical size and yield for a ssion war-
built. head. The only selectable feature with either versions of
the Davy Crockett (M28 & M29) was the height-of-burst
dial on the warhead. Post-Davy Crockett versions of the
125.1 Development W54 nuclear device apparently had a selectable yield fea-
ture (see below for Hi/Lo Switch and Launching Piston
The Davy Crockett recoilless spigot gun was developed references.) The complete round weighed 76 lb (34.5
in the late 1950s for use against Soviet armor and troops kg). It was 31 in. (78.7 cm) long with a diameter of 11
if war broke out in Europe. Davy Crockett Sections were in. (28 cm) at its widest point; a subcaliber piston at the
assigned to USAREUR (United States Army Europe) ar- back of the shell was inserted into the launchers barrel
mor and mechanized and non-mechanized infantry batfor ring.[1] The piston was considered a spigot prior to
talions. During alerts to the Inner German border in the the discharge of the propellant cartridge in the recoilless
Fulda Gap the Davy Crocketts accompanied their bat- gun chamber of the Davy Crockett. The M-388 atomic
talions. All V Corps (including 3rd Armored Division) projectile was mounted on the barrel-inserted spigot via
combat maneuver battalions had preassigned positions in bayonet slots. Once the propellant was discharged the
the Fulda Gap. These were known as GDP (General De- spigot became the launching piston for the M-388 atomic
fense Plan) positions. The Davy Crockett sections were projectile. The nuclear yield is hinted at in FM 9-11: Op-
included in these defensive deployment plans. In addi- eration and Employment of the Davy Crockett Battleeld
tion to the Davy Crocketts (e.g., assigned to the 3rd Ar- Missile, XM-28/29 (June 1963).
mored Division), V Corps had nuclear artillery rounds The M-388 could be launched from either of two launch-
and Atomic Demolition Mines, and these were also tar- ers known as the Davy Crockett Weapon System(s): the
geted on the Fulda Gap. 4-inch (120 mm) M28, with a range of about 1.25 mi
450
125.2. PROPOSED GERMAN MILITARY USE 451
(2 km), or the 6.1-in (155 mm) M29, with a range of total of 2,100 being made. The weapon was tested be-
2.5 mi (4 km). Both weapons used the same projectile, tween 1962 and 1968 at the Pohakuloa Training Area
and were either mounted on a tripod launcher transported on Hawaii island, with 714 M101 spotter rounds (not
by an armored personnel carrier, or they were carried by live warheads) that contained depleted uranium.[4][5] The
a Jeep (M-38 & later M-151). The Jeep was equipped weapon was deployed with US Army forces from 1961 to
with an attached launcher for the M28 or the M29, as re- 1971. It was deactivated from US Army Europe (in West
quired, whereas the Davy Crockett carried by an armored Germany) in August, 1967.[6]
personnel carrier was set up in the eld on a tripod away Versions of the W54 warhead were also used in the
from the carrier. The Davy Crocketts were operated by a
Special Atomic Demolition Munition project and the
three-man crew.[2] In the 3rd Armored Division in Ger- AIM-26A Falcon.
many in the 1960s many Davy Crockett Sections (all of
which were in the Heavy Mortar Platoons, in Headquar-
Mk-54 (Davy Crockett) 10 or 20 ton yield,
ters Companies of Infantry or Armor Maneuver Battal-
Davy Crockett Gun warhead
ions) received what became a mix of M28 & M29 launch-
ers [e.g., one of each per D/C section]. Eventually, the Mk-54 (SADM) variable yield 10 ton to 1
M28s were replaced by M29s, so that both the armored kiloton, Special Atomic Demolition Munition
personnel carriers and the Jeeps carried the M29. device
W-54 250 ton yield, warhead for AIM-26
Falcon air-to-air missile
The 55th and 56th Infantry Platoons, attached to the Di-

vision Artillery of the US 82nd Airborne Division, were
the last units equipped with the M-29 Davy Crockett
weapons system. These two units were parachute de-
ployed and, with a 1/2 ton truck per section, (3 per pla-
toon) were fully air droppable. The units were deacti-
vated in mid-1968.
125.2 Proposed German military

use
One of the most fervent supporters of the Davy Crock-
ett was West Germanys defense minister Franz Josef
Strauss, in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Strauss pro-
moted the idea of equipping German brigades with the
weapon to be supplied by the US, arguing that this would
allow German troops to become a much more eective
factor in NATOs defense of Germany against a potential
Soviet invasion. He argued that a single Davy Crocket
could replace 4050 salvos of a whole divisional artillery
park allowing the funds and troops normally needed
A Davy Crockett casing preserved in the United States Army Ord-
for this artillery to be invested into further troops, or not
nance Museum
having to be spent at all. US NATO commanders strongly
opposed Strausss ideas, as they would have made the use
Both recoilless guns proved to have poor accuracy in test- of tactical nuclear weapons almost mandatory in case of
ing, so the shells greatest eect would have been its ex- war, further reducing the ability of NATO to defend itself
treme radiation hazard. The M-388 would produce an al- without resorting to atomic weapons.[7]
most instantly lethal radiation dosage (in excess of 10,000
rem) within 500 feet (150 m), and a probably fatal dose
(around 600 rem) within a quarter mile (400 m).[3]
125.3 Museum examples
The warhead was tested on July 7, 1962 in the Little Feller
II weapons eects test shot, and again in an actual ring The following museums have a Davy Crockett casing in
of the Davy Crockett from a distance of 1.7 miles (2.72 their collection:
km) in the Little Feller I test shot on July 17. This was the
last atmospheric test detonation at the Nevada Test Site. Air Force Space & Missile Museum, Cape
Production of the Davy Crockett began in 1956, with a Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida
452 CHAPTER 125. DAVY CROCKETT (NUCLEAR DEVICE)
National Atomic Museum, Albuquerque, New Mex- 125.6 External links

ico
Facts about the Davy Crockett missile
National Infantry Museum, Fort Benning, Georgia
Loaded and unloaded M29 Davy Crockett
United States Army Ordnance Museum, Aberdeen
Proving Ground, Maryland Hi and Lo Height of Burst Switch
Watervliet Arsenal Museum, Watervliet, New York D/C Launching Piston
Characteristics of all US nuclear weapons designs

West Point Museum, West Point, New York
DCs in 3rd Armored Division
Atomic Testing Museum, Las Vegas, Nevada
DCs on the highway
Don F. Pratt Museum, Fort Campbell, Clarksville,
Tennessee President Kennedy questions Davy Crockett crew-
men
DC Souvenirs
125.4 See also See John Marshalls Davy Crockett write up in the
3rd Bn, 36th Infantry section
Nuclear weapon
Davy Crocketts in Southern Avenue of Fulda Gap
Nuclear artillery
Davy Crocketts during Oct 62 Cuban Crisis (South-
Nuclear weapon design ern Avenue of Fulda Gap)-- see especially bottom
of jchorazys Page 12
Nuclear strategy
Video showing testing of device on youtube.com
Nuclear land mine
Operation Ivy Flats testing of the Davy Crockett,
1962 (17:46)
125.5 References Wee Gwen - a UK weapon similar to Davy Crockett
[1] Characteristics of all US nuclear weapons designs, USA

weapons, Nuclear weapon archive, retrieved October 20,
2006.
[2] Davy Crockett, Gun truck, retrieved October 20, 2006.
[3] Section 5.6, Mechanisms of Damage and Injury,

Nuclear Weapons (FAQ), Nuclear weapon archive, re-
trieved October 20, 2006.
[4] Miller, Erin (September 1, 2010). Military says DU at

PTA likely harmless: Army reports 'no likely adverse im-
pacts from spotting rounds. West Hawaii Today. Re-
trieved September 2, 2010.
[5] Pohakuloa Training Area Firing Range Baseline Human

Health Risk Assessment for Residual Depleted Uranium
(PDF). Cabrera Services Radiological Engineering and Re-
mediation. Hawaii, US: Army. June 2010. Retrieved
September 2, 2010.
[6] History of the Custody and Deployment of Nuclear

Weapons(U): July 1945 through September 1977; Pre-
pared by Oce of the Assistant to the Secretary of De-
fense (Atomic Energy) February 1978, Page B-7.
[7] Bedingt abwehrbereit. Der Spiegel (in German) (41)

(DE). 1962.
Chapter 126
LGM-118 Peacekeeper
The LGM-118A Peacekeeper, also known as the MX

missile (for Missile-eXperimental), was a land-based
ICBM deployed by the United States starting in 1986.
The Peacekeeper was a MIRV missile that could carry up
to 10 re-entry vehicles, each armed with a 300-kiloton
W87 warhead in a Mk.21 reentry vehicle (RV). A to-
tal of 50 missiles were deployed starting in 1986, after
a long and contentious development program that traced
its roots into the 1960s.
Under the START II treaty, which never entered into
force, the missiles were to be removed from the US nu-
clear arsenal in 2005, leaving the LGM-30 Minuteman
as the only type of land-based ICBM in the arsenal. De-
spite the demise of the START II treaty, the last of the
LGM-118A Peacekeeper ICBMs was decommissioned A number of Mk21 re-entry vehicles (dunce-caps) on a Peace-
on September 19, 2005. Current plans are to move some keeper MIRV bus. Each Mk21 carries a 300 kT W87 war-
head, approx. twenty times the power of the bomb dropped on
of the W87 warheads from the decommissioned Peace-
Hiroshima during World War II).[3]
keepers to the Minuteman III.
The private launch rm Orbital Sciences Corporation
has developed the Minotaur IV, a four-stage civilian Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, was given the
expendable launch system using old Peacekeeper compo- seemingly impossible task of making the US military the
nents. most powerful in the world while at the same time reduc-
ing its expenditures. He ultimately solved this problem
by greatly reducing reliance on the bomber and passing
the role to the Minuteman. Over time, improvements to
126.1 Development and deploy- the Soviet missiles, real or imagined, led to US ocials
ment proposing a worrying scenario; a Soviet rst strike with a
limited number of warheads could cripple the US ICBM
eet. At the time a limited attack was all the Soviet could
126.1.1 Minuteman mount; their missiles had limited accuracy so only the
small number of their missiles carrying very large war-
Deployment of the Minuteman ICBM began in 1962, heads (multi-megaton range) could be used against the
during the Cold War, and proceeded rapidly. Limited ac- US missile silos. They had just enough of these to make
curacy with a circular error probable (CEP) of about 0.6 a damaging, but not critical, attack on the US eet. By
to 0.8 nautical miles[4] and a small warhead of less than 1 April 1964 the US had more ICBMs on active alert than
megaton meant the system was unable to attack hardened strategic bombers, which exacerbated this concern.[6]
targets like missile silos. This limited these early mod- The US ICBM eet was primarily targeted against cities.
els to attacks on strategic targets like cities and ports, and In the event of a Soviet missile launch, the US faced the
the system had little or no capability as a counterforce dicult decision of whether to re their own missiles im-
weapon. The Air Force relied on its manned bombers as mediately or wait to determine the targets of the Soviet
the primary weapon for attacking hardened targets, and missiles. Firing early might mean striking civilian targets
saw the ICBM as a survivable deterrent that would guard (countervalue) when the Soviets had only targeted mili-
against attacking its bomber eet.[5] tary installations, something US politicians considered to
As the Kennedy administration took power, the new be a serious problem (part of the exible response doc-
453
454 CHAPTER 126. LGM-118 PEACEKEEPER
trine). Conversely, waiting to re might mean the loss of side of the mountains before they could hit the silos them-
the entire ICBM eet. But this was not true of the US selves. Properly positioned, this would keep the explo-
Navy's Polaris eet, which was essentially invulnerable. sions at least 5,000 feet away from the silos; it was be-
This scenario was of deep concern to the Air Force. If the lieved that silos able to withstand multi-megaton explo-
role of the nuclear missile was to ride out a rst strike and sions at one mile could be built, although this was an
ensure a counterstrike, then the Navy might be handed the area of some uncertainty. This system had the advantage
mission outright. Looking for a new role, the Air Force that the basing would be immune to changes in accuracy
began to turn their attention away from the deterrent role or speed of the attack, only enormous increases in yield
could overcome this physical barrier.[12]
towards counterforce. Continued work on the Minute-
man led to the Minuteman II specication, set in 1962. They proposed 100 missiles in three bases of thirty mis-
The new version included two key improvements. One siles each. They expected that at least one base would be
was the new NS-17 inertial navigation system improved able to survive even an all-out attack.[12] However, if such
the CEP to 0.34 nautical miles,[7] enough to allow it to a force of approximately 30 missiles was going to be a rea-
attack hardened targets. Just as important, the guidance sonable deterrent, each missile would need to carry 20 or
system allowed for the inclusion of eight pre-selected tar- more warheads. To launch them, the study introduced the
gets. This allowed the force to ride out a Soviet rst strike, ICBM-X, a massive new 156 inches (400 cm) diame-
select the appropriate enemy targets, military or civilian, ter design, well over twice the diameter of the existing
and launch.[5] Against a limited attack this oered the US LGM-30 Minuteman, and larger even than the Titan II
a major strategic advantage. heavy design at 120 inches (300 cm).[13]
Of course, the Soviets could also improve their own sys- Any of the Golden Arrow concepts would be extremely
tems CEP and turn all of their missiles into counterforceexpensive, and in the era of Robert McNamara's US De-
weapons as well. With the ICBM force now critical to the partment of Defense, cost was as important as any other
strategic mission, the Air Force became increasingly in- consideration. As Alain Enthoven put it, Our gross na-
terested in new ways to keep the missiles safe from such tional product, though large, is limited. If we attempted
an attack.[8] to develop and procure a dozen or more distinct dierent
nuclear delivery systems we doubtless would end up
squandering our resources and not doing a good job on
126.1.2 Golden Arrow any of them.[14] Golden Arrow, along with many simi-
lar proposals from other rms, proceeded no further, in
The Air Force had depended on the engineering rm favor of the Minuteman II.
TRW during the early days of the development of their
ICBM force. In 1960 a number of TRW and other
engineers involved in the ICBM program formed The 126.1.3 WS-120A
Aerospace Corporation, initially working on the Mercury
spacecraft, X-20 Dynasoar and various ICBM projects. Another project spun out from the ICBM-X was a smaller
In 1964, the Air Force contracted them to consider a wide version limited to 10 to 20 warheads, known initially as
variety of survivable ICBM solutions, under the name
WS-120A and later as BGM-75 AICBM. The missile
Golden Arrow.[8] was small enough to t in existing large silos, like those
The project considered road, rail, submarine and air- for the Titan II, but was otherwise similar in concept to
launched weapons.[9] One of these suggested an air- the ICBM-X, with a circular error probable (CEP) of
launched ballistic missile. The proposal called for an about 0.1 miles, and especially the ability to be quickly
enormous (for the day) turboprop-powered aircraft with re-programmed to attack any targets needed. In compar-
two-day endurance carrying up to eight missiles that ison, the Minuteman II had a selection of eight targets,
would be dropped out the back, parachuted to the any one of which could be quickly selected for attack, but
vertical, and then launched.[10] As part of the same otherwise selecting a target outside this pre-computed list
study, Aerospace also considered a missile and wheeled was not something that could be done on the y. WS-
launcher combination that was small enough that they 120As preferred basing mode was a super hardened shel-
could be carried in existing C-141 Starlifter aircraft, Dur- ter, but dispersed mobile options were also considered.[15]
ing periods of heightened tensions, they would be own However, like Golden Arrow before it, WS-120As ad-
to practically any airport and set up. The Soviets would vantages found themselves being diluted by the new Min-
have to target thousands of airports, runways and even dirt uteman III. The Minuteman III used the new NS-20
strips and long stretches of highway in order to attack the inertial navigation system (INS) with a CEP of 0.12 nauti-
eet.[11] cal miles, and three warheads with an expanded collection
Finally, they also considered conventional missiles in su- of radar countermeasures. Although the system did not
per hard silos, buried under the southern side of moun- include the ability to be rapidly retargetted, this capability
tains. As the enemy warheads would approach at a fairly was under development and started deployment in 1972,
shallow angle from the north, they would strike the north before the planned 1975 introduction date of WS-120A.
When it was fully deployed in 1978, the entire ICBM eet bilities needed to ensure even a small number of survivors
could be entirely reprogrammed in 10 hours.[16] would be able to attack the remaining Soviet missile eet.
The Minuteman III simply did not have this combination
of features.
126.1.4 INS advances
Whether or not this problem actually existed is open
to debate. The Minuteman had a relatively fast launch
Since the late 1950s, engineers at the Charles Stark
time, and early warning satellites meant that commanders
Draper Laboratory had been working on a new type of
would have almost instant warning of a Soviet launch,
inertial platform that replaced the mechanical gimbals
with ample time to plan a response. However, it would
with a sphere oating in a thin layer of uorocarbon uid.
not be until much later in the sequence of events that
The so-called imbal (apparently for FLoated Mea-
land-based radars would be able to track the incoming in-
surement BAL)[17] would oer unprecedented accuracy
dividual warheads and determine the targets. In the case
and would be free from "gimbal lock", a problem that
of a limited counterforce attack, it would be desirable to
caused conventional platforms to tumble and lose their
wait until the individual targeted silos were determined,
accuracy. Like the ICBM-X, there was little development
determine which Soviet missiles had not been launched,
as there appeared to be no need for a platform with the
and then launch only the targeted missiles against their
sort of accuracy the imbal provided, and the expense of
unlaunched Soviet counterparts. This would require ex-
developing the system would be extremely high.[18]
tremely tight timing.
In spite of a lack of ocial interest, during the late 1960s
The development of practical SLBM systems upset the
Kenneth Fertig managed to arrange some funding through
nuclear equation dramatically. These weapons were es-
the Air Force for the SABRE INS project, short for
sentially invulnerable when at sea, and oered a credible
Self-Aligning Boost and RE-entry. The name referred
countervalue force (against civilian targets) although early
to the concept that the system would be so accurate and
models like the UGM-27 Polaris and UGM-73 Poseidon
free from the eects of mechanical shocks and jarring
did not have the accuracy to attack Soviet silos and thus
that it would not require any other form of xing in
oered little counterforce capability. In some ways this
ight. This was in contrast to the stellar-inertial systems
helped the Air Force, as it meant they could concentrate
under development by the Navy and others. It would re-
on the counterforce scenarios, knowing that a counter-
tain its accuracy even through the rough conditions dur-
value attack would always be available from the Navy.
ing re-entry, allowing the creation of maneuvering reen-
However, improvements in SLBM accuracy might allow
try vehicles.[19]
them to handle counterforce as well, and render the entire
land-based ICBM eet superuous. The Air Force was
126.1.5 Counterforce Considerations not interested in handing the strategic role to the Navy.
A survivable ICBM would address this issue.
During the late 1970s, the Soviet Union elded a large
number of increasingly accurate MIRVed heavy Heavy
ICBMs like the SS-18. These missiles carried as many as 126.1.6 MX
10 warheads along with up to 40 penetration aids, mean-
ing that a small number of launches could present a threat The outcome of this thinking was obvious from the start;
to the Air Forces ICBM eet while retaining a large force in 1971 the Air Force started a requirements development
in reserve. If the Soviet Union launched a sneak attack process combining the ICBM-X and SABRE concepts
and the US did not respond immediately, the majority of into a single platform, Missile, Experimental, or MX.
their missiles and strategic bombers might be caught on The new missile would be so accurate and carry so many
the ground (Soviet rst strike). A credible deterrent force warheads that even a few survivors would be able to de-
would remain, but such a force might not have enough stroy enormous numbers of any remaining Soviet force.
warheads left to attack both the remaining Soviet eet and The specications for MX were xed in February 1972,
cities and other military targets. and the advanced development program started in late
[20]
In such a situation, the US would be left with two uncom- 1973. At the time, MX was to be based in existing
fortable options. If they chose to respond in kind and Minuteman silos, in keeping with the original ICBM-X
attack the remaining Soviet missile eet, there would be concept of MX as essentially a bigger Minuteman.
little to respond with if the Soviets immediately launched For MX, the Draper Laboratory developed SABRE into
against US cities. The other option would require the US the "Advanced Inertial Reference Sphere" (AIRS). AIRS
to be the rst country to launch an attack on civilian tar- would have a drift rate of only 1.5 x 105 degrees per
gets, an attack that was both morally reprehensible as well hour, allowing it to be periodically referenced to an ex-
as against stated policy. This worrying scenario led to the ternal point, like the silo wall, and then left for extended
eort to develop a new ICBM with the accuracy needed periods of time. Over the period of the ight the drift
to be an excellent counterforce weapon, the survivability would be so low that any inaccuracies in the platform
needed to absorb a Soviet rst strike, and the MIRV capa- would account for a maximum of 1% of the warheads -
nal accuracy - the rest would be due to issues like the tim- uteman III silos similarly adapted over time to bring the
ing of the ring of the rocket engines, minor dierences force to a total of 100 missiles. Additionally, he suggested
in warhead construction, and unavoidable randomness in funding development of three additional concepts, air-
the atmosphere.[21] The Air Force also contracted with borne drops from cargo aircraft, an active defence us-
Autonetics for a backup design using mechanical gimbals, ing short-range anti-ballistic missile, or basing new silos
the Advanced Stable Platform (ASP). In May 1975 the deep underground or on the south side of mesas (reverse-
rst hand-built AIRS was transferred from Drapers lab- inclination basing).[26] The later two quickly proved un-
oratory to Northrop for further development.[22] acceptable for various reasons, while testing of the air-
drop concept was pursued.
On 22 November 1982 the administration announced that
126.1.7 Basing options the missile was to be known as Peacekeeper, and intro-
duced an entirely new basing concept, the "dense pack".
The dense pack idea involved building super-hardened si-
los that would withstand more than 10,000 psi (70 MPa)
of overpressure, compared to 2,000 of the existing si-
los, or 5,000 psi for the upgraded versions originally pro-
posed. This extra hardness can be easily oset by mi-
nor increases in warhead accuracy. The key to dense
pack concept was to space the silos so close together,
about 1,800 feet (550 m), that warheads attacking one
silo would destroy others incoming to attack another silo
in the same pack. This "fratricide theory was highly crit-
icized due to the expected relative ease with which the
Soviets could modify their warheads and circumvent this
design. All that was required was that several warheads
arrive and be detonated within a few milliseconds of each
Time exposure shot of testing of the Peacekeeper re-entry vehicles other, so the blast waves did not reach each other before
at the Kwajalein Atoll, all eight red from one missile. completing destruction of the silo. Such timing could
be easily achieved with commercially available clocks.
[27]
In 1976, Congress refused to fund MX using a silo-based Congress again rejected the system.
system on grounds of vulnerability, and the project was
halted. Several new proposals were made for alternate
basing arrangements, including mobile basing in railway 126.1.8 SLBMs come of age
cars that would be sent out into the nations rail net-
work during times of heightened threat levels, and more By this time both the US and USSR were beginning to
complex systems of deeply buried silos under mesas that eld third-generation SLBMs with greatly improved ac-
would include systems to quickly dig themselves out after curacy. These now arguably had all of the capability of
an attack. the land-based ICBMs, and were equally able to carry out
the counterforce mission. Additionally, the submarines
Eventually, the program was reinstated in 1979 by
President Carter, who authorized deployment of 200 mis- could manoeuvre much closer to their targets, greatly re-
ducing the warning time, potentially to the point that the
siles throughout eastern Nevada and western Utah. The
deployment would occur in a system of multiple protec- command structure would not have time to launch their
ICBMs and bombers before the warheads were reaching
tive shelters linked by underground or aboveground roads,
the so-called Racetrack proposal. However, local op- them. This scenario was a major concern during the early
position in Nevada was intense, and the concept gained 1980s, to the point where it was the topic of lengthy tele-
a powerful enemy in the form of Senator Paul Laxalt.[23] vision programs.
Initially support was high in Utah, especially in the Beaver
This development caused some to suggest that the solu-
County area; although opposition increased dramatically tion was to simply shift the entire deterrent force to the
following a statement of disapproval by the leaders of TheSLBM on both sides. In the US, however, a combination
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[24][25] of factors led to the continued retention of the nuclear
When Ronald Reagan took oce, Laxalts close ties with triad.
Reagan proved useful. Reagan canceled the new shel- A compromise was eventually developed in mid-1983.
ter system in 1981, calling it a Rube Goldberg scheme. Under this scheme, 100 missiles would be deployed in ex-
He proposed deploying an initial force of missiles in the isting Minuteman silos to show national will. The plan
approximately 60 existing Titan II silos, removing those also called for the removal of the venerable and accident-
now outdated missiles from service. The silos would be prone liquid fueled Titan II from use. However, this did
modied for much greater strength, and a number of Min- not address the problem the MX was originally intended
126.2. RETIREMENT AND DEACTIVATION 457
to solve, providing high survivability. This would later be parts and some of these required as many as 11,000 test-
addressed through the re-introduction of the rail garri- ing steps.[29] Bogged down in paperwork due to govern-
son concept, with twenty-ve trains each carrying two ment procurement policies, managers started bypassing
missiles. This system was expected to be operational in ocial channels and buying replacement parts wherever
1992. The supposed counterforce gap, then being widely they could be found, including claims that some of the
talked about on television, also resulted in the schedule parts were sourced at Radio Shack. In other cases, man-
for silo deployment being moved up, dropping the pro- agers had created false shell companies to order needed
duction time from 44 months to 29.[28] test equipment.[29]
Additionally, the plan also called for the development When these allegations were released by 60 Minutes
of an entirely new missile, which would emerge as the and the Los Angeles Times, the fallout was immedi-
MGM-134 Midgetman. The Midgetman deliberately ate. Northrop was slapped with a $130 million ne for
carried only one warhead and was highly mobile. Coun- late delivery, and when they reacted against employees
tering a single Midgetman would require the Soviets to they were countersued in whistleblower suits. The Air
blanket an area around its last known position with war- Force also admitted that 11 of the 29 missiles deployed
heads. Even if this was successful, they would destroy were not operational. A Congressional report stated that
only a single warhead. Faced with this choice, it was ex- Northrop was behind schedule before it even started
pected the Soviets would instead expend their warheads and noted that the Air Force knew as early as 1985 that
on easier targets. there were serious system deciencies as well as a lack
of eective progress.[29] They complained that the Air
Force should have come clean and simply pushed back
126.1.9 Deployment the deployment date, but instead, in order to foster the
illusion of progress, the missiles were deployed in a non-
operational state.[29]
The rst prototype AIRS, by then known more generi-
cally as the Inertial Measurement Unit, or IMU, was de-
livered in May 1986, 203 days late.[29] It was not until
July 1987 that the rst production AIRS were ready to
ship, and the complete supply for the rst 50 missiles was
not complete until December 1988. Given these delays,
and increased performance of the UGM-133 Trident II,
Congress had already cancelled the 100-missile option in
July 1985. In that decision, Congress limited the deploy-
ment of Peacekeeper ICBMs to 50 missiles until a more
Retired Peacekeeper rail garrison car prototype at the USAF Na-
tional Museum.
survivable basing plan could be developed.
Development of the rail garrison system was carried
The new ICBM missile was originally planned to be called out in parallel. However, budgetary constraints and the
Peacemaker, but at the last minute was ocially des- dissolution of the Soviet Union led to its being scrapped.
ignated the LGM-118A Peacekeeper. It was rst test The National Museum of the United States Air Force has
red on 17 June 1983, by the Air Force Systems Com- a rail garrison box car on display on the museum grounds
mand Ballistic Missile Oce (Norton AFB, CA); 6595th east of the main display hangars and developmental rem-
Missile Test Group (Vandenberg AFB, CA Strategic nants of the program can still be found at Vandenberg Air
Air Command); and Martin Marietta, from Vandenberg Force Base.
AFB, California Test Pad-01, traveling 4,200 nautical
The project had already cost around $20 billion up to
miles (4,800 mi; 7,800 km) to strike successfully in the
1998 and produced 114 missiles, at $400 million for each
Kwajalein Test Range in the Pacic. The rst eight test
operational missile. The yaway cost of each warhead
ights were launched from an above ground canister on
was estimated at 20 to 70 million dollars.[30]
TP-01, with the remaining test and operational Strategic
Air Command ights from silos (LF-02, 05, & 08) all
located on North Vandenberg AFB. A total of 50 ight
tests were accomplished. 126.2 Retirement and deactivation
The operational missile was rst manufactured in Febru-
ary 1984 and was deployed in December 1986 to the The missiles were gradually retired, with 17 withdrawn
Strategic Air Command, 90th Strategic Missile Wing during 2003, leaving 29 missiles on alert at the begin-
at the Francis E. Warren Air Force Base in Cheyenne, ning of 2004, and only 10 by the beginning of 2005. The
Wyoming in re-tted Minuteman silos. However, the last Peacekeeper was removed from alert on September
AIRS was not yet ready and the missiles were deployed 19, 2005 during the nal deactivation ceremony when the
with non-operational guidance units. AIRS had 19,000 400th Missile Squadron was inactivated as well. Dur-
ing the ceremony an Under-Secretary of the Air Force [10] Pomeroy 2006, p. 131.
credited the Peacekeeper with helping to end the Cold
[11] Pomeroy 2006, p. 133.
War.[31]
The Peacekeeper rockets are being converted to the satel- [12] Pomeroy 2006, p. 135.
lite launcher role by Orbital Sciences, as the Minotaur IV [13] Pomeroy 2006, p. 136.
(OSP-2), while their warheads will be deployed on the
existing Minuteman III missiles. Parts of the missile are [14] Pomeroy 2006, p. 137.
reused for the Ares rocket, in the 'Roll Control System' [15] Pomeroy 2006, p. 143.
(RoCS).
[16] Pomeroy 2006, p. 140.
[17] Non-linear servo drive for a imbal, MIT, 1959

126.3 Operator
[18] MacKenzie 1993, p. 218.
The United States Air Force was the only operator [19] MacKenzie 1993, p. 222.
of the Peacekeeper.
[20] MacKenzie 1993, pp. 225-226.
400th Strategic Missile (later Missile) [21] Advanced Inertial Reference Sphere, FAS, 22 October
Squadron, Francis E. Warren AFB, Wyoming 1997
(1987-2005) [22] MacKenzie 1993, p. 226.
[23] MacKenzie 1993, p. 229.

Orbital Sciences: Will use the Minotaur IV civilian
launch platform version. [24] Martha Sonntag Bradley. The MX Missile Project.
Utah History To Go. State of Utah. Retrieved 9 June
2012.
126.4 See also [25] Jolley, Joann (1981). News of the Church: First Presi-
dency Statement on Basing of MX Missile. Ensign (The
List of missiles Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) (June 1981).
Retrieved 9 June 2012.
Missile
[26] Jonathan Medalia, The MX Basing Debate, US
Peace through strength Congress, 11 February 1981
[27] Congress Rejects MX Dense Pack Deployment, Con-

gressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 1983
[28] Ramirez 1988.

126.5 References [29] Cushman 1988.
[30] The Peacekeeper (MX) ICBM

126.5.1 Notes
[31] Edwards, Joshua S. (2005-09-20). Peacekeeper missile
[1] In Combat Magazine Collection - Ballistic Missiles issue mission ends during ceremony. United States Air Force.
(1991) Archived from the original on 2012-07-17. Retrieved
2009-05-28.
[2] In Combat Magazine Collection - Ballistic Missiles issue
(1991)
[3] Malik, John (September 1985). The Yields of the Hi-

roshima and Nagasaki Nuclear Explosions (PDF). Los
The Politics of Armageddon: The Scowcroft
Alamos National Laboratory. Retrieved 2007-09-05.
Commission and the MX Missile, in Kenneth
[4] MacKenzie 1993, p. 205. Kitts, Presidential Commissions and National Secu-
rity (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2006).
[5] MacKenzie 1993, p. 206.
Donald MacKenzie, Inventing Accuracy: a histor-
[6] Pomeroy 2006, p. 123. ical sociology of nuclear missile guidance, MIT
[7] MacKenzie 1993, p. 213. Press, 1993
[8] Pomeroy 2006, p. 124. Steven Pomeroy, Echos That Never Were: Amer-
ican Mobile Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles,
[9] Pomeroy 2006, pp. 124-129. 1956-1983, US Air Force, 11 August 2006
Anthony Ramirez, The Secret Bomber Bugging

Northrop, Fortune, 14 March 1988
John Cushman Jr., Northrops Struggle With the
MX, The New York Times, 22 November 1988

Fact File: Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles
ICBM Peacekeeper Launch video
Chapter 127
LGM-25C Titan II
Titan II redirects here. For the smartphone, see HTC

Titan II.
The Titan II was an intercontinental ballistic missile
Mark 6 re-entry vehicle which contained the W-53 nuclear war-

head, tted to the Titan II
127.1 Titan II missile

Titan-II ICBM silo test launch, Vandenberg Air Force Base
The Titan II ICBM was the successor to the Titan I, with
double the payload. It also used storable propellants,
which reduced the time to launch and permitted it to be
(ICBM) and space launcher developed by the Glenn L. launched from its silo. Titan II carried the largest single
Martin Company from the earlier Titan I missile. Titan warhead of any American ICBM.
II was originally used as an ICBM. It was later used as a
medium-lift space launch vehicle to carry payloads for the
United States Air Force (USAF), National Aeronautics 127.1.1 LGM-25C Missile
and Space Administration (NASA) and National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). These pay- The missile consists of a two-stage, rocket engine pow-
loads include the USAF Defense Meteorological Satel- ered vehicle and a re-entry vehicle (RV). Provisions are
lite Program (DMSP), the NOAA weather satellites, and included for in-ight separation of Stage II from Stage
NASAs Gemini manned space capsules. The modied I, and separation of the RV from Stage II. Stage I and
Titan II SLVs (Space Launch Vehicles) were launched Stage II vehicles each contain propellant and pressuriza-
from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California up until tion, rocket engine, hydraulic and electrical systems, and
2003. explosive components. In addition, Stage II contains the
460
127.1. TITAN II MISSILE 461
127.1.2 Airframe
The airframe is a two-stage, aerodynamically stable struc-

ture that houses and protects the airborne missile equip-
ment during powered ight. The missile guidance system
enables the shutdown and staging enable relay to initi-
ate Stage I separation. Each stage is 10 feet in diameter
and has fuel and oxidizer tanks in tandem, with the walls
of the tanks forming the skin of the missile in those ar-
eas. External conduits are attached to the outside surface
of the tanks to provide passage for the wire bundles and
tubing. Access doors are provided on the missile forward,
aft and between-tanks structure for inspection and main-
tenance. A man-hole cover for tank entry is located on
the forward dome of each tank.
127.1.3 Stage I airframe
The Stage I airframe consists of an interstage structure,

oxidizer tank forward skirt, oxidizer tank, inter-tank
structure, and fuel tank. The interstage structure, oxi-
dizer tank forward skirt, and inter-tank structure are all
Titan II launch vehicle launching Gemini 11 (September 12, fabricated assemblies utilizing riveted skin, stringers and
1966) frame. The oxidizer tank is a welded structure consist-
ing of a forward dome, tank barrel, an aft dome and a
feedline. The fuel tank, also a welded structure, consists
of a forward dome, tank barrel an aft cone, and internal
conduit.
127.1.4 Stage II airframe
The Stage II airframe consists of a transition section,

oxidizer tank, inter-tank structure, fuel tank and aft
skirt. The transition section, inter-tank structure and aft
skirt are all fabricated assemblies utilizing riveted skin,
stringers and frame. The oxidizer tank and fuel tank are
welded structures consisting of forward and aft domes.
127.1.5 Missile characteristics
The following data is from publication T.O. 21M-

LGM25C-1 (Dash 1)
127.1.6 Guidance
The rst Titan II guidance system was built by AC Spark

Plug. It used an IMU (inertial measurement unit, a gy-
roscopic sensor) made by AC Spark Plug derived from
original designs from MIT Draper Labs. The missile
guidance computer (MGC) was the IBM ASC-15. When
Titan 23G launch vehicle (Sept. 5, 1988)
spares for this system became hard to obtain, it was re-
placed by a more modern guidance system, the Delco
Universal Space Guidance System (USGS). The USGS
ight control system and missile guidance set. used a Carousel IV IMU and a Magic 352 computer.[1]
462 CHAPTER 127. LGM-25C TITAN II
127.1.7 Development
The Titan rocket family was established in October 1955,

when the Air Force awarded the Glenn L. Martin Com-
pany a contract to build an intercontinental ballistic mis-
sile (ICBM). It became known as the Titan I, the nations
rst two-stage ICBM and rst underground silo-based
ICBM. The Martin Company realized that the Titan I
could be further improved and presented a proposal to the
U.S. Air Force for an improved version. It would carry a
larger warhead over a greater range with more accuracy
and could be red more quickly. The Martin company
received a contract for the new missile, designated SM-
68B Titan II, in June 1960. The Titan II was 50% heav-
ier than the Titan I, with a longer rst stage and a larger
diameter second stage. The Titan II also used storable
propellants, Aerozine 50, which is a 1:1 mixture of hy-
drazine and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH)
and dinitrogen tetroxide, also known as red-fuming ni-
tric acid, a substance which is 78% oxygen. The Titan
I, whose liquid oxygen oxidizer must be loaded imme-
diately before launching, had to be raised from its silo
and fueled before launch. The use of storable propellants
enabled the Titan II to be launched within 60 seconds di-
rectly from within its silo. Their hypergolic nature made
them dangerous to handle; a leak could (and did) lead to
explosions, and the fuel was highly toxic. However, it al-
lowed for a much simpler and more trouble-free engine
system than on cryogenically-fueled boosters. Titan-II 23G-9 B-107 carrying DMSP-5D3 F-16 Final Titan II
launch Oct 18, 2003
ating capability in October 1963. The Titan II contained

one W-53 nuclear warhead in a Mark 6 re-entry vehicle
with a range of 9,325 miles (15,000 kilometres (9,300
mi)). The W-53 had a yield of 9 megatons. This warhead
was guided to its target using an inertial guidance unit.
The 54 deployed Titan IIs formed the backbone of Amer-
icas strategic deterrent force until the LGM-30 Min-
uteman ICBM was deployed en masse during the early
to mid-1960s. Twelve Titan IIs were own in NASAs
Gemini manned space program in the mid-1960s.
The Department of Defense predicted that a Titan II mis-
sile could eventually carry a warhead with a 35 megaton
yield, based on projected improvements. However, that
warhead was never developed or deployed. This would
have made this warhead one of the most powerful ever,
and in terms of power-to-weight ratio, advantageous over
the B41 nuclear bomb by almost double.[2]
127.1.8 Launch history and development
The rst Titan II launch was carried out on March 16,

Titan II rocket launch with Clementine spacecraft (January 25,
1994) 1962 from LC16 at Cape Canaveral and was otherwise
successful but for one problem: excessive longitudinal vi-
The rst ight of the Titan II was in March 1962 and the brations in the rst stage. While this was of little concern
missile, now designated LGM-25C, reached initial oper- to the Air Force, it greatly worried NASA ocials who
127.1. TITAN II MISSILE 463
believed that this phenomenon would be harmful to as- tic missile (ICBM) use and that no further improvements
tronauts on a manned Gemini ight. Another three Titan needed to be made. While adding more pressure to the
tests were carried out during the summer, and on two of propellant tanks had reduced vibration, it could only be
those ights, the second stage engine underperformed. In done so much before putting unsafe structural loads on
both cases, the reason for this was dierent and appar- the Titan and in any case the results were still unsatis-
ently unconnected. Aside from 'POGO' oscillation (the factory from NASAs point of view. While BSD tried to
nickname NASA engineers invented for the Titans vibra- come up with a way to help NASA out, they nally de-
tion problem since it was thought to resemble the action cided that it was not worth the time, resources, and risk of
of a pogo stick),[3] the Titan II was experiencing other trying to cut down further on POGO and that the ICBM
teething problems that were expected of a new launch ve- program ultimately came rst.
hicle. The July 25 test (Vehicle N-4) had been scheduled
Despite the Air Forces lack of interest in man-rating the
for June 27, but was delayed by a month when the Titans Titan II, General Bernard Adolph Schriever assured that
right engine experienced severe combustion instability at
any problems with the booster would be xed. BSD de-
ignition that caused the entire thrust chamber to break o cided that 0.6 Gs was good enough despite NASAs goal
of the booster and fall down the ame deector pit, land-
of 0.25 Gs and they stubbornly declared that no more re-
ing about 20 feet from the pad (the Titans onboard com- sources were to be expended on it. On March 29, 1963,
puter shut the engines down the moment loss of thrust Schriever invited Space Systems Development (SSD) and
occurred). The problem was traced to a bit of cleaning BSD ocials to his headquarters at Andrews Air Force
alcohol carelessly left in the engine. A new set of engines Base in Maryland, but the meeting was not encouraging.
had to be ordered from Aerojet, after which the launch Brig. Gen John L. McCoy (director of the Titan Systems
proceeded without any problems. Program Oce) rearmed BSDs stance that the POGO
Although three Titan II tests during September and Oc- and combustion instability problems in the Titan were not
tober met most of their objectives, the nagging POGO a serious issue to the ICBM program and it would be too
problem remained and the booster could not be consid- dicult and risky at this point to try and improve them for
ered man-rated until this was xed. Martin-Marietta thus NASAs sake. Meanwhile, Martin-Marietta and Aerojet
added a surge-suppressor standpipe to the oxidizer feed both argued that most of the major development prob-
line in the rst stage, but when the system was tested lems with the booster had been solved and it would only
on Titan N-11 on December 6, the eect was instead to take a little more work to man-rate it. They proposed
worsen POGO in the rst stage, which also ended up shut- adding more standpipes to the rst stage and using baf-
ting down prematurely due to the strong vibration. ed injectors in the second stage.
Vehicle N-13 was launched 13 days later and carried A closed-door meeting of NASA and Air Force ocials
no standpipes, but it did have increased pressure in the led to the former arguing that without any denitive an-
rst stage propellant tanks, which did cut down on vibra- swer to the POGO and combustion instability problems,
tion. In addition, the oxidizer feedlines were made of the Titan could not safely y human passengers. But by
aluminum instead of steel. On the other hand, the exact this point, the Air Force was taking a bigger role in the
reason for POGO was still unclear and a vexing problem Gemini program due to proposed uses of the spacecraft
for NASA. for military applications (e.g. Blue Gemini). During the
The tenth Titan II ight (Vehicle N-15) took place on Jan- rst week of April, a joint plan was drafted which would
uary 10. While it appeared that the POGO problem was ensure that POGO was to be reduced to t NASAs target
largely contained on this ight, the second stage engine and to make design improvements to both Titan stages.
again underperformed and the missile only ew half its in- The program carried the conditions that the ICBM pro-
tended trajectory. While previous second stage problems gram retained rst priority and was not to be delayed by
were blamed on POGO, this could not be the case for Gemini, and that General McCoy would have nal say on
N-15. Meanwhile, combustion instability was still an is- all matters.
sue and was conrmed by Aerojet static-ring tests which Meanwhile, the Titan II development program faltered
showed that the LR91 liquid-propellant engine had di- severely during the rst half of 1963. On February 16,
culty attaining smooth burning after the shock of startup. Vehicle N-7 was launched from a silo at Vandenberg Air
Eorts to man-rate the Titan II also ran afoul of the fact Force Base in California and malfunctioned almost im-
mediately at lifto. An umbilical cord failed to separate
that the Air Force and not NASA was in charge of its de-
velopment. The formers primary aim was to develop a cleanly, ripping out wiring in the base of the missile and
missile system, not a launch vehicle for Project Gemini, cutting o power to the guidance system. The Titan be-
and they were only interested in technical improvements gan a rapid roll and pitch downward, but due to the power
to the booster insofar as they had relevance to that pro- loss, Range Safety was unable to destroy the errant vehi-
gram. On January 29, the Air Force Ballistic Systems Di- cle. Launch crews were terried that it would y into a
vision (BSD) declared that POGO in the Titan had been populated area, but nally the tumbling booster broke up
reduced suciently enough for inter-continental ballis- when the onboard backup destruct system activated.
While N-18 ew successfully from the Cape on March in Arkansas, and McConnell Air Force Base in Wichita,
21, N-21 again suered loss of second stage thrust after Kansas.[6]
having been delayed several weeks due to another episode
of the rst stage thrust chambers breaking o prior to
launch. The next four ights (April 27, May 9, May 13, Mishaps
and May 21) were mostly successful, but the last was only
the tenth Titan II launch so far where all objectives were In August 1965, a re and resultant loss of oxygen
met. On May 29, Missile N-20 was launched with a new when a high-pressure hydraulic line was cut with an
round of POGO-suppressing devices on board. Unfortu- oxyacetylene torch in a missile silo (373-4) near Searcy,
nately, a fuel leak caused a re to break out in the en- Arkansas killed 53 people, mostly civilian repairmen do-
gine compartment soon after lifto, leading to loss of ing maintenance.[7] The re occurred while the 750-ton
control and vehicle breakup at T+55 seconds. No use- silo lid was closed, which contributed to a reduced oxy-
ful POGO data was obtained due to the early termination gen level for the men who survived the initial re. Two
of the ight. men escaped alive, both with injuries due to the re
and smoke, one by groping in complete darkness for the
The next ight was a silo test from Vandenberg Air Force exit.[8] The missile survived and was undamaged.
Base on June 20, but once again the second stage lost
thrust. At this point, BSD suspended further ights for On August 24, 1978, one airman, SSgt Robert Thomas,
the time being. Of the 20 Titan launches so far, seven was killed at a site outside Rock, Kansas when a mis-
would have required the abort of a manned launch and sile in its silo leaked propellant. Another airman, A1C
General McCoy had to make good 12 of the 13 remain- Erby Hepstall, [9][10]
later died from lung injuries sustained in
ing scheduled tests. Since the ICBM program came rst, the spill.
POGO suppression had to be shelved. On September 19, 1980, a major mishap occurred after
On the other hand, only Missile N-11 suered a malfunc- a socket from a socket wrench rolled o a platform and
tion due to POGO and the combustion instability issue punctured the missiles Stage I fuel tank, subsequently
had occurred in static rings, but not any actual ights. causing the missile to collapse. Due to the hypergolic
All Titan II failures save for N-11 were caused by hy- propellants involved, the entire missile exploded a few
draulics or fuel leaks or bad wiring or other problems of hours later, killing an Air Force airman, SrA David Liv-
that nature. The trouble appeared to be with Aerojet, and ingston, and destroying the silo (374-7, near Damascus,
[11]
a visit of MSC ocials to their Sacramento, California Arkansas). Thanks to the warheads built-in safety fea-
plant in July revealed a number of extremely careless han- tures, it did not detonate. A television movie portrays this
dling and manufacturing processes. [4][5] event, Disaster at Silo 7.[12] Author Eric Schlosser pub-
lished a book centered on the accident, Command and
Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and
the Illusion of Safety, in September 2013.[13]
Retirement
It is a common misconception that the Titan IIs were de-

commissioned because of a weapons reduction treaty, but
in fact, they were simply aging victims of a weapons mod-
ernization program. Because of the volatility of the liquid
fuel and the problem with aging seals, the Titan II missiles
1965 graph of Titan II launches (middle), cumulative by month had originally been scheduled to be retired beginning in
with failures highlighted (pink) along with USAF SM-65 Atlas
1971. After the two accidents in 1978 and 1980, respec-
and NASA use of ICBM boosters for Projects Mercury and Gem-
ini (blue). Apollo-Saturn history and projections shown as well.
tively, deactivation of the Titan II ICBM system nally
began in July 1982. The last Titan II missile, located at
Silo 373-8 near Judsonia, Arkansas, was deactivated on
May 5, 1987. With their warheads removed, the deac-
127.1.9 Service history tivated missiles were initially placed in storage at Davis
Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona and the former Norton
The Titan II was in service from 1963 to 1987. There Air Force Base, California, but were later broken up for
were originally 63 Titan II Strategic Air Command mis- salvage in 2006.
siles. Nine were deployed to Vandenberg Air Force Base A single Titan II complex belonging to the former strate-
training base in California. Eighteen of the missiles were gic missile wing at DavisMonthan Air Force Base es-
on 24 hour continuous alert surrounding DavisMonthan caped destruction after decommissioning and is open to
Air Force Base near Tucson, Arizona. The remaining the public as the Titan Missile Museum at Sahuarita, Ari-
missiles were deployed to Little Rock Air Force Base zona. The missile resting in the silo is a real Titan II, but
127.2. OPERATIONAL UNITS 465
was a training missile and never contained fuel, oxidizer 127.2 Operational units
or a warhead.
There is also a surviving silo complex at Vandenberg Air Each Titan II ICBM wing was equipped with eighteen
Force Base which is now a museum, one of three test silos missiles; nine per squadron with one each at dispersed
used operationally. launch silos in the general area of the assigned base. See
squadron article for geographic locations and other infor-
Number of Titan II missiles in service, by year:
mation about the assigned launch sites.
1963 - 56
1964 - 59
1965 - 59
1966 - 60
1967 - 63
1968 - 59 (3 deactivated at Vandenberg Air Force

Base)
373d SMS
1969 - 60
374th SMS
1970 - 57 (3 more deactivated at Vandenberg Air
Force Base) 532d SMS
1971 - 58 533d SMS
1972 - 57 570th SMS
1973 - 57 571st SMS
1974 - 57 395th SMS
1975 - 57 Map of LGM-25C Titan II Operational Squadrons
1976 - 58
308th Strategic Missile Wing 1 April 1962 18 Au-
1977 - 57 gust 1987
1978 - 57
Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas
1979 - 57 373d Strategic Missile Squadron
1980 - 56
308th Missile Inspection and Maintenance
Squadron
1981 - 56 (President Ronald Reagan announces re-
tirement of Titan II systems)
381st Strategic Missile Wing 1 March 1962 8 Au-
1983 - 53 gust 1986
1984 - 43 (DavisMonthan Air Force Base site clo- McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas
sure completed) 532d Strategic Missile Squadron
1985 - 21 533d Strategic Missile Squadron
1986 - 9 (Little Rock Air Force Base closure com- 390th Strategic Missile Wing 1 January 1962 31
pleted in 1987) July 1984
DavisMonthan Air Force Base, Arizona to the Evergreen Aviation & Space Museum in McMin-
570th Strategic Missile Squadron nville, Oregon. Finally, B-34 Stage 2 was delivered from
Norton Air Force Base to Martin Marietta on 28 Apr
571st Strategic Missile Squadron 1986, but was not modied to a G, nor was it listed as
arriving or being destroyed at the 309th Aerospace Main-
1st Strategic Aerospace Division tenance and Regeneration Group at DavisMonthan Air
Force Base, it is therefore unaccounted for within the
Vandenberg Air Force Base, California open source public domain.
395th Strategic Missile Squadron, 1 February 42 B-series missiles remained, 41 full and one rst stage
1959 31 December 1969 at Norton Air Force Base, and the second stage at Mar-
tin. Of these 38 and one second stage were stored outside
Operated 3 silos for technical de- at the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center
velopment and testing, 19631969 (AMARC), now known as the 309th Aerospace Main-
tenance and Regeneration Group (309 AMARG)), adja-
Note: In 1959, a fth Titan II installation at the former cent to DavisMonthan Air Force Base to await nal de-
Griss Air Force Base, New York was proposed, but struction in 2004 thru 2008. Four of the 42 were saved
never constructed. and sent to museums (below).
Air Force Base Silo Deactivation date ranges:
127.3 Titan II missile disposition DavisMonthan Air Force Base 10 Aug 82 28 Jun
1984
33 Titan-II Research Test (N-type) missiles were built
and all but one were launched either at Cape Canaveral McConnell Air Force Base 31 Jul 1984 18 Jun
Air Force Station, Florida or Vandenberg Air Force Base, 1986
California from March 1962 through April 1964. The Little Rock Air Force Base 31 May 1985 27 Jun
surviving N-10, AF Ser. No. 61-2738/60-6817 resides 1987
in the silo at the Titan Missile Museum (ICBM Site 571-
7), operated by the Pima Air & Space Museum at Green
Valley, south of Tucson, Arizona on Interstate-19.[14] Titan II Movement Dates:
12 Titan-II Gemini Launch Vehicles (GLVs) were pro-

Titan II Bs moved to Norton Air Force Base between
duced. All were launched from the then-Cape Kennedy
- 12 Mar 1982 thru 20 Aug 1987
Air Force Station from April 1964 through November
1966. The top half of GLV-5 62-12560 was recovered Missiles relocated to AMARC at Davis
oshore following its launch and is on display at the U.S. Monthan Air Force Base prior to Apr 1994
Space & Rocket Center, Alabama. closure of Norton Air Force Base due to
108 Titan-II ICBM (B-Types) were produced. 49 were BRAC 1989 action
launched for testing at Vandenberg Air Force Base from
July, 1964 through June, 1976. 2 were lost in accidents Titan II Bs delivered to Martin Marietta/Denver be-
within silos. One B-2, AF Ser. No. 61-2756 was given to tween - 29 Feb 1986 thru 20 Sep 1988
the U.S. Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama Titan II Bs delivered to AMARC - 25 Oct 1982 thru
in the 1970s. 23 Aug 1987
The 56 surviving missiles were pulled from silos and indi-
vidual base stores and all transferred to the then-Norton Titan II Bs destroyed at AMARC - 7 Apr 2004 thru
Air Force Base, California during the 1980s. They were 15 Oct 2008
stored under plastic coverings and had helium pumped Titan II Bs destruction periods at AMARC - 7 Apr
into their engine components to prevent rust. Two build- 2004 x2; 17 Aug 2005 x 5; 12 Jan - 17 Jan 2006 x
ings at Norton Air Force Base held the missiles, Build- 10; 9 Aug 2007 x 3; 7 Oct - 15 Oct 2008 x 18; 2
ing 942 and 945. Building 945 held 30 missiles, while shipped out to museums, Aug 2009
Building 942 held 11 plus a single stage 1. The build-
ings also held extra stage engines and the interstages. 14
full missiles and one extra second stage had been trans- Ocial Count: 108 Titan-2 'B' Series Vehicles were de-
ferred from Norton Air Force Base to the manufacturer, livered to USAF: 49 Test launches, 2 Silo losses, 13 Space
Martin Marietta, at Martins Denver, Colorado facility for launches, 6 in museums, 37.5 destroyed at AMARC, +.5
refurbishment by the end of the decade.[15] 13 of the 14 (one second stage missing B-34)=108.
were launched as 23Gs. One missile, B-108, AF Ser. No.
66-4319 (23G-10 the spare for the 23G program), went Norton Air Force Base Bldg 942 June 1989
Norton Air Force Base Bldg 945 June 1989 for use as space launch vehicles. All twelve Gemini cap-
sules, ten of which were manned, were launched by Titan
Titan-2 ICBMs in storage at Norton Air Force Base II launchers. The Titan 23B was a Titan II with an Agena
1989 third stage that was used to launch reconnaissance satel-
Titan-2 ICBMs in storage at Norton Air Force Base lites.
1989 The Titan II space launch vehicle is a two-stage liquid
fueled booster, designed to provide a small-to-medium
The remaining 38 and one half missiles awaiting de- weight class capability. It is able to lift approximately
struction at DavisMonthan Air Force Base in 2006 1,900 kilograms (4,200 lb) into a circular polar low-
Earth orbit. The rst stage consists of one ground ignited
Titan-II surviving missiles/ Museum locations within the Aerojet LR-87 liquid propellant rocket engine (with two
United States: combustion chambers and nozzles but a single turbopump
system), while the second stage consists of an Aerojet
GLV-5, AF Ser. No. 62-12560 top half of Stage LR91 liquid-propellant engine.
1 was recovered oshore following its launch and is The Martin Marietta Astronautics Group was awarded
on display at the Alabama Space & Rocket Center a contract in January 1986 to refurbish, integrate, and
in Huntsville, Alabama. launch fourteen Titan II ICBMs for government space
N-10 AF Ser. No. 61-2738/60-6817 in the silo launch requirements. These were designated Titan 23G.
at the Titan Missile Museum (ICBM Site 571-7), The Air Force successfully launched the rst Titan 23G
southwest of DavisMonthan Air Force Base in space launch vehicle from Vandenberg Air Force Base
Green Valley, Tucson, Arizona. September 5, 1988. NASAs Clementine spacecraft was
launched aboard a Titan 23G in January 1994. All Ti-
B-2 AF Ser. No 61-2756 at the U.S. Space & tan 23G missions were launched from Space Launch
Rocket Center, Huntsville, Alabama in the 1970s. Complex 4 West (SLC-4W) on Vandenberg Air Force
Base, under the operational command of the 6595th
B-5 AF Ser. No. 61-2759 at the National Museum Aerospace Test Group and its follow-on organizations of
of the United States Air Force, Wright-Patterson Air the 4th Space Launch Squadron and 2nd Space Launch
Force Base, Dayton, Ohio Squadron.
B-14/20 AF Ser. No. 61-2768 at the Staord Mu-
seum, Oklahoma
127.5 References
B-44/16 AF Ser. No. 62-0025 at the National
Museum of Nuclear Science & History adjacent to Gunston, Bill (1979). Illustrated Encyclopedia of the
Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, New Mex- Worlds Rockets & Missiles. London: Salamander
ico Books. ISBN 0-517-26870-1.
B-104 AF Ser. No 66-4315 at the Spaceport USA Stumpf, David K. (2000). Titan II: A History of a
Rocket Garden, Kennedy Space Center, Florida Cold War Missile Program. Fayetteville: University
of Arkansas Press. ISBN 1-55728-601-9.
B-108 AF Ser. No. 66-4319 (23G-10 the spare for
the 23G program) at the Evergreen Aviation Mu-
seum in McMinnville, Oregon
127.6 See also
Note: B-34 Stage 2 was delivered from Norton Air Force
Base to Martin on 4/28/86 but was not modied to a Strategic Air Command
G, nor was it listed as arriving or being destroyed at
AMARC, it is therefore unaccounted for. Related development
Titan (rocket family)

127.4 Titan II launch vehicle Titan I
Main articles: Titan (rocket family), Titan II GLV and Titan 23B
Titan 23G
ASC-15
The Titan II space-launch vehicles were purpose-built as Blue Streak (missile)

space launchers or are decommissioned ICBMs that have
been refurbished and equipped with hardware required Aircraft of comparable role, conguration and era
Atlas (missile) 127.8 External links

SS-18 Satan
Google Map of 62 Titan II Missile Sites throughout
DF-5 the United States
Titan Missile Museum
Related lists
Titan Missile at Evergreen Space Museum (site of
List of military aircraft of the United States Spruce Goose)
List of missiles Titan missiles & variations
Titan II Missile Information

127.7 References Original Titan II ICBM Web Site

websites or documents of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
[1] Stumpf, David K. (2000). Titan II: A History of a Cold

War Missile Program. University of Arkansas Press. pp.
637. ISBN 1-55728-601-9.
[2] U.S. Department of Energy (January 1, 2001).

Restricted Data Declassication Decisions 1946 To The
Present. FAS.
[3] Tom Irvine (October 2008). Apollo 13 Pogo Oscilla-

tion (PDF-0.96 Mb). Vibrationdata Newsletter. pp. 26.
[4] http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/
19780012208_1978012208.pdf
[5] http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/titan2.htm
[6] Titan II Missile Base Locations. Retrieved September

12, 2006.
[7] Escape Route Blocked in Silo Disaster. Ellensburg

Daily Record. Associated Press. August 13, 1965. p. 1.
Retrieved October 18, 2009.
[8] Titan II Accident Searcy AR, August 9 1965
[9] 1 killed, 6 injured when fuel line breaks at Kansas Titan

missile site. St. Petersburg Times. United Press Inter-
national. August 25, 1978. p. 4. Retrieved October 18,
2009.
[10] Thunderhead Of Lethal Vapor Kills Airman At Missile

Silo. The Ledger. Associated Press. August 25, 1978. p.
7. Retrieved October 18, 2009.
[11] Light on the Road to Damascus Time magazine,

September 29, 1980. Retrieved 2009-10-18
[12] Disaster At Silo 7 (1988) IMDB Page
[13] Schlosser, Eric (2013). Command and Control: Nu-

clear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion
of Safety. Penguin Press. ISBN 978-1-59420-227-8.
[14] http://www.titanmissilemuseum.org/
[15] Powell, Joel W.; Caldwell, Lee Robert (October 1989).

Spaceight Magazine. Missing or empty |title= (help)
Chapter 128
LGM-30 Minuteman
The LGM-30 Minuteman is a US land-based

intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), in service
with the Air Force Global Strike Command. As of 2014,
the LGM-30G Minuteman-III version[lower-alpha 1] is the
only land-based ICBM in service in the United States. It
is one component of the US nuclear triadthe other two
parts of the triad being the Trident submarine-launched
ballistic missile (SLBM), and nuclear weapons carried
by long-range strategic bombers. Each missile carries
up to three nuclear warheads, which have a yield in the
range of 300 to 500 kilotons. The Minuteman was the
rst MIRV-capable missile.
The name Minuteman comes from the Revolutionary
War's Minutemen. It also refers to its quick reaction time;
the missile can be launched within minutes after the re-
ceipt of a valid launch order.[2][3] The Air Force plans to
keep the missile in service until at least 2030.[4][5]
The current US force consists of 450 Minuteman-III
missiles[6] in missile silos around Malmstrom AFB,
Montana; Minot AFB, North Dakota; and F.E. Warren
AFB, Wyoming.[1] This will slowly be reduced to 400
armed missiles, with 50 unarmed missiles in reserve, and
four non-deployed test launchers to comply with the New
START treaty.[7]
Minuteman-I missile
128.1 History perchlorate composite propellant. Adapting a concept

developed in the UK, they cast the fuel into large cylin-
ders with a star-shaped hole running along the inner axis.
128.1.1 Edward Hall and solid fuels This allowed the fuel to burn along the entire length of
the cylinder, rather than just the end as in earlier designs,
Minuteman owes its existence largely to the eorts of increasing thrust. This also meant the heat was spread
then Air Force Colonel Edward N. Hall. In 1956, Hall across the entire motor and did not reach the wall of the
was put in charge of the solid fuel propulsion division missile fuselage until the engine was nished burning.[9]
of General Schrievers Western Development Division, Guidance of an ICBM is based not only on the direction
which led development of the Atlas and Titan. Solid fu- the missile is travelling, but the precise instant that thrust
els were already commonly used in rockets, but strictly for is cut o. Too much thrust and the warhead will over-
short-range uses. Halls superiors were interested in short shoot its target, too little and it will fall short. Solids are
and medium range missiles with solids, especially for use normally very hard to predict in terms of burning time and
in Europe, but Hall was convinced that they could be used their instantaneous thrust during the burn, which made
for a true ICBM with 5,500 nautical miles (10,200 km; them questionable for the sort of accuracy required to hit
6,300 mi) range.[8] a target at intercontinental range. This appeared at rst to
To achieve the required energy, Hall began funding re- be an insurmountable problem, but in the end was solved
search at Boeing and Thiokol into the use of ammonium in almost trivial fashion. A series of ports were added
469
470 CHAPTER 128. LGM-30 MINUTEMAN
inside the rocket nozzle that were opened when the guid- design of 71 inches (1.8 m) diameter, much smaller than
ance systems called for engine cut-o. The reduction in the Atlas and Titan at 120 inches (3.0 m), which would
pressure was so abrupt that the last burning fuel ejected mean much smaller and cheaper silos. Halls goal of dra-
itself and the ame was snued out.[9] matic cost reduction was a success, although many of the
[12]
Rapid success in the development program, combined other concepts of his missile farm was abandoned.
with Edward Teller's promise of much lighter nuclear
warheads during Project Nobska, led the Navy to aban- 128.1.3 Guidance system
don their work with the US Army's Jupiter missile and
begin development of a solid fuel missile of their own. Main article: Missile guidance
They felt that liquid fuels were too dangerous to use on- A key problem remained; the guidance system. Previous
board ships, and especially submarines. Aerojets work
with Hall would be adapted for their Polaris missile start-
ing in December 1956.[10]
128.1.2 Missile farm concept

The Air Force, however, saw no pressing need for a
solid fuel ICBM. Atlas and Titan were progressing, and
storable liquids were being developed that would allow
the missiles to be left in a ready-to-shoot form for ex-
tended periods. But Hall saw solid fuels not only as a way
to improve launch times or safety, but part of a radical
plan to greatly reduce the cost of ICBMs so that thou-
sands could be built. He was aware that new comput- Autonetics D-17 guidance computer from a Minuteman-I missile.
erized assembly lines would allow continual production,
and that similar equipment would allow a small team to long-range missiles were liquid fueled and required con-
oversee operations for dozens or hundreds of missiles. A siderable time, 30 minutes to an hour or more, to be fu-
solid fuel design would be much simpler to build, and eas- eled. During this time other crewmembers would be spin-
ier to maintain in service.[11] ning up the inertial guidance system, setting its initial po-
His ultimate plan was to build a number of integrated mis- sition, and programming in the target coordinates. This
sile farms that included factories, missile silos, trans- normally took about as long as the fueling process, so it
port and even recycling. Each farm would support be- was not considered a problem that needed to be solved.[13]
tween 1,000 and 1,500 missiles being produced in a con- Minuteman was designed from the outset to be launched
tinual low rate cycle. Systems in the missiles would detect in minutes. While the use of solid fuel eliminated the
failures, at which point it would be removed and recycled, delays fueling up, it did nothing for the delays in erect-
while a newly built missile was put into the silo.[11] The ing and aligning the guidance system. For quick launch,
missile design itself was based purely on lowest possible the guidance system would have to be kept running and
cost, reducing its size and complexity because the ba- aligned at all times, a serious problem for the mechanical
sis of the weapons merit was its low cost per completed systems of the era, especially the gyroscopes which used
mission; all other factors - accuracy, vulnerability and reball bearings.[14]
liability - were secondary.[12] After considerable deliberation, a design by Autonetics
Halls plan did not go unopposed, especially by the more using air bearings was selected, after they pointed out that
established names in the ICBM eld. Ramo-Wooldridge their experimental set had been running continually from
pressed for a system with higher accuracy, but Hall coun- 1952 to 1957.[14] Autonetics further advanced the state
tered that the missiles role was to attack Soviet cities, of the art by building their bearing not in the form of a
and that a force which provides numerical superiority single spindle but a ball. This allowed the gryos to precess
over the enemy will provide a much stronger deterrent in two directions instead of along a single axis, meaning
than a numerically inferior force of greater accuracy.[12] that only two gryos instead of three would be needed for
Hall was known for his friction with others and in 1958 the inertial platform.[15][lower-alpha 2]
Schriever removed him from the Minuteman project and The last major advance in the Minuteman development
sent him to the UK to oversee deployment of the Thor was the decision to use a general purpose digital com-
ICBM.[8] On his return to the US in 1959, Hall retired puter in place of the analog or custom designed digital
from the Air Force, but received his second Legion of computers of earlier missile designs. This was not cho-
Merit in 1960 for his work on solid fuels.[9] sen to improve the guidance accuracy per se, but a side
Although he was removed from the Minuteman project, eect of wishing to reduce the total number of parts in
Halls work on cost reduction had already produced a new the missile. Previous missile designs had an autopilot that
128.1. HISTORY 471
kept the missile ying in a straight line, and a separate

guidance system that provided inputs to the autopilot to
adjust its trajectory. Using a single more powerful com-
puter would eliminate the need for two separate units.[16]
More importantly, since the guidance computer would
otherwise be doing nothing while the missile sat in the
silo, using a general purpose computer running a dier-
ent program allowed it to handle the monitoring of the
various sensors and test equipment. With older designs
this had been handled externally, requiring miles of extra
wiring and many connectors. In order to store multiple
programs, the computer was built in the form of a drum
machine but used a hard disk in place of the drum.[16]
Building a computer with the required performance, size
and weight demanded the use of transistors, which were
at that time very expensive and not very reliable. Ear-
lier eorts to use transistorized computers for guidance,
BINAC and the system on the SM-64 Navaho, had failed
to work and were abandoned. The Air Force and Auto-
netics spent millions on a program to improve transistor
and component reliability 100 times. This program led to
Polaris could do everything the Air Force missiles could, and was
the Minuteman high-rel parts that had enormous spin- essentially invulnerable to attack.
[17]
o eects in the electronics industry.
The use of a general purpose computer would have long-
lasting eects on the Minuteman program, and the USs were condent that their bombers would survive in great
nuclear stance in general. Earlier ICBMs using custom enough numbers that such a strike would utterly destroy
wired computers were capable of attacking a single target, the country.[19]
the precise trajectory information hard coded directly in
Soviet ICBMs upset this equation to a degree. Their ac-
the systems logic. With Minuteman, the targeting could
curacy was known to be low, on the order of 4 nautical
be easily changed by loading new trajectory information
miles (7.4 km; 4.6 mi), but they carried large warheads
into the computers memory, a somewhat time consum-
that would be useful against Strategic Air Command's
ing process, but one that could be completed in a few
bombers, which parked in the open. Since there was no
hours.[13]
system to detect the ICBMs being launched, the possi-
Much more importantly, this reprogrammability meant bility was raised that the Soviets could launch a sneak
that the information could be continually updated in the attack with a few dozen missiles that would take out a
eld, allowing the system to gain accuracy as improving signicant portion of SACs bomber eet. In this envi-
estimates of the Earths gravitational eld were fed into ronment, the Air Force saw their own ICBMs not as a
the system. Initially deployed with an estimated best-case primary weapon of war, but as a way to ensure that the
circular error probable (CEP) of 1.1 nautical miles (2.0 Soviets would not risk a sneak attack. Missiles, especially
km; 1.3 mi), Minuteman underwent several in-eld up- later models housed in silos, could be expected to survive
dates that roughly halved this to 0.6 nautical miles (1.1 a sneak attack in sucient numbers to ensure destruction
km; 0.69 mi) by about 1965.[18] The was accomplished of all major Soviet cities. In such an environment, the
without any mechanical changes to the missile or its nav- Soviets would not risk an attack.[19]
igation system.[13]
The problem was that you did not need many weapons
to eect this threat. An attack of 400 equivalent mega-
tons aimed at the largest Soviet cities would promptly
128.1.4 The Puzzle of Polaris
kill 30% of their population and destroy 50% of their in-
Main article: UGM-27 Polaris dustry. Larger attacks raised these numbers only slowly.
During Minutemans early development, the Air Force This suggested that there was a nite deterrent level
maintained the policy that the manned strategic bomber around 400 megatons that would be enough to prevent
was the primary weapon of nuclear war. Blind bomb- a Soviet attack no matter how many missiles they had of
ing accuracy on the order of 1,500 feet (0.46 km) was their own.[20] All that had to be ensured was that the US
expected, and the weapons sized to ensure even the hard- missiles survived, which seemed likely given the low ac-
est targets would be destroyed as long as the weapon fell curacy of the Soviet weapons.
within this range. The USAF had enough bombers to at- This presented a serious problem for the Air Force.
tack every military and industrial target in the USSR and While still pressing for development of their bombers
as the weapon of choice against military targets, at that Primary among these qualities was its digital computer.
time represented by the supersonic B-70, it appeared This could be updated in the eld with new targets and
the missile role was served perfectly well by the Navys better information about the ight paths with relative
Polaris. Polaris was essentially invulnerable, and the ease, gaining accuracy for little cost. One of the un-
Navys intended eet of 41 submarines carrying 16 mis- avoidable eects on the warheads trajectory was the
siles each meant the Navy held a nite deterrent that was mass of the Earth, which is not even, and contains many
unassailable. A February 1960 memo by RAND enti- mass concentrations that pull on the warhead. Through
tled The Puzzle of Polaris was passed around among the 1960s, the Defense Mapping Agency (now part of
high-ranking Air Force ocials, suggesting that Polaris National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency) mapped these
negated any need for Air Force ICBMs if they were also with increasing accuracy, feeding that information back
being aimed at Soviet cities. This would have long-lasting into the Minuteman eet. The Minuteman was deployed
eects on the future of the Minuteman program, which, with a circular error probable (CEP) of about 1.1 nauti-
by 1961, was rmly evolving towards a counterforce cal miles (2.0 km; 1.3 mi), but this had improved to about
capability.[21] 0.6 nautical miles (1.1 km; 0.69 mi) by 1965.[24]
At those levels, the ICBM begins to approach the manned
bomber in terms of accuracy. A small upgrade, roughly
128.1.5 Kennedy and Minuteman doubling the accuracy of the INS, would give it the same
1,500 feet (460 m) CEP as the manned bomber. Auto-
Minuteman was entering nal testing just as John netics began such development even before the original
Kennedy was entering the White House. His new Minuteman entered eet service, and the Minuteman-II
Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, was tasked had a CEP of 0.26 nautical miles (0.48 km; 0.30 mi).
with the seemingly impossible mission of producing the Additionally, the computers were upgraded with more
worlds best defense while at the same time limiting memory, allowing them to store information for eight
spending. McNamara began to apply cost/benet analy- targets, which the missile crews could select among al-
sis to the problem, and Minutemans low production cost most instantly, greatly increasing their exibility.[8] From
made its selection as the basis for a US buildout natural. that point, Minuteman became the USs primary deter-
Atlas and Titan were soon scrapped, and the storable liq- rent weapon, until its performance was matched by the
uid fueled Titan II deployment was severely curtailed.[12] Navys Trident missile of the 1980s.
Perhaps a foregone conclusion, McNamara also cancelled
Questions about the need for the manned bomber were
the B-70.[22]
quickly raised. The Air Force began to oer a number of
Minutemans low cost also had spin-o eects on non- reasons why the bomber oered value, in spite of costing
ICBM programs. Another way to prevent a sneak attack more money to buy and being much more expensive to
was provided by the Armys Nike Zeus, an interceptor operate and maintain. Newer bombers with better surviv-
missile that was capable of shooting down the Soviet war- ability, like the B-70, cost many times that of the Minute-
heads. The Army argued that upgraded Soviet missiles man, and in spite of great eorts through the 1960s this
might be able to attack US missiles in their silos, and Zeus was never addressed. The B-1 of the early 1970s eventu-
would be able to blunt such an attack. Zeus was expen- ally emerged with a price tag around $200 million ($572
sive, however, and the Air Force pointed out that it was million today) while the Minuteman-IIIs built during the
less expensive to build another Minuteman missile than 1970s cost only $7 million ($25 million today).
the Zeus system needed to protect it. Given the large size
The Air Force countered that having a variety of plat-
and complexity of the Soviet liquid-fueled missiles, an
forms complicated the defense; if the Soviets built an
ICBM building race was one the Soviets could not aord.
eective anti-ballistic missile system of some sort, the
Zeus was cancelled in 1963.[23]
ICBM and SLBM eet might be rendered useless, while
the bombers would remain. This became the nuclear triad
concept, which survives into the 2000s. Although this ar-
128.1.6 Minuteman and counterforce gument was successful, the numbers of manned bombers
has been repeatedly cut and the deterrent role increasingly
Main articles: Counterforce and Pre-emptive nuclear passed to missiles.
strike
Minutemans selection as the primary Air Force ICBM

was initially based on the same logic as their earlier mis- 128.1.7 Minuteman-I (LGM-30A/B or
siles, that the weapon was primarily one designed to ride SM-80/HSM-80A)
out any potential Soviet attack and ensure they would be
hit in return. But Minuteman had a combination of fea- See also W56 Warhead
tures that led to its rapid evolution into the USs primary
weapon of nuclear war.
128.1. HISTORY 473
ltered command outputs were sent by each minor cycle

to the engine nozzles. Unlike modern computers, which
use descendants of that technology for secondary stor-
age on hard disk, the disk was the active computer mem-
ory. The disk storage was considered hardened to radi-
ation from nearby nuclear explosions, making it an ideal
storage medium. To improve computational speed, the
D-17 borrowed an instruction look-ahead feature from
the Autonetics-built Field Artillery Data Computer (M18
FADAC) that permitted simple instruction execution ev-
ery word time.
The D-17B and the D-37C guidance and control com-
puters were integral components of the Minuteman-I and
Minuteman-II missiles, respectively, which formed a part
of the United States ICBM arsenal. The Minuteman-III
missiles, which use D-37D computers, complete the 1000
missile deployment of this system. The initial cost of
these computers ranged from about $139,000 (D-37C)
to $250,000 (D-17B).
128.1.8 Minuteman-II (LGM-30F)
See also W56 warhead

Some eort was given to a mobile version of Minuteman to im-
prove its survivability, but this was later cancelled.
Deployment
The LGM-30A Minuteman-I was rst test-red on 1

February 1961,[25] and entered into the Strategic Air
Command's arsenal in 1962, at Malmstrom Air Force
Base, Montana;[26] the improved LGM-30B became
operational at Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota,
Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, F.E. Warren Air
Force Base, Wyoming, and Whiteman Air Force Base,
Missouri in 1963. All 800 Minuteman-I missiles were de-
livered by June 1965. Each of the bases had 150 missiles
emplaced. F.E. Warren AFB had 200 of the Minuteman-
IB missiles. Malmstrom AFB had 150 of the Minuteman-
I and about ve years later added 50 of the Minuteman-II
similar to those installed at Grand Forks AFB, ND.
The guidance system of the Minuteman-II was much smaller due

Guidance to the use of integrated circuits. The inertial platform is in the
upper bay.
The Minuteman-I Autonetics D-17 ight computer used
a rotating air bearing magnetic disk holding 2,560 cold- The LGM-30F Minuteman-II was an improved ver-
stored words in 20 tracks (write heads disabled after pro- sion of the Minuteman-I missile. Development on the
gram ll) of 24 bits each and one alterable track of 128 Minuteman-II began in 1962 as the Minuteman-I entered
words. The time for a D-17 disk revolution was 10 ms. the Strategic Air Commands nuclear force. Minuteman-
The D-17 also used a number of short loops for faster ac- II production and deployment began in 1965 and com-
cess of intermediate results storage. The D-17 computa- pleted in 1967. It had an increased range, a greater throw
tional minor cycle was three disk revolutions or 30 ms. weight and guidance system with better azimuthal cover-
During that time all recurring computations were per- age, providing military planners with better accuracy and
formed. For ground operations the inertial platform was a wider range of targets. Some missiles also carried pen-
aligned and gyro correction rates updated. During ight, etration aids, allowing higher probability of kill against
Moscows anti-ballistic missile system. The payload con-

sisted of a single Mk-11C reentry vehicle containing a
W56 nuclear warhead with a yield of 1.2 megatons of
TNT (5 PJ).
The major new features provided by Minuteman-II were:
An improved rst-stage motor to increase reliability.

Side view of Minuteman-III ICBM
A novel, single, xed nozzle with liquid injection
thrust vector control on a larger second-stage mo-
tor to increase missile range. Additional motor im-
provements to increase reliability.
An improved guidance system, incorporating

microchips and miniaturized discrete electronic
parts. Minuteman-II was the rst program to
make a major commitment to these new devices.
Their use made possible multiple target selection,
greater accuracy and reliability, a reduction in the
overall size and weight of the guidance system,
and an increase in the survivability of the guidance
system in a nuclear environment. The guidance
system contained 2000 microchips made by Texas
Instruments.
A penetration aids system to camouage the war-

head during its reentry into an enemy environment.
In addition, the Mk-11C reentry vehicle incorpo-
rated stealth features to reduce its radar signature
and make it more dicult to distinguish from de-
coys. The Mk-11C was no longer made of titanium
for this and other reasons.[27]
A larger warhead in the reentry vehicle to increase Airmen work on a Minuteman-IIIs Multiple Independently-
kill probability. targetable Re-entry Vehicle (MIRV) system. Current missiles
carry a single warhead.
System modernization was concentrated on launch facil-

ities and command and control facilities. This provided 128.1.9 Minuteman-III (LGM-30G): the
decreased reaction time and increased survivability when current model
under nuclear attack. Final changes to the system were
performed to increase compatibility with the expected The LGM-30G Minuteman-III program started in 1966,
LGM-118A Peacekeeper. These newer missiles were and included several improvements over the previous ver-
later deployed into modied Minuteman silos. sions. It was rst deployed in 1970. Most modica-
The Minuteman-II program was the rst mass-produced tions related to the nal stage and reentry system (RS).
system to use a computer constructed from integrated The nal (third) stage was improved with a new uid-
circuits (the Autonetics D-37C). The Minuteman-II in- injected motor, giving ner control than the previous
tegrated circuits were diode-transistor logic and diode four-nozzle system. Performance improvements realized
logic made by Texas Instruments. The other major cus- in Minuteman-III include increased exibility in reentry
tomer of early integrated circuits was the Apollo Guid- vehicle (RV) and penetration aids deployment, increased
ance Computer, which had similar weight and ruggedness survivability after a nuclear attack, and increased payload
constraints. The Apollo integrated circuits were resistor- capacity.[1] The missile retains a gimballed inertial guid-
transistor logic made by Fairchild Semiconductor. The ance system.
Minuteman-II ight computer continued to use rotating Minuteman-III originally contained the following distin-
magnetic disks for primary storage. guishing features:
128.1. HISTORY 475
Armed with W62 warhead, having a yield of only E 5 6

170 kilotons TNT, instead of previous W56's yield D 4
of 1.2 megatons.[28]
C
3
7
B
It was the rst[29] Multiple Independently Targetable
Reentry Vehicles (MIRV) missile. A single mis-
sile was then able to target 3 separate locations. A 2
This was an improvement from the Minuteman-I

8
and Minuteman-II models, which were only able to
carry one large warhead.
1
An RS capable of deploying, in addition to the

warheads, penetration aids such as cha and
decoys. Minuteman-III MIRV launch sequence:
Minuteman-III introduced in the post-boost- 1. The missile launches out of its silo by ring its 1st-stage boost
stage (bus) an additional liquid-fuel propul- motor (A).
2. About 60 seconds after launch, the 1st stage drops o and the
sion system rocket engine (PSRE) that is used
2nd-stage motor (B) ignites. The missile shroud (E) is ejected.
to slightly adjust the trajectory. This enables 3. About 120 seconds after launch, the 3rd-stage motor (C) ig-
it to dispense decoys or with MIRV dis- nites and separates from the 2nd stage.
pense individual RVs to separate targets. For 4. About 180 seconds after launch, 3rd-stage thrust terminates
the PSRE it uses the bipropellant Rocketdyne and the Post-Boost Vehicle (D) separates from the rocket.
RS-14 engine. 5. The Post-Boost Vehicle maneuvers itself and prepares for re-
entry vehicle (RV) deployment.
The Hercules M57 third stage of Minuteman-I and 6. The RVs, as well as decoys and cha, are deployed during
Minuteman-II had thrust termination ports on the backaway.
7. The RVs and cha re-enter the atmosphere at high speeds and
sides. These ports, when opened by detonation of
are armed in ight.
shaped charges, reduced the chamber pressure so
8. The nuclear warheads initiate, either as air bursts or ground
abruptly that the interior ame was blown out. This bursts.
allowed a precisely timed termination of thrust for
targeting accuracy. The larger Minuteman-III third-
stage motor also has thrust termination ports al- Guidance Replacement Program (GRP)
though the nal velocity is determined by PSRE.
The Guidance Replacement Program (GRP) replaces the
A xed nozzle with a liquid injection TVC system NS20A Missile Guidance Set with the NS50A Missile
on the new third-stage motor (similar to the second- Guidance Set. The newer system extends the service life
stage Minuteman-II nozzle) additionally increased of the Minuteman missile beyond the year 2030 by re-
range. placing aging parts and assemblies with current, high reli-
ability technology while maintaining the current accuracy
A ight computer (Autonetics D37D) with larger performance. The[4] replacement program was completed
disk memory and enhanced capability. 25 February 2008.
A Honeywell HDC-701 ight computer which Propulsion Replacement Program (PRP)

employed non-destructive read out (NDRO)
plated wire memory instead of rotating mag- Beginning in 1998 and continuing through 2009,[31] the
netic disk for primary storage was developed Propulsion Replacement Program extends the life and
as a backup for the D37D, but was never maintains the performance by replacing the old solid pro-
adopted. pellant boosters (downstages).
The Guidance Replacement Program (GRP),
initiated in 1993, replaced the disk-based
D37D ight computer with a new one that uses Single Reentry Vehicle (SRV)
radiation-resistant semiconductor RAM.
The Single Reentry Vehicle (SRV) modication enabled
the United States ICBM force to abide by the now-
The existing Minuteman-III missiles have been further vacated START II treaty requirements by reconguring
improved over the decades in service, with more than Minuteman-III missiles from three reentry vehicles down
$7 billion spent in the last decade to upgrade the 450 to one. Though it was eventually ratied by both parties,
missiles.[30] START II never entered into force and was essentially
superseded by follow-on agreements such as SORT and

New START, which do not limit MIRV capability.
Safety Enhanced Reentry Vehicle (SERV)
Beginning in 2005, Mk-21/W87 RVs from the de-

activated Peacekeeper missile will be placed on the
Minuteman-III force under the Safety Enhanced Reen-
try Vehicle (SERV) program. The older W78 does not
have many of the safety features of the newer W87, such
as insensitive high explosive, as well as more advanced
safety devices. In addition to implementing these safety
features in at least a portion of the future Minuteman-
III force, the decision to transfer W87s onto the missile
is based on two features that will improve the targeting
capabilities of the weapon: more fuzing options which
will allow for greater targeting exibility and the most ac-
curate reentry vehicle available which provides a greater
probability of damage to the designated targets. The rst
SERV-modded Minuteman-III was put on alert status at
FE Warren AFB, Wyoming, in 2006.
128.2 Current and future deploy-

ment
A Minuteman-III missile in its silo
The Minuteman-III missile entered service in 1970, with
weapon systems upgrades included during the production
run from 1970 to 1978 to increase accuracy and payload indicate that its course may take it unsafely over inhabited
capacity. As of 2008, the USAF plans to operate it until areas. Since these ights are for test purposes only, even
at least 2030.[4][5] terminated ights can send back valuable information to
correct a potential problem with the system.
The LGM-118A Peacekeeper (MX) ICBM, which was to
have replaced the Minuteman, was retired in 2005 as part The 576th Flight Test Squadron is responsible for plan-
of START II.[32] ning, preparing, conducting, and assessing all ICBM
ground and ight tests.
A total of 450 LGM-30G missiles are emplaced at F.E.
Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming (90th Missile Wing),
Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota (91st Missile
Wing), and Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana (341st
128.4 Advanced Maneuverable
Missile Wing). All Minuteman-I and Minuteman-II mis- Reentry Vehicle
siles have been retired. The United States prefers to keep
its MIRV deterrents on submarine-launched Trident Nu- Main article: Maneuverable reentry vehicle
clear Missiles.[33] Fifty of these will be put into warm
unarmed status, taking up half the 100 slots in Americas
allowable nuclear reserve.[34] When defending hardened targets, it is possible for a de-
fensive ABM system to accurately track incoming war-
heads and choose to ignore those that will fall outside the
lethal range of the target. This can, depending on the
128.3 Testing accuracy of the warheads, greatly reduce the number of
defensive missiles that have to be red in response to an
Minuteman-III missiles are regularly tested with launches attack. The simplest way to counter this possibility is to
from Vandenberg Air Force Base in order to validate the make a reentry vehicle that can maneuver, approaching its
eectiveness, readiness, and accuracy of the weapon sys- target along a trajectory that looks like it is going to miss,
tem, as well as to support the systems primary purpose, and then correcting at the last possible moment, leaving
nuclear deterrence. The safety features installed on the too little time for the defensive missile to launch. This
Minuteman-III for each test launch allow the ight con- concept is known as a maneuverable reentry vehicle, or
trollers to terminate the ight at any time if the systems MARV.
128.5. RELATED PROGRAMS 477
The Advanced Maneuverable Reentry Vehicle (AMaRV) GIANT PROFIT: A Minuteman modied opera-
was a prototype MARV built by McDonnell-Douglas tional missile test plan
Corp.. Four AMaRVs were made and represented a sig-
nicant leap in Reentry Vehicle sophistication. Three GIGANTIC CHARGE: Program to notify NORAD
of the AMaRVs were launched by surplus Minuteman- of all or part of Single Integrated Operational Plan
1s on 20 December 1979, 8 October 1980 and 4 October (SIOP)[i] targeting for Minuteman
1981. AMaRV had an entry mass of approximately 470
kg, a nose radius of 2.34 cm, a forward frustum half- GIN PLAYER: Strategic Air Command tests of
angle of 10.4, an inter-frustum radius of 14.6 cm, aft Minuteman missile for identication and execution
frustum half angle of 6, and an axial length of 2.079 me-
ters. No accurate diagram or picture of AMaRV has ever HAVE LEAP: A Space and Missile Test Center sup-
appeared in the open literature. However, a schematic port of Minuteman-III program
sketch of an AMaRV-like vehicle along with trajec-
tory plots showing hairpin turns has been published.[35] MIDDLE GUST: An Air Force test conducted at
AMaRVs attitude was controlled through a split body Crowley, CO involving a simulated nuclear overblast
ap (also called a split-windward ap) along with two of a Minuteman silo
yaw aps mounted on the vehicles sides. Hydraulic ac-
tuation was used for controlling the aps. AMaRV was OLD FOX: Minuteman-III ight tests
guided by a fully autonomous navigation system designed
OLYMPIC ARENA III: Strategic Air Command
for evading anti-ballistic missile (ABM) interception.
missile competition of all nine operational missile
units
128.5 Related programs OLYMPIC EVENT: A Minuteman III nuclear op-

erational systems test
Remote Visual Assessment (RVA): provides real-
time video to ICBM security forces. This video OLYMPIC PLAY: A Strategic Air Command mis-
allows forces to respond to threats more quickly, siles and operational ground equipment program for
and with appropriate force and situational aware- EWO missions
ness. RVA will also cut down on wear and tear
of equipment and personnel, often caused from re- OLYMPIC TRIALS: A program to represent a se-
sponding to false alarm threats. ries of launches having common objectives
Missile Defense: Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI, PACER GALAXY: Support of Minuteman force
space bullet) modication program
LONG LIFE: launch of Minuteman from 'live'
launch facility w/7 sec of fuel PAVE PEPPER: An Air Force SAMSO (Space &
Missile Systems Organization) project to decrease
BUSY SENTRY: Strategic Air Command exercise the size of the Minuteman III warheads and allow
for intercontinental ballistic missile units. for more to be launched by one Minuteman.
BUSY SURVEY II: Strategic Air Command Single RIVET ADD: Modication of Minuteman-II launch
Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) 4D missile facilities to hold MM III missiles
training assistance program
BUSY USHER: Strategic Air Command launch of RIVET MILE: Minuteman Integrated Life Exten-
No. 13 LF-02 missile MK-1 Minuteman-II sion. Included IMPSS security system upgrade.
BUTTON UP: Strategic Air Command security sys- RIVET SAVE: A Minuteman crew sleep program
tem reset procedures used during Minuteman facil- modication to reduce personnel number
ity wind down
SABER SAFE: Minuteman pre-launch survivability
DUST HARDNESS: A modication improvement program
to Minuteman-III approved for service use in 1972
GIANT PATRIOT: The code name describes an SABER SECURE: A Minuteman rebasing program
operational base launch program of test ights of
Minuteman-II missiles. The program was termi- SENTINEL ALLOY: Land gravity surveys in sup-
nated by Congress in July 1974 port of the Minuteman system, cancelled
GIANT PLOW: An Air Force Minuteman launcher UPGRADE SILO: A modication improvement
closure test program program for Minuteman-III
128.6 Inuences March 1961, that the 3 squadrons were to be replaced

with xed-base squadrons,[37] Strategic Air Command
The Minuteman Missile National Historic Site in South discontinued the 4062nd Strategic Missile Wing on 20
Dakota preserves a Launch Control Facility (D-01) and a February 1962.
launch facility (D-09) under the control of the National
Park Service.
128.7 Appearances in media

Footage of Minuteman-III ICBM test launches have been
featured in several theatrical lms and television movies
where missile launch footage is needed. The Department
of Defense lm released for use was mainly drawn from
Vandenberg Air Force Base test shots in 1966, including
from a salvo launch (more than one ICBM launched
simultaneously).
Theatrically released lms using the footage include
(most notably), the 1978 lm Superman (which fea-
tures the twin shot), and more extensively, the 1977 Air Mobile Feasibility Demonstration 24 Oct 1974
nuclear war lm Damnation Alley. The made for TV
lm The Day After also features the same footage, al-
though the rst stage of ight is completed via special
128.8.2 Air Launched ICBM
eects. Terminator 3 uses computer generated images
of Minuteman missiles launching from the Plains on
Main article: Air-launched ballistic missile
Judgment Day. Minutemen also feature in Eagle Strike,
by Anthony Horowitz, in which ctional power-crazed
multimillionaire Damian Cray orders their release from Air Launched ICBM was a STRAT-X proposal[38] in
Air Force One. In the lm WarGames a failed Minute- which SAMSO successfully conducted an Air Mobile
man launch simulation exercise caused by a conicted Feasibility Test that airdropped a Minuteman 1b from
launch control ocer is the impetus for the conversion of a C-5A Galaxy aircraft from 20,000 ft (6,100 m) over
the missiles to full automatic control by the computer sys- the Pacic Ocean. The missile red at 8,000 ft (2,400
tem that Matthew Broderick's character later hacks into. m), and the 10-second engine burn carried the missile to
20,000 feet again before it dropped into the ocean. Oper-
ational deployment was discarded due to engineering and
security diculties, and the capability was a negotiating
128.8 Other roles point in the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks.[39][40]
128.8.1 Mobile Minuteman

128.8.3 Emergency Rocket Communica-
For the subsequent plans for Peacekeeper Rail Garrison tions System (ERCS)
and Soviet Scalpel rail basing, see LGM-118A and
SS-24. See also: Emergency Rocket Communications System
Mobile Minuteman was a program for rail-based An additional part of the National Command Authority
ICBMs to help increase survivability and for which communication relay system was called the Emergency
the USAF released details on 12 October 1959. The Rocket Communication System (ERCS). Specially de-
Operation Big Star performance test was from 20 June to signed rockets called BLUE SCOUT carried radio-
27 August 1960 at Hill Air Force Base, and the 4062nd transmitting payloads high above the continental United
Strategic Missile Wing (Mobile) was organized 1 De- States, to relay messages to units within line-of-sight. In
cember 1960 for 3 planned missile train squadrons, each the event of a nuclear attack, ERCS payloads would relay
with 10 trains carrying 3 missiles per train. During the pre-programmed messages giving the go-order to SAC
Kennedy/McNamara cutbacks, the DoD announced that units. BLUE SCOUT launch sites were located at Wis-
it has abandoned the plan for a mobile Minuteman ICBM. ner, West Point and Tekamah, Nebraska. These locations
The concept called for 600 to be placed in service were vital for ERCS eectiveness due to their central-
450 in silos and 150 on special trains, each train car- ized position in the US, within range of all missile com-
rying 5 missiles.[36] After Kennedy announced on 18 plexes. Later ERCS congurations were placed on the
128.9. OPERATOR 479
top of modied Minuteman-II ICBMs (LGM-30Fs) un-

der the control of the 510th Strategic Missile Squadron
located at Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri.
The Minuteman ERCS may have been assigned the des-
ignation LEM-70A.[41]
128.8.4 Satellite launching role

See also: Minotaur (rocket) and Conestoga (rocket)
The U.S. Air Force has considered using some decom-

missioned Minuteman missiles in a satellite launching
role. These missiles would be stored in silos, for launch
upon short notice. The payload would be variable, and
would have the ability to be replaced quickly. This would
allow a surge capability in times of emergency.
During the 1980s, surplus Minuteman missiles were used
to power the Conestoga rocket produced by Space Ser-
vices Inc. of America. It was the rst privately developed
rocket, but only saw three ights and was discontinued Connectivity of 91st SW Missile Field
due to a lack of business. More recently, converted Min-
uteman missiles have been used to power the Minotaur
line of rockets produced by Orbital Sciences. the same Space Launch Wing). Each Minuteman wing
is assisted logistically by a nearby Missile Support Base
(MSB).
128.8.5 Ground and air launch targets
Active
L-3 Communications is currently using SR-19 SRBs,
Minuteman-II Second Stage Solid Rocket Boosters, as
delivery vehicles for a range of dierent re-entry vehicles
as targets for the THAAD and ASIP interceptor missile
programs as well as radar testing.
128.9 Operator
United States: The United States Air Force has been
the only operator of the Minuteman ICBM weapons sys-
tem, currently with three operational wings and one test
squadron operating the LGM-30G. The active inventory
in FY 2009 is 450 missiles and 45 Missile Alert Facilities
(MAF).
128.9.1 Operational units

Active LGM-30 Minuteman deployment, 2010
The basic tactical unit of a Minuteman wing is the
squadron, consisting of ve ights. Each ight consists of
ten unmanned launch facilities (LFs) which are remotely
90th Missile Wing Mighty Ninety
controlled by a manned launch control center (LCC). The
ve ights are interconnected and status from any LF may at Francis E. Warren AFB, Wyoming, (1 July
be monitored by any of the ve LCCs. Each LF is located 1963 present)
at least three nautical miles (5.6 km) from any LCC. Con-
trol does not extend outside the squadron (thus the 319th Units:
Missile Squadron's ve LCCs cannot control the 320th 319th Missile Squadron Screaming
Missile Squadron's 50 LFs even though they are part of Eagles
320th Missile Squadron G.N.I. 128.10 See also

321st Missile Squadron Frontier War-
riors LGM-30 Minuteman chronology
150 missiles, 15 MAF Launch sites
LGM-30B Minuteman-I, 196474
LGM-30G Minuteman-III, 1973present Missile combat crew
Minuteman Missile National Historic Site

91st Missile Wing Roughriders
Single Integrated Operational Plan
at Minot AFB, North Dakota (25 June 1968
present) Nuclear weapons and the United States
Units:
740th Missile Squadron Vulgar Vul-
tures
741st Missile Squadron Gravelhaulers PGM-17 Thor
742d Missile Squadron Wolf Pack R-36
150 Missiles, 15 MAF Launch sites
SS-13 Savage
LGM-30B Minuteman-I, 196872
LGM-30G Minuteman-III, 1972present DF-5
341st Missile Wing Related lists
at Malmstrom AFB, Montana (15 July 1961 List of military aircraft of the United States
present)
Units: List of missiles
10th Missile Squadron First Aces
12th Missile Squadron Red Dawgs
490th Missile Squadron Farsiders
128.11 Notes
150 Missiles, 15 MAF Launch sites [1] The letter L in LGM indicates that the missile is silo-
LGM-30A Minuteman-I, 196269 launched; the G indicates that it is designed to attack
ground targets; the M indicates that it is a guided mis-
LGM-30F Minuteman-II, 196794
sile.[1]
LGM-30G Minuteman-III, 1975present
[2] A third gyro was later added for other reasons.[15]
Historical
^i All available descriptions of GIGANTIC CHARGE
Support use the identical language shown here, so its not clear
whether the strategic was instead supposed to be sin-
532d Training Squadron Vandenberg AFB, Cal- gle to match the normal meaning of the SIOP acronym
ifornia (Missile Maintenance: the most important (Single Integrated Operational Plan), or whether this was
piece of the pie) intentionally referring to a separate plan. Without any
further context, the phrasing doesn't give enough detail
392d Training Squadron Vandenberg AFB, Cali- to distinguish.
fornia (Missile Initial Qualication Course)
328th Weapons Squadron Nellis AFB, Nevada

(ICBM Weapons Instructor Course) 128.12 References
526th ICBM Systems Wing Hill Air Force Base, [1] Factsheets : LGM-30G Minuteman III. Af.mil. 26 July
Utah[42] 2010. Archived from the original on 12 December 2012.
Retrieved 20 March 2011.
576th Flight Test Squadron Vandenberg Air Force
Base, California[43] Top Hand [2] Unique and Complementary Characteristics of the U.S.
ICBM and SLBM Weapons Systems by Mitch Bott (PDF),
625th Strategic Operations Squadron Outt AFB, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Date un-
Nebraska Strategic Nuclear Targeting specied, p. 76 Check date values in: |date= (help).
[3] Discussion of the Unique and Complementary Character- [27] The Innovators: How a Group of Inventors, Hackers, Ge-
istics of the ICBM and SLBM Weapon Systems (PDF), niuses, and Geeks Created the Digital Revolution, Walter
Center for Strategic and International Studies/Northrop Isaacson, Simon & Schuster, 2014, p.181.
Grumman, 2009, p. 5.
[28] Complete List of All U.S. Nuclear Weapons. Retrieved
[4] Photo Release Northrop Grumman/Air Force Com- 9 February 2011.
plete Guidance Upgrade Installations on Minuteman III
ICBMs (NYSE:NOC)". Irconnect.com. 11 March 2008. [29] Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles
Retrieved 20 March 2011. (MIRVs)".
[5] Earmark Disclosure 81542, Minuteman III Solid Rocket [30] Life Extension Programs modernize ICBMs.
Motor Warm Line Program (SRMWL)". Washington-
Watch.com. 14 March 2011. Retrieved 20 March 2011. [31] 2006 ATK press release on PRP
[32] Edwards, Joshua S. (20 September 2005). Peacekeeper

[6] Norris, R. S. and H. M. Kristensen U.S. nuclear forces,
2009 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists March/April 2009 missile mission ends during ceremony. United States Air
Force. Archived from the original on 17 July 2012. Re-
[7] http://www.defense.gov/documents/ trieved 28 May 2009.
Fact-Sheet-on-US-Nuclear-Force-Structure-under-the-New-START-Treaty.
pdf [33] http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=
2200&tid=1400&ct=2
[8] MacKenzie 1993, p. 152.
[34] Kristensen, Hans M. (9 April 2014). Obama Adminis-
[9] Thomas H. Maugh II, Edward N. Hall, 91; Rocket Pio- tration Decision Weakens New START Implementation.
neer Seen as the Father of Minuteman ICBM, LA Times, fas.org. Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved 9
16 January 2006 April 2014.
[10] Teller, Edward (2001). Memoirs: A Twentieth Cen- [35] Regan, Frank J. and Anadakrishnan, Satya M., Dynam-
tury Journey in Science and Politics. Cambridge, Mas- ics of Atmospheric Re-Entry, AIAA Education Series,
sachusetts: Perseus Publishing. pp. 420421. ISBN 0- American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.,
7382-0532-X. New York, ISBN 1-56347-048-9, (1993).
[11] MacKenzie 1993, p. 153. [36] Minuteman: The Wests Biggest Missile Programme.
Flight: 844. 21 December 1961.
[12] MacKenzie 1993, p. 154.
[37] title tbd (Kennedy speech), The three mobile Minuteman
[13] MacKenzie 1993, p. 156. squadrons funded in the January budget should be de-
ferred for the time being and replaced by three more xed-
[14] MacKenzie 1993, p. 157. base squadrons (thus increasing the total number of mis-
siles added by some two-thirds). Development work on
[15] MacKenzie 1993, p. 159. the mobile version will continue.
[16] MacKenzie 1993, p. 160. [38] History Milestones. U.S. Air Force. AF.mil. Archived
from the original on 19 July 2012. Retrieved 24 February
[17] MacKenzie 1993, pp. 160-161.
2012.
[18] MacKenzie 1993, pp. 205-206.
[39] U.S. Air Force, Inside the AF.MIL Heritage section
[19] MacKenzie 1993, p. 202. (Thursday, 1 January 1970 Sunday, 31 December 1989)
[20] MacKenzie 1993, p. 199. [40] Marti and Sarigul-Klijn, A Study of Air Launch Methods
for RLVs. Doc No. AIAA 20014619, Mechanical and
[21] MacKenzie 1993, p. 197. Aeronautical Engineering Dept, University of California,
Davis, CA 95616
[22] MacKenzie 1993, p. 203.
[41] Parsch, Andreas (2002). Boeing LEM-70 Minuteman
[23] Kaplan, Fred (2008). Daydream Believers: How a ERCS. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles.
Few Grand Ideas Wrecked American Power. John designation-systems.net. Retrieved 10 January 2011.
Wiley & Sons. p. 81. ISBN 9780470121184.
[42] Hill AFB, Utah
[24] MacKenzie 1993, p. 166.
[43] Vandenberg AFB, California
[25] The 6555th, Chapter III, Section 8, The MINUTEMAN
Ballistic Missile Test Program. Fas.org. Retrieved 20
The Boeing Corporation (1973). Technical Or-
March 2011.
der 21M-LGM30G-1-1: Minuteman Weapon System
[26] BOEING LGM-30A MINUTEMAN IA. National Mu- Description. Seattle: Boeing Aerospace. Contains
seum of the Air Force. Retrieved 13 November 2013. basic weapon descriptions.
The Boeing Corporation (1973). Technical Order

21M-LGM30G-1-22: Minuteman Weapon System
Operations. Seattle: Boeing Aerospace. Operators
Manual.
The Boeing Corporation (1994). Technical Order
21M-LGM30G-2-1-7: Organizational Maintenance
Control, Minuteman Weapon System. Seattle: Boe-
ing Aerospace. Operators Manual.
Heefner, Gretchen (2012). The Missile Next Door:
The Minuteman in the American Heartland. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lloyd, A. (2000). Cold War Legacy: A Tribute to

the Strategic Air Command: 19461992. New York:
Turner Publishing.

A Historical Sociology of Missile Guidance. MIT
Press.
Neal, Roy. (1962). Ace in the Hole: The Story of
the Minuteman Missile. New York: Doubleday &
Company.
TRW Systems (2001). Minuteman Weapon System

History and Description.
Zuckerman, E. (1984). The Day after World War

III. New York: Viking Press.

Minuteman Information Site
Strategic-Air-Command.com Minuteman Missile
History
Minuteman III ICBM factsheet
Nuclear Weapon Archive

Minuteman Missile National Historic Site
Federation of American Scientists

Primed for Defense - The Minuteman on
YouTube
Chapter 129
Mark 45 torpedo
The Mark 45 anti-submarine torpedo, a.k.a. ASTOR, 129.3 Notes

was a submarine-launched wire-guided nuclear torpedo
designed by the United States Navy for use against high- [1] Jolie, E.W. (15 September 1978). A Brief History of
speed, deep-diving, enemy submarines. The 19-inch US Navy Torpedo Development: Torpedo Mine Mk45.
(480 mm)-diameter torpedo was tted with a W34 nu- Retrieved 24 June 2013.
clear warhead. The need to maintain direct control over
[2] Kurak (September 1966) p.147
the warhead meant that a wire connection had to be main-
tained between the torpedo and submarine until detona- [3] Polmar (November 1978) p.160
tion. Wire guidance systems were piggybacked onto this
cable, and the torpedo had no homing capability. The de-
sign was completed in 1960, and 600 torpedoes were built 129.4 References
between 1963 and 1976, when ASTOR was replaced by
the Mark 48 torpedo.
Kurak, Steve (September 1966). The U. S. Navys
Torpedo Inventory. United States Naval Institute
Proceedings.
129.1 Design Polmar, Norman (November 1978). The Ships
and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet: Torpedoes. United
States Naval Institute Proceedings.
This electrically propelled, 19-inch (480 mm)-diameter
torpedo was 227 inches (5,800 mm) long and weighed
2,400 pounds (1,100 kg).[2][3] The W34 nuclear warhead
used in ASTOR had an explosive yield of 11 kilotons.
The requirement for positive control of nuclear warheads
meant that ASTOR could only be detonated by a deliber-
ate signal from the ring submarine, which necessitated
a wire link. Because of this, the torpedo was only tted
with wire guidance systems (transmitted over the same
link), and had no homing capability. The torpedo had
a range of 5 to 8 miles (8.0 to 12.9 km).[3] By replac-
ing the nuclear warhead and removing the wire guidance
systems, the torpedo could be recongured for unguided
launch against surface targets.[2]
129.2 History
Development of ASTOR was completed in 1960 and it

entered service in 1963. Approximately 600 torpedoes
were built by 1976, when the torpedo was replaced by
the Mark 48 torpedo. The ASTORs were collected, tted
with conventional warheads and wake homing guidance
systems, then sold to foreign navies as the Mark 45 Mod
1 Freedom Torpedo.[3]
483
Chapter 130
Medium Atomic Demolition Munition
This article is about the nuclear weapon. For the alterna- a relatively low explosive yield from a W45 warhead, be-
tive rock musician, see Melissa Auf der Maur. tween 1 and 15 kilotons. Each MADM weighed around
Medium Atomic Demolition Munition (MADM) was 400 lb (181 kg) total. They were produced between 1965
and 1986.
130.1 See also

Special Atomic Demolition Munition

Atomic Demolition Munitions
Scientists look at a MADM nuclear land mine. Cutaway casing

with warhead inside, code-decoder / ring unit is at left.
Internal components of the MADM setup. From left to right:

packing container, W45 warhead, code-decoder unit, ring unit.
a tactical nuclear weapon developed by the United States

during the Cold War. They were designed to be used as
nuclear land mines and for other tactical purposes, with
484
Chapter 131
B61 Family
The B61 Family is a series of thermonuclear bombs and Nuclear core

thermonuclear warheads based on the B61 nuclear bomb.
The nuclear device within the outer B61 core is probably
the same overall dimensions as the W80 warhead, which
is 11.8 inches (300 mm) in diameter and 31.4 inches (800
131.1 B61 nuclear bomb mm) long.
131.1.1 Initial development

131.2 Warheads
The B61 bomb was developed by Los Alamos Scientic
Laboratory (LASL; now Los Alamos National Labora-
tory) starting in 1960. The intent was to develop an air- 131.2.1 W69
craft bomb which was high yield (up to over 100 kilotons)
and yet was small enough and had low enough drag to The W69 missile warhead was produced in the early
carry under the wing of a ghter or ghter-bomber type 1970s for use in the AGM-69 SRAM Short Range Attack
aircraft. One major feature was Full Fuzing Options (al- Missile. The W69 was 15 inches (380 mm) in diameter
lowing various air and ground burst usage options; free and 30 inches (760 mm) long, weighed 275 pounds, and
fall air burst, parachute retarded air burst, free fall ground had a yield of 170-200 kilotons.
burst, parachute retarded ground burst, and laydown or 1,500 W69 warheads were produced.
parachute retarded time delay after impact ground burst).
The B61 project started in 1960 with a study contract an-
alyzing the potential of such a weapon. The ocial de- 131.2.2 W73
velopment program was funded in 1961, and the weapon
was designated TX-61 (Test/Experimental) in 1963. The The W73 missile warhead was designed for the AGM-53
rst TX-61 free fall ballistic test was held at Tonopah Test Condor air to ground missile. Other than being described
Range on August 20, 1963. The rst War Reserve B61-0 as a derivative of the B61, details of the W73 design are
was accepted by the AEC on December 21, 1966.[1] poorly documented.
The original models of B61 used PBX 9404 HMX based Both the W73 and the Condor missile were cancelled and
plastic bonded explosive to implode the ssile material in never entered service.
the primary stage. Newer models use TATB based PBX
9502, which is an insensitive high explosive (IHE) and
will not detonate due to re, shock, or impact.
131.2.3 W80
Two versions of the base W80 cruise missile warhead

were designed and deployed. Both were the same basic
131.1.2 Specications size and shape and weight: 11.8 inches in diameter, 31.4
inches long, and weight of 290 pounds.
Bomb
The overall B61 bomb was 13.3 inches (340 mm) diam- W80-0
eter by 141 inches (3,600 mm) long, and weighed 695-
715 pounds depending on version. This includes the outer The BGM-109 Tomahawk TLAM-N cruise missile was
aerodynamic shell, a crushable nose cone, parachute sec- equipped with a W80-0 warhead. The W80-0 used
tion in the tail, tail ns, etc. (Weight includes tail ns; supergrade plutonium with less inherent radioactivity,
diameter is of the bomb body itself, without ns). due to missile storage in close proximity to submarine
485
486 CHAPTER 131. B61 FAMILY
crew. It also has an outer shielding or case around the B61 nuclear bomb, assembled and disassembled.
front end of the weapon, presumably some sort of
radiation shielding. The W80-0 had a variable yield of Internal nuclear components of the B61 bomb.
5 or 170-200 kilotons. A W80-1 ALCM cruise missile warhead
367 W80-0 warheads were produced.
A W80-0 SLCM cruise missile warhead
W81 warhead and SM-2 ground-to-air missile.
W80-1
W84 GLCM cruise missile warhead
The AGM-86 ALCM and ACM cruise missiles used the
W80-1 variant warhead. It had a yield of 5 or 150-170 A DOE drawing of the W85 Pershing-II IRBM war-
kilotons. head.
1,750 W80-1 warheads were produced.
131.3 See also
131.2.4 W81
The W81 missile warhead was designed for use on the
SM-2 missile. An enhanced radiation version was pro-
posed, but the nal version was ssion-only. Detailed di- 131.4 References
mensions and weight are unknown. Yields are described
as 2-4 kilotons. [1] AEC Declassied Report RR00520
The W81 was cancelled and never entered service.
B61 at nuclearweaponarchive.org
131.2.5 W84
The W84 was a LLNL design based on the B61, used

in the Ground Launched Cruise Missile. It was slightly
larger (13 inches diameter, 34 inches long) and heavier
(388 pounds) than the otherwise similar W80 warheads,
possibly to make it safer for ground handling in the eld.
Between 300 and 350 W84 warheads were produced.
They remain in US inactive inventory.
131.2.6 W85
Used on the Pershing II IRBM missile, the W85 was a

cylinder 13 inches (330 mm) in diameter and 42 inches
(1,100 mm) long. The warhead weighed 880 pounds. It
had a variable yield from 5 to 80 kilotons.
120 W85 warheads were produced. They were recy-
cled into B61 Mod 10 bombs after the Pershing II was
scrapped.
131.2.7 W86
The W86 warhead was a planned earth-penetrating war-

head for the Pershing II missile. The W86 was cancelled
after the Pershing II was changed from hard target to soft
target missions in its design phase.
No units were ever produced.
B61 variants
Chapter 132
RACER IV
RACER IV was a component of several of the rst

hydrogen bombs made by the United States during the
1950s. It was the rst stage for three of the devices tested
in four shots of the Castle series. They were shots Castle
Bravo (Shrimp device), Romeo (Runt device), Union
(Alarm Clock device) and Yankee (Runt II).
The Racer primary was developed in 1953 at Los Alamos
for the rst generation of US thermonuclear weapons, the
Mark 14, Mark 16, and Mark 17 bombs. Racer was
tested in the Upshot-Knothole series of tests with mock-
up secondary stages as shots Nancy (Mark 14), Badger
(Mark 16) and Simon (Mark 17). According to Chuck
Hansen, during the Upshot-Knothole tests the Racer had
proven to have inconsistent yield,[1] varying from 23 kilo-
tons in the Badger shot to 43 kilotons in the Simon shot.
The design was revised and RACER IV was the version
used as the primary in the stockpiled Mark 14 and Mark
17 bombs.
132.1 References
[1] Hansen, Chuck (1995). The Swords of Armageddon: U.S.
nuclear weapons development since 1945. Sunnyvale, CA:
Chukelea Publications.
487
Chapter 133
Special Atomic Demolition Munition
In the 1950s and 1960s, the United States developed sev-

eral dierent types of lightweight nuclear device. The
smallest of these was the W54 warhead, which had a
10.75 inches diameter (270 mm), was about 15.7 inches
long (400 mm), and weighed approximately 23 kg (50
lb). It was red by a mechanical timer and had a TNT
equivalent between 10 tons and 1 kiloton. The W54 nu-
clear device was also used in the Davy Crockett Weapon
System and in the GAR-11/AIM-26A.
The Atomic Demolitions Munitions school was located at
the US Army Engineer Center on Ft. Belvoir, Virginia,
until it was closed in 1985.
133.1 See also

Medium Atomic Demolition Munition
Suitcase nuke
H-912 transport container for Mk-54 SADM
The Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM)

was a family of man-portable nuclear weapons elded
by the US military in the 1960s, but never used in com- SADM Delivery by Parachutist/Swimmer (Special
bat. The US Army planned to use the weapons in Europe Atomic Demolition Munition) Film Clip (full lm)
in the event of a Soviet invasion. US Army Engineers
image of the SADM
would use the weapon to destroy, irradiate and deny key
routes of communication through limited terrain such as ADM Web Page
the Fulda Gap. Troops were trained to parachute into
Soviet-occupied western Europe with the SADM and de-
stroy power plants, bridges, and dams.
It was also intended that the munition could be used
against targets in coastal and near-coastal locations. One
person carrying the weapon package would parachute
from an aircraft and place the device in a harbor or other
strategic location that was accessible from the sea. An-
other parachutist without a weapon package would follow
the rst to provide support as needed. The two-person
team would place the weapon package in the target loca-
tion, set the timer, and swim out into the ocean, where
they would be retrieved by a submarine or a high-speed
surface water craft.
488
Chapter 134
T-4 Atomic Demolition Munition
The T4 Atomic Demolition Munitions (ADM) were Reportedly, a major operational issue with planned usage
modied versions of the W9 nuclear artillery shells. of the T4 was that the success rate of parachuting ve
team members into hostile territory at sea with a heavy
load and having them all land close together, uninjured,
134.1 History and able to complete transporting the weapon compo-
nents and assembling it was highly unreliable. Several
practice exercises failed to complete when one or more
The T4 was produced in 1957 from recycled W9 ssile
team members landed too far away or were injured. Fu-
components and was in service until 1963, when it was re-
ture ADM units were single-component and while they
placed with W30 Tactical Atomic Demolition Munitions
might require several peoples codes to arm, were a sin-
and W45 Medium Atomic Demolition Munitions.
gle physical unit which did not need eld assembly.
The T4 and W9 are gun type uranium nuclear bombs (see
Nuclear weapon design for more details). Few details on
the T4 variant have been ocially released, but the W9 134.3 See also
11 inch artillery shell was 11 inches (28 cm) in diameter,
54 inches (137 cm) long, and weighed either 803 or 850
W54 Special Atomic Demolition Munition
pounds.
134.2 Media coverage

An article in the mid-1990s in Soldier of Fortune maga-
zine by a former US Navy Underwater Demolition Team Allbombs.html list of nuclear weapons at nuclear-
member described the T4 ADM without naming it. The weaponarchive.org
description was moderately detailed, including that the
T4 was assembled out of a number of separate compo-
nents:
A gun barrel assembly, with the ssion bullet and

propellant and detonator preloaded
A base assembly, which the gun barrel screwed into,
which was normally handled empty
Three heavy HEU rings, which were added to the
base assembly and came in separate carrying cases
These ve components would be assembled by rst trans-

porting all ve components to the target area, then load-
ing the three uranium rings into the base assembly, then
screwing the gun barrel assembly into the base. Accord-
ing to the article, two combination locks with dierent
combinations were then activated by dierent team mem-
bers, then the weapon could be armed and the timer set.
Each component was reportedly heavy enough that it was
a full load for one team member.
489
Chapter 135
Tactical Atomic Demolition Munition
The Mk 30 Mod 1 Tactical Atomic Demolitions Muni-

tion (TADM) was a portable atomic bomb, consisting of
a Mk 30 warhead installed in a X-113 case. The X-113
was 26 inches (66cm) in diameter and 70 inches (178cm)
long, and looked like corrugated culvert pipe. The whole
system weighed 840 pounds (381kg). Production of the
TADM started in 1961 and all were removed from stock-
pile by 1966. A weapons eect test of the TADM was
made in the Johnny Boy shot of the Dominic II series.
The yield of Johnny Boy was .5 kt.
135.1 See also

T-4 Atomic Demolition Munition
135.2 References
Hansen, Chuck, Swords of Armageddon, Sunny-
vale, CA, Chucklea Publications, 1995.
490
Chapter 136
Titan (rocket family)
See also: LGM-25 Titan AC Spark Plug derived from original designs from MIT
Draper Labs. The missile guidance computer (MGC)
Titan was a family of U.S. expendable rockets used be- was the IBM ASC-15. When spares for this system be-
came hard to obtain, it was replaced by a more modern
tween 1959 and 2005. A total of 368 rockets of this
family were launched, including all the Project Gemini guidance system, the Delco Electronics Universal Space
Guidance System (USGS). The USGS used a Carousel
manned ights of the mid-1960s. Titans were part of
the American intercontinental ballistic missile deterrent IV IMU and a Magic 352 computer.[3] The USGS was
already in use on the Titan III space launcher when work
until the late 1980s, and lifted other American military
payloads as well as civilian agency intelligence-gathering began in March 1978 to replace the Titan II guidance sys-
satellites. Titans also were used to send highly success- tem. The main reason was to reduce the cost of mainte-
ful interplanetary scientic probes throughout the Solar nance by $72 million per year; the conversions were com-
System. pleted in 1981.[4]
The most famous use of the civilian Titan II was in the
NASA Gemini program of manned space capsules in the
mid-1960s. Twelve Titan IIs were used to launch two
136.1 Titan I U.S. unmanned Gemini test launches and ten manned
capsules with two-man crews. All of the launches were
Main article: Titan I successes.
Also, in the late 1980s some of the deactivated Titan IIs
The Titan I was the rst version of the Titan family of were converted into space launch vehicles to be used for
rockets. It began as a backup ICBM project in case the launching U.S. Government payloads. The nal such ve-
Atlas was delayed. It was a two-stage rocket whose LR-87 hicle launched a Defense Meteorological Satellite Pro-
engine was powered by RP-1 and liquid oxygen. It was gram (DMSP) weather satellite from Vandenberg Air
operational from early 1962 to mid-1965. The ground Force Base, California, on 18 October 2003.[5]
guidance for the Titan was the Unisys ATHENA com-
puter, designed by Seymour Cray, based in a hardened
underground bunker.[2] Using radar data, it made course
corrections during the burn phase.
136.3 Titan III
Main articles: Titan IIIA, Titan IIIB, Titan IIIC, Titan
IIID, Titan IIIE, Titan 34D and Commercial Titan III
136.2 Titan II
The Titan III was a modied Titan II with optional solid
Main article: LGM-25C Titan II rocket boosters. It was developed on behalf of the United
States Air Force as a heavy-lift satellite launcher to be
Most of the Titan rockets were the Titan II ICBM and used mainly to launch American military payloads and
their civilian derivatives for NASA. The Titan II used the civilian intelligence agency satellites such as the Vela Ho-
LR-87-5 engine, a modied version of the LR-87, that tel nuclear-test-ban monitoring satellites, observation and
relied on a hypergolic combination of nitrogen tetroxide reconnaissance satellites (for intelligence-gathering), and
for its oxidizer and Aerozine 50 (a 50/50 mix of hydrazine various series of defense communications satellites.
and UDMH) for its fuel instead of the liquid oxygen and The Titan IIIA was a prototype rocket booster, which
RP-1 combination used in the Titan I. consisted of a standard Titan II rocket with a Transtage
The rst Titan II guidance system was built by AC Spark upper stage. The Titan IIIB with its dierent ver-
Plug. It used an Inertial measurement unit made by sions (23B, 24B, 33B, and 34B) had the Titan III core
491
492 CHAPTER 136. TITAN (ROCKET FAMILY)
booster with an Agena D upper stage. This combina- due to improvements in the longevity of reconnaissance
tion was used to launch the KH-8 GAMBIT series of satellites, and in addition, the declining foreign threat to
intelligence-gathering satellites. They were all launched the security of the United States that followed the internal
from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, due south disintegration of the Soviet Union.
over the Pacic into polar orbits. Their maximum pay- As a result of these events, and improvements in technol-
load mass was about 7,500 lb (3,000 kg). ogy, when including the cost of the ground operations and
The powerful Titan IIIC used a Titan III core rocket facilities for the Titan IV at Vandenberg Air Force Base
with two large strap-on solid-fuel boosters to increase for launching satellites into polar orbits, the unit cost of
its launch thrust, and hence the maximum payload mass a Titan IV launch was very high. Titan IVs were also
capability. The solid-fuel boosters that were developed launched from the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in
for the Titan IIIC represented a signicant engineering Florida for non-polar orbits.
advance over previous solid-fueled rockets, due to their
large size and thrust, and their advanced thrust-vector
control systems. The Titan IIID was a derivative of the 136.5 Rocket fuel
Titan IIIC, without the upper transtage, that was used
to place members of the Key Hole series of reconnais-
sance satellites into low Earth orbits. The Titan IIIE, the See also: Hypergolic propellant
one with an additional high-specic-impulse Centaur up-
per stage, was used to launch several scientic spacecraft, Liquid oxygen is dangerous to use in an enclosed space,
including both of NASA's two Voyager space probes to such as a missile silo, and cannot be stored for long peri-
Jupiter, Saturn and beyond, and both of the two Viking ods in the booster oxidizer tank. Several Atlas and Ti-
missions to place two orbiters around Mars and two in- tan I rockets exploded and destroyed their silos. The
strumented landers on its surface. Martin Company was able to improve the design with the
The rst guidance system for the Titan III used the AC Titan II. The RP-1/LOX combination was replaced by
Spark Plug company IMU (inertial measurement unit) a room-temperature fuel whose oxidizer did not require
and an IBM ASC-15 guidance computer from the Titan cryogenic storage. The same rst-stage rocket engine was
II. For the Titan III, the ASC-15 drum memory of the used with some modications. The diameter of the sec-
computer was lengthened to add 20 more usable tracks, ond stage was increased to match the rst stage. The Ti-
which increased its memory capacity by 35%.[6] tan IIs hypergolic fuel and oxidizer ignited on contact,
but they were highly toxic and corrosive liquids. The fuel
The more-advanced Titan IIIC used the Delco Carousel was Aerozine 50 (a 50/50 mix of hydrazine and UDMH)
VI IMU and the Magic 352 guidance computer.[7] and the oxidizer was nitrogen tetroxide.
136.4 Titan IV 136.6 Accidents at Titan II silos

Main article: Titan IV
There were several accidents in Titan II silos resulting
in loss of life and/or serious injuries. In August 1965,
The Titan IV is a stretched Titan III with non-optional 53 construction workers were killed in Arkansas when
solid rocket boosters on its sides. The Titan IV could be hydraulic uid used in the Titan II caught re from a
launched with a Centaur upper stage, the USAF Inertial welders torch in a missile silo northwest of Searcy.[8] [9]
Upper Stage (IUS), or no upper stage at all. This rocket The liquid fuel missiles were prone to developing leaks
was used almost exclusively to launch American military of their toxic propellants. At a silo in Kansas outside
or civilian intelligence agency payloads. However, it was Rock, an oxidizer transfer line carrying nitrogen tetrox-
also used for a purely scientic purpose to launch the ide (NTO) ruptured on August 24, 1978.[10] An ensuing
NASA - ESA Cassini / Huygens space probe to Saturn orange vapor cloud forced 200 rural residents to evacu-
in 1997. The primary intelligence agency that needed the ate the area.[11] A sta sergeant of the maintenance crew
Titan IVs launch capabilities was the National Recon- was killed while attempting a rescue and a total of twenty
naissance Oce, the NRO. were hospitalized.[12] Another site at Potwin, leaked NTO
By the time it became available, the Titan IV was the most oxidizer in April 1980 with no fatalities,[13] and was later
powerful unmanned rocket produced and used by United closed.
States, because the extremely large and powerful Saturn In September 1980, at a Titan II silo (374-7) in Arkansas
V rocket had not been available for some years. Still, the near Damascus, a technician dropped a 3 lb (1.4 kg)
Titan IV was considered to be quite expensive to manu- wrench that fell 70 ft (21 m), bounced o a thrust mount,
facture and use. By the time the Titan IV became oper- and broke the skin of the missiles rst stage,[14] over eight
ational, the requirements of the U.S. Department of De- hours prior to the explosion.[15] The puncture occurred
fense and the NRO for launching satellites had tapered o about 6:30 p.m.[16] and when a leak was detected shortly
136.10. NOTES 493
after, the silo was ooded with water and civilian author- Comparison of orbital launchers families
ities were advised to evacuate the area.[17] As the prob-
lem was being attended to at around 3 a.m.,[16] leaking Comparison of orbital launch systems
rocket fuel ignited and blew the 8,000 lb (3,630 kg) nu-
clear warhead out of the silo. It landed harmlessly sev-
eral hundred feet away.[18][19][20] There was one fatality 136.10 Notes
and 21 were injured,[21] all from the emergency response
team from Little Rock AFB.[16][22] The explosion lifted [1] Barton, Rusty (2003-11-18). Titan 1 Chronology. Titan
the 740-ton doors o the silo and left a crater 250 feet 1 ICBM History Website. Geocities.com. Archived from
(76 m) in diameter.[23] the original on 2005-01-23. Retrieved 2005-06-05.
[2] Stakem, Patrick H. The History of Spacecraft Computers

from the V-2 to the Space Station, 2010, PRB Publishing,
136.7 Retirement ASIN B004L626U6
[3] David K. Stumpf. Titan II: A History of a Cold War Missile

The 54 Titan IIs,[24] in Arizona, Arkansas, and Program. University of Arkansas Press, 2000. ISBN 1-
Kansas,[21] were replaced in the U.S. arsenal by 50 55728-601-9 (cloth). Pages 63-67.
MX Peacekeeper solid-fuel rocket missiles in the mid-
[4] Bonds, Ray Editor. The Modern US War Machine: An
1980s, the last Titan II silo was deactivated in May
encyclopedia of American military equipment and strategy.
1987.[25] The 54 Titan IIs had been elded along with Crown Publishers, New York, New York 1989. ISBN 0-
a thousand Minuteman missiles from the mid-1960s 517-68802-6. p. 233.
through the mid-1980s. Most of the decommissioned Ti-
tan II ICBMs were refurbished and used for Air Force [5] Ray, Justin (October 18, 2003). U.S. weather satellite
space launch vehicles, with a perfect launch success nally escapes grasp of hard luck. spaceightnow.com.
record. Retrieved 2009-10-18.
The high cost of using hydrazine and nitrogen tetrox- [6] Paul O. Larson. Titan III Inertial Guidance System,
ide, along with the special care that was needed due to page 4.
their toxicity, proved too much compared to the higher- [7] A.C. Liang and D.L. Kleinbub. Navigation of the Titan
performance liquid hydrogen or RP-1 (kerosene) fueled IIIC space launch vehicle using the Carousel VB IMU.
vehicles, with a liquid oxygen oxidizer. Lockheed Martin AIAA Guidance and Control Conference, Key Biscayne,
decided to extend its Atlas family of rockets instead of its FL, 2022 August 1973. AIAA Paper No. 73-905.
more expensive Titansalong with participating in joint-
[8] Escape Route Blocked in Silo Disaster. Ellensburg
ventures to sell launches on the Russian Proton rocket
Daily Record. Associated Press. August 13, 1965. p. 1.
and the new Boeing-built Delta IV class of medium and Retrieved 2011-01-03.
heavy-lift launch vehicles. The Titan IVB was the last
Titan rocket to remain in service, making its penultimate [9] Blast is second serious mishap in 17-year-old U.S. Titan
launch from Cape Canaveral on 30 April 2005, followed eet. Montreal Gazette. September 20, 1980. p. 2.
by its nal launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base on [10] 1 killed, 6 injured when fuel line breaks at Kansas Titan
19 October 2005, carrying the USA-186 optical imaging missile site. St. Petersburg Times. UPI. August 25, 1978.
satellite for the National Reconnaissance Oce (NRO). p. 4. Retrieved 2009-10-18.
A number of HGM-25A Titan I and LGM-25C Titan II [11] Thunderhead Of Lethal Vapor Kills Airman At Missile
missiles have been distributed as museum displays across Silo. The Ledger. Associated Press. August 25, 1978. p.
the United States. 7. Retrieved 2009-10-18.
[12] Airman at Titan site died attempting rescue. Lawrence

Journal-World. Associated Press. August 26, 1978. p. 2.
136.8 Specications
[13] Air Force plugs leak in Kansas missile silo. Lawrence
For the specications, please see the articles on Journal-World. Associated Press. April 23, 1980. p. 16.
each variant. [14] Colby, Terri (September 19, 1980). Explosion wrecks
Titan missile silo. Free Lance-Star (Fredericksburg, VA).
Associated Press. p. 1.
136.9 See also [15] Warhead apparently moved from Arkansas missile site.
Lewiston (ME) Daily Sun. Associated Press. September
Titan Missile Museum 23, 1980. p. 10.
List of Titan launches [16] Caution advice disregarded at Titan missile site?".
Tuscaloosa News. Washington Post. October 23, 1980.
Haas (rocket) p. 23.
494 CHAPTER 136. TITAN (ROCKET FAMILY)
[17] Colby, Terri (September 19, 1980). Missile silo blast Titan III Research and Development - 1967 US Air
hurts 22 workers. Spokane Daily Chronicle. Associated Force Educational Documentary on YouTube
Press. p. 1.
Photo of the last Titan launch, at the APOD archive.
[18] Light on the Road to Damascus Time magazine,
September 29, 1980. Retrieved 2006-09-12 Titan missiles & variations
[19] Titan warhead is reported lying in Arkansas woods. St. Explosion at 374-7 - Details of the September 1980
Petersburg Times. wire services. September 21, 1980. p. Arkansas silo explosion
1A.
[20] Did warhead leave its silo?". Eugene Register-Guard. Related lists
wire services. September 21, 1980. p. 1A.
[21] The Titan controversy. Spokane Daily Chronicle. Asso- List of missiles
ciated Press. September 20, 1980. p. 2.
[22] Warhead blown o in Titan blast. Tuscaloosa News.

Associated Press. p. 1A.
[23] Arkansas recalls missile accident. Nashua (NH) Tele-

graph. Associated Press. September 19, 1981. p. 14.
[24] Pincus, Walter (September 20, 1980). Titan II: 54 acci-

dents waiting to happen. Spokesman-REview. Washing-
ton Post. p. 5.
[25] Charton, Scott (May 7, 1987). Americas last Titan 2

nuclear missile is deactivated. Times-News (Henderson-
ville, NC). Associated Press. p. 3.
136.11 References
Bonds, Ray Editor. The Modern US War Machine:
An encyclopedia of American military equipment
and strategy. Crown Publishers, New York, New
York 1989. ISBN 0-517-68802-6
USAF Sheppard Technical Training Center. Stu-
dent Study Guide, Missile Launch/Missile Ocer
(LGM-25). May 1967. Pages 6165. Available at
WikiMedia Commons: TitanII MGC.pdf
Larson, Paul O. Titan III Inertial Guidance Sys-
tem, in AIAA Second Annual Meeting, San Fran-
cisco, 2629 July 1965, pages 111.
Liang, A.C. and Kleinbub, D.L. Navigation of the
Titan IIIC space launch vehicle using the Carousel
VB IMU. AIAA Guidance and Control Con-
ference, Key Biscayne, FL, 2022 August 1973.
AIAA Paper No. 73-905.
Stumpf, David K. Titan II: A History of a Cold War
Missile Program. The University of Arkansas Press,
2000.

Video of a Titan I missile launch
Video of a Titan II missile launch
Chapter 137
HGM-25A Titan I
The Martin Marietta SM-68A/HGM-25A Titan I was guidance system originally intended for the missile was
the United States rst multistage Intercontinental Ballis- instead eventually deployed in the Atlas E missile. (The
tic Missile (ICBM), in use from 1959 until 1965. Incor- Atlas series was intended to be the rst generation of
porating the latest design technology when designed and American ICBMs and Titan II (as opposed to Titan I) was
manufactured, the Titan I provided an additional nuclear to be the second generation deployed). An inertial guid-
deterrent to complement the U.S. Air Forces SM-65 At- ance system would have allowed Titan I, once launched,
las missile. It was the rst in a series of Titan rockets, but to guide itself independently to a pre-programmed target.
was unique among them in that it used LOX and RP-1 as It would not have relied upon continuous radio command
propellants, while the later Titan ICBM versions all used signals from a ground location, or upon the ability to re-
storeable fuels instead. Though the SM-68A was oper- ceive and react to such signals.
ational for only three years, it was an important step in Titan I also was the rst true multi-stage (two or more
building the Air Forces strategic nuclear forces. stages) design. Whereas in Atlas, all rocket engines were
ignited at launch (including two small thrust vernier en-
gines) due to the unreliable nature of the engines, Titan Is
137.1 Origins second-stage engines were reliable enough to be ignited
at altitude, after separation from the rst-stage booster;
and its fuel tanks, engines, launch interface equipment,
The program began in January 1955 and took shape
and launch pad thrust ring. Titan Is ability to jettison
in parallel with the Atlas (SM-65/HGM-16) interconti-
this mass prior to the ignition of the second stage, meant
nental ballistic missile (ICBM). The Air Forces goal in
that Titan I had a much greater total range (and a greater
launching the Titan program was twofold: one, to serve
range per pound of second-stage fuel) than Atlas, even if
as a backup should Atlas fail; and two, to develop a large,
the total fuel load of Atlas had been greater.
two-stage missile with a longer range and bigger payload
that also could serve as a booster for space ights. The Titan I had an eective range of 5,500 nautical miles
(10,200 km). When the rst stage had nished consum-
The Titan I was initially designated SM-68; it was later
ing its propellant, it dropped away, thereby decreasing
redesignated HGM-25A.
the mass of the vehicle. That made for a more ecient
missile, which resulted in increased range and enabled a
larger payload.
137.2 Characteristics The warhead of the Titan I was an AVCO Mk 4 re-entry
vehicle containing a W38 thermonuclear bomb with a
Produced by the Glenn L. Martin Company (which be- yield of 3.75 megatons which was fuzed for either air
came The Martin Company in 1957), Titan I was a burst or contact burst. The Mk 4 RV also deployed
two-stage, liquid-fueled missile. The rst stage delivered penetration aids in the form of mylar balloons which
300,000 pounds (1,330 kN) of thrust, the second stage replicated the radar signature of the Mk 4 RV.
80,000 pounds (356 kN). The fact that Titan I, like Atlas,
burned RP-1 and LOX meant that the oxidizer had to be
loaded onto the missile just before launch from the under-
ground storage tank, and the missile raised above ground 137.3 Research and development
on the enormous elevator system, exposing the missile for
some time before launch. The complexity of the system The Titan-1 was tested in a comprehensive test program
combined with its relatively slow reaction time fteen prior to deployment. From the rst successful launch
minutes to load, raise and launch the rst missile, made on 5 February 1959 with Titan-1 A3 through to 29 Jan-
it a less eective weapon system. uary 1962 Titan-1 M7. There were seven variants of the
Titan I utilized radio command guidance. The inertial Titan-1 Research and Development missile: six A-types
495
496 CHAPTER 137. HGM-25A TITAN I
(four launched) seven B-types (two launched), six C- Titan I inventory was simply scrapped.[1]
types (ve launched), ten G-types (seven launched), 22 J-
types (22 launched), four V-types (four launched), seven
M-types (seven launched). 62 produced (49 launched 137.4 Operational deployment
and two exploded). They were tested and launched at
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station from Launch Com-
Titan-1 Strategic Missile (SM) production began during
plexes LC15, LC16, LC19 and LC20.
the nal stages of the Research and Development pro-
The rst four tests of the Titan I (the Lot A missiles) were gram. In total, 101 Titan-1 SMs were produced to be
carried out on February 6, February 25, April 3, and May tested from underground silos at Vandenberg Air Force
4, 1959, all with dummy second stages. The success of Base and then stationed in silos in six squadrons of nine
these initial ights left launch crews unprepared for the missiles each across America. Fifty-four missiles in silos
coming events. On August 14, the rst attempt to y a in total, with one missile as a spare on standby at each
Lot B (all-up version with a live second stage) ended in squadron, bringing to 60 in service at any one time.
disaster when the missile was released from LC-19 before
The Titan I was rst American ICBM based in under-
it had built up sucient thrust. The pad umbilical sent a
ground silos, and it gave USAF managers, contractors
shutdown signal to the engines and the Titan fell back onto
and missile crews valuable experience building and work-
the pad and exploded.
ing in vast bunkers containing everything the missiles and
In December, the second attempt to launch a complete crews needed for operation and survival. The complexes
Titan ended in practically identical fashion when vibra- were composed of a control center, powerhouse, and two
tion tripped the range safety destruct package on the rst antenna silos for the ATHENA guidance radars.
stage of Missile C-3 one second after lifto, leading to
These early silos, however, had certain drawbacks. First,
another pad explosion. On February 2, 1960, Missile B-7
the missiles took about 15 minutes to fuel, and then had
marked the rst successful ight of a Titan with a live up-
to be lifted to the surface on huge elevators for launch-
per stage. On February 5, Missile C-4 failed at T+52 sec-
ing, which slowed their reaction time. Rapid launch-
onds when the payload fairing disintegrated, causing the
ing was crucial to avoid possible destruction by incom-
vehicle to pitch down and be destroyed by Range Safety.
ing missiles, even though Titan shelters were designed to
After a successful test on the 24th, Missile C-1s second
withstand nuclear blasts. Second, the missiles placement
stage failed to ignite on March 8. A run of successful
close together in groups of threenecessary because they
launches followed during the spring, but the rst attempt
shared a single ground-based radio guidance system
at ying a Lot J missile on July 1 went awry when a broken
made them vulnerable to nuclear attack. All-inertial guid-
hydraulic line caused total loss of control within moments
ance, which does not depend on ground computers, was
of lifto. The Titan began ying on a near horizontal
not yet perfected.
plane before Range Safety issued the destruct command
at T+11 seconds. The next launch at the end of the month The distance between the antenna silos and the most dis-
suered premature rst stage shutdown and landed far tant missile silo was between 1,000 and 1,300 feet (400
short of its planned impact point. Missile J-6 on October m). These were by far the most complex, extensive and
24 set a record by ying 6100 miles. expensive missile launch facilities ever deployed by the
USAF. Launching a missile required fueling it in its silo,
With tests beginning at Vandenberg Air Force Base in
and then raising the launcher and missile out of the silo
California, an initial attempt to launch a Titan I from a silo
on a massive elevator. Before each launch the guidance
ended disastrously on December 4 when the missile was
radar had to be calibrated by acquiring a special target at
hoisted to the ring position. The silo elevator collapsed
a precisely known range and bearing. When the missile
and the Titan fell down and exploded in a massive reball.
was launched, the guidance radar tracked the missile and
Although most of the Titan Is teething problems were supplied precise velocity range and azimuth data to the
worked out by 1961, the missile was already eclipsed not missiles guidance system. Because of this the complex
only by the Atlas, but by its own designated successor, the could only launch and track one missile at a time.
Titan II, a bigger, more powerful ICBM with storable hy-
Although Titan Is two stages gave it true intercontinen-
pergolic propellants. The launch pads at Cape Canaveral
tal range and foreshadowed future multistage rockets, its
were quickly converted for the new vehicle and as Van-
propellants were dangerous and hard to handle. Super-
denberg lacked actual pads (only silos), the Titan I quickly
chilled liquid oxygen oxidizer had to be pumped aboard
found itself homeless. After a brief period as an opera-
the missile just before launch, and complex equipment
tional ICBM, it was retired from service in 1965 when
was required to store and move this liquid. Kerosene fuel
Defense Secretary Robert McNamara made the decision
also was pumped aboard just before launch.
to phase out all rst generation cryogenically fueled mis-
siles in favor of newer hypergolic and solid-fueled mod- In its brief career, six squadrons were equipped with the
els. While decommissioned Atlas (and later Titan II) mis- Titan I. Each squadron was deployed in a 3x3 congura-
siles were recycled and utilized for space launches, the tion, which meant a total of nine missiles were divided
into three launch sites in Colorado, Idaho, California,
Washington state and South Dakota. Each missile site 851st Strategic Missile Squadron February 1961
had three Titan I ICBM missiles ready to launch at any March 1965
given time. See squadron article for location of launch
sites. Beale AFB, California
137.5 Specications
Lifto thrust: 1,296 kN Total mass: 105,142 kg
Core diameter: 3.1 m. Total length: 31.0 m
Development cost: $1,643,300,000 in 1960 dollars.
Flyaway cost: $1,500,000 each, in 1962 dollars.
Total production missiles built: 163 Titan 1s; 62
R&D Missiles 49 launched & 101 Strategic Mis-
siles (SMs) 17 launched.
568th SMS
Total deployed Strategic Missiles: 54.
569th SMS Titan Base Cost: $170,000,000 (US$ 1.36 in
2015)[2]
724th SMS
First Stage:
725th SMS
Gross mass: 76,203 kg
850th SMS Empty mass: 4,000 kg
851st SMS Thrust (vac): 1,467 kN

Isp (vac): 290 s (2.84 kNs/kg)
Map Of HGM-25A Titan I Operational Squadrons
Isp (sea level): 256 s (2.51 kNs/kg)
Burn time: 138 s
568th Strategic Missile Squadron April 1961
Diameter: 3.1 m
March 1965
Span: 3.1 m
Larson AFB, Washington Length: 16.0 m
Propellants: liquid oxygen (LOX)/kerosene
569th Strategic Missile Squadron June 1961
March 1965 Number of engines: Two Aerojet LR-87-3
Mountain Home AFB, Idaho Second Stage:
Gross mass: 28,939 kg

724th Strategic Missile Squadron April 1961 June
1965 Empty mass: 1,725 kg
Thrust (vac):356 kN
Lowry AFB, Colorado
Isp (vac): 308 s (3.02 kNs/kg)
725th Strategic Missile Squadron April 1961 June Isp (sea level): 210 s (2.06 kNs/kg)
1965 Burn time: 225 s
Diameter: 2.3 m
Lowry AFB, Colorado
Span: 2.3 m
850th Strategic Missile Squadron June 1960 Length: 9.8 m
March 1965
Propellants: liquid oxygen (LOX)/kerosene
Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota Number of engines: One Aerojet LR-91-3
137.6 Service history Titan-I ICBM SM vehicles being destroyed at Mira

Loma AFS for the SALT-1 Treaty
The number of Titan I missiles in service, by year:
1961 1 137.8 Static displays and articles

1962 62 There should be 33 Static Titan 1 Strategic Missiles and
1963 63 two (plus ve possible) Research and Development Mis-
siles to account for (of these 22 have been positively iden-
1964 56 tied by Serial Number, eight known but need to be iden-
tied) and three are unaccounted for, missing.
137.7 Retirement B2 57-2691 Cape Canaveral Air Force Space &

Missile Museum, Florida Horizontal
When the storable-fueled Titan II and the solid-fueled
Minuteman I were deployed in 1963, the Titan I and At- Note: May have been at the 14th American Rocket Soci-
las missiles became obsolete. They were retired from ser- ety meeting at a Wash, DC hotel on 1 Nov 59
vice as ICBMs in early 1965. The count as of 5 March
1965 (the nal launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base R&D (572743) Colorado State Capitol display
(VAFB): 17 were launched from VAFB (September 1961 1959 (SN belongs to a Bomarc) Vertical
March 1965); one was destroyed in Beale AFB Site
851-C1 silo explosion 24 May 1962; 54 were based in R&D ? City of Lompoc, Lompoc Park (may have
Silos with SAC by 20 January 1965; 29 were in stor- been V3 or BH) see below as possible SM. was Ver-
age SBAMA (three at VAFB, one at each Base, includ- tical, destroyed.
ing an extra at Lowry = 9 and 20 in storage at SBAMA
elsewhere), a total of 101 production SM vehicles. The R&D (1 of 2, poss. 6) Was at Patrick AFB Tech-
83 surplus missiles remained in inventory at Mira Loma, nical Laboratory, Satellite Beach, Florida. Vertical
AFS. SM-65 Atlas missiles had already been converted (destr. by Hurr. Erin 8/95)
to satellite launchers in the early 1960s, and the Titan Is
had about the same payload capacity as an Atlas. It did then at Charlie Bells junkyard on US-1 Titusville, Fla.,
not make economic sense to refurbish the 83 remaining now Puerto Rico? (see below)
missiles as launch vehicles. About 33 were distributed to
museums, parks and schools as static displays (see list be- R&D G-type Science and Technology Museum,
low). The remaining 50 missiles were scrapped at Mira Chicago 21 June 1963 Vertical
Loma AFS near San Bernardino, CA, the last was broken
up in 1972, in accordance with the SALT-I Treaty of 1 SM-5 60-3650 Was on display at VAFB Armed
February 1972. Forces Day 1962, is this the Lompoc static? Hor-
izontal
The ocial count is 101 Titan I Strategic Missiles pro-
duced: 17 Test launched, 1 lost, 50 destroyed Mira Loma, SM-49 60-3694 Cordele, Georgia (west side of
33 at museum/display (some missing). Route I-75). Vertical
On 6 September 1985 Strategic Defense Initiative (AKA
SM-53 60-3698 Site 395-C Museum, Vandenberg
Star Wars program), a scrapped Titan I Second Stage
AFB, Lompoc, Ca. (from March AFB) Horizontal
was used in a Missile Defense test. The MIRACL Near
Infrared Laser, at White Sands Missile Range, NM was SM-54 60-3699 Strategic Air Command Museum,
red at a stationary Titan I second stage that was xed to Bellevue, Nebraska (near Omaha). Vertical
ground. The second stage burst and was destroyed by the
laser blast. The second stage did not contain any fuel or SM-61 60-3706 Gotte Park, Kimball, NE (only rst
oxidizer. It was pressurized with nitrogen gas to 60-psi. stage standing, damaged by winds in 96?) Vertical
A follow-up test 6 days later was conducted on a scrapped (damaged by winds 7/94 ?)
Thor IRBM, its remnants reside at the SLC-10 Museum
SM-63 60-3708 In storage at Edwards AFB (still
at Vandenberg AFB.
there?) Horizontal
Titan-I ICBM SM vehicles being destroyed at Mira SM-65 61-4492 NASA Ames Research Center,
Loma AFS for the SALT-1 Treaty Mountain View, California. Horizontal
Titan-I ICBM SM vehicles being destroyed at Mira SM-67 61-4494 Titusville High School, Titusville,
Loma AFS for the SALT-1 Treaty Florida (on Route US-1) removed was Horizontal
SM-69 61-4496 (full missile) U.S. Space & Rocket SM- ? ? (stg. 1 only) former Spaceport USA Rocket
Center (formerly Alabama Space and Rocket Cen- Garden, Kennedy Space Center, Florida. Vert. (stg
ter), Huntsville (stored outside, far west corner of 1 mated to stg 1 below)
center) Horizontal (in trees)
SM- ? ? (stg. 1 only) former Spaceport USA Rocket
SM-70 61-4497 Veterans Home, Quincy, IL Ver- Garden, Kennedy Space Center, Florida. Vert. (stg
tical (removed sent to DMAFB for destruction on 1 mated to stg 1 above)
May, 2010)
SM- ? ? (stg. 1 only) Science Museum, Bayamon,
SM-71 61-4498 U.S. Air Force Museum, now Puerto Rico (PAFB R&D/Bells ??) Vert. (stg 1
AMARC (to go to PIMA Mus.) Horizontal mated to stg 1 below)
SM-72 61-4499 Florence Regional Airport Air and SM- ? ? (stg. 1 only) Science Museum, Bayamon,
Space Museum, Florence, South Carolina. Horizon- Puerto Rico (top half from Bells Junkyard) Vert.
tal (stg 1 mated to stg 1 above)
SM- ? ? (full missile) former Outside main gate

SM-73 61-4500 former Holiday Motor Lodge, San
of White Sands Missile Range, N.M. false report?
Bernardino (now missing?). Horizontal
Vertical
SM-79 61-4506 former Oklahoma State Fair SM- ? ? (full missile) Spacetec CCAFS Horizontal
Grounds, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 1960s Hor-
izontal
Note: Two stacked Titan-1 rst stages created a perfect
SM-81 61-4508 Kansas Cosmosphere, Hutchinson, illusion of a Titan-2 Missile for museums above.
Kansas. In storage
SM-86 61-4513 Beale AFB (not on display, was 137.9 External links
horizontal, removed 1994) Horizontal
SM-88 61-4515 (st. 1) Pima Air & Space Museum, [1] http://astronautix.com/lvs/titan1.htm
outside DM AFB, Tucson, Arizona, now WPAFB [2] missilebases.com (2011). History of Missile Bases.
Horizontal missilebases.com. Retrieved 4 September 2011.
SM-89 61-4516 (st. 2) Pima Air Museum, outside

DM AFB, Tucson, Arizona, now WPAFB Horizon- Tri-City Herald article by Kristin Alexander about
tal Titan 1 complexes in Washington State
Information on Northern California Triad of Titan
SM-92 61-4519 (st. 1) Kansas Cosmosphere,
missile bases in Lincoln, California; Chico, Califor-
Hutchinson, Kansas. (acq. 11/93 from MCDD)
nia and Live Oak, Sutter County, California (Sutter
Vertical (st 1 mate to SM-94 st 1)
Buttes)
SM-93 61-4520 (st. 2) SLC-10 Museum, Vanden- Titan 1 Upgrade Project at NASA Moett Field
berg AFB, Lompoc, Ca. Horizontal (only stage 2)
SM-94 61-4521 (st. 1) Kansas Cosmosphere,

Hutchinson, Kansas. (acq. 6/93 from MCDD) Ver- 137.10 See also
tical (st 1 mate to SM-92 st 1)
Related lists
SM-96 61-4523 South Dakota Air and Space Mu-
seum, Ellsworth AFB, Rapid City, South Dakota.
Horizontal
List of missiles
SM-101 61-4528 Estrella Warbirds Museum, Paso
Robles, CA (2nd stage damaged) Horizontal
SM- ? ? (full missile) Ingram Park, town of Lom-

poc, Ca. (with a Nike Target Warhead) was vertical,
destroyed
SM- ? ? (stg. 2 only) former SDI laser test target

(whereabouts?) is this 4519 & or 4521 stg 1? Hor-
izontal (remnants of stage 1)
Close-up
137.10. SEE ALSO 501
LR-87 engine
Chapter 138
Trident (missile)
This article contains technical information 138.1 Development

about the Trident ballistic missile. For a discus-
sion of the British Trident weapons programme,
see UK Trident programme
In 1971, The US Navy began studies of an advanced Un-

dersea Long-range Missile System (ULMS). A Decision
Coordinating Paper (DCP) for the ULMS was approved
on 14 September 1971. ULMS program outline a long-
term modernization plan, which proposed the develop-
ment of a longer-range missile termed ULMS II, which
was to achieve twice the range of the existing POSEI-
DON (ULMS I) missile. In addition to a longer-range
missile, a larger submarine (Ohio-class) was proposed to
replace the James Madison and Ben Franklin class SS-
BNs in 1978. The ULMS II missile system was designed
to be retrotted to the existing SSBNs, while also being
tted to the proposed Ohio-class submarine.
In May 1972, the term ULMS II was replaced with
TRIDENT. The TRIDENT was to be a larger, higher-
performance missile with a range capacity greater than
6000 nm.
Trident I (designated as C4) was deployed in 1979 and re-
tired in 2005.[2] Its objective was to achieve performance
similar to Poseidon (C3) but at extended range. Trident
II (designated D5) had the objective of improved circular
error probable, and was rst deployed in 1990, and was
A Trident II D-5 missile breaking the surface of the water after planned to be in service for the thirty-year life of the sub-
being red from a Royal Navy submarine marines, until 2027.
Trident missiles are provided to the United Kingdom un-
The Trident missile is a submarine-launched ballistic der the terms of the 1963 Polaris Sales Agreement which
missile (SLBM) equipped with multiple independently was modied in 1982 for Trident. British Prime Minister
targetable reentry vehicles (MIRV). The Fleet Ballistic Margaret Thatcher wrote to President Carter on 10 July
Missile (FBM) is armed with thermonuclear warheads 1980, to request that he approve supply of Trident I mis-
and is launched from nuclear-powered ballistic missile siles. However, in 1982 Thatcher wrote to President Rea-
submarines (SSBNs). Trident missiles are carried by gan to request the United Kingdom be allowed to procure
fourteen active US Navy Ohio-class submarines, with the Trident II system, the procurement of which had been
US warheads, and four Royal Navy Vanguard-class sub- accelerated by the US Navy. This was agreed in March
marines, with British warheads. The original prime con- 1982.[3] Under the agreement, the United Kingdom paid
tractor and developer of the missile was Lockheed Martin an additional 5% of their total procurement cost of 2.5
Space Systems. The missile is named after mythological billion dollars to the US government as a research and
trident of Neptune.[1] development contribution.[4]
502
138.1.1 D5 Life Extension Program
In 2002, the United States Navy announced plans to ex-

tend the life of the submarines and the D5 missiles to the
year 2040.[5] This requires a D5 Life Extension Program
(D5LEP), which is currently underway. The main aim
is to replace obsolete components at minimal cost by us-
ing commercial o the shelf (COTS) hardware; all the
while maintaining the demonstrated performance of the
existing Trident II missiles. In 2007, Lockheed Martin
was awarded a total of $848 million in contracts to per-
form this and related work, which also includes upgrading
the missiles reentry systems.[6] On the same day, Draper
Labs was awarded $318 million for upgrade of the guid-
ance system.[6] Then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair
was quoted as saying the issue would be fully debated
in Parliament prior to a decision being taken.[7] Blair
outlined plans in Parliament on 4 December 2006, to
build a new generation of submarines to carry existing
Trident missiles, and join the D5LE project to refurbish
them.[8]
The rst ight test of a D-5 LE subsystem, the MK 6
Mod 1 guidance system, in Demonstration and Shake- Trident I rst launch on 18 January 1977 at Cape Canaveral
down Operation (DASO)23,[9] took place on USS Ten-
nessee (SSBN-734) on 22 February 2012.[10] This was al-
most exactly 22 years after the rst Trident II missile was
launched from Tennessee in February 1990. or 13,600 mph (21,600 km/h).
The total cost of the Trident program thus far came to The missile attains a temporary low-altitude orbit only a
$39.546 billion in 2011, with a cost of $70 million per few minutes after launch. The Guidance System for the
missile.[11] missile was developed by the Charles Stark Draper Lab-
oratory and is maintained by a joint Draper/General Dy-
namics Advanced Information Systems facility. It is an
Inertial Guidance System with an additional Star-Sighting
138.2 Description system (this combination is known as astro-inertial guid-
ance), which is used to correct small position and veloc-
The launch from the submarine occurs below the ocean ity errors that result from launch condition uncertainties
surface. The missiles are ejected from their tubes by ig- due to errors in the submarine navigation system and er-
niting an explosive charge in a separate container which is rors that may have accumulated in the guidance system
separated by seventeen titanium alloy pinnacles activated during the ight due to imperfect instrument calibration.
by a double alloy steam system. The energy from the GPS has been used on some test ights but is assumed not
blast is directed to a water tank, where the water is ash- to be available for a real mission. The re control system
vaporized to steam. The subsequent pressure spike is was designed and continues to be maintained by General
strong enough to eject the missile out of the tube and give Dynamics Advanced Information Systems.
it enough momentum to reach and clear the surface of
the water. The missile is pressurized with nitrogen to pre- Once the star-sighting has been completed, the bus sec-
vent the intrusion of water into any internal spaces, which tion of the missile maneuvers to achieve the various ve-
could damage the missile or add weight, destabilizing the locity vectors that will send the deployed multiple inde-
missile. Should the missile fail to breach the surface of pendent reentry vehicles to their individual targets. The
the water, there are several safety mechanisms that can ei- downrange and crossrange dispersion of the targets re-
ther deactivate the missile before launch or guide the mis- mains classied.
sile through an additional phase of launch. Inertial motion The Trident was built in two variants: the I (C4) UGM-
sensors are activated upon launch, and when the sensors 96A and II (D5) UGM-133A; however, these two mis-
detect downward acceleration after being blown out of siles have little in common. While the C4, formerly
the water, the rst-stage engine ignites. The aerospike, known as EXPO (Extended Range Poseidon), is just an
a telescoping outward extension that halves aerodynamic improved version of the Poseidon C-3 missile, the Tri-
drag, is then deployed, and the boost phase begins. When dent II D-5 has a completely new design (although with
the third-stage motor res, within two minutes of launch, some technologies adopted from the C-4). The C4 and
the missile is traveling faster than 20,000 ft/s (6,000 m/s), D5 designations put the missiles within the family that
504 CHAPTER 138. TRIDENT (MISSILE)
started in 1960 with Polaris (A1, A2 and A3) and con- D5 missile since 1989, according to a company press
tinued with the 1971 Poseidon (C3). Both Trident ver- release.[12]
sions are three-stage, solid-propellant, inertially guided
missiles, and both guidance systems use a star sighting
to improve overall weapons system accuracy. 138.3 Conventional Trident
The Pentagon proposed the Conventional Trident Mod-
138.2.1 Trident I (C4) UGM-96A
ication program in 2006 to diversify its strategic
options,[13] as part of a broader long-term strategy
Main article: UGM-96 Trident I
to develop worldwide rapid strike capabilities, dubbed
"Prompt Global Strike".
The rst eight Ohio-class submarines were built with the
The US$503 million program would have converted ex-
Trident I missiles. Trident were also retrotted onto 12
isting Trident II missiles (presumably two missiles per
SSBNs of the James Madison and Benjamin Franklin
submarine) into conventional weapons, by tting them
classes, replacing Poseidon missiles.
with modied Mk4 reentry vehicles equipped with GPS
for navigation update and a reentry guidance and con-
trol (trajectory correction) segment to perform 10 m
138.2.2 Trident II (D5) UGM-133A class impact accuracy. No explosive is said to be used
since the reentry vehicles mass and hypersonic impact
velocity provide sucient mechanical energy and ef-
fect. The second conventional warhead version is a
fragmentation version that would disperse thousands of
tungsten rods which could obliterate an area of 3000
square feet. (approximately 280 square meters).[14] It of-
fered the promise of accurate conventional strikes with
little warning and ight time.
The primary drawback of using conventionally tipped
ballistic missiles is that they are virtually impossible for
radar warning systems to distinguish from nuclear-tipped
missiles. This leaves open the likelihood that other
nuclear-armed countries might mistake it for a nuclear
launch which could provoke a counterattack. For that rea-
son among others, this project raised a substantial debate
before US Congress for the FY07 Defense budget, but
also internationally.[15] Russian President Vladimir Putin,
among others, warned that the project would increase the
danger of accidental nuclear war. The launch of such a
missile could ... provoke a full-scale counterattack using
strategic nuclear forces, Putin said in May 2006.[16]
A Trident II missile res its rst-stage SRB after an underwater

launch from a Royal Navy Vanguard class ballistic missile sub-
138.4 Operators
marine.
United States Navy
Main article: UGM-133 Trident II
Royal Navy
The second variant of the Trident is more sophisticated

and can carry a heavier payload. It is accurate enough to
be a rst strike, counterforce, or second strike weapon.
138.5 See also
All three stages of the Trident II are made of graphite
epoxy, making the missile much lighter. The Trident Nuclear weapons and the United States
II was the original missile on the British Vanguard-class
Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom
and American Ohio-class SSBNs from Tennessee on. The
D5 missile is currently carried by fourteen Ohio-class and British Trident system
four Vanguard-class SSBNs. Lockheed Martin has car-
ried out 142 consecutive successful test launches of the British replacement of the Trident system
ICBM [13] Future Ballistic Missile Projects (United States), Oen-

sive weapons. Janes Strategic Weapon Systems. 27 Oc-
SLBM tober 2011. Retrieved 2012-11-23.
RSM-56 Bulava [14] Shachtman, Noah (4 December 2006). Hypersonic
Cruise Missile:America{}s New Global Strike Weapon.
R-29RMU2.1 Layner Popular Mechanics. Retrieved 2012-11-23.
M51 (missile) [15] Wood, Sara, Sgt. (2006). Conventional Missile System
to Provide Diverse, Rapid Capabilities. US Department
M45 (missile)
of Defense. Retrieved 2006-04-10.
JL-2 [16] Rosenberg, Eric (6 October 2006). Experts warn of an
JL-1 accidental atomic war. San Francisco Chronicle. Re-
trieved 2006-10-09.
K Missile family
Agni-VI
Basic characteristics of Trident II D5
138.6 References
Strategic Systems Programs Facts as of 08/02/10.
[1] Trident II D-5. Atomic Archive. Retrieved 19 March
2015. Strategic Systems Programs Chronology as of
08/02/10
[2] Popejoy, Mary (5 November 2005). USS Alabama Of-
oads Last of C4 Trident Missiles. navy.mil. US Navy. Lockheed Martin Trident I (C4) page
Lockheed Martin Trident II (D5) page
[3] Letter to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of the
United Kingdom Conrming the Sale of the Trident II Trident II D-5, at Federation of American Scientists
Missile System to the Her Country. 11 March 1982. Re- website
trieved 2012-11-23.
Equipment, Features and capabilities of the Trident
[4] Ministry of Defence and Property Services Agency: Con- missile, including explanation of stellar sighting
trol and Management of the Trident Programme. National
Audit Oce. 29 June 1987. Part 4. ISBN 0-10-202788- Picture of the Trident missile compartment on a
9. British Vanguard class submarine
[5] Navy Awards Lockheed Martin $248 Million Contract Current British Nuclear Weapons at nuclear-
for Trident II D5 Missile Production and D5 Service Life weapons.org
Extension (Press release). Lockheed Martin Space Sys-
tems Company. 29 January 2002. Retrieved 2009-01-28. Trident I and II, at navysite.de
[6] Defence.gov: Contracts for Monday 26th November IEEE Xplore article
2007 (Press release). US DoD. 26 November 2007. Re-
trieved 2010-07-30. Ballistic Missile Submarines
[7] Trident decision 'not yet taken'". BBC News. 21 Novem- Trident Ploughshares Campaign website
ber 2006. Retrieved 2012-11-23.
Time for a nuclear entente cordiale, Lorna Arnold
[8] UK nuclear weapons plan unveiled. BBC News. 4 De- Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, September/October
cember 2006. Retrieved 2012-11-23.
2005
[9] DASO 23 Video. US Navy. 22 February 2012. Re-
UKs Parliamentary Defence Select Committee:
trieved 2012-12-14.
Session 2001/02 Update on weapons programmes
[10] Back to the Future with Trident Life Extension (pdf).
Undersea Warfare Magazine (US Navy). Spring 2012. US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement (MDA) 1958
Video of the Trident being launched.
[11] Analysis of the Fiscal Year 2012 Pentagon Spending Re-
quest. Cost of War. 15 February 2011. Retrieved 2012- HMS Vanguard Trident II test-launch - YouTube
11-23. video
[12] Trident D5. Missiles of the World. missilethreat.com.

Chapter 139
UGM-133 Trident II
The UGM-133A Trident II, or Trident D5 is a Studies were conducted to determine whether the more-
submarine-launched ballistic missile, built by Lockheed expensive Trident II could be constructed similar to the
Martin Space Systems in Sunnyvale, California, and de- US Air Forces MX ICBM. This was done primarily to
ployed with the US and Royal Navies. It was rst de- decrease budget costs. It was established that the Tri-
ployed in March 1990,[4] and is still in service. The dent II would be 83 inches in diameter and 44 ft in length
Trident II Strategic Weapons System is an improved in order to maintain performance with the existing MX
Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile with greater accu- ICBM. Modications to the guidance system, electronics
racy, payload, and range than the Trident C-4, strength- hardening, and external protective coatings were incor-
ening U.S. strategic deterrence. The Trident II is consid- porated into the design. While this satised the US Naval
ered to be a durable sea-based system capable of engag- study requirements, it did not accommodate the US Air
ing many targets. It enhances the U.S. position in strate- Force payload requirements.
gic arms negotiation with performance and payload exi- Propulsion stages were proposed to be used between the
bility that can accommodate active treaty initiatives (See rst stage and second stage motors, eectively making
New START). The TRIDENT IIs increased payload al- the Trident II a longer three-stage missile than the C-4.
lows nuclear deterrence to be accomplished with fewer Studies were delayed in 1978 when Congress only ap-
submarines.[7] proved $5 million of the suggested $15 million for the
Trident II missiles are carried by 14 US Ohio and 4 Naval/Air Force program studies. By December 1978,
British Vanguard-class submarines, with 24 missiles on the US Navy and Air Force studies agreed that the savings
each Ohio class and 16 missiles on each Vanguard class. made by a similar missile structure would not be eec-
USS Tennessee (SSBN-734) was the rst submarine to be tive. It was determined that the US Navy and Air Force
armed with Trident IIs, and there have been 150 success- maintain and be responsible for their own unique weapon
ful test ights [8] of the D5 missile since 1989, the most systems. The US Navy continued with their own weapon
recent being from the USS West Virginia (SSBN-736) in design of the Trident II.
June 2014. In March 1980, the US Secretary of Defense proposed
It is estimated that 540 missiles will be built by 2013. an increased level of funding for the submarine-launched
The Trident D5LE (life-extension) version will remain in ballistic missile modernization. Emphasis was strained
service until 2042.[9] for the need of increased accuracy. The House Armed
Services Committee (HASC) recommended no funding,
while the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC)
recommended full funding of $97 million. The SASC
139.1 History asked for a plan which incorporates the fullest pos-
sible competition... (and) should consider competing
among contractors for each major component, including
The Trident II was designated to be the latest longer-range the integrated missile. $65 million was awarded for the
missile, performing greater than its predecessor (Trident submarine-launched ballistic missile modernization.
C-4). In 1972, the US Navy projected an initial operat-
ing capability (IOC) date for the Trident II in 1984. The On 2 October 1981, President Reagan [10]
called for the mod-
US Navy continued to advance the IOC date to 1982. On ernization of the strategic forces. The Defense De-
18 October 1973, a Trident program review was admin- partment directed the Navy to fund all development of
istered. On 14 March 1974, the US Deputy Secretary of the Trident II D5 missile with a December 1989 IOC.
Defense disseminated two requirements for the Trident All research and development eort would be directed
program. The rst was an accuracy improvement for the toward a new development, advanced technology, high
Trident C-4. The second requirement asked for an alter- accuracy Trident II D5 system. In December 1982,
native to the C-4, or a new Trident II missile with a larger Deputy SECDEF Frank Carlucci advised Secretary of
rst stage motor than the C-4. the Navy Caspar Weinberger to include funding for a new
506
139.2. DESIGN 507
RV/warhead combination for Trident II. The reentry ve- The third-stage hull is also reinforced by Carbon-ber and
hicle was to be designated as the Mk 5, which was to Kevlar, but was not originally designed to be.[13]
have an increased yield than the Mk 4. The development
contract for Trident II was issued in October 1983. On
28 December 1983, the Deputy SECDEF authorized the
Navy to proceed with Full Scale Engineering Develop-
ment of the Trident II D5. The rst Trident II launch
occurred in January 1987, and the rst submarine launch
was attempted by Tennessee,[1] the rst D-5 ship of the
Ohio class, in March 1989. The launch attempt failed
because the plume of water following the missile rose to
greater height than expected, resulting in water being in
the nozzle when the motor ignited. Once the problem was
understood, relatively simple changes were quickly made,
but the problem delayed the IOC of Trident II until March US Navy test ring two Trident II D-5 UGM-133A missiles in the
1990.[4] Atlantic Missile Range, on June 02 2014 (DASO 25 SSBN 736).
139.2 Design 139.2.1 Sequence of Operation
Trident II was designed to be more advanced than Trident Once the launch command is given, expanding gas within
the launch tube forces the missile upward, and out of
I (retired in 2005[11] ), and have a greater range and pay-
load capacity. It is accurate enough to be used as a rst the submarine. Within seconds, the missile breaches the
strike weapon. The Trident II is a three-stage rocket, surface of the water and the rst-stage Thrust Vectoring
each stage containing a Solid-fuel rocket motor. The rst Control (TVC) subsystem ignites. This allows the mis-
motor is made by Thiokol and Hercules Inc.. This rst sile to correct its position prior to rst-stage motor igni-
stage incorporates a solid propellant motor, parts to en- tion. Once the position is corrected, the rst-stage mo-
sure rst-stage ignition, and a thrust vector control (TVC) tor ignites and burns for approximately 65 seconds until
system. The rst-stage section, compared to the Trident the fuel is expended. When the rst-stage motor ceases
C-4, is slightly larger, allowing increased range and a operation, the second-stage TVC subsystem ignites. The
larger payload. In addition to a larger motor, the D-5 uses rst-stage motor is then ejected by ordnance within the
an advanced and lighter fuel binder (Polyethylene glycol) interstage casing.[15][16]
than the C-4.[12] This fuel is more commonly known as Once the rst stage is cleared, the second-stage motor
NEPE-75.[13] ignites and burns for approximately 65 seconds. The
Both the rst- and second-stage motors are connected by nose fairing is then jettisoned, separating from the mis-
an interstage casing, which contains electronic equipment sile. When the nose fairing is cleared of the missile, the
third-stage TVC subsystem ignites, and ordnance sepa-
and ordnance for separation during ight. The second
stage also contains a motor made by Thiokol and Hercules rates the second-stage motor. The third-stage motor then
ignites, pushing the equipment section the remaining dis-
Inc., parts to ensure the second-stage ignition, and a TVC
system. The rst and second stages are both important tance (approx. 40 seconds) of the ight. When the third-
stage motor reaches the targeted area, the Post Boost
to the structural integrity of the missile. To ensure that
the stages maintain a maximal strength-to-weight ratio, Control System (PBCS) ignites, and the third-stage motor
is ejected.
both stages are reinforced by a Carbon-ber-reinforced
polymer hull.[13] The astro-inertial guidance uses star positioning to ne-
The second- and third-stage sections are connected by tune the accuracy of the inertial guidance system after
an integrated equipment/adapter section (ES). The equip- launch. As the accuracy of a missile is dependent upon
ment/adapter section is modied to be shorter and more the guidance system knowing the exact position of the
compact than the C-4s adapter section.[12] The D-5s missile at any given moment during its ight, the fact that
equipment section contains critical guidance and ight stars are a xed reference point from which to calculate
control avionics, such as the MK 6 navigation system. that position makes this a potentially very eective means
The equipment section also contains the third-stage TVC of improving accuracy. In the Trident system this was
system, ordnance for ejecting from the second-stage mo- achieved by a single camera that was trained to spot just
tor, and the MIRV platform. The Nose Fairing shields the one star in its expected position, if it was not quite aligned
payload of the missile and third-stage motor. Mounted to where it should be then this would indicate that the
within the nose cap (above the nose fairing) is an ex- inertial system was [17]
not precisely on target and a correction
tendable Drag-resistant aerospike. [14]
This aerodynamic would be made.
spike eectively decreases drag by 50% on the missile. The equipment section, with the MIRV, then aims the
508 CHAPTER 139. UGM-133 TRIDENT II
reentry vehicles (RV) towards earth. The payload is then West Virginia (SSBN-736)
released from the MIRV platform. To prevent the PBCS
correctional thrust from interfering with the RV when re- Kentucky (SSBN-737)
leased, the equipment section initiates the Plume Avoid- Maryland (SSBN-738)
ance Maneuver (PAM). If the RV will be disrupted by
the PBCS nozzles thrust, the nearest nozzle will shut o Nebraska (SSBN-739)
until the RV is away from the MIRV. The PAM is used
only when a nozzles plume will disrupt the area near an Rhode Island (SSBN-740)
RV. The PAM is a specialized design feature added to the Maine (SSBN-741)
Trident II to increase accuracy.[15]
Wyoming (SSBN-742)
Louisiana (SSBN-743)
139.3 Specications
Royal Navy
Purpose: Seaborne Nuclear Deterrence[1]
Unit Cost: US$ 37.3 million

Vanguard
Range: With full load 7,840 kilometres (4,230 nmi);
with reduced load approx. 7,000 mi (11,300 km) Victorious
(exact is classied)[6]
Vigilant
Maximum speed: Approximately 18,030 mph
(29,020 km/h) (Mach 24)[1] (terminal phase) Vengeance
Guidance system: Astro-inertial guidance.
CEP: Requirement: 90120 metres (300390 ft).[4]

139.5 See also
(Information from ight tests is classied.)
Trident (missile)
Warhead (in USA usage only): The Mark 5 MIRV
can carry up to 14 W88 (475 kt) warheads, while RSM-56 Bulava
the Mark 4 MIRV can also carry 14 W76 (100 R-29RMU2 Liner
kt) warheads.[18][19] START I reduced this to eight.
New START provides for further reductions in R-29RMU Sineva
deployed launch vehicles, limiting the number of
Submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) to R-29 Vysota
288, and the number of deployed SLBM warheads
R-39 Rif
to a total of 1,152. In 2014, another START
Treaty will reduce the number of deployed SLBMs M51 (missile)
to 240.[20]
M45 (missile)
JL-2
139.4 Submarines currently armed
JL-1
with Trident II missiles
K Missile family
United States Navy
Agni-VI
Henry M. Jackson (SSBN-730)

139.6 References
Alabama (SSBN-731)
[1] Parsch, Andreas. Trident D-5. Encyclopedia Astronau-
Alaska (SSBN-732) tica. Retrieved 11 June 2014.
Nevada (SSBN-733) [2] The W88 Warhead, Intermediate yield strategic SLBM
MIRV warhead. Retrieved 12 June 2014.
Tennessee (SSBN-734)
[3] The W76 Warhead, Intermediate Yield Strategic SLBM
Pennsylvania (SSBN-735) MIRV Warhead. Retrieved 12 June 2014.
[4] Parsch, Andreas. UGM-133. Directory of U.S. Mili-

tary Rockets and Missiles. Retrieved 2014-06-11.
[5] History Facts 2. Retrieved June 21, 2014.
[6] DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

ACT, 1996 (Senate - August 11, 1995)". Retrieved 13
June 2014.
[7] Trident II (D-5) Sea-Launched Ballistic Missile UGM

133A (Trident II Missile)". Retrieved June 21, 2014.
[8] Fisher, Lynn (13 June 2014). Trident II D5 Missile

Reaches 150 Successful Test Flights (Press release).
Lockheed Martin. PR Newswire.
[9] UGM-133 TRIDENT D-5. Missiles of the World. mis-

silethreat.com. Retrieved 2012-11-23.
[10] Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session With Re-

porters on the Announcement of the United States Strate-
gic Weapons Program. National Archives and Records
Administration. Retrieved 2014-12-24.
[11] Popejoy, Mary. USS Alabama Ooads Last of C4 Tri-

dent Missiles. Retrieved 21 November 2013.
[12] Trident I C-4 FBM / SLBM. Retrieved June 13, 2014.
[13] Trident II D-5 Fleet Ballistic Missile. Retrieved June

13, 2014.
[14] TRIDENT II (D5) DIMENSIONS AND JOINTS. Re-

trieved June 13, 2014.
[15] Santa Cruz Facility Brochure. Retrieved June 23, 2014.

23, 2014.

23, 2014.
[18] Lockheed Martin UGM-133 Trident II. Retrieved De-

cember 12, 2013.
[19] Lockheed UGM-96A Trident I C4/UGM-113A Trident

II D5. Retrieved December 12, 2013.
[20] Fact Sheet on U.S. Nuclear Force Structure under the

New START Treaty (pdf). United States Department of
Defense. Retrieved 2014-06-12.
Chapter 140
UGM-73 Poseidon
The UGM-73 Poseidon missile was the second US 1971. It eventually equipped 31 Lafayette-, James Madi-
Navy nuclear-armed submarine-launched ballistic mis- son-, and Benjamin Franklin-class submarines.
sile (SLBM) system, powered by a two-stage solid-fuel Beginning in 1979, 12 Poseidon-equipped SSBNs were
rocket. It succeeded the UGM-27 Polaris beginning in
retted with Trident I. By 1992, the Soviet Union had
1972, bringing major advances in warheads and accuracy. collapsed, 12 Ohio-class submarines had been commis-
It was followed by Trident I in 1979, and Trident II in
sioned, and the START I treaty had gone into eect, so
1990. the 31 older Poseidon- and Trident I-armed SSBNs were
disarmed, withdrawing Poseidon from service.
140.1 Development
140.2 Operators
A development study for a longer range version of the
Polaris missile achieved by enlarging it to the maximum United States
possible size allowed by existing launch tubes started in
1963. Tests had already shown that Polaris missiles could United States Navy
be operated without problems in launch tubes that had
their berglass liners and locating rings removed.
The project was given the title Polaris B3 in November,
140.3 See also
but the missile was eventually named Poseidon C3 to em-
phasize the technical advances over its predecessor. The Media related to UGM-73 Poseidon C-3 at Wikimedia
C3 was the only version of the missile produced, and it Commons
was also given the designation UGM-73A.[1]
List of missiles
Slightly longer and considerably wider and heavier than
Polaris A3, Poseidon had the same 4,600 kilometres
(2,500 nmi) range, greater payload capacity, improved
accuracy, and Multiple independently targetable reentry 140.4 References
vehicle capability. Poseidon could deliver up to four-
teen W68 thermonuclear warheads[2] contained in Mark [1] Poseidon C3 at Spaceline.com
3 reentry vehicles to multiple targets.
[2] Poseidon C3 at MissileThreat.com
As with Polaris, starting a rocket motor when the missile
was still in the submarine was considered very dangerous.
Therefore, the missile was ejected from its launch tube us-
ing high pressure steam produced by a solid-fueled boiler.
The main rocket motor ignited automatically when the
missile had risen approximately 10 metres (33 ft) above
the submarine.
The rst test launch took place on 16 August 1968, the
rst successful at-sea launch was from a surface ship, the
historic USNS Observation Island (from July 1 to De-
cember 16, 1969), earning the ship the Meritorious Unit
Commendation, and the rst test launch from a subma-
rine took place on the USS James Madison on 3 August
1970. The weapon ocially entered service on 31 March
510
Chapter 141
UGM-96 Trident I
The UGM-96 Trident I, or Trident C4, was an

American Submarine-launched ballistic missile, built by
Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Sunnyvale, Califor-
nia. First deployed in 1979, the Trident I replaced the
Poseidon missile. It was retired in 2005,[2] having been
replaced by the Trident II. In 1980, the Royal Navy re-
quested Trident I missiles under the Polaris Sales Agree-
ment, however in 1982, this was changed to Trident IIs.
It was the rst Trident missile to enter service.
The Trident I is a three-stage, solid-fuelled missile.
The rst eight Ohio-class submarines were armed with
Trident I missiles. Twelve James Madison- and Benjamin
Franklin-class submarines were also retrotted with Tri-
dent I missiles, which replaced older Poseidon missiles.
141.1 See also

Media related to UGM-93A Trident I C-4 at Wikimedia
Commons
Trident (missile)
UGM-133 Trident II
141.2 References
[1] Parsch, Andreas. UGM-133. Directory of U.S. Mili-
tary Rockets and Missiles. Retrieved 2009-02-14.
[2] Popejoy, Mary (November 5, 2005). USS Alabama Of- Diagramatic view of a Trident II D5 missile
oads Last of C4 Trident Missiles. navy.mil. US Navy.
Retrieved May 16, 2012.
511
Chapter 142
W21
The W21 was an hydrogen bomb design for the US mili-

tary. It would have used the physics package of the TX-
21 bomb. The TX-21 was a weaponized version of the
Shrimp device tested in the Bravo shot of Operation
Castle. A TX-21C was tested as the Navajo shot, Oper-
ation Redwing. The TX-21, was a scaled-down version
of the Runt device (M-17 hydrogen bomb). Smaller in
size and weight to the Mk-17, the Mk-21 was considered
as a potential missile warhead. Far more powerful than
the TX-13, which was a high-yield atomic bomb devel-
oped from the Mk-6 bomb, the XW21 was to replace the
XW13 in the weapons pod of the B-58 bomber and for
the SM-64 Navaho missile.
At the same time the Mk-21 bomb was being developed,
the Mk-15 was also being developed. A missile warhead
version was developed for the Navajo, Matador and Regu-
lus missiles (a XW29 version was designed for Snark and
Redstone). The XW15 design developed into the XW39
which was eventually deployed on Redstone and Snark
missiles.
The XW21 was cancelled in favor of the much smaller
and lighter XW-39 in 1957. Though several hundred Mk-
21 hydrogen bombs were briey stockpiled, no W21 war-
heads were ever constructed.
The W21 is an example of how the rapid development of
hydrogen bombs in the mid-1950s created many dead-
end designs which were quickly overtaken by smaller,
lighter, and more ecient weapons.
142.1 References
Hansen, Chuck, Swords of Armageddon, Sunnyvale,
CA, Chucklea Publications, 1995.
Bullard, John W., History of the Redstone Missile

System, Huntsville, AL, Army Missile Command,
1965.
Neal, J. Allen, The Development of the Navajo

Guided Missile, Dayton, OH, Wright Air Develop-
ment Center, 1956.
512
Chapter 143
W41
W41 was the designation of an American nuclear war- Bibliography

head, which was investigated during the late 1950s. In-
tended for use in the SM-64 Navaho cruise missile, the Cochran, Thomas B.; Arkin, William M.; Hoenig,
program was cancelled in 1957. The program was brief, Milton M. (1987). Nuclear Weapons Databook:
considered at the same time as the TX-29, WX-15-X1 U.S. nuclear warhead production. Nuclear Weapons
and XW-21 warheads. All were eventually replaced as Databook 2. Pensacola, FL: Ballinger Publishing.
the proposed Navaho warhead by the W39. The W41 ISBN 978-0-88730-124-7.
was an adaptation of the B41 (Mk-41) thermonuclear
bomb which was produced in large numbers and served Hansen, Chuck (1995). The Swords of Armaged-
in stockpile for 15 years.[1] don: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Development Since
1945 (CD-ROM). Sunnyvale, CA: Chucklea Pub-
lications.
143.1 History Polmar, Norman; Norris, Robert Stan (2009). The
A warhead version of the B41 thermonuclear bomb, Delivery Systems Since 1945. Annapolis, MD: Naval
development of the W41 began in November 1956 Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-55750-681-8.
at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Investi-
gated as a possible warhead for the SM-64 Navaho, a
cruise missile then in development,[1] work on the war-
head continued through July 1957, when the project was
cancelled.[2][3]
143.2 Conspiracy theories

Following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, conspiracy
theories began that claimed a W41 nuclear bomb would
be used to seal the oil well,[4] despite the use of a nuclear
weapon in the role having been ocially rejected.[5]
143.3 References
Citations
[1] Hansen 1995

[2] Polmar and Norris 2009, p.53.
[3] Cochran et al. 1987, p.10.
[4] The Relief Well is a Cover-Up. NOLA.com. Retrieved
2011-01-30.
[5] Revkin, Andrew C. (3 June 2010). No Surprise: U.S.
Rejects Nuclear Option for Gulf Oil Gusher. The New
York Times Blogs.
513
Chapter 144
W42
The W42 was an American nuclear warhead developed

in 1957.
In December 1957 the Army requested the Atomic En-
ergy Commission to develop a nuclear warhead for the
HAWK low- to medium-altitude surface-to-air missile.
In July 1958 the military characteristics were approved
for the new warhead and the design released. Two months
later the requirement for a HAWK with a nuclear warhead
was cancelled.
It equipped the AIM-47 Falcon long-range air-to-air mis-
sile.
144.1 References
Hansen, Chuck; Swords of Armageddon, Sunnyvale,
California, Chucklea Publications, 1995.
514
Chapter 145
W60
The W60 is a defunct nuclear weapons system. It was de-

signed to be the very small nuclear warhead of the United
States Navy's long range Typhoon LR surface-to-air mis-
sile.
Development started in 1959, and several re safety is-
sues delayed the XW-60s development. The Typhoon
itself ran into far more dicult development problems,
especially in the size and weight of the acquisition and re
control radars and systems. By late 1963 Typhoon was
cancelled, with the XW-60 being terminated in March
1964.
145.1 References
515
Chapter 146
W63
The W63 was the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory's en-

try into a brief competition between Livermore and Los
Alamos to design a warhead for the Armys Lance tactical
surface to surface missile.
In July 1964 both Livermore Labs and Los Alamos
started developing competing warheads for the Lance.
The Los Alamos design, the W64, was canceled in
September 1964 in favor of Livermores W63. In
November 1966 W63 was canceled in favor of the W70.
146.1 References
516
Chapter 147
W64
This article is about the nuclear weapon. For the audio

format, see WAV.
The W64 nuclear warhead was the Los Alamos Labora-

tory's entry into a brief competition between Lawrence
Livermore Laboratory and Los Alamos to design an
enhanced-radiation nuclear warhead (i.e., a "neutron
bomb") for the United States Army's MGM-52 Lance
tactical surface-to-surface missile. In July 1964, both
Livermore Labs and Los Alamos started developing com-
peting warheads for the Lance. The Los Alamos design,
the W64, was canceled in September 1964 in favor of
Livermores W63. In November 1966, the W63 was can-
celed in favor of the W70, the model that nally entered
production.
147.1 References
Hansen, Chuck, Swords of Armageddon, Sunnyvale,
CA, Chucklea Publications, 1995.
517
Chapter 148
W65
The W65 was the Lawrence Livermore Lab's competitor

for the warhead of the Sprint anti-ballistic missile. Devel-
opment of the W65 started in October 1965 and was ter-
minated in January 1968 in favor of the Los Alamos W66
design. The W65 was an enhanced radiation weapon
whose kill mechanism was the neutron ux.
148.1 References
518
Chapter 149
W69
W69 is a United States nuclear warhead used in AGM-69

SRAM Short-Range Attack Missiles.
It was designed in the early 1970s and produced from
1974 to 1976. It remained in service until 1991, with
the last units being retired in 1996. About 1,500 were
produced.
The W69 design was one of many derived from the B61
nuclear bomb design.
149.1 Specications
The W69 has a diameter of 15 inches and is 30 inches
long. It weighed 275 pounds. It has a yield of between
170-200 kilotons. [1]
149.2 See also

B61 Family
149.3 References
[1] List of all US Nuclear Weapons at The Nuclear Weapon
Archive. Accessed July 10, 2007
519
Chapter 150
MGM-140 ATACMS
The MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System (AT- Army terminated the funding for the BAT-equipped AT-
acMS) is a surface-to-surface missile (SSM) manufac- ACMS and therefore the MGM-164A never became fully
tured by Lockheed Martin. It has a range of over 160 operational.[10]
kilometres (100 mi), with solid propellant, and is 4.0 me-
tres (13 ft) high and 610 millimetres (24 in) in diameter.
The ATACMS can be red from multiple rocket launch- 150.1.4 MGM-168 ATacMS Block IVA
ers, including the M270 MLRS, and HIMARS. An AT-
ACMS launch container has a lid patterned with six cir- Originally designated Block IA Unitary (MGM-140E),
cles like a standard MLRS rocket lid. the new Block IVA variant was designed to carry a
230 kilograms (500 lb) unitary HE warhead instead of
The rst use of the ATACMS in a combat capability was the M74 bomblets. It uses the same GPS/INS guid-
during Operation Desert Storm, where a total of 32 were ance as the MGM-140B. The development contract was
red from the M270 MLRS.[5] During the Operation placed in December 2000, and ight-testing began in
Iraqi Freedom more than 450 missiles were red.[6] As of April 2001. The rst production contract was awarded
early 2015, over 560 ATACMS missiles had been red in in March 2002.[11] The range has been increased to some
combat.[1][2] 300 kilometres (190 mi), limited more by the legal provi-
sions of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR)
than technical considerations.
150.1 Variants
150.1.1 MGM-140A Block I 150.2 Operators
Previously M39,[7] unguided missile contains 950 M74 Bahrain: Royal Bahraini Army[12]
anti-personnel/anti-materiel (APAM) submunitions with
a range of 128 kilometres (80 mi).[8] Greece: Hellenic Army is also a known user of
the ATACMS.[13]
150.1.2 MGM-140B Block IA Republic of China: Republic of China Army.

On 20 December 2010, Lockheed Martin was
Previously M39A1,[7] missile uses GPS/INS guidance, awarded a contract for $916 million for 226 'tacti-
carries 275 M74 submunitions and has a 165 kilometres cal missiles and 24 launcher modication kits for
(103 mi) range.[8][9] the UAE and Taiwan.[14]
In January 2015, Lockheed Martin received a contract South Korea: In 2002, the South Korean Army
to develop and test new hardware for Block I ATACMS purchased 111 ATACMS Block I and 110 AT-
missiles to eliminate the risk of unexploded ordnance by ACMS Block IA missiles, which were deployed in
2016.[1][2] 2004. An aliated company of the Hanwha Group
of Korea produces munitions for the missile systems
under license from Lockheed Martin.[15]
150.1.3 MGM-164 ATacMS Block II
Turkey: Turkish Army[16] is also a known user
A Block II variant (initially designated MGM-140C or, of the ATACMS.[17][18]
previously, M39A3[7] ) was designed to carry a payload
of 13 Brilliant Anti-Tank (BAT) munitions manufactured United Arab Emirates: United Arab Emirates
by Northrop Grumman. However, in late 2003 the U.S. Army. On 20 December 2010, Lockheed Martin
520
was awarded a contract for $916 million for 226 'tac- [15] ROK: Army Tactical Missile System (Army TACMS)".
tical missiles and 24 launcher modication kits for GlobalSecurity.org. Retrieved 6 October 2011.
the UAE and Taiwan.[14]
[16] Turkey. Lockheed Martin. Retrieved 6 October 2011.
United States: United States Army
[17] Lockheed Martin Successfully Validates ATACMS Mis-
sile Long-Term Reliability. Lockheed Martin. 26 Febru-
ary 2009.
150.3 See also
[18] MGM-140A Block 1. MissileThreat.com. Retrieved 6
October 2011.
United States Army Aviation and Missile Command
150.3.1 Comparable missiles 150.5 External links

OTR-21 Tochka ATACMS Long-Range Precision Tactical Missile
System Lockheed Martin (2011)
P-12
Army Tactical Missile System Block IA Unitary
Prahaar (missile)
Lockheed Martin. Retrieved 6 October 2011.
Rogers III, Henry T. (16 Jun 2006). Army Tac-
150.4 References tical Missile System and Fixed-Wing Aircraft Ca-
pabilities in the Joint Time Sensitive Targeting Pro-
[1] U.S. army awards Lockheed Martin $78 million contract cess. Master thesis. US Army Command and Gen-
for ATACMS guided missile modernization - Armyrecog- eral Sta College. Retrieved 24 April 2012.
nition.com, 8 January 2015
Precision Guided Missiles and Rockets Program
[2] Lockheed Martin Tactical Missile System Upgrades - Review U.S. Defense Technical Information Center
Armedforces-Int.com, 8 January 2015 (14 April 2008).
[3] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/ ATACMS / ATACMS Block IA Unitary
lockheed/data/mfc/pc/atacms-block-1a-unitary/ Deagel.com. Retrieved 6 October 2011.
mfc-atacms-block-1a-unitary-pc.pdf
M39 ATMS GlobalSecurity.org. Retrieved 6 Octo-
ber 2011.
[5] [Source, DoD, Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, April
1992, p. 753.] M39 Army Tactical Missile System (Army
TACMS) Federation of American Scientists |
[6] Lockheed Martin - Army Tactical Missile System. FAS.org. Retrieved 6 October 2011.
Lockheed Martin. 2006.
[7] MGM-140/164/168 ATACMS (M39) (United

States), Oensive weapons. Janes Strategic Weapon
Systems. Janes Information Group. Oct 27, 2011.
Retrieved 13 July 2012.
[8] South Korea Goes Long Strategypage.com, October 12,

2012
[9] Lockheed Martin (LTV) MGM-140 ATACMS.

Designation-Systems.net. Retrieved 6 October 2011.
[10] Lockheed Martin MGM-164 ATACMS II.

[11] Lockheed Martin MGM-168 ATACMS IVA.

[12] Bahrain Purchases Lockheed Martins ATACMS Mis-

siles. Lockheed Martin. 20 December 2000.
[13] Greece. Lockheed Martin. Retrieved 6 October 2011.
[14] Contracts for Thursday, December 23, 2010. U.S. De-

partment of Defense. Retrieved 6 October 2011.
Chapter 151
RGM-59 Taurus
The RGM-59 Taurus was an American project, con- The Taurus guidance system was intended to begin test-
ducted by the United States Navy, that was intended to de- ing, using modied MGM-29 Sergeant missiles, in 1965;
velop a surface-to-surface missile for use as a re support one source states that Lockheed had been selected to de-
weapon during amphibious landings, replacing heavy- velop the missiles airframe.[5] Before any hardware for
caliber naval guns. Developed during the early 1960s, the the project had been constructed, however, the project
project was cancelled before any hardware development was cancelled during 1965.[2] With the cancellation of
was undertaken. the RGM-59 project, studies turned to a navalised vari-
ant of the MGM-52 Lance missile to provide shore land-
ing re support; in addition, an armed version of the
151.1 Design and development Ryan Firebee drone was proposed to meet the LSFW
requirement.[4] Due to funding restrictions, however,
nothing would come of these projects as well.[4]
In August 1961, the United States Navy issued a require-
ment for a new type of surface-to-surface missile, called In March 1967, the Naval Weapons Center proposed an-
the Landing Force Support Weapon (LFSW),[1] that was other LFSW missile system, that was intended to have a
intended to replace the battleship and heavy cruiser force secondary role of the destruction of enemy air defenses.[6]
- then being retired - in the role of providing re support Intended for launch from existing guided missile cruisers
of troops conducting amphibious landings.[2][3] and destroyers, as well as being carried by ballistic missile
submarines, the new missile was intended to use terrain
The LFSW requirement specied a rocket-powered reference guidance, and was expected to have accuracy
missile,[3] armed with a conventional warhead, that would of 200 yards (180 m).[6] However, this project also came
have an eective range of at least 34 miles (55 km).[2] to naught,[6] leaving the role of a U.S. Navy ship-to-shore
The LSFW missile was required to be equally as eec- missile unlled until the arrival of the BGM-109 Toma-
tive against soft targets as the naval guns and the unguided hawk during the 1980s.[2]
rockets that it was intended to replace.[2] Studies regard-
ing the guidance system of the LFSW were conducted
by the Applied Physics Laboratory, which determined
that the ideal solution for the new missile was for it to 151.3 See also
utilise inertial guidance during the midcourse phase of
its ight.[2][4] Terminal guidance would be provided by a Naval gunre support
tracking beacon, operated by the troops in the battle area. USS Carronade (IFS-1)
The missile, having locked onto the beacon, would oset
from the beacons position by an amount specied in the
beacon signal, thereby striking the target with a high de-
gree of accuracy.[4] 151.4 References
Citations
151.2 Cancellation and follow-ups [1] DOD 4120.15-L (2004), p.84.
Designated ZRGM-59A Taurus in June 1963, the re- [2] Parsch 2002
ned design for the LFSW missile specied that it should [3] Morison and Rowe 1975, p.216.
be capable of utilising the same launchers as the Terrier
surface-to-air missile;[4] the missiles accuracy was pro- [4] Friedman 1982, p.228.
jected to be within a range of 30 to 210 yards (27 to 192
[5] Andrade 1979, p.235.
m), depending on whether or not the target beacon was
operational.[2] [6] Friedman 2002, p.405.
522
Bibliography
DOD 4120.15-L: Model Designation of Military

Aerospace Vehicles. Washington, DC: Depart-
ment of Defense. May 12, 2004. Retrieved 2011-
01-26.
Andrade, John (1979). U.S. Military Aircraft Desig-
nations and Serials since 1909. Leicester, UK: Mid-
land Counties Publications. ISBN 0-904597-22-9.
every gun, missile, mine, and torpedo used by the
U.S. Navy from 1883 to the present day. Annapo-
lis, MD: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-0-87021-
735-7. Retrieved 2011-01-26.
Friedman, Norman (2002). U.S. Amphibious Ships

and Craft: An Illustrated Design History. Annapo-
250-6. Retrieved 2011-01-28.
Morison, Samuel L.; John S. Rowe (1975). The

napolis, MD: United States Naval Institute. ISBN
0-87021-639-2.
Parsch, Andreas (2002). APL RGM-59 Tau-
rus. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles.

RGM-59 Taurus, Harpoon HeadQuarters
Chapter 152
Ares (missile)
The Ares was a proposed intercontinental ballistic mis-

sile (ICBM) derived from the Titan II missile. It was a
single-stage rocket with a high-performance engine to in-
crease the rockets specic impulse. Both Aerojet and
Rocketdyne carried out engine design studies for the
project, but Ares was ultimately cancelled in favour of
solid-fuel ICBMs, which were safer to store and could be
launched with much less notice.
Ares would also have been capable of placing a 4,000
kg payload into low Earth orbit as a single-stage to orbit
launch vehicle.
524
Chapter 153
MGM-134 Midgetman
The MGM-134A Midgetman, also known as the Small launcher.

Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (SICBM),[1] was an The Midgetman had a range of some 11,000 kilome-
intercontinental ballistic missile developed by the United
ters (6,800 mi). The warhead comprised a single Mark
States of America. 21 re-entry vehicle with a 475 kt (1,990 TJ) W87-
1 thermonuclear weapon, also used on the LGM-118
Peacekeeper.
153.1 Overview
The Midgetman grew out of a requirement expressed in 153.1.2 Carrier vehicle: HML
the mid-1980s by the U.S. Air Force for a small ICBM
which could be deployed on road vehicles. Fixed silos are
inherently vulnerable to attack, and with the increasing
accuracy of submarine-launched ballistic missiles there
was a growing threat that the Soviet Union could launch
large numbers of missiles from o the coast, destroying
most of the U.S. ICBM force before it could be used (rst
strike). By producing a mobile missile which could not
easily be targeted by enemy forces, and thus survive a rst
strike attempt, the Air Force hoped to negate this possi-
bility (second strike). It was also a response to the Soviet
development of SS-24 (rail mobile) and the SS-25 (road
mobile) ICBMs.
Hard Mobile Launcher
System denition studies for the SICBM (Small Intercon-
tinental Ballistic Missile) commenced in 1984 under an
Air Force Program Oce, located at Norton AFB CA, The Midgetman was to be carried by a Hard Mobile
with TRW providing System Engineering and Technical Launcher (HML) vehicle (see additional pictures at Small
Assistance (SETA) support. Contracts were awarded by ICBM Hard Mobile Launcher). Most of these vehicles
the end of 1986 to Martin Marietta, Thiokol, Hercules, would normally remain on bases, only being deployed in
Aerojet, Boeing, General Electric, Rockwell and Logi- times of international crisis when nuclear war was con-
con and authorization to proceed with full scale develop- sidered more likely. The Hard Mobile Launcher was
ment of the MGM-134A Midgetman was granted. The radiation hardened and had a trailer mounted plow to
rst prototype missile was launched in 1989, but tumbled dig the HML into the earth for additional nuclear blast
o course and was destroyed over the Pacic Ocean after protection.[3]
about 70 seconds.[1] The rst successful test ight took Early HML model concept testing was performed at San-
place on April 18, 1991.[2] dia National Laboratorys Thundertube. The Thun-
dertube was a conventional explosive shock wave guide
which consisted of a steel pipe about 5.8 m (19 ft) in
153.1.1 Design diameter and about 120 m (400 ft) long. Small scale
HML design concept models were placed on a soil sam-
In design the XMGM-134A was a three-stage solid- ple (about 5m x 5m x1.5 m deep) intended to repre-
fuelled missile. Like the LGM-118 Peacekeeper it sent Western US desert soils. Soil sample preparation
used the cold launch system, in which gas pressure was was quality assurance veried using a 1 cm diameter
used to eject the missile from the launch canister. The ultra-miniature Cone Penetration Test penetrometer (tip
rocket would only ignite once the missile was free of the and friction sleeve) developed at the Earth Technology
525
526 CHAPTER 153. MGM-134 MIDGETMAN
Corporation (Long Beach, CA) in 1984. The CPT soil 153.5 External links
test system and sample preparation (soil surface planner)
equipment was designed by Andrew Strutynsky PE,CPT http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-134.
Group Leader at Earth Technology 1982-1985. html
Interview with Mr. Perle about U.S. - Soviet Arms
153.1.3 Cancellation Control from the Dean Peter Krogh Foreign Aairs
Digital Archives
With the end of the cold war in the 1990s the U.S.
scaled back its development of new nuclear weapons.
The Midgetman program was therefore cancelled in Jan-
uary 1992. The legacy of its lighter graphite-wound solid
rocket motor technology lived on in the GEM side boost-
ers used on the Delta rockets, and the Orion stages of the
Pegasus air-launched rocket.
The Soviet equivalent of this missile was the RSS 400
Kuryer which was tested but cancelled in October 1991.
This could have lled the role of the more cost eective
Topol M road mobile ICBM.
153.2 Specications
Length : 14 m (46 ft)
Diameter : 1.17 m (3 ft 10 in)
Weight : 13,600 kg (30,000 lb)
Range : 11,000 km (6,800 mi)
Propulsion : Three-stage solid-fuel rocket
Warhead : W871 thermonuclear weapon (475 kt

(1,990 TJ)) in Mark 21 Re-entry Vehicle
153.3 See also

Nuclear warfare
Nuclear weapon
Intercontinental ballistic missile
List of missiles
153.4 References
[1] Unarmed Midgetman Missile a Failure in First Test - New
York Times
[2] MGM-134A Midgetman / Small ICBM
[3] https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/us_hml_01.jpg
Chapter 154
RTV-A-2 Hiroc
The RTV-A-2 Hiroc (High-altitude Rocket) was the

United States' rst attempt at an intercontinental ballistic
missile (ICBM). In 1946, Consolidated-Vultee was given
an Army Air Forces research contract and began design
and development of the MX-774, which led to Convairs
development of the Atlas ICBM.[1] Although the MX-
774 itself was cancelled, three prototype launch vehicles
were built, designated RTV-A-2. The three rockets were
launched in July, September, and December of 1948, all
three launches being considered partial successes.[2]
154.1 References and notes

[1] York, Herbert Jr (1978). Race to Oblivion: A Partici-
pants View of the Arms Race. Simon and Schuster. p.
56. Retrieved 2008-10-23.
[2] Parsch, Andreas (2005). Convair RTV-A-2 Hiroc. Di-

rectory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles - Appendix
1: Early Missiles and Drones. Designation-Systems. Re-
trieved 2014-04-10.
527
Chapter 155
ArcLight (missile)
For other uses, see Arclight (disambiguation). July 2010. <http://www.military.com/news/article/

new-navy-missile-could-hit-global-targets.html?col=
The ArcLight program was a missile development pro- 1186032325324>
gram of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
with the goal of equipping ships like Aegis cruisers with [2] DARPA - Tactical Technology Oce (TTO). DARPA.
a weapon system capable of striking targets nearly any- N.p., n.d. Web. 11 July 2010. <http://www.darpa.mil/
where on the globe, thereby increasing the power of sur- tto/programs/arclight/index.html>.
face ships to a level comparable to that of ballistic missile- [3] ArcLight Industry Day Announcement
equipped submarines.[1]
[4] DARPA Halts High-Speed, Long-Range Weapon Devel-
According to DARPA, the ArcLight program was to de-
opment Program - FabioGhioni.net, 11 April 2011
velop a high-tech missile based on the booster stack of the
current RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 and equipped with
a Hypersonic glide vehicle capable of carrying a 100-200
lb (45-90 kg) warhead.[2] The conguration would allow
ships carrying the ArcLight missile to strike targets 2,300
miles (3,700 km) away from the launch point. The missile
would replace the aging Tomahawk (missile) and could be
red out of the standard vertical launchers available on
many surface ships.[1] Additionally, the ArcLight missile
would be capable of launch from air and submarine assets
capable of carrying the BGM-109.[2]
Dr. Arthur Mabbett was the program manager of the
DARPA project,[2] which was to develop and test two dif-
ferent missile designs.[3]
In DARPAs FY 2012 budget, the ArcLight missile pro-
gram was terminated. The reason was that more develop-
ment work was needed and they could not yet reach a high
enough lift-to-drag ratio system from a non-xed-wing
vehicle. 2011 was spent reassessing technology needs,
and no further funding was requested after that. DARPA
commented that ArcLight was not part of Prompt Global
Strike and was meant as a theater-based system to work
with other systems like the Tomahawk cruise missile.[4]
155.1 See also

Prompt Global Strike
155.2 References
[1] Hooper, Craig. New Navy Missile Could Hit Global
Targets. Military.com. N.p., 8 July 2010. Web. 11
528
Chapter 156
Hera (rocket)
Hera is a target missile for development testing of mis- to the Missile Defense Agency, beating out three compet-
sile defense systems such as Terminal High Altitude Area ing bidders including Orbital Sciences Corporation and
Defense and Patriot PAC-3. In 1992, the United States Lockheed Martin Space Systems.
Army Space and Missile Defense Command awarded the
Theater Missile Defense (TMD) Targets contract to Cole-
man Aerospace with Space Vector and Aerotherm as sub-
contractors. Coleman developed Hera using the second
156.1 Notes
and third stages of the Minuteman II and the guidance
section of the Pershing II. The Rocket Systems Launch [1] Khromov, Gennady (20 November 2000) The Use of
Program at Detachment 12, USAF Space and Missile Hera Missile Violates the INF Treaty Center for Arms
Control, Energy and Environmental Studies
Systems Center, provided technical program manage-
ment services involved with removing the liquid injection
[2] Webb, Brian (24 March 2009) Hera missile launch from
thrust vector control system from the retired MMII sec- White Sands, NM scheduled for March 25, 7-8 a.m.
ond stages in favor of a ex-seal system enabling robust
ight control from launch to burn out. First launch was [3] Order No. 03-278 and map; Closure area for HERA mis-
on April 24, 1995 at White Sands Missile Range. sile launch 23 March 2009 Magdalena Ranger District,
Cibola National Forest, US Forest Service
Because of its range, Russia claims Hera qualies as an
IRBM and hence violates Item 1, Article 6 of the INF [4] Abort Aftermath 2006 Space and Astronomy News
Treaty.[1]
Hera is also used in the USAF Sounding Rocket Program. [5] Target Failure Halts THAAD Test 2009 Space News
There were twelve tests using the Hera missile system [6] MDA Halts Target Buys From Coleman Aerospace
launched from Fort Wingate over the Datil Mountains to 2010 Aviation Week
White Sands Missile Range between 1997 and 2004.[2]
In March 2009, the tests were resumed with a thir- [7] Force Lifts Suspension on Buys From L-3s Coleman
teenth ight over the Datil Mountains.[3] Other tests us- Aerospace 2011 Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance
ing the HERA were conducted entirely within the mis-
sile range, such as the aborted 13 September 2006 test [8] L-3 Coleman Nabs MDA Targets Contract
of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)
system.[4]
During THAAD ight test FTT-11 on December 11, 156.2 References
2009, the Hera target missile failed to ignite following
its airborne deployment, subsequently crashing into the Designation Systems: Coleman Hera
ocean.[5] In the wake of this incident, Missile Defense
Agency Director LTG Patrick O'Reilly sharply criticized Astronautix: Hera
L-3 Coleman Aerospace quality control practices, and in
March 2010 suspended further Hera purchases.[6] The Center for Arms Control, Energy and Environmen-
suspension was lifted on May 9, 2011[7] when the Air tal Studies: The Use of Hera Missile Violates the
Force Space and Missile Systems Center and the Missile INF Treaty
Defense Agency were satised that Coleman had com-
pleted the necessary corrective actions. Peoples Daily: Russia Urges US to End Hera Bal-
listic Missile Development
On October 30, 2013, the Pentagon announced that L3-
Coleman had won a $74 million contract[8] to continue to "" (in Rus-
develop and supply medium-range ballistic missile targets sian)
529
530 CHAPTER 156. HERA (ROCKET)
156.3 See also

Hera, the Greek goddess
Chapter 157
AGM-45 Shrike
AGM-45 Shrike is an American anti-radiation missile for use in the Falklands War of 1982. RAF Shrikes
designed to home in on hostile anti-aircraft radar. The were tted to modied Vulcan bombers in order to attack
Shrike was developed by the Naval Weapons Center at Argentinian radar installations during Operation Black
China Lake in 1963 by mating a seeker head to the rocket Buck. The main target was a Westinghouse AN/TPS-
body of an AIM-7 Sparrow. It was phased out by U.S. in 43 long range 3D radar that the Argentine Air Force de-
1992[1] and at an unknown time by the Israeli Air Force ployed during April to guard the Falklands surrounded
(the only other major user), and has been superseded by airspace. The Argentine operators were aware of the anti-
the AGM-88 HARM missile. The Israel Defense Forces radar missiles and would simply turn it o during the Vul-
developed a version of the Shrike that could be ground- cans approaches. This radar remained intact during the
launched and mounted it on an M4 Sherman chassis as whole conict. However, air defences remained opera-
the Kilshon (Hebrew for Trident).[1][3] tional during the attacks and the Shrikes hit two of the
less valuable and rapidly replaced secondary re control
radars. Also, following a Vulcan making an emergency
landing at Rio de Janeiro, Brazilian authorities cons-
157.1 History cated one Shrike which was not returned.[4]
About 95 AGM-45s were used in 1991 during Desert
The Shrike was rst employed during the Vietnam War Storm against Iraqi air defense, mostly by F-4Gs.[5]
by the Navy in 1965 using A-4 aircraft. The Air Force
adopted the weapon the following year using F-105F and
G Thunderchief Wild Weasel SEAD aircraft, and later
the F-4 Phantom II in the same role. The range was nom- 157.2 Variants
inally shorter than the SA-2 Guideline missiles that the
system was used against, although it was a great improve- The Shrikes limitations are characterized primarily in the
ment over the early method of attacking SAM sites with fact that subvariants abound, each tuned to a dierent
rockets and bombs from F-100F Super Sabres. A Shrike radar band. Angle gating, used to prioritize targets, was
was typically lofted about 30 degrees above the horizon included in every subvariant of the AGM-45A and B after
at a Fan Song radar some 15 miles (25 km) away for a the A-2 and B-2. It was also slow and the lack of punch
ight time of 50 seconds. Tactics incrementally changed in the warhead made it dicult for bomb damage assess-
over the campaigns of 1966 and 1967 until the advent of ment, as well as inicting any damage to the Fan Song
the AGM-78 Standard ARM. This new weapon allowed Radar vans beyond a shattered radar dish, an easy item to
launches from signicantly longer range with a much eas- replace or repair. The short range, combined with its lack
ier attack prole, as the ARM could be launched up to 180 of speed (compared to the SA-2 SAM) made for a di-
degrees o target and still expect a hit and its speed al- cult attack. The missile had to be well within the range
lowed it to travel faster than the SA-2. Even after the of the SAM and if a SAM was red the SAM would get
AGM-78 entered service, the Weasels still carried the to the aircraft rst. Also the missile had few tolerances
Shrike because the ARM cost about $200,000, while a and had to be launched no more than + or - 3 degrees
Shrike cost only $7,000. If USAF pilots expended an from the target. Many pilots in Vietnam did not like the
ARM they would have to ll out a lengthy form during de- Shrike because of its limitations and its success rate of
brieng. A somewhat standard load for the F-105G was a around 25%.
650 US gal (2,500 L) centerline fuel tank, two AGM-78s The dierences between the AGM-45A and B are in the
on inboard pylons and two Shrikes on the outboards. The rocket motor used, and in the warheads capable of being
mix varied slightly for jamming pods and the occasional tted. The AGM-45A used the Rocketdyne Mk 39 Mod
AIM-9 Sidewinder but this was the baseline. 0 (or apparently in some cases the Aerojet Mk 53 Mod 1)
Although the Shrike missile did not enter regular service motor, while the AGM-45B used Aerojet Mk 78 Mod 0
with the United Kingdom, it was supplied to the RAF which greatly increased the range of the missile. As for
531
532 CHAPTER 157. AGM-45 SHRIKE
warheads, the Mk 5 Mod 0, Mk 86 Mod 0, and WAU-8/B

could all be tted to the AGM-45A and were all blast-
fragmentation in nature. The AGM-45B made use of the
improved Mk 5 Mod 1 and Mk 86 Mod 1 warheads, as
well as, the WAU-9/B, again all blast-fragmentation in
type.
The following table provides information on what radar
bands were associated with certain guidance sections, and
the subvariant designation.
A Shrike hitting a simulated target.
For unknown reasons, 5 and 8 were not produced.
157.3 See also

International Signal and Control
157.4 References
[1] http://www.vectorsite.net/twbomb_09.html#m2
[2] Spencer Tucker, The encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli

conict: a political, social, and military history. A - F,
Volume 1, 2008, ABC-CLIO, p. 685
[3] http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/self_
propelled_artillery/kilshon/Kilshon.html
[4] http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/OperationBlackBuck.
cfm
[5] http://www.harpoondatabases.com/encyclopedia/
Entry693.aspx

The AGM-45 Shrike at Designation Systems.net
Chapter 158
AGM-78 Standard ARM
See also: Standard Missile
The AGM-78 Standard ARM was an anti-radiation

missile developed by General Dynamics, United States
of America.
158.1 Overview
Originally developed for the US Navy during the late
1960s, the AGM-78 was created in large part because
of the limitations of the AGM-45 Shrike, which suered
from a small warhead, limited range and a poor guidance A 6010th WWS F-105G taking o to North Vietnam, 1971.
system. General Dynamics was asked to create an air-
launched ARM by modifying the RIM-66 SM-1 surface-
to-air missile. This use of an o the shelf design greatly
reduced development costs, and trials of the new weapon
begun in 1967 after only a year of development. The rst
operational missiles were issued in early 1968.
The AGM-78 was nicknamed the starm, an abbrevi-
ation of Standard ARM. The rst version of the mis-
sile, the A1 Mod 0, was little more than an air-launched
RIM-66 with the Shrikes anti radar seeker head attached
to the front. An Aerojet Mark 27 MOD 4 dual-thrust
solid-rocket-powered the missile, which was tted with
a blast-fragmentation warhead. Although more capable,
the AGM-78 was much more expensive than the AGM-
45 and the Shrike continued in service for some time. Israeli Keres AGM-78 Standard ARM launcher at IAF Museum.
The new missile was carried by the F-105F/G and the A-
6B/E.
produced. This featured a broadband seeker which al-
lowed the missile to be used against a much wider variety
158.2 Variants of targets without having to select the seeker before the
mission. A simple memory circuit was also included, al-
lowing the missile to attack a target once it locked on,
An inert training version of the AGM-78A was built as even if the radar was shut down. Previous ARMs would
ATM-78A. Of equal size, mass and shape, the missile veer o course and miss when they lost a target, and as a
lacked a seeker head, warhead, or propulsion systems and result ipping the radar on and o had become a standard
was essentially just a dead weight. tactic for missile batteries.
An A2 model introduced a bomb damage assessment Some early AGM-78A1s were updated with the new
(BDA) capability and an SDU-6/B phosphorus target memory circuit and seeker. These missiles were desig-
marker are to facilitate targeting of the site for follow nated as the AGM-78A4. The AGM-78B was the most
up attacks. important version of the missile, and was widely used by
In 1969 an improved model called the AGM-78B was the Air Forces F-4G Phantom II Wild Weasel aircraft.
533
534 CHAPTER 158. AGM-78 STANDARD ARM
A training version of the AGM-78B was created, and was

known as the ATM-78B.
In the early 1970s the AGM-78C was produced. A US
Air Force project, the C model was primarily intended
to be more reliable and cheaper to build. It had a SDU-
29/B white phosphorus target marker. Some older mis-
siles were upgraded to the AGM-78C standard. As be-
fore, an ATM-78C training missile was produced.
Between 1973 and 1976 the AGM-78D was produced,
introducing a new motor. A follow up missile, the AGM-
78D2, had an active optical fuze, still greater reliability,
and a new 100 kg (220 lb) blast-fragmentation warhead.
The ATM-78D training missile followed.
The RGM-66D shipborne anti-radiation missile used the
basic AGM-78 airframe along with features of the RIM-
66 and AIM-97 Seekbat air-to-air missile.
Including all versions, over 3,000 AGM-78 missiles were
built. Production stopped in the late 1970s, but the mis-
sile continued in service for almost a decade before the
last examples were replaced by the AGM-88 HARM in
the late 1980s.

USAF Museum AGM-78 factsheet
Designation-systems.net
Chapter 159
AGM-88 HARM
The AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile then saw that the target was the B-52, which was hit. It
(HARM) is a tactical, air-to-surface missile designed to survived with shrapnel damage to the tail and no casu-
home in on electronic transmissions coming from surface- alties. The B-52 was subsequently renamed In HARMs
to-air radar systems. It was originally developed by Texas Way.[5]
Instruments as a replacement for the AGM-45 Shrike and Magnum is spoken over the radio to announce the
AGM-78 Standard ARM system. Production was later
launch of an AGM-88.[6] During the Gulf War, if an air-
taken over by Raytheon Corporation when it purchased craft was illuminated by enemy radar a bogus Magnum
the defense production business of Texas Instruments.
call on the radio was often enough to convince the op-
erators to power down.[7] This technique would also be
employed in Serbia during air operations in 1999.
159.1 Description In 2013 President Obama oered the AGM-88 to Israel
for the rst time.[8]
The AGM-88 can detect, attack and destroy a radar an-
tenna or transmitter with minimal aircrew input. The
proportional guidance system that homes in on enemy
159.2.2 AGM-88E AARGM
radar emissions has a xed antenna and seeker head in the
missiles nose. A smokeless, solid-propellant, booster-
sustainer rocket motor propels the missile at speeds over
Mach 2. HARM, a U.S. Navy-led program, was initially
integrated onto the A-6E, A-7 and F/A-18 and later onto
the EA-6B. RDT&E for use on the F-14 was begun, but
not completed. The USAF introduced HARM on the F-
4G Wild Weasel and later on specialized F-16s equipped
with the HARM Targeting System (HTS).
AGM-88E
159.2 History The newest upgrade, the AGM-88E Advanced Anti-

Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM), features the latest
159.2.1 Deployment software, enhanced capabilities intended to counter radar
shutdown and passive radar using an additional active
The HARM missile was approved for full production in millimeter wave seeker. It was released in November
March 1983, and then deployed in late 1985 with VA- 2010 and is a joint venture by the US Department of De-
72 and VA-46 aboard the aircraft carrier USS America. fense and the Italian Ministry of Defense and is produced
It was soon used in combatin March 1986 against a by Alliant Techsystems.
Libyan SA-5 site in the Gulf of Sidra, and then Operation In November 2005, the Italian Ministry of Defense and
Eldorado Canyon in April. HARM was used extensively the US Department of Defense signed a Memorandum
by the United States Navy and the United States Air Force of Agreement on the joint development of the AGM-
for Operation Desert Storm during the Gulf War of 1991. 88E AARGM missile. Italy was providing $20 million of
During the Gulf War, the HARM was involved in a developmental funding as well as several millions worth
friendly re incident when the pilot of an F-4G Wild material, equipment and related services. The Italian Air
Weasel escorting a B-52 bomber mistook the latters tail Force was expected to procure up to 250 missiles for its
gun radar for an Iraqi AAA site. (This was after the tail Tornado ECR aircraft. Thus ight test program was set
gunner of the B-52 had targeted the F-4G, mistaking it to integrate the AARGM onto Tornado ECRs weapon
for an Iraqi MiG.) The F-4 pilot launched the missile and system.
535
536 CHAPTER 159. AGM-88 HARM
The Navy demonstrated the AARGMs capability dur- Taiwan

ing Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) in
spring 2012 with live ring of 12 missiles. Aircrew and Morocco
maintenance training with live missiles was completed in
Turkey
June. The Navy authorized Full-Rate Production (FRP)
of the AARGM in August 2012, with 72 missiles for the United Arab Emirates
Navy and nine for the Italian Air Force to be delivered in
2013. A U.S. Marine Corps F/A-18 Hornet squadron will United States:
be the rst forward-deployed unit with the AGM-88E.[9] United States Navy
It will be initially integrated onto the FA-18C/D, FA- United States Air Force
18E/F, EA-18G, and Tornado ECR aircraft and later on
the F-35.[10] United States Marine Corps[14]
In September 2013, ATK delivered the 100th AARGM

to the U.S. Navy. The AGM-88E program is on schedule 159.4 See also
and on budget, with Full Operational Capability (FOC)
planned for September 2014.[11]
Anti-radiation missile
The Navys FY 2016 budget included funding for an ex-
tended range AARGM-ER that utilizes the existing guid- AGM-154 JSOW
ance system and warhead of the AGM-88E with a solid
ALARM
integrated rocket-ramjet for double the range. Develop-
ment funding will last to 2020.[12] MAR-1
Chinese LD-10
159.3 Operators List of missiles
159.5 References
Notes
[1] AGM-88 HARM (high-speed antiradiation missile) -

Smart Weapons. Fas.org. Archived from the original on
10 February 2010. Retrieved 2010-02-16.
[2] AGM-88E AARGM / Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided

Missile, HDAM
[3] Raytheon Company: Miniature Air Launched Decoy

(MALD)
F-16 carrying an AIM-120 AMRAAM (top), AIM-9 Sidewinder
(middle) and AGM-88 HARM [4] AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile |
NAVAIR - U.S. Navy Naval Air Systems Command -
Navy and Marine Corps Aviation Research, Develop-
Australia: AGM-88E variant ordered; to be ment, Acquisition, Test and Eva...
used on EA-18G Growlers.[13]
[5] Lake, Jon (2004). B-52 Stratofortress Units in Operation
Egypt Desert Storm (1 ed.). Oxford: Osprey. pp. 4748. ISBN
1-84176-751-4.
Germany
[6] Operational Brevity Words And Terminology. Fas.org.
Greece Retrieved 2010-02-16.
Israel [7] Lambeth, Benjamin (2000). The Transformation of

American Air Power. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Italy: AGM-88E variant. p. 112. ISBN 978-0-8014-3816-5.
Kuwait [8] Israel seeks $5B in U.S. loans to buy arms.
Saudi Arabia [9] Navy Approves Full Rate Production for New Anti-
Radiation Missile - Strategicdefenseintelligence.com, Au-
Spain gust 30, 2012
[10] ATK Awarded $55 Million Advanced Anti-Radiation

Guided Missile Low Rate Initial Production.... Reuters.
2009-01-21. Retrieved 2011-07-13.
[11] ATK Delivers 100th Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided

Missile (AARGM) to U.S. Navy - PRNewswire.com, 17
September 2013
[12] F-35Cs Cut Back As U.S. Navy Invests In Stando

Weapons - Aviationweek.com, 3 February 2015
[13] AGM-88E AARGM Missile: No Place To Hide Down

There. Defense Industry Daily. Retrieved 2013-11-25.
[14] Harpoon Databases: AGM-88 HARM. Harpoon Da

tabases. Retrieved 2013-11-25.
Bibliography
Bonds, Ray and David Miller. AGM-88 HARM.


AGM-88 data sheet (PDF format) from Raytheon
Information on AGM-88 HARM from FAS
AGM-88 HARM information by Globalsecurity.org

AGM-88@Designation-Systems
AGM-88 HARM by Carlo Kopp

Chapter 160
AGM-122 Sidearm
The AGM-122 Sidearm was an American air-to-surface Bonds, Ray and David Miller. Illustrated Direc-
anti-radiation missile. tory of Modern American Weapons. Zenith Imprint,
2002. ISBN 0-7603-1346-6.
160.1 Development
The AGM-122 Sidearm was produced by the re-
manufacture of AIM-9C missiles which had been taken FAS
out of service. The AIM-9C was a semi-active radar
homing variant of the Sidewinder, developed for the US Designation Systems
Navy's Vought F-8 Crusader, but used for only a limited
period of time. Conceived and developed at China Lake
NAWC, the Sidearm was rst tested in 1981. In 1984,
Motorola was issued a contract to convert and upgrade
AIM-9Cs to AGM-122A standard. A total of about 700
units were produced between 1986 and 1990.
Existing stocks of Sidearm have been depleted, and the
missile is no longer in service. Proposals for new-build
missiles, under the designation AGM-122B, have not
been proceeded with to date.
The AGM-122 was less capable than newer antiradiation
missiles like the AGM-88 HARM, but also substantially
cheaper, and its lighter weight enabled it to be carried by
combat helicopters as well as ghter aircraft and ghter
bombers.
160.2 See also

AIM-9 Sidewinder
AGM-87 Focus
160.3 References
Notes
[1] Andreas, Parsch (8 November 2002). Motorola AGM-

122 Sidearm". Designation-Systems.Net. Archived from
the original on 23 September 2010. Retrieved 10 August
2010.
Bibliography
538
Chapter 161
AGM-136 Tacit Rainbow
producing 310 N (70 lbf) of thrust from the 0.9 m, 22 kg

unit. Some sources state that production units would have
used a 1,200 N (270 lbf) variant of the Williams Interna-
tional WR-24. Achieved speed and range are uncertain,
low subsonic speed is probable and all sources indicate a
range much lower than the hoped-for 450 km (280 mi).
Each unit was to cost around $200,000, up to thirty would
have been loaded in a single B-52.
The Naval Research Advisory Committee reported in
1989 that the project was not progressing well. In 1991 a
DoD audit found numerous management problems. The
program was canceled in 1991 (FY 1992), without any
Northrop AGM-136A Tacit Rainbow in the Cold War Gallery at production units and at a total cost of around $4 billion.
the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force in Dayton, Ohio. It was only the second post-Vietnam military project to be
canceled after completing testing but before production.
The AGM-136A Tacit Rainbow was a United States mil-

itary anti-radiation missile program run from 1982 to 161.1 Survivors
1991.
The requirement was for a low-cost air-launchable sys- Below is a list of museums which have a Tacit Rainbow
tem to aid in the destruction of enemy air defense net- in their collection:
works. The proposed unit would combine elements of
cruise missiles and UAVs, it would be launched in large Museum of Aviation, Robins Air Force Base,
numbers by heavy bombers, ghters, or possibly mass Georgia [1]
ground launch systems. The missiles would y in ad-
vance of manned aircraft up to 450 km (280 mi) to
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio [2]
pre-programmed target zones and patrol there until en-
emy radar sources were detected which would then be U.S. Naval Museum of Armament & Technology,
destroyed. This extended patrol time on target (loiter NAWS China Lake, California
time) was the key feature of the new system, a Persistent
Anti-radiation Missile (PARM) as opposed to a HARM.
The project was started by the DoD in 1982, but moved to 161.2 References
the control of the USAF Aeronautical Systems Division in
1984 as a joint Navy/Air Force project. The majority of [1] Museum of Aviation Website
the system was designed and developed by Northrop with [2] National Museum of the U.S. Air Force Website
Texas Instruments providing the seek head and Boeing
providing a system that allowed it to be launched from
B-52 bombers. The rst test air-launch was on July 30,
1984.
The unit was 8 ft 4 in (2.54 m) long and 5 ft 2 in (1.575 Global security article
m) in span with a body diameter of 27 in (686 mm), ight
and control surfaces deployed after launch. It massed AGM-136 on APA
around 431 lb (195 kg) including the 40 lb (18 kg) war- Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles
head. Power was provided by a Williams F121 turbofan,
539
Chapter 162
ASM-N-8 Corvus
The ASM-N-8 Corvus was an anti-radiation missile de- 162.3 Gallery

veloped by Temco Aircraft for the United States Navy.
Artists impression of an A4D-2 with two Corvus-
missiles
162.1 History XASM-N-8 Corvus on an A3D-2.
In April 1955, the U.S. Navy planned the acquisition of Planned mission prole for an ASM-N-8 attack.
a long-range air-to-surface missile armed with a nuclear
warhead. This weapon should be carried by the carrier-
based North American A3J Vigilante and Douglas A4D 162.4 See also
Skyhawk. This missile was named ASM-N-8 Raven.
Later that year, the project was changed to a nuclear
armed anti-radar missile, and renamed Corvus. Temco 162.5 References
Aircraft was awarded a development contract in January
1957. The rst ight of an XASM-N-8 missile occurred [1] http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app1/
in July 1959. By March 1960, fully guided ights had asm-n-8.html
been made at the Pacic Missile Test Center at Point
Mugu, California. However, the program was cancelled
in July 1960, when the overall responsibility for long-
range nuclear air-to-surface missiles was transferred to
the United States Air Force, which had no use for the
Corvus missile.
162.2 Specications
The XASM-N-8 had two delta wings and cruciform tail-

ns for ight stability and control. It was powered by a
Thiokol liquid-fueled rocket, which gave it a range of 315
km for high-altitude launches and 185 km for low-altitude
launches. Normally the missile would use a passive radar
seeker and home on shore-based and ship-based radars. It
could also home on non-radiating targets which were illu-
minated by a radar of the launching aircraft. The Corvus
missile was to be armed with a W-40 nuclear warhead of
10 kt yield.[1]
540
Chapter 163
GAM-67 Crossbow
The GAM-67 Crossbow was a jet-powered anti-radar

missile built by Northrops Ventura Division (successor
to the Radioplane Company).
163.1 Development
In the late 1940s, the Radioplane Company developed
a set of prototypes of the Q-1 target series, which used
pulsejet or small turbojet engines. Although the Q-1 se-
ries was not put into production as a target, it did evolve
into the USAF RP-54D / XB-67 / XGAM-67 Crossbow
anti-radar missile, which was rst own in 1956. It was
also considered as a platform for reconnaissance, elec-
tronic countermeasures, and decoy roles.
The Crossbow had a cigar-shaped fuselage, straight
wings, a straight twin-n tail, and an engine inlet under
the belly. It was powered by a Continental J69 turbojet
engine, with 4.41 kN (450 kgf/1,000 lbf) thrust. Two
Crossbows could be carried by a Boeing B-50 Super-
fortress bomber, while four Crossbows could be carried
by a Boeing B-47 Stratojet bomber.
Only 14 Crossbows were built before the program was
cancelled in 1957, in favor of a more sophisticated sys-
tem that ended up being cancelled in turn. However, it
did point the way to the range of missions that would be
performed by UAVs in later decades.
163.2 References
This article contains material that originally came
from the web article Unmanned Aerial Vehicles by
Greg Goebel, which exists in the Public Domain.
541
Chapter 164
ADM-141 TALD
164.1 History
In the 1970s, the Brunswick Corp. developed several un-

powered radar decoys including the Samson, which was
produced for the Israeli Air Force by Israel Military In-
dustries (IMI) in the early 1980s. The Samson proved
highly successful, prompting the US Navy to purchase
some 2,000 of them during the mid to late 1980s. The
rst units entered US service in 1987; in 1985, Brunswick
was asked to develop an improved Samson named TALD.
The TALD was an expendable glide vehicle with a square
fuselage, ip-out wings, and three tail control surfaces.
A digital ight control system could be programmed to
IMI TALD and IMI ITALD. conduct various speed or manoeuvering changes during
ight. The missile could be launched from 12,200 metres
(40,000 ft), at which height it had a range of up to 126
kilometres (78 mi) - a low altitude range reduced this to
26 kilometres (16 mi).
164.2 Variants
The TALD was built in dierent versions.
164.2.1 ADM-141A
The ADM-141A has a passive and active radar en-

hancers. An IR addon was elded for a while but was
F-14 launching a TALD. later withdrawn from service.
The ADM-141A/B TALD was an American decoy

missile originally built by Brunswick Corporation for the
164.2.2 ADM-141B
USAF and the Israeli Air Force. Later it transitioned to
joint US/Israeli manufacture with Israeli Military Indus-
tries Advanced Systems Division (IMI-ASD). The ADM-141B carries a 36 kg (80 lb) payload of cha.
The Tactical Air Launched Decoy (TALD) was intended

to confuse and saturate enemy air defenses, as part of
an overall SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses) 164.2.3 ADM-141C
strategy thus allowing attacking aircraft and weapons a
higher probability of penetrating to the target. The Im- The ADM-141C (ITALD) has the same passive and ac-
proved TALD is a turbojet-powered version. tive radar enhancers as the ADM-141A TALD.
542
Speed : Up to Mach 0.8 (460 km/h, 250 kn)

Range : 126 km (78 mi) - (Over 300 km (185 mi)
for the ADM-141C)
Propulsion : Teledyne CAE J700-CA-400 turbojet,
790 N (177 lbf) on ADM-141C only
164.5 References
Article source: Vectorsites Unmanned Aerial Vehicles by
Greg Goebel.
164.6 See also

List of missiles
ADM-160 MALD
ADM-141 TALDs being loaded on an A-7 Corsair II on Jan.

16,1991.
164.3 Operations
The TALD was used with great success in the opening
stages of Operation Desert Storm in 1991; more than
100 were launched on the opening night of the war.
This prompted the Iraqi air defense to activate many of
its radars - most of which were then destroyed by anti-
radiation missiles.
The Improved TALD is powered by a Teledyne CAE
Model 312 (J700-CA-400) turbojet. This boosted the
range to more than 300 kilometres (190 mi) at high
altitude and 185 kilometres (115 mi) at low altitude.
This model was also capable of performing a ight pro-
le which resembled that of a real aircraft much more
convincingly. Initially twenty TALDs were upgraded to
ADM-141C ITALD conguration, with the rst ight
conducted in 1996. Since then the U.S. Navy has ordered
over 200 ADM-141Cs.
The major user of the ADM-141 is the F/A-18 Hornet.
A single Hornet can carry up to 6 decoys.
164.4 Specications
Length : 2.34 m (7 ft 8 in)
Wingspan : 1.55 m (5 ft 1 in)
Chapter 165
ADM-144
The ADM-144 was a missile project considered by the

The ADM-144A designation was reserved for an unspec-
ied missile project in 1989. No formal request for al-
location of the designation followed, indicating that the
project was cancelled in the very early stages.
165.1 References
html
165.2 See also

List of missiles
544
Chapter 166
ADM-160 MALD
fortress to the F-117 Nighthawk.

The missile has folded wings to allow more compact car-
riage. On launch the wings unfold and a TJ-50 turbojet
propels the missile on a pre-determined course which is
composed of up to 100 dierent waypoints. An inertial
navigation system with GPS support keeps the MALD
on course. Although pre-programmed before the aircraft
leaves the ground, the course can be modied by the pilot
at any point up to launch.
166.1.2 New USAF competition

An F-16 carrying two Miniature Air-launched decoys (red) dur-
ing a 1999 test. In 2002, the USAF renewed its interest in an air-launched
decoy and started a new industry-wide competition for a
variant with greater endurance.[2] The contract for a new
The ADM-160 MALD (Miniature Air-Launched De- MALD was awarded to Raytheon in Spring 2003.
coy) is a decoy missile developed by the United States
of America. The Raytheon ADM-160B is similar in conguration to
the ADM-160A, but has a trapezoidal fuselage cross sec-
tion and is larger and heavier. It is powered by a Hamilton
Sundstrand TJ-150, a more powerful variant of the TJ-50.
166.1 Overview
The rst ADM-160B was delivered in Spring 2009.[3] In
2010 an operationally signicant quantity of the drones
166.1.1 DARPA MALD program were delivered to the Air Force.[4] The USAF currently
plans to procure about 1,500.
The Miniature Air-Launched Decoy (MALD) program
was begun in 1995 by DARPA as an eort to develop a In 2008 a contract for a jamming variant MALD-J was
small, low cost decoy missile for use in the Suppression awarded to Raytheon. It made its rst freefall test in 2009
of Enemy Air Defenses. Teledyne Ryan (acquired by and passed its critical design review in early 2010.[5][6]
Northrop Grumman in 1999) was granted a development The rst MALD-J was delivered to the Air Force on
contract for the ADM-160A in 1996, and the rst test September 6, 2012. On September 24, Raytheon started
operational testing, achieving four successful ights out
ight took place in 1999. The evaluation program was
nished by 2001. of four launches.[7]
The US Air Force planned to acquire several thousand In November 2012, Raytheon completed ground veri-
of ADM-160As, but in 2001 this was reduced to at cation tests for the MALD and MALD-J for integration
most 150 for a System Development and Demonstration onto the MQ-9 Reaper UAV. Integration onto the aircraft
(SDD) program.[1] In January 2002, the USAF cancelled is expected sometime in 2013, with the goal for an un-
the program because the drone didn't have enough range manned suppression of enemy air defenses capability.[8]
and endurance to meet the services requirements or to In June 2013, Raytheon completed a four-year develop-
perform other missions.[2] ment program of the MALD, under budget. The MALD
The ADM-160A carries a Signature Augmentation Sub- and MALD-J successfully completed all 30 engineering
system (SAS) which is composed of various active radar and[9]operational ight tests, with each version completing
enhancers which cover a range of frequencies. The SAS 15.
can therefore simulate any aircraft, from the B-52 Strato- In May 2014, Raytheon delivered the 1,000th MALD-J
545
546 CHAPTER 166. ADM-160 MALD
to the Air Force as part of the Lot 5 production contract. 2012.[13] That year, the Air Force ended procure-
The MALD program has achieved a perfect 33-for-33 ment of the ADM-160B and will only procure
ight test success record over the past two years.[10] MALD-J versions.[17]
In December 2014, a MALD-J was test-own with a ra-
dio data-link to expand situational awareness and allow
for in-ight targeting adjustments. While carrying out a 166.2.1 Experimental variants
jamming mission, the MALD-J was able to send situation
awareness data to the EW Battle Manager, which used the MALI The Miniature Air-Launched Interceptor
information to adjust its mission while in-ight.[11] (MALI) is an armed version of the ADM-160A
which could be used against cruise missiles. It has
a more powerful engine and a more aerodynamic
166.1.3 US Navy shape for supersonic ight, and can be updated in
mid ight via a command link to aircraft such as the
The Naval Surface Warfare Center will place an order for E-3 SentryAWACS. It completed its development
the MALD-J. [12] program in 2002.[1]
Systems integration has been announced as of July 6,

2012, by the Raytheon Corp. for the U.S. Navys MALD-V Modular payload version that provides space
F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet. The process will include for mission specic payloads, of surveillance gear,
a series of risk reduction activities and technology radio/radar/infrared jammers or other equipment.
demonstrations.[13] This may provide the go-forward architecture, and
give the option of turning MALD into a UAV, or
even a combination killer-UAV/decoy.[18]
166.1.4 British interest
MASSM Miniature Autonomous Search and Strike
The British Ministry of Defence expressed interest on theMissile, proposed MALD upgrade to hunt
MALD-V platform at the Paris Airshow in 2009.[14] transporter erector launchers (TELs). It would be
equipped with LIDAR, millimeter wave radar, and
an imaging infrared sensor with a small warhead to
166.2 Variants accommodate fuel and satellite communications.
Depending on altitude and endurance, one MASSM
could search 3,000 km2 (1,200 sq mi) of area. May
ADM-160A Original decoy version developed by be recoverable.[19]
Teledyne Ryan (acquired by Northrop Grumman)
and funded by DARPA. It uses GPS-aided nav-
igation system, and can y missions with up to
256 predened waypoints. The mission prole is 166.3 Specications (Northrop
preprogrammed, but can be redened by the pilot Grumman ADM-160A)
of the launching aircraft until immediately before
launch.[15]
Length : 2.38 m (7 ft 10 in)
ADM-160B Decoy version developed by Raytheon Wingspan : 0.65 m (2 ft 2 in)

with longer endurance. In use by the USAF.
Diameter : 15 cm (6 in)
ADM-160C MALD-J Radar jammer variant of
ADM-160B by Raytheon. This variant of the
MALD decoy and will be able to operate in both
Speed : Mach 0.8
decoy and jammer modes. The decoy and jam-
mer congurations are key enablers supporting the Ceiling : Over 9,000 m (30,000 ft)
Air Force Global Strike, Global Response, Space
and C4ISR, and the Air and Space Expeditionary Range : Over 460 km (285 mi)
Force Concepts of Operations. MALD-J will pro-
vide stand-in jamming capability for the Airborne Endurance : Over 20 min
Electronic Attack Systems of Systems. It will be
launched against a preplanned target and jam spe- Propulsion : Hamilton Sundstrand TJ-50 turbojet;
cic radars in a stand-in role to degrade or deny the 220 N (50 lbf) thrust
IADS detection of friendly aircraft or munitions.[16]
Delivery to the US Armed Forces is to begin in Unit cost : US$30,000[5]
166.6. SEE ALSO 547
166.4 Specications (Raytheon [15] Andreas Parsch ADM-160, 'Directory of U.S. Military
Rockets and Missiles, 25, July 2007.
ADM-160B)
[16] US Air Force Appropriation/Budget activity worksheet.
Length : 2.84 m (9 ft 7 in) Unclassied page 10., February 2010.
Wingspan : 1.71 m (5 ft 7 in) fully extended [17] Miniature Air-Launched Decoy (MALD) and MALD-
Jammer (MALD-J) - Oce of the Director, Operational
Weight : 115 kg (250 lb) Test & Evaluation. 2014
Speed : Mach 0.91 [18] Defense Industry Daily Raytheons MALD Decoys Gain-
ing Versatility, 1, December 2011.
Ceiling : Over 12,200 m (40,000 ft)
[19] Stopping Mobile Missiles: Top Picks For Oset Strategy:
Range : Approximately 920 km (575 mi) with abil- - Breakingdefense.com, 23 January 2015
ity to loiter over target
Endurance : Over 45 min at altitude This article contains material that originally came from
the web article Unmanned Aerial Vehicles by Greg
Propulsion : Hamilton Sundstrand TJ-150 turbojet Goebel, which exists in the Public Domain.
Unit cost : US$120,000 (initial),[5] US$322,000 (as
of 2015)[19]
166.6 See also
166.5 References List of missiles
[1] designation-systems.net ADM-160
[2] Unmanned Aerial Vehicles 6.0 Decoys
[3] U.S. Air Force accepts rst delivery of Raytheon Minia-

ture Air Launched Decoy
[4] Raytheon Delivers on Miniature Air Launched Decoy

Contract
[5] Raytheons MALD Decoys Gaining Versatility
[6] Raytheon Miniature Air Launched Decoy Jammer Com-

pletes Critical Design Review
[7] Raytheon MALD-J Decoy Goes 4 for 4 in Operational

Flight Tests - Raytheon press release, September 24, 2012
[8] Raytheon and General Atomics team-up to integrate

MALD onto Reaper - Flightglobal.com, February 13,
2013
[9] Miniature Air Launched Decoy-Jammer Completes

Flight Testing - Deagel.com, 16 June 2013
[10] Raytheon delivers 1000th Miniature Air Launched

Decoy- Jammer to US Air Force - WSJ.com, 13 May
2014
[11] Data link-equipped MALD-J ies for the rst time - Shep-
hardmedia.com, 11 December 2014
[12] Trimble, Stephen. Raytheon jammer attracts US Navy

interest as roles expand. Flight International, 27 May
2011.
[13] Raytheon Corp. Raytheon and US Navy begin MALD-J

Super Hornet integration, 'Press Release', 6, July 2012.
[14] Craig Holye. PARIS AIR SHOW: Raytheon advances

MALD-J, as UK eyes derivative. Flight International, 16
May 209.
Chapter 167
ADM-20 Quail
The McDonnell ADM-20 Quail was a subsonic, jet The following month on February 1, 1956, the McDon-
powered, air-launched decoy cruise missile built by nell Aircraft Corporation was awarded a contract to de-
McDonnell Aircraft Corporation. The Quail was develop Weapon System 122A which included the GAM-
signed to be launched by the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress 72 Green Quail missile. In June 1956 General Elec-
strategic bomber and its original United States Air Force tric was selected as the engine contractor for the GAM-
designation was GAM-72 (GAM standing for Guided 72. Guidance components were built by Summers Gy-
Aircraft Missile).[1] roscope and the countermeasures equipment by Ramo-
Wooldridge Corporation.
The GAM-72 was designed with a high-mounted delta
167.1 Development wing and no horizontal stabilizer. A slab-sided fuselage
and two sets of vertical stabilizers contributed to the
In 1955 the USAF started a major eort to construct GAM-72s ability to simulate the radar cross section of a
decoy missiles. The goal of this eort was to improve bomber. Initially the GAM-72 was powered by a YJ85-
the ability of strategic bombers to penetrate air-defense GE-3. This jet engine produced 2,450 lbf (10.9 kN) of
systems. The projects initiated under this eort included thrust with a thrust-to-weight ratio goal of (6:1).
the MX-2223 which produced the XSM-73 Goose a The GAM-72s guidance system could be pre-
long range ground-launched jet-powered, decoy cruise programmed on the ground to execute two turns
missile, MX-2224 which produced the XGAM-71 Buck and one speed change during a ight time of 45 to 55
Duck an air-launched rocket powered decoy missile to minutes. Flight duration depended on altitude. The
equip the Convair B-36. GAM-72 was designed to operate at altitudes between
The USAF was at the same time developing the XQ-4 as 35,000 ft (10,668 m) to 50,000 ft (15,240 m) at speeds
a supersonic target drone to support the Bomarc Missile between Mach 0.75 to Mach 0.9. Range varied between
Program. A requirement was established by the USAF 357 nm and 445 nm (661 to 716 km), also depending on
Power Plant Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force altitude.
Base to support follow-on production of the XQ-4. This Two GAM-72s with folded wings and stabilizers were
requirement called for a small jet engine in the 2,000 lbf packaged together for mounting in the bomber weapons
(8.9 kN) thrust class with a high thrust-to-weight ratio bay. Before launch the bombers radar navigator lowered
of 10:1. On November 28, 1954 General Electric was the GAM-72 using a retractable arm from the airplanes
awarded a USAF development contract to construct the weapons bay into the slipstream below the aircraft. The
XJ-85-GE-1. The USAF designated the XJ85 project wings and stabilizers of the GAM-72 were unfolded, the
MX-2273. jet engine was started, and the missile was launched.
During April 1955, the USAF began a program to de- Flight testing of the XGAM-72 began in July 1957 at
velop a short range air-launched decoy missile to simulate Holloman Air Force Base and the adjacent White Sands
the radar cross section of a bomber. On January 18, Missile Range. Initially testing involved the XGAM-72
1956, the USAF released General Operational Require- being captively carried by a B-52. The rst glide ight
ment (GOR) 139. of the XGAM-72 occurred in November 1957. Three
test launches were completed in 1957. The rst success-
ful powered ight of the XGAM-72 occurred in August
167.2 Design 1958. This ight lasted 14 minutes and covered 103 nau-
tical miles (191 km). A total of ten test ights occurred in
1958, seventeen ights in 1959, with the nal four ights
McDonnell Aircraft Corporation submitted a design being completed in 1960. Operational testing then moved
which included a cropped-delta-wing decoy constructed to Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, United States where the
largely of berglass and carried internally within a B-52.
548
167.4. VARIANTS 549
4135th Strategic Wing launched a GAM-72 on June 8, craft. Up to 100 lb (45 kg) of payload could be accom-
1960. modated internally by the GAM-72. This internal space
McDonnell Aircraft received a production contract for could be used to house a radar repeater or a cha dis-
the GAM-72A on December 31, 1958. Reliability prob- penser. An infrared burner in the tail could produce in-
lems encountered during testing resulted in McDonnell tense heat to simulate the heat signature of a bomber. The
replacing the J85-GE-3 with the J85-GE-7 engine in the GAM-72 was not armed.
production GAM-72A. The GAM-72A was also about Eight GAM-72A decoys could be accommodated in the
200 lb (90 kg) heavier than the GAM-72. This increase in B-52s weapons bay but the normal decoy load was two.
weight when combined with a slightly smaller wing areaGround radar continued to improve, and the eectiveness
reduced the maximum range of the GAM-72A to 402 of the GAM-72B, redesignated in 1963 as the ADM-
statute miles (647 km). The rst production GAM-72A 20C, decreased over time. The AGM-69 Short Range
ight was in March 1960. The nal GAM-72A was de- Attack Missile (SRAM) allowed bombers to attack air-
livered by McDonnell Aircraft on May 28, 1962. A totaldefense systems from a distance. By 1971, the USAF
of 585 [2] GAM-72A missiles were produced by McDon- no longer considered the ADM-20C a credible decoy.
nell Aircraft. The inventory of GAM-72As in the USAF The commander of the Strategic Air Command wrote
peaked at 492 in 1963. the Chief of Sta of the United States Air Force that
During 1963 all remaining GAM-72A missiles were the Quail was only slightly better than nothing. The last
modied to the GAM-72B conguration. A barometric ADM-20C operational test was own at Eglin Air Force
switch for terrain avoidance was added so the GAM-72B Base on July 13, 1972. On June 30, 1978, the last ADM-
could operate at lower altitudes. 20C came o alert status. The last ADM-20C was re-
In 1963 the GAM-72 was re-designated the ADM-20 moved from the United States Air Force inventory on De-
cember 15, 1978.
167.3 Operational history 167.4 Variants

GAM-72 24 test missiles produced
GAM-72A 592 missiles produced.
GAM-72B Upgrade to remaining GAM-72A

missiles.
ADM-20A GAM-72 re-designated in June 1963
ADM-20B GAM-72A re-designated in June

1963
ADM-20C GAM-72B re-designated in June

1963
B-52 launching a Quail decoy
Although originally planned for deployment with the B- 167.5 Operator

47 and the B-52, the GAM-72A was only deployed with
the B-52. United States
The rst production GAM-72A was delivered to the
4135th Strategic Wing, at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida
on September 13, 1960. Initial operational capability was
reached on February 1, 1961 when the rst squadron of The number of GAM-72As in service, by year:
the 4135th Strategic Wing was equipped with the GAM-
72A. On January 1, 1962 B-52 aircraft carried the GAM-
72A decoy on airborne alert for the rst time. Full oper- 167.6 Survivors
ational capability was reached when the GAM-72A was
deployed with the fourteenth and nal B-52 squadron on ADM-20C S/N 69700 located in the National
April 15, 1962. Museum of the United States Air Force, Wright-
The operational version of the GAM-72 carried internal Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio, United
radar reectors facing forward and to each side of the air- States.
550 CHAPTER 167. ADM-20 QUAIL
ADM-20C S/N 61-455 located in the Lone Star

Flight Museum, Galveston, Texas, United States.
ADM-20 S/N 64-2573 located in the Museum of

Aviation, Robins Air Force Base, Warner Robins,
Georgia, United States.
167.7 See also

XSM-74 Buck Duck
BQM-74 Chukar
Quail on display at the National Museum of the United States Air
Force ADM-141C ITALD
ADM-160 MALD
ADM-20 S/N 61-347 located in the Eighth Air
Force Museum, Barksdale Air Force Base, Bossier Related lists
City, Louisiana, United States.
ADM-20 S/N 60-593 located in the Eighth Air List of military aircraft of the United States
Force Museum, Barksdale Air Force Base.
List of missiles
ADM-20 located in the Aerospace Museum of
California, former McClellan Air Force Base,
Sacramento, California, United States. 167.8 References
ADM-20 S/N 59-2249 located at the Air Force
Citations
Space & Missile Museum, Cape Canaveral Air
Force Station, Florida, United States.
[1] NASA list of Space Related Acronyms
ADM-20 S/N 60-505 located at the South Dakota
[2] http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/usafserials.
Air and Space Museum, Ellsworth Air Force Base,
html (1957, 1959, 1960 & 1961)
Rapid City, South Dakota, United States.
ADM-20 S/N 59-2245 located in the Armed Forces Bibliography

and Aerospace Museum, Spokane, Washington,
United States. McDonnell ADM-20 Quail, Fact Sheet from the Na-
tional Museum of the USAF
ADM-20C S/N 61-633 located in the Hill
Aerospace Museum, Hill Air Force Base, Ogden, McDonald ADM-20 Quail Missile, Strategic-Air-
Utah, United States. Command.com Website, retrieved October 1, 2007
ADM-20C located in the Historic Aviation Memo- McDonnell GAM-72/ADM-20 Quail Missile Data,
rial Museum, Tyler, Texas, United States. AMMS ALUMNI Website, retrieved October 2,
2007
ADM-20C S/N 61-414 located in Gwinn,
Michigan, United States. AMMS History, AMMS ALUMNI Website, re-
ADM-20C located at the Pima Air & Space Mu-
seum adjacent to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, McDonnell ADM-20C-40-MC Quail Aerial Decoy,
Tucson, Arizona, United States. Historic Aviation Memorial Museum Website, re-
ADM-20C S/N 60-374 located in the Oakland Avi-
ation Museum, Oakland, California, United States. QUAIL AERIAL DECOY, Hill Air Force Base
Website, retrieved October 6, 2007
ADM-20C S/N 60-755 located in the Southern
Museum of Flight, Birmingham, Alabama, United 6.0 Decoys, Greg Goebel / In The Public Domain
States. Website, retrieved October 6, 2007
Evolution of the Cruise Missile, Kenneth P. Warrell,

Air University Press USAF, 1985.
ADM-20 Quail, Web Page by the Federation of
American Scientists, retrieved October 6, 2007
Quail, Historical Essay by Andreas Parsch, Ency-
clopedia Astronautica website, retrieved October 6,
2007
Pre-1963 Designations Of U.S. Missiles And Drones,

Designations Systems Website, retrieved October 6,
2007
The History of North American Small Gas Tur-
bine Aircraft Engines, William Fleming and Richard
Leyes, AIAA, 1999, ISBN 978-1-56347-332-6
Chapter 168
Beechcraft MQM-107 Streaker
The MQM-107 Streaker is a reusable, turbojet powered, Streaker.[5]

target towing drone primarily used by the United States
Army and the United States Air Force for testing and
training. The US Army uses the drone for testing var- 168.3 Variants
ious surface-to-air missile systems such as the FIM-92
Stinger and the MIM-104 Patriot. The USAF uses them
in practice engagements for their air-to-air missiles like
the AIM-9 Sidewinder and the AIM-120 AMRAAM.[3]

The MQM-107 was originally developed by Beech Air-
craft for the United States Army Aviation and Mis- A F-16 Fighting Falcon ying in formation with a MQM-107E.
sile Command's 1972 Variable Speed Training Target
(VSTT) requirement. It was announced as the winner
in 1975, and the Army took delivery of the original MQM-107A
model (the MQM-107A) until 1979.[1] Over the next two
decades, several updated variants of the Streaker were in- Original model, powered by a Teledyne CAE J402-
troduced with dierent engines and payloads. CA-700 turbojet. The export version of this model
was known as the Model 999, with subdesignations
The MQM-107 is designed as a high-subsonic target A, D, E, and F for dierent countries.[2]
drone, featuring a slight sweep in the wings and a cen-
terline mounted turbojet engine. The drone is launched MQM-107B
from the ground with a rocket booster accelerating it until
the jet engine takes over. It can be recovered by parachute This variant was introduced in 1982 with the more
and reused. powerful Microturbo TRI 60-2 turbojet engine, and
The Streaker is generally designed to operate as a tow ve- featured a larger fuselage with a higher payload
hicle for missile and gun targets. The aircraft can carry capability.[1] This model was exported under the
either radar or infrared tow targets for missile training, Model 999 name again, this time as either the B,L,
as well as a square banner with an enhanced radar signa- or H as versions.[2]
ture for gunnery training. Flare and/or cha pods can be
carried as well.[2] MQM-107C
This variant essentially took the fuselage of the

168.2 Operational history MQM-107B and used the engine from the A
model. This model was built to exhaust the surplus
of the J402-CA-700 engines.[1][2]
Production of the MQM-107 ended in 2003, and the cur-
rent inventory is being phased out in favor of its replace- MQM-107D
ment, the BQM-167 Skeeter.
In 2012, it was reported that North Korea had acquired This variant was introduced in 1987 with another
several MQM-107D aircraft second-hand from a Middle new engine, the J402-CA-702. In 1989 the engine
Eastern country,[4] and the following year revealed an in- was replaced with a newer version of Microturbos
digenous target drone type believed to be based on the TRI 60 engine, the TRI 60-5.[1]
552
168.5. SPECIFICATIONS (MQM-107B) 553
MQM-107E 168.5 Specications (MQM-107B)

[6]
This variant, rst own in 1992, was a more heavily Data from
redesigned model with modied wing and tail sur- General characteristics
faces for higher maneuverability. It could utilize ei-
ther the latest Teledyne CAE J402 engine, or the
Crew: 0
same TRI 60-5 engine used in the D variant. Inter-
estingly, the United States Army Aviation and Mis- Length: 18 ft 1 in (5.5 m)
sile Command selected BAE Systems to build the
E model over Raytheon (who had bought this part Wingspan: 9 ft 10 in (3 m)
of Beech at this point).[1][2]
Height: 4 ft 10 in (1.47 m)
Australia has selected the MQM-107E to replace its Max. takeo weight: 1464 lb (664 kg)
GAF Jindivik target drones. It has been designated
as the N28 Kalkara in this role.[2] Powerplant: 1 Microturbo TRI 60 Turbojet
Super-MQM Performance
This variant was an experimental Raytheon version Maximum speed: 575 mph (925 km/h)
of the MQM-107D with improved thrust and addi- Service ceiling: 40,000 ft (12,192 m)
tional payload capabilities.
Armament
Raider
none
Beech proposed this variant of the MQM-107 at the
Paris Air Show in 1985. This was to be a tactical
UAV that utilized active and passive countermea-
sures and other decoys to confuse and distract en-
168.6 See also
emies in a combat situation.[1][2]
Northrop BQM-74 Chukar

168.4 Operators
Australia (N28 Kalkara AKA MQM-107E) 168.7 References
Egypt (999H, 999L) [1] MQM 107. Designation Systems. Accessed 29 October
2009.
Iran (MQM-107A)
[2] MQM-107 Streaker (2008).Forecast International.
Jordan (MQM-107A) Accessed 29 October 2009.
North Korea (MQM-107D)[4] [3] MQM-107 Product Page. Composite Engineering Inc..
Accessed 29 October 2009.
South Korea (999D) [4] Report: North Korea using old, US-made drones. Fox
news. February 5, 2012. Retrieved 2014-02-18.
Singapore
[5] Majumdar, Dave (March 22, 2013). North Korea shows
o its new drone. Flightglobal. Retrieved 2014-02-18.
Sweden (999A)
[6] MQM-107 Streaker. USAF Factsheet. Accessed 28 Oc-
Taiwan (999F) tober 2009.
Turkey (999L)
United Arab Emirates (999L)
United States (All Variants)

Chapter 169
Northrop BQM-74 Chukar
The BQM-74 Chukar is a series of aerial target drones 169.2.1 MQM-74A Chukar I
produced by Northrop. The Chukar has gone through
three major revisions, including the initial MQM-74A The Chukar series began in the early 1960s with a US
Chukar I, the MQM-74C Chukar II, and the BQM- Navy requirement for a new target drone. The company
74C Chukar III. They are recoverable, remote con- developed a prototype with the company designation of
trolled, subsonic aerial target, capable of speeds up to NV-105 and featuring a delta wing, ying it in 1964. The
Mach 0.86 and altitudes from 30 to 40,000 ft (10 to delta wing didn't work out and was replaced by a straight
12,000 m). wing, resulting in the NV-105A, which was rst own in
1965. The NV-105A was accepted by the Navy and went
into production as the MQM-74A in 1968.
169.1 Description
The BQM-74E is propelled during ight by a single
Williams J400 (J400-WR-404) turbojet engine, which
produces a maximum thrust of 240 pounds force (1068
N) at sea level. The BQM-74 is launched from a zero
length ground launcher utilizing dual Jet Assisted Take-
o (JATO) bottles. When equipped with an air launch
kit, the BQM-74 can be air launched from a TA-4J, F-16,
Grumman Gulfstream I or DC-130 aircraft. The BQM-
74 is used primarily as a realistic aerial target, capable of
simulating enemy threats for gunnery and missile training
exercises.
Drones are capable of being recovered following a train-
ing exercise. A parachute is deployed by remote control
A U.S. Navy MQM-74A launch, 1972.
or if the remote control link is severed and a otation kit
can be added for sea-based recovery. If recovery of the
drone is required, special telemetry warheads are used on The MQM-74A had a neatly tapered cigar-shaped fuse-
the defensive missile in place of explosives. This teleme- lage, straight mid-mounted wings, an underslung jet en-
try warhead is desirable since it allows for extensive analy- gine with the intake under the wings, and a conventional
sis of the performance of the defensive missile, including tail conguration with the tailplanes set in an inverted vee.
miss distance information that determines if a real war- It was powered by a Williams International WR24-6 tur-
head would have damaged the target. A direct hit would bojet engine with a thrust of 121 pounds (538 N), and was
likely destroy the drone. Gunnery systems would use non- launched by RATO booster from the ground or a ship.
explosive dummy munitions. Since gunnery systems are The Navy purchased 1,800 MQM-74A Chukar Is. Sev-
aimed in front of a moving target so it will y through the eral hundred more were purchased in total by NATO for
blast-fragments, dummy munitions do not have to directly a multinational test range on the island of Crete, as well
hit a target. Analysis of radar data would determine if ac- as the Royal Navy and the Italian Navy.
tual explosive munitions would have damaged the target Chukar is the name of an Asian species of partridge, in-
drone. troduced to America and as they are hunted for sport, it
seems that Northrop felt that the name was appropriate
for an aircraft whose purpose in life is to be shot at. The
169.2 Development name Chukar is only formally applied to export versions
of the drone, but informally it is used for all variants.
554
169.2.2 XBQM-108 lage, in contrast with the tapered fuselage of its predeces-
sors.
Main article: BQM-108 The BQM-74C incorporates a microprocessor-based
autopilot that allows it to be programmed for much more
In the mid-1970s, the US Naval Weapons Center used sophisticated ight operations. The BQM-74C can be air
the MQM-74A as the basis for an experimental drone launched as well as ground launched. The original engine
designated the XBQM-108, which was to be used to as was the Williams WR24-7A AKA J400-WR-402, with
a demonstrator for a pogo or tailsitter aircraft that 180 pound (800 N) thrust, but in 1986 production was
could take o and land straight up and down on its tail. upgraded to the J400-WR-403 with 240 pound (1070 N)
The fuselage, tailn, radio control system, and parachute thrust. The BQM-74C is stressed for maneuvers of up to
recovery system of the MQM-74A were retained, but 6Gs. More than 1,600 BQM-74Cs have been built.
the drone was tted with a new wing, a Teledyne CAE Northrop built ten BQM-74C Recce UAVs for tactical
J402 engine with a rotating vectored thrust exhaust, xed reconnaissance for US Navy evaluation, but this variant
tricycle landing gear, and additional ight control sys- did not go into production.
tems. The demonstrator was completed and was making
tethered ights when the program was canceled.
169.2.5 BQM-74E Chukar III
169.2.3 MQM-74C Chukar II The BQM-74C has now been replaced in production by
the BQM-74E, which is externally all but identical but in-
corporates the uprated J400-WR-404 engine as standard,
and has a third greater range and endurance than its pre-
decessor.
On 6 January 2015 PHT, Filipino shermen recovered
a drone of this kind oating o in the waters near Pat-
nanungan, Quezon Province, Philippines. [2] The En-
glish newspaper The Daily Mail ran a story[3] with sev-
eral close-up photos of the drone in orange color. The
story included an image showing the model and serial
number plate, MODEL NO. BQM-74E. The plate also
showed an acceptance date of 02 September 2008. The
US Embassy in Manila said that the drone was actually
red four months earlier during American naval exercises
MQM-74C Chukar II oating and being recovered.
o Guam and was just washed ashore in the Philippines
through ocean currents. The countrys Department of
The Navy liked the Chukar I but wanted a somewhat Foreign Aairs spokesperson Raul Hernandez appeared
faster version, and in the early 1970s Northrop devel- to support the US Embassy explanation, adding that at
oped the improved experimental MQM-74B, which was no time was the aerial target drone launched nor did it
followed by the production MQM-74C Chukar II. The y or crash within the Philippine territory. Human rights
Chukar II is dicult to distinguish from the Chukar I, groups and even left-wing inclined groups/organizations
but the Chukar II is slightly scaled up and uses an up- have either condemned, criticized or called for an inves-
rated Williams WR24-7 turbojet with 180 pound (800 tigation regarding the incident, saying that drones can be
N) thrust, giving it a top speed of 590 mph (950 km/h). used for surveillance and they can be used for actual com-
Like the Chukar I, the Chukar II is ground or ship bat operations, as well as suggesting it is used on spying
launched only. At least 1,400 Chukar IIs were built, on activities of the communist New Peoples Army as
mostly for the US Navy, but other customers included part of counterinsurgency eorts. However, Maj. Harold
NATO, the United Kingdom, West Germany, Greece, Cabunoc, spokesperson of the Philippine Army, denied
Iran, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, and that drones were taking part in the ght against rebels.[4]
Spain.
169.2.6 Future versions

169.2.4 BQM-74C Chukar III
In the 1980s, Northrop built a next-generation target, the
In 1978, the US Navy requested a still more sophisti- NV-144, that was substantially bigger and faster than the
cated drone, and Northrop responded with the BQM- Chukar III, but the NV-144 did not enter production.
74C Chukar III. This improved variant is visibly dierent Northrop, now part of Northrop Grumman, is now work-
from its predecessors, featuring a more cylindrical fuse- ing toward delivery of the improved BQM-74F variant
556 CHAPTER 169. NORTHROP BQM-74 CHUKAR
of the Chukar, previously known as Target 2000. The sures blitz. Iraqi air defenses never recovered from this
BQM-74F has general conguration along the lines of the blow, and though large Allied aircraft losses had been
BQM-74C, but features swept wings, an empty weight of predicted, the Iraqis only succeeded in shooting down
600 pounds (270 kilograms), an uprated engine with 300 44 manned aircraft. After the war, the 4468th was dis-
pound (1.33 kN) thrust, speed of up to Mach 0.93, and a banded, and one of the remaining BQM-74Cs was do-
design lifetime of 20 ights. The BQM-74F will be able nated to the National Museum of the United States Air
to simulate a range of dierent aircraft and cruise mis- Force at Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio, where it is now
siles. It will also be able to tow targets and decoys, and on display.
will be compatible with current Chukar support systems
and infrastructure. The Navy awarded Northrop Grum-
man a development contract in 2002, and initial deliveries 169.4 USS Chancellorsville acci-
are scheduled for 2006.
dent
On 16 November 2013, a BQM-74E hit and damaged
169.3 Gulf War combat use the USS Chancellorsville (CG-62), slightly injuring two
sailors and making a hole in the superstructure just above
In the 1991 Gulf War, BQM-74Cs were used as decoys the deck. The drone was supposed to turn away more than
during the initial air attacks into Iraq. The USAF Big a mile from the cruiser during exercises to test the latest
Safari group was put in charge of the decoy eort, which version of the Aegis Combat System, but instead carried
was codenamed Project Scathe Mean. straight on into the ship.[5]
The Chukar drones that were available were usually
launched from DC-130 director aircraft, and could also
be launched from strike aircraft such as F-15s or F-16s. 169.5 Specications
These launch resources were not available, though, so
the Navy found twelve ground launchers in their inven-
tory that could be made serviceable, while RATO booster
units were found stockpiled in Belgium. Each BQM-74C
was tted with a pair of passive radar enhancement de-
vices to give it a signature similar to that of a strike ghter.
A 40-person team of specialists, obtained from disbanded
ground-launched cruise missile units, was assembled in a
few days and designated the 4468th Tactical Reconnais-
sance Group. The 4468th moved on a fast track, with
trucks modied and obtained from a California commer-
cial trucking rm, tool kits purchased from Sears, and
eld gear bought from war surplus stores. The teams were Diagram of a BQM-74E Chukar
given quick training, equipped with 44 Navy BQM-74Cs,
and sent to Saudi Arabia in two six-launcher teams in
about two weeks, arriving near the Iraqi border on 15 Oc-
Crew: 0
tober 1990. The northern team was sited to cover Bagh-
dad and large military bases in that area, while the south- Length: 12 ft 11 in (3.94 m)
ern team was sited to cover Basra and Kuwait City.
Wingspan: 5 ft 9 in (1.76 m)
When the air war began on the night of 17 January 1991,
Iraq was hit by waves of F-117 Nighthawk stealth ghters Height: 2 ft 4 in (0.71 m)
and BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles. A group of 38 Empty weight: 271 lb (123 kg)
BQM-74Cs were assigned to be launched as diversion for
the second wave of attacks, with the launches generally in Gross weight: 549 lb (249 kg)
groups of three, and 37 were launched successfully in pre- Powerplant: 1 Williams J400-WR-404 turbojet,
cisely timed waves. One group of three was intercepted 240 lbf (1.1 kN) each
by Iraqi aircraft, while all the others made it to target.
The drones ew over 500 kilometers (310 miles) at 630 Performance
km/h (390 mph), then began to circle Baghdad for up to
20 minutes. Iraqi air defense radars which probed for Maximum speed: 606 mph (972 km/h)
the drones were engaged by allied strike aircraft ring
Endurance: 1 hours 8 min
high-speed anti-radiation missiles (HARMs). The Navy
also launched TALDs to contribute to the countermea- Service ceiling: 40,000 ft (12,000 m)
169.6 Related content

History of UAVs decoys
Designation sequence: BGM-71 - MIM-72 - UGM-73

- BQM-74 - BGM-75 - AGM-76 - FGM-77
169.7 References
Notes
[1] "$24M for 60 Aerial Target Drones, Defense Industry

Daily, 29 March 2005
[2] Jonas Cabiles Soltes, US-made drone falls in Masbate

waters, inquirer.net (Online news site of the Philippine
Daily Inquirer), 7 January 2013
[3] Hugo Gye, Mystery as American drone is found oating

o the coast of the Philippines... 1,000 miles away from
the nearest U.S. base, The Daily Mail, 7 January 2013
[4] Tarra Quismundo, Jonas Cabiles Soltes and Mar Ar-

guelles, DFA backs US claim drone red in Guam 4
months ago, inquirer.net (Online news site of the Philip-
pine Daily Inquirer), 8 January 2013
[5] Navy investigates drone mishap Why did 13-foot drone

not turn away from ship, as programmed?". San Diego
Union-Tribune. 18 November 2013. |rst1= missing
|last1= in Authors list (help)
Bibliography
Designation-systems.net
This article contains material that originally came

from the web article Unmanned Aerial Vehicles by
Greg Goebel, which exists in the Public Domain.
Chapter 170
XGAM-71 Buck Duck
The Convair XGAM-71 Buck Duck was a decoy missile Height: 4 ft 3 in (1.3 m)
that was developed by Convair in the late 1950s. It was
intended to have the same radar signature as the Strategic Gross weight: 1,550 lb (703 kg)
Air Command's B-36 bomber, thereby allowing it to dis- Powerplant: 1 Aerojet XLR-85-AJ-1 liquid fuel
rupt the enemys air defenses and dilute their eort to rocket, 90 lbf (0.40 kN) thrust
shoot down an incoming bomber eet.
Convair built the rst prototype using their own funds, but Performance
received an ocial development contract from the United
States Air Force on 16 August 1954. The project desig- Maximum speed: Mach 0.55
nation was MX-2224. When the Air Force decided to
put the project into production, it received the designa- Range: 230 mi (200 nmi; 370 km)
tion GAM-71.[1]
Service ceiling: 40,000 ft (12,192 m)
As initially envisioned by the Air Force, one B-36 in the
typical three-plane attack formation would be lled en-
tirely with GAM-71s, carrying a total of seven. A total
of two decoys could be carried in each bomb bay (except
170.2 See also
three), and a mixed load was also possible although the
Air Force did not specify that it intended to use mixed Convair B-36 Peacemaker
loads.
To t in the bomb bay of a B-36, the GAM-71 was rela-
tively small; its wings were folded when it was stowed in
the bay. To mimic the radar cross-section of the B-36, it ADM-20 Quail
carried radar reectors.
In February 1955, glide tests of XGAM-71 prototypes
began using a modied B-29 Superfortress as the moth- List of missiles
ership. However, the program was delayed due to fund-
ing issues. Convair also had higher priorities. A total of
seven ights were conducted before the program was can- 170.3 References
celled in January 1956, an event that Jenkins attributes to
the imminent B-36 phase-out.[2] [1] Convair Development Department Annual Report 1953
(1954-05-27), page 7, and Convair Development De-
partment Fourth Annual Report (1955-09-08), page 23.
Cited by Jenkins. Both may be found at the Aerospace
170.1 Specications Education Center, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Data from Magnesium Overcast;[3] The Evolution of the [2] Werrell, Kenneth P. (September 1985). The Evolution of
the Cruise Missile. Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama: Air
Cruise Missile[4] Parsch 2007[5]
University Press. pp. 123124.
[3] Jenkins, Dennis R. (September 2002). Magnesium Over-
cast. North Branch, Minnesota: Specialty Press. p. 142.
Crew: None ISBN 1-58007-042-6.
Length: 13 ft (4.0 m) [4] Armstrong, Ferrest E., From New Technology Devel-
opment to Operational Usefulness B-36, B-58, F-
Wingspan: 14 ft (4.3 m) 111/FB/111, cited by Werrell;
558
[5] Parsch, Andreas (2007). Convair GAM-71 Buck Duck.

Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. Retrieved
2014-05-20.
Chapter 171
XSM-73 Goose
July 1954 by the United States Air Force under the project
designation MX-2223.
The Fairchild MX-2223 design called for a non-metallic
fuselage with swept wings and a v-tail. Radar reectors
were located in the fuselage and on pods positioned on
the wing tips to simulate the radar return of a bomber.
171.2 Design
In December 1955, Fairchild was awarded a contract
to develop Weapon System 123A which included the
XSM-73 being prepared for ight. SM-73 missile. American Machine and Foundry Com-
pany was responsible for the ground equipment, Ramo-
The Fairchild SM-73 (originally Bull Goose) was a sub- Woodridge Corporation was responsible for electronic
sonic, jet-powered, ground-launched Decoy Cruise mis- equipment, and Paul Omohundro Co who was responsi-
sile. ble for airframe elements.
Two engine contracts were awarded by the USAF in
November 1954 to minimize development risk.[5]
171.1 Development Each engine was in the 2,450 lbf (10.9 kN) thrust class
with a thrust to weight ratio goal of 10:1. General
Starting in December 1952 Fairchild began concept stud- Electric was awarded a contract for the development of
ies for a ground-launched long range decoy missile that the General Electric J85 and Fairchild was awarded a
could simulate strategic bombers on radar.[1] contract for the a competing engine the Fairchild J83.
In March 1953, the United States Air Force released Gen- Fairchild proposed a lightweight engine of conventional
eral Operational Requirement (GOR) 16 which called design.[5]
for a long range decoy missile to increase the eective- The proposed General Electric engine had a more ad-
ness of Strategic Air Command bombers by confusing vanced design, involving more risk, but having a higher
and saturating an air defense system.[1][2] Multiple SM- thrust to weight ratio. The XSM-73 was powered by the
73 missiles would be ground-launched from Strategic Air Fairchild J83 on all test ights but was also capable of
Command bases located in the continental United States. using the General Electric J85. The Fairchild J83 was
Fifty percent of the deployed SM-73 missiles would be operating by early 1957.[5]
launched within the rst hour after an alert and the re-
maining missiles would be launched one hour later.[3] The Like the MX-2223 design, the SM-73 utilized a non-
requirement called for 85 percent of the decoy missiles to metallic berglass fuselage.[3] The swept wing of the
arrive at the target area within 115 nm (185 km).[3][4] The MX-2223 design evolved to a berglass 52delta wing.
SM-73 was to y 4,000 nm (7,408 km) at speed of at least A Thiokol solid-propellant rocket booster was used to
0.85 Mach at an operating altitude of 50,000 ft (15,240 launch the SM-73 to a speed of 300 knots (345 mph).
m) with a payload of 500 lb (227 kg).[2] After ying 2,500 Cruise speed for the SM-73 was 488 knots (562 mph).
nm (4,650 km), the SM-73' would simulate the perfor- The SM-73 had a fuel capacity of 803 gal (3,040 L) of
mance of the B-47 Stratojet or B-52 Stratofortress over JP-4. This fuel was stored in 10 fuselage and six wing
the nal 1,500 nm (2,780 km) of ight.[3] tanks.[3]
Study contracts were awarded to Convair and Fairchild in An autopilot used a Rate integrating gyroscope for direc-
560
171.5. SURVIVORS 561
tional control.[1] The rate integrating gyroscope could be 171.5 Survivors

pre-programmed to turn the SM-73. Pitch and roll con-
trol were provided by elevons either operating in phase or XSM-73 located in the Hagerstown Aviation Mu-
asymmetrically. Yaw control was provided by a rudder.[3] seum, Hagerstown, Maryland, United States.[10]
The control system positioned ight controls by sending
electrical signals to hydraulic actuators located at each
XSM-73 located in the Air Force Space & Mis-
ight control.
sile Museum, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station,
The SM-73 was designed to carry radar reectors and Florida, United States
active electronic countermeasures operating in S-band,
L-band, and lower frequencies.[3] The SM-73 was not
armed. 171.6 See also
Funding issues and problems with the berglass wing,
the booster rocket, and the Fairchild J83 engine delayed Aircraft of comparable role, conguration and era
testing.[1]
Test and evaluation began in February 1957 with rocket SM-64 Navaho
sled tests at Holloman Air Force Base.[2] A B-57 Can-
XSM-74
berra was modied and used as a ying engine testbed
for the Fairchild J83.[5] Testing of the SM-73 then transi- Ground Launched Cruise Missile
tioned to Patrick Air Force Base in June 1957. At Patrick
Air Force Base, launch complexes 21[6] and 22[7] were BQM-74 Chukar
constructed near the Cape Canaveral Light[6] to support
MGM-1 Matador
SM-73 testing. Five dummy booster launches and fteen
test ights were own between March 1957 and Decem- AGM-86A Subsonic Cruise Aircraft Decoy
ber 1958.[6]
MGM-13 MACE
The United States Air Force planned to purchase
2,328 operational missiles and 53 missiles for test and ADM-20 QUAIL
evaluation.[2] This would have provided enough missiles
for 10 squadrons.[2] Deployment was planned to start in ADM-141C ITALD
[2]
1961 and be completed by October 1963. Bull Goose
ADM-160 MALD
bases were initially planned at Duluth Municipal Airport,
Minnesota and Ethan Allen Air Force Base, Vermont.[8]
Construction of Bull Goose missile sites began in August Related lists
1958.[2]
In December 1958 the program was canceled because
the missile was not able to simulate a B-52 on radar.[2] List of missiles
The Fairchild J83 engine program was also canceled in
November 1958.[5] Total program cost at cancellation
was $136.5 million U.S. Dollars.
171.7 References
Citations
171.3 Variants
[1] SM-73, Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles
B-73 Original designation in Bomber sequence - Appendix 1: Early Missiles and Drones, by Andreas
Parsch , retrieved November 10, 2007.
XSM-73 Test and Evaluation prototypes.
[2] SM-73 Bull Goose, 1997 Web Page by the Federation of
SM-73 Production Missile designation.
American Scientists, , retrieved November 10, 2007.
Gander Proposed surface-to-surface version capable of [3] Fairchild B-73 Bull Goose, Fact Sheet from the National
carrying a 1 Mt warhead 2,000 miles (3,200 km).[9] Museum of the USAF, , Retrieved on November 10,
2007.
[4] Historical Essay by Andreas Parsch, Goose, , retrieved on

171.4 Operator November 10, 2007.
United States [5] The History of North American Small Gas Turbine Aircraft
Engines, William Fleming and Richard Leyes, AIAA,
United States Air Force 1999
562 CHAPTER 171. XSM-73 GOOSE
[6] Encyclopedia Astronautica, Cape Canaveral LC21, re-

trieved November 10, 2007.
[7] Encyclopedia Astronautica, Cape Canaveral LC22, re-

trieved November 10, 2007.
[8] GOOSE (BULL GOOSE) Fact Sheet, Cli Lethbridge,

Spaceline Website, , retrieved November 10, 2007.
[9] ""Surface-to-Surface: Aerodynamic Cruise"". Flight 74

(2602): 881. 5 December 1958.
[10] List of Hagerstown Aviation Museum Aircraft, , retrieved

November 10, 2007
Bibliography
Evolution of the Cruise Missile, Kenneth P. Warrell,

Air University Press USAF, 1985.
IDEAS, CONCEPTS, DOCTRINE, Basic Thinking of
the United States Air Force 1907-1960, Vol 1, Robert
Frank Futrell, Air University Press, 1989
Interavia, International Aeronautic Federation,

1992.
SM-73 Bull Goose, Web Page of Global Security.org
Technology and the Air Force A retrospective As-

sessment Air Force History and Museums Program,
United States Air Force, 1997
The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Rockets and Missiles,
Bill Gunston, Salamander Books Ltd, 1979
Chapter 172
XSM-74
The Convair XSM-74 was a sub-sonic, jet-powered, 172.3 Operator

ground-launched decoy cruise missile.
United States
172.1 Development United States Air Force
In March 1953, the United States Air Force released Gen-

eral Operational Requirement (GOR) 16 which called for 172.4 See also
a long range decoy missile to increase the eectiveness of
Strategic Air Command bombers by confusing and satu- Aircraft of comparable role, conguration and era
rating an air defense system. Multiple XSM-74 missiles
would be ground-launched from Strategic Air Command SM-64 Navaho
bases located in the United States. Fifty percent of the
deployed XSM-74 missiles would be launched within the XSM-73 Goose
rst hour after an alert and the remaining missiles would
Ground Launched Cruise Missile
be launched one hour later. The requirement called for 85
percent of the decoy missiles to arrive at the target area BQM-74 Chukar
within 100 nmi (190 km). The XSM-74 was to y 4,000
nmi (7,400 km) at speed of at least 0.85 Mach at an op- MGM-1 Matador
erating altitude of 50,000 ft (15,240 m) with a payload
MGM-13 MACE
of 500 lb (227 kg). After ying 2,500 nmi (4,600 km),
the XSM-74 would simulate the performance of the B-47 ADM-141C ITALD
Stratojet or B-52 Stratofortress over the nal 1,500 nmi
(2,800 km) of ight. Related lists
Study contracts were awarded to Convair and Fairchild in
July 1954 by the United States Air Force under the project List of military aircraft of the United States
designation MX-2223. According to USAF records, the
designation XSM-74 was proposed for the MX-2223 List of missiles
missile, but never actually approved.
The Convair MX-2223 design called for a non-metallic
fuselage with swept wings and a v-tail. Radar reectors 172.5 References
were located in the fuselage and on pods positioned on
the wing tips to simulate the radar return of a bomber. SM-74, Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Mis-
siles - Appendix 1: Early Missiles and Drones, by
Development of the XSM-74 was suspended in Decem-
Andreas Parsch
ber 1955 when Fairchild was awarded a contract by the
USAF to develop the XSM-73 Goose.
172.2 Variants
MX-2223: Original U.S. Air Force Project Desig-
nator.
XSM-74: Designation reserved for prototypes
563
Chapter 173
Cornelius XBG-3
The Cornelius XBG-3 was an American "bomb glider", Aircraft of comparable role, conguration and era
developed by the Cornelius Aircraft Corporation for the
United States Army Air Forces. Using an unconventional Fletcher BG-1
design that included a forward-swept wing, a single pro-
totype was ordered in 1942; however the contract was Interstate TDR
cancelled later that year before the aircraft had been con-
Mistel
structed.
Pratt-Read LBE
173.1 History Related lists
Early in the Second World War, the United States Army List of military aircraft of the United States
Air Forces initiated research into the possibility that
gliders, towed by other, conventional aircraft to the area
of a target, then released and guided to impact via radio 173.3 References
control, could be a useful weapon of war.[2] Essentially
an early form of (very large) guided missile,[2] the con- Citations
cept was similar to a Navy project underway at the same
time, known as Glomb (from glider-bomb),[3] and led
[1] Baugher 2011
to the establishment of the 'BG' series of designations, for
'Bomb Glider', in early 1942.[2][3] [2] Gunston 1988, p.28.
Among the designs considered for use as a bomb glider [3] Parsch 2009
was an unconventional design submitted by the Cornelius
Aircraft Company. Cornelius, having established a rep- [4] Miller 2001, p.297.
utation for unconventional aircraft designs,[4] proposed [5] Mondey 1978, p.132.
a design that featured a tail-rst conguration,[2] with
canard foreplanes and a radical forward-swept wing.[3] [6] Janes 1947
The USAAF considered the design interesting enough to [7] Gliding Gas Tank May May Refuel Planes On Ocean
award a contract to Cornelius for the construction of a sin- Hops. Popular Science, August 1944, p. 124. Accessed
gle prototype, designated XBG-3.[5] However the project 2011-01-27
was cancelled in late 1942, when the bomb glider concept
was abandoned by the USAAF.[3][6] Bibliography
An enlarged, tailess, forward-swept wing glider would be
built by Cornelius later in the war, acting as a ying fuel Baugher, Joe (January 6, 2011). 1942 USAAF Se-
tank for long-range bombers, as the XFG-1.[7] rial Numbers (42-39758 to 42-50026)". USAAS-
USAAC-USAAF-USAF Aircraft Serial Numbers-
1908 to Present. Retrieved 2011-01-27.
173.2 See also Bridgman, Leonard, ed. (1947). Janes All The
World'S Aircraft 1947. London: S.Low, Marston &
Bat (guided bomb) Co. ASIN B000RMJ7FU.
Related development Gunston, Bill (1988). The Illustrated Encyclopedia
of Aircraft Armament. London: Salamander Books.
Cornelius XFG-1 ISBN 978-0-86101-314-2. Retrieved 2011-01-27.
564
Miller, Jay (2001). The X-Planes: X-1 to X-45.

Hinckley, England: Midland Publishing. ISBN 978-
1-85780-109-5.
Mondey, David (1978). The Complete Illustrated

Encyclopedia of the Worlds Aircraft. New York:
A&W Publishers. ASIN B001SLTA1U.
Parsch, Andreas (2008). BG Series. Directory
of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles, Appendix 1:
Early Missiles and Drones. designation-systems.net.
Chapter 174
Fairchild BQ-3
The Fairchild BQ-3, also known as the Model 79, was an 174.3 Specications (XBQ-3)
early unmanned combat aerial vehicle referred to at the
time as an "assault drone" developed by Fairchild Air- Data from [1]
craft from the companys AT-21 Gunner advanced trainer
during the Second World War for use by the United States General characteristics
Army Air Forces. Two examples of the type were built
and ight-tested, however the progress of guided missiles Crew: 1 (optional)
rendered the assault drone quickly obsolete, and the type
was not produced. Length: 52 ft 8 in (16.05 m)
Wingspan: 37 ft (11 m)
174.1 Design and development Height: 31 ft 1 in (9.47 m)
Development of the BQ-3 began in October, 1942, under Gross weight: 15,300 lb (6,940 kg)
a program for the development of aerial torpedoes, later
and more commonly referred to as assault drones,[1] Powerplant: 2 Ranger V-77015 inline piston
that had been instigated in March of that year. Fairchild engines, 520 hp (390 kW) each
was awarded a contract for the construction of two XBQ-
3 prototypes, based largely on the AT-21 Gunner ad- Performance
vanced gunnery trainer already in United States Army Air
Forces service.[1]
Maximum speed: 220 mph (354 km/h; 191 kn)
The XBQ-3 was a twin-engined, low-wing aircraft, tted
with retractable tricycle landing gear and a twin-nned Range: 1,500 mi (1,303 nmi; 2,414 km)
empennage; although the aircraft was intended to be op-
erated by radio control with television assist, a two-seat
Armament
cockpit was included in the design for testing and ferry
[2]
ights. Power was provided by two Ranger V-770 inline
piston engines, providing 520 horsepower (390 kW)
each;[3] up to 4,000 pounds (1,800 kg) of bombs could 4,000 pounds (1,800 kg) warhead
be carried by the aircraft in unmanned conguration.[2]
174.4 See also

174.2 Flight testing
Related development
The rst ight of the XBQ-3 took place in July 1944;[1]
later that month, one of the prototypes was severely dam- Fairchild AT-21 Gunner
aged in a forced landing.[4] Despite the accident, ight
testing continued; however, the assault drone was de-
termined to have no signicant advantage over conven- Aircraft of comparable role, conguration and era
tional bombers, and advances in the eld of guided mis-
siles were rapidly rendering the concept obsolete.[5] As Fleetwings BQ-2
a result, the program was cancelled towards the end of
1944.[1] Interstate TDR
566
174.5 References
Citations
[1] Parsch 2003
[2] Janes 1947, p.424.
[3] Ross 1951, p.117.
[4] Werrell 1985, p.30.
[5] Craven and Cate 1955, p.254.
Bibliography
Bridgman, Leonard, ed. (1947). Janes All the

Worlds Aircraft 1947. London: MacMillan. ASIN
B000RMJ7FU.
Craven, Wesley F & Cate, James L, ed. (1955). The

Army Air Forces in World War II. Vol. VI, Men &
Planes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
LCCN 48-3657.
Parsch, Andreas (2003). Fairchild BQ-3. Di-

rectory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles, Ap-
Ross, Frank (1951). Guided Missiles: Rockets &

Torpedoes. New York: Lothrop, Lee & Shepard.
ASIN B001LGSGX0.
Werrell, Kenneth P. (1985). The Evolution of the
Cruise Missile. Maxwell AFB, Alabama: Air Uni-
versity Press. ISBN 978-1478363057.
Chapter 175
Fleetwings BQ-1
The Fleetwings BQ-1 was an early expendable Crew: 1 (optional)

unmanned aerial vehicle referred to at the time as an
"assault drone" developed by Fleetwings during the Wingspan: 48 ft 7 in (14.81 m)
Second World War for use by the United States Army
Gross weight: 7,700 lb (3,493 kg)
Air Forces. Only a single example of the type was built,
the program being cancelled following the crash of the Powerplant: 2 Franklin O-4057 opposed pis-
prototype on its rst ight. ton engines, 225 hp (168 kW) each
Performance
175.1 Development
Cruise speed: 225 mph (196 kn; 362 km/h)
Development of the BQ-1 began on July 10, 1942, under
a program for the development of aerial torpedoes - un- Range: 1,717 mi (1,492 nmi; 2,763 km)
manned aircraft carrying internal bombs - that had been
instigated in March of that year. Fleetwings was con- Armament
tracted to build a single XBQ-1 assault drone,[1] powered
by two Franklin O-4057 opposed piston engines, and
tted with a xed landing gear in tricycle conguration. 2,000 pounds (910 kg) warhead
The aircraft was optionally piloted; a single-seat cockpit
was installed for ferry and training ights; a fairing would
replace the cockpit canopy on operational missions.[2]
The BQ-1 was intended to carry a 2,000 pounds (910 175.4 See also
kg) warhead over a range of 1,717 miles (2,763 km) at
225 miles per hour (362 km/h); the aircraft would be de- Related development
stroyed in the act of striking the target.[1] A single BQ-2
was to be constructed as well under the same contract.[1] Fleetwings BQ-2

Fairchild BQ-3
Following trials of the television-based command guid-
ance system using a PQ-12 target drone, and earlier tri- Interstate TDR
als of the XBQ-2A, the XBQ-1 ew in May 1944; how-
ever, the aircraft crashed on its maiden ight. Follow-
ing the loss of the lone prototype BQ-1, the project was 175.5 References
cancelled.[1]
Notes
175.3 Specications (XBQ-1) [1] Werrell 1985, p.30.
[2] Parsch 2005

Data from [2]
General characteristics Bibliography
568
Parsch, Andreas (2005). Fleetwings BQ-1/2. Di-

Chapter 176
Fleetwings BQ-2
The Fleetwings BQ-2 was an early expendable 176.3 Specications (XBQ-2A)

unmanned aerial vehicle referred to at the time as an
"assault drone" developed by Fleetwings during the
Second World War for use by the United States Army
Air Forces. Only a single example of the type was built;
the aircraft was deemed too expensive for service and
was cancelled after a brief ight testing career.
176.1 Development
Development of the BQ-2 began on July 10, 1942, under

a program for the development of aerial torpedoes - un- The XBQ-2A.
manned ying bombs - that had been instigated in March
Data from [2]
of that year. Fleetwings was contracted to build a sin-
gle XBQ-2 assault drone,[1] powered by two Lycoming General characteristics
XO-435 opposed piston engines, and tted with a xed
landing gear in tricycle conguration;[2] the landing gear Crew: 1 (optional)
was jettisonable for better aerodynamics.[1]
Wingspan: 48 ft 7 in (14.81 m)
The BQ-2 was optionally piloted; a single-seat cockpit
was installed for ferry and training ights; a fairing would Gross weight: 7,700 lb (3,493 kg)
[2]
replace the cockpit canopy on operational missions. Powerplant: 2 Lycoming R-68013 radial pis-
The BQ-2 was intended to carry a 2,000 pounds (910 ton engines, 280 hp (210 kW) each
kg) warhead over a range of 1,717 miles (2,763 km) at
225 miles per hour (362 km/h); the aircraft would be de- Performance
stroyed in the act of striking the target.[1] A single BQ-1
was to be constructed as well under the same contract.[1] Armament
2,000 pounds (910 kg) warhead

176.4 See also
The XO-435 engines were dropped from the design of
the XBQ-2 before completion, being replaced by two Related development
Lycoming R-680 radial engines, with the aircraft being
redesignated XBQ-2A.[3] Fleetwings BQ-1
Following trials of the television-based command guid-
ance system using a PQ-12 target drone, the XBQ-2A
ew in mid 1943; following ight trials, the design was
Fairchild BQ-3
determined to be too expensive for operational use, and
the program was cancelled in December of that year.[2] Interstate TDR
570
176.5 References
Notes
[1] Werrell 1985, p.30.
[2] Parsch 2005
[3] Andrade 1979, p.60.
Bibliography

Parsch, Andreas (2005). Fleetwings BQ-1/2. Di-


Chapter 177
Gorgon (missile family)
The Gorgon was an air-to-air missile powered by a 177.1 Variants

turbojet engine and equipped with radio controls and a
homing device. Data from:[1]
Gorgon IIA Canard layout with single rocket ( may spit

out re at times)
KA2N-1 -
KU2N-1 -
CTV-4 -
CTV-N-4 -
Gorgon IIB Canard layout with single pulse-jet
Gorgon IIIA Conventional layout with single rocket
KA3N-1 -
PTV-N-2 Gorgon IV in Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center KU3N-1 -
CTV-6 -
CTV-N-6 -
Gorgon IIIB
Gorgon IIIC Conventional layout with twin rockets
KA3N-2 -
KU3N-2 -
RTV-4 -
RTV-N-4 -
Gorgon IV Single ramjet
KUM-1 -
PTV-2 -
RTV-N-15 Pollux in Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center
PTV-N-2 -
It was developed by the U.S. during World War II, was Gorgon V Derivative of Gorgon IV
later expanded into a more general program including
ASM-N-5 Gorgon V - proposed chem-
turbojet, ramjet, pulsejet, and rocket power. Straight
ical weapons dispenser variant
wing, swept wing, and canard (tail rst) air frames
were investigated and visual, television, heat-homing, and NADC Plover Drone variant of Gorgon IV
three types of radar guidance were looked at for use as
possible air-to-air, air-to-surface and surface-to-surface KDM-1 -
guided missiles and as target drones. NADC Pollux Similar to Gorgon IIC
The nal development of the series, the ASM-N-5 Gor-
RTV-N-15 -
gon V, was to be an unpowered chemical weapons dis-
penser. KGN-1
572
177.2 References
Citations
[1] Parsch 2005
Bibliography
Parsch, Andreas (2005). Martin ASM-N-5 Gorgon

V. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles
Appendix 1: Early Missiles and Drones. designation-

Gorgon IV Sets Records For Ramjets , February
1949, Popular Sciences
U.S. Naval Aviation Chronology in World War II

Chapter 178
Interstate TDR
The Interstate TDR was an early unmanned combat TDR-1 was equipped with a xed tricycle landing gear,
aerial vehicle referred to at the time as an "assault that on operations would be jettisoned following takeo
drone" developed by the Interstate Aircraft and En- for improved performance.[1]
gineering Corporation during the Second World War for
use by the United States Navy. Capable of being armed
with bombs or torpedoes, 2000 aircraft were ordered, but 178.2 Operational history
only around 200 were built. The type saw some service
in the Pacic Theater against the Japanese, but continuing
developmental issues aecting the aircraft, along with the
success of operations using more conventional weapons,
led to the decision being made to cancel the assault drone
program in October 1944.
In 1936, Lieutenant Commander Delmar S. Fahrney pro-

posed that unpiloted, remotely controlled aircraft had
potential for use by the United States Navy in combat Interstate XBQ-4
operations.[1] Due to the limitations of the technology
of the time, development of the assault drone project Under the code-name Operation Option, the Navy pro-
was given a low priority, but by the early 1940s the de- jected that up to 18 squadrons of assault drones would
velopment of the radar altimeter and television made be formed, with 162 TBF Avenger control aircraft and
the project more feasible,[1] and following trials using 1000 assault drones being ordered.[3] However technical
converted manned aircraft, the rst operational test of diculties in the development of the TDR-1, combined
a drone against a naval target was conducted in April with a continued low priority given to the project, saw the
1942.[1] That same month, following trials of the Naval contract modied with the order reduced to only around
Aircraft Factory TDN assault drone, Interstate Aircraft 300 aircraft.[1] A single TDR-1 was tested by the U.S.
received a contract from the Navy for two prototype and Army Air Forces as the XBQ-4, however no production
100 production aircraft to a simplied and improved de- contract resulted from this testing.[1]
sign, to be designated TDR-1.[1] In 1944, under the control of the Special Air Task Force
Control of the TDR-1 would be conducted from either a (SATFOR), the TDR-1 was deployed operationally to the
control aircraft, usually a TBF Avenger, with the oper- South Pacic for operations against the Japanese.[4] TDR-
ator viewing a tv screen showing the view from a cam- 1 aircraft equipped a single mixed squadron (Special Air
era mounted aboard the drone, and with the radar altime- Task Group 1) along with TBM Avenger control aircraft,
ters readout also displayed.[1] Powered by two Lycoming and the rst operational mission took place on Septem-
O-435 engines of 220 horsepower (160 kW) each, the ber 27, conducting bombing operations against Japanese
TDR-1 used a remarkably simple design, with a steel-tube ships.[4] Despite this success, the assault drone program
frame constructed by the Schwinn bicycle company cov- had already been canceled after the production of 189
ered with a molded wood skin,[2] thus making little use TDR-1 aircraft,[1] due to a combination of continued
of strategic materials so as not to impede production of technical problems, the aircraft failing to live up to ex-
higher priority aircraft.[1] Capable of being optionally pi- pectations, and the fact that more conventional weaponry
loted for test ights, an aerodynamic fairing was used to was proving adequate for the defeat of Japan.[1] The nal
cover the cockpit area during operational missions.[1] The mission was own on October 27, with 50 drones hav-
574
178.5. SPECIFICATIONS (TDR-1) 575
ing been expended on operations, 31 aircraft successfully XTD3R-2 - Variant of XTD3R-1, one prototype.[1]
striking their targets, without loss to the pilots of STAG-
1.[4] TD3R-1 - Production version of XTD3R-1, 40 air-
craft ordered but cancelled.[1]
Following the war, some TDR-1s were converted for op-
eration as private sportsplanes.[2]
United States Army Air Forces
178.3 Aircraft on display XBQ-4 - Army designation for TDR-1. One aircraft
converted from TDR-1.[1]
XBQ-5 - Army designation for XTD2R-1. Desig-

nation reserved but no aircraft ordered.[1]
XBQ-6 - Army designation for XTD3R. No aircraft

produced.[1]
BQ-6A - Army designation for TD3R-1. No aircraft

produced.[1]
Interstate TDR-1 on display at the National Museum of Naval

Aviation
178.5 Specications (TDR-1)
A single example of the TDR-1 survives, and is on display
at the U.S. Navys National Museum of Naval Aviation in
Pensacola, Florida.[2]
178.4 Variants and operators
Three view of TDR-1
Data from Parsch[1]

Crew: 0-1 (optional pilot)
Wingspan: 48 ft (15 m)
Powerplant: 2 Lycoming O-4352 opposed pis-

Interstate XTD3R ton engines, 220 hp (160 kW) each
United States Navy Performance
XTDR-1 - Two prototypes.[1] Cruise speed: 140 mph (122 kn; 225 km/h)
TDR-1 - Production version of XTDR-1, 189 air-
Range: 425 mi (369 nmi; 684 km)
craft produced.[1]
XTD2R-1 - Variant with two Franklin O-8052 Armament
engines, two prototypes ordered, canceled in favor
of TD3R.[1]
XTD3R-1 - Variant with Wright R-975 radial en- One 2,000-pound (910 kg) bomb or one aerial tor-
gines, three prototypes.[1] pedo
576 CHAPTER 178. INTERSTATE TDR

History of unmanned aerial vehicles Media related to Interstate TDR at Wikimedia Commons
Related development
Naval Aircraft Factory TDN
Gorgon (U.S. missile)

Interstate XBDR
LTV-N-2 Loon
McDonnell LBD Gargoyle
Related lists
List of unmanned aerial vehicles

List of military aircraft of the United States (naval)
178.7 References
Citations
[1] Parsch 2005.

[2] Goebel 2010
[3] Zaloga 2008, p.8.
[4] Newcome 2004, p.68.
Bibliography
Goebel, Greg (2010). The Aerial Torpedo. Cruise

Missiles. VectorSite. Retrieved 2010-11-18.
Newcome, Lawrence R. (2004). Unmanned Avia-
tion: A Brief History of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.
Reston, Virginia: American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics. ISBN 978-1-56347-644-0. Re-
trieved 2010-11-17.
Parsch, Andreas (2005). Interstate BQ-4/TDR.
Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles, Ap-
Zaloga, Steven (2008). Unmanned Aerial Vehicles:
Robotic Air Warfare 1917-2007. New Vanguard
144. New York: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-
84603-243-1. Retrieved 2010-11-17.
Further reading
Spark, Nick T. (2005). Unmanned Precision

Weapons Aren't New. Proceedings Magazine (U.S.
Naval Institute). Retrieved 2005-02-01.
Chapter 179
Interstate XBDR
The Interstate XBDR was a design for an assault drone this was resolved the tests were successfully carried out,
- an early television-guided missile - powered by two jet and a gust factor of 1.22 was recommended for use in the
engines, that was designed by the Interstate Aircraft and design.[5] Despite the successful testing the Navy decided
Engineering Corporation during the latter stages of the not to pursue full-scale development of the aircraft, and
Second World War for use by the United States Navy. the order for the two prototypes was cancelled.[4]
Wind tunnel tests of a scale model were conducted, how-
ever no full-scale examples of the aircraft were built be-
fore the project was cancelled. 179.3 Specications (XBDR-1)
179.1 Design
Referred to at the time as a assault drone, and the only
aircraft ever designated in the 'BD' series,[1] the XBDR-1
was designed by Interstate in response to a Navy require-
ment in late 1943 and early 1944. The aircraft featured
a tailless design,[2] and was essentially a ying wing with
a small vertical stabiliser. The XBDR-1 was intended to
be powered by two Westinghouse 19B axial-ow turbojet
engines,[3] which were to be buried in the wing near the Artists concept of a piloted version of the XBDR-1
wing roots.[2] The planned warload was not detailed, how-
Data from [3][5]
ever it was planned that the assault drone would be guided
to its target via a television link.[1] General characteristics
Crew: None (UAV)

179.2 Testing and Cancellation
Wingspan: 51.66 ft (15.75 m)
Wing area: 362 sq ft (33.6 m2 )
Powerplant: 2 Westinghouse 19B turbojets,

1,550 lbf (6.9 kN) thrust each
Performance
1/17-scale wind tunnel model of the XBDR-1 with alternative
intakes Wing loading: 29.8 lb/sq ft (145 kg/m2 )
Two prototypes (BuNos 337635 and 37636) were

ordered,[4] and tests of a 1/17-scale model of the XBDR
were conducted in a NACA gust tunnel at Langley Field
179.4 See also
in 1944. Requested by the Bureau of Aeronautics in an at-
tempt to determine the load factors of the unusually con- History of unmanned aerial vehicles
[5]
gured aircraft, these tests initially encountered di-
culty with the center of gravity of the model, but once Aircraft of comparable role, conguration and era
577
578 CHAPTER 179. INTERSTATE XBDR
Gorgon (U.S. missile)
Horten Ho 229
Interstate TDR
LTV-N-2 Loon
McDonnell LBD Gargoyle
Northrop XP-79
Related lists
List of unmanned aerial vehicles

179.5 References
Citations
[1] Grossnick 1997, p. 670.
[2] Parsch 2003
[3] Leyes and Fleming 1999, p. 38.
[4] NAVAIR 00-80P-1: United States Naval Aviation 1910

1970, Naval Air Systems Command, 1970
[5] Reisert 1944
Bibliography
Grossnick, Roy. List of Naval Aviation Drones

and Missiles. United States Naval Aviation 1910-
1995. Washington, DC: Naval Historical Center,
1997. ISBN 0-945274-34-3.
Leyes, Richard and William A. Fleming. The His-

tory of North American Small Gas Turbine Aircraft
Engines. American Institute of Aeronautics and As-
tronautics, 1999. ISBN 1-56347-332-1.
Parsch, Andreas. (2003) Interstate BDR. Directory

systems.net, accessed 2010-05-15.
Reisert, Thomas. Tests of a 1/17-Scale Model of
the XBDR-1 Airplane in the NACA Gust Tunnel,
NACA Report WR-L-539, 1944

Media related to Interstate XBDR at Wikimedia Com-
mons
Chapter 180
JB-4
The JB-4, also known as MX-607, was an early 180.3 References

American air-to-surface missile developed by the United
States Army Air Forces during World War II. Using Notes
television/radio-command guidance, the JB-4 reached
the ight-testing stage before being cancelled at the end
[1] Parsch 2005.
of the war.
[2] Ross 1951, p.115.

[4] Parsch 2003.
Developed under the project code MX-607 at Wright [5] Hanle 2007, p.268.
Field in Ohio,[1][2] the JB-4 was a modication of the
GB-4 glide bomb,[1][3] which had entered service with [6] Hanle 2007, p.114.
the U.S. Army Air Forces in 1944.[4] Powered by a Ford
[7] Air Force Magazine, Volume 31. 1948. p.25.
PJ31 pulsejet engine, the JB-4 was intended to give an
improved stando range as opposed to its unpowered [8] Gunston 1979, p.33.
predecessor.[1] In addition, the addition of an engine
made the missile capable of being ground-launched as Bibliography
well.[1] However the requirement to carry fuel for the en-
gine meant that the size of the JB-4s warhead was limited
to 750 pounds (340 kg),[5] compared to the 2,000 pounds Gunston, Bill (1979). The Illustrated Encyclopedia
(910 kg) bomb that formed the core of the GB-4. [6] of the Worlds Rockets & Missiles. London: Sala-
mander Books. ASIN B002K4M822.
Utilising primarily plywood construction,[5] the JB-4
utilised television/radio-command guidance, with an Hanle, Donald J. (2007). Near Miss: The Army
AN/AXT-2 transmitter broadcasting a television signal Air Forces Guided Bomb Program in World War II.
from a camera in the missiles nose to a remote opera- Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. ISBN 978-0-8108-
tor. The operator, viewing the transmitted picture, would 5776-6.
then transmit commands to the missile via radio, correct-
ing the missiles course to ensure striking the target.[1] Ordway, Frederick Ira; Ronald C. Wakeford (1960).
180.2 Operational history Parsch, Andreas (2003). GB Series. Directory of

U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles Appendix 1: Early
Missiles and Drones. designation-systems.net. Re-
The JB-4 entered the ight testing stage in January
trieved 2011-02-02.
1945.[1][7] The missile demonstrated the ability to cruise
at over 400 miles per hour (640 km/h);[8] however, the Parsch, Andreas (2005). JB Series. Directory of
television-guidance concept suered from the limitations U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles Appendix 1: Early
of the technology of the time, the pictures being dif- Missiles and Drones. designation-systems.net. Re-
cult to make out in anything except completely clear trieved 2011-02-04.
weather.[4] The missile also suered from reliability is-
sues; these, combined with the end of World War II in Ross, Frank (1951). Guided Missiles: Rockets &
August 1945, resulted in the termination of the project,[1] Torpedoes. New York: Lothrop, Lee & Shepard.
with none of the JB-4s built seeing operational service.[3] ASIN B001LGSGX0.
579
580 CHAPTER 180. JB-4

B - Bombs/Bomb Units
Chapter 181
KAN Little Joe
The Little Joe, also known by the United States Navy

designation KAN, was an early American ship-based,
short-range surface-to-air missile, the development of
which was initiated in 1945 as a response to the Kamikaze
tactics used by the Japanese. Although the missile was
successfully tested, the end of World War II removed the
requirement for the missile had passed, and the project
was abandoned in 1946.

The development of the Little Joe rocket began in 1945,
as the United States Navy sought an eective point de-
fense against Japanese Kamikaze aircraft.[1][2] The deni-
tive surface-to-air missile project, Lark, was expected to
take some time to come to fruition, so a simpler missile,
based on existing parts, was proposed by the Naval Air
Material Unit.[1][3]
Named Little Joe, and designated KAN-1, the mis- A KAN-1 missile at Point Mugu.
sile was the rst SAM developed and tested by the
United States.[4] The Little Joes fuselage was essen-
tially the same as the standard Aerojet Jet-Assisted Take- troller to keep track of the weapon.[4]
O (JATO) rocket, ordinarily used to provide additional In an attempt to deal with the missiles issues, an im-
takeo thrust for heavily-loaded aircraft.[1][3] Cruciform proved version of Little Joe, designated KAN-2, was de-
wings and canard control surfaces were tted to the mis- veloped. This used a new, less smokey propellant for
sile; guidance was provided by a radio command-to-line- the sustainer;[1] in addition, ares were installed on the
of-sight system.[3] Four auxiliary rockets were mounted missiles tail to assist in visual tracking, while two addi-
as boosters to provide for the rapid launch response tional boosters, for a total of six, were added to boost
needed to deal with Kamikaze aircraft.[1] performance.[4][5]
The warhead used was a standard 100 pounds (45 kg) A total of 15 Little Joe missiles were built and own
general-purpose aerial bomb. A proximity fuse would during the test program.[1] With the end of World War
cause the warhead to detonate within lethal distance of II having removed the immediate requirement for the
the target;[1][3] the heavy warhead was expected to ensure missile,[1] in addition to the test program continuing to
the destruction of the attacking aircraft.[5] be problematic,[4][5] the Little Joe program was canceled
during 1946.[1]

181.3 References
[1]
Initial tests of Little Joe took place in July 1945. Testing
showed that the missiles performance was less than had Citations
been anticipated. In addition, smoke from the boosters
and the sustainer made it dicult for the missiles con- [1] Parsch 2003
581
582 CHAPTER 181. KAN LITTLE JOE
[2] Weyl 1949, p.115.
[3] Friedman 1982, p.149.
[4] Gunston 1979, p.197.
[5] Fitzsimons 1969, p.1753.
Bibliograpby
Fitzsimons, Bernard (ed.) (1969). The Illustrated

Encyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons and War-
fare. London: Salamander Books.
735-7. Retrieved 2011-01-26.

of the Worlds Rockets & Missiles. London: Sala-
mander Books. ISBN 0-517-26870-1.
Parsch, Andreas (2003). NADC KAN Little Joe.

Weyl, A.R. (1949). Guided Missiles. London: Tem-
ple Press. Retrieved 2011-01-28.

Rocket Built For Warships , March 1947, Popular
Science article and photo middle of page 26
Pacic Shooting Gallery , July 1947, Popular Me-
chanics photo left-top page 101
Chapter 182
Northrop JB-1 Bat
Not to be confused with the US Navys 1942-1953 Bat [4] Dick Thomas (narrator) (year tbd -- after 1963 footage
guided bomb. shown at end of Part 2). Northrop First Flights. produced
by Northrop Corporation". Event occurs at 2:10 of edited
YouTube Part I version. Retrieved 2012-05-23. Check
The Northrop JB-1 Bat was a United States surface- date values in: |date= (help)
to-surface cruise missile that was a prototype jet-powered NOTE: The c. 1965 lms claim of an August 1943 MX-
ying wing. The United States Army Air Forces MX-543 543 ight (the date is restated by the 2007 First Flights
program was initiated in September 1942 to use US ver- USAF pdf) is inconsistent with the late 1943 contract
sions of Frank Whittle's jet engine[1] (US-named General and Woodridges claim that the 1st ight was in 1944.
Electric J31). The Northrop Corporation was contracted
[5] First Flights at Edwards Air Force Base (Report). Com-
in late 1943,[2] and only 10 JB-1 airframes were built.[3] piled by History Oce, Air Force Flight Test Center. Au-
A manned version was towed for the 1st ight on Au- gust 2007. Retrieved 2012-05-23.
gust 27, 1943, [sic][4] from Rogers Dry Lake;[5] and a
glider version was launched from a rocket-propelled sled [6] http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app1/jb.html
and crashed in December 1944.[6] An unmanned JB-1
[7] Werrell, Kenneth P. (1998) [1995]. The Evolution of the
powered by an improvised General Electric B-1 turbojet Cruise Missile. Maxwell Air Force Base: Air University
with a wing span of 28 feet 4 inches (8.64 m) made its Press. p. 69. Retrieved 2012-05-24.
1st ight from Eglin Field's Santa Rosa Island, Florida,
on December 7, 1944, and crashed 400 yards from the
rail launcher.[7]
With the successful USAAF ights of JB-2 pulsejet-
powered copies of the V-1 ying bomb, the older JB-
1 program was reoriented towards pulsejet propulsion,
and the remaining JB-1s were modied or completed as
JB-10 missiles.[6] Only one of the JB-10 variants was
completed by the end of the war (with Ford PJ-31-1
pulsejet engine), and 1945 sled launches using 4 Tiny Tim
rockets were at Muroc Field and Eglin.[1] In June 1996,
the Western Museum of Flight restored the only remain-
ing airframe as a manned JB-1.[2]
182.1 References
[1] Woodridge, E. T (c. 2003). Northrop: The War Years.
History of the Flying Wing. Century-of-Flight.com. Re-
trieved 2012-05-23.
[2] Northrop JB-1 Bat (MX-543)". WMoF.com (Western

Museum of Flight). Retrieved 2012-05-23.
[3] Mindling, George; Bolton, Robert (October 1, 2008).

U.S. Air Force Tactical Missiles, 19491969: The Pio-
neers (Report). Lulu Press. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-557-
00029-6. LCCN 2008908364. Retrieved 2012-05-23.
583
Chapter 183
Piper LBP
The Piper LBP was a glider bomb, or Glomb, devel- 183.2 Operational history
oped by Piper Aircraft for the United States Navy during
World War II. Developed as one of three Glomb air- Although the initial contract awarded by the Navy called
craft, the inherent limitations of the Glomb and the tech- for the production of 100 LBP-1 Glombs, continued trials
nology of the time, combined with diculties encoun- of the concept indicated that the gliders inherent low per-
tered in testing of the prototype, led to the production formance, combined with technical issues with the tele-
contract for the LBP-1 being reduced, then cancelled, vision guidance system, made the concept operationally
with none of the Glomb aircraft ever seeing operational unworkable. As a result, the LBP-1 production contract
service. was reduced to only 35 aircraft in early 1945.[1] In June of
that year, the LBP-1 program was terminated, the aircraft
having been determined to have dangerous characteristics
when attempting landing at loaded weights.[3]
183.1 Design and development 183.3 Specications (LBP-1)

During late 1940, a proposal was made to the United Data from [4]
States Navy outlining a concept called Glomb, for
glider bomb. The Glomb concept called for the con-
struction of inexpensive gliders, that would be remotely
controlled from another aircraft, to carry bombs to a tar- Crew: One (optional)
[1]
get, thus reducing the risk to aircrew. Glomb was in-
tended to be towed by an ordinary carrier-based aircraft
to the area of the target, where it would be released; guid- Wingspan: 33 ft (10 m)
ance following release would be provided via a TV cam-
era located in the nose of the glider, which would trans- Wing area: 173 sq ft (16.1 m2 )
mit its signal to a piloted aircraft, an operator then using
radio control to steer the Glomb to its target.[2] Following Gross weight: 6,900 lb (3,130 kg)
consideration the Glomb concept was deemed to be po-
tentially feasible, the project was given ocial status by Performance
the Bureau of Aeronautics in the April 1941.[1]
Initial trials of Glomb involved conversions of existing Maximum speed: 300 mph (483 km/h; 261 kn) in
gliders to remotely controlled status; these tests showed dive
that the concept had promise, and following a design
competition, three companies were awarded contracts to Armament
develop operational Glomb aircraft. These contracts
were given to Pratt-Read, Taylorcraft, and Piper Air-
craft. Pipers design, designated LBP-1, was a conven-
Bombs: 4,000 pounds (1,800 kg)
tional high-wing monoplane, tted with tricycle landing
gear, and intended to carry 4,000 pounds (1,800 kg) of
bombs. Although the LBP-1 was fully capable of being
remotely piloted via its TV-and-radio guidance system, it 183.4 See also
retained a cockpit, allowing the aircraft to be own by a
pilot on board for training and evalulation.[1][2] Bat (guided bomb)
584
Related development
Pratt-Read LBE
Taylorcraft LBT
Cornelius XBG-3
Interstate TDR
Related lists
183.5 References
Citations
[1] Parsch 2005
[2] Naval Aviation News January 1946, p.19.
[3] Friedman 1982, p.201.
[4] Dryden, Morten and Getting 1946, p.12
Bibliography
Pilotless Aircraft (PDF). Naval Aviation News

(Bureau of Aeronautics). January 1946. Retrieved
2011-01-29.
Baugher, Joe (September 9, 2009). US Navy

and US Marine Corps BuNos, Third Series (80259
to 90019)". US Navy and US Marine Corps Air-
craft Serial Numbers and Bureau Numbers-1911
to Present. Retrieved 2011-01-29.
Dryden, Hugh L.; G.A. Morton and I.A. Getting

(May 1946). Guidance and Homing of Missiles and
Pilotless Aircraft (PDF). Dayton, OH: Headquarters
Air Material Command. ASIN B0007E4WJE. Re-
trieved 2011-01-29.
735-7. Retrieved 2011-01-26.
Parsch, Andreas (2003). LB Series. Directory

Chapter 184
Pratt-Read LBE
The Pratt-Read LBE-1 was a prototype glider bomb, celled entirely; only four LBE-1s would be completed,[5]
or Glomb, developed for the United States Navy dur- being used only for evaluation purposes.[1]
ing World War II. Although there were high hopes for
the concept, the limitations of the Glomb led to the pro-
duction contract for the LBE-1 being reduced, then can- 184.3 Specications (LBE-1)
celled, and only four examples of the type were ever built.
Data from [6]
Crew: One (optional)
Late in 1940, the United States Navy began seriously con-
sidering the possibility of developing gliders that would Length: 29 ft 1.5 in (8.877 m)
be remotely controlled to carry bombs to a target, reduc- Wingspan: 32 ft 6 in (9.91 m)
ing the risk to aircrew.[1] The concept called for the glider
to be towed by an ordinary carrier-based aircraft to the Wing area: 202 sq ft (18.8 m2 )
target area, then released, to be guided via a TV camera Gross weight: 7,138 lb (3,238 kg)
in the gliders nose which would transmit signals to the
carrier aircraft, an operator then using radio control to Performance
steer the aircraft to its target.[2] Considered to be feasible,
the project, called Glomb for Glider-Bomb, became Maximum speed: 300 mph (483 km/h; 261 kn) in
an ocial program in the late spring of 1941.[1] dive
Following trials using conversions of existing gliders that Armament
proved the concept viable, Pratt-Read was awarded a
contract in September 1943 for the development of a
purpose-built Glomb, designated by the navy as LBE- Bombs: 2,000 to 4,000 pounds (910 to 1,810 kg)
1.[1][3] Intended to carry between 2,000 and 4,000 pounds
(910-1,800 kg) of bombs, the LBE-1 was a fairly conven-
tional low-wing aircraft, tted with xed tricycle land- 184.4 See also
ing gear and perforated dive brakes of the type used by
dive-bombers. In addition to its radio-command guid-
Bat (guided bomb)
ance, the LBE-1 could be own by a pilot for training
[1][2][4]
and evalulation. Related development
Piper LBP
184.2 Operational history Taylorcraft LBT
Although the initial contract called for the production Aircraft of comparable role, conguration and era
of 100 examples of the LBE-1, continued trials of the
Glomb showed that the combination of the gliders low Cornelius XBG-3
performance and technical issues with the intended tele- Interstate TDR
vision guidance system made the concept operationally
unworkable; accordingly, the contract was reduced to Related lists
only 35 aircraft in early 1945.[1] In August 1945, with the
end of World War II, the contract for production was can- List of military aircraft of the United States (naval)
586
184.5 References
Citations
[1] Parsch 2005
[4] Kroger 1945, p.7.
[5] Friedman 1982, p.201.
Bibliography

2011-01-29.

trieved 2011-01-29.
735-7. Retrieved 2011-01-26.
Kroger, William (1945). Aviation News 4.

McGraw-Hill. Retrieved 2011-01-29.

Chapter 185
Taylorcraft LBT
The Taylorcraft LBT was a glider designed and built by aircraft on training and evalulation ights.[1][2]
Taylorcraft during World War II, in response to a United
States Navy requirement for a glider bomb. One of three
prototype Glombs ordered by the Navy, the LBT suf- 185.2 Operational history
fered from technical and performance diculties, and
was cancelled early in production, none of the aircraft
seeing operational service. The LBT-1 began evaluation by the Navy in April
1944.[3] The Navys contract called for the production of
100 of each type of Glomb; however, by October 1944,
trials were beginning to indicate that the low expected
185.1 Design and development performance of the glider bomb was a liability, and the
Piper LBP-1 and LBE-1 were considered superior. Ac-
During December 1940, the United States Navy began cordingly the LBT contract was cancelled; only 25 exam-
studies of a proposed glider bomb, which was intended ples of the type were constructed, none of which would
[1][4]
to be an inexpensive, unpowered aircraft, remotely con- see any operational service.
trolled from another, conventional aircraft, that would be
capable of delivering bombs to an enemy target with-
out putting aircrew at risk to the targets defenses.[1] The 185.3 Specications (LBT-1)
glider bomb, or Glomb, would be towed by an ordi-
nary carrier-based aircraft to the area of its target; guid-
Data from [3][5]
ance following release of the glider from its towing air-
craft was intended to be provided by a TV camera located General characteristics
in the nose of the glider, which would transmit its signal
to a piloted aircraft, an operator aboard the control air- Crew: One (optional)
craft using radio control to steer the Glomb to its target.[2]
Following the Navys initial evalulation, the Glomb com- Length: 25 ft 2 in (7.67 m)
cept was deemed to be worth developing further, and the
project was given ocial status by the Bureau of Aero- Wingspan: 35 ft (11 m)
[1]
nautics in April 1941.
Wing area: 181 sq ft (16.8 m2 )
The initial trials of the Glomb concept were conducted
using conversions of existing gliders for unpiloted, re- Gross weight: 3,930 lb (1,783 kg)
motely controlled ight; these tests seemed to indicate
that the concept had promise, and a request for de- Performance
signs from industry was issued. Three companies were
awarded contracts to develop operational Glomb air-
Maximum speed: 314 mph (505 km/h; 273 kn) in
craft, the contracts being given to Pratt-Read, Piper Air-
dive
craft, and Taylorcraft. The Taylorcraft design, designated
LBT-1 by the Navy, was based on the companys LNT- Cruise speed: 240 mph (209 kn; 386 km/h) tow
1 training glider;[1] two XLNT-1s, converted to remote speed
control, had been tested as part of initial Glomb trials.[3]
The LBT-1 featured a high, strut-braced wing and tri-
cycle landing gear; the aircraft was designed to carry a Armament
2,000 pounds (910 kg) bomb as a warhead. In addition
to its TV-and-radio remote guidance system, the LBT-
1 retained a cockpit, allowing a pilot on board to y the Bombs: 2,000 pounds (910 kg)
588
185.4 See also

Bat (guided bomb)
Related development
Piper LBP
Pratt-Read LBE
Cornelius XBG-3
Interstate TDR
Related lists
185.5 References
Citations
[1] Parsch 2005
[3] Trimble 1990, p.270.
[4] Friedman 1982, p.201.
Bibliography

2011-01-29.
trieved 2011-01-29.
735-7. Retrieved 2011-01-26.
Trimble, William F. (1990). Wings for the Navy:
A History of the Naval Aircraft Factory, 1917-1956.
Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-0-
87021-663-3. Retrieved 2011-01-29.
Chapter 186
ASM-135 ASAT
The ASM-135 ASAT is an air-launched anti-satellite a new anti-satellite system.[7]

multistage missile that was developed by Ling-Temco- In 1978, the USAF started a new program initially des-
Vought's LTV Aerospace division. The ASM-135 ignated the Prototype Miniature Air-Launched Segment
was carried exclusively by the United States Air Force
(PMALS) and Air Force Systems Command's Space Di-
(USAF)'s F-15 Eagle ghter aircraft. vision established a system program oce.[7] The USAF
issued a Request for Proposal for the Air-Launched
Miniature Vehicle (ALMV). The requirement was for an
air-launched missile that could be used against satellites
186.1 Development in low Earth orbit.
In 1979, the USAF issued a contract to LTV Aerospace
Starting in the late 1950s, the United States began de-
to begin work on the ALMV. The LTV Aerospace design
velopment of anti-satellite weapons. The rst United
featured a multi-stage missile with an infrared homing
States anti-satellite weapon was Bold Orion Weapon Sys-
kinetic energy warhead.[8]
tem 199B. Like the ASM-135, the Bold Orion missile
was air-launched; but in this case from a B-47 Stratojet.
The Bold Orion was tested in 19 October 1959 against
the Explorer 6 satellite.[1] The two-stage Bold Orion mis- 186.2 Design
sile passed within 4 miles (6.4 km) of Explorer 6. From
this distance, only a relatively large yield nuclear warhead
would likely have destroyed the target.[2] The ASM-135 was designed to be launched from an F-
15A in a supersonic zoom climb. The F-15s mission
Starting in 1960 the Department of Defense (DoD) computer and heads-up display were modied to provide
started a program called SPIN (SPace INtercept).[1] In steering directions for the pilot.[8]
1962, the United States Navy launched Caleb rockets as
part of the Satellite Interceptor Program, with the objec- A modied Boeing AGM-69 SRAM missile with a
tive of developing an anti-satellite weapon.[3][4] Lockheed Propulsion Company LPC-415 solid propel-
lant two pulse rocket engine was used as the rst stage of
The United States developed direct ascent anti-satellite the ASM-135 ASAT.[9]
weapons. A United States Army Nike Zeus missile
The LTV Aerospace Altair 3 was used as the second stage
armed with a nuclear warhead destroyed an orbiting [10]
satellite in May 1963. One missile from this system of the ASM-135. The Altair 3 used the Thiokol FW-
[5]
4S solid propellant rocket engine. The Altair 3 stage
known as Project MUDFLAP and later as Project 505
was available for launch from 1964 until 1967. A was [5]
[10]
also used as the fourth stage for the Scout rocket
nuclear-armed Thor anti-satellite system deployed by the and had been previously used in both the Bold Orion
United States Air Force under Program 437 eventually re- and HiHo anti-satellite weapons eorts.[3] The Altair was
placed the Project 505 Nike Zeus in 1967. The Program equipped with Hydrazine fueled thrusters that could be
437 Thor missile system remained in limited deploy- used to point the missile towards the target satellite.
ment until 1975.[6] One drawback of nuclear-armed anti- LTV Aerospace also provided the third stage for the
satellite weapons was that they could also damage United ASM-135 ASAT. This stage was called Miniature Hom-
States reconnaissance satellites. As a result, the United ing Vehicle (MHV) interceptor. Prior to being deployed
States anti-satellite weapons development eorts were re- the second stage was used to spin the MHV up to approx-
directed to develop systems that did not require the use of imately 30 revolutions per second and point the MHV to-
nuclear weapons.[5] wards the target.[11]
After the Soviet Union demonstrated an operational co- A Honeywell ring laser gyroscope was used for spin rate
orbital anti-satellite system, in 1978, U.S. President determination and to obtain an inertial timing reference
Jimmy Carter directed the USAF to develop and deploy before the MHV separated from the second stage.[11] The
590
186.3. TEST LAUNCHES 591
infrared sensor was developed by Hughes Research Lab- Earlier the U.S. Air Force and NASA had worked to-
oratories. The sensor utilized a strip detector where four gether to develop a Scout-launched target vehicle for
strips of Indium Bismuth were arranged in a cross and ASAT experiments. NASA advised the U.S. Air Force
four strips were arranged as logarithmic spirals. As the on how to conduct the ASAT test to avoid producing
detector was spun, the infrared targets position could be long-lived debris. However, congressional restrictions on
measured and as it crossed the strips in the sensors eld ASAT tests intervened.[12]
of view. The MHV infrared detector was cooled by liquid In order to complete an ASAT test before an expected
helium from a dewar installed in place of the F-15s gun Congressional ban took eect (as it did in October 1985),
ammunition drum and from a smaller dewar located in
the DoD chose to use the existing Solwind astrophysics
the second stage of the ASM-135. Cryogenic lines from satellite as a target.[12]
the second stage were retracted prior to the spin up of the
MHV.[11] NASA worked with the DoD to monitor the eects of
the tests using two orbital debris telescopes and a reentry
The MHV guidance system solely tracked targets in the radar deployed to Alaska.[12]
eld of view of the infrared sensor, but did not deter-
mine altitude, attitude, or range to the target. Direct Pro- NASA assumed the torn metal would be bright. Sur-
portional Line of Sight guidance used information from prisingly, the Solwind pieces turned out to appear so
the detector to maneuver and null out any line-of-sight dark as to be almost undetectable. Only two pieces were
change. A Bang-bang control system was used to re 56 seen. NASA Scientists theorized that the unexpected Sol-
full charge divert and lower thrust 8 half charge end- wind darkening was due to carbonization of organic com-
game solid rocket motors arranged around the circum- pounds in the target satellite; that is, when the kinetic en-
ference of the MHV. The half charge 8 end-game mo- ergy of the projectile became heat energy on impact, the
tors were used to perform ner trajectory adjustments plastics inside Solwind vaporized and condensed on the
[12]
just prior to intercepting the target satellite. Four pods metal pieces as soot.
at the rear of the MHV contained small attitude control NASA utilized U.S. Air Force infrared telescopes to show
rocket motors. These motors were used to damp o cen- that the pieces were warm with heat absorbed from the
ter rotation by the MHV.[11] Sun. This added weight to the contention that they were
dark with soot and not reective. The pieces decayed
quickly from orbit, implying a large area-to-mass ratio.
186.3 Test launches According to NASA, as of January 1998, 8 of 285 track-
able pieces remained in orbit.[12]
On 21 December 1982, an F-15A was used to perform The Solwind test had three important results:
the rst captive carry ASM-135 test ight from the Air
Force Flight Test Center, Edwards AFB, California in the
United States.[7] It raised the possibility that the objects optical sys-
tems were detecting were large and dark, not small
On 20 August 1985 President Reagan authorized a test
and bright as was generally assumed. This had im-
against a satellite. The test was delayed to provide notice
plications for the calibration of optical and radar or-
to the United States Congress. The target was the Solwind
bital debris detection systems.
P78-1, an orbiting solar observatory that was launched on
24 February 1979.[7]
On 13 September 1985, Maj. Wilbert D. Doug Pear- The test also created a baseline event for researchers
son, ying the Celestial Eagle F-15A 76-0084 launched seeking a characteristic signature of a hypervelocity
an ASM-135 ASAT about 200 miles (322 km) west of collision in space.
Vandenberg Air Force Base and destroyed the Solwind
P78-1 satellite ying at an altitude of 345 miles (555
km). Prior to the launch the F-15 ying at Mach 1.22 ex- Awareness was raised about the orbital debris prob-
ecuted a 3.8g zoom climb at an angle of 65 degrees. The lem.
ASM-135 ASAT was automatically launched at 38,100
ft while the F-15 was ying at Mach .934.[7] The 30 lb
(13.6 kg) MHV collided with the 2,000 lb (907 kg) Sol- In the end, the Solwind ASAT test had few consequences
wind P78-1 satellite at closing velocity of 15,000 mph for the planned U.S. space station as station completion
(24,140 km/h).[9] was pushed beyond the mid-1990s. The record-high level
NASA learned of U.S. Air Force plans for the Solwind of solar activity during the 1989-1991 solar maximum
ASAT test in July 1985. NASA modeled the eects of the heated and expanded the atmosphere more than [12] antici-
test. This model determined that debris produced would pated in 1985, accelerating Solwind debris decay.
still be in orbit in the 1990s. It would force NASA to 15 ASM-135 ASAT missiles were produced and 5 mis-
enhance debris shielding for its planned space station.[12] siles were ight tested.[9]
592 CHAPTER 186. ASM-135 ASAT

The United States Air Force intended to modify 20 F-
15A ghters from the 318th Fighter Interceptor Squadron
based at McChord Air Force Base in Washington and the
48th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron based at Langley Air
Force Base in Virginia for the anti-satellite mission. Both
squadrons had airframes modied to support the ASM-
135 by the time the project was cancelled in 1988.[13]
The USAF had planned to deploy an operational force of
112 ASM-135 missiles.[8]
The deployment of the ASM-135 was central to a pol-
icy debate in the United States over the strategic need for
an anti-satellite weapon and the potential for anti-satellite
weapon arms control with the Soviet Union. Starting in
1983, the United States Congress starting placing vari-
ous restrictions on the ASM-135 program.[6] In Decem-
ber 1985, included a ban on testing the ASM-135 on a
target in space. This decision was made only a day after
the Air Force sent two target satellites into orbit for its
next round of tests. The Air Force continued to test the
ASAT system in 1986, but stayed within the limits of the
ban by not engaging a space-borne target.[14]
In the same year the deployment of the ASM-135 was
estimated to cost $5.3 billion (US) up from the original
$500 million (US) estimate. The USAF scaled back the
ASM-135 program by two-thirds in attempt to control National Air and Space Museum (NASM)'s an-
costs.[3] The USAF also never strongly supported the pro- nex at Washington Dulles International Airport in
gram and proposed canceling the program in 1987.[6] In Chantilly, Virginia, United States.
1988, the Reagan Administration canceled the ASM-135
program because of technical problems, testing delays, CASM-135 currently in storage at the National
and signicant cost growth.[3] Museum of the United States Air Force, Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio, United
States.
186.5 Variants
186.8 Popular culture
ASM-135 - 15 missiles produced.
CASM-135 - Captive carry version of ASM-135A

with warhead simulator and inert motors.
186.6 Operators
United States
186.7 Survivors
Retired Maj. Gen. Doug Pearson (left) and Capt. Todd Pearson
joke around September 13 prior to Captain Pearson taking o on
CASM-135 currently on display at the Steven the Celestial Eagle remembrance ight.
F. Udvar-Hazy Center, part of the Smithsonian
The ASM-135 features prominently in the Tom [13] McChord Air Museum Web Site. McDonnell-Douglas F-
Clancy novel Red Storm Rising. Two USSR 15A Eagle. . Web page accessed 2 November 2007.
RORSATs are knocked out by F-15 launched
[14] Union of Concerned Scientists Web Site. A History of
ASATs. ASAT Programs. . retrieved on 4 November 2007.

Bold Orion The F-15 ASAT story
High Virgo
NOTS-EV-1 Pilot
NOTS-EV-2 Caleb
Terra-3
Related lists
List of missiles
186.10 References
[1] Edited By Bhupendra Jasani, Space Weapons and Inter-
national Security, A SIPRI Publication, Oxford University
Press, 1987.
[2] Encyclopedia Astronautica, Bold Orion, , web page re-

trieved on 3 November 2007.
[3] Federation of American Scientists Web Site, FAS Space

Policy Project - Military Space Programs, , web page re-
trieved on 3 November 2007.
[4] Aerospace Web.org Website. NOTSNIK, Project Pilot &

Project Caleb retrieved on 5 November 2007.
[5] Paul B. Stares, The Militarization of Space: U.S. Policy,

19451948, Cornell University Press, 1985.
[6] Peter L. Hays, Struggling Towards Space Doctrine: U.S.

Military Plans, Programs, and Perspectives during the Cold
War, Ph.D. dissertation, Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy, Tufts University, May 1994
[7] Dr. Raymond L. Puer, The Death of a Satellite, , Re-

trieved on November 3, 2007.
[8] Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. Vought

ASM-135 ASAT Accessed on 2 November 2007.
[9] Vought Heritage Website ASAT Overview , retrieved on 3

November 2007.
[10] Encyclopedia Astronautica. Altair 3. . retrieved on 2

November 2007.
[11] Gregory Karambelas, edited by Sven Grahn, The F-15

ASAT Story
[12] NASA TP-1999-208856 David S.F. Portree and Joseph

P. Loftus Jr. Orbital Debries: A Chronology
Chapter 187
MGM-157 EFOGM
XM501 Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System

Polyphem, a similar European project
Type 96 Multi-Purpose Missile System
187.2 References
[2] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/
efogm.htm
[3] http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/efogm.htm
[4] https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/mgm-157.htm
[5] http://www.deagel.com/
Anti-Armor-Weapons-and-Missiles/
MGM-157B-EFOGM_a000959001.aspx
YMGM-157B
The Raytheon MGM-157 EFOGM (Enhanced Fiber

Optic Guided Missile), was a long range enhanced bre
optic guided missile developed for the U.S. Army dur-
ing the 1980s and 1990s to test the use of bre optics
in missiles.[1][2] The missile was launched vertically and
manually controlled by an operator on the ground by use
of a television camera mounted on the nose.[3] The sig-
nals from the camera were carried via a thin wire that un-
spooled the further up the missile reached. The weapon
was primarily designed for anti-tank use, or against low
ying helicopters.[4][5]
187.1 See also

ALAS
CM-501G
FOG-MPM
594
Chapter 188
AGM-153
The AGM-153 was a missile considered for development

by the United States of America.
188.1 Overview
The AGM-153 was proposed in 1992 as a new tactical
air-to-surface missile. The weapon was to be launched
from high and low altitudes against both xed and mobile
targets ranging from bunkers to armoured vehicles. Mod-
ular construction was chosen to allow dierent types of
warhead and seeker head to be selected. A two way data
link would allow the weapon to be locked on after launch,
and controlled all the way to the target.
The designations XAGM-153A and XAGM-153B were
assigned; the A model was to have a hard target penetrat-
ing warhead, the B model a blast-fragmentation warhead
- both warheads would have been in the region of 360 kg
(800 lb). To distinguish between seeker heads a number
sux was also mooted, with 1 missiles having a TV unit
in the nose and 2 missiles an imaging infra-red system,
but this was not adopted formally.
It was planned to operate the missile initially from the
F-16 Fighting Falcon and B-1 Lancer aircraft.
Viability studies of the AGM-153 led to the cancellation
of the project at an early stage. No nal design was settled
on and no hardware was produced prior to cancellation.
Reasons for the cancellation have not been formally an-
nounced, but it is notable that the proposed AGM-153
would have a very similar warhead and guidance pack-
age to the AGM-142 Have Nap, and it is possible that the
Air Force simply saw no reason to produce a missile that
oered nothing new.
188.2 See also

AGM-142 Have Nap
List of missiles
595
Chapter 189
AGM-159 JASSM
The AGM-159 was a missile design proposed in 1996

by the Boeing (McDonnell-Douglas) company as a con-
tender in the U.S. Air Force's JASSM project. Devel-
opment halted after Lockheed Martin's AGM-158 was
selected for further development in 1998.
189.1 See also

AGM-158 JASSM
List of missiles
596
Chapter 190
AGM-169 Joint Common Missile
The AGM-169 Joint Common Missile (JCM) was a 190.3 Program status
tactical air-to-surface missile developed by the Lockheed
Martin corporation from the United States. December 2004 - Pentagon announces cancellation
of JCM.[2]
March 2005 - Congressional lobbying to keep the

program alive.[3]
190.1 Overview
September 2005 - Captive JCM test package own
on AH-64D Apache.[4]
The missile was designed to replace the AGM-114 Hell-
re and AGM-65 Maverick. Its seeker head used a com- January 2006 - Congress restores $30 million to
bination of semi-active laser, millimeter wave, and IR keep the program in mothballs.[5][6]
guidance similar to that found on the FGM-148 Javelin
September 2006 - U.S. Army includes $150 million
anti-tank missile. This allows the missile to have a greater
for JCM in FY-08 budget request.[7]
re and forget capability and to operate o all current air
platforms. The missile has longer range, a more potent May 2007 - The U.S. Army Aviation and Mis-
warhead, and a sang system, allowing naval aircraft sile Life Cycle Management Command formally in-
to return to ship without jettisoning the munitions. structs Lockheed Martin to cease work on the pro-
This missile also shares similarities to the MBDA gram and close out the contract by June 15, 2007.
Brimstone missile.
190.4 Operators
United States - The AGM-169 was intended for
190.2 Development joint service with the United States Army, United
States Navy, and United States Marine Corps.
The development of the missile was rst halted in De-
cember 2004. The program was on schedule and within
its budget at that time, according to Lockheed Martin. 190.5 See also
However, due to the constraints of the war in Iraq, fund-
ing was cut. In 2005 and 2006, Congress began looking AGM-114 Hellre
into reviving the program when it was found that mod-
ernizing the Hellre would yield higher costs and reduced PARS 3 LR
capability.
Brimstone missile
The JCM is the rst missile to reach milestone B decision
without a live test. Precision Attack Air-to-Surface Missile
The JCM has been test own on the AH-64D in a captive
test conguration.
190.6 References
In May 2007 the U.S. Army formally brought the pro-
gram to a close and requested that Lockheed Martin cease
[1] Pentagon Plans Industry Day For Joint Air To Ground
all development work. It is expected that a follow on pro- Missile.
gram, the Joint Air to Ground Missile (JAGM) will be
opened to competitive tender.[1] [2] JCM - Joint Common Missile - Defense Update
597
598 CHAPTER 190. AGM-169 JOINT COMMON MISSILE
[3] JCM program red but not forgotten - Defense Industry

Daily
[4] LOCKHEED MARTIN'S JOINT COMMON MISSILE

FLIES ON AH-64D APACHE LONGBOW.
[5] Joint Common Missile: It Lives! - Defense Industry Daily
[6] Congress revives missile killed by DoD - Military.com
[7] Joint Common Missile Gets New Life - Military.com

AGM-169 JCM - Designation-Systems.Net
Joint Common Missile - Global Security

Chapter 191
AGM-53 Condor
In 1962, the U.S. Navy issued a requirement for a long- 191.3 Operators
range high-precision air-to-surface missile. The missile,
named the AGM-53A Condor, was to use a television United States: The AGM-53 was cancelled be-
guidance system with a data link to the launching air- fore entering service.
craft similar to the system of the then projected AGM-62
Walleye.
191.4 References
191.1 Development history Friedman, Norman (1983). US Naval Weapons.
Conway Maritime Press.
Because of numerous problems in the development
phase, the rst ight of an XAGM-53A missile did not
of Rockets and Missiles. Salamander Books Ltd.
occur before March 1970. The AGM-53 program was
cancelled in March 1976. Its long range and potentially Pretty, R.T; Archer, D.H.R. (eds.) (1973). Janes
high precision made the Condor a very powerful weapon, Weapon Systems 197273. Janes Information
but it was much more expensive than contemporary tac- Group.
tical air-to-ground weapons. The secure data link con-
tributed a signicant portion to total missile cost, and it Pretty, Ronald T. (ed.) (1976). Janes Weapon Sys-
certainly didn't help that this link was still somewhat un- tems 1977. Janes.
reliable.
191.2 Description
The Condor was to be a long-range missile to be used
for high-precision stand-o attacks. The missile was
launched by the strike aircraft from a distance of up to
60 nautical miles (110 km; 69 mi) to the general target
area. When the AGM-53 approached the expected tar-
get position, the image of the TV camera in the missiles
nose was transmitted back to the operator in the launch-
ing aircraft. The operator could switch between wide and
narrow eld-of-view images to nd a suitable target.
As soon as a target for the missile had been selected, the
operator could either y the missile manually until im-
pact, or lock the Condor on the target and rely on the
missiles capability to home on the nal aiming point. The
Condors linear shaped charge warhead detonated on im-
pact.
A variant of the Condor was anticipated to carry the W73
nuclear warhead, a derivative of the B61 nuclear bomb.
Details on the W73 are poorly documented, and it never
entered production or service.
599
Chapter 192
AGM-63
The AGM-63 was a missile design produced by the

United States of America. It was conceived in March
1962 when the U.S. Navy issued two requirements for
long-range Anti-Radiation Missiles (ARMs) to comple-
ment the short-range AGM-45 Shrike. The rst was to
operate over ranges of up to 50 nm (90 km), while the
second would be capable of operating out to 100 nm (180
km). Development of the ARM I was approved in 1963;
the missile was given the designation ZAGM-63A. How-
ever no funds were made available as other ARM pro-
grams such as the improved AGM-45 Shrike, and the de-
velopment of the AGM-78 Standard ARM and AGM-88
HARM were given a higher priority.
The AGM-63 continued on for several years as a purely
theoretical missile. No design or conguration was ever
settled on, and the project was cancelled in the late 1960s.
192.1 Operators
United States: The United States Navy can-
celled the AGM-63 before any examples were pro-
duced.

AGM-63 - Designation Systems
600
Chapter 193
AGM-64 Hornet
The AGM-64 Hornet is a missile produced by the United

States of America.
The weapon began life in the early 1960s. North Amer-
ican produced a missile design for the U.S. Air Force's
Anti-Tank Guided Aircraft Rocket (ATGAR) project.
The ATGAR was ultimately not produced, but the Air
Force was impressed enough that in 1963 it awarded
North American a development contract for the ZAGM-
64A Hornet missile. The Hornet planned as a battleeld
missile for use against armoured vehicles which would
mount an electro-optical guidance system.
The rst test ring of the prototype XAGM-64A oc-
curred in December 1964. It was powered by a fast-
burning solid rocket motor. The electro-optical guidance
system provided a live TV image to the cockpit; the oper-
ator would lock the missile onto the desired target before
launch and the missile would home in on it automatically.
The Air Force ultimately stopped development of the
AGM-64, judging that the similar AGM-65 Maverick
had more potential. Although not produced as a weapon,
the Hornet became a testbed for various guidance sys-
tems including dierent varieties of electro-optical sys-
tems and a magnetic guidance system. The program was
terminated in 1968.
The XAGM-64 was briey revived in the early 1970s,
again to test missile guidance systems. The propulsion
system of the missile was upgraded, increasing the range
to as much as 2.5 miles (4 km). In this conguration the
Hornet tested laser guidance packages, the electro-optical
system designed for the GBU-8/B and GBU-9/B Hom-
ing Bomb System (HOBOS) glide bombs and the termi-
nal guidance system for the AGM-114 Hellre anti-tank
missile.
193.1 Operators
United States: The United States Air Force
cancelled the AGM-64 before service entry.
601
Chapter 194
AGM-80 Viper
AGM-80 Viper is the designation of an American air to

surface missile with infrared homing seeker and inertial
guidance system. Based upon the AGM-12C Bullpup-B,
the AGM-80A Viper was developed by Chrysler at the
end of the 60s, but was cancelled in the 1970s.
194.1 Operators
United States: The AGM-80 was cancelled be-
fore entering service.

AGM-80 Viper, Encyclopedia Astronautica, As-
tronautix.
Guided Air to Surface Missiles (article), Vectors.
602
Chapter 195
AGM-83 Bulldog
The AGM-83 Bulldog is a missile produced by the

The missile has its origins in the AGM-12 Bullpup. This
missile used a manual guidance system which required
the launching aircraft to continue ying towards the tar-
get throughout the missile ight time, making it highly
vulnerable to counter-attack. The U.S. Navy and Air
Force requested a pilot-independent guidance system for
the Bullpup which would let the launching aircraft turn
away after ring.
In 1970, Texas Instruments was given a Navy contract
to create a laser guidance system for the Bullpup. The
new missile was designated AGM-83 Bulldog; it was de-
veloped in cooperation with the Naval Weapons Center
(NWC). The Bulldog was heavily based on the AGM-
12B Bullpup A, but used a new 113 kg (250 lb) MK 19
blast-fragmentation warhead. It homed in on the reec-
tion of a laser beam which was projected onto the target
by ground troops.
Firing trials of the AGM-83A took place in 1971-1972,
with successful results. The Navy planned to get the Bull-
dog into service by 1974. A version for ground handling
training known as the ATM-83A was also planned. How-
ever, in 1972 it was decided that the Navy should instead
procure a laser-guided version of the Air Forces AGM-
65 Maverick, the AGM-65Cwhich itself was later can-
celled in favour of the AGM-65E.
195.1 Operators
United States: The United States Navy can-
celled the AGM-83 prior to service entry.
603
Chapter 196
AIM-152 AAAM
3658 mm
Concept by Hughes/Raytheon/McDonnell Douglas at the top,

GD/Westinghouse at the bottom
The AIM-152 AAAM is a long-range air-to-air missile An ACIMD demonstrator on an F-14 at the NWC China Lake.
developed by the United States of America. The pro-
gram went through a protracted development stage but
was never adopted by the United States Navy, due to the
ending of the cold war and the reduction in threat of its gine which oered high speeds. The missile would use
perceived primary target, Soviet supersonic bombers. an inertial guidance system with terminal guidance pro-
vided by active radar - a mode of ight that would later
be employed in the AIM-120 AMRAAM. An infrared
terminal homing seeker was also planned, which would
196.1 Overview allow the missile to engage without any emissions which
would alert the target.
The AIM-152 originated in a U.S. Navy requirement The GD/Westinghouse design was even smaller, with a
for an advanced air-to-air missile to replace the AIM-54
multiple-pulse pure solid rocket motor. It also had an
Phoenix. By the mid-1980s the Phoenix was seen to be inertial guidance system, but midcourse updating was
no longer cutting edge, and the Navy wanted a long range
provided via a dual-band semi-active radar. Terminal
missile to counter the Soviet Tu-22M Backre and Tu- guidance was via an electro-optical sensor, with a backup
160 Blackjack long-range supersonic bombers. The goal
infrared seeker also included. One aw of semi-active
was to produce a weapon which was smaller and lighter radar homing is that the launch aircraft must illuminate
than the Phoenix, with equal or better range and a ight the target with its radar during ight, meaning that it must
speed of Mach 3 or more. y towards the enemy and so expose itself to greater dan-
Some of the systems considered for the missile had al- ger. GD/Westinghouse planned to avoid this by equip-
ready been evaluated by the China Lake Naval Weapons ping the launching aircraft with a radar pod which could
Center in the early 1980s as part of the Advanced Com- illuminate the target from both forward and aft, allowing
mon Intercept Missile Demonstration (ACIMD) pro- it to turn and escape whilst still providing a target for the
gram. ACIMD missiles had been built but none had missile.
own by the time the project was cancelled. In 1987, With the fall of the Soviet Union the threat from Rus-
Hughes/Raytheon and General Dynamics/Westinghouse sian bombers eectively ended, and since no other na-
were selected to produce competing designs for the AIM-
tion could match the previous threat the AAAM was left
152. without an enemy to defend against. The project was can-
The Hughes/Raytheon design was largely based on the celled in 1992, shortly after the YAIM-152A designation
ACIMD missile, with a hybrid ramjet/solid rocket en- had been given to the two prototypes.
604
With the phasing out of the Phoenix missile the US Navy

lost its long range AAM capability, relying instead on
the medium range AIM-120 AMRAAM. Longer range
versions of the AMRAAM are in development to restore
some of this capability.
196.2 Specications
(Note that the YAIM-152A missiles were never built, and
as a result any specications are speculative.)
Hughes/Raytheon :
Length : 3.66 m (12 ft)

Diameter : 231 mm (9 in)
Weight : Less than 300 kg (660 lb)

Speed : Mach 3+
Range : 185 km+ (115 miles)

Propulsion : Rocket/ramjet engine
Warhead : 14 to 23 kg (30 to 50 lb) blast-

fragmentation
GD/Westinghouse :
Length : 3.66 m (12 ft)
Diameter : 140 mm (5.5 in)

Speed : Mach 3+
Range : > 185 km (100 nm)
Propulsion : Multiple-pulse solid-propellant rocket

Warhead : 14 to 23 kg (30 to 50 lb) blast-
fragmentation
196.3 References

AIM-152 AAAM - Designation Systems
Chapter 197
AIM-95 Agile
lock-on capability capable of being targeted by a Helmet

Mounted Sight (HMS), allowing it to be red at targets
which were not directly aheadthus making it far easier
to achieve a ring position. The solid-propellant rocket
used thrust vectoring for control giving it superior turn-
ing capability over the Sidewinder.
The US Air Force was developing the AIM-82 missile
to equip the F-15 Eagle at the same time. Since both
missiles were more or less identical in their role, it was
decided to abandon the AIM-82 in favour of the Agile.
197.2 AIMVAL
U.S. Navy photo of an AIM-95 missile.
The AIM-95 Agile was an air-to-air missile developed

by the United States of America. It was developed by the
US Navy to equip the F-14 Tomcat, replacing the AIM-9
Sidewinder. Around the same time, the US Air Force was VX-5 F-4 Phantom with prototype Agile seekers
designing the AIM-82 to equip their F-15 Eagle, and later
dropped their eorts to join the Agile program. In the The AIM-95A was developed to a point where ight tests
end, newer versions of Sidewinder would close the per- were carried out including test ring at China Lake and
formance gap so much that the Agile program was can- inclusion in the ACEVAL/AIMVAL Joint Test & Evalua-
celled. tion conducted with both the F-14 and F-15 at Nellis AFB
in 1975-78. AIMVAL analysis results indicating limited
utility of higher high boresight capability and high cost
197.1 Overview resulted in opinion that it was no longer regarded as af-
fordable and the project was cancelled in 1975. Instead
The AIM-95 was developed at the China Lake Naval an improved version of the Sidewinder was developed for
Weapons Center as an advanced replacement for the use by both the Air Force and Navy. Although this was
AIM-9 Sidewinder short range air-to-air missile. The Ag- intended to be an interim solution, in fact the AIM-9 con-
ile was equipped with an infrared seeker for re and for- tinues in service today.
get operation. The seeker head had a high o-boresight The Soviet Union did embark on development of an ad-
606
vanced high boresight SRM with thrust vectoring and

subsequently elded the AA-11/R-73 Archer on the
MiG-29 in 1985. NATO learned about their performance
due to the German reunication and eorts began to
match or exceed the R-73s performance with the IRIS-T,
AIM-9X and MICA IR programs.
197.3 See also

AIM-82
Hawker Siddeley SRAAM
List of missiles

html
Chapter 198
AIM-97 Seekbat
The AIM-97 Seekbat is a missile developed by the the sun once the Bomarc went cold. Because this was
United States of America. misunderstood by engineers, continued eorts to develop
the missile guidance systems were undertaken without
any eort to correct the drone issues that were causing the
targeting malfunctions. Each test missile was hand built
198.1 Overview and very expensive to produce, causing the program to
suer cost overruns. This coupled with new knowledge
In the early to mid-1970s the United States was highly of the MiG-25s capabilities and role led to the cancel-
concerned by the perceived capabilities of the MiG-25 lation of the program because the missiles cost did not
Foxbat, an aircraft which was known to be capable of justify its procurement.
speeds in excess of Mach 3 and which carried long range
air-to-air missiles. It was widely claimed that the Foxbat
was a new generation super-ghter, capable of com- 198.2 See also
fortably outclassing any US or allied aircraft. The US
initiated the F-15 Eagle program largely in response to Brazo
this threat. To equip the F-15 the Air Force initiated
development of the AIM-82 short range missile and the R-27 (air-to-air missile)
AIM-97 Seekbat. The former was a dogghting missile
intended as a replacement for the AIM-9 Sidewinder, the
latter was to be a new high-altitude long-range missile de-
signed specically to shoot down the MiG-25 - hence the
name Seekbat, the bat referring to the MiG-25s Foxbat
NATO reporting name.
The Seekbat was based on the AGM-78 Standard ARM.
It had a larger propulsion unit and used Semi-active radar
homing with an infrared seeker for terminal guidance
of the missile. The operational ceiling was 80,000 feet
(24,000 m).
Test rings began in late 1972, but the Seekbat program
did not make a great deal of progress and was cancelled in
1976. During the testing of the Seekbat, CIM-10 Bomarc
surface-to-air missiles (SAM) were utilized in the target
drone role; the Bomarc missile was used to simulate the
high ying Foxbat. The Bomarc would prove to be a poor
choice for target drone, due in part to the requirement
to operate it in a manner outside its intended operational
envelope.
In sustained high altitude ight, the Bomarc would roll
onto its back and dive when the engines became oxy-
gen starved. This ight characteristic was previously un-
known to program ocers. When the Bomarc rolled on
its back, the wings shielded the engines, causing the Seek-
bat to unlock from the target during terminal guidance.
Instead, the Seekbat test missile IR seeker would chase
608
Chapter 199
AQM-127 SLAT
The AQM-127 Supersonic Low-Altitude Target ify the missile design, ight testing resumed in November
(SLAT) was a target drone developed during the 1980s 1990; this test also was a failure, as was a nal attempt at
by Martin Marietta for use by the United States Navy. a test in May 1991.[1]
Derived from Martin Mariettas work on the cancelled With the SLAT proving a consistent failure and the cost
ASALM missile, SLAT proved to have severe dicul- of the project increasing dramatically, the United States
ties in ight testing, and the project was cancelled during Congress stepped in, and during the summer of 1991 the
1991. AQM-127 program was cancelled.[1] The Navy, still re-
quiring a new high-speed target drone to replace the Van-
dal, would turn to a drone conversion of a Russian missile,
199.1 Design and development the MA-31, as an interim solution. This drone entered
service in small numbers during 1999.[3]
Development of what became the YAQM-127 was initi-
ated in 1983 following the cancellation of the BQM-111
Firebrand. A replacement for the MQM-8 Vandal tar- 199.3 See also
get drone was still required, and a specication was de-
veloped for a target drone, capable of being recovered Creative Research On Weapons
via parachute and reused, for launch from a variety of
aircraft.[1] GQM-163 Coyote
Bids for the contract were submitted by Martin Mari- Kh-31A
etta, Ling-Temco-Vought, and Teledyne Ryan,[1] with the
Martin Marietta design being judged the winner of the
design competition in September 1984.[2] Derived from
the cancelled Advanced Strategic Air-Launched Missile
199.4 References
developed by Martin Marietta for the United States Air
Force, the missile utilised a Marquardt hybrid rocket- Notes
ramjet propulsion system, with a solid rocket booster pro-
viding initial thrust, with the rockets chamber, following [1] Parsch and Caston 2006
burnout, becoming the combustion chamber for a ramjet [2] Munson 1988, p.206.
sustainer.[1] The AQM-127 was designed to y at speeds
of Mach 2.5 at an altitude of 30 feet (9 m), following a [3] Goebel 2010
pre-programmed course on autopilot.[1] The SLAT was
to be tted with radar signature augmentors and a radar Bibliography
seeker emulator; initial operational capability was pro-
jected for 1991.[1] Goebel, Greg (2010). Modern US Target Drones.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. vectorsite.net. Archived
from the original on 27 December 2010. Retrieved
199.2 Operational history 2010-12-31.
Munson, Kenneth (1988). World Unmanned Air-
The rst test launch of the fteen YAQM-127A pre- craft. London: Janes Information Group. ISBN
production test missiles produced was conducted on 978-0-7106-0401-9.
November 20, 1987. A further ve test ights were con-
ducted between then and January 1989; however only one Parsch, Andreas; Craig Caston (2006). Martin Ma-
of the six tests proved a success.[1] Following a twenty- rietta AQM-127 SLAT. Directory of U.S. Mili-
two month stand-down to reassess the program and mod- tary Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net.
609
610 CHAPTER 199. AQM-127 SLAT
Archived from the original on 15 December 2010.

Chapter 200
FGR-17 Viper
The FGR-17 Viper was an American one man dispos-

able antitank rocket which had slated in the 1980s to be
the replacement for the M72 LAW, but was cancelled
shortly after production began due to a major public scan-
dal resulting from massive cost overruns and safety con-
cerns, as well as a mistaken belief by the U.S. Congress
and the American public that the term light antitank
weapon meant a weapon that could defeat any hostile
armored vehicle threat from any ring angle (including
frontal shots against the Soviet Unions new T-64 and T-
72 main battle tanks).[1][2]
200.1 Program history

Viper launcher shown collapsed for carrying
200.1.1 Start of the program
did not demonstrate any signicant superiority over the
The Viper program began in 1972 as a study to replace M72 LAW.
the M72 LAW. In 1975, a program designated ILAW
(Improved Light Antitank Weapon) issued a request for
proposals to the defense industry, and in 1976 after study- 200.1.3 Over-optimistic statements by the
ing the various industry proposals, the U.S. Army desig- prime contractor
nated General Dynamics as the prime contractor, chang-
ing the ILAW program name to Viper. The main re- Journalists soon discovered that when the prime contrac-
quirements for the ILAW/Viper program was for a dis- tor was named in 1976 for the Viper program, General
posable weapon in the same weight and size category as Dynamics had told the Army that when mass production
the M72 LAW, but with major improvements in accu- for the Viper was reached, the cost of Viper would only
racy, safety and penetration and without a major increase be $78.00 per round before ination. Despite the neg-
in cost per round over the M72 LAW which it was to re- ative publicity, the Army decided to continue the Viper
place. program and make improvements. In December 1981,
General Dynamics was awarded a $14.4 million contract
to start production for 1400 Viper rounds.
200.1.2 Poor requirements statement
When the ILAW requirement was rst issued, the Army 200.1.4 Safety issues
wanted an individual antitank weapon with such a low
cost that it would be as common in infantry units as Shortly after this contract was issued, there were also re-
the hand grenade was. All these requirements, which ports of safety problems with the rst production lot dur-
included items contradictory to each other, proved to ing eld evaluation tests by the U.S. Army. Test rings
be too great a hurdle for General Dynamics. This re- had shown Viper rounds to have a safety problem with its
sulted in subsequent issues that led to highly publicized fuze system that caused the warhead to explode shortly
congressional inquires into a classied GAO report which after launch. One report detailed an accident at Fort Ben-
stated that the Viper...barely meets the low end of the ning, Georgia where a helicopter pallet of Viper rounds
Armys requirement.. and furthermore concluded ...Viper were found to be damaged by static electricity.
611
612 CHAPTER 200. FGR-17 VIPER
200.1.5 Scandal and congressional inter- trigger placed ush against the tube to allow the weapon
vention to be stowed in a backpack more easily. Unlike the M72
LAW however, the tube does not extend back but for-
In February 1982, in a move that took even the strongest wards from the ring mechanism. Covers at the rear and
supporters of the Army by surprise, the Army issued front of the tube protects the missile from environmen-
a second contract worth $83.7 million for 60,000 more tal eects such as moisture and dust. Only the rear cover
Viper rounds. Following the anger caused by the letting needs to be removed before ring. The FGR-17 uses ip-
of this second contract and because of the earlier GAO down aperture sights for targeting, protected by a casing.
report on the Viper, massive cost overruns, and then the As the missile tube is extended, the sights are released
safety concerns revealed in the Armys evaluations, in De- and ip up.[7][8]
cember 1982 Senator Warren Rudman (R-NH) inserted The missile itself consists of a solid rocket-powered
an amendment into the Armys funding bill. This amend- booster [9] and a HEAT warhead. Nine collapsible ns
ment deleted 69% of the Viper funding and further man- extend in mid-ight to ensure a stable ight path. The
dated testing of available light antitank weapons which missile res via an impact fuse. After ring, the launcher
were already in production, including non-U.S. models, has to be discarded, it can not be re-used with another
with a report due back to Congress in 1983. missile. The FGR-17 launcher acts as a container for the
missile itself and both are meant to be handled as a single
unit. The FGR-17, like all weapons of its kind, produces
200.1.6 End of the program a backblast eect so care for collateral damage must be
taken whilst ring.
About this time, General Dynamics made the decision
not to compete in the tests mandated by Congress, be-
cause of the Armys demand for a xed price contract 200.3 References and notes
on any future Viper production lots that were to include
safety improvements. This meant that after the Army
[1] Ludvigsen, Eric C, ed. (198384), Army Green Book, p.
had spent over $250 million on a M72 LAW replacement 307.
since 1975, the Viper program was at an end. With Gen-
eral Dynamicss decision to refuse a xed price contract [2] Shortly after the Viper was canceled, the U.S. Army
request, the Army announced in September 1983 that it dropped the term LAW (light antitank weapon) and re-
was canceling all contracts for the FGR-17 Viper. Two placed it with LAAW (light anti-armor weapon) and
months later, the testing mandated by Congress found the LMPW (light multi-purpose weapon).
Swedish designed AT4 the most suitable o-the-shelf op- [3] Graves, Jim (Fall 1985), Viper Bites the Dust, Combat
tion to replace the M72 LAW. The AT4 did not meet Weapons: 36.
every requirement, but it was the only one to meet most
of the requirements. Congress agreed and funded that [4] Kyle, D; Meyer, D (October 1983), Interview: General
weapon as the future M72 LAW replacement.[3][4][5] Donald R. Keith, Armed Forces Journal International:
52.
[5] Kyle, D (November 1983), Viper Dead, Army Picks AT-

200.2 Description 4 Antitank Missile, Armed Forces Journal International:
21.
According to General Dynamics brochure, the FGR-17 [6] http://s16.photobucket.com/user/hybenamon/media/

was intended to be used by front-line troops as opposed to LAND/INFANTRY/VIPER/VIPER1.jpg.html
dedicated anti-tank squads, to give these units a last line [7] http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b24/hybenamon/
of defense backed up by the heavier and more special- LAND/INFANTRY/VIPER/VIPER2.jpg
ized TOW, Dragon and Hellre missile launchers. These
launchers, as opposed to the FGR-17, are far more ef- [8] http://s16.photobucket.com/user/hybenamon/media/
fective against tanks and can strike from longer distances, LAND/INFANTRY/VIPER/VIPER3.jpg.html
but require a specialized anti-tank unit whereas the FGR- [9] http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/r-17.html
17 has the advantage it could be deployed to all soldiers
in large quantities. General Dynamics specically states
that the FGR-17 is best deployed in close quarters against
enemy anks and rears, not against front armor.[6]
The launcher of the FGR-17 is made from lightweight -
breglass and resembles many features of its predecessor.
It consists of a telescopic tube, much like the M72 LAW
it is meant to replace, and the trigger and ring mecha-
nism does not protrude from the launcher itself, with the
Chapter 201
Have Dash
Have Dash was a program conducted by the United pursued.[3]

States Air Force for the development of a stealthy air-to-
air missile. Although the Have Dash II missile appears to
have been ight tested, the results of the project remain 201.3 References
classied and no production is believed to have been un-
dertaken.
Notes
[1] Popular Mechanics, March 1990

201.1 Have Dash I
[2] Have Dash II: Development Test and Evaluation of an
Advanced Air-To-Air Missile Concept. Society of Ex-
Have Dash I was a classied project to develop an air- perimental Test Pilots Symposium Proceedings, Volumes
to-air missile for use by stealth aircraft.[1] The concept, 3637, p. 159. (1992)
developed by the USAF Armament Laboratory between
1985 and 1988,[2] was extensively studied but failed to [3] Parsch 2005
produce any ying hardware.[3] [4] "Have Dash II bank-to-turn technology may be valuable
for AMRAAM. Defense Daily, April 21, 1992.
201.2 Have Dash II Bibliography
Have Dash II, initiated in 1990, was a renewed eort to Dane, Abe, ed. (March 1990). Tech Update:
develop a stealthy air-to-air missile, intended to be used Hypersonic Air-To-Air Missile. Popular Mechan-
by the Advanced Tactical Fighter the YF-22 and YF-23 ics (New York: The Hearst Corporation) 167 (3):
and to replace the AIM-120 AMRAAM in service.[1] 18. ISSN 0032-4558. Retrieved 2010-12-29.
Have Dash II was designed with a composite body, Parsch, Andreas (2005). Loral (Ford Aeronutron-
trapezoidal in shape. This was intended both to reduce ics) HAVE DASH II. Directory of U.S. Military
the missiles radar-cross-section[3] and to resist heat at hy- Rockets and Missiles. designation-systems.net. Re-
personic speeds, as the missile was intended to operate trieved 2010-12-29.
at Mach 5.[1] The body shape also allowed ush external
carriage aboard the launching aircraft, and provided aero-
dynamic lift, making the missile more maneuverable.[3]
The prototype Have Dash II missiles were recoverable,[1]
and utilised Rocketdyne Mk 58 solid-fueled rocket mo-
tors of the same type used by the AIM-7 Sparrow.[3][4]
Production missiles were expected to be powered by a
ramjet engine,[1] and would use inertial navigation dur-
ing the cruise phase of ight, with a dual-mode in-
frared/active radar seeker head for terminal guidance.[3]
Flight testing of the prototype Have Dash II missiles was
expected to begin in 1992;[1] it appears that the test-
ing was conducted, with the missile being considered for
further testing of advanced air-to-air missile concepts.[2]
However, no results of the test rings have been de-
classied, and the missiles development was not further
613
Chapter 202
MGM-166 LOSAT
The MGM-166 LOSAT (Line-of-Sight Anti-Tank) was tions, but did not oer the needed range and its relatively
a U.S. surface-to-surface missile system designed by slow ight speeds (~250 m/s versus 1650 for HVM) left
Lockheed Martin (originally Vought) to defeat tanks and it vulnerable while the missile was in ight.
other individual targets. Instead of using a High Explo-
To ll AAWS-H, Vought developed a slightly larger
sive Anti-Tank warhead like other anti-tank missiles, the extended-range version of HVM known as KEM (Ki-
LOSAT employed a solid steel kinetic energy penetrator
netic Energy Missile), while their partner, Texas Instru-
to punch through armor. The LOSAT is fairly light; it ments, provided a new FLIR targeting system that they
was designed to be mounted onto a Humvee while allow-
were already working on as a TOW upgrade. Several ve-
ing the vehicle to remain air-portable. LOSAT eventually hicles were studied to mount the system, including the
emerged on an extended-length heavy-duty Humvee with
front-runner M2 Bradley,[3] as well as the M8 Armored
a hard-top containing four KEMs used by special oper- Gun System.[4] However, in order to reduce costs and im-
ations. Although LOSAT never ocially entered ser- prove air mobility in a postCold War world, LOSAT
vice, it was used for the smaller Compact Kinetic Energy eventually emerged on an extended-length heavy-duty
Missile.[1] Humvee with a hard-top containing four KEMs ready to
re, along with a trailer containing another eight rounds
in two-round packs. The new guidance system could keep
202.1 History two missiles in ight to separate targets, allowing the ve-
hicle to salvo re its weapons against a tank squadron in
202.1.1 HVM a few seconds.[2] Reaching speeds of 5,000 ft/s, LOSAT
was in the air from launch to maximum range for under
LOSAT developed out on an earlier Vought project, the four seconds, making counterre extremely dicult. The
HVM. HVM was a multi-platform weapon supported by range was beyond that of existing main tank guns, allow-
the US Air Force, for their A-10, and by the US Army ing the LOSAT to re and move before tanks could ma-
and US Marine Corps, for helicopters and other vehicles. neuver into a position to return re.
HVM oered performance similar to existing systems The rst KEMs were test red in 1990, and a contract for
like the AGM-114 Hellre but oered a semi-re-and- continued development was placed by the Army. This
forget operation through the use of FLIR tracking and was much slower in pace, and it was only in 1997 that an
guidance commands sent to it via a low-power laser. It Advanced Technology Concept Demonstrator program
could be carried on any platform that had FLIR support, started to bring the system to production quality. The
with the self-contained command guidance system able contract called for 12 LOSAT vehicles and 144 KEMs,
to be carried externally, or potentially integrated into ex-
to be delivered by 2003. Even before this contract was
isting target designators. With the end of the Cold War, complete, the Army asked for a production run of an-
the Air Force pulled out of the project, and development other 108 missiles in August 2002.[1] The rst of the 12
work on HVM appears to have ended in the late 1980s. LOSAT units was delivered in October 2002, and the sys-
tem began a series of 18 production-qualication test r-
ings in August 2003, at White Sands Missile Range in
202.1.2 AAWS-H New Mexico. By March 2004, 18 KEMs had been red
at targets under a variety of conditions, both during the
At about the same time, in 1988, the Army released a new day and night. Another 8 were red in the summer of
requirement for a ground-based anti-tank system, known 2004 at Fort Bliss as part of a user-testing exercise.
as Advanced Anti-Tank Weapon System - Heavy, or
AAWS-H for short.[2] AAWS-H specied an air-liftable
lightweight system with the capability to knock out any
existing or near-future tank outside its own gun range.
The TOW missile could be guided from concealed loca-
614
202.1.3 Cancellation
By the time the test program was nished it was obvi-
ous the Army was going to cancel LOSAT after the low-
rate initial production (LRIP) batch of about 435 mis-
siles was delivered.[2] By this point the Army had already
started work on a system known as the Compact Kinetic
Energy Missile (or CKEM), based on the LOSAT con-
cepts but smaller and lighter, more in tune with real-world
threats. As it turned out, even the LRIP contract was
never funded, and the LOSAT program terminated.
202.2 Notes
[1] LOSAT LINE-OF-SIGHT ANTI-TANK WEAPON -
HIGH MOBILITY MULTI-PURPOSE WHEELED VE-
HICLE, USA
[2] Lockheed Martin MGM-166 LOSAT/KEM - Designation

Systems
[3] LIGHT AND LETHAL: Line-of-Sight, Anti-Tank

(LOSAT)
[4] M8 Armored Gun System

Globalsecurity article on the LOSAT
Video of LOSAT in action
Chapter 203
NOTS-EV-2 Caleb
Hi-Ho redirects here. For the single by hide, see

Hi-Ho/Good Bye.
The NOTS-EV-2 Caleb, also known as NOTS-500, Hi-

Hoe and SIP was an expendable launch system, which
was later used as a sounding rocket and prototype anti-
satellite weapon. It was developed by the United States
Navy's Naval Ordnance Test Station (NOTS)[1] as a
follow-up to the NOTS-EV-1 Pilot, which had been aban-
doned following ten consecutive launch failures.[2] Two
were launched in July and October 1960, before the can-
cellation of the project.[1] Following cancellation, two
leftover Calebs were used in the Satellite Interceptor Pro-
gram, or SIP, whilst three more were used as sounding
rocktets, under the designation Hi-Hoe.[1] These deriva- Hi-Hoe rocket mounted on F4H Phantom II
tives ew until July 1962, when the Hi-Hoe made its nal
ight.
203.1 Development
The Caleb made its maiden ight, in a single-stage test
The Caleb was originally designed as a fast-response conguration,[4] on 28 July 1960.[6] Its second ight was
made on 24 October of the same year,[6] and used a two-
orbital launch system, to place small reconnaissance satel-
lites, and other military payloads, into orbit at short stage conguration. It was unsuccessful, due to the sec-
ond stages failure to ignite.[4] Both test launches were
notice.[3] The orbital congurations were four-stage vehi-
cles, whilst test launches used one- and two-stage cong- suborbital.[7]
urations. The project was cancelled due to pressure from Both SIP launches used the two-stage conguration. The
the United States Air Force, who were responsible for all rst was conducted on 1 October 1961. It was successful
other orbital launches conducted by the US military, and and reached an apogee of 20 kilometres (12 mi). The sec-
no attempts to launch the vehicle into orbit were made.[1] ond test, launched on 5 May 1962 was also successful, and
Caleb was an air-launched rocket, with its two launches reached the same apogee.[5] The three Hi-Hoe launches
being conducted from F4D Skyray #747, the same air- were conducted on 5 October 1961, and 26 March and 25
craft used in the Pilot trials.[4] Hi-Hoe was also air- July 1962.[6] On the rst two launches the second stage
launched, however it was released from an F4H Phantom failed to ignite,[4] however the third was successful, and
II, which provided greater performance.[3] SIP launches reached an apogee of 1,166 kilometres (725 mi).[5][6]
were conducted from a ground launch pad on San Nico- Despite the programs turn towards success, the project
las Island.[5] The aircraft used for the airborne launches was cancelled soon after the nal Hi-Hoe test, the
took o from Point Arguello, which later became part of Department of Defense choosing to concentrate on the
Vandenberg Air Force Base.[5] U.S. Air Force's Blue Scout sounding rocket program.[7]
616
List of sounding rockets
203.5 References
[1] Scott, Je (2006-04-23). NOTSNIK, Project Pilot &
Project Caleb. Aerospaceweb.org. Retrieved 2009-06-
04.
[2] Wade, Mark. Project Pilot. Encyclopedia Astronautica.

[3] Parsch, Andreas (2003-10-17). NOTS NOTS-EV-2

Caleb. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles,
Appendix 4. Designation-Systems.Net. Retrieved 2009-
Caleb rocket mounted on F4D Skyray 06-04.
[4] Krebs, Gunter. Caleb (NOTS-EV-2)". Gunters Space

Page. Retrieved 2009-06-04.
[5] Wade, Mark. Caleb. Encyclopedia Astronautica. Re-

trieved 2009-06-04.
[6] McDowell, Jonathan. NOTS-500. Orbital and Subor-

bital Launch Database. Jonathans Space Page. Retrieved
2009-06-04.
[7] Comments on Caleb by Joel W. Powell and K.W. Gat-

land. Spaceight magazine.
A SIP rocket on San Nicolas Island in August 1961, prior to the

rst launch
203.3 Launch history
203.4 See also

NOTS-EV-1 Pilot
ASM-135 ASAT
Related lists
Chapter 204
RIM-101
For the USAF weapon designated AIM-101, see AIM-7 [1] Parsch 2002
Sparrow.
RIM-101 was a short-lived project by the United States [3] Andrade 1979, p.235.
Navy to develop a surface-to-air missile (SAM) for the [4] Parsch 2007
defense of naval vessels. Developed during the early
1970s, the project, possibly derived from the RIM-7 Sea
Sparrow, was cancelled before the start of detailed design Bibliography
work.
204.1 Development and cancella- Retrieved 2011-01-26.
tion Morison, Samuel L.; John S. Rowe (1975). The
In the early 1970s, the United States Navy initiated a napolis, MD: United States Naval Institute. ISBN
project for the development of a new surface-to-air mis- 0-87021-639-2.
sile to act as a defense against air and missile attack
against its vessels. The project received the planning des- Parsch, Andreas (2002). RIM-101. Directory
ignation ZRIM-101A in 1973.[1][2][3] of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-
The RIM-101 missile was planned to be a tube-launched
weapon, a small ejector charge being used to propel the Parsch, Andreas (2007). Raytheon AIM/RIM-7
missile from its launching tube before ignition of a solid- Sparrow. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and
fueled rocket sustainer,[2] based on that of the FIM-43 Missiles. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-
Redeye SAM.[1] Midcourse guidance of the new missile 01-26.
was planned to be of the semi-active radar homing type,
using an I-band radar system, while terminal guidance
would be provided by an infrared seeker.[2] However, the 204.3 External links
RIM-101 project was cancelled early in the design-and-
development stage, before any hardware had been built.[1]
DOD 4120.15-L: Model Designation of Military
It has been speculated that the RIM-101 was intended Aerospace Vehicles (PDF).
to be an advanced development of the RIM-7 Sea Spar-
row missile, then in U.S. Navy service as the Basic Point
Defense Missile System.[1] While the basic RIM-7 does
not match the description of RIM-101, an advanced de-
velopment of the RIM-7E would t the timeframe and
description, with RIM-7F being developed following the
cancellation of RIM-101.[1][4]
204.2 References
Notes
618
Chapter 205
RIM-113
The RIM-113 Shipboard Intermediate Range Com- of the RIM-113 missile.[3] A proposal was made for
bat System, or SIRCS, was an advanced surface-to-air joint development of SIRCS with the U.S. Air Force's
missile proposed by the United States Navy in the 1970s. AMRAAM project;,[2] but this came to naught, and the
The project failed to be approved for funding and was RIM-113 was cancelled in 1979.[3]
cancelled in 1979.
205.3 References
205.1 Concept
Notes
The United States Navy Naval Surface Weapons Cen-
ter began the development of an advanced surface-to- [1] DOD 4120.15-L (2004), p.95.
air missile for defense against cruise missile attack in [2] Dornan 1979, p.238.
1976.[1] Based on the previous Anti-Ship Missile Defense
(ASMD) studies and known as the Shipboard Interme- [3] Parsch 2002
diate Range Combat System,[2] the new missile was in-
tended as a replacement for the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow as Bibliography
the standard point-defense weapon for U.S. Navy ships,[3]
with the specication calling for the capability to engage DOD 4120.15-L: Model Designation of Military
between four and fourteen independent targets at once, Aerospace Vehicles (PDF). Department of De-
depending on the size of the launching ship.[2] fense, Oce of the Undersecretary of Defense
(AT&L) (Defense Systems). May 12, 2004. Re-
trieved 2011-01-11.
205.2 Development and cancella- Dornan, Dr. James E., Jr., ed. (1978). The US
tion War Machine. London: Salamander Books. ISBN
0-517-53543-2.
The designation XRIM-113A, indicating an experi- Parsch, Andreas (2002). RIM-113 SIRCS.
mental ship-launched interceptor missile, was allocated Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles.
to the SIRCS project in May 1976, and contracts designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-01-11.
were awarded to three separate teams of contractors -
RCA/Martin-Marietta, McDonnell Douglas/Sperry, and
Raytheon/Lockheed/Univac - for initial studies of the
SIRCS missile concept, in anticipation of a competitive
evaluation.[3]
By 1978, the study phase of development was
completed.[3] The McDonnell Douglas/Sperry team
had examined the use of the British Aerospace Sea
Wolf missile, which failed to meet the full specication,
but was the only existing missile that approached the
SIRCS requirements.[2] Sea Wolf was anticipated to
be able to enter service in 1979 if selected; a newly
designed missile would push the expected in-service
date to 1983.[2] However, the United States Congress
refused to allocate funding for the further development
619
Chapter 206
RIM-85
RIM-85 was a short-lived project by the United States Morison, Samuel L.; John S. Rowe (1975). The
Navy to develop a surface-to-air missile for the defense Ships & Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet (10th ed.). An-
of naval vessels. Developed during the late 1960s, the napolis, MD: United States Naval Institute. ISBN
project was cancelled before the start of detailed design 0-87021-639-2.
work.
Parsch, Andreas (2002). RIM-85. Directory of
U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-
206.1 Development and cancella-
tion Parsch, Andreas (2009). Current Designations
of U.S. Unmanned Military Aerospace Vehicles.
During the 1960s, the United States Navy identied a re-
quirement for a new type of surface-to-air missile, ca-
pable of defending ships against attack by enemy air-
craft and missiles.[1] The resulting specication called
for a medium-range missile, capable of being used in all
weather conditions;[1][2] in addition to its air defense role, DOD 4120.15-L: Model Designation of Military
the missile was intended to possess a secondary capabil- Aerospace Vehicles (PDF).
ity in the surface-to-surface mission for use against enemy
ships.[1][2]
In July 1968, the project was assigned the Mission Des-
ignation System designation ZRIM-85A,[1][3] the Z in-
dicating a project in the planning stage;[4] however, the
program was cancelled later that year, before any signif-
icant design work on the missile, or any development of
hardware, had been conducted.[1]
206.2 References
Notes
[1] Parsch 2002
[3] Andrade 1979, p.235.
[4] Parsch 2009
Bibliography

620
Chapter 207
SSM-N-2 Triton
The SSM-N-2 Triton was a supersonic nuclear land- the volume of Regulus I, weighed only 23,000 pounds
attack cruise missile project for the United States Navy. (10,000 kg). A slimmer design for Triton was produced
It was in development from 1946 to 1957, but proba- in 1955, at 27,300 pounds (12,400 kg) with a range of
bly no prototypes were produced or tested. The Tri- 1,200 nautical miles (2,200 km) and a nuclear payload
ton program was approved in September 1946, desig- of 1,500 pounds (680 kg) (nuclear warheads were rapidly
nated SSM-2 a year later, and redesignated SSM-N-2 in getting smaller). This design was approved for further
early 1948.[1][2] A preliminary design was produced by development, with initial operational capability expected
1950 as the XSSM-N-2, but was scaled down by 1955 by 1965. A 1957 redesign is described in the infobox,
and redesigned again in 1957. Triton was cancelled in apparently a re-expansion to 30,000 pounds (14,000 kg)
1957, probably as a result of the 1956 decision to focus to achieve a 1,500 nautical miles (2,800 km) range and
the Navys strategic weapons development on the Polaris a perhaps unrealistic speed of Mach 3.5.[1][2] Triton was
submarine-launched ballistic missile.[3] In any case, pro- cancelled that same year in favor of Polaris, which proved
totypes of the similar Regulus II missile had already to be a wildly successful system despite being produced
own, and Triton was redundant, oering only an in- on a crash timeline.
crease in range from 1,000 nautical miles (1,900 km) to At a cost of $19.4 million in 1953 dollars,[1] Triton was a
1,500 nautical miles (2,800 km), which Polaris was about somewhat expensive failure. However, in 1950 it could
to achieve along with many other advantages. Regulus II not be foreseen that the turbojet-powered, supersonic
was itself cancelled in 1958, although testing of missiles Regulus II would be comparable to a ramjet-powered
already built continued for several years.[1][2] weapon in just six years, or that a solid-fueled ballis-
tic missile (Polaris) would soon eclipse all of the Navys
other strategic options, and that it could be developed and
207.1 Development History deployed by 1961.
Triton was approved by the US Navy in 1946 and a pre-

liminary design was ready by 1950. The goal was to pro-
duce a supersonic land-attack nuclear cruise missile ca-
pable of being launched from the same platforms and
equipment as the subsonic SSM-N-8 Regulus I, which 207.1.1 Possible platforms
were surface combatants, submarines, and aircraft carri-
ers via launch rails or catapults.[1][2] One reference cites Sketch designs were prepared for surface ships and
Triton as an outgrowth of Operation Bumblebee, which submarines to carry Triton. A submarine capable of car-
produced the Navys rst production surface-to-air mis- rying four Triton or Regulus II missiles or up to eight
siles, notably Talos, which had a ramjet sustainer like Regulus I missiles was sketched in 1956.[5] One of the
Triton.[4] many proposals for modernizing the Iowa-class battle-
An artists concept shows the rst iteration of Triton with ships came in 1955, featuring Talos surface-to-air mis-
a long ramjet body, two mid-body stub wings, and four siles (SAMs) and one or two launchers for Regulus or
solid-fuel boosters clustered around a relatively large cru- Triton. The incomplete Kentucky was proposed for com-
ciform tail. The specications were a 36,000 pounds pletion to this design.[6][7] Another incomplete ship, the
(16,000 kg) missile with a range of 2,000 nautical miles battlecruiser Hawaii, was also proposed for various con-
(3,700 km) at Mach 2.0 and a nuclear payload of 4,000 versions, including a 1947 sketch with 12 launchers for
pounds (1,800 kg).[1] Since Regulus I weighed under copies of the V-2 short-range ballistic missile and six Tri-
14,000 pounds (6,400 kg), its dicult to see how this ton launchers (though one reference states these launch-
version of Triton would be usable by the initial Regulus ers were for Operation Bumblebee's developmental XPM
platforms. Even Regulus II, which occupied about twice (Experimental Prototype Missile) SAM).[8][9]
621
622 CHAPTER 207. SSM-N-2 TRITON
207.2 References
[1] Triton missile at Encyclopedia Astronautica
[2] Triton missile at Directory of US Rockets and Missiles
[3] Friedman Submarines, p. 195
[6] Friedman Battleships, pp. 398-399
[7] Scarpaci, p. 4
[8] Scarpaci, p. 19
[9] Friedman Cruisers, pp. 373-377
Friedman, Norman (1994). U.S. Submarines Since

Maryland: United States Naval Institute. ISBN 1-
55750-260-9.
Friedman, Norman (1985). U.S. Battleships: An

Illustrated Design History. Annapolis, Maryland:
United States Naval Institute. ISBN 978-0-87021-
715-9.
Friedman, Norman (1984). U.S. Cruisers: An Illus-
trated Design History. Annapolis, Maryland: United
States Naval Institute. ISBN 0-87021-718-6.
Scarpaci, Wayne (April 2008). Iowa Class Battle-

ships and Alaska Class Large Cruisers Conversion
Projects 19421964: An Illustrated Technical Ref-
erence. Nimble Books LLC. ISBN 1-934840-38-6.
SSM-N-2 Triton on Italian Wikipedia

Friedman, Norman (1983). U.S. Naval Weapons.
Annapolis, Maryland: United States Naval Institute.
ISBN 0-87021-735-6.
Ordway, Frederick (1960). International Missile

and Spacecraft Guide. McGraw-Hill.

of the Worlds Rockets and Missiles. Salamander
Books. ISBN 0-86101-029-9.

Cruise Missile. Air University Press. ISBN 1-
47836-305-3.
Chapter 208
UUM-125 Sea Lance
manner, being launched from the Mk 41 vertical launch-

ing system. When the missile reached the intended area,
the payload would separate from the missile and then de-
ploy a parachute to decelerate the warhead or torpedo.
Both missiles were initially planned to carry a depth
charge with a 200 kiloton W89 thermonuclear warhead.
Such a yield would have given the missile a lethal radius
against submarines of around 10 kilometers. This mas-
sive warhead, combined with the fact that the target would
be unable to detect the missile until the payload hit the
water, made it virtually impossible for a target to escape.
In the mid-1980s, a conventional variant of this mis-
sile was proposed which would carry the new Mark 50
torpedo submarine-seeking weapon. This version was
dubbed the UUM-125B.
Sea Lance in-service capsule
A contract for the full-scale development of the Sea
Lance was awarded in 1986. In 1988, it was decided to
The UUM-125 Sea Lance, initially known as the Com-
proceed again with the surface-launched RUM-125 ver-
mon ASW Stando Weapon, was authorized in 1980 as
sion. The nuclear warhead was canceled in favor of a
a successor to both the UUM-44 SUBROC and RUR-5
purely conventional missile: ship-based nuclear missiles
ASROC anti-submarine missiles. The Sea Lance was to
had been forbidden by international treaty. (For example,
be available in two versions, known as UUM-125A and
the nuclear version of the Tomahawk was removed from
RUM-125A. The former would be a submarine-launched
service, and only conventional warheads were retained.
version, the latter surface-launched.
All nuclear depth charges and nuclear surface-to-air mis-
siles were also removed from service.)
In 1990, the entire program was canceled as a result of the
208.1 Design and development collapse and dismemberment of the Soviet Union. Today
the U.S. Navy attack submarines do not have any long-
In 1982, Boeing was awarded the main contract to de- range stand-o anti-submarine weapon, while U.S. Navy
velop the system, named the Sea Lance. By the following surface warships do have the new, vertical-launch version
year, it had become apparent that developing two dier- of the ASROC.
ent versions of the missile was too ambitious, and fur-
ther development of the RUM-125 was suspended. The
RUM-139, a vertical-launch model of the ASROC, was
developed as a stopgap weapon in this role. 208.2 See also
The Sea Lance was to be housed inside a watertight cap-
sule which could be launched from an ordinary 21 inch RUM-139 VL-ASROC
torpedo tube. The Mk 117 digital re-control system pro-
vided targeting information to the missile prior to launch.
RUR-5 ASROC
After being red, the capsule would oat to the surface
where the rocket would ignite and its ns would ip out.
An inertial guidance system would direct the missile to UGM-89 Perseus
the general location of the target. Initial plans were to
have the surface-launched version operate in a similar UUM-44 SUBROC
623
624 CHAPTER 208. UUM-125 SEA LANCE
208.3 Suggested Reading

to the Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet (15th ed.).
Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN
1557506752.

Directory of US Military missiles
Global Security
Chapter 209
Vought HVM
Vought's HVM, short for Hyper-Velocity Missile, was 209.1 References

an anti-tank missile developed during the 1980s. The
HVM carried no warhead and killed its targets with Vought HVM
kinetic energy alone using a metal rod penetrator. Devel-
opment as an air-launched weapon for the A-10 Thunder-
bolt II ended sometime in the late 1980s but continued for
helicopter use into the 1990s along with ground-launched
(HMMWV) as the larger MGM-166 LOSAT. None of
these systems was ever deployed operationally.
The HVM was intended as a fairly inexpensive weapon,
compared to the AGM-65 Maverick at least, oering the
stando performance while requiring a minimum of sup-
port electronics. The target was acquired using a FLIR
system on the launch vehicle, and after launch the missile
quickly accelerated to 1500 m/s (5000 ft/s, 5400 km/h)
and into the view of the FLIR, which tracked both the
target and missile from that point on. Corrections to the
ight path were sent to the missile via a laser, and the mis-
sile included the electronics needed to guide itself back to
the correct ight path.
The missile was just under 3 meters long and about 10
cm in diameter. The aft portion was ared out in a cone,
which gives it some directional stability without requiring
fold-out ns. Most of the stabilization was due to spin.
Directional control was accomplished via thrust vector-
ing. The penetrator was housed under an ogive nose cone.
The contract was initially sent to Vought Missiles and
Space in late 1981, and the rst unpowered drop tests
were carried out in March 1983. A contract for joint de-
velopment by the US Air Force, US Army and US Ma-
rine Corps followed in October 1984, but the Air Force
dropped out of the program sometime in the late 1980s
(Janes says '87-'89). In 1988, Texas Instruments and
Vought teamed up to enter a modied version of the
HVM into the Armys new Advanced Anti-Tank Weapon
System Heavy (AAWS-H) competition, winning it as
the MGM-166 LOSAT (or KEM, Kinetic Energy Mis-
sile) with a slightly enlarged and nned version of the ba-
sic HVM system.
625
Chapter 210
3.5-Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket
For other rockets with the same acronym, see 5-Inch 210.2 Operational history
Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket and Mk 4/Mk 40
Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket. Following expedited development, the weapon, ocially
designated the 3.5-Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket,
The 3.5-Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket, or 3.5- entered operational service with the U.S. Navy late in
Inch FFAR, was an American rocket developed during 1943;[1] production of 10,000 rockets per month had
World War II to allow aircraft to attack enemy submarines been ordered that August.[6] The FFARs rst kill of
at range. The rocket proved an operational success, and an enemy submarine took place 11 January 1944. The
spawned several improved versions for use against surface rocket was originally carried by the TBF Avenger torpedo
and land targets. bomber. Excessive drag caused by the original 92 long
channel-slide launchers was largely eliminated with the
introduction of zero length launchers in May 1945.[3]
Zero length launchers quickly became standard on most
ghters and many light bombers for ring a variety of
rockets with 3.25 or 5 diameter rocket motors.
Although the rockets accuracy was more than sucient
to allow usage against surface targets, the narrow body
Following trials by the Royal Air Force of rocket- diameter restricted the size of any explosive warhead that
propelled, air-launched weapons for anti-submarine war- could be tted.[1] Therefore, for use against ships and land
fare during 1942, the United States Navy launched a high- targets, the rocket was given a warhead consisting of a 45
priority project during the summer of 1943 for the devel- lb re-fused 5 Mark 35 artillery shell, producing the 5-
opment of an anti-submarine rocket of its own.[1] Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket, usually shortened
to 5 AR.[3][7]
The resulting rocket was a simple design with four tail
ns for stabilization at the rear,[1] powered by a rocket
motor that had been under development by Caltech
since 1943.[2] The warhead contained no explosive. The 210.3 See also
rockets nose was a solid steel mass, weighing 20 pounds
(9.1 kg), that punctured the pressure hull of a target sub- High Velocity Aircraft Rocket
marine through the kinetic energy and momentum from
its high velocity and mass.[3] The nose of the 3.5 FFAR Zuni rocket
was given a relatively blunt conical shape that had been
shown experimentally to give a maximum pitch-up of List of rockets
the nose as the rocket entered the water. This caused
the rocket to shoot forward at a shallow depth deadly to
submarines that were surfaced or traveling at snorkel or
periscope depth.[4] The rockets were launched in a shal- 210.4 References
low dive, since entry into the water at too steep an an-
gle would defeat their ability to shoot forward at the re- Citations
quired shallow depth. The rocket remained lethal even
after passing through up to 130 feet of water, giving the [1] Parsch 2004
pilot a target several times the actual size of the subma-
rine. The sweet spot for targeting was considered to be [2] von Braun and Ordway 1975, p.98.
60 feet in front of the near side of the submarine. Typi-
cal ring range was about 1500 yards.[5] [3] Campbell 1985, p.170.
626
[4] C. W. Snyder, Caltechs Other Rocket Project: Personal

Recollections, pp. 7-10, Engineering & Science, Spring
1991
[5] E.W. Price, C.L. Horine, and C.W. Snyder (July

1998). EATON CANYON, A History of Rocket
Motor Research and Development in the Caltech-
NDRC-Navy Rocket Program, 1941-1946,. 34th
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference
and Exhibit, Cleveland, Ohio. AIAA.
[6] Friedman 1982, p.198.
[7] Parsch 2006
Bibliography
Campbell, John (1985). Naval Weapons of World

War Two. London: Conway Maritime Press. ISBN
0-87021-459-4. Retrieved 2011-01-24.

735-7. Retrieved 2011-01-25.
Parsch, Andreas (2004). Air-Launched 3.5-Inch
Rockets. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and
the original on 15 December 2010. Retrieved 2011-
01-24.
Parsch, Andreas (2006). Air-Launched 5-Inch

01-24.
von Braun, Wernher; Frederick Ira Ordway (1975).
History of Rocketry & Space Travel. New York:
Crowell. ISBN 978-0-690-00588-2. Retrieved
2011-01-24.

Media related to FFAR rockets at Wikimedia Commons
Chapter 211
AUM-N-2 Petrel
The AUM-N-2 Petrel was an air-to -surface missile pro- were withdrawn from reserve service and converted to
duced by the United States of America. Later variants serve as air-launched target drones.
were converted into AQM-41A target drones. In 1962, the remaining Petrel drones were re-designated
as the Fairchild AQM-41A. They were nally disposed
of shortly afterwards.
The origins of the Petrel date back to the 1950s, when the 211.2 See also
U.S. Navy Bureau of Ordnance (BuOrd) began the King-
sher program, intending to develop a series of stando List of missiles
torpedo weapons. The Kingsher C, later known as the
AUM-2 and then as AUM-N-2 (AUM representing Air-
to-Underwater Missile), was designed as an air-launched 211.3 References
jet-powered missile which carried a torpedo warhead.
Various dierent design options were considered for this
missile; the nal choice was a Mark 21 homing tor- 211.4 External links
pedo, with a Fairchild J44 turbojet engine, wooden ns
and wings, and a nose housing guidance equipment. On Fairchild AUM-N-2/AQM-41 Petrel
launch the missile dropped to 60 meters (200 feet) above
the water and cruised at Mach 0.5 towards the target, us-
ing semi-active radar homing. At a range of just under
1,500 meters (4,600 feet) the engine shut down and all
wings and ns were jettisoned. The torpedo dropped on a
free trajectory into the water and began to home in on the
target. The weapon was suitable for use against surface
targets onlyprimarily ships and surfaced submarines.
The AUM-2 was usually carried by the Lockheed P-2
Neptune.
Tests of the AUM-2 began in 1951. Development was
transferred to Fairchild in 1954, with the project becom-
ing operational in 1956.
The Petrel was never considered a very high priority by
the U.S. Navy, which was far more concerned about the
threat from submarines than surface ships. New sub-
marine designs powered by nuclear reactors were begin-
ning to appear in the mid-1950s, vessels which could re-
main submerged indenitely. As a result the prospects of
catching an enemy submarine on the surface were reced-
ing, and more emphasis was being placed on underwater
engagements. The use of semi-active guidance also re-
quired the launching aircraft to continue closing the target
throughout the missiles ight, exposing it to a far greater
danger from enemy defenses. The AUM-N-2 was ini-
tially assigned only to reserve units. In 1959 the missiles
628
Chapter 212
Mousetrap (weapon)
212.1 Statistics
Round weight: 65 lb (29 kg)
Warhead: 33 lb (15 kg)
Range: about 280m
Firing speed: one round every 3 seconds (maxi-
mum)
No. of rails:
Mark 20: 4
Mark 22: 8
212.2 References
Citations
[1] Anti-Submarine Projector Mk 20 & 22 (Mousetrap)".

Microworks.net. Retrieved 2013-12-12.
4-missile launcher anti-submarine projector Mark 20 [2] CUYAHOGA, 1927. US Coast Guard. November
2001. Retrieved 2008-10-08.
[3] Submarine Chaser SC-718. NavSource Naval History.
Mousetrap (ASW Marks 20 and 22) was an anti- Bibliography

submarine rocket used mainly during the Second World
War by the U.S. Navy[1] and the U.S. Coast Guard.[2]
Fitzsimons, Bernard, ed. Mousetrap, in Encyclo-
Its development was begun in 1941 as a replacement
pedia of Twentieth Century Weapons and Warfare,
for Hedgehog, a British-made projector, which was the
Volume 18, pp. 19467. London: Phoebus Pub-
rst ahead-throwing ASW weapon. These, however,
lishing, 1978.
were spigot-launched, placing considerable strain on the
launching vessels deck, whereas Mousetrap was rocket-
propelled. As a result, Mousetraps four or eight rails for
7.2-inch (183 mm) rockets saved weight and were easier 212.3 External links
to install.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMUS_
The rockets weighed 65 pounds (29 kg) each, with a 33- ASW.htm
pound (15 kg) Torpex warhead and contact pistol, exactly
like Hedgehog. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/
WAMRussian_ASW.htm
By the end of the war, over 100 Mousetrap Mark 22s
were mounted in U.S. Navy ships, including three each http://www.microworks.net/pacific/armament/
on 12 destroyers,[1] and submarine chasers (usually two mk20&22_mousetrap.htm
sets of rails).[3]
629
Chapter 213
RUM-139 VL-ASROC
The RUM-139 VL-ASROC is an anti-submarine missile

in the ASROC family, currently built by the Lockheed
Martin company for the U.S. Navy.
Design and development of the missile began in 1983
when the Goodyear Aerospace company was contracted
by the U.S. Navy to develop a ship-launched anti-
submarine missile compatible with the new Mark 41
Vertical Launching System. The development of the
VLS ASROC underwent many delays, and it was not de-
ployed on any ships until 1993. During this development,
Goodyear Aerospace was bought by the Loral aerospace
company in 1986, and this defense division was in turn
purchased by Lockheed Martin Aerospace in 1995.
The rst VLS ASROC missile was an RUR-5 ASROC
with an upgraded solid-fuel booster section and a dig-
ital guidance system. It carries a lightweight Mark 46
homing torpedo that is dropped from the rocket at a pre-
calculated point on its trajectory, and then parachuted
into the sea. Beginning in 1996, the missile was replaced
by the newer RUM-139A and subsequently the RUM-
139B. The torpedo has remained the Mark 46, though at
one time an improved torpedo called the Mark 50 was
proposed and then cancelled. Since October 2004 the
RUM-139C is now in production with the Mark 54 tor-
pedo.[2]
The vertical-launched missile rst became operational in
1993, with more than 450 having been produced by 2007.
It is 4.5 meters (15 ft) in length, with a ring range of
about 11.8 nm or 22 kilometers (24,000 yd).[1]
213.1 References
[1] Thomas, Vincent C. The Almanac of Seapower 1987
Navy League of the United States (1987) ISBN 0-
9610724-8-2 pp.190-191
630
Chapter 214
RUR-5 ASROC
ASROC redirects to this page. For the vertical-

launch variant, see RUM-139 VL-ASROC.
ASROC launch from USS Joseph Strauss, in 1978.
1990s, and eventually installed on over 200 USN surface

ships, specically cruisers, destroyers, and frigates. The
The destroyer USS Agerholm res an ASROC with a nuclear ASROC has been deployed on scores of warships of many
depth bomb in the "Swordsh" test in 1962 other navies, including Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan,
the Republic of China, Greece, Pakistan and others.[3]
214.1 History
ASROC started development as the Rocket Assisted Tor-
pedo (RAT) program by the Naval Ordnance Test Station
at China Lake in the early 1950s to develop a surface war-
ship ASW weapon counter to the new post-World War
II submarines which ran quieter, at much higher speed
and could attack from much longer range with high speed
homing torpedoes. In addition, the goal was to take ad-
vantage of modern sonars with a much larger detection
range. An extended range torpedo delivered by parachute
ASROC 'Matchbox' reload doors are visible in this photograph from the air would allow warships the stand-o capabil-
of the Japanese Asagiri-class destroyer. Asagiri, formerly DD ity to attack hostile submarines with very little advance
151, renumbered TV 3516 after reclassication as a training ves- notice to the hostile submarine. The RAT program came
sel, seen here on 28 July 2008 departing from Portsmouth Naval in three phases:[4] RAT-A, RAT-B and RAT-C. RAT-
Base, UK. A (and its follow-on, RAT-B) were eorts to develop a
compact and economical stand-o ASW for smaller war-
The RUR-5 ASROC (for Anti-Submarine ROCket) ships, but were found to be either unreliable or had too
is an all-weather, all sea-conditions anti-submarine mis- short a range. RAT-C was a program to develop a stand-
sile system. Developed by the United States Navy in o ASW weapon that used a nuclear depth charge. This
the 1950s, it was deployed in the 1960s, updated in the would require a range of at least 8,000 yards to escape
631
632 CHAPTER 214. RUR-5 ASROC
potential damage from the underwater blast. Unlike the reload system. These had one standard Mark 112 octu-
original RAT program rockets, the RAT-C was consid- ple ASROC launcher, located immediately above a reload
erably larger to accomplish the extended range needed system holding an additional 16 assembled rounds (two
and was to be tted to larger warships. With the fail- complete reloads of eight missiles apiece). Thus, each
ure of both the RAT-A and RAT-B programs, RAT-C Spruance-class destroyer originally carried a maximum
was redesigned from a stand-o nuclear ASW weapon to total of 24 ASROC.[8]
one that could use not only a nuclear depth charge but Most other US Navy and allied navy destroyers, destroyer
also a homing ASW torpedo. To obtain the accuracy escorts, frigates, and several dierent classes of cruis-
needed, the RAT-C rocket launcher had to be redesigned
ers only carried the one ASROC 'matchbox' MK 112
with larger side ns. This program nally combined reli- launcher with eight ASROC missiles (although later in
ability and accuracy, along with the necessary stand-o
service, some of those missiles could be replaced by the
range. However, before RAT-C reached initial opera- Harpoon anti-ship missile). The matchbox Mk 112
tional status in 1960 aboard the large US Navy destroyer-
launchers were capable of carrying a mixture of the two
leader USS Norfolk, its name was changed to the present types. Reloads were carried in many classes, either on
ASROC.[5][6] rst level of the superstructure immediately abaft the
launcher, or in a separate deckhouse just forward or abaft
the Mk 112.
214.2 Description The MK 16 Launching Group also had congurations that
supported RGM-84 Harpoon (onboard Knox-class De-
After a surface ship, patrol plane or anti-submarine he- stroyer Escorts (Frigates)) or a variation of the Tartar mis-
licopter detects an enemy submarine by using sonar or sile in limited distribution.
other sensors, it could relay the subs position to an Ships with the Mk 26 GMLS, and late marks of the
ASROC-equipped ship for attack. The attacking ship Mk 10 GMLS aboard the Belknap-class cruisers, could
would then re an ASROC missile carrying an acoustic accommodate ASROC in these power-loaded launchers
homing torpedo[7] or a Nuclear Depth Bomb (NDB) onto (the Mk 13 GMLS was not able to re the weapon, as the
an unguided ballistic trajectory toward the target. At a launcher rail was too short).
pre-determined point on the missiles trajectory, the pay-
load separates from the missile and deploys a parachute Most Spruance-class destroyers were later modied to in-
to permit splashdown and water entry at a low speed and clude the Mk 41 VLS, these launchers are capable of car-
with minimum detectable noise. The water entry acti- rying a mixture of the RUM-139 VL-ASROC, the Tom-
vates the torpedo, which is guided by its own sonar sys- ahawk TLAM, and other missiles. All of the Spruance
tem, and homes in on the target using either active sonar destroyers carried two separate quad Harpoon launchers.
or passive sonar. Other US ships with the Mk 41 can also accommodate
VL-ASROC.
In cases where the ASROC missile carried an NDB, the
unguided bomb would sink quickly to a predetermined
depth where it would detonate. The nuclear-armed AS-
ROC was never used beyond one or two tests in 1961-62. 214.4 Operators
Eventually the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty banning
underwater nuclear tests went into eect. The nuclear Brazilian Navy
weapon was never used in combat. An ASROC missile
could hypothetically carry a 10 kiloton W44 nuclear war-
head, although the W44-armed nuclear weapons were re- Royal Canadian Navy
tired by 1989, and all types of nuclear depth bombs were - only on Restigouche-class destroyers (after
removed from deployment.[3] IRE/DELEX modication.)
The rst ASROC system using the MK-112 Matchbox
German Navy
launcher, was developed in the 1950s and installed in the - only on Ltjens-class destroyers
1960s. This system was phased out in the 1990s and re-
placed with the RUM-139 Vertical Launch ASROC, or Hellenic Navy
VLA.[3]
Marina Militare
- only on Italian cruiser Vittorio Veneto using a Mk
214.3 Specic installations 10 GMLS launcher (depot for 40 missiles, between
RIM-2 Terrier / RIM-67A SM-1ER and ASROC)
The 31 U.S. Navy Spruance-class destroyers were all
built with the Mark 16 Mod 7 ASROC Launching Group Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force
and MK 4 ASROC Weapons Handling System (AWHS)
Mexican Navy [6] Norman Friedman U.S. Destroyers Naval Institute Press
(April 1982), ISBN 08702-1733X, p. 280
Republic of Korea Navy [7] Asroc in The New Encyclopdia Britannica. Chicago:
Encyclopdia Britannica Inc., 15th edn., 1992, Vol. 1, p.
639.
Pakistan Navy
[8] US Destroyers - Norman Friedman
Spanish Navy
Republic of China Navy
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/vla.htm
http://www.gyrodynehelicopters.com/asroc.htm
Royal Thai Navy
http://designation-systems.net/dusrm/r-5.html
Turkish Navy DiGiulian, Tony Navweaps.com ASROC page
United States Navy
214.5 See also

Ikara
Hong Sang Eo (Red Shark) rocket-based torpedo
(K-ASROC)
Malafon
MILAS
RUM-139 VL-ASROC
Sea Lance
SUBROC
Terasca
214.6 References
[1] Jolie, E.W. (15 September 1978). A Brief History of
US Navy Torpedo Development: ASROC Missile. Re-
trieved 21 June 2013.
[2] Thomas, Vincent C. The Almanac of Seapower 1987

Navy League of the United States (1987) ISBN 0-
9610724-8-2 pp.190-191
[3] Friedman, Norman (May 1997). The Naval Institute

Guide to World Naval Weapons Systems, 1997-1998.
Annapolis, Maryland USA: United States Naval Institute
Press. p. 668. ISBN 1-55750-268-4.
[4] Navy Homing Torpedoes Fights Subs. Popular Mechan-

ics, April 1958, p. 108.
[5] Bill Gunston Rocket & Missiles, Salamander Books Ltd

1979, ISSB 0-517-26870-1
Chapter 215
RUR-4 Weapon Alpha
Weapon Alpha redirects here. For the Marvel Comics 215.1 References
superhero of the same name, see Guardian (Marvel
Comics). [1] Fitzsimons, Bernard, ed. Depth Charge, in Encyclope-
dia of Twentieth Century Weapons and Warfare (London:
Phoebus Publishing Co, 1978), Volume 7, p.730.
The RUR-4 Weapon Alpha (originally Weapon Able)
was an American naval ahead-throwing ASW rocket
launcher. It was designed between 1946 to 1950 and was
installed on warships from 1951 to 1969. It was designed 215.2 Sources
to attack enemy submarines without requiring the attack-
ing ship to be located directly above the submarine being Fitzsimons, Bernard, ed. Encyclopedia of Twenti-
attacked. eth Century Weapons and Warfare (London: Phoe-
bus Publishing Co, 1978), Weapon Alpha, Vol-
Similar to the earlier American Mousetrap, 375mm
ume 24, p. 2589.
(14.8) Swedish Bofors, and 250mm (9.8) and 300mm
(11.8) Soviet systems, all of which use multiple rockets, Fitzsimons, Bernard, ed. Encyclopedia of Twentieth
Weapon Alpha was developed toward the end of World Century Weapons and Warfare (London: Phoebus
War II, in response to the German Type XXI U-boat. Publishing Co, 1978), Mousetrap, Volume 19, pp.
Begun in a crash program in 19445 and put in service 1946-7.
before undergoing operational evaluation, it emerged in
1950 as a 227-kg (500 lb) 127mm (5) rocket with a 113- Fitzsimons, Bernard, ed. Encyclopedia of Twentieth
kg (250 lb) warhead that sank at 12 m/s (40 ft/s) (com- Century Weapons and Warfare (London: Phoebus
pared to a depth charge, which sank at between 2.75 Publishing Co, 1978), Depth Charge, Volume 7,
m/s {8.916.5 ft/s}[1] ), an inuence or time pistol, and p. 730.
a range of 360730 m (400800 yd). Coupled to the
Parsch, Andreas (2002). NOTS RUR-4 Weapon
new SQG-1 depth-nding sonar (for setting the time fuse,
Alpha. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Mis-
rather than the hydrostatic pistol of a depth charge), it
was to be red from a revolving Mark 108 launcher (with
28.
22 rounds of ready ammunition) at up to twelve rounds
per minute. The ready-service magazine could not be DiGiulian, Tony Navweaps.com US ASW weapons
reloaded while Weapon Alpha was in use. page
Large, complex, expensive, and unreliable, Weapon Al-
pha was made obsolete by Soviet Navy submarines (such
as the Whiskey-class) that incorporated design features of 215.3 See also
the advanced Type XXIs, and it was replaced by ASROC.
Nonetheless, Weapon Alpha remained in service through
the 1960s until supplanted by ASROC (RUR-5).
A dismounted Mk 108 launcher at the Intrepid Sea-

Air-Space Museum.
The RUR-4s rocket round.
RUR-4 launch from USS Wilkinson (DL-5), 1956.
634
Chapter 216
UUM-44 SUBROC
SUBROC redirects here. For the hip-hop artist, see charge of weapons procurement stated that SUBROC was
DJ Subroc. For the video game, see SubRoc-3D. " .. a more dicult technical problem than Polaris. [3]
SUBROC was never used in combat, and all were decom-
missioned following the end of the Cold War in 1989.
The UUM-44 SUBROC (SUBmarine ROCket) was
a type of submarine-launched rocket deployed by the Because the nuclear warhead was an integral part of the
weapon, SUBROC could not be exported to other navies,
United States Navy as an anti-submarine weapon. It car-
ried a 5 kiloton nuclear warhead.[1] and there is no evidence that any were supplied to other
NATO allies under the well-established arrangements for
supplying other dual-key nuclear weapons. Towards the
end of the 1970s, a planned successor, the UUM-125 Sea
216.1 Development Lance, was frequently delayed due to funding problems
and eventually canceled.
216.2 Operation
SUBROC could be launched from a 21 inch submarine

torpedo tube. After launch, the solid fuel rocket motor
res and SUBROC rises to the surface. The launch angle
then changes and SUBROC ies to its destination follow-
Subroc launch sequence, 1964. ing a predetermined ballistic trajectory. At a predeter-
mined time in the trajectory, the reentry vehicle (con-
taining the warhead) separates from the solid fuel motor.
The warhead, a W55 1 to 5 kiloton[1] nuclear depth bomb,
drops into the water, sinking rapidly before exploding in
proximity to its target. A direct hit was not necessary.
Technically, its tactical use was as an urgent-attack long-
range weapon that could attack time-urgent submarine
targets that could not be attacked with any other weapon
without betraying the position of the launching subma-
rine by calling for an air-strike, or where the target was
too distant to be attacked quickly with a torpedo launched
from the submarine. The tactical rationale for SUBROC
was similar to that for ASROC or Ikara. An added ad-
vantage was that SUBROCs approach to the target was
Subroc in Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center not detectable by the target in time to take evasive action,
although the warhead yield would appear to make eva-
Development began in 1958, with the technical evalua- sive maneuvers unrealistic. However, SUBROC was less
tion being completed in 1963. That year, the US Navy re- exible in its use than Ikara or ASROC: since its only
ceived the rst rounds and soon reached Initial Operation payload was a nuclear warhead, it could not be used to
Capability (IOC) aboard the attack submarine Permit.[2] provide stand-o re in a conventional (i.e., non-nuclear)
When SUBROC reached IOC The US Navys admiral in engagement.
635
636 CHAPTER 216. UUM-44 SUBROC
216.3 See also

RUR-5 ASROC
RUM-139 VL-ASROC
Ikara (missile)
RPK-2 Viyuga

Sea Lance
216.4 References
[1] Nuclear Notebook, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, June
1988
[2] note: ASROC was originally supposed to reach IOC with

the attack submarine USS Thresher but sank before any
missiles were loaded and tested on it.
[3] Bill Gunston Rocket & Missiles, Salamander Books Ltd

1979, ISSB 0-517-26870-1
Jackson, Robert. Submarines of the World, Pg. 312

Astronautix article on the UUM-44A
Chapter 217
4.5-Inch Beach Barrage Rocket
The 4.5-Inch Beach Barrage Rocket, also known as The 4.5-Inch BBR also saw use as an improvised ship-
"Old Faithful",[1] was a 4.5-inch (110 mm) rocket devel- to-ship weapon, as well as being launched from ground-
oped and used by the United States Navy during World based launchers; it is credited with the rst ship to be sunk
War II. Originally developed from the "Mousetrap" anti- by another purely by rocket attack, occurring near Ormoc
submarine rocket, it saw widespread use during the war, in December 1944.[10] Toward the end of the war, the
being replaced by more powerful rockets toward the end Beach Barrage Rocket was replaced in service by the 5 in
of the conict. (130 mm) High Velocity Spinner Rocket.[3]
217.1 Development 217.3 References
Developed during 1942 by the California Institute of 217.3.1 Citations

Technology (Caltech), under the direction of Charles
Christian Lauritsen,[2] in response to a requirement by
the United States Navy for a rocket capable of being [2] Fowler 1975, p.229.
launched from landing craft to provide re support dur-
ing amphibious landings, the 4.5-Inch BBR was an im- [3] Rottman 2009, p.19.
proved version of the Mousetrap anti-submarine rocket
system, using the Mousetraps Mk 3 rocket motor mated [4] Parsch 2006
to a 20-pound (9.1 kg) general purpose aerial bomb.[3] An [5] Friedman 1983, p.232.
impact fuse was mounted in the nose of the rocket, with
an annular n assembly providing stability.[4] A modied, [6] Rottman 2009, p.20.
larger version of the Beach Barrage Rocket, using the Mk
9 rocket motor, was also produced, being introduced into [7] Gruntman 2004, p.181.
service in late 1944.[3][4] [8] Burchard 1948, p.129.
[9] Zoom Boats Sock Like Battleships. Popular Science

(New York: Popular Science Publishing Co.) 146 (3):
217.2 Operational history 8284, 232. March 1945.

First test red on June 24, 1942, further tests in Au-
gust proved suciently successful for the Navy Bureau of
Ordnance to place an initial order for 3,000 Beach Bar- 217.3.2 Bibliography
rage Rockets;[5] the weapon was introduced into combat
service that November, during the invasion of northern Burchard, John Ely (1948). Rockets, Guns and Tar-
Africa.[3] Fired from 12-round launchers[6] and capable gets: Rockets, Target Information, Erosion Infor-
of being tted with either the standard high explosive or mation, and Hypervelocity Guns Developed during
a white phosphorus warhead,[3] approximately 1,600,000 World War II by the Oce of Scientic Research
examples of the BBR were built;[7] although the rocket and Development. Boston: Atlantic Monthly Press.
proved inaccurate in service, it was widely used, and was ASIN B007Q9FZ2G.
highly regarded by members of the amphibious forces.[8]
The eect on the target of the Beach Barrage Rocket was Fowler, William A. (1975). Charles Christian
described as being equivalent to that of a barrage from Lauritsen, in Biographical Memoirs. National
heavy mortars.[9] Academy of Sciences. ISBN 0-309-02240-1.
637
638 CHAPTER 217. 4.5-INCH BEACH BARRAGE ROCKET

Every gun, missile, mine, and torpedo used by the
lis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-0-
87021-735-7.
Gruntman, Mike (2004). Blazing The Trail: The

Early History Of Spacecraft And Rocketry. Reston,
Virginia: American Institute of Aeronautics and As-
tronautics. ISBN 978-1-56347-705-8.

Parsch, Andreas (2006). 4.5-Inch BBR. Direc-
tory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles Appendix
4: Undesignated Vehicles. Designation-Systems.net.
Rottman, Gordon L. (2009). Landing Craft, In-

fantry and Fire Support. New Vanguard 157. Ox-
ford, England: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-
84603-435-0.
Chapter 218
7.2-Inch Demolition Rocket
The 7.2-Inch Demolition Rocket, also known as the 218.3 References

T37, was a 7.2-inch (180 mm) rocket developed and used
by the United States military during World War II. De- Citations
rived from the "Mousetrap" anti-submarine rocket, it was
intended for use in demolishing concrete bunkers and for-
[1] U.S. ROCKET, 7.2-IN, DEMOLITION, T37. OR-
tications, and saw use from August 1944.
DATA Online. Mine Action Information Center. Re-
218.1 Development [2] von Braun, Ordway III and Dooling 1985, p.97.
[3] Hearings of the Committee on Expenditures in the Exe-

The 7.2-Inch Demolition Rocket was developed by Sec- cuitive Departments. United States House of Represen-
tion L of the National Defense Research Committee, lo- tatives. 1947. p. 117.
cated at Caltech,[2] in late 1943 as a modication of the
existing mousetrap (7.2-Inch ASW Rocket) rocket for [4] 7.2-Inch Multiple Rocket Launcher M17. Technical Man-
use against heavily fortied ground targets. Assigned to ual. TM9-296. Washington, D.C.: War Department. 9
the United States Navy for development and production January 1945. pp. 2627.
in July 1944,[3] two versions of the rocket were produced;
[5] Ordnance School Text: Rockets and Launchers, All Types.
the T37 HE Demolition Rocket and the T21 Chemical Aberdeen, Maryland: Ordnance School, Aberdeen Prov-
Warfare Rocket.[4] An additional high-explosive rocket, ing Grounds. February 1944. p. 93.
the T24, was planned, but was dropped in favor of the
T37.[5] The rockets utilized a standard 2.25-inch (57 mm) [6] Rocket, Solid Fuel, H.E. (High Explosive), 7.2in.. Na-
rocket motor, tted with a larger-diameter warhead; a tional Air and Space Museum. Smithsonian Institution.
longer-ranged version utilizing a 3.5-inch (89 mm) motor Retrieved 2012-02-29.
was also produced.[6]
[7] Parsch 2006
[8] Baxter 1968, p.114.

[9] Zaloga 2011, pp.35-36
The T37 saw its rst operational use during Operation [10] Zaloga 2012, p.16.
Dragoon, the invasion of southern France, in Au-
gust 1944,[7] red from 120-round Woofus launch- [11] TM 5220: Passage Of Obstacles Other Than Mine Fields.
ers mounted aboard Landing Craft Rocket vessels War Department Technical Manual. United States War
oshore.[8] Department. July 1945. p. 50.
The rocket was also intended to be red from tanks for

the clearing of bunkers and anti-tank obstacles. The Bibliography
initial launcher, dubbed Cowcatcher, was mounted
on the front of M4 Sherman tanks;[9] it was quickly Baxter, James Phinney (1968). Scientists Against
found unsatisfactory, and was replaced by 20-round (T40 Time. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Whiz Bang)[10] and 24-round (Grand Slam) launch- p. 114. ISBN 978-0-262-52012-6.
ers mounted atop the tanks turret.[7][9] The 20-round
launcher could re its entire loadout of rockets in ap- Parsch, Andreas (2006). Surface-Launched 7.2-
proximately 10 seconds;[11] however the tank installation Inch Rockets. Directory of U.S. Military Rock-
was unpopular with crews, as the launcher prevented the ets and Missiles Appendix 4: Undesignated Vehicles.
tanks turret hatches from being opened.[9] Designation-Systems.net. Retrieved 2012-02-29.
639
640 CHAPTER 218. 7.2-INCH DEMOLITION ROCKET
von Braun, Wernher; Frederick I. Ordway III; Dave

Dooling (1985). Space Travel: A History : An Up-
date of History of Rocketry & Space Travel. New
York: Harper & Row. ISBN 978-0-06-181898-1.
Zaloga, Stephen (2011). Armored Attack 1944: U.S.
Army Tank Combat in the European Theater from
D-Day to the Battle of the Bulge. Mechanicsburg,
Pennsylvania: Stackpole Books. pp. 3536. ISBN
978-0-8117-0769-5.
Zaloga, Stephen (2012). US Marine Corps Tanks of

World War II. New Vanguard 186. New York: Os-
prey Publishing. p. 16. ISBN 978-1-84908-560-1.
Chapter 219
Lobber
The Lobber was a surface-to-surface cargo missile de- [3] Walker and Powell 2005, p.286.
veloped during the mid 1950s by Convair for use by
the United States Army. Intended to deliver supplies to [4] Rottman 2013, p.117.
troops in combat, it was successfully tested, but failed to
go into production. [5] Parsch 2003
[6] Cromley, Ray (December 31, 1958). Cargo Missiles to

Supply Mobile Army. The Owosso Argus-Press (Owosso,
219.1 History MI). p. 21. Retrieved 2014-05-17.
Inspired by the use of artillery shells to resupply sur- [7] Griswold 1959, p.117.
rounded troops during the Battle of the Bulge,[1] a con-
[8] In Brief. Flight and Aircraft Engineer (London: Ilie
tract for the development of a cargo missile was awarded
and Sons) 74 (2604): 933. 19 December 1958. Retrieved
to Convair in 1958 by the U.S. Army.[2] Developed by 2014-05-17.
a team led by Bill Chana,[3] the missile was capable of
delivering 50 pounds (23 kg) of cargo over a distance [9] Yenne 2006, p.48.
of approximately 8 miles (13 km); once the rocket mo-
tor burned out, a parachute was deployed to deliver the [10] ASW Problems Attacked. Naval Aviation News (Wash-
cargo.[2] A portable, mortar-like launcher was used;[4] it ington, D.C.: Navy Department, Bureau of Aeronautics)
allowed for a three-man team to transport and re the 40 (5): 10. May 1959.
[5]
missile; Lobber was described as being able to reliably
hit a target within the length of a football eld and was [11] Griswold 1959, p.236.
expected to cost less than $1,000 USD per round.[6] It was
proposed that modular cargo sections be pre-packaged Bibliography
with supplies, with nose and tail sections attached to the
needed section just before launch.[7]
Griswold, Wesley S. (April 1959). Americas Su-
The rst test launch took place in December 1958 at personic Cargo Rocket. Popular Science (New
Camp Irwin in California.[8] Flight testing proved highly York: Popular Science Publishing Co.) 174 (4).
successful, and Convair proposed variants with explosive,
chemical, and nuclear warheads;[2] the United States Ma- Rottman, Gordon L. (2013). The Big Book of Gun
rine Corps also considered adopting the missile,[9] and it Trivia. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-
was also proposed to develop a variant for anti-submarine 1782009504. Retrieved 2014-05-17.
warfare usage by the United States Navy.[10] Larger vari-
ants were also proposed, as well as civilian usage for Parsch, Andreas (2003). Convair Lobber. Direc-
reghting.[11] However the inherent inaccuracy of the tory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles, Appendix
unguided, solid-fueled rocket,[2] combined with logistical 4: Undesignated Vehicles. designation-systems.net.
issues, meant that Lobber was not adopted for service.[5] Retrieved 2014-05-17.
Walker, Chuck; Joel Powell (2005). Atlas: The Ulti-

219.2 References mate Weapon. Burlington, Ontario: Apogee Books.
ISBN 978-1894959186.
Citations
Yenne, Bill (2006). Secret Gadgets and Strange
Gizmos: High-Tech (and Low-Tech) Innovations of
[1] Griswold 1959, p.116.
the U.S. Military. Minneapolis, MN: Zenith Press.
[2] Yenne 2006, p.47. ISBN 978-0760321157.
641
642 CHAPTER 219. LOBBER

Media related to Lobber (missile) at Wikimedia
Commons
Chapter 220
M16 (rocket)
The M16 was a 4.5-inch (110 mm) spin-stabilized

unguided rocket developed by the United States Army
during the Second World War. Entering service in April
1945 to replace the earlier n-stabilised M8 rocket, it was
used late in the war and also during the Korean War be-
fore being removed from service.
220.1 Development
Developed during the latter stages of the Second World

War, the M16 was the rst 4.5-inch (110 mm) unguided,
spin-stabilized rocket to be standardized for production
by the United States Army.[1] 31 inches (790 mm) in 4.5 inch rockets red in Korea
length, it could hit targets as far as 5,200 yd (4,800
m) from its launcher.[2] The M16 was launched from
T66 Honeycomb 24-tube launchers,[3] and could also 220.3 See also
be red from 60-tube Hornets Nest launchers.[1] The
United States Marine Corps developed launching systems Multiple rocket launcher
for the M16 rocket as well, capable of being tted to
Katyusha rocket launcher
standard 3/4 and 2.5-ton trucks.[3] A version of the M16
rocket for single launchers, the M20, was developed as
a derivative; practice rounds designated M17 and M21
were also manufactured.[4] 220.4 References
Citations
220.2 Operational history [1] Parsch 2006
[2] Comparato 1965, p. 295

A unit of Honeycombs was deployed to the European
Theater of Operations in May 1945, and saw limited ac- [3] Zaloga 2007, p.19
tion in Czechoslovakia before the end of the war; only [4] Ordnance Committee Minutes 27687, Research and De-
being used in a single engagement.[5] Two of ve battal- velopment Service, Oce of the Chief of Ordnance. 17
ions equipped with the M16 were deployed to the Pacic May 1945.
Theater of Operations, being stationed on Okinawa and
in The Philippines, however the war ended before these [5] Bishop 1998, p. 175
units could see combat.[3] The M16 remained in service [6] Turner 1990, p.20
with the U.S. Marine Corps following the war, with a sin-
gle 18-launcher battery equipping each Marine Division; [7] The Modern Era: 1950-2000. Huachuca Illustrated
these saw combat service during the Korean War,[6] as (Fort Huachuca, Arizona: Fort Huachuca Museum) 10:
[1]
did U.S. Army launchers, the M16 red from the T66 36. 1999.
launcher being considered one of the principal artillery
weapons in the Korean War inventory.[7] Bibliography
643
Bishop, Chris, ed. (1998). The Encyclopedia of

Weapons of World War II. New York: Orbis. ISBN
1-58663-762-2.
Comparato, Frank (1965). Age of Great Guns: Can-

non Kings and Cannoneers Who Forged the Fire-
power of Artillery. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole
Books. ASIN B001KJR32I.
Parsch, Andreas (2006). 4.5-Inch Barrage Rock-

ets. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles
Appendix 4: Undesignated Vehicles. Designation-
Systems.net. Retrieved 2012-05-30.
Turner, David J. (1990-03-29). MLRS": A Rocket

System for the Marine Corps. Carlisle Barracks, PA:
U.S. Army War College. AD-A223 182.
Zaloga, Stephen (2007). US Field Artillery of World

War II. New Vanguard 131. New York: Osprey
Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84603-061-1.
Chapter 221
M8 (rocket)
The M8 was a 4.5-inch (110 mm) rocket developed and bat, while the xylophone, ocially the T27, was carried
used by the United States military during World War on a 2-ton trucks cargo bed.[1] A 120-round launcher,
II. Produced in the millions, it was red from both air- designated T44, and a 144-round T45 launcher were also
and ground-based launchers; it was replaced by the M16 developed; these were intended for use by the United
rocket in 1945. States Navy, being mounted on DUKW amphibious ve-
hicles and LST amphibious warfare vessels. Single- and
twin-14-round launchers were also developed.[1]
221.1 Development The M8 showed poor eectiveness against hardened
targets;[2] this resulted in the development of the Super
The M8 rocket was developed by the National De- M8, which had larger ns, a more powerful rocket and a
fense Research Committee and the Army Ordnance De- more powerful warhead. The Super M8 underwent [2]
test-
[2] [3] ing in late 1944, but failed to see combat. The M8 was
partment in the early 1940s; at Picatinny Arsenal.
Ground tests began in 1941, while the rst air launch of replaced by the improved spin-stabilized M16 rocket dur-
[1][4]
the system was conducted in 1942, from a Curtiss P-40 ing 1945.
pursuit aircraft.[2] It was n stabilized, and had a diameter
of 4.5 in (110 mm).[4]
The initial production model was given the Army desig-
221.3 See also
nation of M8; improvements resulted in the M8A3, with a
Rocket artillery
more powerful rocket engine and enlarged ns,[1] and the
T22, which had improved reliability and modications to RP-3 - British air-launched rocket
make the rocket safer.[2]
Land Mattress, British ground-launched rocket bat-
tery based on RP-3

221.4 References
Entering service in 1943, the M8 family of rockets saw
service with the United States Army, which classied [1] Chris Bishop, ed. (1998). The Encyclopedia of Weapons
the M8 as a barrage rocket.[2] The rocket was also of World War II. New York: Orbis. p. 175. ISBN 1-
widely used by the United States Army Air Forces.[2] 58663-762-2.
Over 2,500,000 of the M8 type rocket had been produced [2] Parsch, Andreas (2006). Air-Launched 4.5-Inch Rock-
by the end of the war.[1] ets. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles, Ap-
Operational service showed some drawbacks in the M8s pendix 4: Undesignated Vehicles. Designation-Systems.
performance; ground launch resulted in the rockets n Retrieved 2012-01-19.
stabilizers proving ineective,[4] reducing the accuracy [3] Lassman, Thomas C. (2008). Sources of Weapon Sys-
of the rocket; despite this, it was considered an eec- tems Innovation in the Department of Defense: The Role of
tive barrage weapon.[5] Due to the lack of accuracy, In-House Research and Development, 1945-2000. United
when ground-launched, it was being launched from large States Army Center of Military History. p. 22. ISBN
multiple launchers; the most commonly used being eight- 978-1-4609-5845-2. Center of Military History Publica-
and 60-tube launchers, called xylophones and cal- tion 51-2-1.
liopes respectively.[1][2] The calliope, given the ocial [4] Parsch, Andreas (2006). U.S. Army 4.5-Inch Barrage
designation T34, was mounted on top of a M4 Sherman & Bombardment Rockets. Directory of U.S. Military
tank; once red, the launcher could be detached and dis- Rockets and Missiles, Appendix 4: Undesignated Vehicles.
carded, allowing the tank to be used in conventional com- Designation-Systems. Retrieved 2012-01-19.
645
[5] van Riper, A. Boudoin (2004). Rockets and Missiles: The

Life Story of a Technology. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns
Hopkins University Press. p. 44. ISBN 978-0-8018-
8792-5.

4.5 inch rocket in Smithsonian collection
War Department Technical Manual 9-395 4.5 Air-
craft Rocket Matriel
War Department Technical Manual 9-394 4.5
Ground Rocket Matriel
Chapter 222
RTV-A-3 NATIV
The RTV-A-3 NATIV was an experimental missile pro-

gram, developed by North American Aviation for the
United States Air Force in the late 1940s to test and eval-
uate guided missile technologies.
Originally given the project number MX-770,[1] NATIV
- the North American Test Instrument Vehicle - was inu-
enced by the design of the Wasserfall surface-to-air mis-
sile developed in Germany during World War II.[2] Used
as a test vehicle for missile technology on behalf of the
SM-64 Navaho project,[1] information on the results of
the NATIV project are inconsistent. with some sources
claiming six successes of 20 launch attempts,[2] while oth-
ers suggest only one of six launch attempts was a partial
success.[3]
222.1 References
Notes
[1] Jacobs and Whitney 1962, p.118.
[2] Parsch 2003
[3] Wade, Mark (ed.) "Nativ". Encyclopedia Astronautica.

Accessed 2014-05-08.
Bibliography
Jacobs, Hoarce; Eunice Whitney (1962). Missile

and Space Projects Guide: 1962. New York: Plenum
Press. ISBN 978-1489969675.
Parsch, Andreas (2003). RTV-A-3. Directory
647
Chapter 223
Urban Assault Weapon
The Urban Assault Weapon is a U.S. Army program

to develop a next-generation shoulder-launched infantry
weapon to replace the current M72 LAW, M136 AT-4,
and M141 Bunker Defeat Munition.[1]
223.1 See also

FGM-172 SRAW
223.2 References
[1] Urban Assault Weapon (UAW) - PM CCS.

Urban Assault Weapon (UAW) - Global Security
648
Chapter 224
Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault

Weapon
The Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault To SMAW.[3] The contract was awarded to Lockheed
Weapon (SMAW) is a shoulder-launched rocket Martin and IMI[4] and thus resulted in the enhanced
weapon, based on the Israeli B-300, with the primary FGM-172 SRAW. In combat operations it was ultimately
function of being a portable assault weapon (e.g. bunker used to augment rather than to replace existing SMAW
buster) and a secondary anti-armor rocket launcher. It inventories.
was introduced to the United States armed forces in
1984.[1] It has a maximum range of 500 metres (550 yd)
against a tank-sized target.
It can be used to destroy bunkers and other fortications 224.1.2 SMAW II program
during assault operations as well as other designated tar-
gets with the dual mode rocket and to destroy main
In 2008 a replacement program was again initiated and ti-
battle tanks with the HEAA rocket. Operations in
tled the SMAW II.[5] Developed in tandem with a round
Afghanistan and Iraq saw a thermobaric rocket added
capable of being red from an enclosed area without
(described as NE"Novel Explosive), capable of col-
ill eects on environment and personnel. It weighs a
lapsing a building.[2]
combined 29.7 pounds (13.5 kg) (11.7 pounds for the
launcher, 18 pounds for the rocket) and the contract is
worth US$51.7 million providing the U.S. Marine Corps
224.1 Service history is satised with testing and follows through with plans to
buy 1,717 new launchers.
The SMAW system (launcher, ammunition and logistics
support) was elded in 1984 as a United States Marine
Corpsunique system. The Mod-0 demonstrated several
shortcomings, resulting in a series of modications in the
224.1.3 SMAW II Serpent
mid-2000s. These modications include a re-sleeving
process for bubbled launch tubes, rewriting/drafting op-
erator and technical manuals, and a kit to reduce envi- Raytheon under the direction of Nammo-Talley Defense
ronmental intrusion into the trigger mechanism. This Systems are working in coordination on the SMAW II
also includes an optical sight modication to allow the project to develop the newest launcher. Nammo-Talley
new HEAA rocket to be used eectively against mov- Defense Systems is developing the new rounds. The
ing armor targets. The U.S. military recently elded newSMAW II launcher is called Serpent by the develop-
ing companies, and is similar in many respects to the rst
boresight bracket kits which, when installed, correct the
SMAW launcher, except it replaces the standard SMAW
loss of accurate boresight issues between the launch tube
and spotting rie. During Operation Desert Storm 150 launchers spotting gun with a sophisticated re control
launchers and 5,000 rockets were deployed by the United electronics built by Raytheon. The sighting unit is en-
States Army. Since then the Army has shown increased closed on the launcher in a unique roll-cage to protect
interest in the system. it. From videos the roll-cage also serves as a carry han-
dle. Development teams claim that over-all weight is re-
duced by four and one half pounds from the older SMAW
224.1.1 Follow-On To SMAW launcher. The Serpent res the same rounds as the stan-
dard SMAW and supports new and improved/enhanced
In 2002, the Corps began a program to develop a succes- rounds. Raytheon at AUSA 2010 convention stated it
sor to the SMAW system, tentatively titled Follow-On would be ready for deployment by 2012.[6][7]
649
650 CHAPTER 224. SHOULDER-LAUNCHED MULTIPURPOSE ASSAULT WEAPON
90 metres (300 ft). The resultant shock wave can even

cause sympathetic detonation of unsecured ammunition.
Rounds are under development that would enable a user
to re the rocket from an enclosed building without risk
of injury.[9]
A newer MK153 Mod 2 variant is currently in devel-
opment. It features a modular ballistic sight (MBS) in
place of the 9 mm spotting system. The MBS has a laser
range nder and thermal weapon sight to provide a r-
ing solution using a displaced reticle, where crosshairs
are adjusted for distance and environmental factors. The
MBS is lighter, more reliable, and can be detached from
Infantrymen from the 15th MEU at Camp Rhino on 25 November the launcher. While the Mod 0 weighs 16.5 lb, the
2001. Mod 2 weighs 13 lb with the MBS attached, and 8.5 lb
with the MBS detached. Other improvements include in-
creased pad size on the forward grip and foldable backup
224.2 Design sights.[10] Mod 2 improvements are to be ready for eld-
ing by early 2017.[9]
The Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon
has an 83.5mm tube and res 83-millimetre (3.3 in) rock-
224.2.1 Rockets
ets. It is a man-portable weapon system consisting of the
MK153 launcher, the MK 3 encased HEDP rocket, the
The High Explosive, Dual Purpose (HEDP) rocket is ef-
MK 6 encased HEAA rocket, and the MK217 spotting ri-
fective against bunkers, masonry and concrete walls and
e cartridge. The launcher consists of a berglass launch
light armor. Initiated by a crush switch in its nose the
tube, a 9mm spotting rie, an electro-mechanical ring
HEDP rocket is able to distinguish between hard and soft
mechanism, open battle sights and a mount for the MK42
targets resulting in greater penetration into soft targets for
Day Sight and AN/PVS-17B night sights.
increased damage potential. The HEDP round is capable
The SMAW MK153 Mod 0 launcher, based on Israel of penetrating 20 centimetres (7.9 in) of concrete, 30 cen-
Military Industries' B-300 weapon, consists of the launch timetres (12 in) of brick or up to 210 centimetres (6.9 ft)
tube, the spotting rie, the ring mechanism and mount- of wood-reinforced sandbags.
ing brackets. The launch tube is made of berglass-epoxy
The High Explosive Anti-Armor (HEAA) rocket is ef-
composite material with a gelcoat on the bore. The spot-
fective against current tanks without additional armor and
ting rie, a British design (derived from the LAW 80),
utilizes a stando rod on the detonator, allowing the ex-
is mounted on the right side of the launch tube. The r-
plosive force to be focused on a small point and for maxi-
ing mechanism mechanically res the spotting rie and
mum damage against armored targets. The HEAA round
uses a magneto to re the rocket. The mounting brackets
is capable of penetrating up to the equivalent of 60 cen-
connect the components and provide the means for bore-
timetres (24 in) of rolled homogeneous steel.
sighting the weapon while the encased rockets are loaded
at the rear of the launcher. The spotting cartridges are The Novel Explosive (SMAW-NE) rocket is eective
stored in a magazine in the cap of the encased rocket. against caves and bunkers. The SMAW-NE uses a
thermobaric warhead which produces an overpressure
The 9 mm spotting round is ballistically matched to the
wave capable of collapsing a lightly constructed build-
rocket and serves to increase the gunners rst-round hit
ing. The Naval Surface Warfare Center teamed with the
probability. Each round consists of a special 9mm tracer
Marine Corps Systems Command, NSWC Indian Head
bullet, crimped into a 7.62x51mm NATO casing with a
and Talley Defense Systems responded to an urgent U.S.
.22 Hornet blank cartridge for propellant.[8] The system
Marine Corps need for a shoulder-launched enhanced-
can be used in conjunction with the AN/PEQ-4 aiming
blast warhead in 2003. It was used in combat during both
light in place of the spotting rie.
the First and Second oensives in Fallujah 2004.
Training is accomplished with the MK7 Mod 0 encased
common practice rocket and the MK213 Mod 0 noise
cartridge. At 152.3 decibels, the weapon is one of the 224.3 Users
loudest on the battleeld, second only to a mine-clearing
line charge.
Pakistan army
Like many other rocket weapons, backblast is a signicant
safety concern. The backblast extends in a 90-meter, 60 Lebanese Armed Forces
cone to the rear of the weapon. The backblast is lethal
out to 30 metres (98 ft), and still extremely dangerous to Republic of China Marine Corps
United States Marine Corps
224.4 See also

IMI Shipon
STRIM
Carl Gustav
Folgore
224.5 References
[1] Sta. United States Marine Corps Weapons & Equip-
ment Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon
(SMAW)". About.com. Retrieved 8 May 2014.
[2] GlobalSecurity.org
[3] Follow-On To SMAW (FOTS) Global Security.
[4] LOCKHEED MARTIN TO DEVELOP FOLLOW-ON

TO SHOULDER-LAUNCHED MULTI-PURPOSE AS-
SAULT WEAPON FOR U.S. MARINE CORPS.
[5] Lamothe, Dan (November 8, 2010). Redesigned SMAW

II set for review. Marine Corps Times. Retrieved 8
November 2010.
[6] DefenseNews video at Association of the US Army 2010

Convention
[7] Accurate and Safe Alternative Targeting Solution for Man

Portable Rocket Weapon (PDF le)
[8] 9 x 51mm SMAW International Ammunition Associa-

tion
[9] SMAW upgrade will put rounds on targets faster -

MarineCorpstimes.com, 3 November 2014
[10] New Modular Ballistic Sight Added to Marine SMAW.

Military.com. DVIDS. 7 August 2013. Retrieved 10 Au-
gust 2013.
This article incorporates public domain material

from websites or documents of the United States
Marine Corps.
SMAW Global Security

SMAW at FAS
SMAW early article

Chapter 225
RIM-7 Sea Sparrow
RIM-7 Sea Sparrow is a US ship-borne short-range anti- ance from the launching aircraft and terminal guidance
aircraft and anti-missile weapon system, primarily in- on the missile itself. These systems allowed the aircraft to
tended for defense against anti-ship missiles. The sys- launch their attacks from outside the range of shipboard
tem was developed in the early 1960s from the AIM- anti-aircraft weapons, in relative safety. Only the pres-
7 Sparrow air-to-air missile as a lightweight "point de- ence of defensive ghters operating at long ranges from
fense" weapon that could be retrotted to existing ships as the ships could provide cover against these attacks, by at-
quickly as possible, often in place of existing gun-based tacking the launch aircraft before they could close on the
anti-aircraft weapons. In this incarnation it was a very ships.
simple system, guided by a manually aimed radar illumi- US Navy doctrine stressed long-range air cover to counter
nator. Since its introduction, the Sea Sparrow has un- both high-speed aircraft and missiles, and development
dergone signicant development and now resembles the of newer short range defenses had been largely ignored.
AIM-7 only in general form; it is larger, faster and in- While developing expensive long-range ghters like the
cludes a new seeker and a launch system suitable for verti- Douglas F6D Missileer, most ships were left equipped
cal launch from modern warships. Fifty years after its de- with older weapons, typically Bofors 40 mm guns or
velopment, the Sea Sparrow remains an important part of Oerlikon 20 mm cannons. By the early 1960s their ca-
a layered air defense system, providing a short/medium- pability against modern aircraft and missiles was limited;
range component especially useful against sea-skimming a lack of fast-reacting mounts, gunsight radars of limited
missiles. accuracy, and long settling times for the re control sys-
tems all meant that the guns were unlikely to be able to
respond eectively against high-speed aircraft.
225.1 History The introduction of sea-skimming missiles dramatically
increased the threat against these ships. Unlike the earlier
225.1.1 Background generation of anti-ship missiles (ASMs), sea-skimmers
approached at low level, like an attack aircraft, hiding
High-speed jet aircraft ying at low altitudes presented themselves until the last moment. The missiles were
a serious threat to naval forces in the late 1950s. Ap- relatively small and much harder to hit than an attack-
proaching under the local horizon of the ships, the air- ing aircraft. While the older defences might be consid-
craft would suddenly appear at relatively close ranges, ered a credible threat to a large aircraft at low altitude
giving the ships only seconds to respond before the air- or a missile approaching at higher altitudes, against a
craft dropped their payloads and withdrew. This gave the sea-skimming missile they were useless. To successfully
aircraft an enormous advantage over earlier weapons such counter this threat, ships needed new weapons able to at-
as dive bombers or torpedo bombers, whose low speed tack these targets as soon as they appeared, accurately
allowed them to be attacked with some eectiveness by enough to give them a high rst-attempt kill probability -
anti-aircraft guns. The advantage was so great that when there would be little time for a second attempt.
the Royal Navy was faced by the threat of the new So-
viet Sverdlov class cruiser, they responded in a non-linear
fashion by introducing the Blackburn Buccaneer aircraft 225.1.2 Point defence missile system
to attack them.[1] (PDMS)
Further improving the capabilities of aircraft against
ships were a variety of precision-guided weapons. Early The US Army faced a similar problem defending against
designs were rst used in World War II with manually attacks by high-speed jet-powered attack aircraft. In this
controlled weapons such as the Fritz X, and evolving into case the local horizon was generally even more limited,
semi-autonomous cruise missiles, such as the Raduga KS- blocked by trees and hills, and engagement times could be
1 Komet, that relied on a combination of initial guid- measured in seconds. They concluded that a gun-based
652
225.1. HISTORY 653
system was simply unusable in this role; by the time the 225.1.3 Basic point defence missile system
radar had locked-on and the gunsight calculated proper (BPDMS)
lead there would be no time to shoot at the target while it
was within a guns relatively short range. Missiles, on the
other hand, could progressively tune their approach while
they were ying toward the target, and their proximity
fuses meant they only needed to get close enough.
In 1959 the Army started development of the MIM-46
Mauler, which mounted a new high-speed missile on top
of the ubiquitous M113 Armored Personnel Carrier chas-
sis, along with a medium-range search radar and a sepa-
rate tracking and illumination radar. In order to deal with
the quick response times needed, the re control system
was semi-automatic; operators would view targets on the
search radar and prioritize them, the re control system
would select ones within attack range and automatically
slew the missiles toward them and launch. Since the mis-
sile would be operating close to the ground in highly clut-
tered environments, it used a combination of beam riding
along the illumination radar and an infrared seeker in the
nose, which allowed tracking as long as either the path in
Mark 115 manned director, initially used to guide a Sea Sparrow
front or in rear of the missile remained free of obstruc- to its target as a part of BPDMS.
tions.
These same basic engagement parameters - high-speed Quickly organizing the Basic Point Defense Missile Sys-
and the associated eeting sighting times - applied to sea-tem, BPDMS, the then-current AIM-7E from the F-4
skimming aircraft and missiles as well. The Navy in- Phantom was adapted to shipboard use with surprising
tended to adapt the Mauler to shipboard use by removing speed. The main developments were the new Mark 25
its search radar and wiring it into the existing ship-bornetrainable launcher developed from the ASROC launcher,
radar systems instead. The 9-box launcher and illumina- and the Mark 115 manually aimed radar illuminator that
tor radar would be retained in a relatively compact mount. looked like two large searchlights. Operation was ex-
Development started in 1960 under the Point Defense tremely simple; the operator would be cued to targets via
Missile System (PDMS), the naval version to be known voice commands from the search radar operators, and he
as the RIM-46A Sea Mauler. The Navy was so con- then slewed the illuminator onto the target. The relatively
dent in the Sea Mauler that they modied the design of wide beam of the radar only needed to be in the gen-
eral direction of the target, the continuous wave signal
their latest frigates, the Knox class, to incorporate a space
on the rear deck for the Sea Mauler launcher.[2] being Doppler shifted by the moving target and showing
up strongly even if it was not centered in the beam. The
The Navys condence in Mauler proved misplaced; by
launcher would automatically follow the motions of the
1963 the program had been downgraded to a pure tech-
illuminator, so that when the missile was red it would
nology development eort due to continued problems,
immediately see the signal being reected o the target.
and was canceled outright in 1965. All three of the
stakeholders, the US Army, US Navy and British Army, In this form the Sea Sparrow was tested on the USS
[3]
started looking for a replacement. While the British took Bradley starting in February 1967, but this installation
a longer-term approach and developed the new Rapier was removed when the Bradley was sent to Vietnam later
missile, the US Army and Navy scrambled to nd a sys- that year. Testing continued, and between 1971 and 1975
tem that could be deployed as quickly as possible. Facing Sea Sparrow was tted to 31 ships, DE-1052 to 1069 and
the problem of guidance in a cluttered environment, the DE-1071 to 1083. The missing ship in the series, USS
Army decided to adapt the infrared AIM-9 Sidewinder Downes (DE-1070) was instead used to test an upgraded
missile into the MIM-72 Chaparral. This was based on version (see below).
the AIM-9D, a tail-chaser, and would be useless for the The Sea Sparrow was far from an ideal weapon. Its rocket
Navy where its targets would be approaching head on. engine was designed with the assumption that it would be
They required a radar-guided system, and this naturally launched at high speed from an aircraft, and therefore is
led to the AIM-7 Sparrow. They also considered Cha- optimized for a long cruise at relatively low power. In the
parral for smaller ships due to its much smaller size, but surface-to-air role one would rather have very high ac-
no such ts were ever attempted.[2] celeration in order to allow it to intercept sea-skimming
targets as soon as possible. The power prole is also suit-
able for cruising in thin air at high altitudes, but at low
altitudes it does not produce enough power to overcome
654 CHAPTER 225. RIM-7 SEA SPARROW
drag and dramatically decreases range; some estimates

indicate that the Sea Sparrow may be eective only to 10
kilometres (6.2 mi), about one quarter of the range of the
air-launched Sparrow. An engine of much higher power
would greatly improve performance, in spite of a shorter
burning time.
Another problem is that the Sparrow is steered with its
mid-mounted maneuvering wings. These were used on
the Sparrow because they required less energy for basic
maneuvers during cruise, but this made the missile less
maneuverable overall, which was not well suited to the
quick-reaction weapon. Additionally, the powered wings
meant that they could not easily be adapted to fold, and Two MK-95 unmanned illumination radars used to guide a Sea
therefore the launcher cells were sized to the wings in- Sparrow to its target.
stead of the missile body, taking up much more room
than required. Although the Sea Sparrow was meant as a
small missile system that could be t to a wide variety of about 50% along the span, with the outer portions rotated
ships, the launcher was relatively large and was deployed back toward the body of the missile. This allowed them
only to larger frigates, destroyers and aircraft carriers. Fi- to be stored in tighter container tubes in the new Mark
nally, the manually aimed illuminator was of limited use 29 launcher, and ip open automatically when they were
at night or in bad weather, which was hardly encouraging released from the tube.
for a ship-borne weapon where fog was a common occur-
The seeker was modied to work with a variety of guid-
rence. ance radars, including those being used with existing Eu-
ropean missile systems. Production of the RIM-7H began
225.1.4 Improved basic point defense mis- in 1973 as NATO Sea Sparrow Missile System (NSSMS)
Block I. For the US Navys use the new MK-95 illumi-
sile system (IBPDMS) nator system was also introduced, similar to the origi-
nal Mark 115 but with automatic guidance that could be
used in any weather. The MK-95 formed the basis of the
highly automated Mark 91 re control system.
225.1.5 Missile upgrades
In 1972 Raytheon started a Sparrow upgrade program to

arm the upcoming F-15 Eagle, producing the AIM-7F.
The F model replaced the older analog guidance system
with a solid state version that could operate with the F-
15s new pulse-doppler radar. The guidance system was
much smaller, which allowed the warhead to be moved
The USS O'Brien (DD-975) launches a Sea Sparrow missile, from its former rear-mounted position to one in front of
shown with its mid-wing still folded as it departs a NSSM Mark the mid-mounted wings, and increased in weight to 86
29 launcher on November 5, 2003. lbs (39 kg). Moving it forward also allowed the rocket
engine to be enlarged, so it was replaced by a new dual-
In 1968, Denmark, Italy, and Norway signed an agree- thrust engine that quickly accelerated the missile to higher
ment with the US Navy to use the Sea Sparrow on their speeds, and then settled to a lower thrust for cruise. The
ships, and collaborate on improved versions. Over the new missiles were quickly adapted for the naval role in
next few years a number of other countries joined the a fashion similar to the RIM-7H, producing the RIM-7F.
NATO SEASPARROW Project Oce (NSPO), and to- The new missile used the lower model designation in spite
day it includes 12 member nations.[4] Under this umbrella of the newer technology than the H model.[5]
group, the Improved Basic Point Defense Missile Sys- Another major upgrade to the AIM-7 followed, the AIM-
tem (IBPDMS) program started even while the original 7M. The M included a new monopulse radar seeker that
version was being deployed. allowed it to be shot downward from a higher-altitude air-
IBPDMS emerged as the RIM-7H, which was essentially craft at a target otherwise masked by the ground. The new
the RIM-7A with the mid-mounted wings modied to model also included a completely computerized guidance
be able to fold.[5] This was done in a fashion similar to system that could be updated in the eld, as well as further
carrier-based aircraft; the wings were hinged at a point reducing weight for yet another warhead upgrade. The
225.1. HISTORY 655
computerized guidance system also included a simple au- A nal upgrade to the Sparrow was the AIM-7P, which
topilot that allowed the missile to continue ying toward replaced the Ms guidance system with an improved
the last known target location even with the loss of a sig- model that allowed mid-course upgrades to be sent from
nal, allowing the launch platform to break lock for short the launching platform via new rear-mounted antennas.[5]
periods while the missile was in ight. All of these modi- For air-to-air use this allowed the missile to be lofted
cations also improved performance against low-altitude above the target and then be directed down towards it as
sea-skimming targets as well.[5] The M model entered US it approached; this gives the missile greater range as it
operational service in 1983.[6] spends more time in thinner high-altitude air. This meant
that the new version could also be directly guided against
The original RIM-7E was capable to y at about mach 2+,
between 30 and 15,000 meters, with a range of 15-22 km surface targets that would otherwise not show up well on
radar (which is a function of relative speed), allowing the
(8-12 NM, depending on the target height). The RIM-7F
enhanced the performances, but also the proximity fuse ships more powerful search radars to provide guidance
until the missile approached the target and the reected
vs low ying targets, as the minimum altitude was reduced
to 15 meters or less. The RIM-7M was capable to strike signal grew stronger. This also gave the Sea Sparrow a
very useful secondary anti-shipping role that allows it to
down to 8 meters (27 ft), so it was somewhat quite capable
vs missiles such the Exocet.[7] attack smaller boats.
While the M model was being worked on, the US Navy On 1 October 1992 during NATO exercises in the
also introduced an upgrade for the Mark 91 re control Aegean Sea the USS Saratoga accidentally launched two
system, the Mark 23 Target Acquisition System (TAS). Sea Sparrow missiles. These hit the Turkish destroyer
TAS included a medium-range 2D radar and IFF system TCG Muavenet in the bridge and CIC, killing ve of
that fed information to a new console in the ships combat the ships ocers and injuring twenty-two men. The
information center. The Mark 23 automatically detected, Muavenet was written o as a result, and the US pre-
prioritized and displayed potential targets, greatly im- sented them with the Knox class frigate USS Capodanno
proving reaction times of the system as a whole.[8] The as reparations.
Mark 23 is also used to select targets for most other
weapons systems, including gunre and other missile sys-
225.1.6 Evolved Sea Sparrow missile
tems. TAS started entering the eet in 1980.[6]
(ESSM)
Main article: RIM-162 ESSM
Although the Navy and Air Force initially planned ad-
Evolved Sea Sparrow being lowered into VLS tube
The NSPO also used the M series upgrade as an opportu-

nity to upgrade the system to allow it to be launched from
a Vertical Launching System (VLS).[5] This modication
uses the Jet Vane Control (JVC) package that is added
to the bottom of the missile. On launch, a small engine in
the JVC boosts the missile up above the launching ship,
then uses vanes positioned in its own exhaust to quickly
slew the missile into the proper alignment with the tar- An ESSM launching. Note the enlarged engine section.
get, which is fed to the JVC during launch. As far as the
Sea Sparrow is concerned, there is no dierence between ditional upgrades for the Sparrow, notably the AIM-7R
being launched directly from a trainable launcher or us- with a combination radar/infrared seeker, these were can-
ing JVC, in both cases the missile becomes active looking celed in favor of the much more advanced AIM-120
directly at the target. AMRAAM in December 1996. With the link between
656 CHAPTER 225. RIM-7 SEA SPARROW
the airborne and shipborne versions of the Sparrow sev- Germany

ered, Raytheon proposed a much more extensive set of
upgrades to the Sea Sparrow, the RIM-7R Evolved Sea
Sparrow Missile (ESSM). The changes were so exten- German Navy
sive that the project was renamed, becoming the RIM-
162 ESSM.[9]
Greece
The ESSM takes the existing guidance section from the
RIM-7P and ts it to an entirely new rear-section. The
new missile is 10 inches in diameter instead of the pre- Hellenic Navy
vious 8 inches, which allows for a much more power-
ful motor. It also eliminates the mid-mounted wings en-
tirely, replacing them with long ns similar to those on the Italy
Standard missile (and practically every other Navy mis-
sile since the 1950s) and moves guidance control to the
rear ns. The tail-n based steering of the ESSM uses Italian Navy
up more energy but oers considerably higher maneuver-
ability while the engine is still ring. Japan
The Mark 25 quad-missile pack was developed during the
1990s to t four ESSMs into a single Mk 41 VLS cell.[10]
For VLS use, ESSMs are tted with the same JVC system Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force
as the earlier versions.
Republic of Korea
225.2 Operators
Republic of Korea Navy
Australia
Mexico
Royal Australian Navy

Mexican Navy
Belgium
Netherlands
Belgian Navy
Bulgaria
New Zealand
Bulgarian Navy
Royal New Zealand Navy
Canada Norway
Royal Canadian Navy Royal Norwegian Navy
Chile Portugal
Chilean Navy Portuguese Navy
Denmark Spain
Royal Danish Navy Spanish Navy

225.4. SEE ALSO 657
Turkey
Turkish Naval Forces
United States
United States Navy
225.3 References
225.3.1 Notes
[1] Roger Chesneau, Aeroguide 30 - Blackburn Buccaneer S
Mks 1 and 2, Ad Hoc Publications, 2005, pp. 5-6.
[4] NATO SEASPARROW Project Oce
[5] Andreas Parsch, AIM/RIM-7, Directory of U.S. Mili-

tary Rockets and Missiles, 13 April 2007
[6] Polmar, p. 521
[7] War Machine encyclopedia, Limited publishing Ltd,

1983, London (italian version, p.233)
[8] MK 23 Target Acquisition System (TAS)"". Federation

of American Scientists. 30 June 1999. Retrieved 2010-
12-12.
[9] Andreas Parsch, RIM-162, Directory of U.S. Military

Rockets and Missiles, 27 March 2004
[10] Federation of American Scientists, MK 41 Vertical

Launching System
Friedman, Norman (2004). U.S. Destroyers. Naval
Institute Press. ISBN 1-55750-442-3.
to the Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet. Naval
Institute Press. ISBN 1-59114-685-2. (note: this
source contains several obvious errors)
225.4 See also

List of missiles
Missile designation
Chapter 226
RIM-162 ESSM
The RIM-162 Evolved SeaSparrow Missile (ESSM) is single RIM-7VL (Vertically Launched) Sea Sparrow cell
a development of the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missile used or two RIM-162 ESSM cells, though, with modication,
to protect ships from attacking missiles and aircraft.[7] other missiles can also be launched. There are a total of
ESSM is designed to counter supersonic maneuvering four models in the Mk 48 family, with Mod 0 & 1 hous-
anti-ship missiles. ESSM also has the ability to be quad- ing either 2 RIM-7VL or 4 RIM-162 cells, Mod 2 hous-
packed in the Mk 41 VLS system, allowing up to four ing either 16 RIM-7VL or 32 RIM-162 cells. Mod 0/1/2
ESSMs to be carried in a single cell. are usually grouped into either a 16-cell module for RIM-
7VL or a 32-cell module for RIM-162. Mod 3 ts into
the StanFlex modules on Royal Danish Navy ships and
226.1 Design can house either 6 RIM-7VL or 12 RIM-162 cells; the
Danes now use the latter.
Compared to the Sea Sparrow, ESSM has a larger, more

powerful rocket motor for increased range and agility, as 226.2.3 Mk 56
well as upgraded aerodynamics using strakes and skid-
to-turn. In addition, ESSM takes advantage of the latest The successor of Mk 48 VLS, Mark 56 Guided Missile
missile guidance technology, with dierent versions for Vertical Launching System (Mk 56 GMVLS) or simply
Aegis/AN/SPY-1, Sewaco/APAR, and traditional target Mk 56, is latest launcher developed for RIM-162 ESSM.
illumination all-the-way. The improved ESSM Block II In comparison to its predecessor, Mk 56 utilize greater
will be elded by the US Navy from 2020.[8] percentage of composite material, reducing the weight
more than 20%. Specications:
226.2 Launchers
226.2.1 Mk 29
US operational evaluation was conducted in July 2002
The original launcher is Mark 29 Guided Missile Launch- aboard USS Shoup (DDG-86). Initial operational capa-
ing System Mod. 4 & 5 (Mk 29 GMLS Mod 4 & 5), bility did not occur until later.[9]
which is developed from earlier models Mk 29 Mod 1/2/3 In October 2003, at the USN Pacic Missile Range Facil-
for Sea Sparrow. Mk 29 launchers provide on-mount ity near Hawaii, Australian frigate HMAS Warramunga
stowage and launching capability for ring up to eight conducted a successful ring of an ESSM. The ring was
missiles in a self-contained environmentally controlled also the rst operational use of the CEA Technologies
trainable launcher design. CWI for guidance.[10] [11]
In November 2003, approximately 200 nautical miles
226.2.2 Mk 48 (370 km) from the Azores, the Royal Netherlands Navy
(RNLN) frigate HNLMS De Zeven Provincin con-
In addition to the Mk 29 GMLS and Mk 41 VLS sys- ducted a live re test of a single ESSM. This ring
tems, the other primary launcher is Mk 48 VLS. The 2- was the rst ever live ring involving a full-size ship-
cell module of Mk-48 makes the system very versatile and borne Active electronically scanned array (i.e. the APAR
enables it to be installed on board in spaces that otherwise radar) guiding a missile using the Interrupted Continuous
cannot be utilized. The weight of a 2-cell module of Mk- Wave Illumination (ICWI) technique in an operational
48 is 1,450 pounds (with empty canisters), 725 pounds environment.[12] As related by Janes Navy International:
for exhaust system, and 800 pounds for ship installation
interfaces. Each canister of the Mk-48 VLS houses a During the tracking and missile-ring tests,
658
target proles were provided by Greek-built [3] Raytheon Evolved SeaSparrow program delivers 2,000th
EADS/3Sigma Iris PVK medium-range sub- missile. Retrieved 26 October 2014.
sonic target drones. [...] According to the
[4] Raytheon RIM-162 ESSM Designation-Systems.net
RNLN, ... "APAR immediately acquired the
missile and maintained track until destruction. [5] Raytheon RIM-162 ESSM Designation-Systems.net
[...] These ground-breaking tests represented
the worlds rst live verication of the ICWI [6] Raytheon. ESSM MK-29 upgrade fact sheet. (PDF)
technique.[13] [7] Raytheon Corporate Communications. Raytheon ESSM
product data sheet. Retrieved 26 October 2014.
In August 2004 a German Navy Sachsen class frigate
completed a series of live missile rings at the Point Mugu [8] Greenert, Admiral Jonathan (18 September 2013).
Statement Before The House Armed Services Commit-
missile launch range o the coast of California that in-
tee On Planning For Sequestration In FY 2014 And Per-
cluded a total of 11 ESSM missile rings.[13] The tests spectives Of The Military Services On The Strategic
included rings against target drones such as the Northrup Choices And Management Review (pdf). US House of
Grumman BQM-74E Chukkar III and Teledyne Ryan Representatives. Retrieved 21 September 2013.
BQM-34S Firebee I, as well as against missile targets
such as the Beech AQM-37C and air-launched Kormoran [9] ESSM completes OPEVAL with 'ying colors",
1 anti-ship missiles.[13] Seapower, May 2003.
Further live rings were performed by the Royal Nether- [10] Warramungas ESSM ring success, Navy News
lands Navy frigate HNLMS De Zeven Provincin in
[11] Air Defence Discussion Board - ESSM Question,
March 2005, again in the Atlantic Ocean approximately Strategy Page
180 nautical miles (330 km) west of the Azores.[13] The
tests involved three live-ring events (two of which in- [12] Janes International Defence Review, February 2004,
volved the ESSM) including ring a single SM-2 Block Active phased array multifunction radars go live for mis-
IIIA at an Iris target drone at long range, a single ESSM sile rings
at an Iris target drone, and a two-salvo launch (with one [13] Janes Navy International, October 2005, Live ring tests
salvo comprising two SM-2 Block IIIAs and the other rewrite the guiding principles
comprising two ESSMs) against two incoming Iris target
drones.[13] [14] Stennis First with New ESSM. US Navy. 2008-10-10.
Retrieved 2008-10-10..
All ESSM launches from De Zeven Provincin class
frigates and Sachsen class frigates involved ESSMs quad- [15] ESSM Intercept of High-Diving Threat Proves Expanded
packed in a Mark 41 Vertical Launching System. Defensive Capability - PRNewswire.com, May 14, 2013
The rst kill by the RIM-162D from a United States

Navy carriers Mk 29 launcher was achieved during a
training exercise by the USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74) 226.6 External links
on 7 October 2008.[14]
Designation Systems.net: Raytheon RIM-162
On 14 May 2013, the ESSM intercepted a high-diving su-
ESSM
personic test target, demonstrating the ability to hit high-
G maneuvering. No software changes were needed to Global Security.org: RIM-162 Evolved Sea Spar-
prove the ESSMs enhanced capability.[15] row Missile (ESSM)
NATO SEASPARROW Project Oce
226.4 See also NAMMO Raufoss - Nordic Ammunition Company
List of missiles
226.5 References
[1] Bird in the hand: NATO gives fresh momentum to
ESSM. Retrieved 26 October 2014.

2014. p. 62.
Chapter 227
AGM-124 Wasp
The AGM-124 Wasp is a missile developed by the Range : 10 km (6.2 mi)

United States of America. The Wasp grew out of the
1975 WAAM (Wide-Area Anti-Armour Munitions) pro- Propulsion : Solid-fueled rocket motor
gram initiated by the US Air Force in order to develop Warhead : Shaped charge
a series of new air-to-ground anti-armour weapons for
close-support aircraft. The three-pronged program led
to the CBU-92/B ERAM (Extended Range Anti-Armour
Munition), the CBU-90/B ACM (Anti-Armour Cluster
Munition), and the Wasp anti-armour missile. The Wasp
is regarded as the most advanced of these weapons.
Development began in 1979, with Boeing and Hughes
Aircraft as the primary contractors. The specication
called for a small missile which could be carried in large
numbers by attack aircraft in multiple dispensers - the A-
10 was able to carry several 12 round launcher pods. The
Boeing design was unsuccessful, and the USAF selected
the Hughes Wasp missile.
The AGM-124A was a small weapon with folding wings
and ns to reduce storage space within the launcher. It
was intended to be launched in large numbers - 10 or
more missiles launched nearly simultaneously was envis-
aged for a typical attack; indeed the name Wasp derived
from this swarm tactic. The missiles would follow a
pre-programmed path to the target area before activat-
ing a millimeter wave active radar homing to identify and
home on a specic target. This high resolution radar was
able to distinguish targets even against enemy jamming
and high background clutter from the ground.
Testing of the radar system began in 1981, and the rst
prototype AGM-124 took place in 1983. Production was
planned for 1987, but in October 1983 the program was
cancelled. Most of the other components of the WAAM
program were also less than successful, with only the
BLU-108/B Skeet submunition in use today.
227.1 Specications
Length : 1.52 m (5 ft)
Wingspan : 51 cm (20 in)
Diameter : 20 cm (8 in)
660
Chapter 228
Compact Kinetic Energy Missile
The Compact Kinetic Energy Missile (CKEM) was February 2007 A T-72 tank equipped with Explo-
a developmental program to produce a hypersonic anti- sive Reactive Armor was successfully engaged us-
tank guided missile for the U.S. Army. Lockheed Martin ing CKEM at a range of 3400 meters. The test took
was the primary contractor. The program was the third in place at Eglin Air Force Base, FL.[4]
a series of projects based on kinetic energy missiles that
stretches back to 1981s Vought HVM through the 1990s
LOSAT and nally to the CKEM. The Army Aviation 228.3 References
and Missile Command (AMCOM) developed this pro-
gram as part of the Armys Future Combat Systems. This [1] Wolfram Alpha
missile was primarily an anti-tank weapon, and could be
mounted on land vehicles and low-altitude aircraft. The [2] Lockheed Martin Receives US$21 Million Compact Ki-
goal of these weapons was to demonstrate a state-of-the- netic Energy Missile Contract LM press release.
art system for the next-generation. The program has since
[3] Lockheed Martins Compact Kinetic Energy Missile Suc-
been cancelled. cessful in Flight Test Against Reinforced Urban Structure
LM press release.
[4] Lockheed Martins Compact Kinetic Energy Missile Suc-

228.1 Specications cessful in Final Flight Test LM press release.
These are the specications for the missile: Global Security
Length: 1.5 metres (4.9 ft)
Motor: Solid-fuel rocket

Max range: 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) Compact Kinetic Energy Missile, Lockheed Martin
Max weight: 45 kilograms (99 lb) Lockheed Martin CKEM Designation Systems
Compact Kinetic Energy Missile (CKEM)

Velocity: Mach 6.5+
Global Security
Warhead: Kinetic energy penetrator
CKEM Deagel
Penetrator energy: 10 megajoules (equivalent to Compact Kinetic Energy Missile CKEM Defense
that of a 10-ton truck traveling at 100 mph (161 Update
km/hr))[1]
228.2 Program status

October 2003 Lockheed Martin receives $21.3
million contract for CKEM Advanced Technology
Demonstration (ATD) phase.[2]
September 2006 The CKEM was successfully

ight tested against a reinforced urban structure.[3]
661
Chapter 229
FGM-148 Javelin
For the British Javelin missile, see Javelin surface-to-air 229.2 Development
missile.
In 1983, the United States Army introduced its AAWS-
The FGM-148 Javelin is a United Statesmade man- M (Advanced Anti-Tank Weapon SystemMedium) re-
portable re-and-forget anti-tank missile elded to requirement and, in 1985, the AAWS-M was approved for
place the M47 Dragon anti-tank missile in US service.[7] development. In August 1986, the Proof-of-Principle
(POP) phase of the development began, with a $30 mil-
lion contract awarded for technical proof demonstrators:
Ford Aerospace (laser-beam riding), Hughes Aircraft
Missile System Group (imaging infra-red combined with
a ber-optic cable link) and Texas Instruments (imag-
ing infra-red).[9] In late 1988, the POP phase ended and,
in June 1989, the full-scale development contract was
229.1 Overview awarded to a joint venture of Texas Instruments and
Martin Marietta (now Raytheon and Lockheed-Martin).
The AAWS-M received the designation of FGM-148.
Javelin is a re-and-forget missile with lock-on before In April 1991, the rst test-ight of the Javelin suc-
launch and automatic self-guidance. The system takes a ceeded, and in March 1993, the rst test-ring from the
top-attack ight prole against armored vehicles (attack- launcher succeeded. In 1994, low levels of production
ing the top armor, which is generally thinner), but can were authorized,[7] and the rst Javelins were deployed
also take a direct-attack mode for use against buildings. with US Army units in 1996.[7]
This missile also has the ability to engage helicopters in
the direct attack mode.[7] It can reach a peak altitude of
150 m (500 ft) in top-attack mode and 60 m in direct-re 229.2.1 Test and evaluation
mode. It is equipped with an imaging infrared seeker.
The tandem warhead is tted with two shaped charges: a
Development test and evaluation (DT&E) is conducted to
precursor warhead to detonate any explosive reactive ar- demonstrate that the engineering design and development
mor and a primary warhead to penetrate base armor.
process is complete. It is used to reduce risk, validate and
The missile is ejected from the launcher so that it reaches qualify the design, and ensure that the product is ready
a safe distance from the operator before the main rocket for government acceptance. The DT&E results are eval-
motors ignite; a "soft launch arrangement.[8] This makes uated to ensure that design risks have been minimized and
it harder to identify the launcher; however, back-blast the system will meet specications. The results are also
from the launch tube still poses a hazard to nearby per- used to estimate the systems military utility when it is
sonnel. Thanks to this re and forget system, the ring introduced into service. DT&E serves a critical purpose
team may change their position as soon as the missile has in reducing the risks of development by testing selected
been launched, or prepare to re on their next target while high-risk components or subsystems. DT&E is the gov-
the rst missile is still in the air.[6] ernment developing agency tool used to conrm that the
The missile system is most often carried by a two man system performs as technically specied and that the sys-
team consisting of a gunner and an ammo bearer, al- tem is ready for eld testing.
though it can be red with just one person if necessary. DT&E is an iterative process of designing, building, test-
While the gunner aims and res the missile, the ammo ing, identifying deciencies, xing, retesting, and repeat-
bearer scans for prospective targets, watches for threats ing. It is performed in the factory, laboratory, and on the
such as enemy vehicles and troops, and ensures person- proving ground by the contractors and the government.
nel and obstacles are clear of the missiles back blast. Contractor and government testing is combined into one
662
229.3. COMPONENTS 663
integrated test program and conducted to determine if the vironmental conditions; and CLU PRVT.[11]
performance requirements have been met and to provide The All-up-Round Test Sets includes: Extreme tem-
data to the decision authority. perature testing; Missile tracker testing (Track rate er-
The General Accounting Oce (GAO) published a re- ror, Tracking sensitivity); Seeker/focal plane array testing
port questioning the adequacy of Javelin testing. The re- (Cool-down time, Dead/defective pixels, Seeker identi-
port, called Army AcquisitionJavelin Is Not Ready for cation); Pneumatic leakage; Continuity measurements;
Multiyear Procurement, opposed entering into full-rate Ready time; and Guidance sections (Guidance com-
production in 1997 and expressed the need for further mands, Fin movement).
operational testing due to the many redesigns undergone.
In 1995, Secretary of Defense William Perry had set forth
ve new operational test initiatives. These included: 1) 229.3 Components
getting operational testers involved early in development;
2) use of modeling and simulation; 3) integrating devel- 229.3.1 Missile
opment and operational testing; 4) combining testing and
training; and 5) applying concepts to demos and acquisi- Warhead
tions.
The late-phase development of the Javelin retroactively
beneted from the then new operational test initiatives set
forth by the Secretary of Defense, as well as a further test
conducted as a consequence of the Armys response to
the GAO report. Before the Milestone III decision, and
before elding to 3rd Battalion 75th Ranger Regiment at
Fort Benning (also Army Rangers, Special Forces, air-
borne, air assault, and light infantry), the Javelin was sub-
jected to limited parts of the ve operational test and eval-
uation initiatives, as well as a portability operational test
program (an additional test phase of the so-called Prod-
uct Verication Test),[10] which included live rings with Missile components.
the full-rate conguration weapon.
Per initiatives and as a DT&E function, the Institute for
Defense Analyses (IDA) and the Defense Departments
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E)
became involved in three development test activities, in-
cluding: 1) reviewing initial operational test and eval-
uation plans; 2) monitoring initial operational test and
evaluation; and 3) structuring follow-on test and evalua-
tion activities. The results of these eorts detected prob-
lems (training included) and corrected signicant prob-
lems which led to modied test plans, savings in test costs,
and GAO satisfaction.
229.2.2 Qualication testing US Marine carrying a Javelin missile during Operation

Moshtarak in Marjeh, Afghanistan 2010
The Javelin Environmental Test System (JETS) is a mo-
bile test set for Javelin All-Up-Round (AUR) and the The Javelin missiles tandem warhead is a HEAT type.[7]
Command Launch Unit (CLU). It can be congured to This round utilizes an explosive shaped charge to create
functionally test the AUR or the CLU individually or a stream of superplastically deformed metal formed from
both units in a mated tactical mode. This mobile unit trumpet-shaped metallic liners. The result is a narrow
may be repositioned at the various environmental testing high velocity particle stream that can penetrate armor.
facilities. The mobile system is used for all phases of The Javelin counters the advent of explosive reactive ar-
Javelin qualication testing. There is also a non-mobile mor (ERA). ERA boxes or tiles lie over a vehicles main
JETS used for stand-alone CLU testing. This system is armor and explode when struck by a warhead. This
equipped with an environmental chamber and is primar- explosion does not harm the vehicles main armor, but
ily used for Product Verication Testing (PRVT). Capa- causes steel panels to y across the path of the HEAT
bilities include: Javelin CLU testing; Javelin AUR testing; rounds narrow particle stream, disrupting its focus leav-
Javelin Mated Mode testing; Javelin testing in various ening it unable to cut through the main armor. The Javelin
664 CHAPTER 229. FGM-148 JAVELIN
uses two shaped-charge warheads in tandem. The weak,

smaller diameter HEAT precursor charge pushes through
the ERA without setting it o, and punches a channel
through it for the much larger diameter HEAT warhead,
which then penetrates the targets primary armor.
A two-layered molybdenum liner is used for the precursor
and a copper liner for the main warhead.
To protect the main charge from the explosive blast,
shock, and debris caused by the impact of the missiles
nose and the detonation of the precursor charge, a blast
shield is used between the main and precursor charge.
This was the rst composite material blast shield and the
rst that had a hole through the middle to provide a jet
that is less diuse.
A newer main charge liner produces a higher velocity jet. U.S. soldier ring Javelin.
While making the warhead smaller, this change makes
it more eective, leaving more room for propellant for propellant ejects the missile from the launcher, but stops
the main rocket motor, and thus increasing the missiles burning before the missile clears the tube. The ight mo-
range. tor is ignited only after a delay to allow for sucient
Electronic arming and fusing, called Electronic Safe clearance from the operator. To save weight, the two mo-
Arming and Fire (ESAF), is used. The ESAF system en- tors are integrated with a burst disc between them; it is
ables the ring and arming process to proceed, while im- designed to tolerate the pressure of the launch motor from
posing a series of safety checks on the missile. ESAF cues one side, but to easily rupture from the other when the
the launch motor after the trigger is pulled. When the ight motor ignites. Both motors use a common nozzle,
missile reaches a key acceleration point (indicating that it with the ight motors exhaust owing through the ex-
has cleared the launch tube), the ESAF initiates a second pended launch motor. Because the launch motor casing
arming signal to re the ight motor. After another check remains in place, an unusual annular (ring-shaped) igniter
on missile conditions (target lock check), ESAF initiates is used to start it; a normal igniter would be blown out
nal arming to enable the warheads for detonation upon the back of the missile when the ight motor ignited and
target impact. When the missile strikes the target, ESAF could injure the operator. Since the launch motor uses
enables the tandem warhead function (provide appropri- a standard NATO propellant, the presence of lead beta-
ate time between the detonation of the precursor charge resorcinol as a burn rate modier causes an amount of
and the detonation of the main charge). lead and lead oxide to be present in the exhaust; for this
reason, gunners are asked to hold their breath after ring.
Though the Javelin tandem HEAT warhead has proven ef-
cient at destroying tanks, most threats it was employed In the event that the launch motor malfunctions and
against in Iraq and Afghanistan were weapon crews and the launch tube is overpressurizedfor example, if the
teams, buildings, and lightly armored and unarmored ve- rocket gets stuckthe Javelin missile includes a pressure
hicles. To make the Javelin more useful in these sce- release system to prevent the launcher from exploding.
narios, the Aviation and Missile Research, Development, The launch motor is held in place by a set of shear pins,
and Engineering Center developed a multi-purpose war- which fracture if the pressure rises too high and allow the
head (MPWH) for the FGM-148F. While it is still lethal motor to be pushed out the back of the tube.
against tanks, the new warhead has a naturally fragment-
ing steel warhead case that provides double the eective-
ness against personnel due to enhanced fragmentation. Seeker
The MPWH does not add weight or cost and has a lighter
composite missile mid-body to enable drop-in replace- As a re-and-forget missile, after launch the missile has to
ment to current Javelin tubes.[12][13] be able to track and destroy its target without the gunner.
This is done by coupling an on-board imaging IR system
(dierent from CLU imaging system) with an on-board
tracking system.
Propulsion
The gunner uses the CLUs IR system to nd and identify
Most rocket launchers require a large clear area behind the target then switches to the missiles independent IR
the gunner to prevent injury from backblast. To ad- system to set a track box around the target and establish
dress this shortcoming, without increasing recoil to an a lock. The gunner places brackets around the image for
unacceptable level, the Javelin system uses a soft launch locking.
mechanism. A launch motor using conventional rocket The seeker stays focused on the targets image continuing
229.3. COMPONENTS 665
to track it as the target moves or the missiles ight path with the target. The wires that connect the seeker with
alters or as attack angles change. The seeker has three the rest of the missile are carefully designed to avoid in-
main components: focal plane array (FPA), cooling and ducing motion or drag on the seeker platform.
calibration and stabilization.
Tracker
Focal plane array (FPA) Main article: Staring array
The seeker assembly is encased in a dome which is trans-

parent to long-wave infrared radiation. The IR radiation
passes through the dome and then through lenses that fo-
cus the energy. The IR energy is reected by mirrors on
to the FPA. The seeker is a two-dimensional staring FPA
of 64x64 MerCad (HgCdTe) detector elements.[14] The
FPA processes the signals from the detectors and relays a
signal to the missiles tracker.
The staring array is a photo-voltaic device where the inci- Top attack ight prole.
dent photons stimulate electrons and are stored, pixel by
pixel, in a readout integrated circuits attached at the rear
of the detector. These electrons are converted to voltages
which are multiplexed out of the ROIC on a frame-by-
frame basis.
Cooling/Calibration The FPA must be cooled and cal-

ibrated. The CLUs IR detectors are cooled using a
Dewar ask and a closed-cycle Stirling engine. But there
is insucient space in the missile for a similar solution.
Direct attack ight path.
So, prior to launch, a cooler mounted on the outside of the
launch tube activates the electrical systems in the missile
and supplies cold gas from a Joule-Thomson expander to The tracker is key to guidance/control for an eventual
the missile detector assembly while the missile is still in hit. The signals from each of the 4,096 detector ele-
the launch tube. When the missile is red, this external ments (64x64 pixel array) in the seeker are passed to the
connection is broken and coolant gas is supplied internally FPA readout integrated circuits which reads then creates
by an onboard argon gas bottle. The gas is held in a small a video frame that is sent to the tracker system for pro-
bottle at high pressure and contains enough coolant for cessing. By comparing the individual frames the tracker
the duration of the ight of approximately 19 seconds. determines the need to correct so as to keep the missile
on target. The tracker must be able to determine which
The seeker is calibrated using a chopper wheel. This de- portion of the image represents the target. The target is
vice is a fan of 6 blades: 5 black blades with very low IR initially dened by the gunner who places a congurable
emissivity and one semi-reective blade. These blades frame around it. The tracker then uses algorithms to com-
spin in front of the seeker optics in a synchronized fash- pare that region of the frame based on image, geometric,
ion such that the FPA is continually provided with points and movement data to the new image frames being sent
of reference in addition to viewing the scene. These ref- from the seeker, similar to pattern recognition algorithms.
erence points allow the FPA to reduce noise introduced At the end of each frame the reference is updated. The
by response variations in the detector elements. tracker is able to keep track of the target even though the
seekers point of view can change radically in the course
Stabilization The platform on which the seeker is of ight.
mounted must be stabilized with respect to the motion of To guide the missile, the tracker locates the target in the
the missile body and the seeker must be moved to stay current frame and compares this position with the aim
aligned with the target. The stabilization system must point. If this position is o center, the tracker computes
cope with rapid acceleration, up/down and lateral move- a correction and passes it to the guidance system, which
ments. This is done by a gimbal system, accelerometers, makes the appropriate adjustments to the four movable
spinning-mass gyros (or MEMS), and motors to drive tail ns, as well as six xed wings at mid-body. This is
changes in position of the platform. The system is ba- an autopilot. To guide the missile, the system has sensors
sically an autopilot. Information from the gyros is fed to that check that the ns are positioned as requested. If
the guidance electronics which drive a torque motor at- not, the deviation is sent back to the controller for further
tached to the seeker platform to keep the seeker aligned adjustment. This is a closed-loop controller.
There are three stages in the ight managed by the tracker:

1) an initial phase just after launch; 2) a mid-ight phase
that lasts for most of the ight; and 3) a terminal phase
in which the tracker selects the sweet spot for the point
of impact. With guidance algorithms, the autopilot uses
data from the seeker and tracker to determine when to
transition the missile from one phase of ight to another.
Depending on whether the missile is in top attack or direct
attack mode, the prole of the ight can change signi-
cantly. The top attack mode requires the missile to climb
sharply after launch and cruise at high altitude then dive
on the top of the target (curveball). In direct attack mode
(fastball), the missile cruises at a lower altitude directly
at target. The exact ight path which takes into account CLU after action.
the range to the target is calculated by the guidance unit.
CLU is the targeting component of the two part system.
229.3.2 Launch Tube Assembly The CLU has three views which are used to nd, target,
and re the missile. The CLU may also be used sepa-
Both men carry a disposable tube called the Launch Tube rately from the missile as a portable thermal sight. In-
Assembly which houses the missile and protects the mis- fantry are no longer required to stay in constant contact
sile from harsh environments. The tube also has built in with armored personnel carriers and tanks with thermal
electronics and a locking hinge system that makes attach- sights. This makes infantry personnel more exible and
ment and detachment of the missile to and from the Com- able to perceive threats they would not otherwise be able
mand Launch Unit a very quick and simple process. to detect. In 2006, a contract was awarded to Toyon Re-
search Corporation to begin development of an upgrade
to the CLU enabling the transmission of target image and
229.3.3 Command Launch Unit GPS location data to other units.[15]
Day Field of View
The rst view is a 4 magnication day view. It is mainly

used to scan areas for light during night operation, be-
cause light is not visible in the thermal views. It is also
used to scan following sunrise and sunset, when the ther-
mal image is hard to focus due to the natural rapid heating
and/or cooling of the Earth.
WFOV (Wide Field of View)
The second view is the 4x magnication night view, and

shows the gunner a thermal representation of the area
viewed. This is also the primary view used due to its
ability to detect infrared radiation and nd both troops
and vehicles otherwise too well hidden to detect. The
screen shows a green scale view which can be adjusted
in both contrast and brightness. The inside of the CLU is
cooled by a small refrigeration unit attached to the sight.
This greatly increases the sensitivity of the thermal imag-
ing capability since the temperature inside the sight is
much lower than that of the objects it detects. Due to
the sensitivity this causes, the gunner is able to focus
Command Launch Unit. the CLU to show a very detailed image of the area be-
ing viewed by showing temperature dierences of only
The gunner carries a reusable Command Launch Unit a few degrees. The gunner operates this view with the
(in addition to the Launch Tube Assembly) more com- use of two hand stations similar to the control stick found
monly referred to as a CLU (pronounced clue). The in modern cockpits. It is from this view that the gunner
229.5. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES 667
focuses the image and determines the area that gives the only a rough outline is visible. The soldiers must accom-
best heat signature on which to lock the missile. plish several timed drills with set standards before be-
ing qualied to operate the system in both training and
wartime situations. There are also smaller training pro-
NFOV (Narrow Field of View) grams set up on most Army bases that instruct soldiers
on the proper use of the system. At these courses, the
The third eld of view is a 12x thermal sight used to bet- training program might be changed in small ways. This
ter identify the target vehicle. Once the CLU has been is most commonly only minor requirements left out due to
focused in WFOV, the gunner may switch to NFOV for budget, the amount of soldiers vs. simulation equipment,
target recognition before activating Seeker FOV. and available time and resources. Both types of training
courses have required prociency levels that must be met
Seeker Field of View before the soldier can operate the system in training ex-
ercises or wartime missions.
Once the best target area is chosen, the gunner presses
one of the two triggers and is automatically switched to
the fourth view; the Seeker FOV, which is a 9x magnica- 229.5 Advantages and disadvan-
tion thermal view. This process is similar to the automatic
zoom feature on most modern cameras. This view is also
tages
available along with the previously mentioned views, all
of which may be accessed with press of a button. How- 229.5.1 Advantages
ever, it is not as popular as a high magnication view takes
longer to scan a wide area. This view allows the gun-
ner to further aim the missile and set the guidance sys-
tem housed inside the actual missile. It is when in this
view that information is passed from the CLU, through
the connection electronics of the Launch Tube Assem-
bly, and into the missiles guidance system. If the gunner
feels uncomfortable with ring the missile, he can still
cycle back to the other views without having to re the
missile. When the gunner is comfortable with the tar-
get picture, he pulls the second trigger and establishes a
lock. The missile launches after a short delay.
Lightweight CLU
The U.S. Army is developing a new CLU as an improve-

ment over the Block I version. The new CLU is 70 Javelins backblast
percent smaller, 40 percent lighter, and has a 50 per-
cent battery life increase. Features of the lightweight The portable system is easy to separate into main com-
CLU are: a long-wave IR sensor; a high-denition dis- ponents and easy to set up when needed. Compared to
play with improved resolution; integrated handgrips; a more cumbersome anti-tank weapon systems, the dier-
ve megapixel color camera; a laser point that can be seen ence is noticeable. For example, a TOW requires a heavy
visibly or through IR; a far target locator using GPS, a tripod stand, a bulky protective case for the thermal sight,
laser rangender, and a heading sensor; and modernized a larger, longer launch tube, and requires much more time
electronics.[13] to assemble and prepare. The Javelin (although still very
heavy) is lighter than the other missiles and their neces-
sary parts.
229.4 Training Although the CLUs thermal imaging may hinder aiming,
its thermal targeting allows the Javelin to be a re-and-
A great familiarity of each control and swift operation forget system. This gives the rer an opportunity to be
needs to be achieved before the unit can be deployed ef- out of sight and possibly moving to a new angle of re, or
ciently. American troops are trained on the system at the out of the area, by the time the enemy realizes they are
Infantry School in Fort Benning, Georgia, for two weeks. under attack. This is much safer than using a wire-guided
The soldiers are taught basic care and maintenance, op- system where the rer must stay stationary to guide the
eration and abilities, assembly and disassembly, and the missile into the target.
positions it can be red from. Soldiers are also taught to Another advantage is the Javelins power at impact. The
distinguish between a variety of vehicle types even when missiles tandem shaped charge warhead is made to pen-
etrate reactive armor. With the top attack mode, it has COIN operations due to its destructive power, but trained
an even greater ability to destroy the tank because it can gunners were able to make precision shots against enemy
attack where most tanks are weakest.[7] positions with little collateral damage. The Javelin lled a
The soft launch capability of the Javelin allows it to have niche in U.S. weapons systems against DShK heavy ma-
only a minimal backblast area. In addition to reducing chine guns and B-10 recoilless ries; weapons like the
the visible launch signature from the enemy, this enables AT4 and M203 had good eects but insucient range,
the Javelin to be red from inside structures with minimal medium and heavy machine guns and grenade launchers
preparation, which gives the Javelin advantages in urban had greater range but insucient eects, and heavy mor-
tars had good range and eects but poor precision. The
ghting over the widely used AT4 (which has a very large
backblast area, although this is lessened in the AT4 CS). Javelin, as well as the TOW, had enough range, power,
and accuracy to counter stando engagement tactics em-
A large backblast area would seriously injure personnel if
red from inside an unprepared structure, and may betray ployed by enemy weapons. With good locks, the missile
is most eective against vehicles, caves, fortied posi-
the location of the launch to enemy observers.
tions, and individual personnel; if enemies were inside a
The missile also has a greater range than the US ATGM cave, a Javelin red into the mouth of the cave would de-
it replaces, the M47 Dragon.[7] stroy it from the inside, which was not possible from the
outside using heavy mortars. The psychological eect of
the sound of a Javelin ring sometimes caused insurgents
229.5.2 Disadvantages to disengage and ee their position. Even when not ring,
the Javelins CLU was commonly used as a man-portable
The main drawback of the complete system (missile, surveillance system.[19]
tube, and CLU) is its 49.2 lb (22.3 kg) total weight. The
system is designed to be portable by infantry on foot
and weighs more than that originally specied by the US
Army requirement.[16]
229.7 Users
Another drawback of the system is the reliance on a
thermal view to acquire targets. The thermal views are
not able to operate until the refrigeration component has
cooled the system. The manufacturer estimates 30 sec-
onds until this is complete, but depending on the ambient
temperature, this process may take much longer.
Also, Javelin launchers and missiles are rather expen-
sive. In 2002 a single Javelin command launch unit cost
$126,000, and each missile cost around $78,000.[17]
The operator of the complex has no opportunity to correct
the ight of the rocket after launch (when the target heat
contrasts poorly with the terrain, the missile can miss).
Javelin, with an eective range of 2,500 m is not able
to exceed the range of its international predecessors and
competitors; MILAN 3,000 m, Swingre 4,000 m, TOW
4,200 m and Kornet-EM 8,000 m. This is due to the
IIR CLU having diculties acquiring targets at extended
rangesthe missile is capable of reaching 4,750 m.
229.6 Combat history

The Javelin was used by US Army and Marine Corps and
Australian Special Forces in the 2003 Invasion of Iraq[7]
on Iraqi Type 69 and Lion of Babylon tanks. In one short
engagement, a platoon of U.S. special forces soldiers
equipped with Javelins destroyed two T-55 tanks, eight A Norwegian soldier with the FGM-148 Javelin.
armored personnel carriers, and four troop trucks.[18]
During the War in Afghanistan, the Javelin was used ef- Australia: 92 launchers.[20]
fectively in counter-insurgency (COIN) operations. Ini-
tially, soldiers perceived the weapon as unsuited for Bahrain: 13 launchers.[21]
229.8. SEE ALSO 669
Czech Republic: Purchased 3 launchers and problems at military armories and warehouses in
12 missiles for its special forces (intended for use 2004 and expressed concerns of weapons falling into
in Afghanistan).[22] enemy hands.[42]
Estonia: 120 launchers and 350 missiles will be

taken into service by 2016. 229.7.1 Failed bids
France: 76 launchers and 260 missiles for use India: India had planned to buy some of the
in Afghanistan.[23] Was replacing MILAN anti-tank systems o-the-shelf and a much larger number
missile,[24] no follow-on order in favor of the missile was to be indigenously manufactured under licensed
moyenne porte (MMP).[25] production.[43] But, the plan to go in for the Amer-
ican FGM-148 Javelin ATGMs had virtually been
Georgia[26] shelved because of Washingtons reluctance to pro-
vide full military knowhowlicensed transfer of
Indonesia[27] technology (ToT)"to allow India to indigenously
manufacture the tank killers in large numbers af-
Ireland; Irish Army, replaced MILAN anti-
ter an initial o-the-shelf purchase.[44] In Septem-
tank missile.[28]
ber 2013, the U.S. proposed co-development of the
Jordan: 30 launchers and 116 missiles were re- next version of the Javelin with India as a way to
ceived in 2004, and another 162 JAVELIN Com- deepen defense ties between the two countries.[45]
mand Launch Units (CLUs), 18 Fly-to-Buy Mis- In 2014 the United States oered to transfer fourth-
siles, 1,808 JAVELIN Anti-Tank Guided Missiles generation technology for the missile, an improve-
and other support equipment was ordered in 2009. ment over the previous third generation.[46] How-
The estimated cost is $388 million.[29] ever, India chose to buy the Israeli Spike missile in
October 2014 instead of the Javelin.[47]
Lithuania: 40 launchers.[30]
New Zealand: 24 launchers[31] Germany Germany Army
Norway: 100 launchers and 526 missiles. De-

livered from 2006, in use from 2009.[32]
229.8 See also
Oman: 30 launchers.[33]
MBT LAW
Qatar: In March 2013, Qatar requested the
sale of 500 Javelin missiles and 50 command launch Spike (missile)
units.[34] The deal was signed in March 2014.[35]
Type 01 LMAT
Saudi Arabia
9K115-2 Metis-M
Taiwan: In 2002, Taiwan bought 360 Javelin
missiles and 40 launcher units for $39 million. The Shershen
contract also included training devices, logistics sup-
HJ-12
port, associated equipment and training.[36] In 2008,
the United States issued a congressional notication Missile Moyenne Porte (MMP)
for the sale of a further 20 launchers and 182 more
missiles.[37] List of missiles
United Arab Emirates[38]
United Kingdom: In January 2003, the UK 229.9 References
Ministry of Defence announced that it had decided
to procure Javelin for the Light Forces Anti-Tank Notes
Guided Weapon System (LFATGWS) requirement.
It entered UK service in 2005 replacing the MILAN
and Swingre systems.[7][39][40] Budget Request Program Acquisition Cost By Weapon
United States: In 2003, the United States
General Accounting Oce (GAO) reported that the
2014. p. 60.
Army could not account for 36 Javelin command
launch units totaling approximately $2.8 million.[41] [2] 40,000 Javelin Missiles Delivered and Counting -
The New York Times later reported supply chain PRNewswire.com, 2 December 2014
[3] [27] Indonesia & Jordan; Javelin missile order - Dmilt.com,

May 26, 2013
[4] Javelin Portable Anti-Tank Missile - Army Technology.
Retrieved 25 December 2014. [28] Jones, Richard D. Janes Infantry Weapons 2009/2010.
[5] Javelin Man-Portable Anti-Tank Missile Demonstrates ISBN 978-0-7106-2869-5.
Extended Range Capability - Deagel.com, February 6,
2013 [29] Jordan to buy Javelin anti-tank missiles from USA of
worth $388 million : Defense news
[6] Javelin Antitank Missile
[30] The World Defence Almanac 2010 page 174 ISSN 0722-
[7] Javelin Portable Anti-Tank Missile - Army Technology. 3226 Monch Publishing Group
army-technology.com. Retrieved 25 December 2014.
[31] The World Defence Almanac 2010 page 423 ISSN 0722-
[8] Javelin Antitank Missile 3226 Monch Publishing Group
[9] Janes Weapon Systems 19881989 page 153 [32] The World Defence Almanac 2010 page 184 ISSN 0722-
3226 Monch Publishing Group
[10] JAVELIN, Redstone Arsenal (archived from http://www.
redstone.army.mil/history/systems/JAVELIN.html the [33] The World Defence Almanac 2010 page 286 ISSN 0722-
original on 2001-02-15) 3226 Monch Publishing Group
[34] Qatar Requests Sales of 500 Javelin Anti-Tank Missile
[11] Javelin Environmental Test System (JETS), Redstone
Rounds and 50 Launch Units - Deagel.com, March 28,
Technical Test Center (RTTC) (archived from the orig-
2013
inal on 2008-01-26)
[35] $23.9B in Deals Announced on Last Day of DIMDEX -
[12] Javelin warhead redesigned for future threats - Thered-
Defensenews.com, 27 March 2014
stonerocket.com, 3 July 2012
[36] Lockheed Martin press release (archived from the original
[13] http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2013PSAR_13/hicks.pdf on 2007-03-27)
[14] 64 64 LWIR Focal Plane Assembly (FPA) Highly Lin- [37] Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Oce in
ear, Rapid Operation Staring Array, Raytheon. (archived the United States JAVELIN Guided Missile Systems.
from the original on 2009-02-27) DSCA. 2008-10-03. Retrieved 2008-10-05.
[15] 262 Phase I Selections from the 06.2 Solicitation. [38] The World Defence Almanac 2010 page 298 ISSN 0722-
Archived from the original on 2007-09-27. 3226 Monch Publishing Group
[16] Raytheon/Lockheed Martin FGM-148 Javelin [39] MOD press release
[17] Javelin Medium Anti-armor Weapon System. Re- [40] Javelin Medium Range Anti-tank Guided Weapon
[41] Abate, Tom (2003-05-18). Military waste under re /
[18] THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ: COMBAT; How Green trillion missing Bush plan targets Pentagon accounting.
Berets Beat the Odds at an Iraq Alamo By THOM The San Francisco Chronicle.
SHANKER Published: September 22, 2003, New York
[42] Schmitt, Eric; Thompson, Ginger (2007-11-11). Broken
Times
Supply Channel Sent Arms for Iraq Astray. The New
[19] Javelin in Afghanistan: The Eective Use of an Anti-Tank York Times. Retrieved 2010-05-02.
Weapon for Counter-Insurgency Operations [43] Pandit, Rajat (2010-08-17). India to order large num-
[20] The World Defence Almanac 2010 page 418 ISSN 0722- ber of Javelin anti-tank missiles from US. The Times Of
3226 Monch Publishing Group. Australia was one of the India.
rst countries that the US government gave unrestricted [44] Pandit, Rajat (2012-11-29). Israel pips US in anti-tank
permission for the export of the Javelin. guided missile supply to India. The Times Of India.
[21] Bahrain Requests 160 Javelins & 60 CLUs [45] United States and India could start the co-development of
new version of Javelin anti-tank missile - Armyrecogni-
[22] A-report (Czech) (archived from the original on 2009-02-
tion.com, 22 September 2013
27)
[46] RAGHUVANSHI, VIVEK (16 August 2014). Too Early
[23] The World Defence Almanac 2010 page 136 ISSN 0722- To Assess Indo-US Defense Ties. www.defensenews.
3226 Monch Publishing Group com (Gannett). Retrieved 16 August 2014.
[24] France replacing Milan Strategypage.com [47] India will purchase 8,000 Israeli Spike anti-tank guided
missiles and 300 units of launchers - Armyrecogni-
[25] France Orders Anti-Tank Missile from MBDA - Defense-
tion.com, 26 October 2014
news.com, 5 December 2013
[26] Georgia to buy weapons from US: Voice of Russia Bibliography


Javelin, Lockheed Martin (archived from the origi-
nal on 2008-01-20)
Designation Systems
FAS article on Javelin
Javelin tank killer

AAWS-M: from the DRAGON to todays
JAVELIN Story
Javelin Lockheed Martin Anti-tank infrared guided
missile on armyrecognition.com
Chapter 230
FGM-172 SRAW
The FGM-172 SRAW (Short-Range Assault Weapon), for use as an anti-armor weapon.
also known as the Predator SRAW, is a lightweight, The FGM-172B features a multi-purpose blast-
close range missile system produced by Lockheed Mar- fragmentation warhead, and is intended for use as
tin, developed by Lockheed Martin and Israel Military In-
an assault weapon. Also known as the FGM-172B
dustries.[2] It is designed to complement the Javelin anti- SRAW-MPV
tank missile. The Predator has a longer range and is more
powerful than the AT4 that it is designed to replace, but
has a shorter range than the Javelin. 230.2.2 Weapon
The missile system received the FGM-172 designation
from the Department of Defense in 2006. Prior to that The Kestrel is a derivative of the Predator for the
it was known as the SRAW MK 40 MOD 0. British Armys Next-generation Light Anti-tank Weapon
(NLAW).[1] It failed the NLAW test.[4]
230.1 Features
230.3 Advantages
The Predator is a re-and-forget weapon utilizing a pre-
launch system where the gunner tracks the target three The Predator is a useful complement for Javelin since
seconds before launch and the internal system measures it has a signicantly shorter minimum range, especially
target speed and direction and is used in conjunction with in direct attack mode where it can be red window to
known missile ight performance to predict where the window across a typical street. It is also much lighter
target will be when the missile is in a position to intercept. than Javelin which makes carrying one or more additional
The missiles ight path overies the target aim point. A rounds easier where the situation warrants or allows a
dual laser and magnetic sensor detects the target and trig- lighter and shorter range solution. Additionally, because
gers the detonation of the warhead. The laser sensor lo- it utilizes a dierent guidance mechanism it is more dif-
cates the positions of the leading and trailing edges of the cult to defeat both threats with a single defense. It can
tank, and the magnetic sensor provides conrmation of also be carried by every member of the platoon, giving in-
the position of the tank. The missile also uses an inertial fantry units increased repower and survivability against
guidance unit that guides the weapon over the predicted enemy armor.
intercept point, compensating for crosswind and launcher
motion (the launcher may be mounted on or red from
a vehicle). For direct attacks the missile acts as an un- 230.4 Operators
guided, attened trajectory, line-of-sight weapon and the
warhead detonates on impact.[3]
United States Marine Corps
230.2 Variants
230.5 Predator MPV
230.2.1 Missile In 2003 the US Army decided not to adopt a version
of the USMC Predator as its MPIM/SRAW (Multipur-
The missile is produced in two variants, each with a sep- pose Individual Munition - Short Range Assault Weapon)
arate weapons payload. candidate and further procurement of the Predator was
The FGM-172A features a downward-ring top attack canceled.[5] And as of 2005, all the FGM-172A missiles
warhead activated by a dual sensor fuse, and is intended supplied previously to the USMC have been retrotted
672
with the FGM-172B multi-purpose blast warhead to re-

place the top attack anti-armor warhead.[6]
230.6 References
[1] Predator Light Anti-Armour Missile, USA. SPG Me-
dia. Retrieved 2008-10-28.
[2] Lockheed Martin to Develop Follow-on to Shoulder-

Launched Multi-Purpose Assault Weapon for U.S. Ma-
rine Corps.
[3] Army Technology FGM-172 SRAW. Retrieved 2012-

05-12.
[4] Lockheed Martin FGM-172 SRAW. 2006-09-27. Re-

trieved 2008-10-28.
[5] John Antal Packing a Punch: Americas Man-Portable

Antitank Weapons page 88 Military Technology 3/2010,
Monch Publishing
[6] Jennifer Allen (2005-05-26). Lockheed Martin,

Responding to U.S. Marine Corps Needs, Converts
Anti-Tank Missile for Urban Assault (press release).
Lockheed Martin.

Lockheed Martin FGM-172 SRAW - Designation
Systems
Lockheed Martin video on ring of Predator

Chapter 231
Joint Air-to-Ground Missile
The Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) is a U.S. 231.4 Timeline

military program to develop an air-to-surface missile to
replace the current air-launched BGM-71 TOW, AGM- June 2007: US Defense Department releases a draft
114 Hellre and AGM-65 Maverick missiles.[3] The US request for proposals (RFP) launching a competition
Army and Navy plans to buy thousands of JAGMs.[4] for the Joint Air to Ground Missile (JAGM) pro-
gram, schedules industry day.[5]
April 2008: Raytheon and Boeing announce team-
231.1 Description ing for the Joint Air to Ground Missile (JAGM)
program.[7]
The Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) program is a
September 2008: Lockheed Martin announced that
follow-on from the unsuccessful AGM-169 Joint Com-
they were awarded a $122 million technology devel-
mon Missile program that was cancelled due to budget
opment contract for the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile
cuts. JAGM will share basically the same objectives and
(JAGM) system. The 27-month contract, awarded
technologies as JCM but will be developed over a longer
by the U.S. Armys Aviation and Missile Command,
time scale.[5]
with participation by the U.S. Navy and Marine
Corps, is for a competitive risk-reduction phase.[8]
231.2 Launch platforms September 2008: U.S. Army Awards Raytheon-

Boeing Team $125 million contract for JAGM.[9]
AH-64 Apache January 2010: Raytheon-Boeing team completes

rst JAGM captive ight test.[10]
MQ-1C Gray Eagle[3]
March 2010: U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Com-
MH-60R/S Seahawk mand (AMCOM) updates the draft request for pro-
posal (RFP) and releases it.[11]
AH-1Z Viper[1] March 2010: Lockheed Martin Successfully Tests
JAGM Tri-Mode Seeker.[12]
April 2010: Raytheon-Boeing team validates
231.3 Operators JAGM seeker during captive ight tests.[13]
April 2010: Lockheed Martin, Aerojet achieve
United States: The JAGM was intended for joint
JAGM rocket motor breakthrough.[14]
service with the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, and the U.S.
Marine Corps by providing a single missile congura- April 2010: Lockheed Martins JAGM suc-
tion for many platforms. JAGM oered the services in- cessfully completes Limited Dirty Battle-
creased operational exibility and reduced logistics sup- eld/Countermeasures testing.[15]
port costs.[3] However, in February 2012, the Navy and
Marine Corps terminated their investment in the pro- April 2010: Raytheon-Boeing team res rst
gram, saying it was a manageable risk to do so. They JAGM.[16]
would instead focus on the GBU-53/B SDB II and contin- May 2010: Lockheed Martins JAGM successfully
ued Hellre procurement, making the JAGM an Army- completes F/A-18 E/F wind tunnel tests.[17]
only program. In March 2014, the Navy re-entered the
program with documents showing integration of the mis- July 2010: Raytheon-Boeing Team on Target Dur-
sile onto Marine AH-1Z helicopters.[6] ing First Government-Funded Test of JAGM[18]
674
231.5. SEE ALSO 675
Aug 2010: Raytheon-Boeing Team on Target Dur- July 17, 2013: Army announces they will not award
ing Second Government-Funded Test Raytheon a contract for the remainder of the Tech-
nology Development (TD) phase and will continue
Sep 2010: Raytheon-Boeing Team on Target Dur- with Lockheeds contract.[29]
ing Third Government-Funded Test
February 2014: Lockheed demonstrates JAGM
Nov 2010: Lockheed Martin JAGM Hits Target in dual-mode guidance section by engaging a laser-
Multi-Mission Test[19] designated moving target. The seeker features Hell-
re semi-active laser and Longbow millimeter wave
Jan 2011: Lockheed Martin JAGM Completes Fly- radar. The rail-mounted guidance section ew 6 km
ing Qualities Test on US Navy Super Hornet[20] (3.7 mi), engaged its precision-strike, semi-active
laser, and hit the target.[30]
Each team submitted its proposal in the spring July 2014: Lockheed performs a second ight test of
of 2011, with contract award expected in the their JAGM dual-mode guidance section. The target
rst quarter of 2012. However, in September was initially acquired with its semi-active laser, then
the Army and Navy requested the JAGM pro- engaged its millimeter wave radar, hitting a moving
gram be terminated.[21] target at 6.2 km (3.9 mi).[31]
February 2015: Army issues RFP for JAGM guid-
Jan 2012: JAGM survives budget reduction plan
ance section upgrade. Lockheed will oer its dual-
with reduced funding.[22]
mode laser and millimeter wave radar seeker, and
Aug 17, 2012: Lockheed Martin receives a $64 Raytheon may submit its tri-mode seeker which
million contract from the U.S. Army to extend the adds imaging infrared if it choses to compete.[32]
JAGM technology development program. The 27-
month extended technology development program
will include design, test, and demonstration phases 231.5 See also
for the JAGM guidance section.[23]
Naval Air Systems Command
Aug 2012: The Army drops its requirement for a tri-
mode seeker due to budget cutbacks. The current List of missiles by country
plan is to separate JAGM into increments, with the
Brimstone missile
rst adding a low-frequency millimeter wave radar
to Hellre-R model missiles to augment its laser Spike (missile)
seeker, making it dual-mode. A more expensive tri-
mode seeker adding an imaging infrared sensor is Precision Attack Air-to-Surface Missile
delayed. Lockheed claimed the IR seeker dispro-
portionately drove up costs, while Raytheon claimed
it could leverage technology it used for the GBU- 231.6 References
53/B SDB II to inexpensively keep the tri-mode
seeker.[24] [1] .
Oct 22, 2012: Raytheon submits its contract pro- [2] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/
posal to continue the development of its version of data/mfc/photo/tradeshows/ausa-winter-2014/briefings/
the JAGM. The imaging infrared seeker require- mfc-2014-AUSA-Winter-JAGM-briefing.pdf
ment was previously dropped due to cost, but the [3] ARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION
Raytheon seeker is the same one used on the SDB (R2 Exhibit) - PDF.
II, so they continued to develop their system with all
three modes.[25] [4] VIDEO: Raytheon/Boeing show JAGM direct hit. Re-
trieved 2010-08-17.
Oct 23, 2012: Lockheed Martin successfully tested [5] Pentagon Plans Industry Day For Joint Air To Ground
millimeter wave and semi-active laser seeker for Missile - Defense Daily, Vol. 234, No. 60.
missile at maximum range.[26]
[6] JAGM: Joint Air-Ground Missile Again - Defenseindus-
Dec 6, 2012: Raytheon receives a $65 million 28- trydaily.com
month contract to continue development of their
[7] Raytheon News Release Archive.
JAGM missile and uncooled tri-mode seeker.[27] Raytheon.mediaroom.com. 2008-04-14. Retrieved
2013-10-06.
April 2013: JAGM in danger of cancellation as part
of budget cuts in FY 2014 budget.[28] [8]
676 CHAPTER 231. JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE
[9] Raytheon Company : Investor Relations : News Re- [30] Lockheed Martin Demonstrates JAGM Dual-Mode Guid-
lease. Investor.raytheon.com. 2008-09-22. Retrieved ance Section in Recent Flight Test - Lockheed news re-
2013-10-06. lease, 20 February 2014
[10] Raytheon-Boeing Team Completes First Joint Air-to- [31] Lockheed Martin Demonstrates JAGM Dual-Mode Guid-
Ground Missile Captive Flight Test - Jan 29, 2010. ance Section in Second Flight Test - Deagel.com, 23 July
Raytheon.mediaroom.com. 2010-01-29. Retrieved 2014
2013-10-06.
[32] US army seeks upgrades for Hellre missile guidance sys-
[11] 14-Draft Request for Proposal (RFP), number tem - Flightglobal.com, 6 February 2015
W31P4Q-10-R-A001 for a Joint Air-to-Ground Missile
(JAGM), System. - W31P4Q-10-R-A001 (Archived)
- Federal Business Opportunities: Opportunities.
Fbo.gov. Retrieved 2013-10-06.
[12] Army RDT&E 2009 Budget Item Justication
(PDF)
[13] Raytheon-Boeing Team Validates Joint Air-to-Ground
Missile Seeker During Captive Flight Tests - Apr 15, Army RDT&E 2010 Budget Item Justication
2010. Raytheon.mediaroom.com. 2010-04-15. Re-
(PDF)
trieved 2013-10-06.
U.S. Navy NAVAIR JAGM page
[14]
[15]
Lockheed Martin JAGM page
[16] Raytheon Company : Investor Relations : News Re- Raytheon JAGM page
lease. Investor.raytheon.com. 2010-04-20. Retrieved
2012 Army Weapon Systems Handbook - JAGM
2013-10-06.
[17]
Raytheon JAGM datasheet
[18] Raytheon-Boeing Team on Target During First HELLFIRE II Missile

Government-Funded Test of JAGM - Jul 26, 2010.
Raytheon.mediaroom.com. Retrieved 2013-10-06.
[19]
[20]
[21] Sherman, Jason (11 October 2011). Army, Navy Pro-

pose Terminating Joint Air-to-Ground Missile Program.
Inside Defense. Retrieved 5 December 2011.
[22] US budget cuts-Flightglobal-Jan 26, 2012. Flight-

global.com. 2012-01-26. Retrieved 2013-11-14.
[23] Lockheed Martin Awarded $64 Million JAGM Contract

For Extended Technology Development. Lockheed press
release, Aug. 17, 2012
[24] Army Reduces Scope Of Tri-Mode JAGM - Aviation-

week.com, 27 August 2012
[25] Raytheon submits JAGM contact proposal. Flight-

global.com, October 23, 2012
[26] Lockheed Martin Demonstrates JAGM Dual-Mode

Seeker. Lockheed press release, October 23, 2012
[27] US Army awards JAGM continued technology devel-

opment contract - Army-Technology.com, December 6,
2012
[28] Obama plan would end anti-tank missile - Orlandosen-

tinel.com, 14 April 2013
[29] US Army to move ahead with Lockheed Martin JAGM -

Janes.com, 18 July 2013
Chapter 232
Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System
The APKWS II shares the Distributed Aperture Semi-

Active Laser Seeker (DASALS) technology with the
XM395 mortar round. This system allows a laser seeker
to be located in the leading edge of each of the forward
control canards, working in unison as if they were a single
seeker. This conguration allows existing warheads from
the Hydra 70 system to be used without the need for a
laser seeker in the missile nose.
232.2.1 Specications
Diameter: 70 mm
Guidance: Semi-active laser homing.
APKWS missile CEP: <0.5m[3]
The Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System Motor: Existing Hydra 70 motors.
(APKWS) is a laser guided missile which is compatible Warhead: Existing Hydra 70 warheads.
with existing Hydra 70 unguided rocket launchers and
components in service. Unit cost: ~ $28,500
APKWS is a plug and play, point and shoot
weapon, and is red like the unguided 2.75-inch
232.1 Development rocket. The weapon is easily assembled and can be
shot with minimal instruction, as if it were an un-
Where possible the system utilizes existing Hydra 70 guided rocket.
components such as launchers, rocket motors, warheads
and fuzes. The weapon bridges the gap between the Hy-
dra 70 and AGM-114 Hellre systems and provides a 232.3 Program status
cost-eective method of engaging lightly armored point
targets. APKWS is the U.S. governments only program
2002: APKWS development test series begins.[4]
of record for the semi-active, laser-guided 2.75-inch (70
millimeter) rocket. It converts the Hydra 70 unguided April 2005: General Dynamics APKWS program
rocket into a precision guided munition through the ad- cancelled due to poor test results.[5]
dition of a mid-body guidance unit developed by BAE
Systems. October 2005: Competition re-opened as APKWS
II.[5]
September 2005: Successful ight test of BAE AP-
232.2 Design KWS II.[6]
April 2006: BAE Systems selected as prime con-
The winning bidder for the APKWS II contract was the tractor for the APKWS II program.[7]
team of BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman and General
Dynamics,[1] beating out the oerings from Lockheed February 2007: Funding for program withdrawn in
Martin and Raytheon Systems.[2] proposed FY2008 budget.[8][9]
677
678 CHAPTER 232. ADVANCED PRECISION KILL WEAPON SYSTEM
May 2007: Successful ight test of BAE APKWS II October 2013: APKWS successfully red from
in production-ready conguration.[10] an AH-64 Apache. Eight rockets were red with
the helicopter ying at up to 150 kn (170 mph;
November 2008: Transfer of contract from US 280 km/h) and up to 5 km (3.1 mi) from the
Army to US Navy.[11] target. Launch altitudes ranged from 300 ft to
1,500 ft. BAE wants airworthiness qualication
on the Apache for international sales to AH-64
232.3.1 Deployment operators.[20]
March 2012: APKWS II achieves IOC and is sent March 2014: LAU-61 G/A Digital Rocket
to Afghanistan with USMC. Plans are to integrate it Launcher (DRL) deployed with HSC-15.[21]
onto the MQ-8 Fire Scout.[12]
July 2014: BAE reveals that the APKWS has
July 2012: BAE Systems receives full-rate pro- reached Early Operational Capability (EOC) with
duction contract for APKWS from the U.S. Navy. one squadron of MH-60S helicopters. The MH-60R
The rst FRP deliveries were in October 2012 and will be outtted within 12-18 months.[22] BAE ex-
the company expected the next FRP option to be pressed condence that the US Army would order
awarded by the end of 2012.[13] APKWS is ap- APKWS in 2015, most likely for its Apaches.[23]
proximately one-third of the cost and one-third of
the weight of the current inventory of laser-guided October 2014: APKWS tested on Australian Army
weapons in use by U.S. forces, and a lower yield Eurocopter Tiger. A helicopter was on the ground
weapon suitable for tighter spaces. The APKWS and red seven rockets which successfully hit their
takes one quarter of the time for ordnance personnel targets. The rocket could enter Australian service
to use (load and unload the weapon). It has been de- by early 2015 on army Tigers and navy MH-60R
ployed to Afghanistan and is being successfully used helicopters.[24]
in theatre today by USMC personnel.
September 2012: The Navy awards a contract to of- 232.4 Export

cially integrate the APKWS into the Fire Scout.[14]
October 2012: BAE announces its intention to mod- On 14 April 2014, the U.S. Navy signed an agreement
ify the APKWS II to be red from xed-wing tacti- with the Jordanian Air Force for the rst international sale
cal ghter platforms.[15] of the APKWS. The rockets will be used on the CN-235
gunship and begin delivery in 2016.[25]
January 2013: Additional conversion kits ordered.
No in ight failures during the 100 combat launches
in Afghanistan to date.[16]
232.5 Launch platforms
February 2013: APKWS launched from an A-10
Thunderbolt II. Three sorties were conducted. The Current rotary wing:[12][18]
rst sortie carried the rocket and launcher, and the
second sortie red an inert, unguided rocket to en- UH-1Y Venom
sure the weapon would separate from the aircraft. AH-1W SuperCobra
Two armed rockets were red during the third sor- AH-1Z Viper
tie from 10,000 and 15,000 feet. The second rocket
launched into a 70 knot headwind, and both im- Bell 407GT
pacted within inches of the target. The Air Force MH-60S Seahawk
is considering using the APKWS II operationally by
2015 if further testing is successful.[17] Planned rotary wing[18]
March 2013: APKWS is integrated onto the Bell MQ-8 Fire Scout
407GT.[18] MH-60R Seahawk
April 2013: A UH-1Y Venom red 10 APKWS OH-58 Kiowa (company funded)
rockets at stationary and moving small boat targets, AH-64 Apache (company funded)
scoring 100 percent accurate hits on single and mul- V-22 Osprey[26]
tiple targets over water. The engagement ranged
from 24 km using inert warheads, Mk152 high ex- Planned xed-wing[18]
plosive warheads, and MK149 echette warheads.
The UH-1Y had the boats designated by an MH- A-10 Thunderbolt II
60S.[19] AV-8B Harrier II
F/A-18 Hornet[27] [16] BAE gets more work for laser-guided missiles. - Union-
leader.com, 15 January 2013
F/A-18 Super Hornet
F-16 Fighting Falcon [17] A-10 Fires First-Ever Laser-Guided Rocket - AF.mil,
April 3, 2013
CN-235[25]
[18] BAEs APKWS rockets integrated on Bells new Model
407GT - Flightglobal.com, March 5, 2013
232.6 See also [19] APKWS Demonstrates Anti-Ship Capability In Maritime
Testing - Seapowermagazine.org, April 10, 2013
AASM [20] APKWS Laser-Guided Rocket Successfully Qualied on
US Army Apache Helicopters - Deagel.com, 22 October
Low-Cost Guided Imaging Rocket
2013
Direct Attack Guided Rocket [21] Scott, Richard (31 March 2014). USN adds anti-FIAC
capability to MH-60S to meet urgent operational need.
Guided Advanced Tactical Rocket - Laser
www.janes.com. IHS Jane. Retrieved 2 April 2014.
Roketsan Cirit [22] Interest grows in APKWS - Shephardmedia.com, 17 July
2014
List of laser articles
[23] Stevenson, Beth (21 July 2014). FARNBOROUGH:
BAE bullish about APKWS purchase for US Army.
232.7 References Flight Daily News.
[24] Australia tests BAEs Advanced Precision Kill Weapon

[1] U.S. ARMY SELECTS BAE SYSTEMS FOR APKWS System - UPI.com, 14 October 2014
II CONTRACT - BAE
[25] Jordan Equips CN-235 Gunship with APKWS 2.75
[2] APKWS II: Laser-Guided Hydra Rockets in Production Guided Rockets - Defense-Update.com, 1 May 2014
At Last
[26] Osprey Fires Guided Rockets And Missiles In New Trials
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INqboBcIVGs - Aviationweek.com, 8 December 2014
[4] APKWS II - Deagel [27] U.S. Marines to Retire Harrier Fleet Earlier Than
Planned, Extend Life of Hornets - News.USNI.org, 3
[5] Air-Launched 2.75-Inch Rockets - Designation Systems November 2014
[6] BAE SYSTEMS 70MM LASER-GUIDED ROCKET

ACHIEVES TWO DIRECT HITS - BAE
[7] APKWS II Hellre Jr. Hydra Rockets Enter SDD Phase
[8] Army Proposes Major Weapons Cuts - military.com APKWS - BAE
[9] US Army 2008 R&D Budget Request (Page 4) Distributed Aperture Semi-Active Laser Seeker
(DASALS) - BAE Systems
[10] BAE SYSTEMS CONDUCTS SUCCESSFUL TEST
OF ADVANCED PRECISION KILL WEAPON SYS- Hydra-70 Rockets: From Cutbacks to the Future of
TEM - BAE PR. Warfare - Defense Industry Daily
[11] BAE SYSTEMS PRECISION-TARGETED WEAPON Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System - Defense
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM NOW LED BY U.S. Update
NAVY AND MARINE CORPS.
Laser Guided APKWS II Rockets for USMC Har-
[12] Marine helicopters deploy with laser-guided rocket - rier, Air Combat Commands Warthog - Defense-
NAVAIR.Navy.mil, 17 April 2012 Update
[13] Eshel, Tamir. APKWS Enters Full Rate production. Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS)
Defense Update, 13 August 2012. - Global Security
[14] BAE Systems to Integrate Advanced Precision Kill BAE Systems video of APKWS on YouTube
Weapon System on MQ-8B Fire Scout UAV - sUAS-
News.com, September 18, 2012
[15] BAE to demonstrate APKWS on xed-wing aircraft -

Flightglobal.com, October 23, 2012
Chapter 233
AGM-87 Focus
The AGM-87 Focus is a missile developed by the United

States of America.
233.1 Overview
The missile was a development of the AIM-9B
Sidewinder air-to-air missile, intended for use against
ground targets. Development took place at the China
Lake Naval Weapons Center during the late 1960s. The
infrared guidance method of the Sidewinder was retained,
as the missile was to be used against targets which emit-
ted an infrared signature. Typical targets included trucks
and other such vehicles.
The Focus was used in Vietnam during 1969 and 1970,
primarily for night attacks when IR emitters stand out well
against the cool background. Although the missile was
reportedly quite eective, it was discontinued in favour
of other weapons.
233.2 Specications
Length : 2.83 m (9 ft 3.5 in)
Finspan : 0.56 m (1 ft 10 in)
Diameter : 12.7 cm (5 in)

Propulsion : Thiokol MK 17 MOD 3 solid-fuel

rocket

General Electric AGM-87 Focus - Designation Sys-
tems
680
Chapter 234
AGM-129 ACM
The AGM-129 ACM (Advanced Cruise Missile) was provided by a Lidar Doppler velocimeter.
a low-observable, subsonic, turbofan-powered, air- These changes made the AGM-129A more dicult to
launched cruise missile originally designed and built by detect and allowed the missile to be own at higher alti-
General Dynamics and eventually acquired by Raytheon
tude. The newer Williams International F112-WR-100
Missile Systems. Prior to its withdrawal from service in turbofan engine increased range by about 50%. The
2012, the AGM-129A was carried exclusively by the US
newer guidance system, increased accuracy to a quoted
Air Force's B-52H Stratofortress bombers. gure of between 30 m (100 ft) and 90 m (300 ft).
The AGM-129A like the AGM-86B is armed with a
W801 variable yield nuclear warhead.
234.1 Early development
The rst test missile ew in July 1985 and the rst produc-
tion missiles were delivered to the US Air Force in 1987.
In 1982 the US Air Force began studies for a new cruise The development program experienced some hardware
missile with low-observable characteristics after it be- quality control problems and testing mishaps. The ight
came clear that the AGM-86B cruise missile would have test program took place during a period of high ten-
diculty penetrating future air defense systems. The sion between the machinists union and GDC manage-
AGM-86B relied on low-altitude ight to penetrate the ment, with a 3 1/2 week long strike occurring in 1987.
Soviet air defense system centered on surface to air mis- US Congressman Les Aspin called the ACM a procure-
siles. The deployment of the airborne early warning sys- ment disaster with the worst problems of any of the
tems, together with the Zaslon PESA radar on Mig-31 eight strategic weapons programs his committee had re-
and Myech radar on Su-27 interceptors, all three "look- viewed. The US Congress zeroed out funding for the
down/shoot-down" radars, reduced the likelihood that the ACM program in 1989. Manufacturing quality problems
low-altitude AGM-86B would reach its target. led the US Air Force to stop missile deliveries in 1989
The solution was to incorporate various low-observable and 1991. McDonnell Douglas was invited to qualify as
('stealth') technologies into a new Advanced Cruise Missile a second source for missile production. In early 1989,
system. the United States requested and received permission to
test the AGM-129A in Canada.
Plans called for producing enough missiles to replace the
234.2 Design, test and initial pro- approximately 1,461 AGM-86Bs at a rate of 200 missiles
per year after full-rate production was achieved in 1993.
duction In January 1992, the end of the Cold War led US Presi-
dent George H.W. Bush to announce a major cutback in
In 1983 General Dynamics Convair Division (GD/C) was total ACM procurement. The President determined that
awarded a development contract for the AGM-129A (the only 640 missiles were needed. The ACM program was
losing design was Lockheed Corporation's Senior Prom). later reduced still further to 460 missiles. In August 1992
The AGM-129A incorporated body shaping and forward General Dynamics sold its missile business to Hughes
swept wings to reduce the missiles radar cross section. Aircraft Corporation. Five years later in 1997, Hughes
The engine air intake was ush mounted on the bottom Aircraft Corporation sold its aerospace and defense busi-
of the missile to further improve radar cross section. The ness to the nal production contractor Raytheon.
jet engine exhaust was shielded by the tail and cooled by
The US Air Force pushed for production of a AGM-
a diuser to reduce the infra-red signature of the mis-
129B variant for targets for which the AGM-129A was
sile. To reduce electronic emissions from the missile, the
considered ineective. The US Air Force submitted this
radar used in the AGM-86B was replaced with a combi-
requirement in 1985 and proposed to modify 120 missiles
nation of inertial navigation and terrain contour matching
into the AGM-129B variant. In 1991 the US Congress
TERCOM enhanced with highly accurate speed updates
681
682 CHAPTER 234. AGM-129 ACM
denied the request and the US Air Force was forced to AGM-86 ALCMs and 460 AGM-129 ACMs. The B-52
terminate the program. In 1992, the US Air Force was is the only platform for these missiles.[1] The reductions
directed by the US Department of Defense to restart the also include all but 528 nuclear-armed ALCMs and are in
program, an eort which was opposed by the General part a result of the SORT/Moscow Treaty (2002) require-
Accounting Oce of the US Congress. Confusion ex- ment to get below 2,200 deployed nuclear weapons by
ists as to precisely how this weapon is dierent from the 2012, with the ACM chosen because it has reliability is-
original. The Department of Defense document DoD sues and higher maintenance costs.[2] In March 2007, de-
4120.15-L Model Designation of Military Aerospace spite a Service Life Extension program (SLEP) intended
Vehicles states that the AGM-129B was an AGM-129A to extend its operational usefulness to 2030, the USAF
modied with structural and software changes and an made the nal decision to decommission its entire inven-
alternate nuclear warhead for accomplishing a classied tory of AGM-129s with the last missile being destroyed
cruise missile mission. However, Ozu states the AGM- in April 2012.[1]
129B was intended to be a non-nuclear version of the
ACM, much as the nuclear AGM-86B led to the conven-
tional AGM-86C. 234.3.1 Handling incident
Main article: 2007 United States Air Force nuclear
weapons incident
On August 30, 2007 twelve ACMs loaded on a B-52 were
own across the US from Minot Air Force Base in North
Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana for de-
commissioning. The nuclear warheads which should have
been removed before the ight were mistakenly left in-
stalled on six of the ACMs. For 36 hours the nuclear
weapons were unaccounted for, which led to an ocial
investigation of the incident.[3][4]
234.4 Variants
AGM-129A - 461 missiles produced.[5]
AGM-129A cruise missiles being secured on a B-52H bomber AGM-129B - Designation was assigned in 1988
for a modied missile with structural and software
The B-52H bomber can carry up to six AGM-129A mis- changes and tted with a dierent nuclear warhead.
siles on each of two external pylons for a total of 12
per aircraft. Originally, an additional 8 ACMs could be AGM-129C - Conventional Warhead Variants
carried internally in the B-52 on Common Strategic Ro-
tary Launchers, for a total of 20 per aircraft. The B-1B
bomber was also slated to carry the AGM-129A, but that 234.5 Operators
plan was ended after the cessation of the Cold War. The
AGM-129A provides the B-52H bomber the ability to
234.5.1 Former Operators
attack multiple targets without penetrating an air defense
system.
United States
An AGM-129A impacted and damaged two unoccupied
trailers, part of a cosmic ray observatory operated by the
University of Utah and Tokyo University, located in the
hazardous operations area of the United States Army 234.6 Survivors
Dugway Proving Ground on December 10, 1997. The
AGM-129A was released over the Utah Test and Train- AGM-129A located in the National Museum of the
ing Range from a B-52H bomber assigned to Minot Air United States Air Force, Wright-Patterson Air Force
Force Base, North Dakota. The missile had own for ap- Base, Dayton, Ohio
proximately 3.5 hours on its planned route and had ful-
lled all test objectives prior to the mishap. The missile AGM-129A located in the Strategic Air and Space
was carrying an inert test payload. Mission planners were Museum, Ashland, Nebraska
unaware of the existence of the trailers. AGM-129A located at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma
The Air Force in 2008 maintained an arsenal of 1,140 (N35 25' 59.69 W07 24' 18.42)
5. Missile 2000 - Reference Guide to World Missile

Systems, Hajime Ozu, Shinkigensha, Tokyo, 2000
(Japanese)
6. 2003-2004 Weapons File, United States Air Force,

Eglin Air Force Base, 2003
7. Sandia Engineers test cruise missile to qualify W80-3

in electromagnetic environments, Sandia Lab News,
April 14, 2006.
8. ACC releases Advanced Cruise Missile accident in-
vestigation report, Air Force News Service, July 10,
1998.
An AGM-129 on display at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma.
9. AGM-129A Description Board, National Museum
of the Air Force, Aug 18, 2007.
234.7 See also
10. The USAF and the Cruise Missile, Technology and
Missile of the same class the Air Force A Retrospective Assessment, Air
Force History and Museums Program, 1997
TAURUS KEPD 350 (Germany/Sweden)
Storm Shadow (France/UK/Italy) 11. Model Designation of Military Aerospace Vehicles,
DoD 4120.15-L, Department of Defense, 2004
234.8 References 234.8.2 Books

234.8.1 Notes Gibson, James N. (2000). Nuclear Weapons of the
United States: An Illustrated History. Schier Pub-
[1] Cruise missile career comes to close. U.S. Air Force. lishing. ISBN 978-0-7643-0063-9.
2012-04-24. Archived from the original on 2013-12-20.
[2] http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/ 234.9 External links
2010/February%202010/0210missile.aspx Archived
March 15, 2014 at the Wayback Machine
AGM-129A Advanced Cruise Missile Air Force
[3] Warrick, Joby; Walter Pincus (2007-09-23). Missteps in Factsheet
the Bunker. The Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-09-
24. Cruise Missile Testing in Canada: The Post-Cold
War Debate
[4] Commander Directed Investigation. Archived from the
original on 2012-02-24. Retrieved 2010-04-10. Designation Systems
[5] Gallery of USAF Weapons, 2008 Almanac, AIR
FORCE Magazine, May 2008, p.155.
1. Alleged violations of the Antideciency Act in the

Air Forces procurement of advanced cruise mis-
siles.FILE B-255831, Oce of the General Coun-
sel, United States General Accounting Oce.
2. Union Calls for Strike by Convair Machinists, LA
Times, 1987 Would Aect 4,000 Workers : Union
Calls for Strike by Convair Machinists - Los Angeles
Times
3. Machinists Accord Ends Convair Strike, LA Times,
1987 Machinists Accord Ends Convair Strike - Los
Angeles Times
4. Nuclear Weapons of the United States, James N. Gib-
son, Schier Publishing Ltd, Atglen, Pennsylvania,
2000 ISBN 978-0-7643-0063-9
Chapter 235
AGM-130
The AGM-130 is an air-to-surface guided missile devel- 235.2 Variants

oped by the United States of America.
The upgraded AGM-130 Mid-Course Guidance (MCG)
weapon, employs an improved global positioning and
235.1 Overview inertial navigation system. This allows the weapon to
be used with less input from the launch aircraft, free-
The AGM-130 is a powered air-to-surface missile de- ing the pilot and weapon systems ocer for other tasks.
signed for strikes at long range against various targets. The weapon became operational in 1998 when two F-
It is essentially a rocket-boosted version of the GBU-15 15Es from the 335th and 336th Fighter Squadrons at
bomb, with the rocket motor increasing the launch range Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina, red
and so giving the launch aircraft protection from what- one weapon each.
ever defenses may protect the target. Two can be carried The AGM-130LW [lightweight] is designed to be used by
by the F-15E. single-seat aircraft such as the F-16C/D. It also has an en-
The weapon utilizes inertial navigation aided by the hanced global positioning and inertial navigation system
Global Positioning System (GPS). It can be retargeted in capability. The smaller, less powerful warhead used on
ight; the guidance head of the weapon provides a visual this weapon allows better control over collateral damage.
image of the target to the launch aircraft via the AXQ-14 The AGM-130C employed a 2,000-pound penetrating
data link, allowing the controller to steer it to the target warhead for use against hardened targets. It was devel-
(command guidance). The weapon can be retargeted in oped, but not put into service.
ight by simply steering it to a new target. Control can
The Autonomous AGM-130 is a proposed weapon that
be released at any point, allowing the missile to home in
would incorporate a laser radar (LADAR) seeker, remov-
on the target by itself. The AGM-130 is highly accurate,
ing any need for the weapon to be steered to the target.
and is intended for use against high value targets which
The aircraft interface would be based on the JDAM inter-
are either slow moving or of xed location.
face; use of the autonomous seeker would greatly reduce
The GBU-15 is a modular weapon, and the AGM-130 the mission planning requirements and aircrew workload.
continues this concept. It consists of a CCD TV or focal Elimination of the datalink would also reduce the suscep-
plane array imaging infrared seeker head, a radar altime- tibility to countermeasures.
ter, wings, strakes, a Mark 84 or BLU-109 warhead, a
control section, and a rocket motor and data link unit.
The AGM-130 needs little support on the ground, and can 235.3 Combat history
be based in remote bare base sites. What support and
maintenance is required can be provided by mobile sup- The AGM-130 saw its rst operational service on 11 Jan-
port equipment and intermediate level maintenance capa- uary 1999 during Operation Northern Watch, when a pair
bility. of AGM-130s were used by F-15Es to destroy two Iraqi
[1]
Development of the AGM-130A began in 1984 as an im- SAM sites. The AGM-130 was also the weapon used
provement to the GBU-15. The rst unit became oper- in the April 1999 NATO strike on a railway bridge in
ational in 1994. Precise numbers are classied, but the Grdelica, Serbia.
US Air Force planned to buy 4,000+ originally. This was
reduced to 2,300 units, and in 1995 further reduced to
502. 235.4 Operators
Development of the AGM-130 cost $192 million, not in-
cluding a further $11 million for the AGM-130C. Unit United States: The United States Air Force is
cost of the weapons are an estimated $880,000. the only operator of the AGM-130
684
235.5 References
Citations
[1] Michael Knights, Cradle of Conict: Iraq and the Birth of

Modern U.S. Military Power, 2005, p.225
Bibliography
Bonds, Ray and David Miller. Boeing Sikorsky

RAH-66 Comanche. Illustrated Directory of Mod-
ern American Weapons. Zenith Imprint, 2002.
ISBN 0-7603-1346-6.

Boeing (Rockwell) AGM-130 - Designation Sys-
tems
Rockwell AGM-130 on APA

Chapter 236
AGM-137 TSSAM
The Northrop AGM-137 TSSAM (Tri-Service Stand- Warhead : 450 kg (1,000 lb)
o Attack Missile) was a stando cruise missile devel-
oped for the U.S. military. Range : 185 km+ (115 miles+)
Guidance : Inertial/GPS, IIR terminal
236.1 Overview Propulsion : Turbofan
The United States Air Force began developing the Tri-

Service Stando Attack Missile (TSSAM) in 1986; the 236.3 See also
intent was to produce a family of stealthy missiles for
the U.S. Air Force, Navy and United States Army which List of missiles
would be capable of long range, autonomous guidance,
automatic target recognition, and sucient accuracy and
warhead power to be capable of destroying well-protected 236.4 References
structures either on land or at sea.
All versions of the missile would use inertial navigation
aided by Global Positioning System (GPS). The Navy and
one Air Force version were to use an imaging infrared
homing terminal sensor to recognize the target and termi- Northrop AGM/MGM-137 TSSAM - Designation
nal homing, and would be tted with a unitary warhead. Systems
A second version Army missile would be launched by two
booster rockets and carry the Combined Eects Bomblet
(CEB) submunition against land targets.
It was planned to carry the missile on the B-52H, F-
16C/D, B-1, B-2, A-6E, and F/A-18C/D; the Army
version was to be launched from the MLRS (Multiple
Launch Rocket System) vehicle.
The project suered from budgetary problems, some re-
lated to the distribution of the budget between the three
services. This resulted in funding shortfalls and delays.
The missiles also suered from technical development
issues, pushing the unit cost from the original 1986 g-
ure of $728,000 per missile to $2,062,000 in 1994. The
project was canceled as a result. Technology developed
for the TSSAM was used in the JASSM program.
236.2 Specications
Specications are approximate
Length : 4.26 m (14 ft)

686
Chapter 237
AGM-158 JASSM
The AGM-158 JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Stand- 237.1.2 Problematic development

o Missile) is a low observable stando air-launched
cruise missile developed in the United States. It is a large, In 1999, powered ight tests of the missile began. These
semi-stealthy long-range weapon of the 2,000 pounds were successful, and production of the JASSM began in
(910 kg) class. The missiles development began in 1995, December 2001. The weapon began operational testing
but a number of problems during testing delayed its intro- and evaluation in 2002. Late that year, two missiles failed
duction into service until 2009. As of 2014, the JASSM tests and the project was delayed for three months be-
has entered foreign service in Australia and Finland, and fore completing development in April 2003. Two more
been ordered by Poland. An extended range version of launches failed, this time as a result of launcher and en-
the missile, the AGM-158B JASSM-ER (Joint Air-to- gine problems. In July 2007, a $68 million program
Surface Stando Missile-Extended Range), entered ser- to improve JASSM reliability and recertify the missile
vice in 2014. was approved by the Pentagon.[2] A decision on whether
to continue with the program was deferred until Spring
2008.[3] Lockheed agreed to x the missiles at its own
cost and has tightened up its manufacturing processes.[4]
237.1 Program Overview On 27 August 2009, David Van Buren, assistant secre-
tary of the Air Force for acquisition, said that there would
be a production gap for the JASSM while further tests
237.1.1 Origins
were held.[5] Further tests in 2009 were more success-
ful however, with 15 out of 16 rounds hitting the in-
The JASSM project began in 1995 after the cancellation tended target, well above the 75% benchmark set for the
of the AGM-137 TSSAM project. The TSSAM was de- test. As such JASSM is now cleared for service entry.[6]
signed as a high precision stealthy missile for use at stand- The United States Air Force plans to acquire up to 3,700
o ranges, but poor management of the project resulted AGM-158 missiles. Meanwhile, the United States Navy
in rising costs. Since the requirement for such weapons had originally planned to acquire 450 AGM-158 missiles
still existed, the military quickly announced a follow-up but pulled out of the program in favor of employing the
project with similar goals. Initial contracts for two com- proven SLAM-ER.[7]
peting designs were awarded to Lockheed Martin and
McDonnell Douglas in 1996, and the missile designa-
tions AGM-158A and AGM-159A were allocated to the 237.1.3 Foreign sales
two weapons. Lockheed Martins AGM-158A won and
a contract for further development was awarded in 1998. In 2006 the Australian government announced the selec-
The AGM-158A is powered by a Teledyne CAE J402 tion of the Lockheed Martin JASSM to equip the Royal
turbojet. Before ight the wings are kept folded to re- Australian Air Forces F/A-18 Hornet ghters.[8] This an-
duce size. Upon launch the wings ip out automatically. nouncement came as part of a program to phase out the
There is a single vertical tail. Guidance is via inertial nav- RAAFs F-111 strike aircraft, replacing the AGM-142
igation with updating from a global positioning system. Popeye stand o missile and providing a long-range strike
Target recognition and terminal homing is via an imaging capability to the Hornets. JASSM was selected over the
infrared seeker. A data link allows the missile to trans- SLAM-ER after the European Taurus KEPD 350 with-
mit its location and status during ight, allowing improved drew its tender oer, despite the KEPD 350 being highly
bomb damage assessment. The warhead is a WDU-42/B rated in the earlier RFP process, due to their heavily in-
450 kg (1000 lb) penetrator. The JASSM will be carried volvement in the series preparation for the German Air
by a wide range of aircraft: the F-15E, F-16, F/A-18, Force, their troop trials in South Africa and their nal ne-
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, F-35, B-1B, B-2 and B-52 are gotiations with the Spanish Air Force which nally lead to
all intended to carry the weapon. a contract.[9] As of mid-2010 the JASSM is in production
687
688 CHAPTER 237. AGM-158 JASSM
for Australia and will soon enter service.[6] Force B-1 bomber at the White Sands Missile Range in
Finland had also previously planned to purchase JASSM New Mexico. The initial platform for the JASSM-ER
missiles for the Finnish Air Force as part of moderniza- is the B-1.[18] While both the original JASSM and the
tion plans of its F/A-18 Hornet eet. However in Febru- JASSM-ER are several inches too long to be carried in
ary 2007 the United States declined to sell the missiles, the internal weapons bay of the F-35 Lightning II, the F-
while agreeing to proceed as planned with other mod- 35 will be able to carry both missiles externally, although
ernization eorts (the so-called Mid-Life Update 2, or this will compromise the aircrafts stealth features.[19]
MLU2). This episode led to speculation in the Finnish The JASSM-ER is also the basis for Long Range Anti-
media on the state of Finnish - American diplomatic Ship Missile, which is a JASSM-ER with new seeker.[20]
relations.[10] However, in October 2011 the US DSCA The Air Force used the B-1 Lancer to complete a captive
announced that they had given permission for a possible carry test of an LRASM to ensure the bomber can carry
sale to Finland.[11] An order, valued 178.5 million Euros it, as both missiles use the same airframe. The LRASM
was placed in March 2012.[12] was not originally planned be deployed on the B-1, it be-
South Korea has sought the JASSM to boost the South ing intended solely as a technology demonstrator,[21] but
Korean Air Forces striking capability but were rebued in February 2014 the Pentagon authorized the LRASM
by Washingtons unwillingness to sell the missile for to be integrated onto air platforms, including the Air
strategic reasons. The South Korean government in- Force B-1, as an operational weapon to address the needs
stead turned their attention towards the Taurus KEPD of the Navy and Air Force to have a modern anti-ship
350 missile.[13][14] missile.[22]
In 2014, Poland expected the Congressional green light The JASSM-ER entered service with the USAF in April
for the purchase of the AGM-158 JASSM to extend the 2014. Although the B-1 is currently the only aircraft able
to deploy it, it will be integrated onto the B-52, F-15E,
ground penetration capabilities of their top-of-the-line F-
16 Block 52+ ghters. Should the US Congress give it and F-16.[23] The Air Force approved full-rate production
of the JASSM-ER in December 2014.[24]
a go, the missiles (around 200) should be deployed with
the Polish Air Force in 2015.[15] Congress approved the
sale in early October, and negotiations concluded in early
November 2014. NATO member Poland signed a $250 237.3 Operators
million contract to upgrade its F-16s and equip the jets
with (AGM-158) JASSM advanced cruise missiles in a
ceremony at Poznan AB, Poland, on Dec. 11, 2014.[16]
The missiles are expected to enter operational service in
2017, and Poland is contemplating an additional purchase
for the long-range JASSM-ER version.[17]
237.2 JASSM-Extended Range

(JASSM-ER)
The US Air Force studied various improvements to the

AGM-158, resulting in the development of the JASSM-
Extended Range (JASSM-ER), which received the des- A mock-up display of the AGM-158 JASSM next to an F-35 pro-
ignation AGM-158B in 2002. Using a more ecient totype.
engine and larger fuel volume in an airframe with the
same external dimensions as the JASSM, the JASSM- Australia
ER is intended to have a range of over 575 miles (925
km) as compared to the JASSMs range of about 230
miles (370 km). Other possible improvements were stud- Royal Australian Air Force
ied but ultimately not pursued, including a submunition
dispenser warhead, new types of homing head, and a
Finland
new engine giving ranges in excess of 620 miles (1,000
km). The JASSM-ER has 70% hardware commonality
and 95% software commonality with the original AGM- Finnish Air Force
158 JASSM.[1]
The rst ight test of the JASSM-ER occurred on May Poland
18, 2006 when a missile was launched from a U.S. Air
Polish Air Force 237.6 References

United States [1] GAO-13-294SP DEFENSE ACQUISITIONS Assess-
Accountability Oce. March 2013. pp. 812. Retrieved
26 May 2013.
[2] "$68M plan to x JASSM gets the OK - Air Force Times.
[3] Pentagon To Announce JASSM Decision In 2008 - Amy

237.4 Variants Butler/Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
[4] Lockheed $6 Billion Missile Program May Be Killed,

237.4.1 AGM-158A (JASSM) U.S. Says
Length: 4.27 m (14 ft) [5] JASSM Production Gap Manageable, USAF Says
Wingspan: 2.4 m (7 ft 11 in) [6] Pittaway, Nigel (March 2010). JASSM introduction to
RAAF service. Defence Today (Amberley: Strike Pub-
Weight: 975 kg (2,150 lb) lications) 8 (2): 11. ISSN 1447-0446.
Speed: Subsonic [7] JASSM/ No Ma'am - Which Will It Be? - Defense Indus-
try Daily
Range: 370 km (230 mi)
[8] Australia Chooses JASSM Missiles on F-18s for Long-
Propulsion: Teledyne CAE J402-CA-100 turbojet;
Range Strike - Defense Industry Daily
thrust 3.0 kN (680 lbf)
[9] ADM: ADF Weapons: Was JASSM the right choice?
Fuel:JP10 fuel
[10] United States refuses to sell missiles to Finland - Helsingin
Warhead: 450 kg (1000 lb) WDU-42/B penetrator Sanomat
Production unit cost: $850,000 [11] DSCA press release
Total program cost: $3,000,000,000 [12] Finnish Defence Ministry news bulletin
Production dates: 1998present [13] S.Korea to buy bunker busting missiles from Europe.
www.reuters.com. 4 April 2013. Retrieved 16 November
2013.
237.4.2 AGM-158B (JASSM-ER)
[14] Parliament advises review of Taurus, Global Hawk ac-
Speed: Subsonic quisition plan. www.koreaherald.com. 5 July 2013. Re-
trieved 16 November 2013.
Range: 1000 km (620 mi)
[15] The Aviationist Why is Poland purchasing Joint Air-to-
Production unit cost: $1,327,000 Surface Stando Missiles for its F-16s? Why not?! :)
Propulsion: Williams International F107-WR-105 [16] Air Force Magazine, Daily Report, December 15, 2014
turbofan
[17] Poland concludes JASSM purchase for F-16 eet - Flight-
Production dates: 2010present global.com, 5 November 2014
[18] Pappalardo, Joe. B-1 Pilots Turn Their Bombsights to

the Pacic. Popular Mechanics. April 9, 2012.
237.5 See also
[19] Croft, John. USAF sets 2013 entry for extended-range
JASSM. Flight International. 06 Apr 2010. Accessed 09
AGM-159 JASSM
Dec 2010.
AGM-137 TSSAM [20] Mujumdar, Dave. Lockheed LRASM completes captive
Storm Shadow/SCALP EG carry tests. Flight Global. 11 July 2013. Accessed 12
July 2013.
KEPD 350 (Taurus missile)
[21] B-1 test squadron demonstrates anti-ship missile - Af.mil,
Ra'ad Missile 15 July 2013
SOM (missile) [22] Majumdar, Dave (13 March 2014). Navy to Hold
Contest for New Anti-Surface Missile. usni.org. U.S.
List of missiles NAVAL INSTITUTE. Retrieved 13 March 2014.
690 CHAPTER 237. AGM-158 JASSM
[23] US Air Force Takes Delivery of First Production Lot of

the JASSM ER Cruise Missile - Deagel.com, 8 April 2014
[24] US Air Force Approves Full Rate Production for JASSM-

ER Cruise Missile - Deagel.com, 15 December 2014

Lockheed Martin JASSM Website
Lockheed Martin AGM-158 JASSM - Designation
Systems
GlobalSecurity.org
AGM-158 JASSM Images & Info

Chapter 238
AGM-176 Grin
The AGM-176 Grin is a lightweight, precision ki- red from the U.S. Army Remote weapon station, multi-
netic eects munition developed by Raytheon.[3] It can be round Wedge Launcher, Smart Launcher and Kiowa War-
launched from the ground or air as a rocket-powered mis- rior manned helicopters.
sile or dropped from the air as a guided bomb. It carries a
The missile is smaller than the Hellre typically used by
relatively small warhead, and was designed to be a preci- armed UAVs, which reduces the potential for collateral
sion low-collateral damage weapon for irregular warfare.
damage. Three Grins can be carried in place of one
It has been used in combat by the United States military Hellre. The Grin missile and launch assembly is also
in Afghanistan.
lighter than the Hellre, allowing more to be mounted on
the Predator.[9]
In 70 months of production from 2008 to early Febru-
238.1 Development ary 2014, Raytheon delivered 2,000 Grin missiles.[10]
In late February 2014, Raytheon demonstrated the im-
Raytheon developed Grin as a low-cost modular sys- proved Grin Block III missile, hitting static and moving
tem, using components from earlier projects, including targets. The Block III includes an improved semi-active
the FGM-148 Javelin and the AIM-9X Sidewinder. It laser seeker with better electronics and signal processing
was originally designed to be launched from the US Spe- and a new Multi-Eects Warhead System to maximize
[11]
cial Operations Command's MC-130W Dragon Spear lethality against dierent targets.
gunship.
It can be guided either by a semi-active laser seeker or
guided with GPS. Its precision combined with a relatively 238.1.1 Naval use
small 5.9 kg warhead reduces collateral damage.[4]
Raytheon developed an extended-range version of the
The munition now comes in two versions. Grin A is an Grin for integration onto Littoral Combat Ships. The
unpowered precision munition that can be dropped from
Sea Grin has a new motor and guidance system to
a rear cargo door or a door-mounted launcher that can increase its ring range from an LCS. Raytheon faced
drop while the cabin is pressurized.[5] Weighing 15 kg
competition in equipping the LCS with a missile, as the
and measuring 1.1 metres in length, it is launched from a Navy looked for other vendors. Competition came from
10-tube Gunslinger launcher that ts on the rear ramp
MBDA with the Sea Spear version of its Brimstone mis-
of a Marine KC-130 tanker/transport or the USAF AC- sile. Both missiles intended to give the LCS protection
130W Stinger II.[6]
from small boat swarm attacks.[12] The Navy instead se-
Grin Block II B is a short-range, rocket-powered air- lected the AGM-114L Hellre to equip the LCS. The de-
to-surface or surface-to-surface missile that can be red cision was made from the ships use of the Saabs Sea
from UAVs as well as helicopters, attack aircraft, U.S. Girae radar. While each Grin requires a semi-active
Air Force AC-130W gunships,[6] and USMC KC-130J laser to paint a target, so a volley of them can only en-
tankers.[7] gage one target at a time, the Longbow Hellre missiles
The missiles folding ns allow it to be launched from a can use the ships and their own millimeter wave radar to
140mm tube. It can be set to engage the target with height separately
[13]
track and engage multiple targets at the same
of burst, point detonation or fuze delay. The U.S. Navy time.
has tested the Grin as a shipboard missile guided by In September 2013, Raytheon and the U.S. Navy demon-
laser at fast-moving small boats; they planned to use it on strated the Grin missiles ability to engage fast-moving
the Littoral Combat Ships.[8] The missile version is less small boats from various platforms throughout a series
than half the weight of a Hellre round and includes a 5.9 of at-sea tests. The MK-60 Patrol Coastal Grin Mis-
kg warhead. It has a range of 15 km when air-launched, sile System was integrated on a Cyclone-class patrol ship,
or 5.5 km when launched from the surface. It has been which used it to hit remote-controlled boats simulating
691
692 CHAPTER 238. AGM-176 GRIFFIN
a threat to the ship.[14] The MK-60 Patrol Coastal Grif- 238.3 References
n Missile System achieved initial operational capabil-
ity (IOC) with the U.S. Navy in March 2014, which is [1] http://news.usni.org/2014/03/26/
intended to provide protection for vessels in littoral ar- griffin-missile-reaches-initial-sea-operating-capability
eas against swarm boat attacks and other threats. The
[2] Raytheons Grin Mini-Missiles. Defense Industry
MK-60 includes the Grin missile, a laser targeting sys-
Daily. Retrieved 27 December 2011.
tem, a Navy-designed launcher, and a battle manage-
ment system.[15] Each Mk-60 can launch four missiles, [3] AUVSI: Raytheon oers up Grin for UAS
and a patrol ship has two MK-60 launchers on board.
The U.S. Navy began installing Grin missiles on Pa- [4] Smaller, Cheaper, Lighter William Matthews, Defense
News, 31 May 2010
trol Craft in 2013; as of May 2014, four were outt-
ted with Grin missile systems, with plans to equip ten [5]
PCs by 2016. When mounted on a ship, the missile
is designated the BGM-176B. Arming PCs with Grin [6] The U.S. Air Forces New AC-130 Gunships are Really
missiles adds a layer of defense to the ships beyond the Bomb Trucks
range of their 25 mm gun mounts, out to 4.5 km (2.8 [7] Who paid Raytheon to develop the Grin missile for
mi), and also provides 360-degree coverage; the missiles Predator UAVs?" Intelfusion. 15 June 2008
thrust-vectoring engines can move the missile to its target
even when launched vertically. Installation onto a PC in- [8] Navy Nails Speedboats With Grin Missiles
volves adding the launcher and weapons control system, [9] Eorts Are Underway to Arm Small UAVs Aviation
the BRITE Star II sensor/laser designator, and the Grin Week. 17 October 2008
B Block II missile in a process taking one month.[16][17]
[10] Raytheon Marks Delivery of 2000th Grin Missile
Raytheon is continuing to fund the development of the Deagel.com, 5 February 2014
Sea Grin to extend the missiles range. The Sea Grif-
n will use a dual-mode seeker with an imaging infrared [11] Raytheon Demonstrates Grin Block III Missile
seeker and semi-active laser guidance, and a data-link to Deagel.com, 19 February 2014
track multiple threats simultaneously and give it a re-
[12] Raytheon Working on Extending Range of Grin Missile
and-forget capability. The new seeker and an extended- for LCS Defensenews.com, 23 June 2013
range rocket motor, which will add 9.1 kg, will in-
crease the range of the Sea Grin to 15 km.[16][17] In [13] Navy Axes Grin Missile In Favor of Longbow Hellre
tests, the Sea Grins new imaging infrared (IIR) seeker for LCS News.USNI.org, 9 April 2014
has streamed video back to operators through the data-
[14] Grin Missile Demonstrates Maritime Protection Capa-
link to provide verication before the missile strikes the bilities Deagel.com, 27 September 2013
target.[18] Its In-Flight Target Update (IFTU) capability
allows it to be redirected to a new target in mid-ight, a vi- [15] US Navy declares IOC for MK-60 Grin missile system
tal feature against swarming small boats moving between Shephardmedia.com, 25 March 2014
friendly forces and neutral shipping. The Sea Grin has
[16] Raytheon Developing Longer-Range Grin Missile Sea
been renamed the Grin C.[19] Power magazine, 14 April 2014
[17] Navy Test-Fires Grin Missiles from PC Boats De-

fensetech.org, 8 May 2014
238.2 Launch platforms
[18] SeaGrin Completes Guided Flight Test with Dual-mode
MQ-1 Predator [2][20] Seeker Deagel.com, 14 July 2014
[19] Raytheon GrinC ight tests demonstrate in-ight re-

MQ-9 Reaper[2] targeting capability - Marketwatch.com, 28 October 2014
MQ-8B Fire Scout[2] [20] Warwick, Graham (13 June 2008). Small Raytheon Mis-
sile Deployed On Predator. Aviation Week.
A-29 Super Tucano
[21] Navy boosts Persian Gulf patrol craft force.
KC-130J Harvest HAWK[2]
[22] Osprey Fires Guided Rockets And Missiles In New Trials
MC-130W Dragon Spear [2] - Aviationweek.com, 8 December 2014
Cyclone-class patrol ship[21]
AC-130J Ghostrider
V-22 Osprey[22]
Chapter 239
AGM-84E Stando Land Attack Missile
The AGM-84E Stando Land Attack Missile 239.2 References

(SLAM) was a subsonic, over-the-horizon air-launched
cruise missile that was developed by Boeing Integrated [1] AGM-84 Harpoon / SLAM [Stand-O Land Attack
Defense Systems from the McDonnell Douglas Harpoon Missile. Military Analysis Network. Federation of Amer-
antiship missile. The SLAM was designed to provide ican Scientists, 20 July 2013. Web. 20 July 2013.
all-weather, day and night, precision attack capabilities
[2] US Navy - Fact File: SLAM-ER Missile
against stationary high-value targets.[1]
Except for new technologies in the guidance and seeker
sections, which included a Global Positioning System re- 239.3 External links
ceiver, a Walleye optical guidance system, and a newly
developed Maverick missile datalink, all of the mis-
Boeing (McDonnell-Douglas) AGM/RGM/UGM-
sile hardware came directly from the Harpoon missile.
84 Harpoon, Designation Systems
The SLAM is also equipped with a Tomahawk missile
warhead for better destructive force. SLAM missile uses spec sheet, Time
an inertial navigation system, which is supplemented by
Global Positioning System (GPS) input, and it also uses SLAM-ER, Boeing
Infrared homing terminal guidance.[1]
Developed in only 48 months to meet the emergency re-
quirements of the Persian Gulf War, a number of SLAMs
were successfully employed during that war, when it
struck Iraqi coastal targets. Also, the SLAM was used
successfully in F/A-18 Hornet and A-6 Intruder air strikes
during Operation Desert Storm even before ocial op-
erational testing of the new missile had begun.[2] The
SLAM was also used during United Nations air raids in
Bosnia before "Operation Joint Endeavor".[1]
In the year 2000, the SLAM was replaced in service by
the AGM-84H SLAM-ER (Stando Land Attack Mis-
sile Expanded Response), which had numerous new capa-
bilities including increased target penetration and nearly
twice the range of the older AGM-84E SLAM.[1]
239.1 See also
AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER
BGM-109 Tomahawk Cruise Missile
AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missile
693
Chapter 240
For the DAGR Defense Advanced GPS Receiver, see Range from Sea Level: Min: 1.5 km Max: 5 km
Defense Advanced GPS Receiver.
The Direct Attack Guided Rocket (DAGR) is a Range from 20,000 feet: 12 km.[5]
Motor: Existing Hydra 70 motors.
Warhead: M151 warhead with M423 fuze

March 2005 - Program started.[6]
February 2006 - 1st ight test.[7]
October 2008 - 8th ight test and 1st ever 2.75

guided rocket live warhead ight test.[8]
March 2009 - 1st platform ight test - Apache AH-

64D Attack Helicopter.
The Direct Attack Guided Rocket (DAGR) in ight over Eglin
AFB. July 2009 - 2nd platform ight test - Little Bird AH-
6: successfully hit the target in two separate trials.[9]
weapons system under development by Lockheed Martin.
The program goal is to provide a low cost 2.75 inch (70 March 2010 - 3rd platform test - Lockheed Mar-
mm) precision guided rocket which is compatible with tins DAGR Guided Rocket Fires Successfully From
existing Hellre II systems and launchers in service.[1] Kiowa Warrior Helicopter.[10]
The system will use components from the existing Hydra
70 rocket, but diers from other upgrades to the Hydra May 2012 - DAGR hits a truck target moving
70 such as APKWS and LOGIR in that it is designed to 25 mph red from an AH-64D Apache 3.5 km
be plug-and-play compatible with the Hellre missile and away.[11]
use the M299 Hellre launcher, increasing the load-out September 2012 - DAGR successfully hits sta-
by up to four times.[2] DAGR also oers a lock-on before tionary targets while launched from ground-based
launch capability that is not compatible with the electron- mounts. Two missiles ew 3.5 kilometers and hit
ics in existing Hydra 70 launchers.[3] the target within one foot of the illuminated laser
spot.[12]
240.1 Specications February 2013 - DAGR is launched from a

Lockheed Martin JLTV. It locked onto the laser spot
two seconds after launch, ew 5 km (3.1 mi) down
Diameter: 2.75 in (70 mm) [4] range and impacted the target within 1 meter of the
Length: 75 in (1.9 m) laser spot.[13]
March 2014 - DAGR completed airworthiness tests

Wingspan: 8.75 in (222 mm)
from the AH-64D Apache, hitting all 16 targets
Weight: 35.0 lb (15.8 kg) within 1 meter of the laser spot from of 1.5 to 5.1
km (0.93 to 3.17 mi). Over 40 DAGRs had been
Guidance: Semi-active laser homing (SALH). red in total since the start of the program.[14]
694
June 2014 - DAGR and Hellre II are launched from [11] http://www.deagel.com/news/
Lockheeds Long Range Surveillance and Attack DAGR-Successfully-Engages-Moving-Target-in-Apache-Helicopter-Demon
Vehicle (LRSAV) turreted weapon system, which n000010255.aspx
allows targeting and employment of missiles from [12] Lockheed Martins DAGR Missile Demonstrates Ground
ground platforms. The Hellre and DAGR mis- Launch Capability In Guided Flight Tests - Lockheed
siles hit targets at 6.4 km (4.0 mi) and 3.5 km (2.2 press release, September 25, 2012
mi) respectively, with both demonstrating lock-on-
before-launch and lock-on-after-launch capabilities, [13] Lockheed Martin Demonstrates DAGR Missile Ground
and one being designated by an AH-64D Apache Vehicle Launch Capability from JLTV - Lockheed press
helicopter.[15] release, February 21, 2013
[14] DAGR capability as air-launched weapon demo'd - Shep-

hardmedia.com, 19 March 2014
240.3 Export [15] DAGR and Hellre II Missiles Score Direct Hits Dur-
ing Ground-Vehicle Launch Tests - Deagel.com, 17 June
Following the Royal Jordanian Air Force's purchase of 2014
Boeing AH-6 helicopters, Lockheed oered to equip
[16] Jordanian DAGR - Shephardmedia.com, May 9, 2012
them with DAGRs.[16]

240.4 See also
Others & History
Roketsan Cirit
240.5 References
[1] Lockheed Martin Unveils 2.75 Laser Guided Rocket -
Defense Update
[2] New Hellre-Compatible Guided Rocket Can Defeat Tar-

gets In Urban Operations - Space War
[3] Lockheed Martins DAGR Missile Demonstrates

Ground Launch Capability In Guided Flight Tests. SPX,
27 September 2012.
[4] Precision-Strike Capability in a 2.75-inch/70mm Guided

Rocket. Lockheed Martin Corporation. 2010.
[5] Lockheed Martin digs deep to fund precision-guided

rocket - Flight Global
[6] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/DAGR/
[7] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gH-MJggzaA
[8] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/DAGR/
DAGRPhoto7.html
[9] http://www.aviationnews.eu/2009/07/13/
lockheed-martin-dagr-rockets-successfully-fired-from-airborne-ah-6-little-bird-strike-targets
[10] Rivera, Janina (March 29, 2010). Lockheed Martins

DAGR Guided Rocket Fires Successfully From Kiowa
Warrior Helicopter. Lockheed Martin Corporation.
Chapter 241
Guided Advanced Tactical Rocket Laser
The Guided Advanced Tactical Rocket (GATR) is a

weapons systems under development by Alliant Techsys-
tems and Elbit Systems. It is intended to provide a low-
cost guided missile compatible with existing unguided
70mm rocket launch platforms such as the Hydra 70.[1]
241.1 History
In April 2013, ATK was awarded a $3.2 million contract
from the U.S. Special Operations Command to provide
GATR precision guided missiles for evaluation.[2]
241.2 Specications
Diameter: 70mm
Guidance: Semi-active laser homing
241.3 See also


Roketsan Cirit
241.4 References
[1] Elbit Systems and ATK to Develop Laser Guided Ad-
vanced Tactical Rocket System.
[2] ATK Receives Award to Provide GATR for Evaluation -

ATK press release, April 22, 2013
696
Chapter 242
The Low-Cost Guided Imaging Rocket is a weapons 242.3 References

system under development for the US Navy in a joint
program with South Korea.[1] The program aims to pro- [1] APKWS II Hellre Jr. Hydra Rockets Enter SDD Phase
vide a precision guided 2.75 inch (70 mm) rocket for - DID
use with existing Hydra 70 systems in service, as such
[2] Guided Hydra Rockets and hellre missiles: Program
it has many similarities with the Advanced Precision Kill
Halts & New Entries - Defense Industry Daily
Weapon System program. The principal dierence be-
tween the systems is that while APKWS would use ter- [3] ROK Contribution for LOGIR.
minal laser homing, requiring the target to be 'painted'
until impact, LOGIR would home on an image supplied
by the launching aircraft, making it possibly less accu- 242.4 See also
rate against moving targets, but also a true re-and-forget
weapon.[2]

242.1 Development Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System
South Koreas contribution in the LOGIR program are Roketsan Cirit

the following:[3]

Electronics for guidance and control system
Air-Launched 2.75-Inch Rockets - Designation Sys-
Electronics for control actuation system (DSP and tems
PWM inverter board)
Assembly parts for control actuation system (CAS

frame and integrated BLDC motor)
Airframe structure and ns (canard n, CAS skin,

seeker skin)
Cruciform tail ns and nozzle assembly
Warhead and fuze attachment improvement
242.2 Specications
Diameter: 70 mm
Guidance: INS midcourse/Imaging infrared termi-

nal.
Motor: Existing Hydra 70 motors
697
Chapter 243
Precision Attack Air-to-Surface Missile
The Precision Attack Air-to-Surface Missile [4] Raytheons Precision Attack Air-to-Surface Missile Suc-
(PAASM) is a weapon system currently under de- cessfully Fired from Rotary Wing Aircraft - Raytheon
velopment by Raytheon which is designed to defeat PR.
armored vehicles, buildings, hardened bunkers and small
[5] Raytheon test res precision missile at White Sands range
naval targets.[1] The missile uses technology developed - Flight Magazine.
for the Joint Common Missile (JCM) and Precision
Attack Missile (PAM) programs.
243.1 Launch platforms (planned)

AH-64 Apache [2]
AH-1 Super Cobra
MH-60 Pave Hawk
243.2 Specications
Length: 63-66 in.
Diameter: 7 in.
Weight: 115-120 lb.
Range: 20+ km.
Guidance: Tri-Mode millimeter wave (MMW)
active radar homing, imaging infrared (IIR) and
semi-active laser (SAL) seeker.[3]

December 2005 - Successful test ring from rotary-
wing UAV.[4][5]
243.4 References
[1] PAASM - Defense Update
[2] Precision Attack Air-to-Surface Missile (PDF) -

Raytheon.
[3] Precision attack Missiles at AUSA 06 - Defense Update.
698
Chapter 244
Small Smart Weapon
Small Smart Weapon or Scorpion missile is a new

generation small American missile manufactured by
Lockheed Martin. It is 21 inches (53 cm) long, weighs 35
pounds (16 kg), is approximately the diameter of a coee
cup and can be tted with four dierent types of guidance
systems. It is being used by CIA in Drone attacks in Pak-
istan in an eort to minimize collateral damage.[1]
244.1 See also

Small Diameter Bomb
244.2 References
[1] Warrick, Joby; Finn, Peter (April 26, 2010). Amid out-
rage over civilian deaths in Pakistan, CIA turns to smaller
missiles. The Washington Post. Retrieved 28 April
2010.
[2] Scorpion Small Smart Weapon. National Defense In-

dustrial Association. Retrieved 28 April 2010.

Small Smart Weapon information brochure,
Lockheed Martin
699
Chapter 245
2.25-Inch Sub-Caliber Aircraft Rocket
The 2.25-Inch Sub-Caliber Aircraft Rocket, or Following development, SCAR entered full-scale pro-
SCAR, was an American unguided rocket developed by duction in January 1945; by July, fully half of the U.S.
the United States Navy during World War II. Capable Navys rocket production for aircraft use consisted of
of simulating the aerial rockets then coming into oper- SCAR rockets.[2] SCAR was widely used during the lat-
ational service, the SCAR was used to train pilots in the ter part of World War II as a training round for the FFAR
use of the new type of weapon, and continued in service and, later, the High Velocity Aircraft Rocket.[1]
throughout the 1950s. Following the end of the war, it remained in production,
continuing in operational service throughout the 1950s.[3]
Budget cutbacks prior to the outbreak of the Korean War
245.1 Development meant that the SCAR was the only rocket used in training
by the majority of pilots.[4]
With the introduction of the 3.5-Inch and 5-Inch Forward Despite its small size, SCAR could be hazardous; in 1957,
Firing Aircraft Rockets, a need arose to train aircraft pi- an injury aboard the aircraft carrier USS Kearsarge was
lots in the proper tactics for the use of the new weapons. caused by the unintended ignition of a SCAR rocket.[5]
This requirement resulted in the development of a dedi- As recently as 2004, expended SCAR rockets were still
cated training rocket by the U.S. Navy.[1] occasionally being found in areas that had been used as
[6]
Designated 2.25-Inch Sub-Caliber Aircraft Rocket, the bombing ranges during World War II.
resulting rocket was a joint project between the Bureau
of Ordnance and the National Defense Research Com-
mittee.[1] As its name implied, the rocket was designed 245.3 References
as a sub-calibre weapon compared to the FFAR, being
only 2.25 inches (57 mm) in diameter, but weighted to be
Citations
ballistically similar to the larger operational weapons.[1]
Varying the amount of propellant in the SCARs mo-
tor could produce accurate simulations of either type of [1] Parsch 2004
FFARs ight characteristics.[1]
[2] Pearson 1995, p.33.
[3] Aviation Ordnanceman 3&2, Volume 1. U.S. Navy Bu-

245.2 Operational history reau of Naval Personnel 1955, p.194.
[4] Stewart 1957, p.108.
[5] Douda 2009, p.31.
[6] SAFETY - Former Trabuco Bombing Range. U.S

Army Corps of Engineers/Innovative Technical Solutions,
Inc. Retrieved 2011-01-25.
Bibliography
Douda, Bernard E. (2009). Genesis of Infrared

Decoy Flares: The early years from 1950 into the
1970s (1st Edition)" (PDF). Crane, IN: Naval Sur-
SCAR in 1948 face Warfare Center. Retrieved 2011-01-25.
700
Parsch, Andreas (2004). 2.25-Inch SCAR.

on 15 December 2010. Retrieved 2011-01-25.
Pearson, Lee M. (MayJune 1995). Technical De-
velopments in World War Two (PDF). Naval Avi-
ation News (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Navy Naval
Warfare Division) 77 (4). ISSN 0028-1417. Re-
trieved 2011-01-25.
Stewart, James T. (1957). Airpower. Flight, its rst

seventy-ve years. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand
Company. ISBN 0-405-12204-7. Retrieved 2011-
01-25.
Chapter 246
5-Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket
For a more recent rocket with the same acronym, see [1] Parsch 2004
Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket.
[2] Parsch 2006
The 5-inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket or FFAR Bibliography

was an American rocket developed during World War II
for attack from airplanes against ground and ship targets.
Parsch, Andreas (2004). Air-Launched 3.5-Inch
246.1 Operational history the original on 15 December 2010. Retrieved 2011-
01-24.
The rst FFARs were developed by the U.S. Navy and
introduced in June 1943. They had a 3.5-inch diame- Parsch, Andreas (2006). Air-Launched 5-Inch
ter and a non-explosive warhead, since they were used Rockets. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and
as an aircraft-launched ASW (Anti-Submarine Warfare) Missiles. designation-systems.net. Archived from
rocket and worked by puncturing the hull. It was accu- the original on 15 December 2010. Retrieved 2011-
rate enough for use against surface ships and land targets, 01-24.
but these missions required an explosive warhead.[1] A 5-
inch anti-aircraft shell was attached to the 3.5-inch rocket
motor, creating the 5-Inch FFAR, which entered service 246.4 External links
in December 1943. Performance was limited because of
the increased weight, limiting speed to 780 km/h (485 Media related to FFAR rockets at Wikimedia Commons
mph).[2] The High Velocity Aircraft Rocket, or HVAR,
was developed to x this aw.[2]
A list of aircraft that used FFAR:
Douglas SBD Dauntless - dive bomber
Vought F4U Corsair - carrier based ghter
246.2 See also

2.75 inch FFAR
Zuni rocket
List of rockets
246.3 References
Citations
702
Chapter 247
High Velocity Aircraft Rocket
The High Velocity Aircraft Rocket, or HVAR, also

known by the nickname Holy Moses,[2] was an Amer-
ican unguided rocket developed during World War II to
attack targets on the ground from aircraft. It saw exten-
sive use during both World War II and the Korean War.

The HVAR was designed by engineers at Caltech during
World War II as an improvement on the 5-Inch Forward
Firing Aircraft Rocket (FFAR), which had a 5 inch di-
ameter warhead but an underpowered 3.25 inch diam-
eter rocket motor. The desire for improved accuracy
from the atter trajectory of a faster rocket spurred the
rapid development. HVAR had a constant 5 diameter
for both warhead and rocket motor, increasing propellant
from 8.5 lb to 23.9 lb of Ballistite. U.S. Ballistite pro-
pellant had a sea level specic impulse of over 200 sec-
onds, compared with about 180 seconds for the British
Cordite, German WASAG and Soviet PTP propellants.
Hercules Powder Company was the principal U.S. sup-
plier of high performance extruded Ballistite propellants:
51.5% nitrocellulose, 43% nitroglycerine, 3.25% diethyl F-84E launching rockets.
phthalate, 1.25% potassium sulphate, 1% ethyl centralite,
and 0.2% carbon black. The propellant in U.S. 3.25
and 5 rocket motors consisted of a single large X shaped
cruciform Ballistite grain. This went against the com- piercing warheads (having an internal copper cone) with
mon practice of lling rocket motors with dierent num- 7.5 lb of Composition B and a base fuse only. HVAR
bers of smaller same-sized tubular charges, the number testing was complete by D-Day, 6 June 1944, and air-
depending on motor diameter. The central hole in a tubu- lifted Navy HVAR rockets were soon being loaded on
lar charge makes it more dicult to extrude, requiring a Ninth Air Force P-47Ds to support the break-out at Nor-
softer propellant blend that also yields somewhat lower mandy. Other single-engine delivery aircraft included
performance. Rocket V increased from 710 ft/sec for the F4U Corsair, F6F Hellcat, TBF/TBM Avenger, and
the 5 AR to 1375 ft/sec for HVAR, giving the coveted SB2C Helldiver. Twin-engine aircraft sometimes armed
at trajectory.[3] with HVARs included the P-38 Lightning, PBJ Mitchell
bomber and the PV-2 Harpoon bomber. HVAR could
penetrate 4 ft of reinforced concrete and was used to sink
transports, knock out pillboxes and AA gun emplace-
247.2 Operational service ments, blow up ammo and oil-storage dumps, and destroy
tanks, locomotives, and bunkers. Navy F4U Corsairs and
Two dierent versions of the HVAR were built during TBF/TBM Avengers made the most extensive use of the
World War II. The warheads were either 1) Mk 4 gen- rockets in the Pacic theater after the victory in Europe.
eral purpose warheads with 7.5 lb of TNT and both nose Over a million HVARs were made during World War II,
and base fuses or 2) Mk 25 shaped-charge semi-armor- and production continued until 1955. HVARs remained
703
704 CHAPTER 247. HIGH VELOCITY AIRCRAFT ROCKET
in the Navys inventory until the mid-1960s. After World

War II, newer versions included a new general purpose
type with a proximity fuse, and a new shaped-charge war-
head for use against tanks.[4]
HVAR was an eective weapon in the hands of skilled,
experienced pilots. It was less eective in the hands of
average or inexperienced pilots who were accustomed
to taking less careful aim and then walking in their
gunre to nally engage a target. HVARs could be red
in pairs or a single rapid-re salvo but required accurate
initial alignment and careful attention to range, or at
least a good instinctive sense for the range to the target.
HVARs were widely used in the Korean War. AD-1
Skyraiders often carried a dozen HVARs, and sometimes
U.S. Navy rockets on display at Michelson Laboratory, NOTS
an additional pair of much larger but less accurate Tiny
China Lake. Foreground: 11.75 TINY TIM; left to right on cen-
Tim 11.75 rockets. Targets included ships, bunkers,
tre stands, 5 HOLY MOSES (HVAR), 5 FFAR, 3.5 FFAR,
pillboxes, coastal defense guns, ammunition dumps, and 2.25 SCAR. Right background on table, 7.2 MOUSETRAP;
occasionally even destroyers and major bridges. Numer- right foreground on oor, barrage rocket launcher.
ous F-51D Mustang Six-Shooters (six 50 cal machine
guns plus six HVARs) and carrier-based F9F Panther
jets ew close air support in Korea. Panthers carried [2] Parsch 2006
6 HVARs and four 20 mm cannons, while both planes
[3] E.W. Price, C.L. Horine, and C.W. Snyder (July
could carry an additional pair of 500 lb bombs, napalm, 1998). EATON CANYON, A History of Rocket Motor
or fuel tanks. Neil Armstrong and John Glenn were Research and Development in the Caltech-NDRC-
among the Panther pilots. It was in Korea that HVARs Navy Rocket Program, 1941-1946, (PDF). 34th
and Tiny Tims bridged the gap between prop planes and AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference
jets: F-80C, F-84E, F9F Panther, and F-86 Sabre. Jets and Exhibit, Cleveland, Ohio. AIAA.
gave the ghter pilots improved forward visibility. F-84E
Thunderjets proved to be the most capable load-lifting [4] Mulvaneys Ordnance Technical Information System
(MOTIS) Ordnance Technical Data Sheet TM 9-1950,
ghter/bombers in Korea, demonstrating an ability to
Rockets, July 1945
loft up to 24 HVARs and 2 Tiny Tims with a combined
rocket weight of 5800 pounds. [5] Flying Stovepipe Developed by APL in 1945, The
News, Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Lab-
oratory.
In April of 1945, HVAR rockets were used in Operation
Bumblebee in the Navys facility on Island Beach, New
Jersey. The HVAR rockets launched 6-inch ramjet en-
gines from wooden frames, accelerating the carbon disul- 247.5 Bibliography
de fuel ramjets to ight speed. On June 13, the ramjets
achieved supersonic speed.[5] Parsch, Andreas (2006). Air-Launched 5-Inch
Missiles. designation-systems.net. Retrieved 2011-
247.3 See also 01-08.

5-Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket
BOAR (rocket) Media related to HVAR rocket at Wikimedia Commons
Ram (rocket)
5-inch HVAR. National Museum of the US Air
Tiny Tim (rocket) Force. 11 February 2011.
247.4 References
[1] National Air & Space Museum HVAR exhibit and spec-
ications display, Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C.
Chapter 248
Tiny Tim (rocket)
The Tiny Tim was an American air to ground rocket used Tim. Like the Richard, it never moved beyond the R&D
near the end of the Second World War. One source states stage.[6]
it was built in response to a United States Navy require-
ment for an anti-shipping rocket capable of hitting ships
outside of their anti-aircraft range, with a payload capa- 248.1 Gallery
ble of sinking heavy shipping.[1] However, according to
the China Lake Weapons Digest,[2] the Tiny Tim was
U.S. Navy rockets on display at Michelson Labora-
tory, NOTS China Lake
... designed by the Caltech-China Lake
Alexis B. Dember with Tiny Tim rocket casing,
team as a bunker-buster, Tim was the rst large
Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, 1953. No-
aircraft rocket, and, although it saw only lim-
tice the 24 smaller exhaust nozzles arranged in two
ited service in WWII, it helped form the foun-
concentric circular patterns around the larger center
dations of many postwar developments in rock-
exhaust nozzle.
etry.
For a warhead, Tiny Tim utilized a 500 lb semi-armor- 248.2 See also
piercing high explosive bomb. It had a maximum range
of 1,500 meters (1,640 yards).
Anti-ship missile
They were used by the United States Navy and United
States Marine Corps near the end of the war during the Rocket
battle of Okinawa, and during the Korean War. A prob-
lem with the sheer power of the rocket motor causing
damage to the ring aircraft was resolved by having the 248.3 References
Tiny Tim drop like a bomb, and a lanyard attached to
the rocket would snap, causing the rocket to ignite.[3] [1] Parsch, Andreas (2004). CalTech/NOTS Tiny Tim. Di-
Common targets included coastal defense guns, bridges, rectory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles, Appendix
pill boxes, tanks, and shipping.[4] An ambitious opera- 4: Undesignated Vehicles. Designation-Systems.net. Re-
tion to use the Tiny Tim against German V-1 sites as trieved 2008-11-11.
part of Operation Crossbow, code-named Project Danny,
[2] China Lake Weapons Digest.
was planned but cancelled before the squadrons assigned
could be deployed to Europe. [3] Slover, G: Chapter-11-C, 11C3. Suspension and launch-
ing of aircraft rockets, Gene Slover.
Common Tiny Tim delivery aircraft during World War II
included the PBJ-1 Mitchell,[5] F4U Corsair, F6F Hell- [4] Missile, Air-to-Surface, Tiny Tim. National Air and
cat, TBM Avenger, and the SB2C Helldiver.[1] Space Museum. 2005.
After World War II, the United States Navys rocket lab- [5] Scutts, Jerry (1993). Marine Mitchells in World War 2.
oratory at Inyokern, California developed an even larger
version of the Tiny Tim, called Richard, which was [6] Smash Hits Popular Mechanics, March 1947.
14 inches in diameter and most likely the largest air to
surface unguided rocket ever developed for the US mili-
tary. While tested, it was never placed in production. The
United States Navy also experimented with a version of
the Tiny Tim which was a two-stage rocket, with another
Tiny Tim rocket motor mounted behind a complete Tiny
705
Chapter 249
AGM-62 Walleye
Center) at China Lake, California. One of the engi-

neers, Norman Kay, built televisions in his home as a
hobby. Kay built an iconoscope camera in 1958 that
could do a funny thing, recalled fellow project engi-
neer William H. Woodworth. It occurred to him that he
could build a little circuit into there that would put a lit-
tle blip in the picture, and he could make the little blip
track things that would move in the picture. The two
engineers, soon joined by Dave Livingston, Jack Craw-
AGM-62 Walleye loaded on board an aircraft. ford, George Lewis, Larry Brown, Steve Brugler, Bob
(Sam) Cunningham and several others, decided to re-
The AGM-62 Walleye is a television-guided glide bomb search the idea further and quickly secured some seed
which was produced by Martin Marietta and used by the money from the Navy to advance the concept. Adopt-
United States armed forces during the 1960s. Most had ing some technology from the AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-
a 250 lb (113 kg) high-explosive warhead; some had a air missile project and developing other components from
nuclear warhead. The designation of the Walleye as an scratch, the group developed the bomb in just four years.
air-to-ground missile is a misnomer, as it is an unpow- Among other revolutionary breakthroughs, the group de-
ered bomb with guidance avionics, similar to the more veloped the worlds rst solid-state television camera with
modern GBU-15. The Walleye was superseded by the no vacuum tubes and the rst zero-input-impedance am-
AGM-65 Maverick. plier.
The team worked at nights and on weekends to keep
the project on track and convince the Navy of its worth.
249.1 History Woodworth was the electronics expert and went so far
as to take a year o from work and attend graduate
school at his own expense to gain some additional the-
The Walleye was the rst of a family of precision-guided
oretical knowledge needed for the project. Woodworth
munitions designed to hit targets with minimal collateral
and Steve Brugler breadboarded the original tracking cir-
damage. This smart bomb had no propulsion system,
cuitry. Brugler then did the detailed analysis and de-
but it could be maneuvered via a television assisted guid-
sign of the tracker for initial production. Larry Brown
ance system during its glide from an aircraft to the target.
worked tirelessly to analyze the bombs ight traits, us-
As a pilot dove towards a target, a television camera in
ing an analog-computing instrument. Jack Crawford had
the nose of the bomb transmitted images to a monitor in
an amazing intuitive feel for physical phenomena, and
the cockpit. Once the pilot acquired a sharp image of the
could envision many of the ying traits of the bomb be-
target on his screen, he designated an aim point and re-
fore it had even been built.[1]
leased the bomb, which would continue ying toward the
designated target on its own. The bomb was a true re-
and-forget system because once launched, the plane could
immediately turn away from the aim point. The Walleye
maneuvered itself using four large ns. Later versions
249.2 First test and production
employed an extended range data link that let pilots keep contract
ying the weapon after its release, and even change aim
points during ight (command guidance). On 29 January 1963, a YA-4B Skyhawk own by Cdr. J.
The idea of a TV guided bomb came out of discussions A. Sickel, dropped the rst Walleye at China Lake. The
between an eclectic group of civilian engineers at the bomb scored a direct hit. Martin received the rst pro-
Naval Ordnance Test Center (later the Naval Weapons duction contract for the Walleye in 1966 and the bomb
706
249.5. OVERALL PERFORMANCE 707
entered service with both the Navy and the U.S. Air cartoon character, ocially designated Guided Weapon
Force the following year. The original Walleye I carried Mk 5,[2] had an extended range data link and could hit
a 1,100-pound shaped charge and had a range of 16 nau- targets up to 45 nautical miles (83 km) from its launch
tical miles (30 km).[1] point. On 27 April 1972, a ight of eight Air Force ght-
In 1966, the AGM-62 designation was cancelled, the de- ers, two carrying 2000-pound laser-guided bombs and
cision having been made not to designate guided bombs two carrying Walleye IIs, attacked the Thanh Hoa Bridge.
in the missile sequence; the AGM-62A was given the Cloud cover prevented the LGBs from being used, but
new designation Guided Weapon Mk 1 Mod 0, while its ve of the Walleyes locked on, causing heavy damage to
the bridge, even though failing to bring down a span. On
training version was Mk 2. Mk 3 was the Walleye ER,
featuring extended wings to increase range, while the Mk 13 May, the Air Force nally brought down the bridge
with 3,000 and 2,000-pound LGBs. The Vietnamese,
4 was also a training round.[2]
however, soon repaired the bridge, compelling the Navy
and Air Force to y 13 more missions against the target.
On one such mission on 23 October, four A-7 Corsair pi-
249.3 Use during Vietnam War lots from the carrier USS America took down the bridge
with a combination of Walleye IIs and conventional 2000-
By May 1967, Navy pilots had dropped several bombs pound bombs.[1]
in Vietnam with great success. On 19 May 1967, Ho Guided Weapon Mk 6 was a nuclear version of the Wall-
Chi Minhs 77th birthday, a Navy aircraft from the USS eye II, using a W72 warhead of 625 tonnes (615 long
Bon Homme Richard scored a direct hit against the Hanoi tons; 689 short tons) yield; no nuclear Walleye IIs are
power plant with a Walleye. The Navy hit the plant again known to have been actually completed.[2] Versions with
with the bomb two days later, knocking out Hanois major an extended-range data link were designated in the Mk
source of power. 20 series.[2]
While softer targets such as power plants proved quite
vulnerable to the Walleye, sturdier ones such as North
Vietnams well-constructed railroad bridges could not be
downed even with a 1,100-pound weapon. Direct hits by
249.5 Overall performance
the Walleye against the Thanh Hoa Bridge south of Hanoi
in 1967 failed to take down even a single span of this no- While Walleyes accounted for less than six percent of the
toriously strong structure.[1] precision-guided munitions employed by the U.S. Armed
Services during the Vietnam War, the weapons system
could achieve excellent results under the right circum-
stances. The Navy often used the Walleye against the
249.4 Walleye II, Fat Albert most important, hardest to kill targets. After the war, the
Navy continued to employ upgraded versions of the Wall-
eye through Operation Desert Storm;[1] shortly after the
war the Walleye was retired, along with its main carrier
aircraft, the Vought A-7 Corsair II.[2]
249.6 See also

Related lists
List of missiles
An A-6E Intruder releasing a Walleye II during testing at NAWC 249.7 References

Pax River, 1994.
To correct this major deciency, China Lake devel- Notes

oped a 2,000-pound version of the bomb, and deployed
it to Vietnam in time for President Richard Nixons [1] John Darrell Sherwood, Nixons Trident: Naval Power in
Linebacker raids against Hanoi and Haiphong. The new Southeast Asia, 1968-1972, (Washington: DC: Naval His-
Walleye II, or Fat Albert as it was nicknamed after the torical Center, forthcoming).
708 CHAPTER 249. AGM-62 WALLEYE
[2] Parsch, Andreas (2002). Martin Marietta AGM-62

Walleye. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles.
Designation-Systems. Retrieved 2014-07-09.
Bibliography
Bonds, Ray and David Miller. AIM-9 Sidewinder.


Designation Systems
Globalsecurity.com detailed account of the Walleye
bomb with photos and specications
Chapter 250
B28 nuclear bomb
For other uses, see B28 (disambiguation).

The B28, originally Mark 28, was a thermonuclear
B28RE Set of four B28FI thermonuclear bombs
equipped six Europe-based Canadian CF-104 squadrons

known as the RCAF Nuclear Strike Force. It was
also supplied for delivery by UK-based Royal Air Force
Valiant and Canberra aircraft[1] assigned to NATO under
the command of SACEUR. Also USN carrier based at-
tack aircraft such as the A3D Skywarrior and the A4D
Skyhawk were equipped with the MK 28.
B28FI as used on a B52 bomber 250.1 Production history

The Mk 28 was produced from 1958 through 1966. It
used the W28 lightweight, Class D warhead (also shared
with the TM-76 Mace surface-to-surface missile and the
GAM-77 Hound Dog air-launched cruise missile). After
1968 it was redesignated B28.
Twenty dierent versions of the B28 were oered, distin-
guished by their yield and safety features. The B28 used
the building block principle, allowing various combina-
tions of components for dierent aircraft and roles. The
B28 had a diameter of about 22 in (58 cm), with a length
varying between 96 in (2.44 m) and 170 in (4.32 m) and
weight of 1,700 lb (771 kg) to 2,320 lb (1,053 kg), de-
B28FI being unloaded from a Boeing B-52H in 1984. The 3
pending on the model type and whether a parachute re-
ground crew show the size of this weapon tard pack was tted. The principal congurations were as
follows:
bomb carried by U.S. tactical ghter bombers and
bomber aircraft. From 1962 to 1972 under the NATO B28EX (EXternal), streamlined external-
nuclear weapons sharing program, American B28s also carriage version for free-fall delivery (no parachute)
709
710 CHAPTER 250. B28 NUCLEAR BOMB
B28RE (Retarded External) streamlined 250.4 Survivors

external-carriage version with a parachute retarder
(4 ft. pilot, 28 ft. ribbon chute) Four Mark 28 training variants (BDU-16/E) on their
transporter (MHU-7/M) are on display in the Cold War
B28IN (INternal) unstreamlined internal- Gallery at the National Museum of the United States Air
carriage version for free-fall delivery, primarily for Force in Dayton, Ohio.[2]
the Republic F-105 Thunderchief
B28RI (Retarded Internal) unstreamlined 250.5 See also

internal-carriage version with parachute retarder
Red Snow (a British copy of the B28 warhead)
B28FI (full Fusing Internal) unstreamlined
internal-carriage version with parachute for laydown B83 nuclear bomb
delivery; used only by SAC B-47s and B-52s. The
FI, for Full Fuzing Internal was developed to List of nuclear weapons
adapt to new low-level delivery techniques of the Air
Python primary
Force in the 1960s, and is the only model of this
bomb equipped for air, ground, and delayed action
burst.
250.6 References
The range of explosive yields was as follows: [1] B28 Nuclear bomb (United States), Janes Information
Group, retrieved 2008-11-10
Mod 1 1.1 megaton TNT equivalent [2] MARK 28 THERMONUCLEAR BOMB // National
Museum of the USAF, 8/16/2012: The artifacts on ex-
Mod 2 350 kiloton TNT equivalent hibit are BDU-16/E training variants of the Mk-28 and are
displayed on an MHU-7/M Bomb Lift Trailer... return to
Mod 3 70 kiloton the Cold War Gallery.
Mod 5 1.45 megaton

The fuze mechanism on a B28 could be set for an air burst
or ground burst detonation. A total of 4,500 B28s were Complete List of All U.S. Nuclear Weapons, The
produced. The last examples were retired in 1991. Nuclear Weapon Archive
250.2 Related designs

The B28 bomb design has been described as the origin of
a series of related nuclear warheads. The nuclear ssion
rst stage or primary, code-named the Python primary,
was reused in several subsequent weapons. The B28 was
the mainstay of SAC during the Cold War and have yet
to be completely dismantled by the Defense Department
(as of 2012).
Nuclear researcher Chuck Hansen's research indicates
that the Python primary was used in the US B28 nuclear
bomb and the W28, W40, and W49 nuclear warheads.
250.3 Accidents and incidents
1966 Palomares B-52 crash
1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash

Chapter 251
B41 nuclear bomb
(Mt), and weighing in at 4,850 kg (10,690 lb). It remains

the highest yield-to-weight ratio of any weapon created.
The US claimed in 1963 that it could produce a 35 Mt
fusion bomb, and put it on a Titan II (3,700 kg [8,200 lb]
payload), almost doubling the yield-to-weight ratio of the
B-41.
The B-41 was of the usual long cylindrical shape. The
nuclear fusion warhead was of the Teller-Ulam type and
used a 40100 kiloton implosion type nuclear ssion pri-
mary (reportedly based on the Smokey TX-41 shot of
The casing of a B-41 thermonuclear bomb. Operation Plumbbob)[2] fueled by HEU to trigger the
lithium-6 deuteride fusion fuel. Between 500 and 1,000
The B-41 (also known as Mk-41) was a thermonuclear kg (1,100 and 2,200 lb) of lithium deuteride was used and
weapon deployed by the United States Strategic Air Com- was contained in a cylinder of natural uranium (U-238)
mand in the early 1960s. It was the most powerful nu- with an inner casing of U-235.
clear bomb ever developed by the United States, with a
maximum yield of 25 megatons. The B-41 was the only The B-41 was an example of a ssion-fusion-fusion-
three-stage thermonuclear weapon elded by the U.S.[1] ssion type thermonuclear weapon, or tertiary stage
bomb. The additional tertiary fusion stage, compressed
by a previous fusion stage, could be used to make a bomb
with yields as large as desired (see Tsar Bomba, a Soviet
251.1 Development three-stage bomb and the highest-yield nuclear weapon
ever built or tested).
The development of the B-41 began in 1955 with a USAF
requirement for a Class B (high-yield, over 10,000 lb or
4,500 kg) weapon. It was based on the Fagotti (bas-
soon)" test device rst red in the Redwing Zuni test of 251.3 Physical characteristics
27 May 1956. An ICBM warhead version of the weapon
was cancelled in 1957.
The weapon was 12 ft 4 in (3.76 m) long, with a body di-
ameter of 4 ft 4 in (1.32 m). It weighed 10,670 lb (4,840
kg). It was carried only by the B-52 Stratofortress and
251.2 Composition B-47 Stratojet. It could be deployed in free-fall or aerial
(parachute) conguration, and could be set for airburst,
The B-41 was the only three-stage thermonuclear weapon groundburst, or laydown delivery.
elded by the U.S. It had a deuterium-tritium boosted pri-
mary, probably with lithium-6-enriched deuteride fuel for
the fusion reaction in the secondary stage. This was fol-
lowed by a yet-larger third fusion stage, the tertiary stage, 251.4 Service life
compressed by the secondary stage. Finally, there was a
ssion jacket. The B-41 (designated Mk-41 until 1968) entered service
Two versions were deployed, Y1, a dirty version with in 1961. About 500 of these weapons were manufactured
a tertiary stage encased with U-238 (natural uranium), between September 1960 and June 1962. The B-41 was
and Y2, a clean version with a lead-encased tertiary. It progressively phased out of service from 1963 in favor of
was the highest-yield nuclear weapon ever deployed by the B53 nuclear bomb. The last B-41s were retired in July
the United States, with a maximum yield of 25 megatons 1976.
711
251.5 Eciency
During its operation, the B-41 was the most ecient
known thermonuclear weapon in terms of yield to actual
weight, with a 5.2 Megaton/tonne ratio (based on a 25 Mt
yield). Its blast yield was 25 to 50% that of the AN602
Tsar Bomba, which delivered a blast of 50 or 100 mega-
tons of TNT, depending on its own conguration as a
clean (lead encased) or dirty (uranium encased) bomb.
However even at the Tsar Bombas theoretical maximum
yield of 100 megatons, it would still only achieve a yield
to weight ratio of ~ 3.7 Megaton/tonne, thus the B-41 is
the most ecient, highest yield to weight ratio, weapon
ever created.[3][2] However, since neither full yield ver-
sions of the B-41 nor Tsar Bomba were ever demonstra-
bly tested, and thus the B-41s high eciency is but a cal-
culated paper performance, the most ecient demon-
strated nuclear physics package is the W56.
251.6 Eects
If detonated at optimal height, the B-41 would generate
a reball approximately 4 miles (6.4 km) in diameter.
It would have been able to destroy reinforced concrete
buildings 8 miles (13 km) from ground zero and would
have been able to destroy most residential structures 15
miles (24 km) from ground zero. It could produce third
degree burns 32 miles (51 km) from ground zero.
In the case of a surface burst, the fallouts maximum
downwind cloud distance could possibly reach 658 miles
(1,059 km) from ground zero.
251.7 See also

Nuclear weapon yield
251.8 References
[1] The B-41 (Mk-41) Bomb, Nuclear Weapon Archive, .
(accessed April 8, 2015).
[2] Carey Sublette, Operation Plumbbob, Nuclear Weapon

Archive, http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/
Plumbob.html. (accessed December 27, 2006).
[3] The B-41 was ...the most ecient bomb or warhead ac-
tually deployed by any country during the Cold War and
afterwards. http://www.ieri.be/fr/publications/ierinews/
2011/juillet/fission-fusion-and-staging.
Chapter 252
B43 nuclear bomb
The B43 nuclear bomb
The B43 was a United States air-dropped variable yield

nuclear weapon used by a wide variety of ghter bomber
and bomber aircraft.
The B43 was developed from 1956 by Los Alamos Na-
tional Laboratory, entering production in 1959. It en- West German F-104G with a ZELL-Verfahren rocket booster
tered service in April 1961. Total production was 2,000 and a B-43 nuclear bomb at Gatow, Germany.
weapons, ending in 1965. Some variants were parachute-
retarded and featured a ribbon parachute.
con and the F/A-18 Hornet. The B-1B Lancer was also
The B43 was built in two variants, Mod 1 and Mod
intended to carry the B43, though it remains unclear
2, each with ve yield options. Depending on version,
whether this particular aircraft was ever type-approved
the B43 was 18 inches (45 cm) in diameter, and length
to carry the B43 prior to the B-1s reassignment to con-
was between 12 ft 6 in and 13 ft 8 in (3.81 m and 4.15
ventional strike roles. The B43 was also supplied for de-
m). The various versions weighed between 2,060 lb and
livery by Royal Air Force Canberra and Valiant aircraft
2,125 lb (935 kg to 960 kg). It could be delivered at al-
assigned to NATO under the command of SACEUR.
titudes as low as 300 ft (90 m), with fuzing options for
airburst, ground burst, free fall, contact, or laydown de-
livery. Explosive yield varied from 70 kilotons of TNT
to 1 megaton of TNT. 252.2 Broken Arrow
The B43 used the Tsetse primary design for its ssion
stage, as did several mid- and late-1950s designs. Main article: 1965 Philippine Sea A-4 incident
The B43 was one of four thermonuclear gravity bombs

carried by Canadian CF-104 jets while serving in Ger- The B43 was never used in combat, but it was involved
many between June of 1964 and 1972.[1] in a nuclear accident when an A-4E Skyhawk, BuNo
151022, of the USS Ticonderoga (CVA-14) (from At-
tack Squadron VA-56), was lost o the coast of Japan
on 5 December 1965 when it rolled o an elevator,[2] in
252.1 Delivery systems 16,000 feet of water in the Pacic Ocean, 80 miles from
one of the Ryukyu Islands, Okinawa.[3][4] The Skyhawk
Carrier aircraft included most USAF, USN and USMC was being rolled from the number 2 hangar bay to the
ghters, bombers and attack aircraft, including the A-3 number 2 elevator when it was lost.[5] The pilot LTJG D.
Skywarrior, A-4 Skyhawk, A-5 Vigilante, A-6 Intruder, M. Webster, airframe, and the bomb were never found.[6]
A-7 Corsair II, B-47 Stratojet, B-52 Stratofortress, B- No public mention was made of the incident at the time
58A Hustler, F-100 Super Sabre, F-105 Thunderchief, and it would not come to light until a 1981 Pentagon re-
F-4 Phantom II, F-104 Starghter, FB-111A strategic port revealed that a one-megaton bomb had been lost.[7]
bomber variant, F-15E Strike Eagle, F-16 Fighting Fal- Japan then asked for details of the incident.[8]
713
252.3 Withdrawn
The B43 was phased out in the 1980s, and the last B43
weapons were retired in 1991 in favor of the newer B61
and B83 weapons.
252.4 See also

B83 nuclear bomb
B61 nuclear bomb

Tsetse primary
252.5 References
[1] Clearwater, John, Canadian Nuclear Weapons: The Un-
told Story of Canadas Cold War Arsenal, Dundurn
Press, 1998, ISBN 1-55002-299-7, Chapter 3
[2] Maggelet, Michael H., and Oskins, James C., Broken Ar-
row: The Declassied History of U.S. Nuclear Weapons
Accidents, Lulu Publishing, www.lulu.com, 2007, ISBN
978-1-4357-0361-2, chapter 29, page 217.
[3] Gibson, James N. Nuclear Weapons of the United States

An Illustrated History . Atglen, Pennsylvania.: Schier
Publishing Ltd., 1996, Library of Congress card no. 96-
67282, ISBN 0-7643-0063-6, page 130.
[4] Winchester, Jim, Douglas A-4 Skyhawk: Heinemans Hot

Rod. Barnsley, Yorkshire, United Kingdom: Pen & Sword
Books, 2005, ISBN 1-84415-085-2, page 199.
[5] http://a4skyhawk.org/3e/va56/webster-va56.htm
[6] Broken Arrows at www.atomicarchive.com. Accessed

Aug 24, 2007.
[7] Washington, D.C.: Washington Post, Reuter, "U.S. Con-

rms '65 Loss of H-Bomb Near Japanese Islands", Tues-
day, 9 May 1989, page A-27.
[8] Washington, D.C.: Washington Post, "Japan Asks Details

On Lost H-Bomb", Wednesday, 10 May 1989, page A-35.

Allbombs.html data page at nuclearweaponar-
chive.org
Video showing shipboard handling procedures for

the B43 bomb
Chapter 253
B46 nuclear bomb
The B46 nuclear bomb (or Mk-46) was a tested 253.2 External links
but never deployed American high-yield thermonuclear
bomb which was designed and tested in the late 1950s. B53 design and design history including B46 at [nu-
Though originally intended to be a production design, clearweaponarchive.org]
the B46 ended up being only an intermediate prototype
which was test red several times. These prototypes were Allbombs.html list of all US nuclear weapon designs
known as TX-46 units (Test/Experimental). at [nuclearweaponarchive.org]
The B46 design roughly weighed 8,120 pounds and was
about 37 inches in diameter. It was intended to have a 9
megaton yield.
The design history of the B46 apparently derives most im-
mediately from the older, larger Mark 21 nuclear bomb
design, which was a design derivative of the Shrimp de-
sign which was the rst US solid fueled thermonuclear
bomb test red in the Castle Bravo test.
The B46 was test red in Operation Hardtack I in 1958;
the ssion primary (see Teller-Ulam design) was test red
by itself in Hardtack Butternut with 81 kiloton estimated
yield, the full weapon test red in Hardtack Yellowwood
and zzled with only 330 kiloton yield, and was red
again in Hardtack Oak to full 8.9 megaton yield.
The B46 design concepts were taken forwards into a new
weapon design in 1959, the TX-53, which was redesig-
nated the B53 nuclear bomb and W53 warhead. 50 B53
bombs were in US inactive reserves from 1997 to 2011,
though none were actively deployed during that period.
253.1 See also
B53 nuclear bomb
Mark 21 nuclear bomb
Castle Bravo
Operation Hardtack I tests including Butternut, Yel-

lowwood, and Oak
715
Chapter 254
B53 nuclear bomb
The Mk/B53 was a high-yield bunker buster ve tons, megaton-range) bomb to replace the earlier Mk
thermonuclear weapon developed by the United 41.[2] A revised version of the Mk 46 became the TX-53
States during the Cold War. Deployed on Strategic in 1959. The development TX-53 warhead was appar-
Air Command bombers, the B53, with a yield of 9 ently never tested, although an experimental TX-46 pre-
megatons, was the most powerful weapon in the U.S. decessor design was detonated 28 June 1958 as Hardtack
nuclear arsenal after the last B41 nuclear bombs were Oak, which detonated at a yield of 8.9 Megatons.
retired in 1976. The Mk 53 entered production in 1962 and was built
The B53 was the basis of the W-53 warhead carried through June 1965.[2] About 340 bombs were built. It
by the Titan II Missile, which was decommissioned in entered service aboard B-47 Stratojet, B-52G Strato-
1987. Although not in active service for many years be- fortress,[1] and B-58 Hustler bomber aircraft in the mid-
fore 2010, fty B53s were retained during that time as 1960s. From 1968 it was redesignated B53.
part of the Hedge portion[3] of the Enduring Stock- Some early versions of the bomb were dismantled be-
pile until its complete dismantling in 2011. The last B53 ginning in 1967. About 50 bomb and 54 Titan warhead
was disassembled on 25 October 2011, a year ahead of versions were in service through 1980. After the Titan
schedule.[4][5] II program ended, the remaining W-53s were retired in
With its retirement, the largest bomb currently in service the late 1980s. The B53 was also intended to be retired
in the U.S. nuclear arsenal is the B83, with a maximum in the 1980s, but 50 units remained in the active stock-
yield of 1.2 megatons.[6] The B53 was replaced in the pile until the deployment of the B61-11 in 1997. At that
bunker-busting role by a variant of the two-stage B61 nu- point the obsolete B53s were slated for immediate disas-
clear bomb. sembly; however, the process of disassembling the units
was greatly hampered by safety concerns as well as a lack
of resources.[7] In 2010 authorization was given to disas-
semble the 50 bombs at the Pantex plant in Texas.[8] The
254.1 History process of dismantling the last remaining B53 bomb in
the stockpile commenced on 25 October 2011 and was
completed soon afterwards.[9]
254.2 Specications
The B53 was 12 feet 4 inches (3.76 m) long with a di-

ameter of 50 inches (4.17 ft; 1.27 m). It weighed 8,850
pounds (4,010 kg), including the 800-to-900 lb (360-to-
410 kg) parachute system and the honeycomb aluminum
nose cone to enable the bomb to survive laydown delivery.
It had ve parachutes:[1] one 5-foot (1.52 m) pilot chute,
one 16-foot (4.88 m) extractor chute, and three 48-foot
(14.63 m) main chutes. Chute deployment depends on
Hardtack Oak nuclear weapon test.
delivery mode, with the main chutes used only for lay-
Development of the weapon began in 1955 by Los down delivery. For free-fall delivery, the entire system
Alamos National Laboratory, based on the earlier Mk 21 was jettisoned.
and Mk 46 weapons. In March 1958 the Strategic Air The warhead of the B53 used oralloy (highly enriched
Command issued a request for a new Class C (less than uranium) instead of plutonium for ssion, with a mix of
716
254.5. EFFECTS 717
lithium6 deuteride fuel for fusion. The explosive lens

comprised a mixture of RDX and TNT, which was not
insensitive. Two variants were made: the B53-Y1, a
dirty weapon using a U-238-encased secondary, and
the B53-Y2 clean version with a non-ssile (lead or
tungsten) secondary casing. Explosive yield was approx-
imately nine megatons.
254.3 Role
It was intended as a bunker buster weapon, using a sur-
face blast after laydown deployment to transmit a shock
wave through the earth to collapse its target. Attacks
against the Soviet deep underground leadership shelters in
the Chekhov/Sharapovo area south of Moscow envisaged W53 physics package
multiple B53/W53 exploding at ground level. It has since
been supplanted in such roles by the earth-penetrating head ever deployed on a US missile. About 65 W53 war-
B61 Mod 11, a bomb that penetrates the surface to de- heads were constructed between December 1962 and De-
liver much more of its explosive energy into the ground, cember 1963.[12]
and therefore needs a much smaller yield to produce the
same eects. On 19 September 1980 a fuel leak caused a Titan II to
explode within its silo in Arkansas, throwing the W53
The B53 was intended to be retired in the 1980s, but warhead some distance away. Due to the safety mea-
50 units remained in the active stockpile until the de- sures built into the weapon, it did not explode or release
ployment of the B61-11 in 1997. At that point the any radioactive material.[13] 52 active missiles were de-
obsolete B53s were slated for immediate disassembly; ployed in silos prior to the beginning of the retirement
however, the process of disassembling the units was program in October 1982.[12] With the retirement of the
greatly hampered by safety concerns as well as a lack of Titan eet, disassembly of the W53 warheads was com-
resources.[7][8] The last remaining B53 bomb began the pleted by about 1988.
disassembly processes on Tuesday, 25 October 2011 at
the Energy Departments Pantex Plant.[5]
An April 2014 GAO report notes that the NNSA is re- 254.5 Eects
taining canned subassemblies (CSAs) " associated with a
certain warhead indicated as excess in the 2012 Produc-
tion and Planning Directive are being retained in an inde-
terminate state pending a senior-level government eval-
uation of their use in planetary defense against earth-
bound asteroids.[10] In its FY2015 budget request, the
NNSA noted that the B53 component disassembly was
delayed, leading some observers to conclude they might
be the warhead CSAs being retained for potential plane-
tary defense purposes.[11]
254.4 W53
The W53 warhead of the Titan II ICBM used the same
physics package as the B53, without the air drop-specic B53 on display at the Atomic Testing Museum
components like the parachute system, reducing its mass
to about 6,200 lb (2,800 kg).[12] The 8,140-pound (3,690 Assuming a detonation at optimum height, a 9 megaton
kg) Mark-6 re-entry vehicle containing the W53 warhead blast would result in a reball with an approximate 2.9
was about 123 inches (10.3 ft; 3.1 m) long, 7.5 feet (2.3 to 3.4 mi (4.7 to 5.5 km) diameter.[14] The radiated heat
m) in diameter and was mounted atop a spacer which was would be sucient to cause lethal burns to any unpro-
8.3 feet (2.5 m) in diameter at the missile interface (com- tected person within a 20-mile (32 km) radius (1,250 sq
pared to the missiles core diameter of 10 feet [3.0 m]). mi or 3,200 km2 ). Blast eects would be sucient to
With a yield of 9 megatons, it was the highest yield war- collapse most residential and industrial structures within
a 9 mi (14 km) radius (254 sq mi or 660 km2 ); within [9] Watson, Leon (25 October 2011). Dismantling the
3.65 mi (5.87 km) (42 sq mi or 110 km2 ) virtually all mega-nuke: America begins to take apart B53 that was
above-ground structures would be destroyed and blast ef- 600 times more powerful than bomb that attened Hi-
fects would inict near 100% fatalities. Within 2.25 mi roshima. The Daily Mail. Retrieved 25 October 2011.
(3.62 km) a 500 rem dose of ionizing radiation would be [10] ""Actions Needed by NNSA to Clarify Dismantlement
received by the average person, sucient to cause a 50% Performance Goal, Report to the Subcommittee on En-
to 90% casualty rate independent of thermal or blast ef- ergy and Water Development, Committee on Appropri-
fects at this distance.[15] ations, U.S. Senate, United States Government Account-
ability Oce,. April 2014. Retrieved 4 August 2014.
[11] Department of Energy FY 2015 Congressional Budget

254.6 Artifacts Request for the National Nuclear Security Administra-
tion. March 2014. Retrieved 4 August 2014.
B53 on display in the free introduction exhibit room [12] Cochran 1989, p. 59
at the Atomic Testing Museum, Las Vegas, Nevada
[13] Titan II at Little Rock AFB. The Military Standard. Re-
B53 on display at the Wings Over the Rockies Air trieved 27 October 2011.
and Space Museum, Denver, Colorado
[14] Walker, John (June 2005). Nuclear Bomb Eects Com-
puter. Fourmilab. Retrieved 2009-11-22.
Mark 53 casing is on display in the Cold War Gallery
at the National Museum of the United States Air [15] Wellerstein, Alex (20122014). NukeMap v2.42.
Force in Dayton, Ohio NukeMap. Retrieved 2014-07-28.
B53 casing in display yard of The National Museum

Bibliography
of Nuclear Science & History, Albuquerque, New
Mexico
Cochran, Thomas B. (1989). US Nuclear Stock-
pile. Nuclear Weapons Databook: United States
Nuclear Forces and Capabilities 1. Ballinger Pub
254.7 References Co. pp. 5859. ISBN 978-0-88730-043-1. Re-
trieved 26 October 2011.
Notes
Hansen, Chuck (1988). US Nuclear Weapons: The
Secret History. Arlington, Texas: Aerofax. ISBN
[1] Cochran 1989, p. 58 978-0-517-56740-1.
[2] Hansen 1988, pp. 162163
[3] Hedge stockpile": fully operational, but kept in storage; 254.8 External links
available within minutes or hours; not connected to deliv-
ery systems, but delivery systems are available (i.e. missile The B-53 (Mk-53) Bomb
and bomb stockpiles kept at various Air Force bases)
[4] Blaney, Betsy (25 October 2011). USs most powerful

nuclear bomb being dismantled. The Associated Press.
[5] Ackerman, Spencer (23 October 2011). Last Nuclear

Monster Weapon Gets Dismantled. Wired. Retrieved
23 October 2011.
[6] Betsy, Blaney (25 October 2011). Most powerful US nu-

clear bomb dismantled. MSNBC. Retrieved 26 October
2011.
[7] Johnston, William Robert (6 April 2009). Multimegaton

Weapons: The Largest Nuclear Weapons. Retrieved 27
October 2011.
[8] Walter Pincus (19 October 2010). The Story Of The B-

53 'Bunker Buster' Oers A Lesson In Managing Nuclear
Weapons. The Washington Post. p. 13. Retrieved 19
October 2010.
Chapter 255
B57 nuclear bomb
retired in June 1993.

The B57 could be deployed by most U.S. ghter, bomber
and Navy antisubmarine warfare and patrol aircraft (S-
3 Viking and P-3 Orion), and by some U.S. Navy
helicopters including the SH-3 Sea King. The B57 was
also deployed with Canadas CF-104s in Germany, and
the Royal Air Force's Nimrod from RAF St Mawgan and
RAF Kinloss in the UK and Malta in the Mediterranean.
255.1 See also
B57 nuclear bomb Tsetse primary

The B57 nuclear bomb was a tactical nuclear weapon de-
veloped by the United States during the Cold War.
Entering production in 1963 as the Mk 57, the bomb was 255.2 External links
designed to be dropped from high-speed tactical aircraft.
It had a streamlined casing to withstand supersonic ight. Allbombs.html list of all US nuclear weapons at
It was 3 m (9 ft 10 in) long, with a diameter of about nuclearweaponarchive.org
37.5 cm (14.75 in). Basic weight was approximately 227
kilograms (500 lbs). Beware the old story by Chuck Hansen, Bulletin of
the Atomic Scientists, March/April 2001 pp. 5255
Some versions of the B57 were equipped with a parachute (vol. 57, no. 02)
retarder (a 3.8 m/12.5 ft diameter nylon/kevlar ribbon
parachute) to slow the weapons descent, allowing the air- A guide to British nuclear weapons by Brian Burnell
craft to escape the blast (or to allow the weapon to survive
Video showing shipboard handling procedures for
impact with the ground in laydown mode) at altitudes as
the B57 bomb
low as 15 m (50 ft). Various fuzing modes were available,
including a hydrostatic fuze for use as a depth charge for
anti-submarine use.
The B57 was produced in six versions (mods) with explo-
sive yields ranging from 5 to 20 kilotons. Mod 0 was 5 kt,
Mod 1 and Mod 2 were 10 kt, Mod 3 and Mod 4 were
15 kt, and Mod 5 was 20 kt. The depth bomb version
of the B57, for the U.S. Navy, replaced the Mk 101 Lulu
and had selectable yield up to 10 kt.
The B57 used the Tsetse primary design for its core de-
sign, shared with several other mid- and late-1950s de-
signs.
The B57 was produced from 1963 to 1967. After 1968,
the weapon became known as the B57 rather than the
Mk 57. 3,100 weapons were built, the last of which was
719
Chapter 256
B77 nuclear bomb
The B77 was a nuclear bomb designed to match the de-

livery capabilities of the B-1A bomber. This included the
ability to be dropped from supersonic speeds at altitudes
of 60,000 feet, or in a laydown delivery at high subsonic
speeds at altitudes as low as 100 feet. Meant to replace
the Mk 28 and Mk 43 in the strategic role, the program
was cancelled in December 1977 due to rising costs and
the cancellation of the bomber it had been designed to
serve. Many components of the B77 including its already
tested physics package (the actual bomb core) were in-
corporated in the B83 which was developed in its place.
The specications for the B77 required Full Fusing Op-
tions (FUFO) and the ability for a low altitude, transonic
laydown delivery, as well as a free fall from supersonic
speeds and altitudes of 60,000 feet delivery. To achieve
the low-level delivery capability, the B77 employed a gas
generator for roll control and a lifting parachute as the
initial part of a two-stage parachute system. This combi-
nation would actually lift the bomb from a drop altitude of
100 feet to 300 feet for main parachute opening. The roll
control/parachute system was tested at Mach 2.2. From
a delivery altitude of 100 feet at mach 2.2, the B77 could
be slowed to 40 mph allowing the delivery aircraft to be
2.3 miles past ground zero. Actual detonation time could
be varied after the laydown had occurred.
256.1 See also

256.2 References
Hansen, Chuck. U.S. Nuclear Weapons. Arlington,
Texas, Areofax, Inc., 1988. ISBN 0-517-56740-7.
720
Chapter 257
B83 nuclear bomb
Anvil Fontina 12 February 1976, 900 kilotonnes

of TNT (3,800 TJ)
Anvil Colby 14 May 1976, 800 kilotonnes of TNT
(3,300 TJ)[2]
The B83 nuclear components have been attributed as the

same as the earlier B77.
The B83 replaced several earlier weapons, including the
B28, B43, and to some extent the ultra-high-yield B53. It
was the rst U.S. nuclear weapon designed from the start
to avoid accidental detonation, with the use of insensitive
explosives in the trigger lens system. Its layout is similar
A B83 casing. to that of the smaller B61, with the warhead mounted in
the forward part of the weapon to make the bomb nose-
The B83 thermonuclear weapon is a variable-yield gravity heavy. It was intended for high-speed carriage (up to
bomb developed by the United States in the late 1970s, Mach 2.0) and delivery at high or low altitude. For the
entering service in 1983. With a maximum yield of latter role, it is equipped with a parachute retardation sys-
1.2 megatonnes of TNT (5.0 PJ) (75 times the yield of tem, with a 14-meter (46 ft) Kevlar ribbon parachute ca-
the atomic bomb "Little Boy" dropped on Hiroshima on pable of rapid deceleration. It can be employed in free-
6 August 1945, which had a yield of 16 kilotonnes of fall, retarded, contact, and laydown modes, for air-burst
TNT (67 TJ)), it is the most powerful nuclear free-fall or ground-burst detonation. Security features include
weapon in the United States arsenal.[1] It was designed at next-generation permissive action link (PAL) and a com-
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and the rst mand disablement system (CDS), rendering the weapon
underground test detonation of the production B83 took tactically useless without a nuclear yield.
place on 15 December 1984.[2] The B83 was reportedly test red in the Grenadier Tierra
nuclear weapon test on 15 December 1984, at a reduced
yield of 80 kilotonnes due to the Threshold Test Ban
Treaty.
257.1 History
The B83 was based partly on the earlier B77 program, 257.2 Design
which was terminated because of cost overruns. The
B77 was designed with an active attitude control and lift-
The bomb is 3.7 meters (12 ft) long, with a diameter
ing parachute system for supersonic low-altitude delivery
from the B-1A bomber. B77 nuclear component test r- of 460 millimeters (18 in); the actual nuclear explo-
sive package, judging from published drawings, occupies
ings were attributed to the Operation Anvil (Nuclear test)
series in 1975 and 1976, specically the Cheese test some 0.91 to 1.22 m (3 to 4 ft) in the forward part of the
shots in Anvil: bomb case. The bomb weighs approximately 1,100 kilo-
grams (2,400 lb); the location of the lifting lugs shows
that the greater part of the total mass is contained in the
Anvil Kasseri 28 October 1975, 1,200 kilotonnes nuclear explosive. It has a variable yield: the destructive
of TNT (5,000 TJ) (B77/B83 full yield) power is adjustable from somewhere in the low kiloton
range up to a maximum of 1.2 megatons (1.2 million
Anvil Muenster 3 January 1976, 800 kilotonnes of tons of TNT). The weapon is protected by a Category
TNT (3,300 TJ) D PAL
721
About 650 B83s were built, and the weapon remains in In the strategy game World in Conict, a B83 is con-
service as part of the United States "Enduring Stockpile". sidered the last resort if the US Army failed to retake
Seattle from the Soviet Union before the arrival of
the PLA naval forces.
257.3 Aircraft capable of carrying In the 2007 lm Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem, one
the B83 B83 bomb is used to destroy a city.
In the Charles Stross alternate-history ction The
The following aircraft are (or were in the case of retired Revolution Trade, a version of the post-911 USA
aircraft such as the A-6 Intruder) capable of launching an carpet-bombs a trans-dimensional enemy state using
attack using the B83 bomb: B83s.
B-52
B-1 Lancer 257.6 See also
B-2 B61 nuclear bomb
F-16 List of nuclear weapons
F/A-18
FB-111 257.7 References
A-6 Intruder
[1] Blaney, Betsy (26 October 2011). End of an Era: Last of
A-7 Corsair Big Atomic Bombs dismantled. San Francisco Chronicle.
AV-8B Harrier II [2] Sublette, Carey. Nuclear Weapons Archive - B83. Re-
trieved 2013-12-23.
Nuclear capability was removed from B-1B. Though was [3] NASA plans 'Armageddon' spacecraft to blast asteroid
tested along with B-61 nuclear bomb in mid 1980s. As article at Flightglobal.com
well as ACM, Advanced Cruise Missile (now being re-
tired).
All A-6, and A-7 aircraft have been withdrawn from ser- 257.8 External links
vice, and retired.
B83 Information Site
B83 page at nuclearweaponarchive.org

257.4 Novel uses
NASA proposal to attack asteroids
The B83 is one of the weapons considered for use in the
"Nuclear Bunker Buster" project, which for a time was
known as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, or RNEP.
While most eorts have focused on the smaller B61-11
nuclear bomb, Los Alamos National Laboratory was also
analyzing the use of the B83 in this role.
The physics package contained within the B83 has been
studied for use in Asteroid impact avoidance strategies
against any seriously threatening near earth asteroids. Six
such warheads, congured for the maximum 1.2 Mt yield,
would be deployed by maneuvering space vehicles to
knock an asteroid o course, should it pose a risk to
the Earth.[3]
257.5 In popular culture

In the 1996 lm Broken Arrow, two B83 bombs are
stolen.
Chapter 258
B90 nuclear bomb
The B90 was an American thermonuclear bomb designed

in the mid-to-late 1980s and cancelled prior to introduc-
tion into military service due to the end of the Cold War
making further nuclear weapon development unneces-
sary.
The B90 design was intended for use as a naval aircraft
weapon, for use as a nuclear depth bomb and as a land
attack strike bomb. It was intended to replace the B57
nuclear bomb used by the Navy. The B90 bomb design
entered Phase 3 development engineering and was as-
signed its numerical designation in June 1988.
The B90 was 13.3 inches in diameter and 118 inches long,
and weighed 780 pounds. The B90 had a design yield of
200 kilotons.
The B90 was cancelled in September 1991 along with the
W89 and W91 nuclear warheads and AGM-131 SRAM
II and SRAM-T missile models. No B90 production
models were built, though test units may have been; US
nuclear weapon testing continued until 1992.
258.1 See also


University of California 1989 nuclear weapons labs
status report
Allbombs.html at the Nuclear Weapon Archive at

nuclearweaponarchive.org
723
Chapter 259
Bigeye bomb
The Bigeye bomb was a proposed U.S. binary chemi- aws in the program the U.S. Senate moved to eectively
cal weapon. The Bigeye was a glide bomb designed un- kill the binary chemical weapons program, including the
der the auspices of the U.S. Navy. Initially approved by Bigeye bomb.[1] In 1989 President George H.W. Bush an-
the Carter administration, the program persisted into the nounced that the U.S. would retain the option to produce
early 1990s. such binary weapons even after the Chemical Weapons
Convention took eect.[2] At the time of his announce-
ment, 1992 was the earliest date Bigeyes were expected
259.1 Background to be produced.[2]
As the stockpile of unitary chemical weapons began

to leak in the 1970s the Department of Defense was 259.3 Specications
acutely aware of the public backlash this created.[1] With
this in mind the Pentagon insisted it needed a binary The Bigeye was a roughly 500-pound (230 kg) bomb
chemical weapons program to counter and deter a So- delivered by plane.[1] It consisted of two separate can-
viet or third-world chemical attack.[2] The U.S. Armys isters of chemical weapons which were combined just
Chemical Corps was reactivated in 1976 and with it came before ight. It was the separation that was meant to
the increased desire for the Army to acquire a retalia- make handling the weapons simpler by increasing their
tory chemical capability in the form of that binary chem- shelf life and decreasing the amount of maintenance they
ical weapons program.[3] Initially, the United States was required.[1] The bomb was a U.S. Navy weapon designed
in arms control talks with the Soviet Union and then- to spray VX nerve agent over a target area by gliding
President Jimmy Carter rejected Army requests for au- through the air over it.[1][3] Inside the weapon two com-
thorization of the binary chemical weapons program.[3] pounds, non-toxic by themselves, sulfur and QL, were
The talks deteriorated and Carter eventually granted the combined to create VX.[1]
request.[3] However, at the last minute Carter pulled the
provision from the budget, this action left the decision on The Bigeye bomb would have weighed 595 lb (270 kg);
a retaliatory binary chemical weapons program to Ronald 180 lb (82 kg) would have been chemical agent, VX in
Reagan.[3] this case.[1] It was to have a length of 7 ft 6 in (2.29 m) and
a diameter of 13.25 in (337 mm). The glide bomb had
a wingspan of 1 ft 5.25 in (438.1 mm). The Bigeye was
not planned to have any guidance, propulsion or autopilot
259.2 History systems.[4]
Bigeye was the codename for the BLU-80, a concept

conceived during 1959.[1] During the 1970s at Pine
Blu Arsenal around 200 test articles were produced.[1] 259.4 Problems and issues
Initial contracts for the Bigeye were awarded in June
1988, to the Marquardt Company, the projects primary The 14 year plus, on again o again, Bigeye bomb pro-
contractor.[4] The original timeline for the U.S. binary gram was plagued with problems and controversy from
chemical weapons program called for the Bigeye to be its outset. The Chemical Corps was accused of interest
deployed by September 1988.[5] Reagan authorized the in binary chemical weapons only to enhance its recent re-
spending of more than $59 million in 1986 ($127 million activation; critics also charged the Army was opposed to
in present-day terms[6] ) to revive the chemical weapons arms control talks.[3] Also criticized was the entire idea of
program, under the original timeline, the Bigeye was to a modern American chemical weapons program.[3] Such
be the rst of these weapons produced.[7] After a General a program, the argument went, would actually encourage
Accounting Oce (GAO) report pointed out numerous others to develop chemical weapons, as opposed to acting
724
259.6. NOTES 725
as a deterrent.[2]
The testing, which had dismal results, presented its own
set of problems. In 1987 the Navy conducted 58 tests, re-
sults were very inconsistent.[5] Problems the Navy en-
countered with the Bigeye included excessive pressure
build-up, questions about the lethality of the chemical
mixture, unpredictable agent burning, and overall perfor-
mance concerns.[5] Scientists debated the ecacy of the
binary weapons program, especially since the Bigeye had
only been tested using simulants.[3] This led to specula-
tion that the binary weapons might be inferior to those
unitary weapons they were replacing.[3] The GAO repeat-
edly backed these assertions, maintaining that the Bigeye
was not adequately tested and that it had encountered ma-
jor technical issues.[2]
259.5 See also

Weteye bomb
259.6 Notes
[1] Croddy, Eric and Wirtz, James J. Weapons of Mass De-
struction: An Encyclopedia of Worldwide Policy, Tech-
nology, and History, (Google Books), ABC-CLIO, 2005,
p. 4042, (ISBN 1851094903), accessed November 11,
2008.
[2] Gordon, Michael R. "Bush Keeping Chemical Arms Op-

tion", The New York Times, October 15, 1989, accessed
November 11, 2008.
[3] Mauroni, Albert J. Chemical and Biological Warfare: A

Reference Handbook, (Google Books), ABC-CLIO, 2003,
p. 3839, (ISBN 1851094822).
[4] "BLU-80/B Bigeye", Federation of American Scientists,

updated February 5, 1998, accessed November 11, 2008.

Group, 2003, p. 109, (ISBN 027597796X,).
[6] Consumer Price Index (estimate) 18002014. Federal

Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Retrieved February 27,
2014.
[7] Ralo, Janet. "Controversy ignites over chemical bomb

- Bigeye bomb", Science News, June 21, 1986, via
FindArticles.com, accessed November 11, 2008.
Chapter 260
BLU-14
The BLU-14/B was a 347 kg (766 lb) ground-penetrating Directorate, Deputy for Test Operations, Air Proving
anti-vehicle mine for release by low-ying [down to 11 m Ground Center, Air Force Systems Command, USAF,
(35 ft) altitude] aircraft.[1] It was a derivative of the MLU- Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, August 1964, Section 1
10/B 750 lb. land mine,[2] and therefore essentially iden- - Introduction, page 1.
tical in shape and weight to the BLU-31/B anti-vehicle [5] Oen, George R., 1st Lieutenant, USAF, Project En-
demolition mine and bomb.[3] gineer, Engineering Evaluation of M117 Bomb with
The BLU-14/B has a low, stable ricochet trajectory that is Blunt Nose, Technical Documentary Report No. APGC-
predictable within close limits. It will penetrate into the TDR-64-51, APGC Project 0157W, Munitions Test
Directorate, Deputy for Test Operations, Air Proving
ground at an angle that is less than half that required by
Ground Center, Air Force Systems Command, USAF,
an M117 bomb.[4] Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, August 1964, Section 1
The BLU-14/B and MLU-10/B dier only in regard to - Introduction, page 2.
their respective fusing.[5]
[6] Oen, George R., 1st Lieutenant, USAF, Project En-
All three weapons (BLU-14, MLU-10, and MLU-31) gineer, Engineering Evaluation of M117 Bomb with
have a blunt at front end of 2 1/2 inch thickness.[6] Blunt Nose, Technical Documentary Report No. APGC-
TDR-64-51, APGC Project 0157W, Munitions Test
The designation BLU stands for Bomb Live Unit, as op- Directorate, Deputy for Test Operations, Air Proving
posed to BDU (Bomb Dummy Units) used for practice. Ground Center, Air Force Systems Command, USAF,
Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, August 1964, Section 4
- Discussion, page 27.
260.1 Specications
Data for BLU-31/B:
Length: 2.40 m (8.0 ft)
Diameter: 28.6 cm (11.25 in)
Finspan: 38.4 cm (15.1 in)
Weight: 347 kg (766 lb)
Explosive: 107 kg (236 lb) Destex
260.2 References
[1] http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/asetds/u-b.
html
[2] http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/asetds/
u-m.html#_MLU
[3] http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/asetds/u-b.
html
[4] Oen, George R., 1st Lieutenant, USAF, Project En-

gineer, Engineering Evaluation of M117 Bomb with
Blunt Nose, Technical Documentary Report No. APGC-
TDR-64-51, APGC Project 0157W, Munitions Test
726
Chapter 261
BLU-3 Pineapple
Weight: 1.75 pounds (794 g)

Warhead: 0.35 pounds (160 g) Cyclotol embedded
with 200 steel pellets.

Designation systems.net list of US bomb systems
A BLU-3 cluster bomblet at the Imperial War Museum, London.
BLU-3 Pineapple was a cluster bomblet, 360 were de-

ployed from the CBU-2A cluster bomb. It was used ex-
tensively in the Vietnam War by American forces. It was
named "Pineapple" because of its appearance.
The BLU-3/B 'Pineapple' was a fragmentation bomblet
for use against personnel and unarmored targets. After
release from the aerial dispenser, the bomblet was stabi-
lized by six pop-out drag vanes. It detonated on impact,
and dispersed 250 high-velocity steel pellets.
261.1 Specications
Length: 3.75 inches (95 mm); with vanes extended:
6.7 inches (170 mm)
Diameter: 2.75 inches (70 mm)
727
Chapter 262
BLU-82
The BLU-82B/C-130 weapon system, known under pro-

gram "Commando Vault" and nicknamed "daisy cut-
ter" in Vietnam and in Afghanistan for its ability to at-
ten a forest into a helicopter landing zone, is a 15,000
pound (6,800 kg) conventional bomb, delivered from ei-
ther a C-130 or an MC-130 transport aircraft. There were
225 constructed.[1] The BLU-82 was retired in 2008 and
replaced with the more powerful MOAB.
262.1 Overview
Originally designed to create an instant clearing in
the jungles of Vietnam, the BLU-82B/C-130 was test-
A 15,000 lb BLU-82/B on display at the National Museum of the dropped there from a CH-54 Tarhe Flying crane he-
United States Air Force licopter. Later it was used in Afghanistan as an anti-
personnel weapon and as an intimidation weapon because
of its very large blast radius (variously reported as 5000
to 5500 feet/1500 to 1700 meters) combined with a vis-
ible ash and audible sound at long distances. It is one
of the largest conventional weapons ever to be used, out-
weighed only by a few earth quake bombs, thermobaric
bombs, and demolition (bunker buster) bombs. Some of
these include the Grand Slam and T12 earthquake bombs
of late World War II, and more currently, the Russian Air
Force FOAB and USAF GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance
Air Blast bomb, and the Massive Ordnance Penetrator.
The designation BLU stands for Bomb Live Unit, as op-
An MC-130E from the 711th Special Operations
posed to BDU (Bomb Dummy Units) used for practice.
Squadron, 919th Special Operations Wing, drops the last
operational BLU-82 bomb at the Utah Test and Training
Range on July 15, 2008.
262.2 Specications
The BLU-82 uses ammonium nitrate and aluminum
(cf. ammonal).[2] The warhead contains 12,600 pounds
(5,700 kg) of low-cost GSX slurry (ammonium nitrate,
aluminum powder and polystyrene)
The Daisy Cutter has sometimes been incorrectly re-
ported as a fuel-air explosive device (FAE). FAE devices
consist of a ammable liquid and a dispersing mecha-
nism, and take their oxidizers from the oxygen in the air.
Detonation of the last BLU-82 FAEs generally run between 500 and 2,000 pounds (225
and 900 kg). Making an FAE the size of a Daisy Cutter
728
262.5. SEE ALSO 729
would be dicult because the correct uniform mixture of Wing dropped the last operational BLU-82 at the Utah
the ammable agent with the ambient air would be di- Test and Training Range.[9]
cult to maintain if the agent were so widely dispersed. A
conventional explosive is much more reliable in that re-
gard, particularly if there is signicant wind or thermal 262.5 See also
gradient.
The BLU-82 produces an overpressure of 1,000 pounds GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB)
per square inch (psi) (7 MPa) near ground zero, tapering
o as distance increases. It is detonated just above ground T-12 Cloudmaker
by a 38-inch (965 mm) fuze extender. This results in a Thermobaric weapon
maximum destruction at ground level without digging a
crater.
262.6 References
262.3 Guidance [1] London, U.K.: Aeroplane, Fricker, John, "Crosswind",
October 2006, Volume 34, Number 10, No. 402, page
This system depends upon the accurate positioning of the 120.
aircraft by either a xed ground radar or on-board navi-
[2] Independent Online, Taliban downs US chopper, killing
gation equipment. The ground radar controller, or air- four, November 6, 2001
crew navigator if applicable, is responsible for position-
ing the aircraft prior to nal countdown and release. Pri- [3] Grandolini, Albert. Cambodia, Part Two; 1954-1999.
mary aircrew considerations include accurate ballistic and ACIG.org. Retrieved 6 February 2013.
wind computations provided by the navigator, and preci-
[4] Pike, John. "BLU-82B. Federation of American Scien-
sion instrument ying with strict adherence to controller tists, 24 March 2004.
instructions. Due to its extremely powerful blast eects,
the minimum safe altitude for releasing this weapon is [5] Craib, J. A. "Occasional Paper Series 1: Survey of
6,000 feet (1,800 m) above ground level (AGL). Mine Clearance Technology. BARIC (Consultants) Ltd.,
September 1994.
[6] Wolfowitz, Paul; Stuebeem, John D. "September 11,

262.4 Operations 2001: Attack on America. Department of Defense News
Brieng, 10 December 2001.
The BLU-82 was originally designed to clear heli- [7] U.S. using mammoth 'Daisy Cutter' bomb
copter landing zones and artillery emplacements in Viet-
nam. South Vietnamese VNAF aircraft dropped BLU- [8] Daisy-cutter deployed after bin Laden sighting
82 bombs on NVA positions in desperation to support [9] Nichols, Patrick (Captain, 919th Operations Group).
ARVN troops in the Battle of Xun Lc in the last days "Duke Field Airmen Drop Last 15,000-Pound Bomb. Air
of the Vietnam War. During the Mayaguez incident, a Force Link (U.S. Air Force), 21 July 2008.
Lockheed MC-130 dropped a single BLU-82 to assist
U.S. Marine forces attempting to extract themselves from
Koh Tang island.[3] 262.7 External links
Eleven BLU-82Bs were palletized and dropped in ve
night missions during the 1991 Gulf War, all from Special "Bomb Live Unit (BLU-82/B). U.S. Air Force Na-
Operations MC-130 Combat Talons.[4] The initial drop tional Museum.
tested the ability of the bomb to clear or breach mine
elds;[5] however, no reliable assessments of mine clear- Pike, John. "BLU-82B. Federation of American
ing eectiveness are publicly available. Later, bombs Scientists, 24 March 2004.
were dropped as much for their psychological eect as
"Daisy Cutter. 3D Animated Short Film by Enrique
for their anti-personnel eects.[6]
Garcia & Ruben Salazar ( SILVERSPACE ).
The U.S. Air Force dropped several BLU-82s during
the campaign to destroy Taliban and al-Qaeda bases in
Afghanistan to attack and demoralize personnel and to
destroy underground and cave complexes.[4] American
forces began using the bomb in November 2001[7] and
again a month later during the Battle of Tora Bora.[8]
On 15 July 2008, airmen from the Duke Field 711th
Special Operations Squadron, 919th Special Operations
Chapter 263
BOLT-117
The Texas Instruments BOLT-117 (BOmb, Laser unguided bombs.

Terminal-117), retrospectively redesignated as the GBU-
1/B (Guided Bomb Unit)[1] was the worlds rst laser-
guided bomb (LGB). It consisted of a standard M117 263.1 See also
750-pound bomb case with a KMU-342 laser guidance
and control kit. This consisted of a gimballed laser seeker
Precision-guided munition
on the front of the bomb and tail and control ns to
guide the bomb to the target. These latter used the bang-
bang method of control where each control surface was
either straight or fully deected. This was inecient 263.2 References
aerodynamically, but reduced costs and minimized de-
mands on the primitive on-board electronics. [1] Texas Instruments Paveway I & Pave Storm - Designation
Systems

BOLT-117 (BOmb, Laser Terminal-117) - Global
Security
Texas Instruments Paveway I & Pave Storm - Des-
ignation Systems
Modern glide bombs on Vectorsite
BOLT-117 at nd.edu
A 497th TFS F-4D with two BOLT-117s at Ubon Royal Thai Air
Force Base, 1971.
It was commissioned by the United States Air Force in

1967 and successfully completed a combat evaluation in
1968. The Weapon System Ocer in the back seat of
a F-4 Phantom II ghter bomber used a hand-held Air-
borne Laser Designator to guide the bombs, but half of
the LGBs hit their targets despite the diculties inher-
ent in keeping the laser on the target. Placement of the
control surfaces on the rear of the bomb proved to be less
than ideal as it limited the ability of the ns to control
the bombs trajectory. Only a limited number of BOLT-
117 bombs were produced before it was discontinued in
favour of the more accurate Paveway I family of guidance
kits that moved the control ns to the front of the bomb.
The impact of the BOLT-117 on aerial warfare was
revolutionary. Laser guidance kits turned standard
dumb ordnance into smart bombs, yielding a 100-
fold increase in eectiveness compared with free-falling,
730
Chapter 264
CBU-100 Cluster Bomb
A CBU-99, foreground, along with an AGM-12B and an AGM-

12C. The CBU-99 and CBU-100 are nearly identical.
A US naval F/A-18C Hornet launches from USS Nimitz to a mis-
sion in Southern Iraq. Among other weapons, the plane carries
The CBU-100 Cluster Bomb (also called the Mk-20 CBU-100 Rockeye cluster bombs
Rockeye II) is an American cluster bomb which is em-
ployed primarily in an anti-tank mode. It weighs 490
pounds and carries 247 Mk 118 Mod 1 bomblets.
264.2 Deployments
The anti-tank cluster bomb is an air-launched, conven-
The CBUs are delivered to the eet as completely as-
tional free-fall weapon. The Mk 20, CBU-99, and CBU-
sembled all-up-rounds (AURs). Fuzes, suspension lugs,
100 are used against armored vehicles.
arming wires, wire extractors, and all other necessary
components are installed. The information on congu-
ration, functional description, and shipping and storage
containers of the Mk 7 bomb dispenser and its asso-
ciated components can be found in NAVAIR 11-5A-3,
also information on decanning, preparation for use, and
264.1 Design recanning procedures are found in NAVAIR 11-140-9.
MK 20 MODS/CBU-99/CBU-100, BOMB CLUSTER
When the Mk 20 bomb cluster is released from the air- CONFIGURATIONS The congurations of the Mk 20
craft, the arming wires (primary and/or optional arming) Mods/ CBU-99/CBU-100 are listed in the table below.
are pulled suciently to arm the Mk 339 fuze (and re- Mk 7 and Mods Bomb Dispenser The cargo section of
cently the FMU-140 fuze) and release the ns. The pos- the Mk 7 bomb dispenser is the main structure of the
itive armed n release arming wire frees the n release weapon and contains the bombs/bomblets. A nose fair-
band, and the movable ns snap open by spring-force. ing is attached to the forward end of the cargo section
Functioning of the fuze initiates the linear shaped charges for aerodynamics and fuze installation. It has an observa-
in the dispenser which cut the dispenser case in half and tion window for viewing the safe/arm indicator on the in-
disperse the bombs/bomblets. When the Mk 339 Mod 1 stalled fuze. The dispenser has two linear-shaped charges
primary fuse arming wire is pulled, the fuze will function secured longitudinally inside the walls. When initiated,
1.2 seconds after the arming wire has been extracted. If these shaped charges cut the dispenser in half, from front
the pilot selects the option time (4.0 seconds), both the to rear, and the bombs/bomblets spread in free-fall tra-
primary and option arming wires must be pulled. If the jectories.
pilot selects the option time and the primary arming wire To stabilize the weapon after release from the aircraft,
is not pulled, the fuze will fail to function and be a dud. a tail cone assembly is attached to the aft end of the
731
732 CHAPTER 264. CBU-100 CLUSTER BOMB

Cluster Bombs at www.ordnance.org
A Rockeye immediately after opening, showing the 247 bomblets.
cargo section. The tail cone assembly houses four, spring-

actuated folding ns. The ns are spring-loaded to the
open position and secured in the closed position during
ground handling by a n release-band assembly. The n
release band is secured in the closed position by a safety
cotter pin and by the n release wire. A yellow band
around the forward end of the cargo section indicates the
explosive content of the weapon. The Mk 7 Mods 3, 4,
and 6 bomb dispensers have the Mk 339 Mod 1 fuze,
which provides the pilot with in-ight selection of the
fuze function time. The Mk 7 Mod 4 bomb dispenser dif-
fers from the Mk 7 Mod 3 by modifying the dispenser and
giving interface capabilities with a wider range of military
aircraft. The Mk 7 Mod 6 bomb dispenser is the same as
the Mk 7 Mod 3 except that the outside of the Mod 6
cargo section is coated with a thermal protective coating
and has an additional yellow band around the forward end
of the cargo section. The addition of the thermal coating
increases the overall weight of the Mod 6 to 505 pounds
Each bomblet weighs 1.32 pounds (600 g) and has a
0.4-pound (180 g) shaped-charge warhead of high ex-
plosives, which produces up to 250,000 psi (1.7 GPa)
at the point of impact, allowing penetration of approx-
imately 7.5 inches (190 mm) of armor. Rockeye is most
eciently used against area targets requiring penetration
to kill. Fielded in 1968, the Rockeye dispenser is also
used in the Gator air-delivered mine system. During
Desert Storm US Marines used the weapon extensively,
dropping 15,828 of the 27,987 total Rockeyes against
armor, artillery, and personnel targets. The remainder
were dropped by Air Force (5,346) and Navy (6,813)
aircraft.[1]
According to a test report conducted by the United States
Navys Weapon System Explosives Safety Review Board
(WSESRB) established in the wake of the tragic 1967
USS Forrestal re, the cooking o time for a Rockeye
CBU is approximately 1 minute 13 seconds.
264.3 References
[1] "Military-Systems-Munitions-Mk.20" Globalsecurity.org

Chapter 265
CBU-55
The CBU-55 was a cluster bomb Fuel Air Explosive that Eglin team write up the test results, which were overall not
was developed during the Vietnam War, by the United positive. The unusual deployment sequence for the three
States Army, and was used only infrequently in that con- propane canisters, and the fact that they fell under small
ict. Unlike most incendiaries, which contained napalm parachutes highly susceptible to signicant wind drift,
or phosphorus, the 750 pound CBU-55 was fueled pri- made deliver accuracy and aircraft survivability (when
marily by propane. Described as a the most powerful releasing low enough to minimize that wind drift) ques-
non-nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal,[1] the device tionable. Also, the very high drag characteristics of the
was one of the more powerful conventional weapons de- CBU-55 canister, with its at back end, severely limited
signed for warfare. the Skyraiders ability to carry other bombs, rockets, and
CBU, a further negative issue.
Although the Air Force chose, based on the Bien Hoa and
265.1 Design NKP tests, not to deploy the weapon to the two combat
units in theater, an inventory of the canisters was kept.
The device had three main compartments, with propane, By April 21, 1975, South Vietnam had largely been con-
a blend of other gases, perhaps chlorine triphospate, or quered by the military from the north. Earlier in the
another oxidizing agent, and an explosive. month, a single CBU-55 had been own from Thailand
to the Bien Hoa airbase. The senior military ocer in
The CBU-55 had two variations. The CBU-55/B con- Vietnam, Major General Homer Smith, cleared the way
sisted of 3 BLU-73A/B fuel-air explosive sub-munitions for the Saigon government to use the weapon against the
in a SUU-49/B Tactical Munitions Dispenser, and the North Vietnamese Army. A Vietnamese C-130 transport
CBU-55A/B had 3 BLU-73A/B sub-munitions in a SUU- plane circled Xuan Loc at 20,000 feet (6,100 m), then
49A/B dispenser).[2] The SUU-49/B dispenser could be dropped the bomb. The contents exploded in a reball
carried only by helicopters or low-speed aircraft, whereas over a 4-acre (16,000 m2 ) area. Experts estimated that
the SUU-49A/B was redesigned with a strongback and 250 soldiers had been killed, primarily by the immediate
folding tailns, so that they could also be delivered by depletion of oxygen rather than from burns. The CBU-
high-speed aircraft as well. 55 was never used again in the war, and South Vietnams
government surrendered on April 30.[1]
A second generation of the CBU-55 (and CBU-72) fuel-
265.2 History air weapons entered the United States military arsenal af-
ter the Vietnam War, and were used by the United States
The rst generation of the CBU-55 was used during the in Iraq during Operation Desert Storm.[3]
Vietnam War, but only in a test mode by US forces. In
1971, a team from the Air Force Weapons Center at Eglin A foreign policy issue ared in the mid-1970s when the
Air Force Base brought test versions of the CBU-55 to Israeli government sought to acquire from the US the
Southeast Asia for testing on two lower speed attack air- small unused inventory of the original CBU-55 muni-
craft, the A-37 and the A-1. In late 1971, the team tions. The debate was one of inhumane weapons, with
worked with the 604th Special Operations Squadron A- the opponents of the transfer arguing that somehow, there
37 pilots at Bien Hoa, SVN to y a handful of combat was a distinction, in a very negative way, between us-
test missions. In December of that year, that same team ing CBU-55 compared to HE bombs, other cluster muni-
came to Nahkon Phanom Royal Thai Air Base (NKP) to tions, napalm, etc.
do the same tests with the 1st SOS Hobos, ying the Dou-
glas A-1 Skyraider. On Dec 2nd, 5th, and 8th, three two
ship Skyraider sorties were own, carrying four each of 265.3 See also
the CBU-55. The NKP test project ocer and ight lead
for these three missions, Capt. Randy Jayne, helped the List of Cluster Bombs
733
734 CHAPTER 265. CBU-55
265.4 References
[1] Spencer C. Tucker, Vietnam, UCL Press, 1999, p.185
[2] SBU/SBK to SXU - Equipment Listing
[3] CBU-72 / BLU-73/B Fuel/Air Explosive (FAE) - Dumb

Bombs
Chapter 266
CBU-72
The CBU-72 was a 550-pound American fuel-air cluster 266.4 References

bomb used by the United States Military until 1996.
It was very eective against armored vehicles, aircraft [1] CBU-72 / BLU-73/B Fuel/Air Explosive (FAE) - Dumb
parked in the open, bunkers, and mineelds. Bombs
[2] CBU-72 / BLU-73/B Fuel/Air Explosive (FAE) - Dumb

Bombs
266.1 Design
The CBU-72 consisted of three fuel-air explosive (FAE)
submunitions. Each submunition weighed about 100
pounds and dispensed a cloud approximately 60 feet in
diameter and 8 feet thick composed of its 75 pounds of
ethylene oxide aerosol fuel across the target area, with
air-burst fusing set for 30 feet.[1] An embedded detonator
ignited the cloud as it descended to the ground to produce
a massive explosion. The high-pressure of the rapidly ex-
panding wave front attened all objects within close prox-
imity of the epicenter of the fuel cloud, as well as causing
debilitating damage well beyond it. Like other FAE using
ethylene oxide, in the event of non-ignition, it functions
as a chemical weapon, due to the highly toxic nature of
this gas.
266.2 History of use

First-generation CBU-55 and CBU-72 fuel-air weapons
were used in the Vietnam War. A second generation of
FAE weapons were based on those, and were used by the
United States in Iraq during Operation Desert Storm.[2] A
total of 254 CBU-72s were dropped by the United States
Marine Corps, mostly from A-6Es. They were targeted
against mine elds and personnel in trenches, but were
more useful as a psychological weapon.
After Desert Storm, the United States Navy and the
Marines removed their remaining FAE weapons from ser-
vice, and by 1996, they had been transferred for demil-
itarization. By the middle of 2001, only a few hundred
remained in existence, awaiting demilitarization.
266.3 See also

List of cluster bombs
735
Chapter 267
CBU-75
The CBU-75 Sadeye was a United States cluster bomb

used during the Vietnam War. It could hold 1,800 one
pound BLU-26 anti-personnel bomblets, each of which
containing 0.7 pound of explosives with impact or time
delay fuzes that would produce around 600 fragments. [1]
[2]
267.1 References
[1] CBU-75 Sadeye - Dumb Bombs
[2] CBU-75 Sadeye - Dumb Bombs
736
Chapter 268
E133 cluster bomb
The E133 cluster bomb was a U.S. biological weapon

developed during the Cold War.
268.1 History
The U.S. E133 cluster bomb was developed prior to
Richard M. Nixon's 1969 declaration that ended the U.S.
biological weapons program.[1] At the time of Nixons
declaration the E133 was considered the most likely can-
didate in the U.S. biological arsenal to actually be used
in a combat situation.[1]
268.2 Specications
The E133 cluster weighed 750 pounds.[2] It held be-
tween 536[3][1] and 544[2] E61 bomblets, which when
dropped would detonate on impact dispersing an aerosol
of biological agent,[3] usually anthrax.
268.3 See also

Operation Polka Dot
268.4 References
[1] Cirincione, Joseph, et al. Deadly Arsenals: Nuclear, Bio-
logical, and Chemical Threats, (Google Books), Carnegie
Endowment, 2005, p. 60, (ISBN 087003216X).
[2] Chauhan, Sharad S. Biological Weapons, (Google Books),

APH Publishing Corporation, 2004, p. 197, (ISBN
8176487325).
[3] Cirincione, Joseph. "Defending America", Georgetown

Journal of International Aairs, Winter/Spring 2002, via
Commonwealth Institute, accessed January 4, 2009.
737
Chapter 269
E48 particulate bomb
The E48 particulate bomb was a U.S. biological sub- [2] Endicott, Stephen and Hagerman, Edward. The United
munition designed during the 1950s for use with the E96 States and Biological Warfare: Secrets from the Early
cluster bomb. Cold War and Korea, (Google Books), Indiana University
Press, 1998, pp. 67-68, (ISBN 0253334721).
[3] Subcommittee on Zinc Cadmium Sulde, U.S. National

269.1 History Research Council. Toxicologic Assessment of the Armys
Zinc Cadmium Sulde Dispersion, (Google Books), Na-
tional Academies Press, 1997, pp. 285-88, (ISBN
In February 1950 a U.S. Army report prepared by 0309057833).
William Creasy, a colonel within the U.S. bio-weapons
program, noted that the E48 particulate bomb was in its
nal stages of development.[1] Creasy also reported that
the E48 had been successfully tested in three eld trials.[2]
269.2 Specications
The E48 particulate bomb was a 4-pound (2 kg) sub-
munition meant to be clustered in the E38 type cluster
adapter, together the E48 and E38 constituted the E96
cluster bomb.[1] In practice, the E96 and its payload of
E48 sub-munitions was intended to be air-dropped from
35,000 feet (11,000 m).[1] The weapon could generate an
elliptical aerosol agent cloud from this altitude that had
major axes of 3,000 and 8,000 feet (910 and 2,440 m).[1]
Some of the agents considered for use with the E48 in-
cluded, B. suis, anthrax, and botulin.[1]
269.3 Tests involving the E48

The E48 sub-munition was utilized in tests at Dugway
Proving Ground in July and August 1950.[3] The July tests
released Bacillus globigii from the E48 using air-dropped
cluster bombs.[3] The August tests utilized the bacteria
Serratia marcescens, and involved E48s which dispersed
the agent statically, from the ground.[3]
269.4 References
[1] Whitby, Simon. Biological Warfare Against Crops,
(Google Books), Macmillan, 2002, pp. 106-07, (ISBN
0333920856).
738
Chapter 270
E86 cluster bomb
The E86 cluster bomb was an American biological 270.4 References

cluster bomb rst developed in 1951. Though the U.S.
military intended to procure 6,000 E86s, the program was [1] Whitby, Simon M. Biological Warfare Against Crops,
halted in the rst half of the 1950s. (Google Books), Macmillan, 2002, pp. 167-69, (ISBN
0333920856).
[2] Wheelis, Mark, et al. Deadly Cultures: Biological

270.1 History Weapons Since 1945, (Google Books), Harvard Univer-
sity Press, 2006, p. 218, (ISBN 0674016998).
The E86 cluster bomb was developed as a biological [3] Zilinskas, Raymond A. Biological Warfare: Modern Of-
weapon by the United States Army Chemical Corps and fense and Defense, (Google Books), Lynne Rienner
Publishers, Boulder, Colorado: 2000, p. 68, (ISBN
the United States Air Force beginning in October 1951.[1]
1555877613).
The Ralph M. Parsons Company was contracted to pro-
duce the E86 in October 1952.[1] In 1953 procurement [4] Kirby, Reid. "Using the ea as weapon", (Web version
began for 6,000 E86 cluster bombs, with their production via ndarticles.com), Army Chemical Review, July 2005,
expected no earlier than 1958.[2] When U.S. military mu- accessed December 28, 2008.
nition requirements were reviewed in the rst half of the
1950s, production and further development of the E86
was halted.[2] The E86 cluster bomb supplanted technolo-
gies such as the E77 balloon bomb.[2]
270.2 Specications
The E86 was similar to the M115 biological bomb, ex-
cept it was larger. While the M115 weighed 500 pounds
(227 kg), the E86 was a 750-pound (340 kg) weapon.[1]
Regardless, operationally, the E86 was similar to the
M115.[1] It was designed as an anti-crop weapon;[1] the
U.S. biological weapons program produced three anti
crop agents, wheat and rye stem rust and rice blast.[3]
The weapon was in a steel case and intended to be
dropped from the exterior of an aircraft such as the B-
47 or B-52.[1] Sub-munitions included the E14 muni-
tion;[4] the sub-munition was originally intended as anti-
crop weapons as well, but was later altered and used
in testing as the U.S. pursued an entomological warfare
program.[4]
270.3 See also
M33 cluster bomb
739
Chapter 271
Lazy Dog (bomb)
Two designs of the Lazy Dog bomb. (Top: early forged steel
design, Bottom: later lathe-turned steel design.)
A Mk 44 Lazy Dog cluster adapter.
means to deliver Lazy Dog projectiles.
271.1 Development
AD-5N Skyraider, BuNo 132521, Lazy Dog dispenser, China Lazy dog bombs were descended from projectiles of al-
Lake, 13 Apr 1961. Ocial U.S. Navy photo. most identical design and appearance that were originally
developed early in World War II as early as 1941. The
Lazy Dog bombs (sometimes called Red Dot Bombs Korean War-era and Vietnam War-era Lazy Dog was
or Yellow Dog Bombs) were small, unguided kinetic further developed, tested and deployed into the 1950s and
missiles, each measuring 1.75 inches (44 mm) in length, 1960s.
0.5 inches (13 mm) in diameter, and weighing 207 grains, Originally an Armament Laboratory program codenamed
about 0.47 ounces (13 g). LAZY DOG, the weapons development involved Delco
The weapons were designed to be dispersed over the Products Corporation, F&F Mold and Die Works, Inc.,
battleeld with Mark 44 cluster adapters. Lazy dog Haines Designed Products, and Master Vibrator Com-
bombs were technically not bombs because they used pany of Dayton. The project objective was to design
no explosive, but were in many ways equally destruc- and test free-fall missiles and their dispensing units for
tive. Mark 44 cluster adapters were one of many possible use in bombers and ghters. LAZY DOG anti-personnel
740
missiles were designed to spray enemy troops with small Regardless of how they were released into the air,
projectiles with three times the force of standard air- each Lazy Dog projectile would develop an incredible
burst bombs. The Armament Laboratory worked with amount of kinetic energy as it fell, penetrating nearly any
the Flight Test Laboratory to conduct wind tunnel tests material upon hitting the ground. Some reports say that
of a number of bomb shapes which design studies indi- their speeds often exceeded 500 mph before impact.
cated to be the most ecient for stowage and release from A variant version of the Lazy Dog projectile was devel-
high performance aircraft. oped for the recoilless rie. However, development was
Experimental LAZY DOG projectiles of various shapes suspended because another kind of echette solution was
and sizes were tested at Air Proving Ground, Eglin AFB, used for the recoilless rie instead.
Florida, in late 1951 and early 1952. An F-84 ying at
400 knots and 75 feet above the ground served as the test
bed while a jeep and a B-24 were the targets. The result 271.3 References
was eight hits per square yard. Tests revealed Shapes 2
and 5 to be the most eective. Shape 5, an improved basic
DEVELOPMENT TO COMBAT: Additional Techno-
LAZY DOG slug, had the force of a .50 caliber bullet and
logical Developments
could penetrate 24 inches of packed sand. Shape 2 could
penetrate 12 inches of sand twice as much as a .45
caliber slug red point blank.
271.2 Deployment
The Shape 2 projectile was sent to the Far East Air Force
(FEAF) for combat use by mid-1952. FEAF immedi-
ately ordered 16,000 Lazy Dog weapon systems. An Air
Force Lieutenant Colonel named Haile attached to the
Armament Laboratory spent 90 days in Japan to set up
local manufacture of the Lazy Dog weapons and train
crew members in their use. Project LAZY DOG contin-
ued throughout 1952 to determine the optimum charac-
teristics for stable dispersion containers and the feasibility
of substituting a LAZY DOG warhead for the explosive
nose of the Matador. The LAZY DOG program was still
ongoing in the late 1950s.
The rationale for using lazy dogs in the Vietnam War was
because they were highly eective against enemy troops
hidden beneath the jungle canopy. The munitions were
also cheap and easy to scatter over large areas. Like many
other weapons, however, their eects were often grue-
some and indiscriminate. Lazy Dog projectiles were
also referred to by other names such as "lawn darts" or
"buzz bombs" because of their similar shape to both those
objects.
Lazy Dog projectiles were dropped in very large num-
bers, and usable with almost any kind of ying vehicle.
They could be hurled from buckets, dropped by hand,
thrown in their small shipping bags made of paper, or
placed in a Mark 44 cluster adaptera simple hinged
casing with bins built in to hold the projectiles, opened
by a mechanical time delay fuse as shown. The adapters
themselves were 69.9 inches long and 14.18 inches in
diameter. They would be shipped empty, then lled
by hand. Depending on how many projectiles could be
packed in, loaded weight varied between 560 and 625
pounds, with the theoretical maximum number of pro-
jectiles listed as 17,500.
Chapter 272
Little Boy
For other uses, see Little boy (disambiguation). 272.1 Naming
Little Boy was the codename for the type of atomic bomb The names for all three atomic bomb design projects dur-
dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima on August ing World War II, Fat Man, Thin Man, and Little Boy,
6, 1945 by the Boeing B-29 Superfortress Enola Gay, were created by Robert Serber, a former student of Los
piloted by Colonel Paul W. Tibbets, Jr., commander of Alamos Laboratory director Robert Oppenheimer who
the 509th Composite Group of the United States Army worked on the Manhattan Project. According to Serber,
Air Forces. It was the rst atomic bomb to be used in he chose them based on their design shapes. The Thin
warfare. The Hiroshima bombing was the second arti- Man was a long device, and the name came from the
cial nuclear explosion in history, after the Trinity test, Dashiell Hammett detective novel and series of movies by
and the rst uranium-based detonation. Approximately the same name. The Fat Man was round and fat, and
600 to 860 milligrams (9.3 to 13.3 grains) of matter in was named after Sydney Greenstreet's Kasper Gutman
the bomb were converted into the energy of heat and ra- character in The Maltese Falcon. Little Boy would come
diation. It exploded with an energy of approximately 15 last and was named after Elisha Cook, Jr.'s character in
kilotons of TNT (63 TJ).[1] the same lm, as referred to by Humphrey Bogart.[2]
Little Boy was developed by Lieutenant Commander
Francis Birch's group of Captain William S. Parsons's
Ordnance (O) Division at the Manhattan Project's Los 272.2 Development
Alamos Laboratory during World War II. Parsons ew
on the Hiroshima mission as weaponeer. The Little Boy Main article: Manhattan Project
was a development of the unsuccessful Thin Man nuclear
bomb. Like Thin Man, it was a gun-type ssion weapon,
but derived its explosive power from the nuclear ssion Because uranium-235 was known to be ssionable, it
of uranium-235. This was accomplished by shooting a was the rst approach to bomb development pursued.
hollow cylinder of uranium over another hollow enriched The vast majority of the work came in the form of
uranium cylinder by means of a charge of nitrocellulose the isotope enrichment of the uranium necessary for the
propellant powder. It contained 64 kg (141 lb) of en- weapon, since uranium-235 makes up only 1 part in 140
riched uranium, of which less than a kilogram underwent of natural uranium.[3] Enrichment was performed at Oak
nuclear ssion. Its components were fabricated at three Ridge, Tennessee, where the electromagnetic separation
dierent plants so that no one would have a copy of the plant, known as Y-12, became fully operational in March
complete design. 1944.[4] The rst shipments of highly enriched uranium
were sent to the Los Alamos Laboratory in June 1944.[5]
After the war ended, it was not expected that the ine-
cient Little Boy design would ever again be required, and Most of the uranium necessary for the production of the
many plans and diagrams were destroyed, but by mid- bomb came from the Shinkolobwe mine and was made
1946 the Hanford Site reactors were suering badly from available thanks to the foresight of the CEO of the High
the Wigner eect, so six Little Boy assemblies were pro- Katanga Mining Union, Edgar Sengier, who had 1,000
duced at Sandia Base. The Navy Bureau of Ordnance long tons (1,000 t) of uranium ore transported to a New
built another 25 Little Boy assemblies in 1947 for use York warehouse in 1939.[6] At least part of the 1,200 long
by the nuclear-capable Lockheed P2V Neptune aircraft tons (1,200 t) of uranium ore and uranium oxide captured
carrier aircraft. All the Little Boy units were withdrawn by the Alsos Mission in 1944 and 1945 was used in the
from service by the end of January 1951. bomb.[7]
The design was a development of the original Thin Man,
a gun-type ssion weapon 17 feet (5.2 m) long. Like the
Fat Man, it was designed for plutonium but would have
742
272.3. DESIGN 743
D.C.; the target case and some other components were by

the Naval Ordnance Plant in Center Line, Michigan; and
the tail fairing and mounting brackets by the Expert Tool
and Die Company in Detroit, Michigan.[11] The bomb,
except for the uranium payload, was ready at the begin-
ning of May 1945.[12] The uranium 235 projectile was
completed on June 15, and the target on July 24.[13] The
target and bomb pre-assemblies (partly assembled bombs
without the ssile components) left Hunters Point Naval
Shipyard, California, on July 16 aboard the cruiser USS
Indianapolis, arriving July 26.[14] The target inserts fol-
lowed by air on July 30.[13]
While testing of the components was conducted,[13] no
full test of a gun-type nuclear weapon occurred before
As part of Project Alberta, Commander A. Francis Birch (left) as- the Little Boy was dropped over Hiroshima. The only
sembles the bomb while physicist Norman Ramsey watches. This test explosion of a nuclear weapon concept had been of
is one of the rare photos where the inside of the bomb can be an implosion-type device employing plutonium as its s-
seen. sile material, and took place on July 16, 1945 at the
Trinity nuclear test. There were several reasons for not
testing a Little Boy type of device. Primarily, there
worked with enriched uranium as well. The Thin Man de- was little uranium-235 as compared with the relatively
sign was abandoned after experiments by Emilio G. Segr large amount of plutonium which, it was expected, could
and his P-5 Group at Los Alamos on the newly reactor- be produced by the Hanford Site reactors.[15] Addition-
produced plutonium from Oak Ridge and the Hanford ally, the weapon design was simple enough that it was
site showed that it contained impurities in the form of only deemed necessary to do laboratory tests with the
the isotope plutonium-240. This has a far higher spon- gun-type assembly. Unlike the implosion design, which
taneous ssion rate and radioactivity than the cyclotron- required sophisticated coordination of shaped explosive
produced plutonium on which the original measurements charges, the gun-type design was considered almost cer-
had been made, and its inclusion in reactor-bred pluto- tain to work.[16]
nium appeared unavoidable. This meant that the back-
The danger of accidental detonation made safety a con-
ground ssion rate of the plutonium was so high that it
cern. Little Boy incorporated basic safety mechanisms,
would be highly likely the plutonium would predetonate
but an accidental detonation could still occur. Tests were
and blow itself apart in the initial forming of a critical
conducted to see if a crash could drive the hollow bullet
mass.[8]
onto the target cylinder resulting in a massive release of
In July 1944, almost all research at Los Alamos was radiation, or possibly nuclear detonation. These showed
reorganised redirected to the implosion-type plutonium that this required an impact of 500 times that of gravity,
weapon. Overall, responsibility for the uranium gun-type which made it highly unlikely.[17] There was still concern
weapon was assigned to Captain William S. Parsons's that a crash and a re could trigger the explosives.[18] If
Ordnance (O) Division. All the design, development and immersed in water, the uranium halves were subject to
technical work at Los Alamos was consolidated under a neutron moderator eect. While this would not have
Lieutenant Commander Francis Birch's group.[9] caused an explosion, it could have created widespread ra-
In contrast to the plutonium implosion-type nuclear dioactive contamination. For this reason, pilots were ad-
weapon, the uranium gun-type weapon was straightfor- vised to crash on land rather than at sea.[17]
ward if not trivial to design. The concept was pursued so
that in case of a failure to develop a plutonium bomb, it
would still be possible to use the gun principle. The gun- 272.3 Design
type design henceforth had to work with enriched ura-
nium only, and this allowed the Thin Man design to be The Little Boy was 120 inches (300 cm) in length, 28
greatly simplied. A high velocity gun was no longer re- inches (71 cm) in diameter and weighed approximately
quired, and a simpler weapon could be substituted. This 9,700 pounds (4,400 kg).[19] The design used the gun
greatly shortened the weapon, so that it would t into a method to explosively force a hollow sub-critical mass
B-29 bomb bay.[10] of uranium-235 and a solid target cylinder together into
The design specications were completed in February a super-critical mass, initiating a nuclear chain reaction.
1945, and contracts were let to build the components. This was accomplished by shooting one piece of the ura-
Three dierent plants were used so that no one would nium onto the other by means of four cylindrical silk bags
have a copy of the complete design. The gun and breech of nitrocellulose powder. The bomb contained 64 kg (141
were made by the Naval Gun Factory in Washington, lb) of enriched uranium. Most was enriched to 89% but
744 CHAPTER 272. LITTLE BOY
Conventional
explosive Gun barrel
Hollow uranium Cylinder

"bullet" target
The gun assembly method. When the hollow uranium projectile

was driven onto the target cylinder, a nuclear explosion resulted.
some was only 50% uranium-235, for an average enrich-

ment of 80%.[20] Less than a kilogram of Uranium under-
went nuclear ssion, and of this mass only 0.6 g (0.021 272.3.2 Counter-intuitive design
oz) was transformed into a dierent type of energy, ini-
tially kinetic energy, then heat and radiation.[21] For the rst fty years after 1945, every published de-
scription and drawing of the Little Boy mechanism as-
sumed that a small, solid projectile was red into the
center of a larger, stationary target.[26] However, critical
272.3.1 Assembly details mass considerations dictated that in Little Boy the larger,
hollow piece would be the projectile. The assembled s-
Inside the weapon, the uranium-235 material was divided sile core had more than two critical masses of uranium
into two parts, following the gun principle: the projec- 235. This required one of the two pieces to have more
tile and the target. The projectile was a hollow cylin- than one critical mass, with the larger piece avoiding crit-
der with 60% of the total mass (38.5 kg (85 lb)). It con- icality prior to assembly by means of shape and minimal
sisted of a stack of 9 uranium rings, each 6.25-inch (159 contact with the neutron-reecting tungsten carbide tam-
mm) in diameter with a 4-inch (100 mm) bore in the cen- per.
ter, and a total length of 7 inches (180 mm), pressed to- A hole in the center of the larger piece dispersed the
gether into the front end of a thin-walled projectile 16.25 mass and increased the surface area, allowing more ssion
inches (413 mm) long. Filling in the remainder of the neutrons to escape, thus preventing a premature chain
space behind these rings in the projectile was a tungsten reaction.[27] But for this larger, hollow piece to have min-
carbide disc with a steel back. At ignition, the projec- imal contact with the tamper it must be the projectile,
tile slug was pushed 42 inches (1,100 mm) along the 72- since only the projectiles back end was in contact with
inch (1,800 mm) long, 6.5-inch (170 mm) smooth-bore the tamper prior to detonation. The rest of the tung-
gun barrel. The slug insert was a 4 inches (100 mm) sten carbide surrounded the sub-critical mass target cylin-
cylinder, 7 inches (180 mm) in length with a 1 inch (25 der (called the insert by the designers) with air space
mm) axial hole. The slug comprised 40% of the total s- between it and the insert. This arrangement packs the
sile mass (25.6 kg or 56 lb). The insert was a stack of maximum amount of ssile material into a gun-assembly
6 washer-like uranium discs somewhat thicker than the design.[27]
projectile rings that were slid over a 1 inch (25 mm) rod.
This rod then extended forward through the tungsten car-
bide tamper plug, impact-absorbing anvil, and nose plug 272.3.3 Fuse system
backstop eventually protruding out the front of the bomb
casing. This entire target assembly was secured at both The bomb employed a fusing system that was designed to
ends with locknuts.[22][23] detonate the bomb at the most destructive altitude. Cal-
When the hollow-front projectile reached the target and culations showed that for the largest destructive eect, the
slid over the target insert, the assembled super-critical bomb should explode at an altitude of 580 metres (1,900
mass of uranium would be completely surrounded by ft). The resultant fuse design was a three-stage interlock
a tamper and neutron reector of tungsten carbide and system:[28]
steel, both materials having a combined mass of 2,300 kg
(5,100 lb).[24] Neutron initiators at the base of the projec- A timer ensured that the bomb would not explode
tile were activated by the impact.[25] until at least fteen seconds after release, one-
272.4. REHEARSALS 745
272.4 Rehearsals
Arming plugs for a Little Boy type atomic bomb on display at the
National Air and Space Museum's Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center.
quarter of the predicted fall time, to ensure safety

of the aircraft. The timer was activated when the
electrical pull-out plugs connecting it to the airplane
pulled loose as the bomb fell, switching it to internal
(24V battery) power and starting the timer. At the
end of the 15 seconds the radar altimeters were pow-
Little Boy in the bomb pit on Tinian island, before being loaded
ered up and responsibility was passed to the baro- into Enola Gay's bomb bay. A section of the bomb bay door is
[28]
metric stage. visible on the top right.
The purpose of the barometric stage was to delay ac-

tivating the radar altimeter ring command circuit The Little Boy pre-assemblies were designated L-1, L-2,
until near detonation altitude. A thin metallic mem- L-3, L-4, L-5, L-6, L-7 and L-11. L-1, L-2, L-5 and L-6
brane enclosing a vacuum chamber (a similar de- were expended in test drops. The rst drop test was con-
sign is still used today in old-fashioned wall barom- ducted with L-1 on July 23, 1945. It was dropped over
eters) was gradually deformed as ambient air pres- the sea near Tinian in order to test the radar altimeter
sure increased during descent. The barometric fuse by the B-29 later known as Big Stink, piloted by Colonel
was not considered accurate enough to detonate the Paul W. Tibbets, the commander of the 509th Composite
bomb at the precise ignition height, because air pres-Group. Two more drop tests over the sea were made on
sure varies with local conditions. When the bomb July 24 and 25, using the L-2 and L-5 units in order to test
reached the design height for this stage (reportedly all components. Tibbets was the pilot for both missions,
2,000 metres, 6,600 ft) the membrane closed a cir- but this time the bomber used was the one subsequently
cuit, activating the radar altimeters. The baromet- known as Jabit. L-6 was used as a dress rehearsal on July
ric stage was added because of a worry that external 29. The B-29 Next Objective, piloted by Major Charles
radar signals might detonate the bomb too early.[28] W. Sweeney, ew to Iwo Jima, where emergency proce-
dures for loading the bomb onto a standby aircraft were
Two or more redundant radar altimeters were used practiced. This rehearsal was repeated on July 31, but this
to reliably detect nal altitude. When the altimeters time L-6 was reloaded onto a dierent B-29, Enola Gay,
sensed the correct height, the ring switch closed, piloted by Tibbets, and the bomb was test dropped near
igniting the three BuOrd Mk15, Mod 1 Navy gun Tinian. L-11 was the assembly used for the Hiroshima
[29][30]
primers in the breech plug, which set o the charge bomb.
consisting of four silk powder bags each contain-
ing two pounds of WM slotted-tube cordite. This
launched the uranium projectile towards the oppo- 272.5 Bombing of Hiroshima
site end of the gun barrel at an eventual muzzle ve-
locity of 300 metres per second (980 ft/s). Ap-
proximately 10 milliseconds later the chain reac- Main article: Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and
tion occurred, lasting less than 1 microsecond. The Nagasaki
radar altimeters used were modied U.S. Army Air
Corps APS-13 ghter tail warning radars, nick- Parsons, the Enola Gay's weaponeer, was concerned
named Archie, to warn a pilot of another plane about the possibility of an accidental detonation if the
approaching from behind.[28] plane crashed in takeo, so he decided not to load the four
cordite powder bags into the gun breech until the aircraft rounded up to 20 kilotons. Further discussion was then
was in ight. Parsons and his assistant, Second Lieutenant suppressed, for fear of lessening the impact of the bomb
Morris R. Jeppson, made their way into the bomb bay on the Japanese. Data had been collected by Luis Al-
along the narrow catwalk on the port side. Jeppson held varez, Harold Agnew and Lawrence H. Johnston on the
a ashlight while Parsons disconnected the primer wires, instrument plane The Great Artiste but this was not used
removed the breech plug, inserted the powder bags, re- to calculate the yield at the time.[34]
placed the breech plug, and reconnected the wires. Be- After hostilities ended, a survey team from the Manhat-
fore climbing to altitude on approach to the target, Jepp- tan Project that included William Penney, Robert Serber
son switched the three safety plugs between the electrical
and George T. Reynolds was sent to Hiroshima to eval-
connectors of the internal battery and the ring mecha- uate the eects of the blast. From evaluating the ef-
nism from green to red. The bomb was then fully armed.
fects on objects and structures, Penney concluded that
Jeppson monitored the bombs circuits.[31] the yield was 12 1 kilotons.[35] Later calculations based
on charring pointed to a yield of 13 to 14 kilotons.[36]
In 1953, Frederick Reines calculated that the yield as 13
kilotons.[34] This gure became the ocial yield.[1]
272.5.1 Project Ichiban

In 1962, scientists at Los Alamos created a mockup of
Little Boy known as Project Ichiban in order to answer
some of the unanswered questions, but it failed to clear
up all the issues. In 1982, Los Alamos created a replica
Little Boy from the original drawings and specications.
This was then tested with enriched uranium but in a safe
conguration that would not cause a nuclear explosion. A
hydraulic lift was used to move the projectile, and exper-
iments were run to assess neutron emission.[37] Based on
this and the data from The Great Artiste, the yield was
estimated at 16.6 0.3 kilotons.[38] After considering
many estimation methods, a 1985 report concluded that
the yield was 15 kilotons 20%.[1]
When 1 pound (0.45 kg) of uranium-235 undergoes com-
plete ssion, the yield is 8 kilotons. The 16 kiloton yield
The mushroom cloud over Hiroshima after the dropping of Little of the Little Boy bomb was therefore produced by the s-
Boy sion of no more than 2 pounds (0.91 kg) of uranium-235,
out of the 141 pounds (64 kg) in the pit. The remain-
ing 139 pounds (63 kg), 98.5% of the total, contributed
The bomb was dropped at approximately 08:15 (JST) Au-
nothing to the energy yield.[39]
gust 6, 1945. After falling for 44.4 seconds, the time and
barometric triggers started the ring mechanism. The
detonation happened at an altitude of 1,968 50 feet
(600 15 m). It was less powerful than the Fat Man, 272.6 Physical eects of the bomb
which was dropped on Nagasaki, but the damage and the
number of victims at Hiroshima were much higher, as After being selected in April 1945, Hiroshima was spared
Hiroshima was on at terrain, while the hypocenter of conventional bombing to serve as a pristine target, where
Nagasaki lay in a small valley. According to gures pub- the eects of a nuclear bomb on an undamaged city could
lished in 1945, 66,000 people were killed as a direct result be observed.[40] While damage could be studied later, the
of the Hiroshima blast, and 69,000 were injured to vary- energy yield of the untested Little Boy design could be
ing degrees.[32] Of those deaths, 20,000 were members determined only at the moment of detonation, using in-
of the Imperial Japanese Army.[33] struments dropped by parachute from a plane ying in
The exact measurement of the yield was problematic, formation with the one that dropped the bomb. Radio-
since the weapon had never been tested. President Harry transmitted data from[1]these instruments indicated a yield
S. Truman ocially announced that the yield was 20 kilo- of about 15 kilotons.
tons of TNT (84 TJ). This was based on Parsonss visual Comparing this yield to the observed damage produced a
assessment that the blast was greater than what he had rule of thumb called the 5 psi lethal area rule. Approx-
seen at the Trinity nuclear test. Since that had been es- imately 100% of people inside the area where the shock
timated at 18 kilotons of TNT (75 TJ), speech writers wave carries an overpressure of 5 psi or greater would be
272.6. PHYSICAL EFFECTS OF THE BOMB 747
gutted, with their windows, doors, sashes, and frames

ripped out.[46] The perimeter of severe blast damage ap-
proximately followed the 5 psi contour at 1.8 kilometres
(1.1 mi).
Later test explosions of nuclear weapons with houses and
other test structures nearby conrmed the 5 psi overpres-
sure threshold. Ordinary urban buildings experiencing it
will be crushed, toppled, or gutted by the force of air pres-
sure. The picture at right shows the eects of a nuclear-
bomb-generated 5 psi pressure wave on a test structure in
Nevada in 1953.[47]
A major eect of this kind of structural damage was that
it created fuel for res that were started simultaneously
The General Eects of the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and throughout the severe destruction region.
Nagasaki, a US Air Force lm.
272.6.2 Fire
killed.[41] At Hiroshima, that area was 3.5 kilometres (2.2
mi) in diameter.[42] The rst eect of the explosion was blinding light, ac-
The damage came from three main eects: blast, re, and companied by radiant heat from the reball. The Hi-
radiation.[43] roshima reball was 370 metres (1,200 ft) in diameter,
with a surface temperature of 6,000 C (10,830 F).[48]
Near ground zero, everything ammable burst into ame.
272.6.1 Blast One famous, anonymous Hiroshima victim, sitting on
stone steps 260 metres (850 ft) from the hypocenter, left
only a shadow, having absorbed the reball heat that per-
The blast from a nuclear bomb is the result of X-ray-
manently bleached the surrounding stone.[49] Simultane-
heated air (the reball) sending a shock/pressure wave in
ous res were started throughout the blast-damaged area
all directions, initially at a velocity greater than the speed
by reball heat and by overturned stoves and furnaces,
of sound,[44] analogous to thunder generated by lightning.
electrical shorts, etc. Twenty minutes after the detona-
Knowledge about urban blast destruction is based largely
tion, these res had merged into a restorm, pulling in
on studies of Little Boy at Hiroshima. Nagasaki build-
surface air from all directions to feed an inferno which
ings suered similar damage at similar distances, but the
consumed everything ammable.[50]
Nagasaki bomb detonated 3.2 kilometres (2.0 mi) from
the city center over hilly terrain that was partially bare of
buildings.[45]
Frame house in 1953 nuclear test, 5 psi overpressure

Hiroshima blast and re damage, U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey
In Hiroshima almost everything within 1.6 kilometres map
(1.0 mi) of the point directly under the explosion was
completely destroyed, except for about 50 heavily rein- The Hiroshima restorm was roughly 3.2 kilometres (2.0
forced, earthquake-resistant concrete buildings, only the mi) in diameter, corresponding closely to the severe blast
shells of which remained standing. Most were completely damage zone. (See the USSBS[51] map, right.) Blast-
damaged buildings provided fuel for the re. Structural caused by only 2,100 tons of conventional bombs: 220
lumber and furniture were splintered and scattered about. B-29s carrying 1,200 tons of incendiary bombs, 400 tons
Debris-choked roads obstructed re ghters. Broken gas of high-explosive bombs, and 500 tons of anti-personnel
pipes fueled the re, and broken water pipes rendered hy- fragmentation bombs.[61] Since the target was spread
drants useless.[50] At Nagasaki, the res failed to merge across a two-dimensional plane, the vertical component
into a single restorm, and the re-damaged area was only of a single spherical nuclear explosion was largely wasted.
one fourth as great as at Hiroshima, due in part to a south- A cluster bomb pattern of smaller explosions would have
west wind that pushed the res away from the city.[52] been a more energy-ecient match to the target.[61]
As the map shows, the Hiroshima restorm jumped nat-
ural rebreaks (river channels), as well as prepared re-
breaks. The spread of re stopped only when it reached 272.7 Post-war
the edge of the blast-damaged area, encountering less
available fuel.[53] When the war ended, it was not expected that the ine-
Accurate casualty gures are impossible to determine, be- cient Little Boy design would ever again be required, and
cause many victims were cremated by the restorm, along many plans and diagrams were destroyed. However, by
with all record of their existence. The Manhattan Project mid-1946 the Hanford Site reactors were suering badly
report on Hiroshima estimated that 60% of immediate from the Wigner eect. Faced with the prospect of no
deaths were caused by re, but with the caveat that many more plutonium for new cores and no more polonium for
persons near the center of explosion suered fatal injuries the initiators for the cores that had already been produced,
from more than one of the bomb eects.[54] In particu- Groves ordered that a number of Little Boys be prepared
lar, many re victims also received lethal doses of nuclear as an interim measure until a cure could be found. No
radiation. Little Boy assemblies were available, and no comprehen-
sive set of diagrams of the Little Boy could be found, al-
though there were drawings of the various components,
272.6.3 Radiation and stocks of spare parts.[62][63]
At Sandia Base, three Army ocers, Captains Albert
Local fallout is dust and ash from a bomb crater, contam- Bethel, Richard Meyer and Bobbie Grin attempted to
inated with radioactive ssion products. It falls to earth re-create the Little Boy. They were supervised by Harlow
downwind of the crater and can produce, with radiation W. Russ, an expert on Little Boy who served with Project
alone, a lethal area much larger than that from blast and Alberta on Tinian, and was now leader of the Z-11 Group
re. With an air burst, the ssion products rise into the of the Los Alamos Laboratorys Z Division at Sandia.
stratosphere, where they dissipate and become part of Gradually, they managed to locate the correct drawings
the global environment. Because Little Boy was an air and parts, and gured out how they went together. Even-
burst 580 metres (1,900 ft) above the ground, there was tually, they built six Little Boy assemblies. While the
no bomb crater and no local radioactive fallout.[55] casings, barrels and components were tested, no enriched
However, a burst of intense neutron and gamma radia- uranium was supplied for the bombs. By early 1947, the
tion came directly from the reball. Its lethal radius was problems caused by the Wigner eect was on its way to
[62][63]
1.3 kilometres (0.8 mi),[42] covering about half of the solution, and the three ocers were reassigned.
restorm area. An estimated 30% of immediate fatali- The Navy Bureau of Ordnance built 25 Little Boy assem-
ties were people who received lethal doses of this direct blies in 1947 for use by the nuclear-capable Lockheed
radiation, but died in the restorm before their radia- P2V Neptune aircraft carrier aircraft. Components were
tion injuries would have become apparent. Over 6,000 produced by the Naval Ordnance Plants in Pocatello,
people survived the blast and re, but died of radiation Idaho, and Louisville, Kentucky. Enough ssionable ma-
injuries.[54] Among injured survivors, 30% had radiation terial was available by 1948 to build ten projectiles and
injuries[56] from which they recovered, but with a lifelong targets, although there were only enough initiators for
increase in cancer risk.[57] To date, no radiation-related six.[64] All the Little Boy units were withdrawn from ser-
evidence of heritable diseases has been observed among vice by the end of January 1951.[65]
the survivors children.[58][59][60]
272.6.4 Conventional weapon equivalent

272.8 Notes
[1] Malik 1985, p. 1.
See also: Operation Meetinghouse
[2] Serber & Crease 1998, p. 104.
Although Little Boy exploded with the energy equivalent [3] Jones 1985, p. 9.
of 16,000 tons of TNT, the Strategic Bombing Survey es-
timated that the same blast and re eect could have been [4] Jones 1985, p. 138.
272.8. NOTES 749
[5] Jones 1985, p. 143. [40] Groves 1962, p. 267, To enable us to assess accurately
the eects of the [nuclear] bomb, the targets should not
[6] Jones 1985, p. 25. have been previously damaged by air raids. Four cities
[7] Rhodes 1995, pp. 160161. were chosen, including Hiroshima and Kyoto. War Sec-
retary Stimson vetoed Kyoto, and Nagasaki was substi-
[8] Hoddeson et al. 1993, p. 228. tuted. p. 275, When our target cities were rst selected,
an order was sent to the Army Air Force in Guam not to
[9] Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 245249. bomb them without special authority from the War De-
partment..
[10] Rhodes 1986, p. 541.
[41] Glasstone 1962, p. 629.
[11] Hoddeson et al. 1993, p. 257.
[42] Glasstone & Dolan 1977, p. Nuclear Bomb Eects Com-
[12] Hoddeson et al. 1993, p. 262.
puter.
[13] Hoddeson et al. 1993, p. 265.
[43] Glasstone & Dolan 1977, p. 1.
[14] Coster-Mullen 2012, p. 30. [44] Diacon 1984, p. 18.
[15] Hansen 1995, pp. 111112. [45] Glasstone & Dolan 1977, pp. 300, 301.
[16] Hoddeson et al. 1993, p. 293. [46] The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1946,
[17] Hansen 1995, p. 113. p. 14.
[18] Hoddeson et al. 1993, p. 333. [47] Glasstone & Dolan 1977, p. 179.
[48] Nuclear Weapon Thermal Eects 1998.

[19] Gosling 1999, p. 51.
[49] Human Shadow Etched in Stone.
[20] Coster-Mullen 2012, p. 18.
[50] Glasstone & Dolan 1977, pp. 300-304.
[21] Glasstone & Dolan 1977, p. 12.
[51] D'Olier 1946, pp. 2225.
[22] Sublette, Carey. Nuclear Weapons Frequently Asked
Questions Section 8.0 The First Nuclear Weapons. Re- [52] Glasstone & Dolan 1977, p. 304.
trieved August 29, 2013.
[53] The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1946,
[23] Coster-Mullen 2012, pp. 1819, 27. pp. 21-23.
[24] Bernstein 2007, p. 133. [54] The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1946,
p. 21.
[25] Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 263265.
[55] Glasstone & Dolan 1977, p. 409 An air burst, by deni-
[26] Samuels 2008. tion, is one taking place at such a height above the earth
[27] Coster-Mullen 2012, pp. 2324. that no appreciable quantities of surface material are taken
up into the reball. . . the deposition of early fallout from
[28] Hansen 1995a, pp. 25. an air burst will generally not be signicant. An air burst,
however, may produce some induced radioactive contam-
[29] Campbell 2005, pp. 46, 80. ination in the general vicinity of ground zero as a result
of neutron capture by elements in the soil. p. 36, at
[30] Coster-Mullen 2012, pp. 100101.
Hiroshima . . . injuries due to fallout were completely
[31] Coster-Mullen 2012, pp. 3435. absent..
[32] The Manhattan Engineer District (June 29, 1945). The [56] Glasstone & Dolan 1977, pp. 545, 546.
Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Project
[57] Richardson RR 2009.
Gutenberg Ebook. docstoc.com. p. 3.
[58] Genetic Eects.
[33] Alan Axelrod (May 6, 2008). The Real History of World
War II: A New Look at the Past. Sterling. p. 350. [59] Izumi BJC 2003.
[34] Hoddeson et al. 1993, p. 393. [60] Izumi IJC 2003.
[35] Malik 1985, pp. 1820. [61] D'Olier 1946, p. 24.
[36] Malik 1985, p. 21. [62] Coster-Mullen 2012, p. 85.
[37] Coster-Mullen 2012, pp. 8687. [63] Abrahamson & Carew 2002, pp. 4142.
[38] Malik 1985, p. 16. [64] Hansen 1995, pp. 116118.
[39] Glasstone & Dolan 1977, pp. 5, 6. [65] Hansen 1995, p. 3.

272.9 References Hansen, Chuck (1995). Volume V: US Nuclear

Weapons Histories. Swords of Armageddon: US
Abrahamson, James L.; Carew, Paul H. (2002). Nuclear Weapons Development since 1945. Sunny-
Vanguard of American Atomic Deterrence. West- vale, California: Chukelea Publications. ISBN 978-
port, Connecticut: Praeger. ISBN 0-275-97819-2. 0-9791915-0-3. OCLC 231585284.
OCLC 49859889. Hansen, Chuck (1995a). Volume VII: The De-
velopment of US Nuclear Weapons. Swords of
The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Na- Armageddon: US Nuclear Weapons Development
gasaki. The Manhattan Engineer District. Jun 29, since 1945. Sunnyvale, California: Chukelea
1946. Retrieved 2013-11-06. This report can also Publications. ISBN 978-0-9791915-7-2. OCLC
be found here and here. 231585284.
Bernstein, Jeremy (2007). Nuclear Weapons: What Hoddeson, Lillian; Henriksen, Paul W.; Meade,
You Need to Know. Cambridge University Press. Roger A.; Westfall, Catherine L. (1993). Critical
ISBN 0-521-88408-X. Assembly: A Technical History of Los Alamos Dur-
ing the Oppenheimer Years, 19431945. New York:
Campbell, Richard H. (2005). The Silverplate Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-44132-3.
Bombers: A History and Registry of the Enola Gay OCLC 26764320.
and Other B-29s Congured to Carry Atomic Bombs.
Jeerson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. Human Shadow Etched in Stone. Photographic
ISBN 0-7864-2139-8. OCLC 58554961. Display. Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. Re-
trieved 2013-11-06.
Coster-Mullen, John (2012). Atom Bombs: The
Top Secret Inside Story of Little Boy and Fat Man. Izumi S, Koyama K, Soda M, Suyama A (Novem-
Waukesha, Wisconsin: J. Coster-Mullen. OCLC ber 2003). Cancer incidence in children and young
298514167. adults did not increase relative to parental exposure
to atomic bombs. British Journal of Cancer 89
Diacon, Diane (1984). Residential Housing and Nu- (9): 170913. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6601322. PMC
clear Attack. London: Croom Helm. ISBN 978-0- 2394417. PMID 14583774.
7099-0868-5.
Izumi S, Suyama A, Koyama K (November 2003).
Radiation-related mortality among ospring of
D'Olier, Franklin, ed. (1946). United States Strate-
atomic bomb survivors: a half-century of follow-
gic Bombing Survey, Summary Report (Pacic War).
up. International Journal of Cancer 107 (2): 292
Washington: United States Government Printing
7. doi:10.1667/RR1801.1. PMID 12949810.
Oce. Retrieved November 6, 2013. This report
can also be found here. Jones, Vincent (1985). Manhattan: The Army
and the Atomic Bomb. Washington, D.C.: United
Genetic Eects: Question #7. Radiation Eects States Army Center of Military History. OCLC
Research Foundation. Retrieved 2013-11-06. 10913875. Retrieved 25 August 2013.
Glasstone, Samuel (1962). The Eects of Nu- Malik, John S. (1985). The yields of the Hiroshima
clear Weapons, Revised Edition. United States: and Nagasaki nuclear explosions. Los Alamos Na-
United States Department of Defense and United tional Laboratory report number LA-8819. Re-
States Atomic Energy Commission. ISBN 978- trieved Nov 6, 2013.
1258793555.
Nuclear Weapon Thermal Eects. Special
Glasstone, Samuel; Dolan, Philip J. (1977). The Ef- Weapons Primer, Weapons of Mass Destruction.
fects of Nuclear Weapons, Third Edition. United Federation of American Scientists. 1998. Retrieved
States: United States Department of Defense and 2013-11-05.
United States Department of Energy. ISBN 978-
Rhodes, Richard (1986). The Making of the Atomic
1603220163.
Bomb. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-684-
81378-5. OCLC 13793436.
Gosling, F. G. (1999). The Manhattan Project:
Making the Atomic Bomb. Diane Publishing. ISBN Rhodes, Richard (1995). Dark Sun: The Making of
978-0-7881-7880-1. the Hydrogen Bomb. New York: Touchstone. ISBN
0-684-82414-0.
Groves, Leslie R. (1962). Now it Can Be Told: the
Story of the Manhattan Project. New York: Da Capo Richardson, David et al. (September 2009).
Press (1975 reprint). ISBN 0-306-70738-1. Ionizing Radiation and Leukemia Mortality
among Japanese Atomic Bomb Survivors, 1950

2000. Radiation Research 172 (3): 368382.
doi:10.1667/RR1801.1. PMID 12949810.
Samuels, David (December 15, 2008). Atomic

John: A truck driver uncovers secrets about the rst
nuclear bombs. The New Yorker. Retrieved August
30, 2013.
Serber, Robert; Crease, Robert P. (1998). Peace &

War: Reminiscences of a Life on the Frontiers of Sci-
ence. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN
9780231105460. OCLC 37631186.

Footage of Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Attack
Little Boy description at Carey Sublettes Nuclear-

WeaponArchive.org
Nuclear Files.org Denition and explanation of 'Lit-

tle Boy'
The Nuclear Weapon Archive

Little Boy 3D Model
Hiroshima & Nagasaki Remembered information

about preparation and dropping the Little Boy bomb
Chapter 273
M-121 (bomb)
The M121 bomb was a very large air dropped bomb used 273.2 Notes
by the U.S. military during the Vietnam War. Originally
developed from the British world war II era Tallboy bomb [1] Frankum, Roland Bruce. Like rolling thunder: the air
to be dropped from the Convair B-36 bomber, it weighed war in Vietnam, 1964-1975. Rowman & Littleeld, 2005.
10,000 lb (4,500 kg) and contained an 8,050 lb (3,650 ISBN 978-0-7425-4302-7.
kg) Tritonal warhead. Production of the M121 ceased in
[2] Thigpen, Jerry L. The Praetorian STARShip: the untold
1955, but stockpiles were retained until the Vietnam War.
story of the Combat Talon. DIANE Publishing, 2001.
ISBN 978-1-4289-9043-2
273.3 References
273.1 Vietnam War
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/
factsheet.asp?id=1013
In December 1967, the U.S. Air Force began a testing
http://members.aol.com/samc130/bc130.html
program to use large bombs for explosively clearing jun-
gle areas for landing of helicopters. After tests in the Commando Vault report at University of Texas Viet-
United States, the U.S. Army began dropping the bombs nam War archive
using CH-54 helicopters. Use of the helicopters was ex-
pensive, time consuming and inecient due to the CH-
54s limited range. In October 1968, a C-130 crew from
the 29th Tactical Airlift Squadron of the 463rd Tacti-
cal Airlift Wing ew a series of test drops while under
the guidance of MSQ-77 radar controllers; additional test
drops were made in December. In March 1969, the 463rd
commenced Project Commando Vault and bomb drops
became a regular occurrence. Besides clearing the jun-
gle and preventing the ambush of helicopters that were
approaching the landing zone (the M121s blast diameter
was 60 meters), the explosion also stunned the NVA or
Viet Cong personnel within 500 meters and revealed or
destroyed booby traps in the landing area.[1]
Use of the M121 to clear a jungle zone was a technical
success, but the weapon did not satisfy MACV's com-
mand requirement to clear a jungle area for 5 helicopters
at the same time.[2] Despite this, the United States con-
tinued to use the M121 to clear helicopter landing zones
in the jungle until stockpiles were depleted while a more
powerful bomb was developed for jungle clearing pur-
poses. The new BLU-82, developed in 1969, entered
service later in the Commando Vault program. Unlike
the M121, which used TNT, the BLU-82 used a slurry
mixture of ammonium nitrate and powdered aluminum.
It had a slightly bigger blast diameter (80 meters).[1]
752
Chapter 274
M115 bomb
For other uses, see M115 (disambiguation). 274.3 Tests involving the M115
The M115 anti-crop bomb, also known as the feather According to a 1950 military report the M115 was tested
bomb or the E73 bomb,[1] was a U.S. biological cluster in an area 11 miles (18 km) long and 1.5 miles (2.4
bomb designed to deliver wheat stem rust. km) wide. The area consisted of 7.5 acres (30,000 m2 )
plots sown with the Overland variety of oats, suscepti-
ble to the test agent, Puccinia graminis avenae, but not to
other strains of cereal rust.[3] The test drops of the M115
showed that, from an altitude of 4,000 feet (1,200 m),
feathers could be spread over an area of 12 square miles
274.1 History (31 km2 ). Three M115 feather bombs were dropped 1
mile (1.6 km) upwind from the target area, which was
then monitored for any changes. Estimates showed about
Mass production of the M115 bomb began in 1953.[2] a 30% reduction in yield from the infected area.[3]
The weapon was a modied M16A1 cluster bomb, which
was normally used to distribute airborne leaet propa-
ganda or fragmentation weapons.[3] The U.S. Air Force
rst pointed out the need for an anti-crop weapon in
274.4 See also
September 1947. In October 1950 the Air Force be-
gan procuring 4,800 M115 bombs.[1] By 1954, with the E77 balloon bomb
biological agents causing wheat and rye rust standard-
M33 cluster bomb
ized in laboratory culture, the U.S. Air Force prepared
[4]
to transfer the agent to some 4,800 of the M115s.
The deployment of the M115 represented the United
States rst, though limited, anti-crop biological warfare 274.5 References
(BW) capability.[4] Though the weapon was tested at Fort
Detrick, in Frederick, Maryland, it was never used in [1] Wheelis, Mark, et al. Deadly Cultures: Biological
combat.[5] Weapons Since 1945, (Google Books), Harvard Univer-
sity Press, 2006, pp. 217-18, (ISBN 0674016998).
[2] Smart, Jeery K. Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biolog-

ical Warfare: Chapter 2 - History of Chemical and Bio-
logical Warfare: An American Perspective, (PDF: p. 51),
Borden Institute, Textbooks of Military Medicine, PDF
274.2 Specications via Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base, accessed November
16, 2008.
The M115 was a 500-pound (227 kg) bomb that was con- [3] Russell, Alan and Vogler, John. The International Politics
verted from a leaet bomb and to be used to deliver wheat of Biotechnology: Investigating Global Futures, (Google
stem rust.[2][6] Wheat stem rust culture consisted of a dry Books), Manchester University Press, 2000, pp. 173-74,
particulate matter which was adhered to a light-weight (ISBN 0719058686).
vector, usually feathers. Because of its method of dis-
[4] Whitby, Simon M. Biological Warfare Against Crops,
semination, the bomb was commonly referred to as the
(Google Books), Macmillan, 2002, pp. 156-57, (ISBN
feather bomb.[2] The feathers would fall over a wide
0333920856).
area when released.[5] The M115 was shown to estab-
lish 100,000 foci of infection over a 50-square-mile (130 [5] Link, Kurt. Understanding New, Resurgent, and Resistant
km2 ) area.[4] Diseases: How Man and Globalization Create and Spread
753
754 CHAPTER 274. M115 BOMB
Illness, (Google Books), Greenwood Publishing Group,

2007, p. 90, (ISBN 0275991261).
[6] Endicott, Stephen and Hagerman, Edward. "United States

Biological Warfare during the Korean War: rhetoric and
reality" York University, June 2002, accessed November
16, 2008.
Chapter 275
M117 bomb
275.2 Variants
M117R
The M117R (R - Retarded) uses a special n assembly

providing either high-drag or low-drag release options.
For low altitude deliveries, the tail assembly opens four
large drag plates which rapidly slow the bomb and allow
the aircraft to escape its blast.[1]
MAU-103/MAU-91
An F-100D of the 308th TFS, being loaded with Mk 117 750 lb

bombs at Tuy Hoa, South Vietnam, in early 1966. The M117Rs that are tted with tail units, are the
MAU-103 low drag tail and the MAU-91 high drag tail,
respectively.[3]
The M117 is an air-dropped general-purpose bomb used
by United States military forces. It dates back to the time M117D
of the Korean War of the early 1950s. Although it has a
nominal weight of 750 pounds (340 kg), its actual weight, The M117D (D - Destructor) looks similar to the M117R
depending on fuze and retardation options, is around 820 but uses a magnetic inuence fuze, which enables the
pounds (372 kg). Its explosive content is typically 403 bomb to function as an mine. The M117D is released
pounds (183 kg) of Minol 2 or Tritonal. It can also be in a high-drag conguration for ground implant or shal-
congured with a low-drag tail n for medium and high- low water mining. It detonates when an object passing
altitude deliveries.[1] near the bomb triggers the fuze.[1]
MC-1
275.1 History The M117 was the basis of the MC-1 chemical warfare
bomb, which had the body cavity lled with sarin nerve
gas. The MC-1 was never used by the U.S. in combat and
In the 1950s through the early 1970s the M117 was a stan-
was eliminated from the U.S. stockpile in June, 2006.[4]
dard aircraft weapon, carried by the F-100 Super Sabre,
F-104 Starghter, F-105 Thunderchief, F-111, and F-4
Phantom.
The M117 series was used extensively during the Viet-
275.3 References
nam War, and B-52G Stratofortress aircraft dropped
[1] USAF Museum: M117 Bomb
44,600 M117 and M117R bombs during Operation
Desert Storm.[1][2] [2] Janes Air Launched Weapons Issue 36. ISBN 0-7106-
At present it is used only by the B-52 Stratofortress, tac- 0866-7.
tical aircraft now tend to use the Mark 80-series bombs
[3] Janes.com: MAU-10 Low Drag Bomb
in particularly the Mark 82 (500 pounds (227 kg)) or
Mark 84 (2,000 pounds (907 kg)) bombs and their guided [4] Depot and Disposal Facility reach signicant milestones
equivalents. (PDF). June 12, 2006. Retrieved 2007-09-22.
755
756 CHAPTER 275. M117 BOMB
Arsenal of Democracy II, Tom Gervasi, ISBN 0-

394-17662-6
Janes Air Launched Weapons Issue 36, ISBN 0-
7106-0866-7

OAI.DTIC.mil: Finned/Retared BLU-1B/C Version
Tested
VectorSite.net: Smart Bombs and Dumb DBombs

Chapter 276
M47 bomb
The M47 bomb was a chemical bomb designed during 276.2 Variants
World War II for use by the U.S. Army Air Forces.[1]
The M47A1 was designed to replace the M47. It has a
thicker steel cover that is about 1/16 of inch thick and an
acid resistant corrosion cover inside.[1]
The M47A2 was designed to x the leaking problems of
276.1 Design the M47 when the agent H was carried.[1] On the inside
it was coated with a special oil that protected against cor-
rosion from the agent H.[1]
The bomb was designed for aerial bombardment and
maximum eciency after being dropped. Therefore, the
bomb had a very thin metal sheet as its only cover, as little
as 1/32 of an inch.[1] The bomb is approximately 8 inches 276.3 References
in diameter, with a nose the shape of a hemisphere.[1]
The M108 bomb fuse at the nose of the bomb detonated [1] BOMB, CHEMICAL, 100-POUND M47 SERIES, U.S.
the weapon, allowing for the release of the contents in- Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District, accessed
side. The bomb is designed to carry either White Phos- January 3, 2009.
phorus (WP) or a Mustard agent (H).[1] However, the H [2] Morgan, Stephen L. Chemical Warfare: History and
bomb ller was found to leak from the bomb when loaded, Chemistry", University of South Carolina, Department of
and the M47 and its variant M47A1 were not allowed Chemistry and Biochemistry, accessed January 3, 2009.
to be loaded.[1] This was due to the thin steel walls on
the weapon. In storage and handling, both corrosion and
rough handling were found to cause the bomb to leak.[1]
When the bomb is loaded with the chemical ller H, it
weighs approximately 93 pounds, 73 of which are from
H.[1]
The M47 bomb can also be used as an incendiary de-
vice as well.[2] <ref name"book">McArthur, Charles W.
Operations Analysis in the U.S. Army Eighth Air Force
in World War II, (Google Books), American Mathemat-
ical Society, 1990, p. 65, (ISBN 0821801589).</ref>
A mixture of rubber and gasoline can be used in the
eld to produce a crude incendiary bomb.[1] A mixture
of white phosphorus and jelled gasoline also produces a
ammable mixture.[2] Other mixtures include: LA-60 in
which crude latex is combined with caustic soda, coconut
oil, and water, crepe rubber (CR) in which crude latex re-
duced to a solid by precipitation and kneading, LA-100
in which crude latex is dried until it is 100 percent solid,
smoked rubber sheets (SR) in which crude latex that has
been dried over a re until it is 100 percent solid.[1]
When used with these llers, the bomb uses a 1-pound
black powder charge to ignite and scatter the incendiary
materials.[1] The bomb typically weighs about 85 pounds
when the incendiary llers are used.[1]
757
Chapter 277
Mark 4 nuclear bomb
The Mark 4 nuclear bomb was an American nuclear 277.1 W4 missile warhead
bomb design produced starting in 1949 and in use until
1953. A variant called the W4 (Warhead 4), intended for use on
The Mark 4 was based on the earlier Mark 3 Fat Man the Snark missile, was designed but never built. The W4
design, used in the Trinity test and the bombing of Na- design was cancelled in 1951.
gasaki. The Mark 3 design was essentially handmade and
designed as an emergency wartime expedient design; the
Mark 4 utilized essentially the same basic design (mate- 277.2 See also
rials, dimensions of the nuclear core and explosive com-
ponents) but reengineered the whole design to be safer 1950 British Columbia B-36 crash (a Mark 4 was
and easier to produce. The basic idea was to GI-proof on-board)
otherwise sensitive nuclear weapons.
The Mark 4 was 60 inches (1.5 m) in diameter and 128
inches (3.3 m) long, the same basic dimensions as Mark Mark 3 Fat Man
3. It weighed slightly more at 10,800 to 10,900 pounds
(4,900 to 4,940 kg) depending on the specic Mark 4 ver- SM-62 Snark missile
sion (Mark 3 weighed 10,200 lb or 4,630 kg).
Mark 6 nuclear bomb
In addition to being easier to manufacture, the Mark 4
introduced the concept of in ight insertion or IFI, a
weapons safety concept which was used for a number of 277.3 References
years. An IFI bomb has either manual or mechanical as-
sembly which keeps the nuclear core stored outside the
[1] Hansen, Charles (2007) [1995]. Swords of Armaggedon:
bomb until close to the point that it may be dropped. To Volume V. Sunnyvale, CA: Chukelea Productions. pp.
arm the bomb, the ssile nuclear materials are inserted V180, V179. ISBN 978-0-9791915-5-8.
into the bomb core through a removable segment of the
explosive lens assembly, which is then replaced and the [2] http://hpschapters.org/snv/Taschner%2520Talk%
weapon closed and armed. 2520Part%25201.pdf
Mark 4 models used composite uranium and plutonium

ssile pits. The exact pit assemblies were common with
several other US nuclear weapons, the Type C and Type 277.4 External links
D pit assemblies.
Allbombs.html list of all US nuclear warheads at
Along with being composite cores, the device was the rst nuclearweaponarchive.org
weapon to rely upon levitated-pit implosion. These early
weapons with a levitated pit had a removable pit, called
an open pit. It was stored separately, in a special capsule
called a birdcage.[2] Various versions of the Mark 4 had
explosive yields of 1, 3.5, 8, 14, 21, 22, and 31 kilotons
(4 to 130 TJ).
A total of 550 Mark 4 nuclear weapons were produced
and was succeeded by the Mk6, which was generally sim-
ilar but much improved.
758
Chapter 278
Mark 5 nuclear bomb
Man nuclear bomb design rst used in 1945, down to 39

inches (99.1 cm) diameter. The Mark 5 design used a
92-point implosion system (see Nuclear weapon design)
and a composite Uranium/Plutonium ssile material core
or pit.
The Mark 5 core and W5 warhead were 39 inches (99.1
cm) in diameter and 76 inches (193 cm) long; the total
Mark 5 bomb was 44 inches (111.8 cm) diameter and 129
to 132 inches (327.7 cm to 335.3 cm) long. The dier-
ent versions of Mark 5 weighed 3,025 to 3,175 pounds
(1,372.1 kg to 1,440.2 kg); the W5 versions weighed
2,405 to 2,650 pounds (1,090.9 to 1,202.0 kg).
The Mark 5 and W5 were pure ssion weapons. There
The Mark 5 nuclear bomb (open doors at front are for insertion were at least four basic models of core design used, and
of nuclear core) sub-variants with yields of 6, 16, 55, 60, 100, and 120
kilotons have been reported.
The Mark 5 nuclear bomb and W5 nuclear warhead were
As with many early US nuclear weapon designs, the ssile
a common core nuclear weapon design, designed in the
material or pit could be kept separately from the bomb
early 1950s and which saw service from 1952 to 1963.
and assembled into it prior to ight. This technology is
known as In Flight Insertion or IFI. The Mark 5 had
an automatic IFI mechanism which could insert the pit
into the center of the explosive assembly from a storage
position in the bomb nose. The image here shows the
doors to that nose compartment open.
278.2 History
The Mark 5 was in service from 1952 to 1963. The W5
saw service from 1954 to 1963. Approximately 72 Mark
5 weapons were carried by RAF bombers but under US
control, under the auspices of Project E.[1]
A boosted Mark 5 was used as the primary ssion trigger
View looking into the nose of a Mark 5, where the ssile pit and used in Ivy Mike, the rst thermonuclear device (leading
nal explosive charge segment would be inserted. to the hydrogen bomb) in history.
278.1 Description 278.3 See also
The Mark 5 design was the rst production American List of nuclear weapons
nuclear weapon which was signicantly smaller than the
60 inch (150 cm) diameter implosion system of the Fat Nuclear weapon design
759
760 CHAPTER 278. MARK 5 NUCLEAR BOMB
278.4 References
[1] RAF Nuclear Deterrent Forces. The Stationery Oce.
1996. pp. 262263. ISBN 0-11-772833-0.

Chapter 279
Mark 6 nuclear bomb
279.2 Variants
279.2.1 Mark 13
The Mark 13 nuclear bomb and W13 missile warhead
were developed as higher eciency Mark 6 successors,
the same size and basic conguration as the Mark 6 but
utilizing an improved 92-point implosion system. Be-
cause of its dangers, the Mark 13 was cancelled in August
1954 and the W13 cancelled September 1954, in both
cases without ever seeing production service.
279.2.2 Mark 18
A Mark 6 nuclear bomb
The Mark 18 nuclear bomb was a follow-on to the Mark
6 and Mark 13, utilizing a ssile pit assembly with
The Mark 6 nuclear bomb was an American nuclear around 60 kilograms of HEU and delivering a yield of
bomb based on the earlier Mark 4 nuclear bomb and its 500 kilotons, the largest pure ssion (non-thermonuclear)
predecessor, the Mark 3 Fat Man nuclear bomb design. bomb design ever developed by the US. Mark 18 bombs
The Mark 6 was in production from 1951-1955 and saw were eventually recycled into Mark 6 Mod 6 bombs after
service until 1962. Seven variants and versions were pro- thermonuclear weapons were deployed in quantity. The
duced, with a total production run of all models of 1100 Mark 18 was tested once in Operation Ivy King.
bombs.
The basic Mark 6 design was 61 inches in diameter and
128 inches long, the same basic dimensions as the Mark 4
279.3 See also
and close to the Mark 3. Various models weighed 7,600
to 8,500 pounds. List of nuclear weapons
Early models of the Mark 6 utilized the same 32-point
implosion system design concept as the earlier Mark 4
and Mark 3; the Mark 6 Mod 2 and later used a dierent,
60-point implosion system.
Various models and pit options gave nuclear yields of 8, nuclearweaponarchive.org
26, 80, 154, and 160 kilotons for Mark 6 models.
279.1 Survivors
A Mark 6 casing is on display in the Cold War Gallery of

the National Museum of the United States Air Force in
Dayton, Ohio.
761
Chapter 280
Mark 7 nuclear bomb
280.2 Specications
Length: 15.2 ft (4.6 m)
Diameter: 2.5 ft (0.8 m)
Weight: 1680 lb (764 kg)
Fuzing: airburst or contact
Yield: variable yield between 8 and 61 kilotons
Implosion nuclear weapon[2]
Mark 7 nuclear bomb at USAF Museum

280.3 Users
Mark 7 "Thor" (or Mk-7'[1] ) was the rst tactical ssion
bomb adopted by US armed forces. It was also the rst
weapon to be delivered using the toss method with the
help of the low-altitude bombing system (LABS). The
weapon was tested in Operation Buster-Jangle. To facili-
tate external carry by ghter-bomber aircraft, Mark 7 was
tted with retractable stabilizer ns. Mark 7 was a dial-
a-yield capsule-type weapon with ssile (or ssionable)
elements (uranium 235) stored in a separate container.
The Mark 7 warhead (W7) also formed the basis of the
30.5 inch (77.5 cm) BOAR rocket, the Mark 90 Betty
nuclear depth charge, and MGR-1 Honest John rocket
and MGM-5 Corporal ballistic missile. It was also sup-
plied for delivery by Royal Air Force Canberra aircraft
assigned to NATO in Germany under the command of
SACEUR. This was done under the auspices of Project A Douglas A4D-2 carrying a Mk 7 bomb on the USS Saratoga
E - an agreement between the USA and the UK on the in the early 1960s.
RAF carriage of US nuclear weapons. The Mark 7 was in
service from 1952 to 1968 with 1700-1800 having been
built. English Electric Canberra (Royal Air Force)
Douglas F3D-2B Skyknight
Douglas A-1 Skyraider
280.1 Survivors Douglas A-3 Skywarrior

Douglas A-4 Skyhawk
A Mark 7 casing is on display in the Cold War hangar at Martin B-57 Canberra
the National Museum of the United States Air Force in
Dayton, Ohio. McDonnell F2H Banshee
762
McDonnell F3H Demon
McDonnell F-101 Voodoo

North American FJ Fury
North American B-45 Tornado

North American F-100 Super Sabre
Republic F-84 Thunderjet
280.4 See also

280.5 References
[1] USAF Museum: Mk 7 nuclear bomb
[2] FISSION WEAPONS from Department of Energy

(DOE) OpenNet documents

SAC: Nuclear Weapons
Chapter 281
Mark 8 nuclear bomb
service from 1952 to 1957.
281.1 Description
The Mark 8 was a gun-type nuclear bomb, which rapidly
assembles several critical masses of ssile nuclear mate-
A Mark 8 nuclear bomb rial by ring a ssile projectile or bullet into a hollow
opening in a larger ssile target, using a system which
closely resembles a medium-sized cannon barrel and pro-
pellant.
The Mark 8 was an early earth-penetrating bomb (see
nuclear bunker buster), intended to dig into the earth
some distance prior to detonating. According to one gov-
ernment source, the Mark 8 could penetrate 22 feet (6.7
m) of reinforced concrete, 90 feet (27 m) of hard sand,
120 feet (37 m) feet of clay, or 5 inches (13 cm) of hard-
ened armor-plate steel. [1]
The Mark 8 was 14.5 inches (37 cm) in diameter across
its body and 116 to 132 inches (290 to 340 cm) long de-
pending on submodel. It weighed 3,230 to 3,280 pounds
(1,470 to 1,490 kg), and had a yield of 25-30 kilotons.
A total of 40 Mark 8 bombs were produced.
Closeup of the nose of a Mark 8 The Mark 8 was succeeded by an improved variant, the
Mark 11 nuclear bomb.
281.2 Variants
The Mark 8 was considered as a cratering warhead for
the SSM-N-8 Regulus cruise missile. This W8 variant
was cancelled in 1955.
A lighter Mark 8 variant, the Mark 10 nuclear bomb, was
developed as a lightweight airburst (surface target) bomb.
The Mark 10 project was cancelled prior to introduction
into service, replaced by the much more ssile-material-
ecient Mark 12 nuclear bomb implosion design.
Closeup of the tail of a Mark 8

281.3 See also
The Mark 8 nuclear bomb was a nuclear bomb, de-
signed in the late 1940s and early 1950s, which was in List of nuclear weapons
764
Mark 1 Little Boy nuclear bomb
281.4 References
[1] Weapon Design: We've done a lot but we can't say much
by Carson Mark, Raymond E. Hunter, and Jacob E.
Weschler, Los Alamos Science, Winter/Spring 1983, pp
159.

Chapter 282
The Mark 10 nuclear bomb was a proposed American

nuclear bomb based on the earlier Mark 8 nuclear bomb
design. The Mark 10, like the Mark 8, is a Gun-type
nuclear weapon, which rapidly assembles several critical
masses of ssile nuclear material by ring a ssile pro-
jectile or bullet into a hollow opening in a larger s-
sile target, using a system which closely resembles a
medium sized cannon barrel and propellant.
The Mark 10 was intended to be a general purpose air-
burst nuclear weapon, unlike the Mark 8 which was in-
tended to penetrate into the ground as a Nuclear bunker
buster.
The Mark 10 was nicknamed the Airburst Elsie"; the
Mark 8 had been nicknamed the LC or Light Casing
bomb, which was then expanded to Elsie.
The Mark 10 was 12 inches in diameter and weighed
1,500 or 1,750 pounds. It had a design yield of 12 to
15 kilotons.
The Mark 10 design was cancelled in 1952, replaced by
the implosion-type Mark 12 nuclear bomb which was
lighter and used considerably less ssile nuclear material.
282.1 See also


Mark 8 nuclear bomb

766
Chapter 283
The Mark 11 nuclear bomb was an American nuclear 91 had variable yields by changing the target rings. A
bomb developed from the earlier Mark 8 nuclear bomb major dierence over the MK-8 was that the MK-91 had
in the mid-1950s. Like the Mark 8, the Mark 11 was an an electric operated actuator as a safety device that would
earth-penetrating weapon, also known as a nuclear bunker rotate a spline ring to prevent the projectle from being
buster bomb. red into the target rings. The MK-8 had NO! safety de-
vices. Upon release from the delivery aircraft detonation
would occur after the black powder fuzes burned 90-110
seconds. The MK-91 was a deep penetrating weapon in
many surface materials. A PHOEBE polonium initia-
tor increased the nuclear detonation eciency.
283.2 See also

Mark 8 nuclear bomb
The Mk-11 nuclear bomb

283.1 Description nuclearweaponarchive.org
As with the Mark 8, the Mark 11 was a gun-type nuclear

bomb (see also Nuclear weapon design#Gun-type assem-
bly weapon). It used a xed large target assembly of
highly enriched uranium or HEU, a gun-like barrel, and
a powder charge and uranium bullet or projectile red
up the barrel into the target.
The Mark 11 was rst produced in 1956, and was in ser-
vice until 1960. A total of 40 were produced, replacing
but not expanding the quantity of Mark 8 bombs. It was
14 inches in diameter and 147 inches long, with a weight
of 3,210 to 3,500 pounds. Yield was reportedly the same
as the Mark 8, 25 to 30 kilotons.
The two bombs reportedly used the same basic ssile
weapon design, but the Mark 11 had a much more mod-
ern external casing designed to penetrate further and
more reliably into the ground. The Mark 8 had a at
nose, much like a torpedo. The Mark 11 nose was a
pointed ogive shape. The MK-11 also known as the MK-
767
Chapter 284
Mark 118 bomb
The M118 is an air-dropped general-purpose or webpage on the HOBOS

demolition bomb used by United States military forces.
It dates back to the time of the Korean War of the early webpage on the Paveway I family of laser-guided
1950s. Although it has a nominal weight of 3,000 lb bombs
(1,350 kg), its actual weight, depending on fuse and
retardation options, is somewhat higher. A typical
non-retarded conguration has a total weight of 3,049 lb
(1,383 kg) with an explosive content of 1,975 lb (895 kg)
of Tritonal. This is a higher percentage than in the more
recent American Mark 80 series bombs thus perhaps the
designation as a demolition bomb.
In the late 1950s through the early 1970s it was a standard
aircraft weapon, carried by the F-100 Super Sabre, F-
104 Starghter, F-105 Thunderchief, and F-4 Phantom.
Some apparently remain in the USAF inventory, although
they are rarely used today.
It was a component of the GBU-9/B version of the
Rockwell electro-optically guided Homing Bomb Sys-
tem (HOBOS). This weapon consisted of a M-118 tted
with a KMU-390/B guidance kit with an image contrast
seeker, strakes and cruciform tail ns to guide the bomb
to its target. It was also used in the Texas Instruments
Paveway I series of laser-guided bombs as the GBU-11
when it was tted with the KMU-388 seeker head, MAU-
157 Computer Control Group and the MXU-602 Airfoil
Group. This latter consisted of four xed cruciform ns
and 4 moveable canards to control the bombs trajectory.
It was also tted with an AIM-9B Sidewinder infra-red
seeker and an AGM-45 Shrike nose cone during 1967
tests at the Naval Ordnance Test Station China Lake,
presumably in an attempt to create an infra-red guided
bomb.[1] This was called the Bombwinder.
284.1 Notes
[1] China Lake 1967 Photo Gallery. Retrieved 2009-01-
03.
284.2 References
Arsenal of Democracy II, Tom Gervasi, ISBN 0-
394-17662-6
768
Chapter 285
Mark-12 nuclear bomb
The Mark-12 nuclear bomb was a lightweight nuclear

bomb designed and manufactured by the United States An FJ-4B carrying a Mk 12 bomb (shape) over China Lake.
of America which was built starting in 1954 and which
saw service from then until 1962.
285.3 In popular culture
The Mark-12 was notable for being signicantly smaller
in both size and weight compared to prior implosion-type
Though the weapon went out of service in 1962, it resur-
nuclear weapons. For example, the overall diameter was
faced in a ctional role in Tom Clancy's 1991 book The
only 22 inches (56 cm), compared to the immediately
Sum of All Fears and the 2002 lm, where the plot in-
prior Mark-7 which had a 30 inches (76 cm) diameter,
cluded an Israeli copy of the Mark-12 being lost by ac-
and the volume of the implosion assembly was only 40%
cident in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War in southern
the size of the Mark-7s.
Syria near the Golan Heights, and then recovered by a
There was a planned W-12 warhead variant which would terrorist organization.
have been used with the RIM-8 Talos missile, but it was
cancelled prior to introduction into service.
285.4 See also
285.1 Specications Nuclear weapon design
The complete Mark-12 bomb was 22 inches in diameter, Mark 7 nuclear bomb
155 inches (3.94 m) long, and weighed 1,100 to 1,200 The Sum of All Fears
pounds (500 to 540 kg). It had a yield of 12 to 14 kilotons.
The Sum of All Fears (lm)
285.2 Features
The Mark-12 has been speculated to have been the
rst deployed nuclear weapon to have used beryllium allbombs.html list at nuclearweaponarchive.org
as a reector-tamper inside the implosion assembly (see
Historical nuclear bombs list at globalsecurity.org
nuclear weapon design). It is believed to have used a
spherical implosion assembly, levitated pit, and 92-point
detonation.
769
Chapter 286
The Mark 13 nuclear bomb and its variant, the W-13 286.4 Variants
nuclear warhead, were experimental nuclear weapons
developed by the United States from 1951 to 1954. The
286.4.1 Mark 18
Mark 13 design was based on the earlier Mark 6 nuclear
bomb design, which was in turn based on the Mark 4 nu-
The Mark 18 nuclear bomb also known as the Super
clear bomb and the Mark 3 nuclear bomb used at the end
Oralloy Bomb (or its initials SOB) utilized the 92-point
of World War II.
Mark 13 implosion system, but a dierent ssile core
with around 60 kilograms of highly enriched uranium
(Oralloy). This was the largest pure ssion nuclear bomb
286.1 Description ever tested, with a yield of nearly 500 kilotons. The Mark
18 was produced in moderate quantities (90 units) and in
The Mark 13 bomb was nearly the same size as the Mark service from 1953 to 1956.
6 nuclear bomb it was developed from; 61 inches in di-
ameter and 128 inches long (150 cm by 320 cm), weigh-
286.4.2 Mark 20
ing 7,400 lb (3,300 kg). The W-13 warhead was some-
what smaller, being roughly 58 inches in diameter and
The Mark 20 nuclear bomb was a planned successor
100 inches long, with a 6,000 to 6,500 lb weight (145 cm
to the Mark 13 incorporating some improvements in its
by 250 cm, 2,700 kg to 2,900 kg). [1]
design. Research was halted at the same time as the Mark
The Mark 13 design used a 92-point nuclear implosion 13.
system (see Nuclear weapon design). A similar 92-point
The Mark 20 was the same size as the Mark 13, but
system was used in later variants of the Mark 6 weapon.
weighed only 6,400 lb.
286.2 Testing 286.5 See also

The Mark 13 nuclear bomb design was tested at least List of nuclear weapons
once, in the Operation Upshot-Knothole Harry test shot
conducted on May 19, 1953. The estimated yield of this Mark 18 nuclear bomb
test was 32 kilotons.
Mark 6 nuclear bomb
Mark 4 nuclear bomb
286.3 Deployment Fat Man Mark 3 nuclear bomb
As the Mark 13 neared production, advances in

thermonuclear weapon design, particularly the Ivy Mike 286.6 References
thermonuclear test in November 1952, made the Mark 13
obsolete. Development continued for research purposes [1] Complete list of all US nuclear weapons, Carey Sublette,
(the Upshot-Knothole Harry test shot came months af- at the nuclearweaponarchive.org website. Accessed April
ter the rst thermonuclear test in Ivy Mike), and in two 17, 2007.
variant designs, but the Mark 13 proper was never de-
ployed. The Mark 13 bomb version was cancelled in Au-
gust 1953, and the W-13 warhead version was cancelled
in September 1953.
770
Chapter 287
the Sloika in the Soviet Union.

The fusion fuel used by the bomb was 95% enriched
Lithium isotope 6 lithium deuteride, which at the time
was a scarce resource and chiey responsible for its lim-
ited deployment. The Castle Bravo test showed that un-
enriched Lithium isotope 7 functioned as well for nuclear
fusion reactions as isotope 6. The Mk-14 bomb had a di-
ameter of 61.4 inches (1.56 m) and a length of 222 inches
(5.64 m). They weighed between 28,950 and 31,000
pounds (13,100 and 14,100 kg), and used a 64 feet (20
m) parachute.[1]
The version tested at Castle Union used a RACER IV
primary, and had 5 Mt of its total yield due to ssion,
Mark 14 nuclear bomb.
making it a very dirty weapon.[2]
By 1956, the components of all of the ve produced Mk-
14 bombs had been recycled into Mark 17s.
287.1 See also

287.2 References
Citations
[1] List of All U.S. Nuclear Weapons at NuclearWeaponAr-

chive.org
The Castle Union test of the Mark 14 design.
[2] Operation Castle at NuclearWeaponArchive.org
For the Sinclair Research Ltd. SC/MP based computer sys-
tem see MK14. For the torpedo see Mark 14 torpedo. Further reading
The Mark 14 nuclear bomb was a 1950s Strategic
thermonuclear weapon, the rst solid-fuel staged hydro- Hansen, Chuck, Swords of Armageddon, Sunny-
gen bomb. It was an experimental design, and only ve vale, CA, Chucklea Publications, 1995.
units were produced in early 1954. It was tested in April
1954 during the Castle Union nuclear test and had a yield
of 6.9 Mt. The bomb is often listed as the TX-14 (for
experimental) or EC-14 (for Emergency Capability).
It has also been referred to as the Alarm Clock device
though it has nothing to do with the design by the same
name proposed earlier by Edward Teller and known as
771
Chapter 288
tampers, and neutrons from the fusion would ssion some

of the tamper, but the primary energy release (50% or
more) was from the fusion reaction.
The HEU secondary tamper concept may have been used
in the most modern nuclear weapons, where compact size
and weight were highly valued, including the W88 and
W87 Mod 1 weapons.
288.2 Specications
All three models were generally physically similar; weight
Mark 15 bomb of around 7,600 lb / 3,450 kg, diameter of 34.4 to 35
inches, length of 136 to 140 inches. [1]
The Mark 15 nuclear bomb, or Mk-15, was a
1950s American thermonuclear bomb, the rst relatively
lightweight (7,600 lb / 3450 kg) thermonuclear bomb cre- 288.3 Models
ated by the United States.
The Mark 15 was rst produced in 1955, and a total of The Mod 1 corresponds to the Castle Nectar test of the
1,200 units were made before production ended in 1957. Zombie weapon prototype. This test had a yield of 1.69
The Mark 15 design was in service from 1955 to 1965. megatons.[2][3]
There were three production variants of the Mark 15 The Mod 2 corresponds to the Redwing Cherokee nuclear
bomb, the Mod 1, Mod 2, and Mod 3. test of the TX-15-X1 test model, and had a yield of 3.8
megatons. Redwing Cherokee was the rst US thermonu-
clear bomb airdrop test.[4]
288.1 Transitional design The Mod 3 also appears to have had a 3.8 megaton yield.
The Mark 15 is widely described as a transitional design

between ssion and thermonuclear weapons. The Mark 288.3.1 W15
15 was a staged weapon (see Teller-Ulam design), using
radiation implosion from a ssion nuclear primary (Co- A missile warhead variant of the Mark 15, the W15 War-
bra) to implode a secondary stage. Unlike most mod- head, was an ongoing project in the mid 1950s. It was
ern thermonuclear bombs, the Mark 15 used a secondary canceled in early 1957. Before cancellation, it had been
which was primarily HEU (highly enriched uranium), intended for use on the SM-62 Snark missile. Instead, the
which generated most of its energy from nuclear ssion Snark ended up using the W39 (see below).
reactions once the primary imploded it. There was a ther-
monuclear core which underwent fusion reactions, but
most of the energy came from the HEU ssioning. The 288.4 Derivatives
HEU ssion was enhanced by fusion stage neutrons, but
would have generated a very signicant ssion yield by
The W39 nuclear warhead and B39 nuclear bomb used a
itself. common nuclear physics package which was derived from
Some later bombs used depleted uranium fusion stage the Mark 15. The experimental W39 devices were ini-
772
tially tested as the TX-15-X3 (which is identical to the

W39 Mod 0 design).
288.5 Dropped and Lost

Main article: 1958 Tybee Island B-47 crash
On 5 February 1958, during a training mission own by

a B-47, a Mk 15 nuclear bomb was lost o the coast of
Georgia near Savannah.
288.6 See also

Operation Castle
Operation Redwing
Tybee Bomb
288.7 References
[1] Allbombs.html list of all US nuclear warheads at
nuclearweaponarchive.org, Accessed 2005-05-06
[2] Operation Castle at nuclearweaponarchive.org, Accessed

2005-05-06
[3] Historical Nuclear Weapons at globalsecurity.org, Ac-

cessed 2005-05-06
[4] Operation Redwing at nuclearweaponarchive.org, Ac-

cessed 2005-05-06

tybeebomb.cominformation regarding lost nu-

clear bombs
Chapter 289
The Mark 16 nuclear bomb was a large thermonuclear cessfully. These solid fuel thermonuclear bombs were far
bomb (hydrogen bomb), based on the design of the Ivy easier to handle, requiring no cryogenic temperature ma-
Mike, the rst thermonuclear device ever test red. The terials or cooling system. It was replaced with the ve
Mark 16 is more properly designated TX-16/EC-16 as it EC-14 weapons brought up to an acceptable standard as
only existed in Experimental/Emergency Capability (EC) the TX-14 and production Mark 17 nuclear bombs in
versions. mid-1954.[1]
The TX-16 was notable because it was the only de- The planned test of the TX-16 bomb in the Castle Yankee
ployed thermonuclear bomb which used a cryogenic liq- test of Operation Castle was canceled due to the spectac-
uid deuterium fusion fuel, the same fuel used in the Ivy ular success of the Shrimp device in the Castle Bravo
Mike test device. The TX-16 was in fact a weaponized test.
version of the Ivy Mike design. This required both a con-
siderable reduction in weight of the explosive package
and the replacement of the elaborate cryogenic system 289.3 See also
with Dewar asks for replenishing boiled-o deuterium.
The carrier aircraft was to be the B-36 as modied un-
der Operation Barroom. Only one B-36 was so modied.
The TX-16 shared common forward and aft casing sec-
tions with the TX-14 and TX-17/24 and in the emergency
capability (EC-16) version was almost indistinguishable 289.4 References
from the EC-14. A small number of EC-16s were pro-
duced to provide a stop-gap thermonuclear weapon ca- [1] Allbombs.html at the Nuclear Weapon Archive, accessed
pability in response to the Russian nuclear weapons pro- 2 October 2006
gram. The TX-16 was scheduled to be tested as the Castle [2] Historical United States Nuclear Weapons at
Yankee Jughead device until the overwhelming success Globalsecurity.org (see also Globalsecurity.org), ac-
of the Castle Bravo Shrimp test device rendered it ob- cessed 2 October 2006
solete.
289.1 Specications O'Keefe, Bernard J. Nuclear Hostages, Boston,
Houghton Miin Company, 1983, ISBN 0-395-
The TX-16 bomb was 5 ft 1.4 in (1.56 m) in diameter, 34072-1.
24 ft 8.7 in (7.54 m) in length, and weighed 39,000 to
42,000 lb (17,690 to 19,050 kg). Design yield was 6-8
megatons of TNT. [1] [2]
289.2 Manufacture and service

Five units were manufactured in January 1954, and de-
ployed in an interim emergency capability role with the
designation EC-16.
By April 1954 they were all retired, as the alternative
solid-fueled thermonuclear weapons had been tested suc-
774
Chapter 290
m) parachute to allow the delivery aircraft to escape.

With the addition of IFI of the Primary capsule to prevent
a nuclear explosion in case of an accident, the weapons
were upgraded to the Mod 1 standard. The inclusion of
a contact fuse upgraded some bombs to the Mod 2 ver-
sion, allowing the bombs to be used against soft targets
(air burst), or buried targets such as command bunkers
(contact burst).
Due to the introduction of smaller and lighter weapons
such as the Mk 15, as well as the pending retirement of
the only aircraft capable of carrying them, the B-36, the
Mk 24s were withdrawn by October 1956, with the Mk-
17s withdrawn by August 1957.
The Mark 17
The Mark 17 and Mark 24 were the rst mass-produced

hydrogen bombs deployed by the United States. The two
diered in their primary stages. The MK 17/24 bombs
were 24 feet 8 inches (7.52 m) long, 61.4 inches (1.56
m) diameter. They weighed 21 tons. The Mark 17 had a
yield in the range of 10 to 15 megatons TNT equivalent.
Total production of Mk 17s was 200, and there were 105
Mk 24s produced, all between October 1954 and Novem-
ber 1955.
Design and development originated when Los Alamos
National Laboratory proposed that a bomb design using
lithium deuteride with non-enriched lithium was possi-
A Mark 17 on display at the Strategic Air Command Memorial
ble. The new design was designated TX-17 on February in Naval Air Station Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base at Carswell
24, 1953. The TX-17 and 24 were tested as the Runt Field in Fort Worth, Texas
(Castle Romeo shot) device during Operation Castle in
1954. After the successful tests, basic versions of the
On May 27, 1957 a Mark 17 was unintentionally jetti-
Mk-17 and 24 were deployed as part of the Emergencysoned from a B-36 just south of Albuquerque, NMs Kirt-
Capability program. A total of 5 EC 17 and 10 EC 24land AFB. The device fell through the closed bomb bay
bombs were rushed into stockpile between April and Oc-
doors of the bomber, which was approaching Kirtland at
tober 1954. The EC weapons lacked parachutes to delay
an altitude of 1,700 feet. The devices conventional ex-
the time between release and their detonation, ensuring
plosives destroyed it on impact, leaving a crater 25 ft in
the delivery aircraft would be destroyed with the target.
diameter and 12 ft deep.[1] Though a chain reaction was
Other safety features such as In Flight Insertion (IFI) and
impossible because the plutonium pits were stored sepa-
safe arming and fusing devices were also omitted to en-
rately on the plane, the incident spread radioactive con-
sure a quick thermonuclear capability. tamination and debris over a mile-wide area. Although
The EC weapons were quickly replaced with MK 17 Mod the military cleaned up the site in secret, a few fragments
0 and Mk-24 Mod 0 bombs in October and November of the bomb - some radioactive still - may be found in the
1954. Those weapons included a 64-foot-diameter (20 area. It is one of more than 30 known "Broken Arrow"
775
776 CHAPTER 290. MARK 17 NUCLEAR BOMB
Gibson, James N. Nuclear Weapons of the United

States, Altglen, PA, Schier Publishing, 1996,
ISBN 0-7643-0063-6.
Cochran, Thomas, Arkin, William, Hoenig, Mil-

ton Nuclear Weapons Databook, Volume I, U.S.
Nuclear Forces and Capabilities, Cambridge, Mas-
sachusetts, Ballinger Pub. Co., 1984, ISBN 0-
88410-173-8.
A Mark 17 on display at the Castle Air Museum

incidents involving the accidental loss or destruction of a Media related to Mark 17 nuclear bomb at Wikimedia
nuclear weapon. Commons
290.1 Survivors
Five MK 17/24 casings are on display to the public:
National Atomic Museum located at Albuquerque,

New Mexico.
The Strategic Air Command Memorial at Naval Air

Station Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base at Carswell
Field in Fort Worth, Texas.
The National Museum of the United States Air

Force in Dayton, Ohio has a Mk 17/24 casing on
display in its Cold War Hangar.
The Strategic Air and Space Museum in Ashland,

Nebraska.
Castle Air Museum, Atwater, Ca
290.2 See also

Castle Bravo
Teller-Ulam design
290.3 References
[1] Accident Revealed After 29 Years: H-Bomb Fell Near
Albuquerque in 1957. Los Angeles Times. Associated
Press. August 27, 1986. Retrieved 31 August 2014.
Hansen, Chuck. U.S. Nuclear Weapons. Arlington,

Chapter 291
The Mark 18 nuclear bomb, also known as the SOB or last steps of the arming sequence.[1][2]
Super Oralloy Bomb, was an American nuclear bomb
design which was the highest yield ssion bomb pro-
duced by the US. The Mark 18 had a design yield of 500 291.2 Deployment
kilotons. Noted nuclear weapon designer Ted Taylor was
the lead designer for the Mark 18.
Beginning in March 1953, the United States deployed a
number of Mark 18 bombs. A total of 90 were manufac-
tured and placed in service.
The weapon had a short lifetime, and was replaced by
thermonuclear weapons in the mid-1950s. The Mark 18
weapons were all modied into lower yield Mark 6 nu-
clear bomb variants in 1956.
291.3 See also

Ivy King
Nuclear weapon design

The Ivy King test ring of the Mark 18 SOB design Mark 13 nuclear bomb
The Mark 18 was tested once, in the Ivy King nuclear test Mark 6 nuclear bomb
at the Enewetak atoll in the Pacic Ocean. The test was
a complete success at full yield. Mark 4 nuclear bomb
Fat Man Mark 3 nuclear bomb
291.1 Description
291.4 References
The Mark 18 bomb design used an advanced 92-point im-
plosion system, derived from the Mark 13 nuclear bomb [1] Allbombs.html list of all US nuclear warheads at
and its ancestors the Mark 6 nuclear bomb, Mark 4 nu- nuclearweaponarchive.org. Accessed April 16, 2007.
clear bomb, and Fat Man Mark 3 nuclear bomb of World
[2] Historical US nuclear weapons at Globalsecurity.org, ac-
War II. Its normal mixed uranium/plutonium ssile core
cessed April 17, 2007
(pit) was replaced with over 60 kg of pure highly en-
riched uranium or HEU. With a natural uranium tamper
layer, the bomb had over four critical masses of ssile
material in the core, and was unsafe: the accidental deto-
nation of even one of the detonator triggers, would likely
cause a signicant (many kilotons of energy yield) ex-
plosion. An aluminum/boron chain designed to absorb
neutrons was placed in the ssile pit to reduce the risk of
accidental high yield detonation, and removed during the
777
Chapter 292
The Mark 21 nuclear bomb was a United States nuclear

gravity bomb rst produced in 1955. It was based on the
TX-21 Shrimp prototype that had been detonated dur-
ing the Castle Bravo test in March 1954. While most
of the Operation Castle tests were intended to evaluate
weapons intended for immediate stockpile, or which were
already available for use as part of the Emergency Capa-
bility Program, Castle Bravo was intended to test a de-
sign which would drastically reduce the size and costs of
the rst generation of air-droppable atomic weapons (the
Mk 14, Mk 17 & Mk 24). At 12 feet 6 inches (3.81
m) long, 56 inches (1.42 m) in diameter, and weigh-
ing 15,000 pounds (6,800 kg), the Mk-21 was half the
length and one-third the weight of the Mk-17/24 weapons
it replaced. Its minimum yield was specied at four
megatons.
Quantity production of the Mk-21 started in December
1955 and ran until July 1956. Three marks were pro-
duced; the Mk-21C was proof tested as the Operation
Redwing Navajo shot, with a yield of 4.5 megatons. Start-
ing in June 1957 all Mk-21 bombs were converted to the
more powerful Mk-36, which was removed from service
in 1962.[1]
292.1 References
[1] Nuclear Weapon Archive: List of All U.S. Nuclear
Weapons
Hansen, Chuck. U.S. Nuclear Weapons, Arlington,

O'Keefe, Bernard J. Nuclear Hostages, Boston,

Houghton Miin Company, 1983, ISBN 0-395-
34072-1.
778
Chapter 293
The Mark 24 nuclear bomb was an American Chuck Hansen, U. S. Nuclear Weapons: The Secret
thermonuclear bomb design, based on the third Ameri- History (Arlington: AeroFax, 1988)
can thermonuclear bomb test, Castle Yankee. The Mark
24 bomb was tied as the largest weight and size nuclear
bomb ever deployed by the United States, with the same
size and weight as the Mark 17 nuclear bomb which used
a very similar design concept but unenriched Lithium.
The Castle Yankee thermonuclear test was the rst bomb
to use enriched Lithium-6 isotope, up to perhaps 40%
enrichment. The device tested was called the Runt II
design; it was reportedly very similar to the Runt design
tested in Castle Romeo, other than the enrichment level.
Castle Yankee had a demonstrated yield of 13.5
megatons. The yield for the weaponized Mark 24 was
predicted to be 1015 megatons.
The EC24 bomb was a limited production run of the Cas-
tle Yankee test device, with 10 produced and stockpiled
through 1954. The EC24 was 61 by 255 inches (1.55 by
6.48 m) and weighed 39,600 pounds (18,000 kg). The
EC24 was a purely free-fall bomb design.
The production model Mark 24 nuclear bomb was 61.4 by
296 inches (1.56 by 7.52 m) long, with a weight between
41,000 and 42,000 pounds (18,600 and 19,100 kg). It
was in service between 1954 and 1956, with a total of
105 units produced. The Mark 24 included a 64-foot-
diameter (20 m) parachute to slow its descent.
293.1 See also

Nuclear weapon design
Teller-Ulam design
Castle Yankee
293.2 References
779
Chapter 294
The Mark 27 nuclear bomb and closely related W27

warhead were two American thermonuclear bomb de-
signs from the late 1950s.
The Mark 27 was designed by the University of Cali-
fornia Radiation Laboratory (UCRL; now Lawrence Liv-
ermore National Laboratory) starting in the mid-1950s.
The Mark 27 and W27 were produced from 1958; both
were retired by 1965.
The basic design concept was competing with the Los
Alamos Scientic Laboratory (LASL; now Los Alamos
National Laboratory) design that would become the Mark
28 / B28 nuclear bomb and W28 warhead. The Mark 27
was roughly twice as heavy as the Mark W28 family and
had a yield of 2 megatons versus the 1 to 1.5 megatons of
the Mark W28 bombs.
The W27 warhead was 31 inches in diameter by 75 inches
long, and weighed 2,800 pounds. 20 W27 warheads were
produced for the United States Navy SSM-N-8 Regulus
cruise missiles.
The Mark 27 bomb was 30 inches in diameter by 124 to
142 inches long, depending on specic version. The three
versions weighed 3,150 to 3,300 pounds. 700 Mark 27
bombs were produced.
294.1 See also

SSM-N-8 Regulus

780
Chapter 295
295.2 Survivors
A Mark 36 casing is on display in the Cold War Gallery
at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in
Dayton, Ohio.
A Mark 36 casing can be found at the Strategic Air and
Space Museum near Ashland, Nebraska.
295.3 Specications
The Mark 36 bomb was 56.2 to 59 inches in diameter,
The Mark 36 nuclear bomb depending on version, and 150 inches long. It weighed
17,500 or 17,700 pounds depending on version.
There were 2 major variants, a clean and dirty vari-
The Mark 36 was a heavy high-yield United States ant. The clean variant used an inert fusion stage tamper-
nuclear bomb designed in the 1950s. It was a pusher assembly (see Teller-Ulam Design) such as lead or
thermonuclear bomb, using a multi-stage fusion sec- tungsten. The dirty variant used a depleted uranium or
ondary system to generate yields up to about 10 megatons. U-238 tamper-pusher which would undergo ssion dur-
ing the second stage fusion burn, doubling the weapon
yield. Chuck Hansen wrote in Swords of Armageddon
(1995) that Mark 36 nuclear bomb was produced in two
yield versions, clean and dirty. He stated that clean ver-
sion of Mark 36 had a yield of 6 megatons and that dirty
295.1 History version of Mark 36 had a design of maximum yield of 19
megatons.
The Mark 36 was a more advanced version of the earlier

Mark 21 nuclear bomb, which was a weaponized version 295.4 See also
of the Shrimp design, the rst dry (lithium deuteride)
fuel thermonuclear bomb the United States tested, in the List of nuclear weapons
Castle Bravo thermonuclear test in 1954.[1]
Teller-Ulam design
The Mark 21 bomb was developed and deployed imme-
diately after Castle Bravo, in 1955. The Mark 21 design Mark 21 nuclear bomb
continued to be improved and the Mark 36 device started
production in April 1956.[2] In 1957, all older Mark 21
bombs were converted to Mark 36 Y1 Mod 1 bombs. A 295.5 References
total of 920 Mark 36 bombs were produced as new build
or converted from the 275 Mark 21 bombs produced ear-
[1] Nuclear Weapon Archive. Retrieved 2008-05-02.
lier.
All Mark 36 nuclear bombs were retired between August [2] List of all US Nuclear Weapons. Retrieved 2008-05-02.
1961 and January 1962, replaced by the higher yield B41
nuclear bomb
781
Chapter 296
Two Mark 39 nuclear bombs were carried by a B-52

Stratofortress that broke up in the air and crashed near
Goldsboro, North Carolina on January 24, 1961. Ac-
cording to Parker F. Jones, a supervisor of nuclear safety
at Sandia National Laboratories, in a 1969 report that was
declassied in 2013, the Mark 39 bomb had four safety
mechanisms, one of which was not eective in the air. On
one of the bombs involved, two more safety mechanisms
were rendered ineective by aircraft breakup. As a re-
sult, Jones noted that the bomb was prevented from det-
onating only by the fourth mechanism, a simple ready-
safe electric switch.[1]
296.1 Survivors
A Mark 39 casing is on display in the Cold War
Gallery of the National Museum of the United States
Air Force in Dayton, Ohio. The bomb was received
from the National Atomic Museum at Kirtland Air
Force Base, N.M., in 1993.
296.2 See also

A Mark 39 bomb as discovered following the 1961 Goldsboro

B-52 crash
296.3 References
[1] Pilkington, Ed (September 20, 2013). US nearly det-
The Mark 39 nuclear bomb and W39 nuclear warhead onated atomic bomb over North Carolina secret doc-
were versions of an American thermonuclear weapon, ument. The Guardian (London). Retrieved September
which were in service from 1957 to 1966. 20, 2013.
The Mark 39 design was a thermonuclear bomb (see
Teller-Ulam design) and had a yield of 3.8 megatons. The
design is an improved Mark 15 nuclear bomb design (the 296.4 External links
TX-15-X3 design and Mark 39 Mod 0 were the same
design). The Mark 15 was the rst lightweight US ther- Allbombs.html list of all US nuclear weapons at
monuclear bomb. nuclearweaponarchive.org
The W39 warhead is 35 inches in diameter and 106 inches
long, with a weight of 6,230 to 6,400 pounds. It was used
on the SM-62 Snark missile, Redstone IRBM missile, and
in the B-58 Hustler weapons pod.
782
Chapter 297
Mark 77 bomb
bombs was the Mark 47.[3]

Use of aerial incendiary bombs against civilian popu-
lations, including against military targets in civilian ar-
eas, was banned in the 1980 United Nations Convention
on Certain Conventional Weapons Protocol III. However
the United States reserved the right to use incendiary
weapons against military objectives located in concentra-
tions of civilians where it is judged that such use would
cause fewer casualties and/or less collateral damage than
alternative weapons.[4]
297.1 Use in Iraq and Afghanistan

MK-77s were used by the United States Marine Corps
during Operation Desert Storm[5] and Operation Iraqi
Freedom.[6] Approximately 500 were dropped, report-
edly mostly on Iraqi-constructed oil lled trenches. They
were also used at Tora Bora, in Afghanistan.[2]
At least thirty MK-77s were also used by Marine Corps
aviators over a three-day period during the 2003 inva-
sion of Iraq, according to a June 2005 letter from the UK
Ministry of Defence to former Labour MP Alice Mahon.
This letter stated:
The U.S. destroyed its remaining Viet-

A Mark 77 bomb being loaded on an F/A-18 Hornet, 1993. nam era napalm in 2001 but, according to the
reports for I Marine Expeditionary Force (I
The Mark 77 bomb (MK-77) is a U.S. 750-pound (340 MEF) serving in Iraq in 2003, they used a to-
kg) air-dropped incendiary bomb carrying 110 U.S. gal- tal of 30 MK 77 weapons in Iraq between 31
lons (416 L; 92 imp gal) of a fuel gel mix which is the March and 2 April 2003, against military tar-
direct successor to napalm. gets away from civilian areas. The MK 77
rebomb does not have the same composition
The MK-77 is the primary incendiary weapon currently as napalm, although it has similar destructive
in use by the United States military. Instead of the characteristics. The Pentagon has told us that
gasoline, polystyrene, and benzene mixture used in na- owing to the limited accuracy of the MK 77, it
palm bombs, the MK-77 uses kerosene-based fuel with is not generally used in urban terrain or in areas
a lower concentration of benzene. The Pentagon has where civilians are congregated.[7]
claimed that the MK-77 has less impact on the environ-
ment than napalm. The mixture reportedly also contains This conrmed previous reports by U.S. Marine pilots
an oxidizing agent, making it more dicult to put out and their commanders saying they had used Mark 77 re-
once ignited, as well as white phosphorus.[1][2] bombs on military targets:
The eects of MK-77 bombs are similar to those of na-
palm. The ocial designation of Vietnam-era napalm Then the Marine howitzers, with a range
783
784 CHAPTER 297. MARK 77 BOMB
of 30 kilometers [18 mi], opened a sustained Mk 78 - 750 lb (340 kg) total weight with 110 U.S.
barrage over the next eight hours. They were gallons (416 L; 92 imp gal) of petroleum oil. No
supported by U.S. Navy aircraft which dropped longer in service.
40,000 pounds [18,000 kg] of explosives and
napalm, a U.S. ocer told the Herald. Mk 79 - 1,000 lb (450 kg) total weight with 112 U.S.
gallons (424 L; 93 imp gal) of napalm and petrol. No
longer in service.
We napalmed both those [bridge] ap-
proaches, said Colonel James Alles, comman-
der of Marine Aircraft Group 11. Unfortu-
nately there were people there ... you could see
297.3 References
them in the cockpit video. They were Iraqi sol-
diers. Army Regulations 600-8-27 dated 2006
[1] RAI documentary, English, Italian, Arabic

According to the Italian public service broadcaster RAI's
documentary, MK 77 had been used in Baghdad in 2003 [2] MK-77, GlobalSecurity.org
in civilian-populated areas. However, there were never
[3] MK-77 - Dumb Bombs
any conrmed reports of the use of incendiaries speci-
cally against civilians. [4] CCW Protocol III 1980 - United States of America reser-
vation text. www.icrc.org. Retrieved 2009-06-20.
In some cases where journalists reported that the U.S.
military has used napalm, military spokesmen denied the [5] AR 600-8-27 p. 26 paragraph 9-14 & p. 28
use of napalm without making it clear that MK-77
bombs had actually been deployed instead.[2][8] [6] Napalm
U.S. ocials incorrectly informed U.K. Ministry of De- [7] UK Ministry of Defence letter to Alice Mahon (docu-
fence ocials that MK-77s had not been used by the U.S. ment)
in Iraq, leading to Defence Minister Adam Ingram mak- [8] U.S. acknowledgment of use of napalm (i.e. MK-77)
ing inaccurate statements to the U.K. Parliament in Jan- and white phosphorus
uary 2005.[9] Later both Adam Ingram and Secretary of
State for Defence John Reid apologized for these inaccu- [9] UK Parliament 10 Jan 2005 UK Parliament 11 Jan 2005
rate statements being made to Members of Parliament.
297.4 End notes

297.2 Variants
MK-77 Dumb Bombs, Federation of American Sci-
entists
Later variants of the bomb were modied to carry a re-
duced load of 75 U.S. gallons (284 L; 62 imp gal) of fuel, Lennox, Duncan (1994). Janes Air-Launched
which resulted in the total weight decreasing to around Weapons 2005-2006. ISBN 978-0-7106-0866-6.
552 pounds (250 kg).
Mk 77 Mod 0 - 750 lb (340 kg) total weight with 297.5 See also
110 U.S. gallons (416 L; 92 imp gal) of petroleum
oil. Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre
Mk 77 Mod 1 - 500 lb (230 kg) total weight with 75 Mark 7 nuclear bomb
U.S. gallons (284 L; 62 imp gal) of petroleum oil.
Mark 81 bomb
Mk 77 Mod 2
Mark 82 bomb
Mk 77 Mod 3 Mark 83 bomb
Mk 77 Mod 4 - Approx 507 lb (230 kg) total weight Mark 84 bomb
with 75 U.S. gallons (284 L; 62 imp gal) of fuel
(Used during the 1991 Gulf War) Mark 117 bomb
Mk 77 Mod 5 - Approx 507 lb (230 kg) total weight Mark 118 bomb
with 75 U.S. gallons (284 L; 62 imp gal) of JP-4/JP- Napalm
5 fuel and thickener (Used during the 2003 invasion
of Iraq) White phosphorus
297.5. SEE ALSO 785
297.5.1 Use in Iraq

'Dead bodies are everywhere', Sydney Morning Her-
ald, 22 March 2003 - probably the rst published
report on Mk 77 use in Iraq
Napalm by another name: Pentagon denial goes up
in ames, Sydney Morning Herald, 9 August 2003
US State Department Response to Illegal Weapon
Allegations, 27 January 2005
US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war,
The Independent, 17 June 2005
Parliament misled over rebomb use, Daily Tele-
graph, 20 June 2005
The Hidden Massacre by Sigfrido Ranucci, Video

documentary shows actual chemical bombing on
civilians in Fallujah with testimony of interviewed
U.S. soldiers - English, Italian and Arabic, Rai News
24, 8 November 2005
US forces 'used chemical weapons during assault on
city of Fallujah, The Independent, 9 November 2005
Chapter 298
Mark 81 bomb
The Mark 81 (Mk 81) 250 lb (113 kg) general purpose Mark 83 bomb
bomb (nicknamed "Firecracker") is the smallest of the
Mark 80 series of low-drag general-purpose bombs. Mark 84 bomb
298.1 Development & deployment 298.4 References

Notes
Developed for United States military forces in the 1950s,
it was rst used during the Vietnam War. The bomb con-
sists of a cast steel case with 96 lb (44 kg) of Composition [1] GBU-29 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM)". Glob-
alSecurity.org. Retrieved 13 October 2010.
H6, Minol or Tritonal explosive. The power of the Mk
81 was found to be inadequate for U.S. military tactical
use, and it was quickly discontinued, although license- Bibliography
built copies or duplicates of this weapon remain in service
with various other nations. Tom, Gervasi (1981). Arsenal of Democracy II:
Development of a precision guided variant of the Mk 81 American military power in the 1980s and the ori-
bomb (GBU-29) was started due to its potential to re- gins of the new cold war with a survey of American
duce collateral damage compared to larger bombs, but weapons and arms exports. Volume 2 (Paperback
this program has now been cancelled[1] in favor of the ed.). London, United Kingdom: The Book Service
Small Diameter Bomb. (TBS) Ltd. ISBN 978-0-394-17662-8.
298.2 Variants 298.5 External links

Mk81 GP Bomb
Mark 81 Snakeye tted with a Mark 14 TRD (Tail
Retarding Device) to increase the bombs drag af- Mk81 General Purpose Bomb
ter release. The bombs increased air-time, coupled
with its (relatively) forgiving safe drop envelope, DUMB BOMBS, FUZES, AND ASSOCIATED
allowed for very low-level bombing runs at slower COMPONENTS
speed. Used commonly in the close air support
role in Vietnam (prior to wider availability of GBU-
series precision ordnance). Nicknamed snake, as
in the typical Vietnam support loadout of snake and
nape (250-lb. Mk-81 Snakeye bombs and 500-lb.
M-47 napalm canisters).
GBU-29 Joint Direct Attack Munition, a precision

guided version of the Mark 81 (cancelled).[1]
298.3 See also

Mark 82 bomb
786
Chapter 299
Mark 82 bomb
The Mark 82 (Mk 82) is an unguided, low-drag general- bombs and for the GBU-38 JDAM.
purpose bomb, part of the U.S. Mark 80 series. The ex- Currently only the General Dynamics plant in Garland,
plosive lling is tritonal.
Texas is Department Of Defense-certied to manufacture
bombs for the US Armed Forces.
299.1 Development and deploy- The Mk 82 is currently undergoing a minor redesign to

allow it to meet the insensitive munitions requirements
ment set by Congress.
Mk. 82 bomb with Tail Retarding Device this photograph shows

an unfuzed, museum display Mk 82 with its usual combat paint
scheme. For display purposes, the optional high-drag Snakeye
tailns used for low-altitude release are shown.

Navy's Weapon System Explosives Safety Review Board
(WSESRB) established in the wake of the 1967 USS For-
restal re, the cooking o time for a Mk 82 is approxi-
mately 2 minutes 30 seconds.
A B-2 Spirit dropping Mk 82 bombs into the Pacic Ocean in a

More than 4,500 GBU-12/Mk 82 laser-guided bombs
1994 training exercise o Point Mugu, California. were dropped on Iraq during the Persian Gulf War.[2]
With a nominal weight of 500 lb (227 kg), it is the one of

the smallest in current service, and one of the most com- 299.2 Low-level delivery
mon air-dropped weapons in the world. Although the Mk
82s nominal weight is 500 lb (227 kg), its actual weight
In low-level bombing, it is easy for the delivering aircraft
varies considerably depending on its conguration, from
to sustain damage from the blast and fragmentation eects
510 lb (232 kg) to 570 lb (259 kg). It is a streamlined
of its own munitions because the aircraft and ordnance
steel casing containing 192 lb (89 kg) of Tritonal high
arrive at the target at very close to the same time. To
explosive. The Mk 82 is oered with a variety of n kits,
combat this, the standard Mk-82 General Purpose bomb
fuzes, and retarders for dierent purposes. can be tted with a special high-drag tail n unit. In this
The Mk 82 is the warhead for the GBU-12 laser-guided conguration, it is referred to as the Mk-82 Snakeye.[3]
787
788 CHAPTER 299. MARK 82 BOMB
The tail unit has 4 folded ns which spring open into a [5] BLU-111/B. Federation of American Scientists.
cruciform shape when the bomb is released. The ns in-
[6] Equipment Listing. www.designation-systems.net.
crease the drag of the bomb, slowing its forward progress
and allowing the delivery aircraft to safely pass over the [7] Little Bang p.38, Aviation Week & Space Technology-
target before the bomb explodes. January 29, 2007
[8] Jenkins, Dennis R. B-1 Lancer, The Most Complicated

Warplane Ever Developed, p. 159. New York: McGraw-
299.3 Variants Hill, 1999. ISBN 0-07-134694-5.
BLU-111/B Mk 82 loaded with PBXN-109 (vs

H-6); item weighs 480 lbs.[4] PBXN-109 is a less 299.6 External links
sensitive explosive ller.[5] The BLU-111/B also is
the warhead of the A-1 version of the Joint Stand-
Mk82 General Purpose Bomb
O Weapon JSOW.
Bombs, Fuzes, and associated Components
BLU-111A/B Used by the U.S. Navy,[6] this is
the BLU-111/B with a thermal-protective coating
added[5] to reduce cook-o in (fuel-related) res.
BLU-126/B Designed following a U.S. Navy

request to lower collateral damage in air strikes.
Delivery of this type started in March of 2007.
Also known as the Low Collateral Damage Bomb
(LCDB), it is a BLU-111 with a smaller explosive
charge. Non-explosive ller is added to retain the
weight of the BLU-111 so as to give it the same tra-
jectory when dropped.[7]
Mark 62 Quickstrike mine A naval mine, which

is a conversion of Mark 82 bomb.[8]
299.4 See also

Mark 81 bomb
Mark 83 bomb
Mark 84 bomb
Paveway IV
FAB-250 - Soviet counterpart
299.5 References
Notes
[1] Air Force Munitions Acquisition Costs. About.comUS

Military.
[2] Friedman, Norman (1997). The Naval Institute guide to

world naval weapons systems, 1997-1998. Naval Institute
Press. p. 249. ISBN 978-1-55750-268-1.
[3] Bombs and components. www.ordnance.org/gpb.htm.
[4] China Lake, Naval Warfare Center. www.

chinalakealumni.org.
Chapter 300
Mark 83 bomb
The Mark 83 is part of the Mark 80 series of low-drag 300.2 See also
general-purpose bombs in United States service.
Mark 81 bomb
Mark 82 bomb
Mark 84 bomb
300.1 Development & deployment
300.3 References
Notes
[1] FMU-152/B ELECTRONIC BOMB FUZE. Integrated

Publishing. Retrieved 13 October 2010.
[2] Mk83 General Purpose Bomb. Federation of American

Scientists. 23 April 2000. Retrieved 13 October 2010.

Mk83 General Purpose Bomb
BOMBS, FUZES, AND ASSOCIATED COMPO-

Ten Mark 83 bombs aboard a US Navy F/A-18E. NENTS
The nominal weight of the bomb is 1,000 lb (454 kg), al-

though its actual weight varies between 985 lb (447 kg)
and 1,030 lb (468 kg), depending on fuze options,[1] and
n conguration.[2] The Mk 83 is a streamlined steel cas-
ing containing 445 lb (202 kg) of Tritonal high explosive.
When lled with PBXN-109 thermally insensitive explo-
sive, the bomb is designated BLU-110.
The Mk 83/BLU-110 is used as the warhead for a va-
riety of precision-guided weapons, including the GBU-
16 Paveway laser-guided bombs, the GBU-32 JDAM and
Quickstrike sea mines.
This bomb is most typically used by the United States
Navy. According to a test report conducted by the United
States Navys Weapon System Explosives Safety Review
Board (WSESRB) established in the wake of the tragic
1967 USS Forrestal re, the cooking o time for a Mk
83 is approximately 8 minutes 40 seconds.
789
Chapter 301
Mark 84 bomb
The Mark 84 or BLU-117[2] is an American general-

purpose bomb, it is also the largest of the Mark 80 series
of weapons. Entering service during the Vietnam War, it
became a commonly used US heavy unguided bomb (due
to the amount of high-explosive content packed inside) to
be dropped, second only to the 15,000 pounds (6,803.9
kg) BLU-82 Daisy Cutter then in service and presently
third only to the 22,600 lb (10,251.2 kg) GBU-43/B Mas-
sive Ordnance Air Blast bomb (MOAB) currently in ser-
vice. Pilots ying the F-117 Nighthawk over Iraq during
the rst gulf war nicknamed it the Hammer[3] (albeit
tted with the GBU-27 Paveway III kit for use specially
by the Nighthawks), for its considerable destructive power
and blast radius.[3]
Sailors remove hoisting sling from a crate containing a pair of
Mark 84 bomb bodies. Tailns and fuzes have not yet been tted
301.1 Development
and causes lethal fragmentation to a radius of 400 yards
(365.8 m).[3]
Many Mark 84s have been retrotted with stabilizing and
retarding devices to provide precision guidance capabili-
ties. They serve as the warhead of a variety of precision-
guided munitions, including the GBU-10/GBU-24/GBU-
27 Paveway laser-guided bombs, GBU-15 electro-optical
bomb, GBU-31 JDAM and Quickstrike sea mines.[4]
Navys Weapon System Explosives Safety Review Board
(WSESRB) established in the wake of the 1967 USS For-
restal re, the cooking o time for a Mk 84 is approxi-
mately 8 minutes 40 seconds.
An aviation ordnance technician handling the bomb body of a

thermally protected (insulated to slow cook-o time in case of 301.2 GPS/INS Conversion Kits by
re) Mark 84 aboard the USS George Washington Tubitak of Turkey
The Mark 84 has a nominal weight of 2,000 lb (907.2 kg),
but its actual weight varies depending on its n, fuze op- The Hassas Gdm Kiti, HGK, developed by TBTAK-
tions, and retardation conguration, from 1,972 to 2,083 SAGE, Turkeys scientic research council, converts
lb (894.5 to 944.8 kg). It is a streamlined steel casing 2000-lb Mark 84 bombs into GPS/INS guided missiles
lled with 945 lb (428.6 kg) of Tritonal high explosive.[1] with ap out wings.[5]
The Mark 84 is capable of forming a crater 50 feet (15.2 The HGK guidance kits adds the following to the Mark
m) wide and 36 ft (11.0 m) deep. It can penetrate up to 84 bomb:
15 inches (381.0 mm) of metal or 11 ft (3.4 m) of con-
crete, depending on the height from which it is dropped, Ability to Re-target during captive ight
790
[3] Don, Holloway (March 1996). STEALTH SECRETS

OF THE F-117 NIGHTHAWK: Its development was
kept under wraps for 14 years, but by 1991, the F-117
nighthawk had become a household word.. Aviation
History (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Cowles Magazines).
ISSN 1076-8858.
[4] Mk 65 Quick Strike Mine. Federation of American Sci-

entists. 8 December 1998. Retrieved 1 September 2010.
[5] http://www.sage.tubitak.gov.tr/en/urunler/
precision-guidance-kit-hgk
Mk 84 exploding in North Vietnam, 1972 301.5 External links
Jam resistance Mk65 Quick Strike Mine
All weather mission capability Mk84 General Purpose Bomb
1760 Compliance DUMB BOMBS, FUZES, AND ASSOCIATED

COMPONENTS
Fewer number of bombs, sorties and crews per mis-
sion
Minimum logistics footprint
Minimum collateral damage
High Accuracy
Integrated GPS/INS support with hot start allows
HGK to hit the targets below a CEP of 6 meters in
all weather conditions.
Capable of reaching rangers over 12 nautical miles
(when released from medium altitudes). A maxi-
mum range of 15 nautical miles from high altitudes.
UAI compliant interfaces, HGK has been added to
JSF inventory as a part of Block-4 weapon integra-
tion and certication list.
301.3 See also

BLU-109 bomb
BLU-116
Mark 81 bomb
Mark 82 bomb
Mark 83 bomb
301.4 References
[1] Mk84 General Purpose Bomb. Federation of American
Scientists. 23 April 2000. Retrieved 1 September 2010.
[2] Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Estimate Procurement of Am-

munition. US Air Force. Retrieved 29 December 2011.
Chapter 302
MC-1 bomb
the F-16.[3]
302.3 Demilitarization operations

Umatilla Chemical Depot stored about 2,400 MC-1
bombs until the nal one was demilitarized and destroyed
on June 9, 2006.[4] Another 3,047 MC-1s were stored
at Johnston Atoll when demilitarization operations be-
gan there in 1990.[5] Those weapons were destroyed dur-
ing the ensuing decade and operations at Johnston Atoll
Chemical Agent Disposal System ended in 2000.[5][6]
302.4 Test involving the MC-1

The 750 pound MC-1 sarin bomb Tests were conducted using the MC-1 from July-
November 1971 at Dugway Proving Ground in Utah.[7]
[8]
The MC-1 bomb was the rst U.S. non-clustered air- The aim of these tests, which were part of Project 112,
dropped chemical munition. The 750-pound (340 kg) was twofold. One goal was to determine hazards associ-
MC-1 was rst produced in 1959 and carried the nerve ated with the accidental release or damage from hostile
agent sarin. re of the MC-1 during takeo or landing.[7] A second
goal was to determine if leak suppressant and disposal
procedures for damaged bombs were adequate.[7] For the
purpose of the tests the MC-1 was lled with water and
302.1 History a sarin simulant, di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP).[7]
The bombs were dropped from an F-4 during the tests.[7]
The MC-1 chemical bomb was rst brought into regular
mass-production in 1959.[1] A modied general purpose
demolition bomb, the MC-1 was the rst non-clustered
chemical munition in the U.S. arsenal.[1] The MC-1 was 302.5 See also
designed to be delivered via U.S. Air Force aircraft.[2]
The MC-1 was never used against enemy targets. M117 bomb
302.2 Specications 302.6 References

The MC-1 was a 750-pound (340 kg) munition.[1][2] The
[1] Smart, Jeery K. Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biolog-
weapon had a diameter of 16 inches (41 cm) and a length ical Warfare: Chapter 2 - History of Chemical and Bio-
of 50 inches (127 cm).[2] The MC-1 was lled with about logical Warfare: An American Perspective, (PDF: p. 59),
220 pounds (100 kg) of sarin (GB) nerve agent.[2] The Borden Institute, Textbooks of Military Medicine, PDF
MC-1 was designed to be air-dropped via the F-4 Phan- via Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base, accessed December
tom II and was unable to t that aircrafts replacement, 29, 2008.
792

Group, 2003 pp. 18-19, (ISBN 027597796X).
[3] Duke, Simon (Stockholm International Peace Research

Institute). United States Military Forces and Installa-
tions in Europe, (Google Books), Oxford University Press,
1989, pp. 84-85, (ISBN 0198291329).
[4] Hendrickson, Bruce. "Depot and Disposal Facility reach

signicant milestones", (Press release), Umatilla Chem-
ical Depot, U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency, June
12, 2006, accessed December 29, 2008.
[5] Cashman, John R. Emergency Response Handbook for

Chemical and Biological Agents and Weapons, (Google
Books), CRC Press, 2008, pp. 107-08, (ISBN
1420052659).
[6] "Chemical Weapons Destruction Complete on Johnston

Atoll", (Press release), U.S. Department of Defense,
November 30, 2000, accessed December 29, 2008.
[7] "Fact Sheet DTC Test 69-14", Oce of the Assistant

Secretary of Defense (Health Aairs), Deployment Health
Support Directorate, accessed November 12, 2008.
[8] "Project 112/SHAD Fact Sheets", Force Health Protec-

tion & Readiness Policy & Programs, The Chemical-
Biological Warfare Exposures Site, accessed December
29, 2008.
Chapter 303
T-12 Cloudmaker
For other uses, see T12 (disambiguation).

The T-12 (also known as Cloudmaker) demolition
bomb was developed by the United States from 1944 to
1948. It was one of a small class of bombs designed to
attack targets invulnerable to conventional soft bombs,
such as bunkers and viaducts. It achieved this by having
an extremely thick hardened nose section, which was de-
signed to penetrate deeply into hardened concrete struc-
tures and then detonate inside the target after a short time
delay. This generated an "earthquake eect".
The T-12 was a further development of the concept initi-
ated with the United Kingdom's Tallboy and Grand Slam
weapons developed by the British aeronautical engineer
Barnes Wallis during the Second World War: a hardened,
highly aerodynamic bomb of the greatest possible weight
designed to be dropped from the highest possible altitude.
Penetrating deeply in the earth before exploding, the re-
sulting shock wave was transmitted through the earth into
structures. The resulting camouet could also undermine
structures. The bomb could also be used against hard-
ened targets. These types of bombs can reach supersonic
speeds and have tail ns designed to spin the bomb for
greater accuracy.
Originally designed to meet a 42,000 lb (19,000 kg) tar-
get weight (the maximum payload for the Convair B-36
Peacemaker bomber), the original design with its hard-
ened case was slightly less than 43,000 pounds. The nal
T-12 weighed 43,600 lb (nearly 20 metric tons). This was
twice the size of the United States previous largest bomb,
the Bomb, GP, 22,000-lb, M110 (T-14), the American-
built version of the British Grand Slam. The T-12 was not
a simple scale up of the M110, but incorporated modi-
cations based on testing and calculations. The B-36 was
redesigned so it could carry the T12, although a converted
B-29 Superfortress was used for testing.
303.1 Similar US Weapons

Weapons of comparable size to the T-12, such as the
BLU-82 and GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast T-12 casing at the United States Army Ordnance Museum,
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Aberdeen, Maryland.
bombs (MOAB), were developed as latter-day United
States superbombs, but their utility is limited outside the
realm of psychological weapons and demolition. Only the
794
GBU-43/B remains in the inventory. It is not hardened

and lacks the hard target capability of the T-12 and its
cousins. The 14 metric ton mass Massive Ordnance Pen-
etrator, roughly intermediate between the British Grand
Slam and American Cloudmaker bombs in mass, has
been recently developed just past the dawn of the 21st
century in light of unsatisfactory penetration by existing
2000 lb and 5000 lb class weapons.
303.2 See also

Massive Ordnance Penetrator
Nuclear bunker buster
Grand Slam bomb

MOAB
BLU-82
Aviation Thermobaric Bomb of Increased Power

Big Bomb Tight Fit In B-29 Bomb Bays , October
1951, Popular Science photo showing T-12 being
tted to B-29 bomb bay
The USAs 30,000 Pound Bomb, Defense Indus-
try Daily Article on the new Massive Ordnance Pen-
etrator (MOP), has history of earlier systems.
The Extra-Super Blockbuster by Dr. William S.

Coker Air University Review, March-April 1967.
Chapter 304
Weteye bomb
there was consideration of repurposing the Weteye design

to deliver reghting chemicals to extinguish oil well res
set by retreating Iraqi forces.
In 1963, the supercarrier USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67)
(SBC-127C) was intended to contain 100 Weteyes as part
of its magazine load.[3]
In 1969 the entire arsenal of US Weteye bombs were
stored at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Colorado.[2]
Most Weteye bombs stored at Rocky Mountain Arsenal
were demilitarized and destroyed in 1977; however, ap-
proximately 900 Weteye bombs were not destroyed at this
time.[2]
Weteye, Mk116 Mod 0

304.2 Specications
The Weteye bomb was a U.S. chemical weapon designed
for the U.S. Navy and meant to deliver the nerve agent The interior of the Weteye was divided into three
sarin. The Weteye held 160 kg (350 lb) of liquid sarin and sections.[2] The Weteye body was composed of thin
was ocially known as the Mk 116 (Mark 116). Stock- aluminum alloy. It had ns which deployed after the
piles of Weteyes were transferred to Utah in the 1980s bomb was released.[2] The 240 kilogram Weteye held
amidst controversy and protest. about 160 kg (350 lb) of liquid sarin nerve agent.[2]
304.1 History 304.3 Nomenclature

The Weteye bomb was developed for the United States
Navy during the early 1960s.[1][2] The US Navy at China
Lake, California attempted to develop a massive chemical
bomb with a high ll eciency (~70%). At the same time
the US Army Chemical Center worked with the EDO cor-
poration to develop the EX 38, a 500 lb (230 kg) chemi-
cal bomb with unique design features: 1) thin seamless
hydrospun aluminum body, 2) weighted nose, 3) large
plastic ns, and 4) a system of internal baes to keep
the 10% minimum void captured in the tail section of
the bomb. The prototype Weteye design, with its shaped
internal burster and folding ns, was combined with the
EX38 design features to create the production model of
the Weteye.
The Weteye was originally developed for delivery of GB Weteye bomb
and VX nerve agents. Production was limited to lling
with double-distilled GB. The VX variants were not pro- Ocially, the Weteye was known as the Mark 116, or
duced. During the Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm) Mk-116 bomb.[1] While this was the ocial military
796
304.6. SEE ALSO 797
nomenclature for the weapon, early in its production it Other issues to surface during disposal operations were
acquired the nickname Weteye.[1] Weteye was derived high levels of mercury contamination and the tendency
from the fact that the weapon was lled with a liquid nerve of the aluminum casing to explode inside the decontami-
agent, sarin, thus the wet portion of the name.[2] The nation furnace.[2] Molten aluminum and water presents a
eye portion of the name was associated with it being potential explosion hazard and because the Weteye con-
developed by the US Navy at China Lake as part of its tained a liquid nerve agent the potential for an interaction
eye-series weapon program (bombs guided by the Mark of molten aluminum and the liquid agent existed.[6] These
1 eyeball), a program intended to improve air-delivered issues combined to make the Weteye suciently dicult
munitions. to dispose of that it required special handling.[2]
304.4 Transfer to Utah 304.6 See also

Bigeye bomb
Demilitarization operations at Rocky Mountain Arsenal
left exactly 888 Weteye bombs intact and in storage in
Colorado.[1][4] In 1981 the U.S. Department of Defense
sought to relocate the weapons to the Tooele Chemical 304.7 References
Agent Disposal Facility at the Deseret Chemical Depot.[1]
This move was opposed by many residents of Utah and [1] Bauman, Joe. "Final goodbye for the 'Weteye'", Deseret
the states governor at the time Scott M. Matheson.[1][5] News (Salt Lake City), December 26, 2001, accessed De-
The transfer was controversial and Matheson continued cember 17, 2008.
to ght it until the U.S. Senate passed a bill which in- [2] Croddy, Eric (2005). Weapons of Mass Destruction: An
cluded an amendment sponsored by then-U.S. Senator Encyclopedia of Worldwide Policy, Technology, and His-
Gary Hart (D-CO) requiring the weapons be moved out tory. ABC-CLIO. p. 325. ISBN 1-85109-490-3. Re-
of Colorado.[1] Mathesons concern stemmed from the trieved 18 December 2008.
fact that some of the thin-shelled Weteyes stored in Col-
orado were leaking nerve agent.[1] [3] Friedman, Norman (1983). U.S. Aircraft Carriers: An Il-
lustrated Design History. Naval Institute Press. p. 387.
After rounds of protests and legal action that went to the ISBN 0-87021-739-9. Retrieved 18 December 2008.
U.S. District Court the transfer went ahead.[1] An Air
Force C-141 jet carried the initial transfer of 64 Wet- [4] Sta. "Minute Amount of Nerve Gas Is Found in Bomb
Container", The New York Times, August 26, 1981, ac-
eye bombs on August 12, 1981 to an air eld at Dugway
cessed December 17, 2008.
Proving Ground. The event was heavily covered by the
media.[1] The moves continued for the next three weeks [5] "GOVERNOR (1977-1985 : MATHESON): Weteye
and Weteyes were moved to the south area of the Tooele Nerve Gas Bomb Records 1960-1982", Utah State
Army Depot, which became known as the Deseret Chem- Archives and Records Service, Series 19410, accessed
ical Depot.[1] December 17, 2008.
In 1996, the Deseret Chemical Depot began destruction [6] Committee on Review and Evaluation of the Army Chem-
operations of general chemical weapons.[1] In the spring ical Stockpile Disposal Program, U.S. National Research
of 2001 destruction and demilitarization of the Weteyes Council. Review of Systemization of the Tooele Chem-
began and the operation ended in December 2001 with ical Agent Disposal Facility, (Google Books), National
the destruction of the last of 888 Weteyes.[1] Academies Press, 1996, p. 62, (ISBN 0309054869).

304.5 Disposal and transfer issues
"Attachment 14: Demilitarization Miscellaneous
Public relations ocials for the Deseret Chemical De- Treatment Units", Utah Department of Environmen-
pot asserted at the time that during the 2001 disposal tal Equality, Hazardous Waste Branch: Chemical
operations there were no problems.[1] However, Eric Demilitarization Section, August 2005, accessed
Croddy reported in his 2005 book Weapons of Mass De- December 21, 2008.
struction: An Encyclopedia of Worldwide Policy, Tech-
nology, and History that a number of issues came up
during the destruction operations.[2] One of those issues,
that of leaking munitions,[2] was an issue long before the
weapons arrived at Deseret and the primary reason that
Gov. Matheson and many Utah residents were opposed
to the weapons transfer in the rst place.[1][4][5]
Chapter 305
BLU-108
The BLU-108 is an air-delivered submunition, containing 305.5 External links

four further smart Skeet submunitions. The system is
manufactured by Textron Defense Systems. BLU-108 - Textron Defense Systems
BLU-108/B Submunition - Global Security

305.1 BLU-108/B specications
Length: 78.8 cm (31.0 in) [1]
Diameter: 13.3 cm (5.25 in)
Maximum lateral dimension: 18.4 cm (7.25 in)
305.2 Skeet specications

Height: 9.5 cm (3.75 in).
Diameter: 12.7 cm (5.0 in).
Weight: 3.4 kg (7.5 lb).
Seeker: Dual-mode active (laser) and passive

(infrared) sensors.
Explosive: 945 g (2.08 lb) Octol.
Kill mechanism: Explosively formed penetrator and

fragmentation.
305.3 Weapon systems

CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon
AGM-154B Joint Stando Weapon
U-ADD (Universal aerial delivery dispenser)
305.4 References
[1] BLU108 - Designation Systems
798
Chapter 306
BLU-109 bomb
The BLU-109/B is a hardened penetration bomb used 306.4 References

by the United States Air Force (BLU is an acronym for
Bomb Live Unit). As with other "bunker busters", it [1] Forecast International (2004). BLU-116/B, page 4. Ac-
is intended to smash through concrete shelters and other cessed 12 May 2011.
hardened structures before exploding. In addition to the
[2] BLU-109 / I-2000 / HAVE VOID. globalsecurity.org.
US, it is part of the armament of the air force of Australia,
Retrieved 15 March 2014.
Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece,
Italy, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, Saudi Arabia, [3] Small Diameter Bomb. Boeing. Retrieved 15 March
United Kingdom and United Arab Emirates.[1] 2014.
[4] BLU-118/B Thermobaric Weapon. GlobalSecurity.org.

306.1 Design [5] Little, Robert. A race to get a new bomb for cave war.
The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 5 April 2014.
The BLU-109/B has a steel casing about 1 inch (25.4

mm) thick, lled with 530 lb (240 kg) of Tritonal. It has 306.5 External links
a delayed-action tail-fuze. The BLU-109 entered service
in 1985. It is also used as the warhead of some marks
of the GBU-15 electro-optically guided bomb, the GBU- BLU-109 / I-2000 / HAVE VOID description, at
27 Paveway III laser-guided bomb, and the AGM-130 GlobalSecurity.org
rocket-boosted weapon. This weapon can penetrate 4-6 BLU-109-B development (abstract), at Janes Air-
feet of reinforced concrete,[2] which is greater than the 3 Launched Weapons 2009
foot capability of the Small Diameter Bomb.[3] The BLU-
109 is not likely to be retired anytime soon, due to the BLU-109/B Hard-target Warhead fact sheet, at Hill
much larger blast capable from its warhead. AFB website, US air Force
306.2 Variants
The BLU-118 is reportedly a thermobaric explosive

ller variation on the BLU-109 casing and basic
bomb design.[4] It contains PBXIH-135, a traditional
explosive.[5]
306.3 See also
BLU-116
GBU-24 Paveway III
799
Chapter 307
BLU-116
The BLU-116 is a United States Air Force bomb, de- [2] BLU-116 Advanced Unitary Penetrator (AUP) GBU-24
signed as an enhanced Bunker buster penetration weapon, C/B (USAF) / GBU-24 D/B (Navy) Specications, ac-
designed to penetrate deep into rock or concrete and de- cessed Oct 2, 2007
stroy hard targets.[1]
[3] nucnews.net, accessed Oct 2, 2007
The BLU-116 is the same shape, size, and weight (1,927
[4] Patent 6,389,977 Shrouded Aerial Bomb, accessed Oct 2,
lb / 874 kg) as the BLU-109 penetration bomb rst de-
2007
ployed in the 1980s. The BLU-116 has a lightweight
outer shell around a dense, heavy metal penetrator core. [5] https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/gbu-24.htm
The shape and size mean that the BLU-116 could be used
by unmodied existing aircraft and bomb guidance units
such as the GPS guided GBU-31 Joint Direct Attack Mu- 307.4 External links
nition and GBU-24 Paveway III laser-guided bomb.
Raytheon Paveway Bomb Datasheet
307.1 Specications
From:[2]
Length: 2.4 m
Width: 0.37 m
Weight: 874 kg
Explosives: 109 kg PBXN
307.2 Controversy
Some organizations have linked the BLU-116 design to
Depleted uranium,[3] with references to a DU penetrator
option in US Patent 6,389,977 Shrouded Aerial Bomb
[4]
which describes a weapon similar to the BLU-116.
Two of the claims make reference to the use of tung-
sten or depleted uranium to make the casing of the bomb,
however there is no evidence that either material was used
in the actual weapon and specications indicate use of a
nickel-cobalt steel alloy.[5]
307.3 References
[1] BLU-116 Advanced Unitary Penetrator (AUP) GBU-24
C/B (USAF) / GBU-24 D/B (Navy), accessed Oct 2, 2007
800
Chapter 308
CBU-24
targets within the target area.
CBU-24 cluster bombs being carried by a US Air Force F-105

Wild Weasel.
One half of an SA-2 Surface to Air missile site being hit with
The CBU-24 (Cluster Bomb Unit-24) is an unguided, air- cluster bombs dropped from F-105 Wild Weasels.
craft delivered anti-personnel and anti-materiel weapon
developed by the United States. Because it is an unguided
weapon, the CBU-24 can be carried and dropped by any
aircraft capable of carrying standard dumb or iron 308.1 References
bombs.
The CBU-24 cluster bomb consists of a SUU-30 dis- [1] , http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/asetds/
penser unit containing a payload of 665 tennis ball-sized u-c.html#_CBU
BLU-26 or BLU-36 fragmentation submunitions, also [2] , http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/asetds/
known as bomblets.[1] Once dropped from the delivery u-b.html#_BLU26
aircraft, the CBU-24 casing breaks open in-ight and re-
leases the individual submunitions, scattering them over [3] , http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/asetds/
a large area. u-b.html#_BLU36
Each submunition is designed to detonate and damage or

destroy targets within the weapons footprint by explo-
sion, concussion and fragmentation eects. While most 308.2 External links
BLU-26 submunitions explode on impact, they can also
be set for air-burst or xed-period delayed detonation.[2] Designation Systems
The BLU-36 submunition has a random time-delay fuse
Technical analysis of cluster munitions
and will detonate at some point after impact.[3]
The time-delay function of the submunitions is designed
to continue to deny the area to the enemy for some time
after the initial attack and hamper clean up and casualty
recovery operations.
While primarily designed as an anti-personnel weapon,
the bomblets can also damage structures and soft vehicle
801
Chapter 309
CBU-87 Combined Eects Munition
Depending on the rate of spin and the altitude at which

the canister opens, it can cover an area between 20x20
meters (low release altitude and a slow rate of spin) to
120x240 meters (high release altitude and a high rate of
spin).
CBU-87
Manufacturers and the Department of Defense have
claimed that the failure rate for each bomb is about 5%.[2]
The CBU-87 Combined Eects Munition is a cluster This would mean that of the 202 bomblets dropped, about
bomb used by the United States Air Force, developed by 10 will not explode on impact. Landmine Action has
Aerojet General/Honeywell and introduced in 1986 to reclaimed the failure rate of the BLU-97/Bs used in the
place the earlier cluster bombs used in the Vietnam War. Kosovo campaign was higher, between 7 and 8 percent.[3]
CBU stands for Cluster Bomb Unit. When the CBU-87
is used in conjunction with the Wind Corrected Muni-
tions Dispenser (WCMD) guidance tail kit, it becomes a
precision-guided weapon, designated CBU-103.[1] 309.1 Operational use
The CBU-87 without WCMD is designed to be dropped
from an aircraft at any altitude and any air speed. It is a During Operation Desert Storm, the US Air Force
free-falling bomb and relies on the aircraft to aim it before dropped 10,035 CBU-87s. During Operation Allied
it drops; once dropped it needs no further instruction, as Force, the US dropped about 1,100 cluster bombs, mostly
opposed to guided munitions or smart bombs. The bomb CBU-87s.
can be dropped by a variety of modern-day aircraft. It is On May 7, 1999, a CBU-87 was used in one of the
7 feet, 7 inches (2.33 meters) long, has a diameter of 16 most serious incidents involving civilian deaths and clus-
inches (40 centimeters), and weighs roughly 950 pounds ter bombs, the cluster bombing of Ni.
(430 kg). The price is US$14,000 per bomb.
Each CBU-87 consists of an SUU-65B canister, a
fuze with 12 time delay options and 202 submunitions
(or bomblets) designated BLU-97/B Combined Eects
309.2 References
Bomb (CEB). Each bomblet is a yellow cylinder with a
length of 20 centimeters and a diameter of 6 centimeters. [1] Lockheed Martin WCMD (Wind Corrected Munitions
The BLU-97/B bomblets are designed to be used against Dispenser) - Designation Systems
armour, personnel and softskin targets and consist of a
shaped charge, a scored steel fragmentation case and a [2] DoD News Brieng, Tuesday, June 22, 1999
zirconium ring for incendiary eects. The CBU-87 can
also be equipped with an optional FZU-39/B proximity [3] Cluster munitions in Kosovo: Analysis of use, contami-
sensor with 10 altitude selections. nation and casualties. Landmine Action. February 2007.
When dropped from an aircraft, the bomb starts spin-
ning. There are 6 speeds that can adjust the bombs rate
of spin. After it drops to a certain altitude, the canis- 309.3 Bibliography
ter breaks open and the submunitions are released. Each
bomblet has a ring of tabs at the tail end, these orient the
bomblet and deploy an inatable decelerator to decrease Equipment guide. Military.com. 25 Mar 2007
the falling speed of the bomblet. When the submunitions
hit the ground, they will cover a large area and the CBU- Vipers in the Storm, Weapons Bunker. 25 Mar
87 can be adjusted so it can cover a smaller or wider area. 2007
802

CBU-87/B Combined Eects Munitions (CEM) -
Global Security
Chapter 310
Model of the SFW displayed at the Textron Defense Systems

booth, Singapore Airshow 2008
The CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon is a United

States Air Force 1,000-pound (450 kg)-class non-guided
(freefall) Cluster Bomb Unit (CBU). It was developed
and produced by Textron Defense Systems. The CBU-97
in conjunction with the Wind Corrected Munitions Dis-
penser guidance tail kit, which converts it to a precision-
guided weapon, is designated CBU-105.[1]
310.1 Overview
The CBU-97 consists of an SUU-66/B tactical munition
dispenser that contains 10 BLU-108 submunitions. Each
submunition contains four hockey-puck-shaped sensor-
fused projectiles called Skeets. These detect target ve-
hicles, such as tanks, armored personnel carriers, trucks
and other support vehicles, and re a kinetic energy pen-
etrator downwards at them.
(15 m) above the ground; if this fails, a back-up timer
disables the Skeet. These features are intended to avoid
310.2 Operation later civilian casualties from unexploded munitions, and
result in an unexploded-ordnance rate of less than 1%.
The 40 Skeets scan an area of 1,500 by 500 feet (460 As the CBU-97 approaches its designated aim-point, the
m 150 m) using infrared and laser sensors, seeking dispenser skin is severed into three panels by an explosive
targets by pattern-matching. When a Skeet nds a tar- cutting charge. The slipstream peels away these pan-
get it res an explosively-formed penetrator to destroy it. els, exposing the 10 BLU-108 submunitions. An airbag
If a Skeet fails to nd a target, it self-destructs 50 feet ejects the forward ve submunitions, then ve in the aft
804
310.5. SEE ALSO 805
bay. Following a preset timeline, the submunitions de- Name: CBU-97 Sensor Fused Weapon (SFW)
ploy parachutes so that they are spaced about 100 feet
(30 m) apart. Then each submunition releases its chute, Length: 92 inches (234 cm)
res a rocket motor that stops its descent and spins it on Diameter: 15.6 inches (40 cm)
its longitudinal axis, and releases Skeets 90 degrees apart,
in pairs. Each spinning Skeet makes a coning motion that Dispenser: SW-65 tactical dispenser
allows it to scan a circular area on the ground.
Bomblets: 10 BLU-108/B
The laser sensor detects changes in apparent terrain
height such as the contour of a vehicle. At the same Warhead: Armour Piercing
time, infrared sensors detect heat signatures, such as those
Unit Cost: $360,000 - baseline [$ FY90]
emitted by the engine of a vehicle. When the combi-
nation of height contours and heat signatures indicative
of a target are detected, the Skeet detonates, ring an
explosively formed penetrator (EFP), a kinetic energy 310.5 See also
penetrator, down into the target at high speed, sucient
to penetrate armor plating and destroy what is protected CBU-107 Passive Attack Weapon, WCMD guided
by it. Even well-armored vehicles such as main battle bomb which drops non-explosive metal rods
tanks, while having massive armor protection on the front
and sides, are only lightly armored above,[2] and relatively
easily penetrated. Each bomb can spread penetrators over 310.6 References
an area of 15 acres (61,000 square metres) or more. Ac-
cording to an ABC News consultant, an attack by this [1] Lockheed Martin WCMD (Wind Corrected Munitions
bomb would basically stop an armored convoy moving Dispenser)
down a road. While the bomb was designed during the
Cold War for ghter-bombers ying at low altitude be- [2] ABC: United States announced the sale to India-based 521
low radar cover to attack Soviet tanks, a single B-52 high CBU-105 cluster bombs, 2011-08-30
altitude heavy bomber can destroy an entire armored di- [3] ABC News; Targeting Tanks with Smart Cluster Bombs
vision with these bombs, where in the past dozens of air-
craft would have had to drop hundreds of bombs for the [4] CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon - GlobalSecurity.org
same eect.[3]
[5] Hoyle, Craig. AERO INDIA: Textron launches produc-
The CBU-97, or CBU-105 version, is deployed by tactical tion of CBU-105 sensor fuzed weapon for India. Flight
aircraft from altitudes of 200 to 20,000 feet (60 to 6,100 Magazine. February 10, 2011.
m) Above Ground Level (AGL) at speeds of 250 to 650
[6] Hoyle, Craig. "" Flight Magazine. June 15, 2011.
knots (460 to 1,200 km/h).[4]
The weapon was rst deployed, but not used, during [7] Hockey Pucks From Hell - Strategypage.com, 13 Septem-
ber 2013
Operation Allied Force when NATO entered the Kosovo
War. Sensor-fused weapons were rst red in combat
during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
In 2010 the US government announced the sale to India of
512 CBU-105 Sensor Fuzed Weapons.[2] The expected
platform is the SEPECAT Jaguar.[5] Sensor Fuzed Weapon (SFW) - Textron Defense
Systems
Saudi Arabia has also requested the CBU-105.[6]
Federation of American Scientists article about
SFWs
310.3 Operators GlobalSecurity.org: CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon
In addition to the United States, the CBU-105 has been GlobalSecurity.org: CBU-105 Wind Corrected Mu-
ordered by India, Oman, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, nition Dispenser (WCMD)
Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates.[7] GlobalSecurity.org: BLU-108/B Submunition
Animated Video of SFW Deployment
[4]
310.4 General characteristics Live exercise / Field test of CBU-97
Type: Freefall bomb
Weight: 927 pounds (420 kg)
Chapter 311
GATOR mine system
The GATOR mine system is a US system of air- 311.1 Airforce CBU-89/B

dropped anti-tank and anti-personnel mines developed
in the 1980s to be compatible with existing cluster dis- The Airforce CBU-89/B is a 450-kilogram (1,000 lb)
pensers. It is used with two dispenser systemsthe Navy cluster munition containing 72 antitank and 22 antiper-
230 kg (500 lb) CBU-78/B and the Air Force 450 kg sonnel mines, consists of an SUU-64 Tactical Munitions
(1,000 lb) CBU-89/B. Additionally the mines are used Dispenser with an optional FZU-39 proximity sensor.
with the land- and helicopter-based Volcano mine system. The TMD is the same general conguration used for the
In use the bombs are dropped from aircraft ying at CBU-87/B Combined Eects Munition. This common-
speeds between 370 and 1,300 km/h (200 and 700 kn), ality allows for high-rate, low-cost production of the dis-
and at altitudes of between 100 and 1,200 meters. An penser.
FMU-140/B fuze controls the opening of the dispenser When the CBU-89 is used in conjunction with the Wind
at one of 10 predetermined altitudes between 90 m and Corrected Munitions Dispenser guidance tail kit, it be-
900 m using a doppler ranging radar or alternatively a come a precision-guided munition designated as CBU-
1.2 second time fuse. Mine arming begins when the dis- 104.[1]
penser opens with the activation of the mines vanadium
pentoxide batteries. The circular mines have a rectangu-
lar plastic aeroballistic adaptor. Once the mines reach
the ground they arm in between 1.2 and 10 seconds. 311.2 Navy CBU-78/B
The mines self-destruct after a preset time which can be
set to 4 hours, 15 hours or 15 days. Any that do not will The Navy CBU-78/B is a 230-kilogram (500 lb) clus-
become disabled after 40 days when the batteries dis- ter munition containing 45 antitank and 15 antipersonnel
charge fully. The self-destruct time is set just prior to mines. It uses the same dispenser as the Mk7 Rockeye.
aircraft takeo using a simple selector switch on the dis-
penser. During the Gulf War the dud rate for this sys-
tem was signicant, in one of seven Kuwati battleeld 311.3 Mines
sectors there were 205 BLU-91 and 841 BLU-92 duds.
Given that 89,235 BLU-91 and 27,535 BLU-92 mines
were used during the Gulf War, this represents a dud rate
311.3.1 BLU-91/B anti-tank mine
of somewhere between 0.5 to 2% for the BLU-91 and to
6 to 21% for the BLU-92 . Additionally, CMS mine eld The BLU-91 /B AT mine is a low at cylinder with a rect-
clearing personnel reported dud GATOR mines detonat- angular aeroballistic shell. A magnetic sensor in the mine
ing with no apparent triggering event, and speculated thatdetects targets, when it detects a suitable target and the
the extreme heat of the Kuwait desert may have triggered target reaches the most vulnerable approach point it det-
detonation. onates the mine. The mine is also triggered if the mine
is moved, or if the battery reaches a certain low voltage
The GATOR system provides a means to emplace point.
mineelds on the ground rapidly using high-speed tactical
aircraft. A typical GATOR mineeld is 650 m long and Once the fuse is triggered, a small clearing charge is red
200 m wide and contains 432 anti-tank mines and 132 that clears any debris that may be on top of the mine. A
anti-personnel mines. The mineelds are used for area second larger charge is triggered 30 ms later, creating an
denial, diversion of moving ground forces, or to immo- Explosively Formed Penetrator capable of penetrating 70
bilize targets to supplement other direct attack weapons. mm of armour, using the Misznay-Schardin eect. The
In the 1991 Gulf War the US Air Force employed 1,105 charge is capable of penetrating the most armoured vehi-
CBU-89s. One reported task was to hamper the move- cles from below.
ments of Iraqi Scud missile launchers. The mine weighs 1.95 kilograms and is 127 millimeters
806
311.5. SEE ALSO 807
in diameter, with 580 grams of an RDX/Estane explosive

mix.
311.3.2 BLU-92/B anti-personnel mine

After the mine reaches the ground, and the arming delay
has passed, a squib is red launching eight tripwires from
the mine. Tension on any of the wires triggers the mine
electronically; it also has an anti-handling ball and can
switch. The mine has an eective fragmentation radius
of about 20 meters.
The mine is approximately 127 millimeters in diameter
and weighs 1.68 kilograms. The mines main charge con-
sists of 420 grams of Composition B-4. It is found unex-
ploded in Iraq and Kuwait after US military usage in the
Gulf War.
311.4 References
[1] Lockheed Martin WCMD (Wind Corrected Munitions
Dispenser)
311.5 See also

BLU-91/B anti-tank mine at ORDATA
BLU-92/B anti-personnel mine at ORDATA
Family of Scatterable Mines (FASCAM)

Chapter 312
GBU-53/B
The GBU-53/B Small Diameter Bomb II is an Ameri- tor or the F-35 Lightning II (even the STOVL F-35B).[8]
can air-launched, guided bomb. However, the F-35 will not be able to operate the bomb
Development was started in 2006 for a 250 pounds until it receives the Block 4A software package in 2022.
The SDB II bomb rack was found to not t inside the
(113 kg) class bomb that can identify and strike mo-
bile targets from stando distances in all weather con- smaller F-35B weapons bay, although modications to x
this will be put o to coincide with the software package
ditions. It will be integrated on the F-15E and F-35 Joint [9]
Strike Fighter.[5] Its rst ight was announced on May 1, so it will be able to deploy the weapon once remedied.
2009.[6] The bomb is being tested using F-15E aircraft and a UH-1
The bomb is being developed by Raytheon. A Boe- helicopter.
ing/Lockheed Martin team attempted to develop it but
lost in a U.S. Air Force competition. Boeing won the
original competition but the project was on hold for sev- 312.1.1 Export
eral years due to a corruption scandal involving Darleen
Druyun. The competition was reopened in September Raytheon is oering the SDB II to the United Kingdom
2005.[7] for their Spear Capability 3 requirement to arm the Royal
Air Force Euroghter Typhoon and Royal Navy F-35B.
Deliveries could potentially begin by 2017. Raytheon is
competing against the MBDA for supplying a weapon for
312.1 Usage the Spear Capability 3 requirement.[10]
The bomb uses GPS/INS system to guide itself into the

general vicinity of a moving target during the initial 312.2 History
search phase, with any necessary course correction up-
dates provided using a Link 16 or UHF data link. The The original Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) was developed
bomb has three modes of target acquisition: millimeter- by Boeing and made for non-moving targets. The SDB
wave radar, Infrared homing based on uncooled imaging II is designed to destroy moving targets in dust and bad
infrared, and semi-active laser. The weapon is capable weather. The Raytheon version was deployed success-
of fusing the information from the sensors to classify the fully in 26 missions over 21 days. Raytheon was awarded
target and can prioritize certain types of targets as desired the contract in August, 2010.[11] The North American di-
when used in semi-autonomous mode. vision of MBDA continues to produce the wings.[12] The
The shaped charge warhead in the bomb has both blast Raytheon contract is worth US$450 million. Boeing an-
and fragmentation eects, which makes it eective nounced that it would not protest the Raytheon award.
against infantry, armor (including MBTs), unhardened
structures and buildings, as well as patrol craft sized boats
and other soft targets. The bomb would be the rst 312.2.1 Testing
purpose-built no-drive zone enforcement weapon.
The use of uncooled imaging infrared has been cited as On July 17, 2012, the SDB II successfully engaged and
innovative and eective in reducing costs. An impor- hit a moving target during a ight test at the White Sands
tant feature of the new weapon is the maximization of Missile Range. The bomb was dropped from an F-15E
the number of the bombs carried by the strike aircraft. A Strike Eagle, then acquired, tracked, and guided itself
total of 28 GBU-53/B can be carried by the F-15E Strike onto a moving [13]
target using its tri-mode seeker, scoring
Eagle utilizing 7 BRU-61/A suspension units, each car- a direct hit.
rying 4 bombs, and eight bombs along with two AIM-120 In January 2013, four SDB IIs were loaded into the
AMRAAM missiles in the weapons bay of the F-22 Rap- weapons bay of an F-35 Lightning II alongside an AIM-
808
120 AMRAAM missile. The successful t check vali- [11] Raytheon wins USA GBU-53/B small diameter bomb
dated that the SDB II was compatible with the F-35 and competition. Defense Industry Daily.
gave adequate clearance in sweeps of inboard and out-
[12] MBDA US Division Corporate
board bay doors.[14]
Two SDB IIs successfully conducted live re tests against [13] Small Diameter Bomb II Successfully Hits Moving Target
on the Ground - Deagel.com, July 19, 2012
moving targets, one in September 2014 and the other
in February 2015. Successful live re tests qualies the [14] Small Diameter Bomb II Fit Check on F-35 Aircraft -
weapon for the Air Force to make a Milestone C decision, Airforce-Technology.com, January 23, 2013
leading to entering low-rate initial production (LRIP),
likely to occur in summer 2015.[15] [15] SDB II undergoes live re testing on F-15E - Flight-
global.com, 19 February 2015
312.3 Planned deployment

The United States Air Force plans to use the bomb on
the F-15E Strike Eagles as a no-drive zone enforcement
weapon. The U.S. Navy and U.S. Marines plan to use it
on their versions of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Deliv-
ery for the rst batch is planned for late 2014. Govern-
ment requirements specify a 2016 delivery date.
312.4 See also

Mark 81 bomb - 250lb general purpose bomb
Brimstone (missile) - 100lb class air to surface mis-

sile
312.5 References
[1] .

Accountability Oce. March 2013. pp. 1012. Re-
[3] Small Diameter Bomb II Completes Live Fire Test De-

stroying T-72 Tank - Military.com, 25 February 2015
[4] http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/sdbii/
[5] Air Force picks small diameter bomb. United Press In-
ternational.
[6] Raytheon GBU-53/B Small Diameter Bomb II Com-

pletes First Flight. Space.
[7] Raytheon Wins USAs GBU-53 Small Diameter Bomb

Competition. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/
Defense Industry Daily.
[8] Small Diameter Bomb II - GBU-53/B. Defense Update.
[9] F-35 Will Not Reach Full Close-Air-Support Potential

Until 2022 - DoDBuzz.com, 10 March 2015
[10] Raytheon takes aim at UK Spear deal with SDB II - Flight-

global.com, 23 July 2014
Chapter 313
M-69 incendiary
The M-69 incendiary cluster bomb was used to bomb 313.2 References
Japanese cities during World War II. They were nick-
named Tokyo calling cards.[1] The M-69 was a plain [1] 180 Degrees Out: The Change in U.S. Strategic Bombing
steel pipe with a hexagonal cross section 3 inches (7.6 Applications, 1935-1955- Dissertation of John M. Cura-
cm) in diameter and 20 inches (51 cm) long. It weighed tola, DPhil University of Kansas (2008). Quoting Tokyo
about 6 pounds (2.7 kg).[2] Calling Cards, Colliers Magazine, April 1945, 44 and
58.
The bomb used napalm (jelled gasoline) as an incendiary
ller, improving on earlier designs which used thermite [2] Ross, Stewart Halsey (2002). Strategic Bombing by the
or magnesium llers that burned more intensely but were United States in World War II: The Myths and the Facts.
less energy and weight ecient and were easier to put McFarland. pp. 107108. ISBN 9780786414123.
out.[3] In Germany they were lled with jellied oil and [3] Science: Incendiary Jelly, Time, Apr. 02, 1945
dropped in clusters of 36 in the non-aerodynamic M-19
bomb.[4] Over Japan they were used in clusters of 38 as [4] Sion, Edward M. (2008). Through Blue Skies to Hell:
part of the nned E-46 'aimable cluster', which opened up Americas Bloody 100th in the Air War Over Germany.
at about 2,000 ft (610 m). After separation, each of the Casemate Publishers. p. 20. ISBN 9781935149965.
38 M-69s would release a 3-foot (1 m) cotton streamer [5] Bradley, F.J. (1999). No Strategic Targets Left. Turner
to orient its fuze downward.[5][6] Upon hitting a building Publishing. p. 33. ISBN 9781563114830.
or the ground, the timing fuze burned for three to ve
seconds and then a white phosphorus charge ignited and [6] http://www.468thbombgroup.org/LinkClick.aspx?
propelled the incendiary lling up to 100 feet (30 m) in fileticket=I8gpYUK3Bhg%3D&tabid=36&mid=467
several aming globs, instantly starting multiple intense [7] http://www.dugway.army.mil/index.php/index/content/
res.[2] id/208
It was tested against typical German and Japanese res-
[8] World Battlefronts: BATTLE OF THE PACIFIC: Fire-
idential structures at Japanese Village and German Vil- birds Flight, Time, Mar. 19, 1945
lage, constructed at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, in
1943.[7] The M-69 was the most successful incendiary in [9] http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/V/AAF-V-20.
the tests.[2] html
Against Japan, the M-69 was carried in the bomb bay [10] World Battlefronts: Ten-Day Wonder, Time, Mar. 26,
of the Boeing B-29 Superfortress, with a typical load 1945
containing 40 cluster bombs, a total of 1520 M-69
bomblets.[2] The bombs were very eective in setting re
to Japanese cities in mass rebombing raids starting in
February 1945 against Kobe.[8] In the rst ten days of
March 1945, raids with the M-69 and M-47,[9] exten-
sive damage was done to Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, and
Kobe.[10]
313.1 See also
Mark 77 bomb
810
Chapter 314
PDU-5B dispenser unit
The PDU-5/B is an aircraft-deployed leaet dispenser

unit. It is derived from the CBU-100 Rockeye Clus-
ter Bomb, developed by the US Air Force circa 1999.
It was used successfully in Afghanistan and Iraq to dis-
tribute leaets.

Designationsystems.net
Lackland Tailspinner - Article mentioning PDU-
5/B; Page 9 of 22
Many variants of leaet bombs; Pages 5-12 of 20
Psywarrior.com Psyop Leaet Dissemination
811
Chapter 315
Perseus (munition)
Perseus is a 900 kg (2,000 lb) thermobaric bomb made

in Greece.[1][2]
315.1 References
[1] The calibration of destruction. The Economist. January
28, 2010. Retrieved 2010-02-01.
[2] Benjamin Sutherland. Modern Warfare, Intelligence and

Deterrence. Retrieved 2013-02-19.
812
Chapter 316
Tomahawk (missile)
For the sounding rocket, see TE-416 Tomahawk. BGM-109D Tomahawk Land Attack Missile Dis-
penser (TLAM-D) with cluster munitions.
The Tomahawk (US /tmhk/ or UK /tmhk/) is
a long-range, all-weather, subsonic cruise missile named RGM/UGM-109E Tomahawk Land Attack Mis-
after the Native American axe. Introduced by McDonnell sile (TLAM Block IV) improved version of the
Douglas in the 1970s, it was initially designed as a TLAM-C.
medium to long-range, low-altitude missile that could
be launched from a surface platform. It has been im-
BGM-109G Ground Launched Cruise Missile
proved several times, and due to corporate divestitures
(GLCM) with a W84 nuclear warhead; withdrawn
and acquisitions, is now made by Raytheon. Some Tom-
from service in 1987.
ahawks were also manufactured by General Dynamics
(now Boeing Defense, Space & Security).[3][4]
AGM-109H/L Medium Range Air to Surface Mis-
sile (MRASM) a shorter range, turbojet powered
ASM with cluster munitions ; never entered service,
316.1 Description cost US$569,000 (1999).[5]
The Tomahawk missile family consists of a number of

subsonic, jet engine-powered missiles designed to at- Ground-launched cruise missiles (GLCM) and their
tack a variety of surface targets. Although a number of truck-like launch vehicles were employed at bases in
launch platforms have been deployed or envisaged, only Europe; they were withdrawn from service to com-
sea (both surface ship and submarine) launched variants ply with the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces
are currently in service. Tomahawk has a modular design, Treaty. Many of the anti-ship versions were converted
allowing a wide variety of warhead, guidance, and range into TLAMs at the end of the Cold War. The Block
capabilities. III TLAMs that entered service in 1993 can y farther
and use Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers to
strike more precisely. Block III TLAM-Cs retain the
DSMAC II navigation system, allowing GPS only mis-
316.2 Variants sions, which allow for rapid mission planning, with some
reduced accuracy, DSMAC only missions, which take
There have been several variants of the BGM-109 Tom- longer to plan but terminal accuracy is somewhat bet-
ahawk employing various types of warheads. ter, and GPS aided missions which combine both DS-
MAC II and GPS navigation which provides the greatest
BGM-109A Tomahawk Land Attack Missile accuracy. Block IV TLAMs are completely redesigned
Nuclear (TLAM-A) with a W80 thermonuclear with an improved turbofan engine. The F107-402 en-
weapon. Retired from service sometime between gine provided the new BLK III with a throttle control,
2010 and 2013.[2] allowing in-ight speed changes. This engine also pro-
vided better fuel economy. The Block IV TLAMs have
RGM/UGM-109B Tomahawk Anti Ship Missile enhanced deep-strike capabilities and are equipped with
(TASM) active radar homing anti-ship missile a real-time targeting system for striking eeting targets.
variant; withdrawn from service in the 1990s. Additionally, the BLOCK IV missiles have the capabili-
ties to be re-targeted inight, and the ability to transmit,
BGM-109C Tomahawk Land Attack Missile Con- via satcom, an image immediately prior to impact to as-
ventional (TLAM-C) with a unitary warhead. This sist in determining if the missile was attacking the target
was initially a modied Bullpup warhead. and the likely damage from the attack.
813
814 CHAPTER 316. TOMAHAWK (MISSILE)
316.3 Upgrades cern with its ability to clearly discriminate between tar-
gets from a long distance, which would be more reli-
able with the new seekers passive detection and active
millimeter-wave radar;[10] the Tomahawk would likely
compete against a version of the Lockheed Martin Long
Range Anti-Ship Missile for ship-launched needs.[11]
Raytheon is planning to oer to perform the upgrades as
the older Block IVs are brought back to the factory for
recertication around 2018.[12]
A supersonic version of the Tomahawk is under consider-
ation for development with a ramjet to increase its speed
to Mach 3. A limiting factor to this is the dimensions of
shipboard launch tubes. Instead of modifying every ship
able to carry cruise missiles, the ramjet-powered Toma-
UGM-109 Tomahawk missile detonates above a test target, 1986 hawk would still have to t within a 21-inch diameter and
20-foot long tube.[9]
A major improvement to the Tomahawk is network-
centric warfare-capabilities, using data from multiple sen-
sors (aircraft, UAVs, satellites, foot soldiers, tanks, ships)
to nd its target. It will also be able to send data from its 316.4 Launch systems
sensors to these platforms. It will be a part of the net-
worked force being implemented by the Pentagon. Each missile is stored and launched from a pressurized
canister[13] that protects it during transportation and stor-
The Tactical Tomahawk takes advantage of a loitering
feature in the missiles ight path and allows commanders age and acts as a launch tube. These canisters were racked
in Armored Box Launchers (ABL), which were installed
to redirect the missile to an alternative target, if required.
It can be reprogrammed in-ight to attack predesignated on the re-activated Iowa class battleships USS Iowa, USS
New Jersey, USS Missouri, and USS Wisconsin. The
targets with GPS coordinates stored in its memory or to
any other GPS coordinates. Also, the missile can send ABLs were also installed on eight Spruance class destroy-
ers, the four Virginia class cruisers, and the USS Long
data about its status back to the commander. It entered
service with the US Navy in late 2004. The Tactical Tom- Beach. These canisters are also in Vertical launching sys-
ahawk Weapons Control System (TTWCS) added the ca- tems (VLS) in other surface ships, Capsule Launch Sys-
pability for limited mission planning on board the ring tems (CLS) in the later Los Angeles class submarines, and
unit (FRU). in submarines torpedo tubes. All ABL equipped ships
have been decommissioned.
In 2012, the USN studied applying Advanced Anti-
Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) technology into the For submarine-launched missiles (called UGM-109s), af-
Tactical Tomahawk.[6] ter being ejected by gas pressure (vertically via the VLS)
or by water impulse (horizontally via the torpedo tube),
In February 2014, the U.S. Navy began working on a the missile exits the water and a solid-fuel booster is ig-
bunker-busting warhead for the Tomahawk. Called the nited for the rst few seconds of airborne ight until tran-
Joint Multi-Eects Warhead System (JMEWS), it would sition to cruise.
weigh 3,500 lb (1,600 kg) and be compatible with exist-
ing Block IV missiles.[7] After achieving ight, the missiles wings are unfolded
for lift, the airscoop is exposed and the turbofan engine
In 2014, Raytheon began testing Block IV improvements is employed for cruise ight. Over water, the Tomahawk
to attack sea and moving land targets.[8] The new passive uses inertial guidance or GPS to follow a preset course;
radar seeker will passively pick up the electromagnetic once over land, the missiles guidance system is aided by
radar signature of a target and follow it, and actively send Terrain Contour Matching (TERCOM). Terminal guid-
out a signal to bounce o potential targets before impact ance is provided by the Digital Scene Matching Area Cor-
to discriminate its legitimacy before impact.[7] Mounting relation (DSMAC) system or GPS, producing a claimed
the multi-mode sensor on the missiles nose would re- Circular error probable of about 10 meters.
move fuel space, but company ocials believe the Navy
would be willing to give up space for the sensors new The Tomahawk Weapon System consists of the missile,
technologies.[9] The new seeker could make the Toma- Theater Mission Planning Center (TMPC)/Aoat Plan-
hawk a candidate for the U.S. Navys Oensive Anti- ning System, and either the Tomahawk Weapon Control
Surface Warfare (OASuW) Increment II requirement. System (on surface ships) or Combat Control System (for
The previous Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile, retired over submarines).
a decade ago, was equipped with inertial guidance and Several versions of control systems have been used, in-
the seeker of the Harpoon (missile) and there was concluding:
316.6. OPERATORS 815
v2 TWCS Tomahawk Weapon Control System Total program cost: $US 11,210,000,000[16]
(1983), also known as green screens, was based
on an old tank computing system.
v3 ATWCS Advanced Tomahawk Weapon Con- 316.6 Operators
trol System (1994), rst Commercial O the Shelf,
uses HP-UX.
v4 TTWCS Tactical Tomahawk Weapon Control
System, (2003).
v5 TTWCS Next Generation Tactical Tomahawk
Weapon Control System. (2006)
Launch of a Tactical Tomahawk cruise missile from

the USS Stethem.
The USS Missouri launching a Tomahawk missile. Tomahawk operators
Submarine launch from USS Florida.
Launch trajectory from an Arleigh Burke class de-
stroyer.
316.5 Navigation and other details

The TLAM-D contains 166 sub-munitions in 24 canis-
ters; 22 canisters of seven each, and two canisters of six
each to conform to the dimensions of the airframe. The
sub-munitions are the same type of Combined Eects
Munition bomblet used in large quantities by the U.S.
Air Force with the CBU-87 Combined Eects Munition.
The sub-munitions canisters are dispensed two at a time,
one per side. The missile can perform up to ve separate
target segments which enables it to attack multiple tar-
gets. However, in order to achieve a sucient density of
coverage typically all 24 canisters are dispensed sequen-
tially from back to front.
TERCOM Terrain Contour Matching. A digital repre-
sentation of an area of terrain is mapped based on digital
terrain elevation data or stereo imagery. This map is then
inserted into a TLAM mission which is then loaded on
to the missile. When the missile is in ight it compares
the stored map data with radar altimeter data collected Remnants of a shot down Tomahawk from Operation Allied
as the missile overies the map. Based on comparison Force, showing the turbofan engine at the Museum of Aviation
results the missiles inertial navigation system is updated in Belgrade, Serbia.
and the missile corrects its course. TERCOM was based
on, and was a signicant improvement on, Fingerprint,
a technology developed in 1964 for the SLAM.[14] 316.6.1 United States Navy
On July 26, 2014 it was announced that 196 additional
Block IV missiles had been purchased.[15] In the 1991 Gulf War, 288 Tomahawks were
launched. The rst salvo was red by the cruiser
DSMAC Digital Scene Matching Area Correlation. A USS San Jacinto on January 17, 1991. The attack
digitized image of an area is mapped and then inserted submarines USS Pittsburgh and USS Louisville fol-
into a TLAM mission. During the ight the missile will lowed.
verify that the images that it has stored correlates with the
image it sees below itself. Based on comparison results On 26 June 1993, 23 Tomahawks were red at the
the missiles inertial navigation system is updated and the Iraqi Intelligence Services command and control
missile corrects its course. center.
On 10 September 1995, the USS Normandy The United States Navy has a stockpile of around
launched 13 Tomahawk missiles from the central 3,500 Tomahawk cruise missiles of all variants, with
Adriatic Sea against a key air defense radio relay a combined worth of approximately US $2.6 billion.
tower in Bosnian Serb territory during Operation
Deliberate Force. Tomahawk production for the United States Navy
is scheduled to end in Fiscal Year 2015,[26] with a
On 3 September 1996, 44 cruise missiles between replacement entering service a decade later.[27]
UGM-109 and B-52 launched AGM-86s, were red
at air defence targets in Southern Iraq.
316.6.2 Royal Navy
On 20 August 1998, around 75 Tomahawk missiles
were red simultaneously to two separate target ar- In 1995 the US agreed to sell 65 Tomahawks to the UK
eas in Afghanistan and Sudan in retaliation to the for torpedo-launch from her nuclear submarines. The rst
bombings of American embassies by Al-Qaeda. missiles were acquired and test-red in November 1998;
all Royal Navy eet submarines are now Tomahawk ca-
On 16 December 1998, Tomahawk missiles were pable, including the new Astute-class.[28][29][30][31] The
red at key Iraqi targets in during Operation Desert Kosovo War in 1999 saw the Swiftsure-class HMS Splen-
Fox. did become the rst British submarine to re the Toma-
hawk in combat. It has been reported that seventeen of
In spring 1999, 218 Tomahawk missiles were the twenty Tomahawks red by the British during that
red by US ships and a British submarine during conict hit their targets accurately; the UK subsequently
Operation Allied Force against key targets in Serbia bought 20 more Block III to replenish stocks.[32] The
and Montenegro. Royal Navy has since red Tomahawks during the 2000s
Afghanistan War, in Operation Telic as the British con-
In October 2001, approximately 50 Tomahawk mis- tribution to the 2003 Iraq War, and during Operation El-
siles struck targets in Afghanistan in the opening lamy in Libya in 2011.
hours of Operation Enduring Freedom.
In April 2004, the UK and US governments reached an
During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, more than 802 agreement for the British to buy 64 of the new gener-
tomahawk missiles were red at key Iraqi targets.[17] ation of Tomahawk missilethe Block IV or TacTom
missile.[33] It entered service with the Royal Navy on 27
On 17 December 2009, two Tomahawk missiles March 2008, three months ahead of schedule.[34] In July
were red at targets in Yemen.[18] One of the tar- 2014 the US approved the sale to the UK of a further 65
gets was hit by a TLAM-D missile. The target was submarine-launched Block IVs at a cost of US$140m in-
described as an 'alleged Al-Qaeda training camp' cluding spares and support;[35] as of 2011 the Block III
in al-Majalah in al-Mahfad a region of the Abyan missiles were on Britains books at 1.1m and the Block
governorate of Yemen. Amnesty International re- IV at 0.87m including VAT.[36]
ported that 55 people were killed in the attack, in-
The Sylver Vertical Launching System on the new Type
cluding 41 civilians (21 children, 14 women, and six
45 destroyer is claimed by its manufacturers to have
men). The US and Yemen governments refused to
the capability to re the Tomahawk, although the A50
conrm or deny involvement, but diplomatic cables
launcher carried by Type 45 is too short for the weapon
released as part of United States diplomatic cables
(the longer A70 silo would be required). Nevertheless,
leak later conrmed the missile was red by a US
[19] Type 45 has been designed with weight and space mar-
Navy ship.
gin for a strike-length Mk41 or Sylver A70 silo to be
On 19 March 2011, 124 Tomahawk missiles[20] retrotted, allowing Type 45 to use TLAM Block IV if
were red by U.S. and British forces (112 US, 12 required, and the new Type 26 frigates will have strike-
British)[21] against at least 20 Libyan targets around length VLS tubes. SYLVER user France is developing
Tripoli and Misrata.[22] As of 22 March 2011, 159 MdCN, a version of the Storm Shadow/Scalp cruise mis-
UGM-109 were red by US and UK ships against sile that has a shorter range but a higher speed than Tom-
Libyan targets.[23] ahawk and can be launched from the SYLVER system.
On 23 September 2014, 47 Tomahawk missiles

were red by the United States from the USS Arleigh 316.6.3 United States Air Force
Burke and USS Phillipine Sea, which were operating
from international waters in the Red Sea and Per- Main article: BGM-109G Ground Launched Cruise
sian Gulf, against ISIL targets in Syria in the vicin- Missile
ity of Ar-Raqqah, Deir ez-Zor, Al-Hasakah and Al-
Bukamal,[24] and against Khorasan group targets in The USAF is a former operator of the nuclear-armed ver-
Syria west of Aleppo.[25] sion of the Tomahawk, the BGM-109G Gryphon.
316.8. SEE ALSO 817
316.6.4 Other users 316.8 See also

List of missiles
The Netherlands (2005) and Spain (2002 and 2005)
were interested in acquiring the Tomahawk system, RK-55
but the orders were later cancelled in 2007 and 2009
3M-54 Klub
respectively.[37][38]
Raduga Kh-55
In 2009 the Congressional Commission on the Strategic
Posture of the United States stated that Japan would be Nirbhay
concerned if the TLAM-N were retired, but the govern- AGM-129 ACM
ment of Japan has denied that it had expressed any such Hyunmoo-3
view.[39]
DH-10
It is believed that the SLCM version of the Popeye was Babur (cruise missile)
developed by Israel after the US Clinton administration
refused an Israeli request in 2000 to purchase Toma- UGM-89 Perseus
hawk SLCMs because of international MTCR prolifera-
tion rules.[40] ArcLight (missile)
As of March 12, 2015 Poland has expressed interest in Scalp Naval (missile)
purchasing long-range Tomahawk missiles for its future
submarines.[41]
316.9 References
316.7 Replacement 2014. p. 65.
[2] Kristensen, Hans M. (March 18, 2013). US Navy In-

As of 2014, the U.S. Navy is seeking a replacement struction Conrms Retirement of Nuclear Tomahawk
Cruise Missile. Strategic Security. Federation of Ameri-
for the Tomahawk, the Next-Generation Land Attack
can Scientists. Retrieved July 9, 2014.
Weapon, which shall have increased lethality and sur-
vivability; options include Tomahawk improvements or a [3] "McDonnell Douglas: History New Markets, Boeing
new weapon. The Navy is developing a surface-launched history website.
version of the air-launched Long Range Anti-Ship Mis-
[4] "Raytheon Tomahawk Cruise Missile, Raytheon Toma-
sile, aiming to defeat enemy air defenses using sensors
hawk Evolution Handout.
and autonomous ight. A future version of the LRASM
may include several vendors, but Lockheed Martin has [5] The US Navy - Fact File
been the principal developer and is investing funds to de-
[6] Viability Study associated with Advanced Anti-
velop and test an LRASM that can be launched from ver-
[42] Radiation Guided Missile.
tical launch systems on Navy ships. The Navy believes
its inventory of 4,000 Tomahawk missiles are sucient [7] Navy Wants Its Tomahawks to Bust More Bunkers - De-
for future scenarios, so production is planned to end af- fensetech.org, 14 February 2014
ter 2016, relying on stocks until the next-generation land-
[8] Swim, Rocket, Fly and Hunt: Navys Morphing Missile
attack weapon is developed; Raytheon opposes this ac- Gets New Abilities.
tion, claiming that Tomahawk production takes over 100
suppliers in 24 US states, and that restarting production [9] Facing End of Tomahawk Production, Raytheon Plays
could take two years and increase costs. It could take up Industrial Base Card - Nationaldefensemagazine.org, 2
to a decade for a replacement to be elded, during which April 2014
[43]
time Tomahawk stocks may potentially be depleted. [10] New Seeker Could Put Tomahawk In Long-Range Anti-
The Navys FY 2016 budget supports a new Next Gener- Ship Missile Race - Aviationweek.com, 12 November
ation Strike Capability (NGSC) eort, which combines 2014
the Next-Generation Land Attack Weapon with the Of-
fensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) Increment II ef- [11] Arming New Platforms Will Push Up Value Of Missiles
Market - Aviationweek.com, 5 January 2015
fort to procure a new anti-ship missile. NGSC could ei-
ther be a common weapon or a family of weapons, but [12] MEHTA, AARON (16 July 2014). Raytheon Targeting
the goal is to use technologies across multiple mission Tomahawk of the Future. www.defensenews.com (Gan-
areas.[44] nett Government Media). Retrieved 18 July 2014.
[13] GAO (October 1997). Test and evaluation impact of [34] Royal Navy - World-Class Missile Achieves In-Service
DOD. DIANE Publishing. ISBN 978-1428979291. Re- Date
trieved 2013-08-30.
[35] United Kingdom - Tomahawk Block IV Torpedo
[14] SLAM Supersonic Low-Altitude Missile. GlobalSecu- Launched Land-Attack Missiles. Defense Security Co-
rity.org. Retrieved January 25, 2014. operation Agency. 1 July 2014.
[15] http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/07/26/ [36] Daily Hansard - Written Answers to Questions. UK Par-

the-us-military-just-doubled-its-purchases-of-toma. liament. 17 May 2011.
aspx
[37] No Tomahawks for defence, jets up for sale - New Europe
[16] FAS - BGM-109 Tomahawk
[38]
[17] BGM-109 Tomahawk - Smart Weapons
[39] Japanese Government Rejects TLAM/N Claim
[18] Cruise Missiles Strike Yemen - ABC News. Abc-
news.go.com (2009-12-18). Retrieved on 2013-08-16. [40]
[19] Landmine monitor, US 2011 report. [41]
[20] Live blog: allied airstrikes continue against Gadha [42] Navy Seeks Next Generation Tomahawk - DoDBuzz.com,
forces. CNN. 2011-03-20. 27 March 2014
[21] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/ [43] Proposed halt of Tomahawk missile buys raises concerns
africaandindianocean/libya/8400079/ at Raytheon - Azstarnet.com, 13 April 2014
Libya-Navy-running-short-of-Tomahawk-missiles.html
[44] F-35Cs Cut Back As U.S. Navy Invests In Stando
[22] U.S. launches rst missiles against Gadha forces. CNN. Weapons - Aviationweek.com, 3 February 2015
2011-03-19.
[23] U.S. aviators rescued; Gadha remains deant. CNN.

11 May 2011. 316.10 External links
[24] Sept. 23: U.S. Military, Partner Nations Conduct
Airstrikes Against ISIL in Syria. http://www.centcom. Raytheon Ocial site for the Tomahawk missile
mil/en''. 23 Sep 2014. Retrieved 23 Sep 2014.
[25] Al-Qaeda Khorasan cell in Syria attack 'was imminent'".

http://www.bbc.com/news/''. 23 Sep 2014. Retrieved 23
Sep 2014.
[26] Obama to kill Navys Tomahawk, Hellre mis-

sile programs in budget decimation newsurl=http:
//p.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/25/
obama-kill-navys-tomahawk-hellfire-missile-program/".
[27] McGrath, Bryan (March 25, 2014). This is What

Assumption of Additional Risk Looks Like. www.
informationdissemination.net. Retrieved 27 March 2014.
[28] Astute Class Submarines. BAE Systems Maritime Sub-

marines. BAE Systems. Retrieved 12 November 2013.
[29] New Royal Navy Submarine Fires First Tomahawk Mis-

siles Across North American Skies. Royal Navy/MOD.
Retrieved 12 November 2013.
[30] Awesome Astute surpassed every expectation on her

toughest test yet. Royal Navy/MOD. Retrieved 12
November 2013.
[31] Astute on show in the worlds biggest naval base. Royal

Navy/MOD. Retrieved 12 November 2013.
[32] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/
cmhansrd/vo991102/text/91102w07.htm#91102w07.
htm_sbhd3
[33] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/
cmhansrd/vo040421/wmstext/40421m01.htm
Chapter 317
FIM-92 Stinger
The FIM-92 Stinger is a personal portable infrared hom- that directs the missile towards the target airframe instead
ing surface-to-air missile (SAM), which can be adapted of its exhaust plume.
to re from ground vehicles or helicopters (as an AAM),
There are three main variants in use: the Stinger
developed in the United States and entered into service in basic, STINGER-Passive Optical Seeker Technique
1981. Used by the militaries of the United States and by
(POST), and STINGER-Reprogrammable Microproces-
29 other countries, it is manufactured by Raytheon Mis- sor (RMP). These correspond to the FIM-92A, FIM-92B,
sile Systems, under license by EADS in Germany and by
and FIM-92C and later variants respectively.
Roketsan in Turkey with 70,000 missiles produced. It is
classied as a Man-Portable Air-Defense System (MAN- The POST has a dual-detector seeker: IR and UV.
PADS). This allows it to distinguish targets from countermeasures
much better than the Redeye and FIM-92A, which have
IR-only. While modern ares can have an IR signature
that is closely matched to the launching aircrafts en-
317.1 Description gine exhaust, there is a readily distinguishable dierence
in UV signature between ares and jet engines.[2] The
Stinger-RMP is so-called because of its ability to load a
Light to carry and easy to operate, the FIM-92 Stinger new set of software via ROM chip inserted in the grip
is a passive surface-to-air missile, that can be shoulder- at the depot. If this download to the missile fails dur-
red by a single operator (although standard military ing power-up, basic functionality runs o the on-board
procedure calls for two operators, spotter and gunner). ROM. The four-processor RMP has 4 KB of RAM for
The FIM-92B missile can also be red from the M-1097 each processor. Since the downloaded code runs from
Avenger and the M6 Linebacker. The missile is also capa- RAM, there is little space to spare, particularly for pro-
ble of being deployed from a Humvee Stinger rack, and cessors dedicated to seeker input processing and target
can be used by airborne troops. A helicopter launched analysis.
version exists called Air-to-Air Stinger (ATAS).
The missile is 5.0 ft (1.52 m) long and 2.8 in (70 mm)
in diameter with 10 cm ns. The missile itself weighs 317.2 History
22 lb (10.1 kg), while the missile with launcher weighs
approximately 34 lb (15.2 kg). The Stinger is launched by
a small ejection motor that pushes it a safe distance from
the operator before engaging the main two-stage solid-
fuel sustainer, which accelerates it to a maximum speed of
Mach 2.54 (750 m/s). The warhead is a 3 kg penetrating
hit-to-kill warhead type with an impact fuze and a self-
destruct timer.
To re the missile, a BCU (Battery Coolant Unit) is in-
serted into the handguard. This shoots a stream of ar-
gon gas into the system, as well as a chemical energy
charge that enables the acquisition indicators and mis-
sile to get power. The batteries are somewhat sensitive
to abuse, with a limited amount of gas. Over time, and
without proper maintenance, they can become unservice- New Mexico Army National Guard soldiers train with a Stinger
able. The IFF system receives power from a recharge- missile launcher in 1999.
able battery. Guidance to the target is initially through
proportional navigation, then switches to another mode Initial work on the missile was begun by General Dynam-
819
820 CHAPTER 317. FIM-92 STINGER
317.3 Variants
FIM-92A, Stinger Basic: The basic model.[3]
FIM-92B, Stinger POST: In this version, the in-
frared seeker head was replaced by a combined
IR/UV seeker that utilized rosette scanning. This re-
sulted in achieving signicantly higher resistance to
enemy countermeasures (Flares) and natural distur-
bances. Production ran from 1981 to 1987, a total
of 600 missiles were produced.[3]
FIM-92C, Stinger RMP: The resistance to interfer-
A U.S. Marine res an FIM-92A Stinger missile during a July
ence was increased again by adding more powerful
2009 training exercise in California. digital computer components. Moreover, the soft-
ware of the missile could now be recongured in
a short time in order to respond quickly and ef-
ciently to new types of countermeasures. Until
1991, some 20,000 units were produced for the U.S.
ics in 1967 as the Redeye II. It was accepted for further Army alone.[3]
development by the U.S. Army in 1971 and designated
FIM-92D: Various modications were continued
FIM-92; the Stinger appellation was chosen in 1972. Be-
with this version in order to increase the resistance
cause of technical diculties that dogged testing, the rst
to interference.[3]
shoulder launch was not until mid-1975. Production of
the FIM-92A began in 1978 to replace the FIM-43 Red- FIM-92E: Stinger - RMP Block I: By adding a new
eye. An improved Stinger with a new seeker, the FIM- rollover sensor and revised control software, the
92B, was produced from 1983 alongside the FIM-92A. ight behavior was signicantly improved. Addi-
Production of both the A and B types ended in 1987 with tionally, the performance against small targets such
around 16,000 missiles produced. as drones, cruise missiles and light reconnaissance
The replacement FIM-92C had been developed from helicopters was improved. The rst deliveries be-
1984 and production began in 1987. The rst examples gan in 1995. Almost the entire stock of U.S. Stinger
were delivered to front-line units in 1989. C-type mis- missiles was replaced by this version.[3]
siles were tted with a reprogrammable electronics sys- FIM-92F: A further improvement of the E-version
tem to allow for upgrades. The missiles which received and the current production version.[3]
a counter-measures upgrade were designated D and later
upgrades to the D were designated G. FIM-92G: An unspecied upgrade for the D
variant.[3]
The FIM-92E or Block I was developed from 1992 and
delivered from 1995 (certain sources state that the FIM- FIM-92H: Indicates a D-variant that has been up-
92D is also part of the Block I development). The main graded to the E standard.[3]
changes were again in the sensor and the software, im- FIM-92?, Stinger - RMP Block II: This variant was
proving the missiles performance against smaller and a planned developed based on the E version. The
low-signature targets. A software upgrade in 2001 was improvements included an imaging infrared seeker
designated F. Block II development began in 1996 using head from the AIM-9X. With this modication, the
a new focal plane array sensor to improve the missiles detection distance and the resistance to jamming
eectiveness in high clutter environments and increase was to be greatly increased . Changes to the air-
the engagement range to about 25,000 feet (7,600 m). frame would furthermore enable a signicant in-
Production was scheduled for 2004, but Janes reports crease in range. Although the missile reached the
that this may be on hold. testing phase, the program was dropped in 2002 for
Since 1984 the Stinger has been issued to many U.S. Navy budgetary reasons.[3]
warships for point defense, particularly in Middle East-
FIM-92J, Block 1 missile upgrade to replace ag-
ern waters, with a three-man team that can perform other
ing components to extend service life and addi-
duties when not conducting Stinger training or mainte-
tional 10 years. The warhead is also equipped with
nance. Until it was decommissioned in September 1993,
a proximity fuse to increase eectiveness against
the U.S. Navy had at least one Stinger Gunnery Detach-
unmanned aerial vehicles.[4]
ment attached to Beachmaster Unit Two in Little Creek
Virginia. The sailors of this detachment would deploy to ADSM, Air Defence Missile Suppression: A variant
carrier battlegroups in teams of two to four sailors per with an additional passive radar seeker, this variant
ship as requested by Battle Group Commanders. can also be used against radar wave transmitters.[3]
317.5. SERVICE 821
317.4 Comparison chart to other the SAS, in the vicinity of Mount Kent. Six National
Gendarmerie Special Forces were killed and eight more
MANPADS wounded.[10] The main MANPADS used by both sides
during the Falklands War was the Blowpipe missile.
317.5 Service
317.5.2 Soviet War in Afghanistan
See also: List of Soviet aircraft losses in Afghanistan
The story of the Stingers in Afghanistan was popularly

told in the media by western sources primarily, notably in
the references written in Charlie Wilsons War by George
Crile, and Ghost Wars by Steve Coll.
In late 1985, several groups, such as Free the Eagle, be-
gan arguing the CIA was not doing enough to support the
Mujahideen in the Soviet-Afghan war. Michael Pillsbury,
Vincent Cannistraro, and others put enormous bureau-
cratic pressure on the CIA to begin providing the Stinger
U.S. Army soldiers from the 11th Air Defense Artillery Brigade to the rebels. The idea was controversial because up to
stand next to a FIM-92A Stinger portable missile launcher during
that point, the CIA had been operating with the pretense
the Persian Gulf War.
that the United States was not involved in the war directly,
for various reasons. All weapons supplied at that point
were non-U.S. made weapons, like Type 56 ries pur-
chased from China,[11] and AK-47 and AKM AK deriva-
tives purchased from Egypt.
The nal say-so came down to President General
Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq of Pakistan, through whom the
CIA had to pass all of its funding and weapons to the
Mujahideen. President Zia constantly had to gauge how
much he could make the pot boil in Afghanistan without
provoking a Soviet invasion of his own country. Accord-
ing to George Crile III, U.S. congressman Charlie Wil-
son's relationship with Zia was instrumental in the nal
go-ahead for the Stinger introduction.[11]
Wilson and his associates at rst viewed the Stinger as
just adding another component to the lethal mix we were
A Stinger missile being launched from a U.S. Marine Corps building.[11] Their increasingly successful Afghanistan
AN/TWQ-1 Avenger in April 2000. strategy, formed largely by Michael G. Vickers, was
based on a broad mix of weapons, tactics, and logistics,
not a 'silver bullet solution' of a single weapon. Fur-
thermore the previous attempts to provide MANPADs to
317.5.1 Falklands War the Mujahideen, namely the SA7 and Blowpipe, hadn't
worked very well.[11]
The Stingers combat debut occurred during the
Falklands War fought between Britain and Argentina. At Engineer Ghaar of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Hezb-i-
the onset of the conict soldiers of the British Army's Islami, brought down the rst Hind gunship with a Stinger
Special Air Service had been clandestinely equipped on September 25, 1986 near Jalalabad.[11][12][13] The
with six missiles, although they had received little Central Intelligence Agency eventually supplied nearly
instruction in their use. The sole SAS trooper who had 500 Stingers (some sources claim 1,5002,000) to the
received training on the system, and was due to train Mujahideen in Afghanistan as part of Operation Cy-
other troops, was killed in a helicopter crash on 19 clone.[14] with the supply of 250 launchers.[15]
May.[8] Nonetheless, on 21 May 1982 an SAS soldier The impact of the Stinger on the outcome of the war is
engaged and shot down an Argentine Pucar ground contested, particularly in the translation between the im-
attack aircraft with a Stinger.[9] On 30 May, at about pact on the tactical/battleeld to the strategic level with-
11.00 a.m., an Aerospatiale SA-330 Puma helicopter drawal, and the inuence the rst had on the second.[16]
was brought down by another missile, also red by While Fort Leavenworth's Dr. Robert F. Baumann de-
scribes its impact on Soviet tactical operations as un- missiles after the end of hostilities proved incomplete.
mistakable in Compound warfare that fatal knot,[17][18] The battery of a Stinger lasts for four or ve years,
an opinion similarly supported by Yossef Bodanskys so any weapons supplied in the 1980s would now be
Sams in Afghanistan: assessing the impact published in inoperative.[32]
a 1987 issue of Janes Defence Weekly.[19][20] Soviet,
and later, Russian, accounts give little signicance to the
Stinger for strategically ending the war.[14][21][22] 317.5.4 Libyan invasion of Chad
According to a 1993 US Air Defense Artillery publica-
The Chadian government received Stinger missiles from
tion, the Muhajideen gunners used the supplied Stingers
the United States, when Libya invaded the northern part
to score approximately 269 total aircraft kills in about 340
of the African country. On 8 October 1987, a Libyan
engagements, a 79-percent kill ratio.[23] Which if accu-
Su-22MK was shot down by a FIM-92A red by Cha-
rate, would make it responsible for over half of the 451
dian forces. The pilot, Capt. Diya al-Din, ejected and
Soviet aircraft losses in Afghanistan if they only engaged
was captured. He was later granted political asylum by
Soviet aircraft, however as the Afghan occupation was
the French government. During the recovery operation,
fought both by Soviet and Afghan government aircraft, a
a Libyan MiG-23MS was shot down by a FIM-92A.[33]
large number of kills inicted by the Stinger was on air-
craft operated by those of the Afghan government, who
were increasingly sent on the more dangerous missions
317.5.5 Tajik civil war
by the Soviets.[20] An analysis of the Stingers role in the
withdrawal of the Soviet Union, the statistics supporting
Tajik Islamist opposition forces operating from
the Stingers unusually high kill ratio and the chronol-
Afghanistan during the 199297 Tajik civil war en-
ogy leading up to the decision to deploy the weapon, was
countered a heavy air campaign launched by Russia and
made in 1999.[20]
Uzbekistan to prop up the government in Dushanbe that
According to Crile, who includes information from included border and cross-border raids. During one of
Alexander Prokhanov, the Stinger was a turning these operations, a Sukhoi Su-24M was shot down on 3
point.[11] Milt Bearden saw it as a "force multiplier" and May 1993 with an Stinger red by fundamentalists. Both
morale booster.[11] Charlie Wilson, the congressman be- Russian pilots were rescued.[34][35][36]
hind the United States Operation Cyclone, described the
rst Stinger Mi-24 shootdowns in 1986 as one of the three
crucial moments of his experience in the war, saying we 317.5.6 Chechen War
never really won a set piece battle before September 26,
and then we never lost one afterwards.[24][25] He was Russian ocials claimed several times the presence of
given the rst spent Stinger tube as a gift and kept it on US-made Stinger missiles in the hands of the Chechen
his oce wall.[11][25] militia and insurgents. They attributed few of their aerial
losses to the American MANPADS. The presence of such
The last Stingers were supplied in 1988 after increasing
missiles was conrmed by photo evidence even if it is not
reports of ghters selling them to Iran and thawing re-
[13][26] clear their actual number nor their origin.[37]
lations with Moscow. After the 1989 Soviet with-
drawal from Afghanistan, the U.S. attempted to buy back It is believed one Sukhoi Su-24 was shot down by a
the Stinger missiles, with a $55 million program launched Stinger missile during the Second Chechen War.[38]
in 1990 to buy back around 300 missiles (US$183,300
each).[27] The U.S. government collected most of the
Stingers it had delivered, but by 1996 around 600 were 317.5.7 Sri Lankan Civil War
unaccounted for and some found their way into Croatia,
Iran, Sri Lanka, Qatar and North Korea.[28][29] Accord- The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam also managed to
ing to the CIA, already in August 1988 the U.S. had acquire one or several Stingers, possibly from former Mu-
demanded from Qatar the return of Stinger missiles.[30] jahideen stocks, and used at least one to down a Sri Lanka
Wilson later told CBS he lived in terror that a civilian Air Force Mi-24 on November 10, 1997.[29][39]
airliner would be shot down by a Stinger, but he did not
have misgivings about having provided Stingers to defeat
the Soviets.[25] 317.5.8 Operation Enduring Freedom
See also: List of aviation accidents and incidents in the

317.5.3 Angolan Civil War War in Afghanistan
The Reagan administration provided 310 Stingers to Some of the Stingers that the U.S. supplied starting from
Jonas Savimbi's UNITA movement in Angola between 1987, could have been used during the U.S. interven-
1986 and 1989.[31] As in Afghanistan, eorts to recover tion in Afghanistan. Due to political reasons, U.S. and
317.7. SEE ALSO 823
coalition forces generally play down or even deny any Iraq[3]

MANPADS involvement in the Afghan War by Afghan
insurgents, attributing the attacks to unguided RPGs. Israel[3]
However it became clear that coalition aircraft came un-
India[3]
der attack by dierent types of MANPADS in dierent
instances.[40][41] Italy 150 launchers, 450 FIM-92A missiles de-
livered in 19861988 for 51 million dollars, 50 mis-
siles delivered in 20002002 for 10 million dollars
317.5.9 United States to operate from A-129 Mangusta and 200 missiles
delivered in 20032004 (SIPRI).[3]
The current U.S. inventory contains 13,400 missiles. The
total cost of the program is $7,281,000,000.[42] It is ru- Japan[3]
mored that the United States Secret Service has Stinger
missiles to defend the President, a notion that has never Lithuania[3]
been dispelled; however, U.S. Secret Service plans favor Netherlands[3]
moving the President to a safer place in the event of an at-
tack rather than shooting down the plane, lest the missile Norway[3]
(or the wreckage of the target aircraft) hit innocents.[43]
Pakistan: 350 in service with the Pakistan
During the 1980s, the Stinger was used to support dif- Army.[48][49]
ferent US-aligned guerrilla forces, notably the Afghan
Mujahidins, the Chad government against the Libyan in- Portugal[3]
vasion and the Angolan UNITA. The Nicaraguan con-
tras were not provided with Stingers due to the lack of Republic of China (Taiwan): Republic of
xed wing aircraft of the Sandinista government, as such China Marine Corps, Republic of China Army[50]
the previous generation FIM-43 Redeye was considered Slovenia[3]
adequate.[21]
Spain[3]
317.5.10 Syrian civil war Switzerland[3]

Turkey: Stingers made under license by
In the Syrian civil war, Turkey reportedly helped to trans-
Roketsan.[51]
port to the anti-government rebels a limited amount of
FIM-92 Stingers.[44][45] UNITA[31]
United Kingdom[3]
317.6 Operators United States[3]
Angola[3]
317.7 See also
Bangladesh[3]
Grom a man-portable air-defence system pro-
Bosnia and Herzegovina[3] duced in Poland
Croatia[3] 9K38 Igla (SA-18 Grouse) the Soviet Union's
equivalent missile during the Cold War
Chad [3]
QW-1 Vanguard the Chinese equivalent

Chile[3]
AIM-92 Stinger
Denmark[3]
Anza (missile)
Egypt[3]
Anti-aircraft warfare
Finland [46]
List of crew served weapons of the U.S. Armed
Georgia [3] Forces
Mistral missile
Germany: Stingers made under license by
EADS.[47] Starstreak a British MANPADS
Greece[3] United States Army Aviation and Missile Command
317.8 References [23] Air Defense Artillery Yearbook 1993 ADA, Blair Case,
Lisa B. Henry. pg 20. PDF
[1] http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/stinger.htm
[24] A conversation with Charlie Wilson, Charlie Rose, PBS,
[2] Globalsecurity.org April 24, 2008, via charlierose.com
[3] Raytheon [25] Charlie Did It, CBS News, 60 minutes. December 19,
2007 9:51 AM, From March 13, 2001: Former Rep.
[4] Army Upgrades Stinger Missiles - Kitup.Military.com, 6 Charlie Wilson looks back on his eorts to arm the Muja-
November 2014 hedeen against the Soviet Union back in the 1980s. Mike
[5] http://dziennikzbrojny.pl/artykuly/art,5, Wallace reports.
22,18,wojska-ladowe,bron-rakietowa,
[26] http://www.psywarrior.com/Herbafghan02.html
przeciwlotniczy-zestaw-rakietowy-ppzr-grom-i-piorun
[6] https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/default/files/asset/ [27] Weiner, Tim (24 July 1993). U.S. Increases Fund To
document/STARStreak_05_12.pdf Outbid Terrorists For Afghan Missiles. The New York
Times. Retrieved 2008-01-12.
[7] http://defencejournal.com/jan99/starstreak.htm
[28] Stinger missile system
[8] One of their aircraft is missing Britains Small Wars
[29] http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/28/The_
[9] San Carlos Air Battles Falklands War 1982 Taliban_Doesn%E2%80%99t_Have_Stingers
[10] Argentine Puma Shot Down By American Stinger Mis- [30] Middle East brief (deleted) for 2 August 1988: In brief:
sile xQatar (pdf). Central Intelligence Agency. 1988-08-
[11] Charlie Wilsons War, George Crile, 2003, 02. p. 3. Retrieved 2010-11-14.
Grove/Atlantic.
[31] Trade Registers. Armstrade.sipri.org. Retrieved 2013-
[12] Military engineer recounts role in Soviet-Afghan war, By 06-20.
Michael Gisick, Stars and Stripes, Published: September
11, 2008 [32] "Stingers, Stingers, Whos Got the Stingers?, Slate.
[13] http://www.homeland1.com/air-traffic/articles/ [33] http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_360.shtml

879393-Successful-surface-to-air-missile-attack-shows-threat-to-airliners/
[34] http://www.skywar.ru/oldussr.html
[14] Malley, William (2002) The Afghanistan wars. Palgrave
Macmillan, p. 80. ISBN 0-333-80290-X [35] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/
centralasia/uzbek-airforce.htm
[15] Hilali, A. Z. (2005). US-Pakistan relationship: Soviet in-
vasion of Afghanistan. p. 169. ISBN 0-7546-4220-8 [36] Human Rights in Tajikistan: In the Wake of Civil War By
Escrito por Rachel Denber, Barnett R. Rubin, Jeri Laber.
[16] The Stinger missile and U.S. intervention in Afghanistan, Google Books.
THIS DOCUMENT IS A CASE STUDY IN COVERT-
ACTION DECISION MAKING, Alan J. Kuperman, Po- [37] http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?
litical Science Quarterly 30248-chechen-terrorists-with-a-stinger
[17] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/ [38] Pashin, Alexander. Russian Army Operations and
2001/soviet-afghan_compound-warfare.htm Weaponry During Second Military Campaign in Chech-
nya. Moscow Defense Brief. Retrieved 8 March 2014.
[18] Compound warfare that fatal knot, Thomas M. Huber ed-
itor, Fort Leavenworth, pg 296 [39] http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=141721
[19] Yossef Bodanskys Sams in Afghanistan: assessing the im-
[40] Walsh, Declan (25 July 2010). Afghanistan war logs: US
pact Janes defence weekly, vol. 8, no. 03, 1987 PP. 153-
covered up fatal Taliban missile strike on Chinook. The
154
Guardian (London).
[20] The Stinger missile and U.S. intervention in Afghanistan,
THIS DOCUMENT IS A CASE STUDY IN COVERT- [41] Afghanistan: The war logs,Afghanistan (News),World
ACTION DECISION MAKING, Alan J. Kuperman, Po- news,WikiLeaks,The war logs. The Guardian (London).
litical Science Quarterly, pg 13,14 25 July 2010.
[21] CUSHMAN Jr, JOHN H. (17 January 1988). THE [42] FIM-92A Stinger Weapons System Federation of Amer-
WORLD: The Stinger Missile; HELPING TO CHANGE ican Scientists
THE COURSE OF A WAR. The New York Times.
[43] Stephen Labaton (September 13, 1994). Crash at the
[22] Scott, Peter (2003). Drugs, oil, and war: the United States White House: The defenses; Pilots Exploit Rattles White
in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Indochina. Rowman & House Ocials. The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-
Littleeld, p. 5. ISBN 0-7425-2522-8 09-08.
[44] Clinton: Chemical warfare is planned for. Rebels get

rst anti-air Stingers. Debka.com. 11 August 2012. Re-
trieved 13 August 2012.
[45] Syrian Rebels Claim to Have Brought Down a Jet. New

York Times. 13 August 2012. Retrieved 13 August 2012.
[46] Yle News
[47] Tiger Attack Helicopter, Europe. Retrieved on October

24, 2008.
[48] Singh, R.S.N. (2005). Asian Strategic And Military

Perspective. Lancer Publishers. p. 238. ISBN
9788170622451.
[49] Sumit Ganguly & S. Paul Kapur (2008). Nuclear Pro-

liferation in South Asia: Crisis Behaviour and the Bomb.
Routledge. p. 174. ISBN 978-0-203-89286-2.
[50] Defpro.com
[51] Ocial Roketsan Stinger Page. Retrieved on October 23,

2008.

O'Halloran James C., and Christopher F. Foss
(eds.). Janes Land-Based Air Defence 20052006.
Couldson, Surrey: Janes Information Group, 2005.
ISBN 0-7106-2697-5.

FIM-92 Stinger MANPADS man-portable surface-
to-air missile system(Army Recognition)
Raytheon (General Dynamics) FIM-92 Stinger

Designation Systems
Defense Update: Stinger VSHORAD Missile

Stinger missiles in Syrian Civil War on YouTube
Chapter 318
AGM-154 Joint Stando Weapon
The AGM-154 Joint Stando Weapon (JSOW) is the

product of a joint venture between the United States Navy
and Air Force to deploy a standardized medium range
precision guided weapon, especially for engagement of
defended targets from outside the range of standard anti-
aircraft defenses, thereby increasing aircraft survivability
and minimizing friendly losses.
318.1 Development
The AGM-154 Joint Stando Weapon or JSOW is cur- An F-16C releases an AGM-154 JSOW over the Utah Test and
rently in the eet and in use by the US Navy. Foreign Mil- Training Range
itary Sales (FMS) cases have been signed with Poland and
Turkey for use with their F-16 ghters. Finland, Greece
and Singapore are pursuing FMS cases at this time.[1][2]
The AGM-154 is intended to provide a low cost, highly
lethal glide weapon with a stando capability. The JSOW
family of air-to-surface glide weapons are 450 kilograms
(1,000 lb) class weapons that provide stando capabili-
ties from 28 km (15 nmi) low altitude launch and up to
110 km (60 nmi)[3] high altitude launch. The JSOW can
be used against a variety of land targets and operates from
ranges outside enemy point defenses.
The JSOW is a launch and leave weapon that employs a
tightly coupled Global Positioning System (GPS)/Inertial
Navigation System (INS), and is capable of day/night and
adverse weather operations. The AGM-154A (JSOW A)
uses GPS/INS for terminal guidance, while the AGM- An expended sub-munition AGM-154 JSOW used during
154C (JSOW C) uses an infra-red seeker for terminal Operation Allied Force, on display at the Belgrade Aviation Mu-
guidance. seum in Serbia.
The JSOW is just over 410 centimetres (160 in) in length
and weighs about 450 kilograms (1,000 lb). The JSOW
of the most successful development programs in DOD
was originally to be delivered in three variants, each of
history.[4] The system was introduced to operational use a
which uses a common air vehicle, or truck, while substi-
year ahead of schedule. Unlike most guided weapons and
tuting various payloads. The AGM-154A (JSOW-A) en-
aircraft, the system never had a weight management prob-
tered service in 1999. The US Navy and Air Force devel-
lem, and was deployed at its target weight. The system
oped the AGM-154B (JSOW B) up until Multi-Service
introduced a new type of fuse, but was able to obtain au-
Operational Test & Evaluation (MOT&E) but the Navy
thority from an independent safety review in record time.
decided not to procure the weapon when the Air Force
Many observers credited these accomplishments to the
left the program. The AGM-154C (JSOW BROACH) management style chosen by the DOD and Texas Instru-
entered service in February 2005. ments. After a competitive selection, the program sta
During the 1990s JSOW was considered to be one was organized into integrated product teams with mem-
826
318.3. COMBAT HISTORY 827
bers from the government, the prime Texas Instruments The JSOW contains a modular control and deployment
and subcontractors. In one case, the prime determined interface that allows future enhancement and additional
that the best-in-class supplier for a design service was the congurations since it is likely that additional variants will
government, and gave part of its funding back. JSOW emerge. The basic airframe is advertised as a truck
was recognized in 1996 with a Laurels Award from Avia- and the JSOW-as-a-truck capability is widely adver-
tion Week & Space Technology. It is notable for a guided tised. Raytheon has placed a tremendous investment in
weapon to receive this award, which is normally reserved the JSOW program and will certainly try to extend the
for much larger systems. Because of this history, JSOW Department of Defense contracts for as long as possible
has been used as a case study for development programs, with system upgrades and repackagings for new missions
and for Integrated Product Teams, and is sometimes cited and targets.
in academic research on program management.
318.2.1 JSOW Block III (JSOW-C1)

318.1.1 AGM-154A (baseline JSOW)
Raytheon was as of 2005 under contract to develop the
The warhead of the AGM-154A consists of 145 BLU- JSOW Block III, which adds a Link-16 weapon data
97/B Combined Eects Bomb (CEB) submunitions. link and moving maritime target capability to the AGM-
These bomblets have a shaped charge for armor defeating 154C. It was scheduled to be produced in 2009.[5] The
capability, a fragmenting case for material destruction, rst three launches were conducted in August 2011 from
and a zirconium ring for incendiary eects. an F/A-18F.[6] The JSOW-C1 completed integrated test
and evaluations in January 2015, moving on to oper-
ational tests. The C1 version is slated for delivery in
318.1.2 AGM-154B (anti-armor) 2016.[7]
The warhead for the AGM-154B is the BLU-108/B from

the Air Forces Sensor Fuzed Weapon (SFW) program. 318.2.2 AGM-154A-1 (JSOW-A1)
The JSOW B was to carry six BLU-108/B submunitions.
Each submunition releases four projectiles (total of 24 In addition, the AGM-154A-1 conguration is under de-
per weapon) that use infrared sensors to detect targets. velopment by Raytheon for FMS sales. This version re-
When a submunition detects that it is aligned with a tar- places the submunition payload of the AGM-154A with
get, it res, creating an explosively formed penetrator a BLU-111 warhead to enhance blast-fragmentation ef-
capable of defeating vehicle armor. This program con- fects without the unexploded ordnance (UXO) concerns
cluded development but the Navy decided not to procure with the BLU-97/B payload.
the weapon when the Air Force started to.
318.2.3 Powered JSOW (JSOW-ER)

318.1.3 AGM-154C (unitary variant)
A Hamilton-Sundstrand TJ-150 turbojet engine for a
The AGM-154C uses an Imaging Infrared (IIR) termi- powered JSOW is being tested. The powered variant
nal seeker with autonomous guidance. The AGM-154C name is JSOW-ER, where ER is for extended range.
carries the BROACH warhead. This two stage warhead JSOW-ER will increase range from 130 to 560 kilome-
is made up from a WDU-44 shaped augmenting warhead tres (70 to 300 nmi).[8][9][10]
and a WDU-45 follow through bomb. The weapon is de-
signed to attack hardened targets. It entered service with
the US Navy in February 2005. 318.3 Combat history
The AGM-154A was the rst variant to be used in com-
318.2 Production and upgrades bat. The AGM-154A traditionally is used for SEAD mis-
sions. Initial deployment testing occurred aboard USS
Full rate production started on December 29, 1999. In Nimitz and later aboard the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower.
June 2000 Raytheon was contracted to develop an en- The rst combat deployment of the JSOW occurred over
hanced electronics package for the JSOW to prevent elec- southern Iraq on December 17, 1998 when launched by
tronic spoong of GPS signals. This ultimately resulted in a single F/A-18C from the Checkerboards of Marine
the JSOW Block II weapon, incorporating multiple cost Fighter Attack Squadron 312, Carrier Air Wing 3 em-
reduction initiatives in addition to the Selective Availabil- barked aboard USS Enterprise during Operation Desert
ity Anti-Spoong Module (SAASM) capability. JSOW Fox. The glide range of the JSOW allowed the weapon
Block II was scheduled to begin production in March to strike a target located in the southern suburbs of Bagh-
2007. dad. This weapon enjoyed success since its early use.
828 CHAPTER 318. AGM-154 JOINT STANDOFF WEAPON
1. USAF terminated production of JSOW in FY 2005,

leaving the USN and USMC as the only U.S. ser-
vices obtaining new JSOWs.[19]
2. According to a test report conducted by the United

States Navys Weapon System Explosives Safety Re-
view Board (WSESRB) established in the wake of
the tragic 1967 USS Forrestal re, the cooking o
time for a JSOW is approximately 2 minutes 11 sec-
onds.
AGM-154 being brought to the ight deck of an aircraft carrier

One adverse event occurred in February 2001, when a

strike of F/A-18s from the USS Harry S. Truman bat-
tle group launched a massive attack on Iraqi air-defense
sites, nearly every weapon missed the target. The cause of
the miss was reported as a software problem. This prob-
lem was solved soon afterward.[11] Since 1998, at least
400 of the JSOW weapons have been used in the follow-
ing conicts: Operation Desert Fox, Operation Southern
Watch, NATO Operation Allied Force, Operation Endur-
Outline drawing of the AGM-154A JSOW
ing Freedom, and Operation Iraqi Freedom.[12]
Primary Function: Air-to-surface Stando from

318.4 Operators Point Defense (SOPD) weapon, for use against a va-
riety of targets.
Australia[13] AGM-154C upgraded to Block
[14] Contractor: Raytheon Co.
III
Guidance: GPS/INS (Global Position/Inertial),
Canada[15] Terminal infrared homing Seeker (unique to 'C'
model)
Greece[16]
Length: 410 centimetres (160 in)
Finland (operational approximately in
2015)[17] Diameter: box shaped 33 centimetres (13 in) on a
side / other source 40.6 x 51.9 cm
Poland
Weight: From 483 to 497 kilograms (1,065 to
Saudi Arabia[18] (on order) 1,095 lb)
Singapore Wingspan: 270 centimetres (106 in)
Aircraft Compatibility:
Turkey
Navy: F/A-18C/D, F/A-18E/F
United Arab Emirates[18] (on order) Air Force: F-16 Block 40/50, B-1B, B-2A, B-
52H, F-15E, F-35A
United States
Range:
Netherlands
Low altitude launch - 12 nmi (22 km)
The Dutch government announced on 7 Nov 2007 that it High altitude launch - 70 nmi (130 km)
is starting an evaluation before equipping its F-16s with
the JSOW. Warhead(s):
BLU-97/B - Combined Eects Bomblets

Side notes (JSOW A)
BLU-111/B - Unitary warhead (JSOW-A1) [11] Pacic Ranges and Facilities (JSOW strong on eet
support-July 19, 2001)
BLU-108 - Sensor fused weapon (JSOW B -
now cancelled) [12] Raytheon JSOW Product Sheet (PDF le)
BROACH multi-stage warhead (JSOW C) [13] Raytheon Delivers First Joint Stando Weapon C To Aus-
tralia
Unit Cost:
[14] Pittaway, Nigel (March 2009). F-111 makes way for Su-
AUPP AGM-154A, $282,000. Total program per Hornet. Defence Today. p. 12. Retrieved 30 May
cost: $3,327,000. 2012.
AGM-154B, $484,167. Total program cost:
[15] Air Weapons: JSOW Cripples JASSM. strategy-
$2,033,500. page.com. Retrieved 22 January 2015.
AGM-154C, $719,012. Total program cost:
$5,608,000. [16] First JSOW-C and JDAM delivered to the HAF.
[17] Ilmavoimat testaa MLU2 -pivityksi (Finnish Air Force

Date Deployed: January 1999[20] Testing Improvements of Mid Life Upgrade 2)".
[18] Washington Beef up the Gulf States with 10,000 Strike

318.6 See also Weapons Worth US$10 Billion. Defense Update. 17 Oc-
tober 2013. Retrieved 21 October 2013.
Stando (missile) [19] Defense Industry Daily
AGM-158 JASSM [20] U.S. Navy Fact File - AGM-154
Storm Shadow/SCALP EG
Bombkapsel 90
KEPD 350 AGM-154 Joint Stando Weapon - GlobalSecu-
rity.org
HOPE/HOSBO
Raytheon: Joint Stand O Weapon
Raytheon (Texas Instruments) AGM-154 JSOW -

318.7 References Designation Systems
Notes Airborne Tactical and Defence Missiles
[1]
[2] Raytheon Makes First International Joint Stando

Weapon Sale to Turkey - Raytheon press release
[3] http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/jsow/
[4] http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/
agm154-jsow-wins-us-dod-acquisition-award-01942/
[5] Raytheon Delivers 2,000th Joint Stando Weapon.
[6] http://flot.com/news/navy/index.php?ELEMENT_ID=
87123
[7] US Navys JSOW C-1 set for operational testing - Shep-

hardmedia.com, 15 January 2015
[8] Raytheon Demonstrates Engine for Powered Joint Stand-

o Weapon February 20, 2007
[9] Raytheon Completes Free Flight of Joint Stando

Weapon Extended Range Nov 02, 2009
[10] VIDEO: Raytheon Demo-Flies Powered JSOW Oct 30,

2009
Chapter 319
ASM-A-1 Tarzon
The ASM-A-1 Tarzon, also known as VB-13, was a In addition to the 12,000 pounds (5,400 kg) nominal
guided bomb developed by the United States Army Air weight of the Tallboy it was based on, the annular wing
Forces during the late 1940s. Mating the guidance sys- and control surfaces boosted the weight of Tarzon by an
tem of the earlier Razon radio-controlled weapon with additional 1,100 pounds (500 kg).[3] As a result, the size
a British Tallboy 12,000-pound (5,400 kg) bomb, the and weight of the ASM-A-1 were such that the weapon
ASM-A-1 saw brief operational service in the Korean would not t inside the bomb bay of a Superfortress; in-
War before being withdrawn from service in 1951. stead, the weapon was carried in a semi-recessed mount-
ing, half the weapon being exposed to the airstream. This
increased drag on the carrying aircraft, in addition to
causing turbulent airow that could aect the handling
319.1 Design and development of the B-29.[7]
Development of the VB-13 Tarzon began in February

1945, with Bell Aircraft being awarded a contract by the 319.2 Operational history
United States Army Air Forces for the development of a
very large guided bomb.[1][2] The VB-13 was a combina-
tion of a radio-command guidance system as used on the
smaller VB-3 Razon ('Range And azimuth only') guided
bomb with the British-developed Tallboy 12,000-pound
(5,400 kg) earthquake bomb,[1][3] known to the US-
AAF as M112.[4] The 'Tarzon' name was a portmanteau,
combining Tallboy, range and azimuth only, describ-
ing the weapon and guidance system;[4][5] and was pro-
nounced similarly to that of "Tarzan", the popular ape-
man ctional character.[6]
The VB-13, redesignated ASM-A-1 in 1948,[1] was de-
veloped under the project code MX-674.[2][7] It had an
annular wing around the midsection of its body, mounted
near the weapons center of gravity.[3] At the rear of
the bomb was an octagonal tail surface containing the Tarzon being loaded on a B-29 of the 19th Bomb Group
Razon control surfaces.[1][3] Intended to be carryed by
the Boeing B-29 Superfortress bomber,[N 1] the Tarzon Although the VB-13 project had not reached the test-
bomb used the combination of AN/ARW-38 [Joint Army ing stage by the end of World War II, it avoided being
Navy, Piloted Aircraft, Radio, Automatic Flight or Re- cancelled, proceeding as a low-priority project.[1] Lim-
mote Control][9] command link transmitter on the B-29 ited testing was conducted during 1948 and 1949;[4] ad-
and an AN/URW-2 [Joint Army Navy, Utility, Radio, ditional testing at Alamogordo, New Mexico in 1950 led
Automatic Flight or Remote Control] receiver on the to the Tarzon being approved for operational service in
Tarzon to provide manual command guidance of range the Korean War.[10]
and azimuth. This was done with visual tracking of the Tarzon saw its rst combat use in December 1950,[1]
bombs course, aided by a are mounted in the tail of the the ASM-A-1 replacing the Razon in operational ser-
weapon.[1][3] Gyroscopes on board the ASM-A-1 aided in vice; the smaller weapon had been determined to be
stabilisation, while a pneumatic system drove the bombs too small for eective use against bridges and other
control surfaces.[3] The guidance system was considered hardened targets.[7][11] Used solely by the 19th Bomb
eective; Tarzon proved in testing to have an accuracy of Group, which had previously conducted the Razons com-
280 feet (85 m).[7] bat missions,[11] the rst Tarzon drop in combat took
830
place on December 14, 1950.[11]

The largest bomb used in combat during the war,[7] Tar-
zon was used in strikes against North Korean bridges
and other hardened targets, the Tarzons improved ac-
curacy over conventional 'dumb bombs led to the con-
rmed destruction of at least six high-priority targets dur-
ing approximately six months of combat use;[N 2] these
included a hydroelectric plant, proving the eectiveness
of guided weapons against conventional targets as well as
bridges.[1][11]
Thirty Tarzon missions were own between December
1950 and March 1951;[11] the weapons success led to
a contract for the production of 1,000 additional ASM-
A-1 missiles.[12] On March 29, 1951, however, a Tarzon Tarzon on display at the National Museum of the United States
Air Force
strike against Sinuiju went awry; the group commanders
aircraft was destroyed as a result of the premature deto-
nation of the bomb when, the aircraft suering mechani- [1] Some sources state that eighteen Convair B-36 Peace-
cal diculties, the weapon was jettisoned in preparation maker heavy bombers were converted to carry two Tar-
for ditching.[1][12][13] The thirtieth, and as it proved - zons each.[8]
nal, mission, three weeks following the Sinuiju mission,
[2] Most sources state six targets hit; the National Museum
also suered an unintentional detonation of a jettisoned,
of the United States Air Force, however, gives a total
safed bomb, although this time without the loss of the of eleven targets hit, with six bridges destroyed and one
[12]
aircraft. damaged.[5]
An investigation proved that the fault lay in the construc-
[3] While this was unacceptable given the cost of Tarzon, it
tion of the bombs tail; breaking up on impact, a 'safed' was ten times better than the results achieved by conven-
bomb would have its arming wire removed, rendering it tional bombs.[15]
'unsafe' and detonating the weapon.[12][13] Modications
were made to solve the problem, but the damage had
Citations
been done; the safety issues,[14] increased maintenance
[1]
costs compared to conventional bombs, the fact that
the bombs guidance system required clear-day use only, [1] Parsch 2003
rendering the bombers vulnerable to enemy ghters, and [2] Stumpf 1998, p.13.
required that the weapon be released at a prime altitude
for the aircraft to be in danger from enemy ak.[14] These [3] Schmitt 2002, p.45.
combined with the weapons poor reliability only six of
[4] Gillepsie 2006, p.54.
twenty-eight bombs dropped successfully destroyed their
[14][N 3]
targets to result in the production order being [5] NMUSAF Fact Sheet: VB-13 Tarzon Bomb
canceled by the USAF; following this, the Tarzon pro-
gram as a whole was terminated in August 1951.[1][5][14] [6] "Bomb With A Brain". British Path newsreel 52/51A,
June 23, 1952. Accessed 2013-03-22.
[7] Dorr 2003, p.31.

319.3 See also [8] Polmar and Norris 2009, p.93.
[9] Designations Of U.S. Military Electronic And Commu-

Azon nications Equipment.
Bat (guided bomb) [10] Schmitt 2002, p.46.
[11] Gillepsie 2006, p.58.

Fritz X
[12] Gillepsie 2006, p.59.
Grand Slam (bomb)
[13] Steadfast and Courageous, pp.3334.
[14] Gillepsie 2006, p.60.
319.4 References [15] Dunnigan 1996, p.127.
Notes Bibliography
832 CHAPTER 319. ASM-A-1 TARZON
Dorr, Robert F. (2003). B-29 Superfortress Units of

the Korean War. Osprey Combat Aircraft 42. Ox-
ford, England: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1-84176-
654-2. Retrieved 2011-02-04.
Dunnigan, James F. (1996). Digital Soldiers: The
Evolution of High-Tech Weaponry and Tomorrows
Brave New Battleeld. New York: St. Martins
Press. ISBN 0-312-30007-7. Retrieved 2011-02-
05.
Gillepsie, Paul G. (2006). Weapons of Choice:

The Development of Precision Guided Munitions.
Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
ISBN 978-0-8173-1532-0. Retrieved 2011-02-04.
Parsch, Andreas (2003). Bell VB-13/ASM-A-1

Tarzon. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and
Missiles Appendix 1: Early Missiles and Drones.
Polmar, Norman; Robert Stan Norris (2009). The
Delivery Systems Since 1945. Annapolis, MD: Naval
Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-55750-681-8. Re-
trieved 2011-02-04.
Schmitt, Vernon R. (2002). Controlled Bombs and

Guided Missiles of the World War II and Cold War
Eras: An Inside Story of Research and Development
Programs. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive
Engineers. ISBN 0-7680-0913-8. Retrieved 2011-
02-04.
Steadfast and Courageous: FEAF Bomber Command

and the Air War in Korea, 19501953. Air Force
History and Museums Program. Washington, D.C.:
Department of the Air Force. 2000. ISBN 978-0-
16-050374-0. Retrieved 2011-02-04.
Stumpf, David K. (1998). Air Force Missileers. Pa-
ducah, KY: Turner Publishing. ISBN 1-56311-455-
0. Retrieved 2011-02-04.
VB-13 Tarzon Bomb. Factsheets. National Mu-

seum of the United States Air Force. Archived from
02-04.

Media related to ASM-A-1 Tarzon at Wikimedia Com-
mons
Chapter 320
Azon
AZON ("azimuth only) was one of the worlds rst smart 320.1 Azon operations
bombs, deployed by the Allies and contemporary with the
German Fritz X.
Ocially designated VB-1 (Vertical Bomb 1), it was in-
vented by Major Henry J. Rand and Thomas J. O'Donnell
during the latter stages of World War II, as the answer
to the dicult problem of destroying the narrow wooden
bridges that supported much of the Burma Railway.
AZON was essentially a 1,000 lb (450 kg) general-
purpose bomb with a quadrilateral 4-n style radio con-
trolled tail n design as part of a tail package to give the
half-short ton ordnance the desired guidance capability,
allowing adjustment of the vertical trajectory in the yaw
axis only, giving the Azon unit a laterally steerable ca-
pability and mandating the continued need to accurately
release it with a bombsight to ensure it could not fall short
of or beyond the target. There were gyroscopes mounted
in the bombs added tail package that made it an Azon
unit, to autonomously stabilize it in the roll axis via op-
erating a pair of ailerons,[1] and a radio control system
to operate the proportionally-functioning rudders, to di-
rectly control the bombs direction of lateral aim, with
the antennas for the tail-mounted receiver unit built into
the diagonal support struts of the tail surface assembly.[1]
The bombs receiver and control system were powered by
a battery which had around three minutes of battery life.
The entire setup in the added tail package was sucient
to guide the weapon from a 5,000-foot (1,500 m) drop Components of Azon
height to the target. Situated on the tail of the bomb was a
600,000-candela are which also left behind a noticeable
smoke trail, to enable the bombardier to observe and con- 320.2 See also
trol it from the control aircraft. When used in combat, it
was dropped from a modied Consolidated B-24 Libera-
Bat (U.S. Navy radar-guided bomb)
tor, with earlier development test drops of the Azon in the
United States sometimes using the B-17 Flying Fortress Fritz X
as the platform.[1] Some ten crews, of the 458th Bom-
Razon
bardment Group, based at RAF Horsham St Faith, were
trained to drop the device for use in the European theater. GB-8
The 493rd Bomb Squadron[2] also dropped Azon bombs List of anti-ship missiles
in Burma in early 1945 from similarly-modied B-24s,
based at Pandaveswar Aireld, India, with considerable
success, fullling the designers original purpose for the 320.3 References
ordnance.
Footnotes
833
834 CHAPTER 320. AZON
[1] United States Oce of Strategic Services (1943). WW2:

Azon (1943) Radio-Controlled Dive Bomb (YouTube).
The Digital Implosion. Retrieved 21 July 2013.
[2] Marion. Old China Hands, Tales & Stories - The Azon
Bomb. oldchinahands. Retrieved March 20, 2012.
[3] 8th Air Force 1944 Chronicles. Retrieved 2007-05-25.

June , July, August, September
[4] 8th Air Force Historical Society
Bibliography

Ocial 1943 USAAF lm describing the AZON
bomb
USAAF and USN guided air-to-surface ordnance of
World War II
Guided weapons of World War II

GB series weapons
Account of AZON Bomb Use by the 458th Bomb

Group in ETO
Account of AZON Bomb Use by the 493rd Bomb

Squadron in CBI Theater
Video account of AZON Use Against the Burma

Railway bridges
WW II video of AZON Bomb Drop over Burma

Another video of AZONs in action over Burma
Chapter 321
CBU-107 Passive Attack Weapon
The CBU-107 Passive Attack Weapon is an air- Payload:

dropped guided bomb containing metal penetrator rods of
various sizes. It was designed to attack targets where an 350 14-inch tungsten rods
explosive eect may be undesirable, such as fuel storage 1,000 7-inch tungsten rods
tanks or chemical weapon stockpiles[1] in civilian areas.[2] 2,400 2-inch steel rods
321.1 Overview 321.4 See also

The weapon consists of a Wind Corrected Munitions CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon, which drops explo-
Dispenser-equipped SUU-66/B Tactical Munitions Dis- sively formed kinetic-energy anti-armor penetrators
penser containing 3,750 non-explosive steel and tungsten
penetrator rods of various sizes. There is no other ver-
sion of the CBU-107. The weapon is notable for the
speed with which it was developed and elded, a total of
321.5 References
98 days.[3] This was to meet an urgent operation require-
ment and earned the development team several awards.[4] [1] Air Force Developed Bombs Capable of Destroying
Syrias Chemical Weapons - Defensetech.org, 30 August
The CBU-107 is designed to perform eects based war-
2013
fare, where a strategically valuable battleeld eect is
achieved without having to damage large portions of the [2] CBU-107 Passive Attack Weapon (WCMD) - Global Se-
infrastructure in the attacked area. The penetrating rods curity.
range in size from several inches to over a foot long and
[3] Crash program at Eglin produced non-explosive weapon
can disable targets like fuel tanks, antennas, or even a
used in Iraq.
helicopter without harming nearby people. The eect
of a PAW rod impacting is similar to that of an armor- [4] LOCKHEED MARTIN JOINS TEAM IN CELE-
piercing n-stabilized discarding sabot penetrator red BRATING PRESTIGIOUS PACKARD AND WELCH
from a tank gun; if they are released from a high enough ACQUISITION AWARDS.
altitude to reach terminal velocity, they release a large
[5] O Target: The Conduct of the War and Civilian Casu-
amount of heat in a conned area extremely fast that va- alties in Iraq: II. CONDUCT OF THE AIR WAR.
porizes and melts through the small area.[1]
321.2 Combat history 321.6 External links

Lockheed Martin WCMD (Wind Corrected Muni-
The CBU-107 was rst used in an attack on the Iraqi Min- tions Dispenser) - Designation Systems
istry of Information on March 28, 2003, during the 2003
invasion of Iraq. The targets were two antenna arrays,
which were both destroyed with little damage to the MOI
or adjacent buildings.[5]
321.3 Specications
Guidance: INS
835
Chapter 322
GB-4
GB-4 was a precision guided munition developed by the GB-8

United States during World War II . It was one of the
precursors of modern anti-ship missiles. Azon
Following German success with the Hs-293 and Fritz-X, Razon

the U.S. began developing several similar weapons, such
VB-6 Felix
as Felix, Bat, Gargoyle, GB-8, and GB-4.
GB-4s development began in 1944 as a clear-weather, List of anti-ship missiles
good-visibility weapon to attack heavily defended targets;
it was only useful against objectives readily identiable
on the crude CRT screens of the period. It featured a 322.4 External links
plywood airframe with twin booms and ns with a sin-
gle elevator. The warhead was a 2,000 pounds (910 kg) Allied & German guided weapons of WW2
general-purpose (GP) bomb.
The target was acquired by a television camera beneath
the warhead, with a eld of view 18 high and 14 wide, Guided weapons of WW2
and the bomb was steered by radio command guidance,
the operator tracking it by means of ares in the tail. It GB series weapons
was intended to be carried externally, under the wing of
a Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress or North American B-25
Mitchell. Release was at about 175 miles per hour (280
km/h) and 15,000 feet (4,600 m)) altitude, giving a range
of 17 miles (27 km), with an average ight time of four
minutes. Its accuracy was 200 feet (61 m).
The Pacic War ended before it entered combat.
A derivative, the GB-9, was intended to use a dive-and-
glide trajectory for attacking targets like submarine pens
from the side, but also did not see combat.
322.1 References
322.2 Sources
Fitzsimons, Bernard, ed. (1978). The Illustrated En-
cyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons and Warfare
10. London: Phoebus Publishing. p. 1,101.
322.3 See also

Fritz X
836
Chapter 323
GB-8
GB-8 was a precision guided munition developed by the 323.3 External links
United States during World War II. It was one of the pre-
cursors of modern anti-ship missiles. Allied & German guided weapons of WW2
Following German success with the Hs-293 and Fritz-X,
the U.S. began developing several similar weapons, such
as Felix, Azon, Gargoyle, GB-4, and GB-8. Guided weapons of WW2
GB-8 was intended as a clear-weather, good-visibility GB series weapons
weapon to attack heavily defended targets. It featured a
plywood airframe with twin booms and ns with a sin-
gle elevator. The warhead was a 2,000 pounds (910 kg)
general-purpose (GP) bomb.
The bomb was steered by radio command guidance, the
operator tracking it by means of red and white ares in the
booms. It was intended to be carried externally, under the
wing of a B-17 or B-25. Release was at about 281 kilo-
metres per hour (175 mph) and between 10,00015,000
feet (3,0004,600 m) altitude, giving a range of 17 mi
(27 km), with an average ight time of four minutes. The
Pacic War ended before it entered combat.
323.1 Sources
Fitzsimons, Bernard, editor. GB-8, in The Illus-
trated Encyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons and
Warfare. Volume 10, p. 1101. London: Phoebus
Publishing, 1978.
323.2 See also

Fritz X
Azon
Razon
GB-4
VB-6 Felix
Bat
LBD-1 Gargoyle
837
Chapter 324
GBU-10 Paveway II
American Paveway-series laser-guided bomb, based on So far, Raytheon-built Paveway II EGBUs have only been
the Mk 84 general-purpose bomb, but with laser seeker produced for export, and have been used in combat by the
and wings for guidance. Introduced into service c. 1976. British Royal Air Force over Afghanistan and Iraq.
Used by USAF, US Navy, US Marine Corps, RAAF and
various NATO air forces.
The GBU-10 has been built in more than a half-dozen 324.1 References
variants with dierent wing and fuse combinations.
Weight depends on the specic conguration, ranging [1] Davies, Steve (2005). F-15E Strike Eagle Units In Com-
from 2,055 lb (934 kg) to 2,103 lb (956 kg). bat 19902005. London: Osprey Publishing. pp. 2930.
ISBN 1-84176-909-6.
GBU-10 bombs (along with the balance of the Paveway
series) are produced by defense contractors Lockheed
Martin and Raytheon. Raytheon began production af-
ter purchasing the product line from Texas Instruments.
Lockheed Martin was awarded a contract to compete with
Raytheon when there was a break in production caused by Raytheons ocial Paveway fact page
transferring manufacturing out of Texas.
Globalsecurity.org Paveway fact page
Raytheon production of the Paveway II is centered in
Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico. Lockheed Martin pro- Lockheed Martin Paveway fact page
duction is centered in Pennsylvania. Designation-Systems.net Paveway II fact page
Laser-guided bombs are often labeled as "smart bombs",
despite requiring external input in the form of laser des-
ignation of the intended target. According to Raytheons
fact sheet for the Paveway 2, 99 deliveries of guided mu-
nitions will yield a circular error probable (CEP) of only
3.6 feet (1.1 m), compared to a CEP of 310 feet (94 m)
for 99 unguided bombs dropped under similar conditions.
On 14 February 1991, an air-to-air kill was scored by a
GBU-10 when an F-15E Strike Eagle of the 335th Tac-
tical Fighter Squadron hit an Iraqi Air Force Mil Mi-24
Hind. 30 seconds after ring, the F-15E crew thought
the bomb had missed and was about to re an AIM-
9 Sidewinder air-to-air missile when the helicopter sud-
denly exploded.[1]
Both Lockheed Martin and Raytheon have developed
GPS-guided versions of the GBU-10. Lockheed Mar-
tin calls its version the DMLGB (Dual-Mode LGB)
GPS/INS, and the U.S. Navy issued Lockheed Martin a
contract in 2005 for further development of the weapon
system. The GPS/INS-equipped version of the GBU-10
produced by Raytheon is the GBU-50/B, also informally
also known as the EGBU-10 (GPS/INS-enabled LGBs
are frequently referred to as Enhanced GBUs or EGBUs).
838
Chapter 325
GBU-12 Paveway II
when laser designation of the intended target is under-

taken. According to Raytheons fact sheet for the Pave-
way 2, 99 deliveries of guided munitions will yield a
circular error probable (CEP) of only 3.6 feet, versus a
CEP of 310 feet for 99 unguided bombs dropped under
similar conditions.
Paveway II laser-guided bombs use what is known as
"bang bang" guidance. This means the bombs ns deect
fully, rather than proportionally when it is attempting to
guide to the laser spot. For example, if it sees the laser
spot and determines that it should make a change it de-
ects its ns until it has over-corrected and then it deects
U.S. Navy crewmen loading GBU-12s onto an F-14 back the opposite direction, creating a sinusoidal type of
ight path. This type of guidance may be less ecient at
times.
The GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bomb is an
American aerial bomb, based on the Mk 82 500-pound
general-purpose bomb, but with the addition of a nose-
mounted laser seeker and ns for guidance. A member of 325.1 References
the Paveway series of weapons, Paveway II entered into
service c. 1976. It is currently in service with U.S. Air [1] Munitions Acquisitions cost.
Force, US Navy, US Marine Corps, Royal Canadian Air
Force, Colombian Air Force, Swedish Air Force, and var-
ious NATO air forces. 325.2 External links
GBU-12 bombs (along with the balance of the Paveway
series) are produced by defense contractors Lockheed Raytheons ocial Paveway fact page
Lockheed Martin was awarded a contract to compete with Lockheed Martin Paveway fact page
Raytheon when there was a break in production caused by
transferring manufacturing out of Texas. Paveway II
refers specically to the guidance kit, rather than to the
weapon itself. See also GBU-16 Paveway II, where the
same guidance unit is tted to a Mk 83 1,000-lb bomb.
The US Department of Defense has upgraded GBU-
12 production versions to include GPS guidance modes.
Lockheed Martin is the sole source for US Navy pur-
chases of this version. Raytheon sells upgraded GBU-12s
to the US Government and other nations. Raytheon pro-
duction of the GBU-12 is centered in Arizona, Texas, and
New Mexico. Lockheed Martin production is centered in
Pennsylvania.
Laser-guided bombs are often labeled "smart bombs" be-
cause they are able to follow a non-ballistic trajectory
839
Chapter 326
GBU-15
Guided Bomb Unit 15 is an unpowered, glide weapon 326.2 Uses

used to destroy high-value enemy targets. It was designed
for use with F-15E Strike Eagle, F-111 'Aardvark' and F-
The GBU-15 may be used in either a direct or an indi-
4 Phantom II aircraft. The GBU-15 has long-range mar-
rect attack. In a direct attack, the pilot selects a target
itime anti-ship capability with the B-52 Stratofortress.[1]
before launch, locks the weapon guidance system onto
Rockwell International is the prime contractor for this
it and launches the weapon. The weapon automatically
weapon system.
guides itself to the target, enabling the pilot to leave the
area. In an indirect attack, the weapon is guided by re-
mote control after launch. The pilot releases the weapon
and, via remote control, searches for the target. Once the
target is acquired, the weapon can be locked to the target
or manually guided via the Hughes Aircraft AN/AXQ-14
data-link system.
326.1 Overview This highly maneuverable weapon has an optimal, low-
to-medium altitude delivery capability with pinpoint ac-
curacy. It also has a stando capability. During Desert
The weapon consists of modular components that are at- Storm, all 71 GBU-15 modular glide bombs used were
tached to either a general purpose Mark 84 bomb or a dropped from F-111F aircraft. Most notably, EGBU-15s
penetrating-warhead BLU-109 bomb. Each weapon has were the munitions used for destroying the oil manifolds
ve componentsa forward guidance section, warhead on the storage tanks to stop oil from spilling into the Gulf.
adapter section, control module, airfoil components, and These EGBU-15s sealed aming oil pipeline manifolds
a weapon data link. sabotaged by Saddam Hussein's troops.
The guidance section is attached to the nose of the The Air Force Development Test Center, Eglin Air Force
weapon and contains either a television guidance system Base, Florida, began developing the GBU-15 in 1974.
for daytime or an imaging infrared system for night or The Air Force originally asked for the missile designa-
limited, adverse weather operations. A data link in the tions AGM-112A and AGM-112B for two versions of
tail section sends guidance updates to the control aircraft the system. This was declined because the weapon was an
that enables the weapon systems operator to guide the unpowered glide bomb and GBU designation was allotted
bomb by remote control to its target. instead. The M-112 designation remains unassigned as a
result.[2]
An external electrical conduit extends the length of the
warhead which attaches the guidance adapter and control It was a product improvement of the early guided bomb
unit. The conduit carries electrical signals between the used during the Vietnam War called the GBU-8 HOBOS.
guidance and control sections. The umbilical receptacle The GBU-8 could not be controlled after the bomb was
passes guidance and control data between cockpit control released. Instead, the aircraft was forced to y very close
systems of the launching aircraft and the weapon prior to to the target so the WSO could acquire it. Once locked
launch. on, the weapon could be released and the aircraft could
return to base.
The rear control section consists of four wings that are
in an X"-like arrangement with trailing edge ap control Flight testing of the weapon began in 1975. The GBU-15
surfaces for ight maneuvering. The control module con- with television guidance, completed full-scale operational
tains the autopilot, which collects steering data from the test and evaluation in November 1983. In February 1985,
guidance section and converts the information into sig- initial operational test and evaluation was completed on
nals that move the wing control surfaces to change the the imaging infrared guidance seeker.
weapons ight path. In December 1987, the program management responsi-
840
A 3rd TFW F-4E dropping a GBU-15(V)1/B, in 1985.
bility for the GBU-15 weapon system transferred from

the Air Force Systems Command to the Air Force Lo-
gistics Command. The commands merged to become the
Air Force Materiel Command in 1992. Eight of these
weapons were also deployed against Iraqs Osirak reactor
in 1981 to halt its nuclear production as well.
During the integrated weapons system management pro-
cess, AGM-130 and GBU-15 were determined to be a
family of weapons because of the commonality of the two
systems. The Precision Strike Program Oce at Eglin
AFB became the single manager for the GBU-15, with
the Air Logistics Center at Hill Air Force Base, Utah pro-
viding sustainment support.
326.3 Notes
[1] Caldwell, Hamlin A., Jr. Air Force Maritime Missions
United States Naval Institute Proceedings October 1978
p.31
[2] Parsch, Andreas (2004). Rockwell GBU-15(V)/B. Di-

rectory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. designation-

GBU-15 CWW - APA
Chapter 327
GBU-16 Paveway II
The GBU-16 Paveway II is an American Paveway-series

laser-guided bomb, based on the Mk 83 general-purpose
bomb, but with laser seeker and wings for guidance. It
was introduced into service around 1976. It is used by
USAF, US Navy, US Marine Corps, and various NATO
air forces. It uses a 1,000 pound general purpose war-
head. The bomb in the GBU-16 Paveway II is a 1,000
pound Mk 83 bomb.
GBU-16 bombs (along with the balance of the PAVE-
WAY series) are produced by defense giants Lockheed
Lockheed Martin was awarded a contract to compete with
Raytheon when there was a break in production caused by
transferring manufacturing out of Texas.
Raytheon production of the GBU-16 is centered in Ari-
zona, Texas and New Mexico. Lockheed Martin produc-
tion is centered in Pennsylvania.
Laser Guided Bombs are often labeled as "smart bombs"
despite requiring external input in the form of laser des-
ignation of the intended target. According to Raytheons
fact sheet for the PAVEWAY 2, 99 deliveries of guided
munitions will yield a circular error probable(CEP) of
only 3.6 feet, versus a CEP of 310 feet for 99 unguided
bombs dropped under similar conditions.

Raytheons ocial Paveway fact page

842
Chapter 328
GBU-24 Paveway III
GBU-24 Paveway III or simply GBU-24 is a family of the bombs ability to hit the impact point. The GBU-24
laser-guided bombs, a sub-group of the larger Raytheon is cleared on aircraft such as the F-15E, F-16A MLU,
Paveway III family of weapons. The Paveway guidance F-16C Block 40/42, F-16C Block 50/52 CCIP, F-16C+
package consists of a seeker package attached to the nose Block 30 SCU8, F/A-18, Panavia Tornado, Euroghter
of the weapon, and a wing kit attached to the rear to pro- Typhoon, Mirage 2000, Rafale, F-14 Tomcat (prior to
vide stability and greater range. the Tomcats retirement from US Navy service), F-111C
Warhead options consist of: AUP and the Predator C UAVs.[1]
Mk. 84 910 kilograms (2,000 lb) General Purpose

328.1 References
BLU-109 910 kilograms (2,000 lb) Penetrator
[1] Raytheon Paveway
BLU-116 Advanced Unitary Penetrator
CPE-800 Used in the BPG-2000, a similar, in-
digenous Spanish weapon
Compared to the GBU-10 family, or the Paveway II fam-

ily, the GBU-24 glides farther as a result of more e-
cient guidance technology. The Paveway III guidance kit
is more expensive, however, making the GBU-24 suit-
able against well-defended, high-value targets. It was in-
troduced into service c. 1983. This weapon is in service
with the USAF, US Navy, US Marine Corps, and various
NATO air forces.
The bomb requires a spot of pulse-coded laser energy to
home on; this can be supplied by the delivery aircraft,
another aircraft (Buddy Lasing), or by a Ground Laser
Designator. After release from the delivery aircraft, the
thermal battery for the Guidance Computer Group res to
supply power; the arming wire for the fuze is withdrawn;
the wings are released; and depending on the congura-
tion, either the turbine generator or the safety switch (to
power the fuze) is activated.
Once this has happened, the seeker guides the bomb to-
ward the designated impact point. If the laser illumina-
tion is lost, the bomb stops guiding and follows a roughly
ballistic path, although interference from the guidance
kit can lead to the weapon wandering o course. While
the GBU-24 is guided, it is not a powered weaponi.e.,
it has no propulsion. Its range, therefore, depends on
aircraft speed, altitude, wind speed, etc. The GBU-24
is precise enough to be able to y down ventilation shafts
into hardened targets, although accuracy is usually depen-
dent on the ability to point the laser correctly rather than
843
844 CHAPTER 328. GBU-24 PAVEWAY III
A laser-guided GBU-24 (BLU-109 warhead variant) strikes its

target.
Chapter 329
GBU-27 Paveway III
The GBU-27 Paveway III (Guided Bomb Unit) is a 329.3 References

laser-guided bomb with bunker buster capabilities, it is a
GBU-24 Paveway III (tted on the warhead of the BLU- Notes
109 bomb body) that has been redesigned to be used
by the F-117A Nighthawk stealth ground attack aircraft. [1] Don, Holloway (March 1996). STEALTH SECRETS
The pilots ying over Iraq during the rst gulf war nick- OF THE F-117 NIGHTHAWK: Its development was
named it the Hammer,[1] for its considerable destruc- kept under wraps for 14 years, but by 1991, the F-117
tive power and blast radius.[1] nighthawk had become a household word.. Aviation
History (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Cowles Magazines).
ISSN 1076-8858.
[2] William Winkenwerder, Jr., MD, Special Assistant to the

329.1 Combat history Under Secretary of Defense, "The Gulf War Air Cam-
paign - Possible Chemical Warfare Agent Release at Al
The GBU-27 was used in Operation Desert Storm. It Muthanna, February 8, 1991", November 15, 2001.
was the weapon used in the February 13, 1991 attack
[3] NY Times
on the Amiriyah shelter, which resulted in the deaths of
more than 400 Iraqi civilians. It was also used in a series [4] Anton La Guardia - Israel challenges Irans nuclear ambi-
of strikes on the Muthanna State Enterprise site during tions, September 22, 2004
February 1991.[2]
[5] www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13589783.
The rst foreign sale of the GBU-27 was the acquisition
by Israel of 500 units equipped with BLU-109 penetrat-
Bibliography
ing warheads, authorized in September 2004. (Raas and
Long 2006) Delivery of such precision guided weaponry
was accelerated at the request of Israel in July 2006, Whitney Raas and Austin Long, Osirak Redux?
though the exact munition were not specied. Israeli Assessing Israeli Capabilities to Destroy Iranian
Defense Forces ocials state that other precision-guided Nuclear Facilities, MIT Security Studies Program
munitions have been used to attack Hezbollah facilities in Working Paper, April 2006.
[3]
the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conict. However, the bunker
busting technology in the GBU-27 could be directed,
according Israeli military sources, at Iran or possibly 329.4 External links
Syria.[4]
As of 2011 the UKs RAF have also ordered the GBU-27 FAS
for use in Libya.[5] Raytheon (Texas Instruments) Paveway III - Desig-
nation Systems
329.2 See also
Paveway
JDAM
BLU-109
845
Chapter 330
GBU-28
The Guided Bomb Unit 28 (GBU-28) is a 5,000-pound The operator illuminates a target with a laser designator
(2,268 kg) laser-guided "bunker busting" bomb nick- and the munition guides itself to the spot of laser light
named Deep Throat (and unocially nicknamed The reected from the target.
Saddamizer by a design team worker, alluding to its ini-
The bomb underwent testing at the Tonopah Test Range,
tial purpose of bombing a bunker believed to be then- Nevada, a test facility for United States Department of
occupied by Saddam Hussein during Operation Desert
Energy funded weapon programs. An F-111F of the
Storm) produced originally by the Watervliet Arsenal, 431st TES (Test & Evaluation Squadron) based at Mc-
Watervliet, New York. It was designed, manufactured,
Clellan AFB in California dropped the rst GBU-28 at
and deployed in less than three weeks due to an urgentTonopah. It proved capable of penetrating over 30 meters
need during Operation Desert Storm to penetrate hard-
(100 ft) of earth or 6 meters (20 ft) of solid concrete; this
ened Iraqi command centers located deep underground. was demonstrated when a test bomb, bolted to a rocket
Only two of the weapons were dropped in Desert Storm, sled, smashed through 22 ft (6.7 m) of reinforced con-
both by F-111Fs.[1] crete and still retained enough kinetic energy to travel a
The Enhanced GBU-28 augments the laser-guidance mile downrange.[7][8] The GBU-28 is unique in that the
with Inertial navigation and GPS guidance systems.[2] total development time from conception to the rst drop
test took only two weeks, and the weapon went into active
service after only one test drop,[9] at Eglin AFB, Florida
on 19 February 1991.[10]
In August 1990, the U.S. military began planning an air 330.2 Operational history
oensive campaign against Iraq. Planners noticed that a
few command and control bunkers in Baghdad were lo-
cated deep underground to withstand heavy re. Doubts
were raised about the ability of the BLU-109/B to pen-
etrate such fortied structures, so the USAF Air Ar-
mament Division at Eglin AFB, Florida, was asked to
create a weapon that could, and engineer Al Weimorts
sketched improved BLU-109 variants. By January 1991,
as the Persian Gulf War was well underway, it was deter-
mined that the BLU-109/B-equipped laser-guided bombs
(LGB) would be unable to penetrate fortied bunkers
deep underground.[3]
The initial batch of GBU-28s was built from modied
8 inch/203 mm artillery barrels (principally from deacti-
An F-15E of the 492d FS, 48th FW, releasing a GBU-28.
vated M110 howitzers), but later examples are purpose-
built[4] with the BLU-113 bomb body made by Na- On the night of 27/28 February 1991, within hours of the
tional Forge of Irvine, Pennsylvania.[2] They weigh 4,700
ceasere, two General Dynamics F-111Fs, loaded with
pounds (2132 kg) and contain 630 pounds (286 kg) of one GBU-28 each, headed towards a target on the out-
high explosive. skirts of Baghdad. The al-Taji Airbase, located 15 mi
The GBU-28 C/B version uses the 4450 pound BLU-122 (27.4 km) northwest of the Iraqi capital, had been hit at
bomb body, which contains AFX-757 explosive in a 3500 least three times by GBU-27/Bs from F-117 Nighthawks,
pound casing machined from a single piece of ES-1 Eglin digging up the rose garden.[11] The rst GBU-28 was
steel alloy.[5][6] dropped o-target due to target misidentication. The
846
second GBU-28 was a direct hit and penetrated the thick [9] Raytheon GBU-28 Bunker Buster, A US Air Power, re-
reinforced concrete before detonating, killing everyone trieved 14 July 2011
inside.
[10] History Eglin Heritage Brieng (PDF). Nwfdai-
The bomb was used during Operations Enduring Free- lynews.com. Retrieved 16 July 2011.
dom in 2002 and Iraqi Freedom in 2003 by USAF F-
[11] Clancy 1995, p. 157.
15Es.
The rst foreign sale of the GBU-28 was the acquisition [12] US Wants to Sell Israel 'Bunker-Buster' Bombs, Common-
of 100 units by Israel, authorized in April 2005.[12] Deliv- dreams.org, retrieved 14 July 2011
ery of the weapons was accelerated at the request of Israel [13] US embassy cables: Israel seeks to block US planes for
in July 2006. Delivery was described as upcoming in SaudiUS embassy cables: Israel seeks to block US planes
a cable dated November 2009 which suggested that the for Saudi. The Guardian. 28 November 2010.
weapon could be used against Irans nuclear facilities.[13]
Fifty-ve GBU-28s were delivered to Israel in 2009.[14] [14] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/09/23/
president-obama-secretly-approved-transfer-of-bunker-buster-bombs-to-isr
In June 2009 United States agreed to sell the GBU-28s html
to South Korea, following the nuclear test conducted on
25 May 2009 by North Korea. The bombs were to be [15] US to sell 'bunker-buster' bombs to SKorea: ocial.
AFP. 2 June 2009. Retrieved 22 December 2011.
delivered between 2010 and 2014.[15]
According to the Jerusalem Post on 23 December 2011 [16] www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=250992.
the US Justice Department announced that it had reached
a settlement with Kaman Corp. which allegedly substi- Bibliography
tuted a fuse in four lots of fuses made for the bombs.
Under the settlement, Kaman Corp. will pay the gov- Clancy, Tom. Ordnance: How Bombs Got
ernment $4.75 million. Israel is concerned it had also 'Smart'". Fighter Wing. London: HarperCollins,
received GBU-28 bombs fused to prematurely detonate 1995. ISBN 0-00-255527-1.
before penetration or at other times.[16]
Kopp, Carlo. The GBU-28 Bunker Buster. Au-
sairpower.net, June 2011 (last updated).
330.3 See also
HOPE/HOSBO
Raas, Whitney; Long, Austin (April 2006), Osirak
Redux? Assessing Israeli Capabilities to Destroy
330.4 References Iranian Nuclear Facilities, Security Studies Program
Working Paper (PDF), MIT
Notes
[1] Report to Congress on the Conduct of the Persian Gulf War,

Es.rice.edu, retrieved 14 July 2011
[2] PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION. USAF. Re-

[3] Clancy 1995, p. 154.
[4] Raytheon (Texas Instruments) Paveway III, Designation-

systems.net, 21 August 2008, retrieved 14 July 2011
[5] BLU-122/B Penetrator. General Dynamics. Retrieved

14 March 2014.
[6] Manufacture of Bomb Live Unit-122 (BLU-122), a 5000

pound Class of penetrator warhead case.. Federal Busi-
ness Opportunities. Retrieved 14 March 2014.
[7] Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) Bunker Buster Smart

Weapons, FAS.org, retrieved 14 July 2011
[8] Clancy 1995, p. 155.

Chapter 331
GBU-37 GPS-Aided Munition
The GBU-37 (Guided Bomb Unit-37) Global Position-

ing System Aided Munition (GAM) was developed for
use with the B-2 Bomber. The bomb can penetrate hard-
ened targets or targets buried deep underground. The rst
all-weather precision-guided bunker buster, it became op-
erational in 1997.[1][2] It has been replaced on the B-2 by
the 5000-pound GPS-aided/INS-guided GBU-28.
331.1 References
[1] Global Positioning System Aided Munition (GAM)
GBU-36/B & GBU-37/B. Smart Weapons. GlobalSe-
curity.org. Retrieved 29 January 2012.
[2] PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION. USAF. Re-


Northrop Grumman GAM (GPS-Aided Munition)
- Designation Systems
848
Chapter 332
GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast
MOAB redirects here. For other uses, see Moab use MOAB as an anti-personnel weapon, as part of the
(disambiguation). "shock and awe" strategy integral to the 2003 invasion of
Iraq.[5]
The GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB The MOAB is not a penetrator weapon and is primarily
pronounced /mo.b/, commonly known as the Mother intended for soft to medium surface targets covering ex-
of All Bombs) is a large-yield conventional (non-nuclear) tended areas and targets in a contained environment such
bomb, developed for the United States military by Al- as a deep canyon or within a cave system. However, mul-
bert L. Weimorts, Jr. of the Air Force Research Lab- tiple strikes with lower yield ordnance may be more eec-
oratory.[1] At the time of development, it was touted as tive and can be delivered by ghter/bombers such as the
the most powerful non-nuclear weapon ever designed.[2] F-16 with greater stand-o capability than the C-130 and
The bomb was designed to be delivered by a C-130 Her- C-17. High altitude carpet-bombing with much smaller
cules, primarily the MC-130E Combat Talon I or MC- 230 to 910 kilograms (500 to 2,000 lb) bombs delivered
130H Combat Talon II variants. via heavy bombers such as the B-52 or B-2 is also highly
Since then, Russia has tested its "Father of All Bombs", eective at covering large areas.[6]
which is claimed to be four times as powerful as the
MOAB.[3] GBU-43/B on display at the Air Force Armament
Museum, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. Note the
grid ns.
332.1 Operational history Al Weimorts (left), the creator of the GBU-43/B

Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb, and Joseph Fel-
lenz, lead model maker, look over the prototype be-
MOAB was rst tested with the explosive tritonal on 11
fore it was painted and tested.
March 2003, on Range 70 located at Eglin Air Force Base
in Florida. It was again tested on 21 November 2003.[2] Prototype MOAB an instant before impact on Eglin
Aside from two test articles, the only known production AFBs Range 70.
is of 15 units at the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant
in 2003 in support of the Iraq War. A single MOAB was
moved to the Persian Gulf area in April 2003 but it was
never used.[4] Since none of those is known to have been
332.3 See also
used as of early 2007, the U.S. inventory of GBU-43/B
presumably remains at approximately 15. 332.4 References
Notes
332.2 Evaluations
[1] Times Wire Services (27 December 2005). Albert
The basic operational concept bears some similarity to L. Weimorts Jr. 67; Engineer Created 'Bunker Buster'
Bombs. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 8 July 2010.
the BLU-82 Daisy Cutter, which was used to clear heav-
ily wooded areas in the Vietnam War and in Iraq to clear [2] GBU-43/B / Mother Of All Bombs / Massive Ordnance
mines and later as a psychological weapon against the Air Blast Bomb
Iraqi military. After witnessing the psychological impact
[3] Luke Harding (12 September 2007). Russia unveils
of the BLU-82 on enemy soldiers, and not having any
the 'father of all bombs". The Guardian. Retrieved 12
BLU-82 weapons remaining, the MOAB was developed
September 2007.
partly to continue the role of intimidating the Iraqi sol-
diers. Pentagon ocials had suggested their intention to [4] MOAB bomb moved to Iraq war region
849
850 CHAPTER 332. GBU-43/B MASSIVE ORDNANCE AIR BLAST
[5] Enter Moab. National Review Online. 2003. Retrieved

9 December 2011.
[6] United States Military Weapons of War. about.com.

2007. Retrieved 9 December 2007.

AFRL GBU-43/B MOABDesignation Systems
MOAB - Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb
GlobalSecurity.org
DoD News Brieng 11 March 2003 - Test of a
MOAB (RTSP stream)
Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb Test Video
Five years later, its still known as 'Mother of all

bombsaf.mil
Chapter 333
GBU-44/B Viper Strike
The GBU-44/B Viper Strike glide bomb is a GPS-aided On September 1, 2009, it was reported that the Hunter
laser-guided variant of the Northrop Grumman Brilliant had successfully completed testing of the new GPS-
Anti-Tank (BAT) munition which originally had a com- guided Viper Strike weapons system and that it would
bination acoustic and infrared homing seeker. The sys- soon deploy to theater.[6]
tem was initially intended for use from UAVs, and it has On June 2, 2010, Northrop announced that the Viper
also been integrated with the Lockheed AC-130 gunship,
Strike would be added to the United States Marine Corps'
giving that aircraft a precision stand-o capability.[1] The KC-130J refueling and cargo aircraft. Northrop delivered
Viper Strike is now produced by MBDA.
65 munitions.[7]
On December 12, 2011, MBDA Inc. purchased
Northrop Grummans Viper Strike munitions business lo-
333.1 History cated in Huntsville, Alabama. The purchase was the com-
panys rst acquisition in the U.S. as part of their growth
333.1.1 Testing strategy to position MBDA as a leading precision muni-
tions rm and give them a stronger capability in the grow-
The Viper Strike bomb rst underwent testing in 2003. ing market to create and produce new weapons for un-
[8]
On March 29 and 30, Viper Strikes released from an RQ- manned aerial vehicles.
5 Hunter UAV scored 7 out of 10 direct hits at White On April 16, 2012, Viper Strike bombs scored multiple
Sands Missile Range. The other three bombs missed direct hits from a KC-130J Harvest Hawk at the Naval
their targets by a few feet but still inicted measurable Air Warfare Centers China Lake, California Weapons
damage. The objective of the tests was to validate the Station. The munitions were dropped from the new pres-
concept of the Viper Strike and the operational feasi- surized derringer door, which uses a side door in the
bility of Viper Strike integrated on the Hunter UAV.[2] fuselage that enables the aircraft to launch and reload mu-
In June 2005, Northrop integrated the Global Position- nitions while the aircraft remains pressurized.[9]
ing System (GPS) into the laser-guided munition to pro-
In August 2012, MBDA announced that Viper Strike mu-
vide highly accurate midcourse guidance. This allowed
nitions scored direct hits against high speed vehicles dur-
the weapon to be launched from much greater altitude
ing a two-day test. Viper Strikes successfully hit eight
and stando range. During tests, an unarmed weapon
vehicles travelling at extremely high speeds in varying
successfully acquired GPS data after dispensing from an
realistic scenarios.[10][11]
aircraft and ew to pre-assigned GPS waypoints. Fol-
lowing an extended, nearly horizontal midcourse ight,
the GPS-enhanced munition switched over to the semi-
active laser seeker once it entered the target area to detect 333.2 Launch platforms
and track the laser-designated target.[3] In January 2007,
Viper Strikes successfully destroyed a series of moving Current:
and stationary targets in testing at the White Sands Mis-
sile Range. They were guided to their targets by the MQ-5 Hunter [12]
Hunter UAVs laser targeting system.[4] KC-130J Harvest Hawk [13]
AC-130W Stinger II [14]
333.1.2 Deployment and Continued Tests Planned:

AC-130J Ghostrider [15]
The GBU-44/B Viper Strike was rst used in combat in
September 2007. An MQ-5A Hunter UAV used one to AC-27J Stinger
kill two men who were setting up a roadside bomb.[5] MH-6 Little Bird
851
852 CHAPTER 333. GBU-44/B VIPER STRIKE
MQ-1 Predator [10] MBDAS Viper Strike Munition Scores Direct Hits
Against High Speed Targets - MBDA press release,
MQ-1C Gray Eagle
September 4, 2012
MQ-8 Fire Scout
[11] MBDA demonstrates Viper Strike against faster ground
targets - Janes.com, 4 September 2012
333.3 Specications [12] Northrop Grumman (TRW/IAI) BQM-155/RQ-5/MQ-

5 Hunter.
Length: 0.9 m (36 in).[16] [13] Northrop Grumman press release.
Weight: 20 kg (42 lb). [14] The U.S. Air Forces New AC-130 Gunships are Really
Bomb Trucks
Diameter: 14 cm (5.5 in).
[15] The U.S. Air Forces New AC-130 Gunships are Really
Wingspan: 0.9 m (36 in). Bomb Trucks
Glide ratio: 10:1 [16] [16] Viper Strike Overview (PDF) - dtic.mil.
[17] Viper Strike. Deagel. Retrieved 2013-01-20.

Guidance: GPS-midcourse/terminal laser hom-
ing.[17][18] [18] Northrop Grumman Demonstrates Viper Strike Preci-
sion Munition Enhanced with GPS.
Accuracy: < 1 m CEP.
Warhead: 1.05 kg (2.3 lb) (HEAT).[16]

333.4 See also Northrop Grumman BAT / GBU-44/B Viper Strike

AGM-175 Grin GBU-44 Viper Strike: Death From Above - Defense
Industry Daily
MQ-9 Reaper
GBU-44/B Viper Strike - MBDA
333.5 References
[1] Viper Strike Laser Guided Weapon for UAVs. Defense
Update. 2005-09-25. Retrieved 2013-01-20.
[2] Viper Strike Scores Direct Hits in US Army-Northrop

Tests - Deagel.com, April 9, 2003
[3] Greater Launch Altitude for Viper Strike - Deagel.com,

June 15, 2005
[4] Hunter-Viper Strike Completes Testing at White Sands

Missile Range - Deagel.com, February 28, 2007
[5] Viper Strike in service - Strategypage.com, April 7, 2009
[6] Hunter Unmanned Air System Successfully Completes

GPS-guided Viper Strike Testing - Deagel.com, Septem-
ber 1, 2009
[7] Viper Strike Being Added to US Marines KC-130J Air-

craft Arsenal - Deagel.com, June 2, 2010
[8] MBDA Incorporated Purchases Northrop Grummans

Viper Strike Munitions - MBDA press release, Decem-
ber 12, 2011
[9] VIPER STRIKE SCORES MULTIPLE DIRECT HITS

FROM USMC'S KC-130J HARVEST HAWK - MBDA
press release, April 16, 2012
Chapter 334
Joint Direct Attack Munition
The Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) is a guid-

ance kit that converts unguided bombs, or dumb bombs
into all-weather smart munitions. JDAM-equipped
bombs are guided by an integrated inertial guidance sys-
tem coupled to a Global Positioning System (GPS) re-
ceiver, giving them a published range of up to 15 nautical
miles (28 km). JDAM-equipped bombs range from 500
pounds (227 kg) to 2,000 pounds (907 kg).[1] When in-
stalled on a bomb, the JDAM kit is given a GBU (Guided
Bomb Unit) nomenclature, superseding the Mark 80 or
BLU (Bomb, Live Unit) nomenclature of the bomb to
which it is attached.
The JDAM is not a stand-alone weapon, rather it is a U.S. Navy sailors attach a JDAM kit aboard the USS Constella-
bolt-on guidance package that converts unguided grav- tion (CV-64), in March 2003.
ity bombs into Precision-Guided Munitions, or PGMs.
The key components of the system consist of a tail sec-
tion with aerodynamic control surfaces, a (body) strake function regardless of environmental factors. Laser guid-
kit, and a combined inertial guidance system and GPS ance packages on bombs proved exceptionally accurate in
guidance control unit. clear conditions, but with signicant amounts of airborne
dust, smoke, fog, or cloud cover, the guidance packages
The JDAM was meant to improve upon laser-guided had diculty maintaining lock on the laser designation.
bomb and imaging infrared technology, which can be hin- Research, development, testing and evaluation (RDT&E)
dered by bad ground and weather conditions. Laser seek- of an adverse weather precision guided munition began
ers are now being tted to some JDAMs.[2] in 1992. Several proposals were considered, including a
From 1998 to August 20, 2013, Boeing delivered radical concept that used GPS. At the time, there were
250,000 JDAM kits, producing over 40 guidance kits per few GPS satellites and the idea of using satellite navi-
day.[3] gation for real-time weapon guidance was untested and
controversial. To identify the technical risk associated
with an INS/GPS guided weapon, the Air Force created
in early 1992 a rapid-response High Gear program called
334.1 Etymology the JDAM Operational Concept Demonstration (OCD)
at Eglin Air Force Base. Honeywell, Interstate Electron-
The JDAMs guidance system was jointly developed by ics Corporation, Sverdrup Technology, and McDonnell
the United States Air Force and United States Navy, Douglas were hired to help the USAF 46th Test Wing
hence the joint in JDAM.[4] demonstrate the feasibility of a GPS weapon within one
year. The OCD program tted a GBU-15 guided bomb
with an INS/GPS guidance kit and on 10 February 1993,
334.2 History dropped the rst INS/GPS weapon from an F-16 on a tar-
get 88,000 feet (27 km) downrange. Five more tests were
run in various weather conditions, altitudes, and ranges.[5]
334.2.1 Development
The OCD program demonstrated an 11-meter Circular
The U.S. Air Forces bombing campaign during the Error Probable (CEP).
Persian Gulf War's Operation Desert Storm was less ef- The rst JDAM kits were delivered in 1997, with op-
fective than initially reported, due in part to the lack of erational testing conducted in 1998 and 1999. During
a precision guidance package for its bombs that would testing, over 450 JDAMs were dropped achieving a sys-
853
854 CHAPTER 334. JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION
JDAMs loaded under the left wing of a F-16 Fighting Falcon

with a LITENING II Targeting Pod visible beneath the fuselage
OCD First Flight Test of the rst GPS guided weapon, a direct hit
on the target, Eglin Air Force Base, on February 10, 1993.
tion system is initialized by transfer alignment from the

tem reliability in excess of 95% with a published accu- aircraft that provides position and velocity vectors from
racy under 10 metres (33 ft) CEP.[6] In addition to con- the aircraft systems. Once released from the aircraft,
trolled parameter drops, the testing and evaluation of the the JDAM autonomously navigates to the designated tar-
JDAM also included operationally representative tests get coordinates. Target coordinates can be loaded into
consisting of drops through clouds, rain and snow with the aircraft before takeo, manually altered by the air-
no decrease in accuracy from clear weather tests. In ad- crew in ight prior to weapon release, or entered by a
dition, there have been tests involving multiple weapon datalink from onboard targeting equipment, such as the
drops with each weapon being individually targeted.[7] LITENING II or Sniper targeting pods. In its most ac-
curate mode, the JDAM system will provide a minimum
JDAM and the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber made their
weapon accuracy CEP of ve meters or less when a GPS
combat debuts during Operation Allied Force. The
signal is available. If the GPS signal is jammed or lost,
B-2s, ying 30-hour, nonstop, round-trip ights from
the JDAM can still achieve a 30 meter CEP or less for
Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, delivered more than
free ight times up to 100 seconds.[4]
650 JDAMs during Allied Force. An article published in
a military acquisition journal in 2002 cites that during The introduction of GPS guidance to weapons brought
Operation Allied Force ... B-2s launched 651 JDAMs several improvements to air-to-ground warfare. The rst
with 96% reliability and hit 87% of intended targets...[8] is a real all-weather capability since GPS is not aected
Due to the operational success of the original JDAM, the by rain, clouds, fog, smoke, or man-made obscurants.
program expanded to the 500 pounds (227 kg) Mark 82 Previous precision guided weapons relied on seekers us-
and 1,000 pounds (454 kg) Mark 83, beginning developing infrared, visual light, or a reected laser spot to see
ment in late 1999. As a result of lessons learned during the ground target. These seekers were not eective when
Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Free- the target was obscured by fog and low altitude clouds and
dom, both the US Navy and US Air Force pursued en- rain (as encountered in Kosovo), or by dust and smoke (as
hancements to the kits such as improved GPS accuracy encountered in Desert Storm).
as well as a precision seeker for terminal guidance for use The second advantage is an expanded launch acceptance
against moving targets. region (LAR). The LAR denes the region that the air-
JDAM bombs are inexpensive compared to alternatives craft must be within to launch the weapon and hit the
such as cruise missiles. The original cost estimate was target. Non-GPS based precision guided weapons using
$40,000 each for the tail kits; however, after competitive seekers to guide to the target have signicant restrictions
bidding, contracts were signed with McDonnell Douglas on the launch envelope due to the seeker eld of view.
(later Boeing) for delivery at $18,000 each. Unit costs Some of these systems (such as the Paveway I, II, and
have since increased to $21,000 in 2004 and $27,000 by III) must be launched so that the target remains in the
2011.[9] For comparison, the newest Tomahawk cruise seeker eld of view throughout the weapon trajectory (or
missile, dubbed the Tactical Tomahawk, costs nearly for lock-on-after-launch engagements, the weapon must
$730,000.[10][11] be launched so that the target is in the eld of view during
the terminal ight). This requires the aircraft to y gen-
erally straight at the target when launching the weapon.
334.2.2 Operational use This restriction is eased in some other systems (such as
the GBU-15 and the AGM-130) through the ability of a
Guidance is facilitated through a tail control system and a Weapon System Operator (WSO) in the aircraft to manu-
GPS-aided inertial navigation system (INS). The naviga- ally steer the weapon to the target. Using a WSO requires
334.2. HISTORY 855
a data link between the weapon and the controlling air-

craft and requires the controlling aircraft to remain in the
area (and possibly vulnerable to defensive re) as long as
the weapon is under manual control. Since GPS-based
ight control systems know the weapons current location
and the target location, these weapons can autonomously
adjust the trajectory to hit the target. This allows the
launch aircraft to release the weapon at very large o-
axis angles including releasing weapons to attack targets
behind the aircraft.
JDAMs prior to being loaded for operations over Iraq, 2003
nearly overwhelming them. The SF commander re-

quested Close Air Support (CAS) to strike the Taliban
positions in an eort to stop their advance. A JDAM was
subsequently dropped, but instead of striking the Taliban
positions, it struck the Afghan/American position, killing
three and injuring 20. An investigation of the incident de-
termined that the U.S. Air Force Tactical Control Party
(TACP) attached to the Special Forces team had changed
GBU-38 explosions in Iraq in 2008. the battery in the GPS receiver at some point during the
battle, thereby causing the device to return to default
The third advantage is a true re-and-forget capabil- and display its own coordinates. Not realizing that this
ity in which the weapon does not require any support af- had occurred, the TACP relayed his own coordinates to
[12][13]
ter being launched. This allows the launching aircraft to the delivery aircraft.
leave the target area and proceed to its next mission im-
mediately after launching the GPS guided weapon.
334.2.3 Upgrades
Another important capability provided by GPS-based
guidance is the ability to completely tailor a ight tra-
jectory to meet criteria other than simply hitting a tar-
get. Weapon trajectories can be controlled so that a tar-
get can be impacted at precise headings and vertical an-
gles. This provides the ability to impact perpendicular to
a target surface and minimize the angle of attack (max-
imizing penetration), detonate the warhead at the opti-
mum angle to maximize the warhead eectiveness, or
have the weapon y into the target area from a dierent
heading than the launch aircraft (decreasing the risk of
detection of the aircraft). GPS also provides an accurate
time source common to all systems; this allows multiple
weapons to loiter and impact targets at preplanned times
and intervals. DSU-33 Airburst sensor (right)
In recognition of these advantages, most weapons includ- Experience during Operation Enduring Freedom and Op-
ing the Paveway, GBU-15, and the AGM-130 have been eration Iraqi Freedom led US air power planners to seek
upgraded with a GPS capability. This enhancement com- additional capabilities in one package, resulting in ongo-
bines the exibility of GPS with the superior accuracy of ing program upgrades to place a precision terminal guid-
seeker guidance. ance seeker in the JDAM kit.[14] The Laser JDAM (LJ-
Despite their precision, JDAM employment has risks. DAM), as this upgrade is known, adds a laser seeker to
On 5 December 2001, a JDAM dropped by a B-52 in the nose of a JDAM equipped bomb, giving the ability to
Afghanistan nearly killed Hamid Karzai, while he was engage moving targets to the JDAM. The Laser Seeker
leading anti-Taliban forces near Sayd Alim Kalay along- is a cooperative development between Boeing's Defense,
side a US Army Special Forces (SF) team. A large Space and Security unit and Israels Elbit Systems.[15] It
force of Taliban soldiers had engaged the combined force is called Precision Laser Guidance Set (PLGS) by Boe-
of Karzais men and their American SF counterparts, ing and consists of the Laser Seeker itself, now known
as DSU-38/B, and a wire harness xed under the bomb The GBU-54 LJDAM made its combat debut on Au-
body to connect the DSU-38/B with the tail kit. During gust 12, 2008 in Iraq when a F-16 from the 77th
FY2004, Boeing and the U.S. Air Force began testing of Fighter Squadron engaged a moving vehicle in Diyala
the laser guidance capability for JDAM, with these tests province.[20] Furthermore, the GBU-54 LJDAM made its
demonstrating that the system is capable of targeting and combat debut in the Afghan theater by the 510th Fighter
destroying moving targets.[16] This dual guidance system Squadron in October 2010.[21]
retains the ability to operate on GPS/INS alone, if laser In September 2012, Boeing began full-rate production of
guidance is unavailable, with the same accuracy of the Laser JDAM for US Navy and received a contract for
earlier JDAM.
more than 2,300 bomb kits.[22]
On July 24, 2008 Germany signed a contract with Boe-
ing to become the rst international customer of LJDAM.
Deliveries for the German Air Force began in mid-2009.
The order also includes the option for further kits in
2009.[23]
In November 2014, the U.S. Air Force began develop-
ment of a version of the GBU-31 JDAM intended to
track and attack sources of electronic warfare jamming
directed to disrupt the munitions guidance. The Home-
on-Jam seeker works similar to the AGM-88 HARM to
follow the source of a radio-frequency jammer to destroy
it.[24]
334.2.4 JDAM Extended Range

In 2006, the Australian Defence Science and Technol-
ogy Organisation in conjunction with Boeing Australia
successfully tested extended range JDAM variants at
Woomera Test Range.[25]
In 2009, Boeing announced that it will jointly develop the
Joint Direct Attack Munition Extended Range (JDAM-
ER) with South Korea.[26] The guidance kit will triple the
range of JDAM to 80 km for the same accuracy, and will
cost $10,000 per unit.[27] The rst prototypes are to be
completed in 2010 or 2011.
GBU-54 laser seeker. The wing kits of Australias JDAM-ER weapons will be
built by Ferra Engineering. First tests are to be conducted
[28]
On June 11, 2007, Boeing announced that it had been in 2013 with production orders in 2015.
awarded a $28 million contract by the U.S. Air Force to
deliver 600 laser seekers (400 to the air force and 200
to the navy) by June 2009.[17] According to the Boeing 334.3 Integration
Corporation, in tests at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada,
Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcons and F-15E Strike Ea-
gles dropped twelve (12) 500 pounds (227 kg) LJDAMs
334.3.1 Current
that successfully struck high-speed moving targets. Us-
JDAM is currently compatible with:
ing onboard targeting equipment, the launch aircraft self-
designated, and self-guided their bombs to impact on
the targets. In addition to the LJDAM kits, Boeing is A-4 Skyhawk
also testing under a navy development contract, an anti-
AV-8B Harrier II
jamming system for the JDAM, with development ex-
pected to be completed during 2007, with deliveries to A-10 Thunderbolt II
commence in 2008.[18] The system is known as the Inte-
grated GPS Anti-Jam System (IGAS). AMX International AMX
Boeing announced on September 15, 2008 that it had B-1B Lancer
conducted demonstration ights with the LJDAM loaded
aboard a B-52H.[19] B-2A Spirit
334.4. OPERATORS 857
334.3.2 Past
JDAM was compatible with the following aircraft:
F-14A/B/D Tomcat retired

F-117 Nighthawk retired
S-3 Viking retired
334.4 Operators
Apart from being used by its main userthe United
JDAMs loaded onto a Heavy Stores Adaptor Beam (HSAB) under
States militarythe U.S. government has also approved
the wing of a B-52H Stratofortress
the JDAM for export sale under the Arms Export Control
Act, though in limited numbers to only a few countries.
334.4.1 Export customers

Australia[30]
Belgium
Canada: The Royal Canadian Air Force
used their rst JDAM during Operation Mobile in
2011.[31]
Chile
2000lb GBU-31s ripple drop in Afghanistan by two F-15Es, Denmark
2009.
Egypt
B-52H Stratofortress Finland[32][33]
F-15E Strike Eagle Germany: rst international customer of LJ-

DAM
F-16C Fighting Falcon
Greece[34]
CF-18 Hornet
Indonesia
F/A-18A+/A++/C/D Hornet
Israel[35]
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Italy:[36] Between 900 and 1000 GBU-31s and
F-22 Raptor GBU-32s were produced in Italy for the Aeronautica
Militare by Oto Melara
F-35 Lightning II
Japan: + LJDAM[37]
MQ-9 Reaper
Malaysia[38]
Mitsubishi F-2
Morocco [39]
Panavia Tornado
Netherlands[40]
Mirage F-1 Norway[41]
Saab JAS 39 Gripen Oman
A-29 Super Tucano[29] Poland
KAI FA-50 Portugal
Saudi Arabia[42]
Singapore
South Korea
Spain:[43] Spanish Naval Air Arm EAV-8B+

(only GBU-38)
Thailand
Turkey

USAF artist rendering of JDAM kits tted to Mk 84, BLU-109,
Mk 83, and Mk 82 unguided bombs.
Primary function: Guided air-to-surface weapon GBU-32(V)1/B (USAF) Mk-83
GBU-32(V)2/B (USN/USMC) Mk-83
Contractor: Boeing
GBU-35(V)1/B (USN/USMC) BLU-110
Length: (JDAM and warhead) GBU-31 (v) 1/B:
152.7 inches (3,880 mm); GBU-31 (v) 3/B: 148.6 500 lb (225 kg) nominal weight
inches (3,770 mm); GBU-32 (v) 1/B: 119.5 inches GBU-38/B (USAF) Mk-82,(USN/USMC)
(3,040 mm) Mk-82 and BLU-111
Launch weight: (JDAM and warhead) GBU-31 (v) GBU-54/B LaserJDAM (MK-82)
1/B: 2,036 pounds (924 kg); GBU-31 (v) 3/B: 2,115
pounds (959 kg); GBU-32 (v) 1/B: 1,013 lb 1,013
pounds (459 kg) 334.7 Similar systems
Wingspan: GBU-31: 25 inches (640 mm); GBU-
32: 19.6 inches (500 mm) HGK (bomb) designed and developed by Turkish
Defence Institute TUBITAK-SAGE[44][45]
Range: Up to 15 nautical miles (28 km)
Spice (munition) - guidance kit developed by Rafael
Ceiling: 45,000 feet (14,000 m) for the Israeli Air Force
Guidance system: GPS/INS SMKB - Brazilian guidance kit developed by
Unit cost: Approximately $22,000 per tailkit (FY Mectron and Britanite
07 dollars)[4]
Date deployed: 1999 334.8 See also

Inventory: The tailkit is in full-rate production.
Projected inventory is approximately 240,000 total, GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb
158,000 for the US Air Force and 82,000 for the US
Navy. (As of October 2005) HOPE/HOSBO
AASM
334.6 Variants JSOW
2,000 lb (900 kg) nominal weight

334.9 References
GBU-31(V)1/B (USAF) Mk-84
GBU-31(V)2/B (USN/USMC) Mk-84 [1] JDAM continues to be warghters weapon of choice.
Archived from the original on 2012-07-22. Retrieved
GBU-31(V)3/B (USAF) BLU-109
2007-07-27.
GBU-31(V)4/B (USN/USMC) BLU-109
[2] Laser Guided JDAM Debuts in Iraq. Defense Update.
1,000 lb (450 kg) nominal weight Retrieved 2010-10-05.
[3] JDAM Weapon Program Reaches 250,000-Kit Milestone [22] Boeing Begins Full-Rate Production of Laser JDAM for
- Deagel.com, 20 August 2013 US Navy - Defense-Aerospace.com, September 25, 2012
[4] Joint Direct Attack Munition GBU- 31/32/38. USAF. [23] Germany becomes the rst international customer of LD-
June 18, 2003. Retrieved 1 April 2014. JAM, Boeing.com
[5] INS/GPS Operational Concept Demonstration (OCD) [24] Air Force to enable smart weapons to track and kill
High Gear Program, IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Sys- sources of electronic warfare (EW) jamming - Mili-
tems Magazine, 8 August 1994. taryaerospace.com, 13 November 2014
[6] JDAM: The Kosovo Experience and DPAS (PDF). The [25] TESTS OF EXTENDED RANGE SMART BOMBS -
Boeing Company, Charles H. Davis. 19 April 2000. Re- Australian Department of Defence, 12 September 2009
trieved 2007-09-01.
[26] Boeing Partners with Times Aerospace Korea to Develop
[7] U.S. Air Force B-2 Bomber Drops 80 JDAMS in His- Smart Bomb. Aerospace-Technology
toric Test (Press release). The Boeing Company. 17
September 2003. Retrieved 2007-09-02. [27] James M. Hasik (2008). Arms and Innovation: En-
trepreneurship and Alliances in the Twenty-First Century
[8] Myers, Dominique (2002). Acquisition Reform-Inside Defense Industry. ISBN 978-0-226-31886-8.
The Silver Bullet (PDF). Acquisition Review Journal. IX,
no. 2 (Fall 2002): 312322. Archived from the original [28] Australias Ferra Engineering to produce JDAM-ER
on 2007-09-26. Retrieved 2007-09-01. wing kits.
[9] Air Force Justication Book Procurement of Ammuni- [29] Bringing Back Counter-Insurgency: AT-6B vs. A-29B
tion, Air Force. Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY) Defence Talk, 10 September 2011. Retrieved: 15 January
2012 Budget Estimates. US Air Force. Retrieved 29 De- 2012.
cember 2011.
[30] boeing.com Boeing JDAM Wins Australian Competi-
[10] The JDAM Revolution article by Peter Grier in Air tion. Archived from the original on 2007-04-11. Re-
Force Online, the journal of the Air Force Association, trieved 2007-07-27.
September, 2006.
[31] CF-188 Hornets on Op MOBILE drop rst JDAM
[11] BGM-109 Tomahawk: Variants. Retrieved 2007-07- bombs. Retrieved 2011-10-27.
27.(p 52)
[32] FMS: Third Phase of Finnish F/A-18 MLU. Retrieved
[12] Mark Burgess (June 12, 2002). Killing Your Own: The 2007-07-27.
Problem of Friendly Fire During the Afghan Campaign.
CDI. Retrieved 2010-10-05. [33] DoD
[13] uni-bielefeld.de Whybecause analysis (p. 9). [34] http://hellenicdefencenews.blogspot.com/search/label/

JDAM
[14] Dual Mode Guided Bomb. Deagel.com. Retrieved
2010-10-05. [35] First International JDAM Sale: Boeing to Integrate
Weapon on Israeli Aircraft. Retrieved 2007-07-27.
[15] U.S. Backs Israeli Munitions Upgrades, Defence News,
May 3 2010. [36] global security.org. Retrieved 2007-07-27.
[16] Boeing Scores Direct Hit in Laser JDAM Moving Target [37] 2008-12 P118
Test. The Boeing Company. July 11, 2006. Retrieved
[38] SIPRI arms transfer database. Stockholm International
2010-10-05.
Peace Research Institute. Information generated in 6
[17] Boeing Awarded Laser JDAM Contract (Press release). November 2013. Check date values in: |date= (help)
The Boeing Company. June 11, 2007. Retrieved 2010-
[39]
10-05.
[40] Dutch secretary of defense details plan for purchase of
[18] Boeing Completes JDAM Anti-Jamming Developmental
JDAMs. Retrieved 2007-07-27.
Flight Test Program (Press release). The Boeing Com-
pany. June 18, 2007. Retrieved 2010-10-05. [41] Norway Signs Contract for Boeing JDAM. Retrieved
2007-07-27.
[19] Boeing Press Release, 15 September 2008.
[20] Air Force employs rst combat use of laser joint direct [42] Gates says Washington to sell smart bombs to Saudi Ara-
attack munition in Iraq. Media release. Joint Base Balad bia. Retrieved 2007-07-27.
Public Aairs. 2008-08-27. Retrieved 27 March 2012. [43] armada.mde.es. Retrieved 2013-05-25.
[21] Nystrom, Tech. Sgt. Drew (10/1/2010). Vultures make [44] Komutanlar Anadolu Kartali'nda (In Turkish)". Re-
impact with rst GBU-54 combat drop in Afghanistan. trieved 2010-10-05.
Media release. 455th Air Expeditionary Wing Public Af-
fairs Oce. Retrieved 27 March 2012. Check date values [45] Anadolu Kartali'na Yerli Bilim Katkisi (In Turkish)".
in: |date= (help) Retrieved 2010-10-05.
334.10 Bibliography
Bonds, Ray and David Miller (2002-08-05).
US Department of Defense. Kosovo/Operation Al-

lied Force After Action Report (PDF).
JDAM Press releases

Boeing: Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM)
Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) JDAM - Designation
Systems
Product Update: JDAM
Precision Strike Weapons

Diamond Back Range Extension Kit
How Smart Bombs Work

DAMASK Overview
Safeguarding GPS 14 April 2003 Scientic Ameri-

can
Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM)

Boeing JDAM gallery
Video of a JDAM explosion on YouTube
JDAM Matures (Australian Aviation)

JDAM-ER (Extended Range) 15 October 2008
Defence Science and Technology Organisation
Chapter 335
Massive Ordnance Penetrator
The GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator U.S. Congress to shift funding in order to accelerate the
(MOP) is a U.S. Air Force, precision-guided, 30,000- project.[8][9] It was later announced by the U.S. military
pound (13,608 kg) "bunker buster" bomb.[2] This is that funding delays and enhancements to the planned test
substantially larger than the deepest penetrating bunker schedule meant the bomb would not be deployable until
busters previously available, the 5,000-pound (2,268 kg) December 2010, six months later than the original avail-
GBU-28 and GBU-37. ability date.[10]
The project has had at least one successful Flight Test
MOP launch.[11] The nal testing will be completed in
335.1 Development 2012.[3]
The Air Force took delivery of 20 bombs, designed to
In 2002, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin were be delivered by the B-2 bomber, in September 2011. In
working on the development of a 30,000-lb (13,600 February 2012, Congress approved $81.6 million to fur-
kg) earth-penetrating weapon, said to be known as Big ther develop and improve the weapon.[12]
BLU". But funding and technical diculties resulted in
the development work being abandoned. Following the
2003 invasion of Iraq, analysis of sites that had been at- 335.1.1 Recent development
tacked with bunker-buster bombs revealed poor penetra-
tion and inadequate levels of destruction. This renewed On 7 April 2011, the USAF ordered eight MOPs plus
interest in the development of a super-large bunker- supporting equipment for $28 million.[13]
buster, and the MOP project was initiated by the Defense On 14 November 2011, Bloomberg reported that the Air
Threat Reduction Agency to fulll a long-standing Air Force Global Strike Command started receiving the Mas-
Force requirement.[3] sive Ordnance Penetrator and that the deliveries will
The U.S. Air Force has not ocially recognized specic meet requirements for the current operational need.[14]
military requirement for an ultra-large bomb, but it does The Air Force now has received delivery of 16 MOPs as
have a concept for a collection of massively sized pene- of November 2011.[15] And as of March 2012, there is an
trator and blast weapons, the so-called Big BLU collec- operational stockpile at Whiteman Air Force Base.[16]
tion, which includes the MOAB (Massive Ordnance Air In 2012, the Pentagon requested $82 million to develop
Burst) bomb. Development of the MOP was performed greater penetration power for the existing weapon.[1] A
at the Air Force Research Laboratory, Munitions Direc- 2013 report stated that the development had been a
torate, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida with design and test- success,[17] and B-2 integration testing began that year.[18]
ing work performed by Boeing. It is intended that the
bomb will be deployed on the B-2 bomber, and will be
MOP being ooaded in preparation for its rst ex-
guided by the use of GPS.[4][5]
plosive test, 2007.
Northrop Grumman announced a $2.5-million stealth-
bomber ret contract on 19 July 2007. Each of the MOP underground at White Sands Missile Range
U.S. Air Forces B-2s is to be able to carry two 14-ton before its rst explosive test, 2007.
MOPs.[6][7]
Mock up of MOP inside a bomb bay of a B-2 sim-
The initial explosive test of MOP took place on 14 March ulator, 2007.[1]
2007 in a tunnel belonging to the Defense Threat Reduc-
tion Agency (DTRA) at the White Sands Missile Range, B-52 releases a MOP during a weapons test, 2009.
New Mexico.
On 6 October 2009, ABC News reported that the Pen- 1. ^ Cite error: The named reference WLT was in-
tagon had requested and obtained permission from the voked but never dened (see the help page).
861
862 CHAPTER 335. MASSIVE ORDNANCE PENETRATOR
335.2 Next-generation Penetrator 335.5 References

Munition
[1] Adam Entous; Julian E. Barnes (28 January 2012).
Pentagon Seeks Mightier Bomb vs. Iran. The Wall
On 25 June 2010, USAF Lt. Gen. Phillip Breedlove said Street Journal. Retrieved 15 December 2013.
that the Next-generation Penetrator Munition should be
about a third the size of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator [2] B-2/Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) GBU-57A/B.
so it could be carried by aordable aircraft.[19] In Decem- FedBizOpps
ber 2010, the USAF had a Broad Agency Announcement
[3] MASSIVE ORDNANCE PENETRATOR fact sheet.
(BAA) for the Next Generation Penetrator (NGP).[20] US Air Force. 2011-11-18. Retrieved 2 January 2012.
Global Strike Command has indicated that one of the ob-
jectives for the Next-Generation Bomber is for it to carry [4] GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) / Di-
rect Strike Hard Target Weapon / Big BLU
a weapon with the eects of the Massive Ordnance Pen-
etrator. This would either be with the same weapon or [5] Military & Aerospace Electronics, Air Force ready to de-
a smaller weapon that uses rocket power to reach su- ploy 30,000-pound 'super bomb' on stealthy B-2 jet
cient speed to match the penetrating power of the larger
weapon.[21] [6] Feature30,000-pound bomb reaches milestone. US Air
Force
One of the current limitations of the MOP is that it lacks
a void-sensing fuze and will therefore detonate after it has [7] Northrop Grumman Begins Work to Equip B-2 Bomber
come to a stop, even if it passed by the target area.[22] with Massive Penetrator Weapon (NYSE:NOC)
[8] Is the U.S. Preparing to bomb Iran? - ABC News
335.3 Specications [9] http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/reprogramming_

memo_091006.pdf
Length: 20.5 feet (6.2 m)[23] [10] Wolf, Jim (18 December 2009). Exclusive: Pentagon
delays new bunker buster bomb. Reuters.
Diameter: 31.5 inches (0.8 m)[23]
[11] Team Edwards wins two safety awards
Weight: 30,000 pounds (14 tonnes)
[12] Capaccio, Tony, Bunker-Buster Bomb Improvements
Warhead: 5,300 pounds (2.4 tonnes) high explosive Sought By Pentagon Win Approval, Bloomberg L.P., 9
February 2012.
Penetration: 200 ft (61 m)[6]
[13] Reed, John. USAF Getting More Penetrating Power.
DoD Buzz, 8 April 2011.
[14] Capaccio, Tony. 30,000-Pound Bunker Buster Bomb

335.4 See also Now Ready. Bloomberg, 14 November 2011.
Bunker buster [15] The Air Force now has the MOP.
Earthquake bomb [16] Thompson, Mark. Key Point: Bunker-Busters Come In

Both Small and Large Sizes. Time. 9 March 2012.
Thermobaric weapon
[17] Capaccio, Tony (15 January 2013). Boeings 30,000-
pound bunker-buster bomb improved, Pentagon says.
Specic large bombs Seattle Times. Retrieved 29 March 2013.
[18] Northrop, USAF Explore Diverse B-2 Weapons Op-

BLU-82 Daisy Cutter bomb tions.
Father of All Bombs (FOAB) [19] Daily Report AirForce Magazine, 25 June 2010.
GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb [20] Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) - Next Generation
(MOAB) Penetrator (NGP)"
[21] Trimble, Stephen. Penetrate faster, harder with new

Grand Slam bomb AFRL weapon. Flightglobal, 20 February 2011.
T-12 Cloudmaker [22] USAF Focuses On Next-Gen Hard-Target Killer.
Tallboy bomb [23] Massive Ordnance Penetrator Fact Sheet


Massive Ordnance Penetrator Fact Sheetdtra.mil
First Massive Ordnance Penetrator Explosive Test

Successfuldtra.mil
Boeing-Developed Massive Ordnance Penetrator

Successfully Completes Static Lethality Test
Boeing
'Bunker busters may grow to 30,000 poundsCNN

Massive bomb to MOP up deeply buried targets
Janes Defence Weekly
A dierent kind of smart: weapons becoming au-
tonomous and preciseJanes
Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP)
GlobalSecurity.org
U.S. Outtting B-2s with Monster Bunker Buster
Bombs - Iran May Be TargetNewsMax
MOPping Up: The USAs 30,000 Pound Bomb
Kennedy-Feinstein Amendment to the Defense Au-

thorization Bill on the Robust Nuclear Earth Pene-
trator (RNEP)
Rare image of a B-2 stealth bomber and its Massive
Ordnance Penetrator bunker buster bomb
Chapter 336
Paveway
Top to bottom: A Paveway 2 computer control group, an En-

hanced GBU-12, and a Laser-Guided Training Round, at the
Paris Air Show 2007
Pave Spike, Pave Tack and Pave Knife, and for special-
ized military aircraft, such as AC-130U Pave Spectre,
A Paveway III seeker head, at the RAF Museum in Hendon, MH-53 Pave Low, and HH-60 Pave Hawk.
London.
336.1 History
The Paveway series of laser-guided bombs was developed
by Texas Instruments starting in 1964. The program was
conducted on a shoestring budget, but the resultant em-
phasis on simplicity and economical engineering proved
to be a benet, and a major advantage over other more
complex guided weapons. The rst test weapon, using
a M117 bomb as the warhead, took place in April 1965.
Prototype weapons were sent to Vietnam for combat test-
ing starting in 1968.
In January 1967 the Air Force authorized Project 3169 as
the formal engineering program for development of pre-
cision guided munitions, renewing its contract with TI in
Paveway III at ILA airshow 2006 March to redesign the M117 kit, with a very aggressive
timeline, projecting deployment to Vietnam for combat
Paveway is a trademark of Raytheon for laser-guided testing in one year. Direction of the program was as-
bombs and related goods and services, also used by signed to the Guided Bomb Program Oce at Wright-
Lockheed Martin for specic products under license.[1] Patterson Air Force Base in August, and ight testing be-
Pave or PAVE is sometimes used as an acronym for pre- gun in November at Eglin Air Force Base under the direc-
cision avionics vectoring equipment; literally, electronics tion of an interagency organization called the Pave Way
for controlling the speed and direction of aircraft. Laser Task Force. At that time the program had three divisions:
guidance is a form of Pave.
Paveway 1 laser-guided munitions
Pave, paired with other words, also names laser systems
that designate targets for LGBs, for example Pave Penny, Paveway 2 an electro-optical guidance (TV) mu-
864
336.1. HISTORY 865
nition developed by Rockwell International desig- Existing LGBs in US service can be upgraded to
nated HOBO ("Homing Bomb), of which 4,000 Dual Mode Laser Guided Bombs (DMLGB) by adding
were eventually produced and 500 launched in com- GPS receivers which enable all weather employment.
bat, and Lockheed Martin won the initial contract to provide
DMLGBs to the US Navy (USN) in 2005, however
Paveway 3 an infrared homing stem that was never subsequent-year money has been zeroed in favor of
deployed. a follow-on Direct Attack Moving Target Capability
(DAMTC) program. Raytheons version, the Enhanced
Paveway 4 dual mode GPS/Inertial guidance Paveway II, has been contracted both within the US and
abroad.
Because Paveway 2, although considerably more accurate Raytheons advanced Paveway IV 500 lb bomb has been
and capable, was four to ve times more expensive per in service since 2008 with Britains RAF, but it appears
copy and much less applicable to most targeting situa- that the USAF remains committed to the GBU-39 Small
tions in Vietnam, Paveway 1 became the emphasis of the Diameter Bomb program.
program.
The Paveway series of bombs includes:
Paveway kits attach to a variety of warheads, and consist
of a semi-active laser (SAL) seeker, a computer control
GBU-10 Paveway II Mk 84 or BLU-109 2,000 lb
group (CCG) containing guidance and control electron-
(907 kg) bomb
ics, thermal battery, and pneumatic control augmentation
system (CAS). There are front control canards and rear GBU-12 Paveway II Mk 82 500 lb (227 kg) bomb
wings for stability. The weapon guides on reected laser
energy: the seeker detects the reected light (sparkle) GBU-16 Paveway II Mk 83 1,000 lb (454 kg)
of the designating laser, and actuates the canards to guide bomb
the bomb toward the designated point.
GBU-58 Paveway II Mk 81 250 lb (113.4 kg)
The original Paveway series, retroactively named Pave- bomb
way I, gave way in the early 1970s to the improved Pave-
way II, which had a simplied, more reliable seeker and GBU-22 Paveway III Mk 82 500 lb (227 kg)
pop-out rear wings to improve the weapons glide per- bomb. Developed at the same time as GBU-24, with
formance. Both Paveway I and Paveway II use a simple some limited export success, but was not adopted by
'bang-bang' control system, where the CAS commands USA as it was felt to be too small a warhead for the
large canard deections to make course corrections, re- desired eects at the time.
sulting in a noticeable wobble. This had relatively little
eect on accuracy, but expends energy quickly, limiting GBU-24 Paveway III Mk 84/BLU-109 2,000 lb
eective range. As a consequence, most users release (907 kg) class bomb
Paveway I and II weapons in a ballistic trajectory, acti-
GBU-27 Paveway III BLU-109 2,000 lb (907 kg)
vating the laser designator only late in the weapons ight
bomb with penetration warhead, specially designed
to rene the impact point.
for F-117 because the large ns of GBU-24 couldn't
In 1976, the USAF issued a requirement for a new gener- t into the bomb bay of F-117.
ation, dubbed Paveway III, that nally entered service in
1986. The Paveway III system used a much more sophis- GBU-28 Paveway III During the Gulf War, the
ticated seeker with a wider eld of view and proportional deepest and most hardened Iraqi bunkers could not
guidance, minimizing the energy loss of course correc- be defeated by the BLU-109/B penetrator warhead,
tions. Paveway III has a considerably longer glide range so a much more powerful bunker buster GBU-
and greater accuracy than Paveway II, but it is substan- 28 was developed. The latest warhead used in the
tially more expensive, limiting its use to high-value tar- GBU-28/B series is the BLU-122/B, a development
gets. Although Paveway III kits were developed for the of earlier BLU-113 on early GBU-28s.
smaller Mk 82 weapons, limited eectiveness caused the
Paveway IV 500 lb (227 kg) bomb
USAF to adopt the kit only for the larger 2,000 lb-class
weapons (the Mk 84 and BLU-109). Paveway III guid- GBU-48 Enhanced Paveway II Mk 83 1,000 lb
ance kits were also used on the GBU-28/B penetration (454 kg) bomb. Raytheons Enhanced dual-mode
bomb elded at the close of the 1991 Gulf War. The GPS and Laser guided version of the laser-only
Paveway III system was also used during the Indian of- GBU-16.
fensive in the Kargil War of 1999 by the Indian Air Force
with the Mirage 2000 as a launch platform. Raytheon, GBU-49 Enhanced Paveway II BLU-133 500 lb
the sole provider of Paveway III variants, is currently de- (227 kg) bomb. Raytheons Enhanced dual-mode
livering both standard and enhanced versions to the US GPS and Laser guided version of the laser-only
Government and foreign customers. GBU-12.
866 CHAPTER 336. PAVEWAY
GBU-50 Enhanced Paveway II Mk 84 or BLU-109 336.5 References

2,000 lb (907 kg) bomb. Raytheons Enhanced dual-
mode GPS and Laser guided version of the laser- [1] , retrieved on October 8, 2014.
only GBU-10.
[2] http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app5/
GBU-59 Enhanced Paveway II Mk 81 250 lb paveway-2.html
(113.4 kg) bomb. Raytheons Enhanced dual-mode
[3] ttabvue.uspto.gov, , retrieved on July 4, 2009.
GPS and Laser guided version of the laser-only
GBU-58. [4] ttabvue.uspto.gov, , retrieved on October 3, 2011.
[5] http://www.law360.com/articles/579498/
Although GBU-48 etc. are the formal designation for
raytheon-lockheed-end-ip-war-over-paveway-bombs,
the versions with GPS/INS, they are widely referred to
retrieved on October 8, 2014.
as EGBU-16 etc. (Enhanced GBU-16).[2]
336.2 Assembly 336.6 External links

Paveway - Designation Systems

336.3 Trademark
Lockheed Martin and Raytheon compete to supply LGBs
to the United States Air Force, and others. Raytheon
claimed the exclusive right to use Paveway as a trademark
for selling LGB-related products. Lockheed Martin
claimed Paveway is a generic term in the defense in-
dustry. Lockheed objected to Raytheons registration
of Paveway in opposition proceedings before the United
States Patent and Trademark Oce.[3] On September 27,
2011, the USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board de-
cided that Paveway is a generic term, in the United States,
for LGBs.[4]
Raytheon subsequently sued Lockheed Martin in Arizona
federal court alleging trademark infringement, Lockheed
led counterclaims in the suit. In September, 2014 the
companies agreed that Raytheon is the exclusive owner of
paveway for laser-guided bombs and related goods and
services and that paveway is a protectable trademark,
but that Raytheon will license the mark to Lockheed for
use in connection with single-mode laser-guided bomb
kits.[5]
336.4 See also

Laser designator
Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) a GPS
guidance package for a standard iron bomb, built by
the Boeing
SCALPEL
Chapter 337
Paveway IV
Paveway IV is a dual mode GPS/INS and laser- discarding shroud design. A penetrating 500 lb Paveway
guided bomb manufactured by Raytheon UK (formerly IV would replace the RAFs previous 2,000 lb Paveway
Raytheon Systems Limited).[1] It is the latest iteration of III bunker buster.[7]
the Paveway series.
The weapon is a guidance kit based on the existing En-
hanced Paveway II Enhanced Computer Control Group 337.1 Operators
(ECCG) added to a modied Mk 82 general-purpose
bomb with increased penetration performance. The new Saudi Arabia[3]
ECCG contains a Height of Burst (HOB) sensor enabling Royal Saudi Air Force
air burst fusing options, and a SAASM (Selective Avail-
ability Anti Spoong Module) compliant GPS receiver. United Kingdom
It can be launched either IMU (Inertial Measurement Royal Air Force
Unit) only, given suciently good Transfer Alignment,
or using GPS guidance. Terminal laser guidance is avail-
able in either navigation mode. 337.2 References
The Paveway IV entered service with the Royal Air Force
[1] Paveway IV. Royal Air Force. Retrieved 7 January
in 2008.[2] It has yet to be accepted into service with
2015.
the United States, which has pursued the development of
the Laser-JDAM and dual mode Small-Diameter Bomb [2] Paveway IV Smart Bomb Enters Service with Royal Navy
(SDB). and Royal Air Force. Deagel.com. 10 December 2008.
Retrieved 7 January 2015.
The Paveway IVs rst export sale was to the Royal Saudi
Air Force in a deal worth approximately 150 million [3] Saudi Arabia becomes rst Paveway IV export cus-
(US $247 million).[3] The deal had been delayed for sev- tomer. IHS Janes. 25 March 2014. Retrieved 7 January
eral years by the U.S. State Department which had to au- 2015.
thorise the bombs sale due to its use of American com-
[4] Raytheon Secures First Export for Paveway IV. Defense
ponents. A contract was signed in December 2013 with
News. 25 March 2014. Retrieved 7 January 2015.
Congressional approval given two months later, with de-
liveries to begin within 18 months.[4] [5] RAF Tornados strike rst Islamic State targets - Flight-
global.com, 30 September 2014
The Paveway IV was rst used operationally by the Royal
Air Force during Operation Herrick in Afghanistan. It [6] Saudi Typhoons Use Paveway IV Bombs on ISIS. De-
was later used operationally during Operation Ellamy fense News. 25 February 2015. Retrieved 25 February
in Libya.[1] In September 2014, a Tornado GR4 of the 2015.
Royal Air Force dropped a Paveway IV bomb on a
[7] RAF To Be Equipped With Bunker Busting Version of
heavy weapon position operated by Islamic State mili-
Paveway IV - Defensenews.com, 18 November 2014
tants in northwest Iraq, marking the rst engagement of
the British military against IS targets.[5] Euroghter Ty-
phoons of the Royal Saudi Air Force have also dropped
Paveway IVs on ISIL targets in Syria.[6] 337.3 External links
Raytheon UK is conducting preparatory work to equip the
RAF Tornados lock on latest guided munition
Paveway IV with a bunker-busting warhead as part of the
Selective Precision Eects At Range (Spear) Capability
1 program. The compact penetrator has the same outer
mold line and mass of the regular Paveway IV and uses a
867
Chapter 338
Pyros (bomb)
The Pyros, previously referred to as the Small Tactical [8] AUVSI: Raytheon completes end-to-end testing of Pyros
Munition (STM), is a weapon developed by Raytheon, bomb - Flightglobal.com, August 7, 2012
designed to be used by UAVs.[1][2][3]
[9] Raytheon Small Tactical Munition Scores Direct Hit In
Raytheon successfully conducted ight tests in Octo- First Guided Flight Test - Reuters.com, August 7, 2012
ber 2010, and it may be used to arm the AAI RQ-7
[10] Tiny Guided Bomb Scores a Direct Hit on Arizona Test
Shadow.[4]
Range - Raytheon news release, 21 August 2014
It weighs 13 pounds (5.9 kg), and originally had a 7 lb (3.2
kg) warhead.[5] On April 18, 2011, Raytheon successfully [11] Raytheon promotes Pyros for Middle East UAV operators
- Flightglobal.com, 17 November 2013
tested a new 5 lb (2.3 kg) warhead. Though lighter, the
new warhead had a signicantly improved blast-fragment
capability.[6]
In July 2012, Raytheon claimed the STM could be
months away from elding.[7] In early August 2012,
Raytheon renamed the munition Pyros and completed the Pyros - Raytheon.com
rst end-to-end test of the bomb.[8] The test validated the
weapons guidance modes, height-of-burst sensor, elec-
tronic safe and arm device, and multi-eects warhead.[9]
On 18 July 2014, Raytheon conducted the rst live-re
test of the Pyros. The munition targeted a simulated
group of insurgents planting a roadside bomb and used
its height-of-burst sensor to detonate several feet above
the ground.[10] Dropped from an altitude of 10,000 feet
(3,000 m), the Pyros takes 35-40 seconds to reach the
ground.[11]
338.1 References
[1] STM / Small Tactical Munition. Retrieved 2010-12-19.
[2] Raytheon tests Small Tactical Munition for UAVs.
Frontier India Defense News. Retrieved 2010-12-19.
[3] AUVSI: Raytheon designing UAV-specic weapons.
[4] USMC seeks to arm Shadow, fast and without US Army
help. Retrieved 2010-12-19.
[5] Raytheon Company: AUSA 2010: Grin and Small
Tactical Munition. Retrieved 2010-12-19.
[6] New Warhead Reduces Size of Small Tactical Munition -
Deagel.com, April 19, 2011
[7] Tiny 2-Foot Missile Could Be Months Away From Drone
War - Wired.com, July 13, 2012
868
Chapter 339
SCALPEL
SCALPEL (Small Contained-Area Laser Precision 339.5 External links

Energetic Load) is a laser-guided bomb produced by
Lockheed Martin. The weapon is being developed from SCALPEL | Lockheed Martin
the Enhanced Laser Guided Training Round (E-LGTR)
which is the training version of the Paveway II series of Another Hundred Pound Wonder Weapon - Strategy
bombs. The rationale behind the system is to provide a Page
light, low-collateral damage weapon which can utilise the
infrastructure and platform integration already in place
for the E-LGTR system. On 14 March 2010, the US
Navy announced its intention to purchase Scalpel. [1]
339.1 Specications
Weight: 100 lbs (45.3 kg)
Length: 75 in (1905 mm)
Diameter: 4 in (102 mm)
Guidance: Semi-active laser homing.
May 2008 - Three inert weapons successfully carried

and released by AV-8B Harriers.[2]
339.3 See also
List of laser articles
339.4 References
[1] Lockheeds Scalpel bomb nds rst customer. Flight

Global. 2010. Retrieved 2010-05-19.
[2] Lockheed Martin Successful in First SCALPEL Flight

Test.
869
Chapter 340
Small Diameter Bomb
fore the maximum range. Its size and accuracy allow for
an eective munition with less collateral damage.[10]
Warhead penetration: 3 feet (0.91 m) of steel rein-

forced concrete [11]
Fuze: Electronic safe and re (ESAF) cockpit se-
lectable functions, including air burst and delayed
options.
The GBU-39 has a circular error probable (CEP) of 5

8 meters,[10] which means it has a 50% probability of
hitting within that distance of its intended target. CEP
is reduced by updating dierential GPS osets prior to
weapon release. These osets are calculated using an
GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb SDB Accuracy Support Infrastructure, consisting of three
or more GPS receivers at xed locations transmitting cal-
The GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) is a 250 lb culated location to a correlation station at the theatre Air
(110 kg) precision-guided glide bomb that is intended to Operations Center. The corrections are then transmitted
provide aircraft with the ability to carry a higher number by Link 16 to SDB-equipped aircraft.
of bombs. Most US Air Force aircraft will be able to
carry (using the BRU-61/A rack) a pack of four SDBs in
place of a single 2,000 lb (907 kg) bomb.[7] 340.2 Development
The Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB-II) / GBU-53/B
scheduled to enter production in January 2014 will add In 2002, while Boeing and Lockheed Martin were com-
a tri-mode seeker (radar, infrared homing, and semiac- peting to develop the Small Diameter Bomb, Darleen A.
tive laser guidance) to the INS and GPS guidance of the Druyunat that time Principal Deputy Assistant Secre-
original SDB.[8] tary of the Air Force for Acquisition and Management
deleted the requirement for moving target engagement,
which favored Boeing. She was later convicted of violat-
340.1 Description ing a conict of interest statute.[12][13]
On May 1, 2009, Raytheon announced that it had com-
The original SDB is equipped with a GPS-aided inertial pleted its rst test ight of the GBU-53/B Small Diame-
navigation system to attack xed/stationary targets such ter Bomb II, which has a data link and a tri-mode seeker
as fuel depots, bunkers etc. The second variant (Boeings built with technology developed for the Precision At-
GBU-40 or Raytheons GBU-53 (SDB II)) will include tack Missile.[14] And on August 10, 2010 the U.S. Air
a thermal seeker and radar with automatic target recog- Force awarded a $450 million contract for engineering
nition features for striking mobile targets such as tanks, and development.[15]
vehicles, and mobile command posts.[9] Although unit costs were somewhat uncertain as of 2006,
The small size of the bomb allows a single strike aircraft the estimated cost for the INS/GPS version was around
to carry more of the munitions than is possible utilizing US$70,000. Boeing and the Italian rm Oto Melara
currently available bomb units. The SDB carries approx- have signed a contract covering the license production
imately 38 pounds (17 kg) of AFX-757 high explosive. of 500 GBU-39s (INS/GPS) and 50 BRU-61/a racks for
It also has integrated DiamondBack type wings which the Aeronautica Militare, at a cost of nearly US$34 mil-
deploy after release, increasing the glide time and there- lion. US$317m was spent on R&D and spares for SDB
870
340.4. VARIANTS 871
II in FY13/14, with US$148.5m requested in these cate- 340.4.1 SDB Focused Lethality Munition
gories for FY15, the total budget split roughly 70:30 be- (FLM)
tween USAF and USN.[2] SDB II production began in
FY14 with 144 bombs for the USAF at a unit cost of Under a contract awarded in September 2006, Boeing
US$250,000.[2] The FY15 budget requested 246 bombs is developing a version of the SDB I which replaces the
at a cost of US$287,000 each.[2] steel casing with a lightweight composite casing and the
warhead with a focused-blast explosive such as Dense In-
ert Metal Explosive (DIME). This should further reduce
340.2.1 Timeline collateral damage when using the weapon for pin-point
strikes in urban areas.[25]
October 2001 Boeing is awarded the SDB
On 28 February 2008, Boeing celebrated the delivery of
contract.[16]
the rst 50 FLM weapons.[26]
September 2005 Small Diameter Bomb certied The USAF intends to use the same FLM casing on a
for operational test, evaluation.[17] weapon of 500 pounds (227 kg).[27]
September 2006 SDB team deliver the rst SDBs In December 2013, Boeing delivered the last of the 500
to the USAF.[18] FLMs under contract.[28]
October 2006 Initial Operational Capability de-

clared for SDB on the F15E.[19] 340.4.2 Ground-launched SDB
October 2006 First use in combat.[20] Boeing is modifying the Small Diameter Bomb with a
rocket motor to be launched from ground-based missile
February 2008 1,000th SDB I and rst 50 FLM systems such as the M270 MLRS. With the Army demil-
delivered.[21] itarizing cluster munitions from M26 rockets, the com-
pany says a special adapter case could reuse the rocket
September 2008 Israel receives approval from the to launch the SDB. After the motor launches it to a high
US Congress to purchase 1,000 bombs.[22] enough altitude and speed, the wings will deploy and glide
the bomb to its target. The company believes it can ll a
December 2008 Reportedly used against Hamas gap for long-range precision res while using its smaller
facilities in the Gaza Strip, including underground warhead to save larger rocket munitions for strategic tar-
rocket launchers.[22] gets. While typical MLRS systems follow a ballistic tra-
jectory, the rocket-launched SDB can be launched to an
January 2009 Unnamed Boeing ocial stated that
altitude and glide on a selected trajectory.[29][30] Boeing
they have yet to deliver any SDBs to Israel.[23]
and Saab Group conducted three successful GLSDB tests
in February 2015. The system is cost-eective, utilizing
August 2010 U.S. Air Force selects Raytheons
an existing weapon paired with a stockpiled rocket mo-
GBU-53/B for Small Diameter Bomb II
tor, while maintaining the loadout on a rocket artillery
Program.[24]
system. Unlike other artillery weapons, the GLSDB of-
fers 360-degree coverage for high and low angles of at-
tack, ying around terrain to hit targets on the back of
340.3 Aircraft mountains, or circling back around to a target behind the
launch vehicle. The GLSDB has a range of 150 km (93
The SDB is currently integrated on the F-15E Strike Ea- mi), and can also hit targets 70 km (43 mi) behind it.[31]
gle, Panavia Tornado, and AC-130W. Future integration
is planned for the F-16 Fighting Falcon, F-22 Raptor, F-
35 Lightning II, A-10 Thunderbolt II, B-1 Lancer, B-2 340.4.3 Laser SDB
Spirit, and the B-52 Stratofortress. Other aircraft, includ-
ing UCAVs, may also receive the necessary upgrades. In mid-2012, the U.S. Senate recommended zeroing out
funding for the SDB II due to elding delays with the F-
GBU-39 began separation tests on the F-22 in early 35 Lightning II. With the delay in SDB II elding, Boeing
September 2007 after more than a year of sometimes dif- recommended an upgrade to their SDB as a temporary
cult work to integrate the weapon in the weapons bay gap-ller to get desired performance at a fraction of the
and carry out airborne captive carry tests. cost. Called the Laser Small Diameter Bomb (LSDB), it
integrates the laser used on the JDAM to enable the bomb
to strike moving targets. Boeing began testing the LSDB
340.4 Variants in 2011 and successfully hit targets traveling 3050 mph
(4880 km/h).[32] In June 2013, the Air Force announced
872 CHAPTER 340. SMALL DIAMETER BOMB
it would award Boeing a contract to develop and test the [20] GBU-39/B Makes Combat Debut in Iraq - USAF press
LSDB; the contract is for phase one part two engineering, release
integration and test, and production support and an LSDB
[21] Boeing Celebrates Small Diameter Bomb Delivery Mile-
Weapon Simulator. Boeing says the LSDB can be built at stones
a lower cost than the planned Raytheon SDB II, as it will
use the same semi-active laser sensor as the JDAM to hit [22] Katz, Yaakov (2008-12-29). IAF uses new US-supplied
moving and maritime targets. However, Boeing admits smart bomb. Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 2008-12-29.
that it does not have the capability to engage targets in
[23] Butler, Amy (2009-01-16). Mystery SDB. Ares Blog.
zero-visibility weather, as it lacks the SDB IIs millimeter
Aviation Week. Retrieved 23 December 2011.
wave radar.[33]
[24] http://investor.raytheon.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=84193&
p=RssLanding&cat=news&id=1458290
340.5 References [25] Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) - Defense Update.
[1] http://archive.is/20120716104202/http://www.af.mil/ [26] Boeing Celebrates Small Diameter Bomb Delivery Mile-
information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=4500 stones.
[2] United States Department Of Defense Fiscal Year 2015 [27] USAF Eyes Low-Yield Munitions
[28] Richardson, Doug (13 January 2014). Boeing delivers
nal Focused Lethality Munition to USAF. www.janes.
com. IHS Janes Missiles & Rockets. Retrieved 14 Jan-
2014. p. 59.
uary 2014.
[3] Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) - Boeing IDS
[29] Boeing furthers Ground-Launched SDB - Shephardme-
[4] Boeing Small Diameter Bomb Increment I (SDB I) dia.com, May 24, 2013
[5] Boeing SDB Focused Lethality Munition [30] Boeing Developing Ground-Launched Small Diameter
Bomb - Defensenews.com, 22 October 2013
[6] http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/sdbii/
[31] Boeing, Saab Unveil Ground Launched SDB - Defense-
[7] Boeing / Lockheed Martin SDB (Small Diameter Bomb) news.com, 10 March 2015
[32] Boeing: Laser Small Diameter Bomb Could Fill Gap -
[8] GAO-13-294SP DEFENSE ACQUISITIONS Assess- Defensenews.com, 9 August 2012
Accountability Oce. March 2013. pp. 1012. Re- [33] USAF to award Boeing Laser SDB contract - Flight-
trieved 26 May 2013. global.com, 28 June 2013
[9] Boeing Small Diameter Bomb II Successfully Engages

Target in Flight Test
[10] SDB - Global Security
GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb / Small Smart
[11] Boeing: Small Diameter Bomb
Bomb - Global Security
[12] GBU-40 Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II)
Small Diameter Bomb SDB Focused Lethality Mu-
[13] Comptroller General of the United States on Lockheed nition (FLM) - Global Security
Martin Corporation--Costs
GBU-39/40/42/B Small Diameter Bomb I/II
[14] Raytheons GBU-53/B Small Diameter Bomb II Com-
pletes First Flight
[15] Air Force picks small diameter bomb
[16] Boeing Awarded Small Diameter Bomb Contract - Boeing

press release
[17] Small Diameter Bomb certied for operational test, eval-

uation, Air Force Print News
[18] Small Diameter Bomb I delivered ahead of schedule, Air

Force Print News
[19] ACC declares IOC for Small Diameter Bomb - Air Com-
bat Command
Chapter 341
VB-6 Felix
The VB-6 Felix was a precision-guided munition devel-

oped by the United States during World War II. It was
one of the precursors of modern anti-ship missiles.
Created by the National Defense Research Committee,
Felix relied on infrared to detect and home on targets,
in clear weather, especially ships at sea at night. It was
this property which earned the weapon its name, after the
ability of cats to see in the dark.
Felix was a 1000 pound (454 kg) general purpose (GP)
bomb with an infrared seeker in the nose and octagonal
guidance ns in the tail. Unlike other weapons, such as
the German Fritz X, Felix was autonomous (what a later
generation would call re-and-forget), though there was a
are in the tail for tracking.
Successful trials led to Felix being put in production in
1945, but the Pacic War ended before it entered combat.
341.1 Sources
Fitzsimons, Bernard, editor. Felix, in The Illus-
trated Encyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons and
Warfare. Volume 9, p. 926. London: Phoebus Pub-
lishing, 1978.
341.2 See also

Fritz X
Azon
Razon
GB-4
Bat
LBD-1 Gargoyle
873
Chapter 342
Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser
The Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser system 342.3 References

is a US tail kit for use with the TMD (Tactical Mu-
nitions Dispenser) family of cluster bombs to convert [1] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/
them to precision-guided munitions. In 1997 the United munitions/wcmd.htm
States Air Force issued contracts to complete develop-
[2] Lockheed Martin WCMD (Wind Corrected Munitions
ment and begin production of the WCMD, planning to
Dispenser) - Designation Systems.
modify 40,000 tactical munitions dispensers at a cost
of US$8,937 per unit.[1] The CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed [3] USAF terminates WCMD-ER contract.
Weapon when tted with the WCMD is known as the
CBU-105; this anti-armor weapon was deployed but not
used during Operation Allied Force in the Kosovo War, 342.4 External links
and red in combat during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
WCMD-ER - Deagel
342.1 Variants
342.1.1 WCMD
Guidance: INS updated with GPS data from launch
platform before release.[2]
Range: 16 km (9.9 mi).
Accuracy: 26 m (85 ft) CEP.
342.1.2 WCMD-ER
Guidance: INS combined with integral GPS.
Range: Wing kit extends range to 4065 km (3040
miles).
Accuracy: 26 m (85 ft) CEP.
The WCMD-ER program was cancelled in August 2006

due to poor test results and budgetary pressures.[3]
342.2 See also

CBU-87 Combined Eects Munition
GATOR mine system
CBU-107 Passive Attack Weapon
874
342.5. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES 875
342.5 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

342.5.1 Text
MGR-1 Honest John Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGR-1%20Honest%20John?oldid=652697980 Contributors: Rmhermen,
Rlandmann, Fastssion, Herbee, TomViza, Hammersfan, Brianhe, Vsmith, Joshbaumgartner, Rwendland, Dhartung, Gene Nygaard,
Bubba73, FlaBot, Catsmeat, YurikBot, Xihr, Georgewilliamherbert, Mikael GRizzly, Reid Kirby, Jedwards05, SmackBot, Peter Isotalo,
Hmains, Cabe6403, Hibernian, Gravitate, John, MilborneOne, KarlM, Iridescent, Fl295, SithiR, Calvacadeofcats, Sadorsch, Chris Hen-
niker, Aldis90, Trseaman, Sherbrooke, BilCat, IvoShandor, Tilla, Blotto adrift, Balmung0731, Eve Hall, Andy Dingley, Soccersmith3,
SieBot, Meltonkt, WTucker, Binksternet, Masterblooregard, Alexbot, Sturmvogel 66, Polly, Thingg, SgtTanner, Good Olfactory, Ad-
dbot, Rcaf777, Polemarchus, The Bushranger, Brian in denver, VX, GrouchoBot, RCAMUSDIR, FrescoBot, NikeHercules, PigFlu Oink,
Mistress of Awesome, Symplectic Map, NorthnBound, EmausBot, AManWithNoPlan, Jderricknc, Magneticlifeform, Frietjes, Mvjusef,
BG19bot, Mogism, SteenthIWbot, Eddynnso, Spinedork and Anonymous: 51
MIM-3 Nike Ajax Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-3%20Nike%20Ajax?oldid=655513266 Contributors: Maury Markowitz,
Xanzzibar, Arado, Chris the speller, Jprg1966, Dl2000, Courcelles, Buckshot06, BilCat, Squids and Chips, Afernand74, Deanlaw,
The Bushranger, AnomieBOT, INeverCry, FrescoBot, Dewritech, Conedodger, Cyberbot II, Khazar2, Mogism, Jodosma, YiFeiBot,
Kevin94122 and Anonymous: 15
MIM-14 Nike Hercules Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-14%20Nike%20Hercules?oldid=652865428 Contributors: Maury
Markowitz, Gabbe, Bobby D. Bryant, Angela, Rlandmann, Kurtbw, GCarty, Mulad, Finlay McWalter, Robbot, Dmadeo, Yosri, Gidonb,
Greyengine5, Gzornenplatz, Bobblewik, Smalljim, Rwendland, Cal 1234, Gene Nygaard, Strongbow, Nvinen, Tabletop, Xiong Chiamiov,
GraemeLeggett, BD2412, Rjwilmsi, Wiarthurhu, Dangerous Angel, Kolbasz, Chobot, YurikBot, Noclador, Arado, Ozabluda, Hydrar-
gyrum, Megapixie, Ospalh, Georgewilliamherbert, Mikeroetto, Jsplegge, Airconswitch, Gray62, SmackBot, Mangoe, VigilancePrime,
Apartmento, Mike McGregor (Can), Hmains, KD5TVI, Chris the speller, Bluebot, June Ger, Jprg1966, Davidmpye, Basalisk, Sadads,
Open-box, Jumping cheese, WonRyong, Ken keisel, Grumpy444grumpy, Sujay85, X15, Vanisaac, CmdrObot, Fl295, Cydebot, Can-
cun771, Aldis90, Memty Bot, Nick Number, OuroborosCobra, Rees11, Barneyg, NE2, .anacondabot, Acroterion, Two way time, Diego
bf109, Dulciana, The Anomebot2, BilCat, LorenzoB, R'n'B, CommonsDelinker, Dispenser, MarcoLittel, Stan Flouride, Jessepdx, Squids
and Chips, RJASE1, Nigel Ish, Balmung0731, TXiKiBoT, Danbush, Raryel, Bcappel, Arda Xi, Mozt, Afernand74, Rockfang, HexaChord,
Area1970, Addbot, Fyrael, Edgy01, CLDWARHIST, Neodarkshadow, The Bushranger, Yobot, Sooe, Ntudreamer, Xqbot, Butch2, Fres-
coBot, Aerillious, Zorin09, NikeHercules, Pinethicket, Hillarin, RedBot, John of Reading, Lucas hamster, ZroBot, Rallyone, FDLeyda,
ClueBot NG, Morgan Riley, Bonade2004, Johnvr4, Palisadepeak and Anonymous: 80
Project Nike Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project%20Nike?oldid=649695712 Contributors: WojPob, Zundark, Alex.tan, Rmher-
men, Maury Markowitz, Ixfd64, Delirium, Rlandmann, Kurtbw, GCarty, , Mulad, Crissov, David Newton, Maximus Rex, Cabalamat,
Robbot, Kristof vt, Flauto Dolce, Wereon, DocWatson42, Tom harrison, Fastssion, Jonabbey, Bobblewik, Tagishsimon, Gadum, Calm,
ConradPino, Beland, Eregli bob, SimonArlott, Scott Burley, User2004, Ponder, ChuckEntz, Adambro, Bobo192, Smalljim, John Fader,
Octoferret, Ignatzmous, Wdfarmer, Bart133, Sumergocognito, Gene Nygaard, Japanese Searobin, TShilo12, Kelly Martin, Woohookitty,
Nvinen, Tabletop, Bchan, Triddle, Rjwilmsi, Lkoziarz, Ptdecker, ZDanimal, Mark Sublette, Kolbasz, Russavia, CaptainAmerica, RussBot,
Arado, DanMS, Gaius Cornelius, Shaddack, Megapixie, Ospalh, Rayc, Cuzuco, Eptin, That Guy, From That Show!, SmackBot, Rene-
gadeviking, Cdogsimmons, Hydrogen Iodide, Sea diver, Mrmewe, Tnkr111, Ohnoitsjamie, Danct4, Chris the speller, Bluebot, DocKrin,
Sadads, Namangwari, Dual Freq, WDGraham, Trekphiler, AP1787, KaiserbBot, MJCdetroit, Master Scott Hall, Ken keisel, Tdrss, Jidanni,
Bwmoll3, Accurizer, Shattered, JWaters, Bkd, Kvng, Dl2000, Iridescent, X15, Courcelles, Bzzh8c, Byteboy, Tawkerbot2, Howdybob,
CmdrObot, Paulc206, Fl295, CMG, Mmoyer, Necessary Evil, ChardingLLNL, Crowish, Gnfnrf, Ebyabe, Rosswi88, BetacommandBot,
Thijs!bot, Kubanczyk, Memty Bot, Einbierbitte, JustAGal, Uruiamme, J Clear, Fru1tbat, Arch dude, Stuart Slade, PolluxSJ, Jjacobsmeyer,
Two way time, Soulbot, The Anomebot2, BilCat, LorenzoB, Brucelipe, TVRJomar, Jonwiener, SquidSK, R'n'B, ArcAngel, Uncle Dick,
Extransit, Naniwako, Youngjim, Tatrgel, Gpaetz, Petebutt, Jbirt2, Kilmer-san, LanceBarber, Elnok, Mugs2109, SieBot, Almccon, Chris
Light, Lightmouse, AMCKen, Kumioko (renamed), Anchor Link Bot, Weird NJ, Chris G Bot, Martarius, Sfan00 IMG, ClueBot, Login-
nowplease, Niceguyedc, Ktr101, Peteex, Rhatsa26X, Marcric, Iohannes Animosus, David Spangler, Chaosdruid, ChrisBoulden, Life of
Riley, XLinkBot, Addbot, Fyrael, Tassedethe, Undermineder, Lightbot, Jim1pennino, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, ParrotRob, Yobot,
Edoe, Troymacgill, Brian in denver, Pohick2, AnomieBOT, Wxjeremy, Slant6guy, RadioBroadcast, Eumolpo, LilHelpa, Srich32977, Ri-
botBOT, Dvmphd, Originalwana, Abda60, Acsterne, ScottJasonYoung, Jackehammond, Look2See1, Dewritech, Solarra, Thecheesykid,
Timwaite, ClueBot NG, Mrharborguy, Helpful Pixie Bot, Planetary Chaos Redux, Russianspy33, NorthBySouthBaranof, Nosenugget,
Chipperdude15, James M. Harrop, ForLoveForEver, LeendertS and Anonymous: 156
MGM-5 Corporal Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-5%20Corporal?oldid=649073221 Contributors: Rlandmann, Andrewa,
Night Gyr, Terriem, Weyes, DonPMitchell, GraemeLeggett, JIP, RxS, MauriceJFox3, Bubba73, Arado, JAFM, Petri Krohn, Erudy,
Colonies Chris, Dual Freq, Will Beback, Jozecuervo, Fl295, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, Maximilian Schnherr, WinBot,
BilCat, VolkovBot, Balmung0731, Sdsds, TXiKiBoT, Flopster2, Andy Dingley, Lightmouse, Auntof6, PixelBot, Sturmvogel 66, Addbot,
Delta 51, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Troymacgill, Brian in denver, AnomieBOT, High Contrast, RadioBroadcast, LilHelpa, Diwas,
Thinking of England, ZroBot, Hertzair, Mark Arsten, YFdyh-bot, Simon Jump and Anonymous: 13
PGM-11 Redstone Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGM-11%20Redstone?oldid=650010185 Contributors: Bryan Derksen, Olivier,
Patrick, Paul A, Ahoerstemeier, Rlandmann, LouI, Pebecker, PaulinSaudi, Audin, Wik, Dimadick, Rhombus, SpellBott, Jasenlee, Reuben-
barton, Greyengine5, Wolfkeeper, Alison, Bobblewik, GeneralPatton, Grm wnr, Rich Farmbrough, Night Gyr, Alereon, Shenme, Girae-
data, Raymond, Evil Monkey, Simone, Wyatts, Gene Nygaard, Dan100, Crosbiesmith, PoccilScript, ToddFincannon, Josh Parris, Rjwilmsi,
Jake Wartenberg, Bubba73, FlaBot, JdforresterBot, Kolbasz, Chobot, Cornellrockey, Pile0nades, RussBot, Arado, Hellbus, Hydrargyrum,
Dijxtra, Sliggy, Gadget850, Elkman, Cassius1213, Petri Krohn, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Hux, Anastrophe, Davert, WDGraham, Stepho-
wrs, Andy120290, Radagast83, The PIPE, BillFlis, Dragos muresan, CmdrObot, N2e, Ken Gallager, Fl295, Cydebot, Ebyabe, Thijs!bot,
Alphachimpbot, .anacondabot, Appraiser, Father Goose, BilCat, R'n'B, J.delanoy, Ohms law, Tatrgel, Georgemorgan, VolkovBot, Sdsds,
Anynobody, Petebutt, Nibios, Tomalak geretkal, Meltonkt, Rockstone35, TruesTheLamb, Dravecky, Magicmahka, MBK004, Matrek,
Enenn, Xyzzy529, Easphi, Alexbot, Eeekster, Abrech, Estirabot, Sansumaria, Redstonesoldier, Sturmvogel 66, DumZiBoT, Ladsgroup,
SilvonenBot, Good Olfactory, Jim Sweeney, Addbot, LatitudeBot, WikiDreamer Bot, The Bushranger, Yobot, Amirobot, AnomieBOT,
RadioBroadcast, Ckruschke, RibotBOT, StoneProphet, Redrose64, HRoestBot, DexDor, Beyond My Ken, Bomazi, ClueBot NG, Nateho,
Corpusfury, BattyBot, Khazar2, Lugia2453, 123456POKEMON, Tjneale, Someone656162, Monkbot and Anonymous: 47
876 CHAPTER 342. WIND CORRECTED MUNITIONS DISPENSER
MGM-18 Lacrosse Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-18%20Lacrosse?oldid=646950148 Contributors: Rlandmann, Paulin-

Saudi, Gene Nygaard, Fleetham, Rjwilmsi, Kolbasz, Manxruler, NawlinWiki, Taco325i, Bdmcmahon, SmackBot, Earthworm Makarov,
Nobunaga24, CmdrObot, Yarnalgo, Cydebot, Alaibot, Thijs!bot, Groogokk, BilCat, Wiki Raja, Balmung0731, Sdsds, TXiKiBoT, Gim-
meBot, Lucasbfrbot, Niceguyedc, Addbot, The Bushranger, Troymacgill, AnomieBOT, Tokyotown8, Anotherclown, 2Supermann3,
Rich.beckett3, ClueBot NG, Mattise135, BattyBot, Stamptrader, Monkbot and Anonymous: 3
MGR-3 Little John Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGR-3%20Little%20John?oldid=639419047 Contributors: Btphelps, FlaBot,
BilCat, TXiKiBoT, Andy Dingley, Meltonkt, Good Olfactory, Addbot, The Bushranger, Amirobot, Troymacgill, Tokyotown8, DexDor and
Anonymous: 5
PGM-19 Jupiter Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGM-19%20Jupiter?oldid=653107074 Contributors: Rmhermen, Maury
Markowitz, Patrick, Llywrch, Rlandmann, PaulinSaudi, Audin, Dimadick, Ke4roh, Auric, Reubenbarton, Wolfkeeper, AlistairMcMillan,
Bobblewik, Btphelps, Sam Hocevar, Tomwalden, Karl Dickman, Grm wnr, DMG413, N328KF, Rich Farmbrough, Blake8086, Cap'n Ref-
smmat, Mbini, Tritium6, Error 404, A2Kar, Joshbaumgartner, Sobolewski, XB-70, Gene Nygaard, Adrian.benko, SmthManly, Crosbie-
smith, Woohookitty, Kralizec!, Adam B. Traver, Bruce1ee, Bubba73, Ian Dunster, SchuminWeb, BjKa, Wongm, Adoniscik, WriterHound,
Arado, Van der Hoorn, Voidxor, Torneco, User27091, Capt Jim, Open2universe, Petri Krohn, Jbenson964, Curpsbot-unicodify, SmackBot,
Chris the speller, Jprg1966, Redline, WDGraham, Stepho-wrs, Chcknwnm, Ken keisel, Tdrss, John, Bwmoll3, Uwe W., Thomas81, R. E.
Mixer, CmdrObot, Cydebot, RichyRich, J Clear, Buckshot06, Kachik, BilCat, Baristarim, Pomte, NewEnglandYankee, Ndunruh, Ohms
law, Olegwiki, STBotD, Funandtrvl, Sdsds, GimmeBot, Petebutt, Broadbot, Seaoneil, Death Bredon, MBK004, FieldMarine, Ktr101,
51edb, Sturmvogel 66, Versus22, SilvonenBot, Good Olfactory, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Troymacgill, Brian in denver, Jack-
ieBot, RadioBroadcast, ArthurBot, LilHelpa, Winged Brick, Heroicrelics, Sunnyspringday, RedBot, Full-date unlinking bot, DexDor,
Mmeijeri, ZroBot, ChuispastonBot, BattyBot, Khazar2, GeorgeLSmith, DadswellDND, Trackteur, Peylaade and Anonymous: 59
MGM-31 Pershing Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-31%20Pershing?oldid=652874454 Contributors: The Epopt, WojPob,
Bryan Derksen, Edward, Patrick, Paul A, Rlandmann, Ghewgill, RadicalBender, Naddy, Jsonitsac, Hcheney, Oberiko, Comatose51,
Oneiros, Balcer, Jkli, 11d, Mtnerd, N328KF, Ularsen, Avriette, Michael Zimmermann, CanisRufus, Shenme, Joshbaumgartner, Andrew
Gray, Pouya, Mlessard, Gene Nygaard, Tabletop, BlaiseFEgan, BD2412, Rjwilmsi, FlaBot, Kolbasz, MoRsE, C.Koltzenburg, Straker, No-
clador, RussBot, Arado, Xihr, Zlobny, Gaius Cornelius, Gadget850, Georgewilliamherbert, Anclation, Bluezy, Benandorsqueaks, Nick-D,
That Guy, From That Show!, SmackBot, Brammers, Jereykopp, Eskimbot, Chris the speller, (boxed), Grumpyoldgeek, Tdrss, Harry-
boyles, John, Craigboy, Amniarix, CmdrObot, CMG, Necessary Evil, Hydraton31, Crowish, Dipics, Aldis90, Smiteri, Thijs!bot, John
Walker (fourmilab.ch), Darklilac, Supertheman, Igodard, Russianmissile, Buckshot06, The Anomebot2, Avicennasis, BilCat, LorenzoB,
Observer 144, R'n'B, Nono64, BJ Axel, Wa3frp, Fiachra10003, Olegwiki, Widders, Rekinser, Tourbillon, Balmung0731, Cg1923, SieBot,
Meltonkt, 4wajzkd02, Flyer22, Rulatir, WacoJacko, WikipedianMarlith, ClueBot, Mild Bill Hiccup, Niceguyedc, Jmdeur, Geodyde,
Ktr101, Alexbot, Chaosdruid, SilvonenBot, Addbot, KBQR, DOI bot, Download, Debresser, Tassedethe, Lightbot, BlackMarlin, The
Bushranger, Yobot, Troymacgill, Megan Reyes, Brian in denver, AnomieBOT, ArthurBot, LilHelpa, Xqbot, Notwej, Citation bot 1, Lit-
tleWink, Jonesey95, RedBot, NortyNort, RjwilmsiBot, EmausBot, John of Reading, Dewritech, Captain Charlie Dreyer, Eyadhamid,
H3llBot, Chesipiero, Frietjes, Lekrecteurmasque, Zedshort, Mrt3366, Hmainsbot1, Z07x10, CsDix, Sol1, Monkbot and Anonymous: 61
MIM-23 Hawk Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-23%20Hawk?oldid=651457274 Contributors: Rlandmann, GCarty, Gidonb,
DocWatson42, Bobblewik, Beland, Eranb, Klemen Kocjancic, Mike Rosoft, Naryathegreat, Avriette, Bobo192, Cmdrjameson, Get It,
Alansohn, Cdc, Gene Nygaard, Yuriybrisk, Anty, Rjwilmsi, Pjetter, Wiarthurhu, FlaBot, Soup man, Kyriakos, CarolGray, Russavia,
MoRsE, Chobot, YurikBot, Noclador, Kafziel, RussBot, Gaius Cornelius, Los688, Manxruler, JEnnoE, Skritek, Megapixie, Adamrush,
Witger, American2, KNHaw, SmackBot, Sam8, Schmiteye, Chris the speller, Bluebot, Avin, Jprg1966, Sadads, Dual Freq, Il palazzo,
Lyta79, Fuhghettaboutit, TechPurism, A.R., Breno, Nobunaga24, Octane, CmdrObot, Cydebot, SAWGunner89, Aldis90, Thijs!bot,
Kubanczyk, LionFlyer, Tashtastic, CombatWombat42, Two way time, VoABot II, BilCat, Archolman, Shuppiluliuma, KTo288, Mar-
coLittel, C1010, YoavD, DorganBot, Nigel Ish, Sam Blacketer, VolkovBot, Sporti, ABF, Holme053, W. B. Wilson, Kakoui, ArnoldPet-
tybone, Seraphim, Immortals, Eurocopter, Pknicker, SieBot, Meltonkt, Unregistered.coward, Naco-Taco, CaptSquid, Klass, Stefanomen-
carelli, Masterblooregard, Ridge Runner, Socrates2008, Muhandes, GB-UK-BI, CAVincent, BOTarate, Chaosdruid, One last pharaoh,
Johnkatz1972, Common Good, Dave1185, Area1970, Addbot, OCTopus-en, Herr Gruber, , The Bushranger, Troymacgill, Nallimbot,
Tonyrex, Rubinbot, RadioBroadcast, OCTopus, LilHelpa, Xqbot, Kajowi, Ashrf1979, Sophus Bie, Miguelito0292, Fortdj33, John-Greece,
Reverant, Skyraider1, FoxBot, Desagwan, DexDor, EmausBot, John of Reading, Dewritech, EleferenBot, ZroBot, Aspahbod, ClueBot
NG, Tlai1977, Cuneyt1980, America789, Spital8katz, F4uids, Wotchit, Hammerfrog, Lworden911, Tamlinwah, Jerryntcjc, Bluewave-
dragon, ScrabbleZ, Grisepik, Romdwolf and Anonymous: 96
MGM-29 Sergeant Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-29%20Sergeant?oldid=629463732 Contributors: Rlandmann, Lupin,
Bobblewik, Apyule, Alex '05, MarkusHagenlocher, Rjwilmsi, Deepsix, FlaBot, Kolbasz, Reid Kirby, SmackBot, Bluebot, Dual Freq,
Cydebot, Monkeybait, Nabokov, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, BilCat, Balmung0731, Sdsds, TXiKiBoT, Andy Dingley, Meltonkt, ClueBot, Last-
dingo, Sturmvogel 66, Addbot, LaaknorBot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Xqbot, Heroicrelics, TortallArm, John of Reading, ZroBot,
Corpusfury, ChrisGualtieri and Anonymous: 14
MIM-46 Mauler Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-46%20Mauler?oldid=654191135 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Rland-
mann, Tabletop, GraemeLeggett, ZZ9pluralZalpha, BorgQueen, Chris the speller, CumbiaDude, Cydebot, Aldis90, Buckshot06, Meltonkt,
Socrates2008, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, AnomieBOT, High Contrast, John of Reading, Friday83260 and
Anonymous: 8
MGM-52 Lance Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-52%20Lance?oldid=649073381 Contributors: Rlandmann, Bukvoed,
Rwendland, Dziban303, Kolbasz, Chobot, Noclador, Arado, Hydrargyrum, Closedmouth, Anclation, Chris the speller, Dual Freq, Tdrss,
IronGargoyle, Octane, Yaris678, Nabokov, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, Woody, Trseaman, Escarbot, LeedsKing, Magioladitis, BilCat, TXiKiBoT,
GimmeBot, Jackfork, PipepBot, Lastdingo, Iohannes Animosus, Sturmvogel 66, Shamrox75, Avmarle, Good Olfactory, Addbot, Ori-
hara, Nohomers48, The Bushranger, Yobot, TaBOT-zerem, Toniks123, Xqbot, Garshgrang, Grand-Duc, RedBot, Jesse V., El Mayimbe,
RjwilmsiBot, DexDor, ZroBot, ClueBot NG, DBigXray, Mattise135, Corpusfury, Hallows AG, O8447, Klilidiplomus, KingQueenPrince,
Monkbot and Anonymous: 35
MIM-72 Chaparral Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-72%20Chaparral?oldid=655083515 Contributors: Maury Markowitz,
Rlandmann, Jiang, GCarty, Mackensen, User2004, Arthena, Bukvoed, Daranz, Zotel, Sus scrofa, Megapixie, Jhamner, Sailboatd2, Smack-
Bot, Deon Steyn, Ikip, Jprg1966, Nobunaga24, Requen, CmdrObot, Fnlayson, CMarshall, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, Two way time, Puddhe, Bil-
Cat, Nono64, VolkovBot, Balmung0731, Mdyank, Rdfox 76, LanceBarber, John Nevard, Ramisses, Ad-4n, Dave1185, Addbot, Rainbow-
ve, Nohomers48, OlEnglish, Delta 51, The Bushranger, AnomieBOT, Rubinbot, Xqbot, Blazeriprock, Mark Schierbecker, Sarcastic
ShockwaveLover, Jonathon A H, LucienBOT, Ripchip Bot, Tom120, ZroBot, Suborbital, Will Beback Auto, Tlai1977, America789,
Aweelies and Anonymous: 43
MIM-104 Patriot Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104%20Patriot?oldid=654137707 Contributors: Magnus Manske,
TwoOneTwo, Bryan Derksen, Andre Engels, SimonP, Maury Markowitz, Imran, Graft, Edward, Patrick, Kchishol1970, JohnOwens,
GABaker, Delirium, Rlandmann, Kurtbw, Mxn, Jogloran, Motor, Bevo, Stormie, Jamesday, David.Monniaux, Finlay McWalter, Radi-
calBender, Riddley, Sjorford, Robbot, Ke4roh, Korath, Modulatum, Auric, Gidonb, Rhombus, Alerante, DocWatson42, Greyengine5,
MathKnight, Finn-Zoltan, Apsio, Pascal666, Bobblewik, Nova77, Sohailstyle, Geni, H1523702, Kusunose, Oneiros, Whiteld Larrabee,
Aaron Einstein, DmitryKo, ChrisRuvolo, Imroy, Rich Farmbrough, Guanabot, Pjacobi, Xezbeth, Jasonq, Sarrica, Sf, Bobo192, Zupi,
Russ3Z, Sludge, Tritium6, Haham hanuka, Hooperbloob, Kazuaki Shimazaki, Eleland, LtNOWIS, Arthena, Bukvoed, Equinoxe, Ahruman,
SHIMONSHA, Jeroen94704, Rwendland, Movax, TaintedMustard, Sumergocognito, Wyatts, Gene Nygaard, Alai, Axeman89, Tobyc75,
Bobrayner, Novacatz, Woohookitty, Pauley2483, Nvinen, Isnow, BlaiseFEgan, , Anty, Rjwilmsi, Angusmclellan, Wiarthurhu,
Dangerous Angel, Mitrebox, Keimzelle, FlaBot, Ground Zero, Intersoa, Nemo5576, CarolGray, Mark83, RobyWayne, Chobot, Knife
Knut, Bgwhite, Roboto de Ajvol, YurikBot, Noclador, Jimp, RussBot, Arado, Supasheep, Epolk, Ksyrie, Los688, Dysmorodrepanis,
Kvn8907, Arima, Witger, Misza13, Mieciu K, Tullie, WAS 4.250, Mikeroetto, American2, NorsemanII, Arthur Rubin, Petri Krohn, Rock-
etrye12, El T, Staxringold, John Broughton, Diagraph01, MaeseLeon, Tinlv7, SmackBot, Mangoe, Robotbeat, TestPilot, VigilancePrime,
WookieInHeat, Sam8, Julian Diamond, Mmaurin, Chris the speller, Bluebot, Jprg1966, Rmt2m, McNeight, Sadads, Solomania2006, Dual
Freq, Tewk, Duckhunter6424, John Hyams, Ammar shaker, TheGerm, Chulk90, Supersoldier71, Txinviolet, DRahier, SuperDeng,
Chlewbot, OrphanBot, Lyta79, Joema, Jonrev, Jumping cheese, Bcomnes, Wirbelwind, A.R., MetroStar, The PIPE, Giancarlo Rossi,
ChaChaFut, Whitneygh, Jirnsum, MilborneOne, Zarniwoot, Nobunaga24, Publicus, 2T, Dammit, JoeBot, Woodshed, Tintenammae, Su-
perTank17, DangerousPanda, CmdrObot, Masterkd, Salmagnone, LCpl, Fl295, AndrewHowse, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Gogo Dodo, Whiskey
Pete, Clc12, Aldis90, Kirk Hilliard, Thijs!bot, Krakia, Faigl.ladislav, NIIRS zero, Pavel from Russia, OrenBochman, OuroborosCobra,
Natalie Erin, Escarbot, Darklilac, Jeroenm, DagosNavy, JAnDbot, Lan Di, Msaro, Balbers, Ryan4314, Wasell, Magioladitis, VoABot
II, Flayer, Armyreco, BilCat, Rettetast, Ultraviolet scissor ame, CommonsDelinker, Wiki Raja, Sindresolberg, J.delanoy, PC78, Gzkn,
Tatrgel, Bogdan, Orthopraxia, Matej1234, Squids and Chips, Veloman, VolkovBot, Thomas.W, TXiKiBoT, Hm23, Someguy1221, Bus,
Synthebot, Kuruzahtah, Hughey, Pknicker, Qbk711, Neobeatnik, Vantey, PraetorianD, Patriot rules, Anchor Link Bot, MenoBot, MBK004,
Matrek, Firebeyer, Topsecrete, Masterblooregard, Desert termite, Ktr101, PixelBot, Winston365, Iohannes Animosus, Holothurion, Diaa
abdelmoneim, Romatt, Mb nl, Tabunoki, Serpenttail115, Thingg, ShipFan, DumZiBoT, XLinkBot, Hsiverts, Dave1185, Addbot, Old-
mountains, Maslen, SpBot, Aunva6, Angry Shoplifter, Angryhobo13, Lightbot, Zaphodia, The Bushranger, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot,
Ptbotgourou, Kadrun, Brian in denver, KamikazeBot, AnomieBOT, Felipe P, 1exec1, Seo luke, High Contrast, Stanislao Avogadro, Arthur-
Bot, Quebec99, Xqbot, Luke85, Nasnema, Nasa-verve, Parabellum101, RibotBOT, Brutaldeluxe, Jonathon A H, Paulioetc, Vanished user
aqpoi4u3tijsr, VilePig, Elgreco77, John-Greece, Haeinous, MGA73bot, Maverick9711, Mistress of Awesome, Yin61289, Poliocretes,
Tupsumato, MKFI, Klyde-M, Obsidian Soul, Radekstepan, RjwilmsiBot, DexDor, Gejunot, Ripchip Bot, John of Reading, WikitanvirBot,
Babak902003, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, Liamwillco, Wikipelli, Righteous9000, Stephen.neece, Illegitimate Barrister, Kieerfx18,
Anir1uph, Charley sf, H3llBot, Brandmeister, KazekageTR, Castro8280, Whoop whoop pull up, ClueBot NG, Heaney555z, Jmgartner,
MilitaryFacts, BG19bot, Corpusfury, Codepage, Dainomite, Vr6serdal, TheJML, Tlai1977, America789, Jeremy.kagan, Cyberbot II, Ad-
nan bogi, MathKnight-at-TAU, Speakingsh, SPC Real, Dexbot, Irondome, DelamontagneNL, Cerabot, Ahsanhmd44, 93, VoRo1ze, GF-
Service, Flashthunder920, Al Khazar, Shkvoz, Haminoon, Stu1970, Le Grand Bleu, Jerryntcjc, UnbiasedVictory, , Jimmie.mann,
ScrabbleZ, NineLegs, Brovich and Anonymous: 391
Roland (missile) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland%20(missile)?oldid=646761656 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Edward,
Rlandmann, Riddley, PBP, Klemen Kocjancic, Rama, Atlant, Apoc2400, Sylvain Mielot, GraemeLeggett, Miq, Tne80, Mieciu K,
Oliverdl, Jsnx, SmackBot, Reedy, Chris the speller, Bluebot, Jprg1966, Hibernian, GoodDay, Sct72, Joelo, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Tec15,
Nabokov, Aldis90, Woody, DagosNavy, BilCat, Pax:Vobiscum, CommonsDelinker, Duch, VolkovBot, McM.bot, AlleborgoBot, SieBot,
Kernel Saunters, De Grasse, EoGuy, Kos93, Suradnik13, PixelBot, Muro Bot, DumZiBoT, Avmarle, Addbot, Nohomers48, Lightbot,
The Bushranger, Drpickem, AnomieBOT, ArthurBot, LilHelpa, GrouchoBot, , Rbrausse, CHawc, RedBot, Edurcastro28, Demi-
urge1000, Helpful Pixie Bot, Cyberbot II, Khazar2, Wotchit, Itc editor2 and Anonymous: 38
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal%20High%20Altitude%20Area%20Defense?
oldid=655316923 Contributors: SimonP, Maury Markowitz, Frecklefoot, Patrick, Mcarling, Ciphergoth, Gymnos, RickK, Sarrazip, Finlay
McWalter, Cyrius, Geni, Poccil, Wk muriithi, Roo72, Remuel, R. S. Shaw, Cwolfsheep, Presnell, Wendell, Alansohn, Jeroen94704, BDD,
Alai, BlaiseFEgan, Mark83, Chobot, Arado, John Smiths, Witan, Gaius Cornelius, Corey415, Ormondroyd, Jereymcmanus, Deepdraft,
SmackBot, Sagie, Lamjus, Bluebot, Dual Freq, Frap, Fahadinc, Sayhar, Lyta79, Joema, Regan123, Publicus, PRRfan, JoeBot, Torlek, Cm-
drObot, Fl295, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Thijs!bot, Ep9206, Hcobb, Mentisto, KuwarOnline, Flayer, Mgroop, BilCat, Oren0, Hans Dunkelberg,
LordAnubisBOT, !Darkre!6'28'14, OriEri, Matej1234, Fdonck, Tesscass, Sniperz11, Pknicker, FrisB33, WereSpielChequers, Unreg-
istered.coward, KGyST, Martarius, ClueBot, Campion1581, Darthveda, CounterVandalismBot, Arjayay, Citicrab, Chaosdruid, JCDen-
ton2052, Smolov.Ilya, Addbot, Nohomers48, Aunva6, Lightbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Brian in denver, Eric-Wester, AnomieBOT, Seo luke,
E235, LemonairePaides, GVilKa, RedBot, ZroBot, Utar, SBaker43, ClueBot NG, MilitaryFacts, Jjoy3646, AnomalousGuy, Codepage,
Pritishp333, NobodyMinus, BattyBot, Memodellocos, America789, Cyberbot II, Kbog, Photoloop, Tommyfoots2, GabeIglesia, Unbiased-
Victory, How Shuan Shi and Anonymous: 91
HIMARS Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIMARS?oldid=654867750 Contributors: Lir, GABaker, Kimiko, PaulinSaudi, Dcoetzee,
Riddley, Bobblewik, Mzajac, Mecanismo, ArnoldReinhold, User2004, Night Gyr, Bender235, Bobo192, Rackham, Cwolfsheep, GK, An-
thony Appleyard, Hohum, Velella, Kelly Martin, MiG, Rjwilmsi, Noclador, Arado, Tony1, Nick-D, SmackBot, Looper5920, ERcheck,
Chris the speller, Jprg1966, Lordvolt, Highspeed, Whaiaun, SkyWalker, Cydebot, Thijs!bot, Parsecboy, Mikemagan, BilCat, Thucy-
dides411, TXiKiBoT, Falcon8765, Tharskjold, Drtoews, Son of Zealandia, TabooTikiGod, ClueBot, Ialleinad, EoGuy, Masterblooregard,
Eeekster, Jrowlandstuart, Jellysh dave, Neutrino 1, Addbot, Planenut, Tassedethe, Arbitrarily0, Ddcorkum, Jimderkaisser, Edoe, Brian
in denver, AnomieBOT, Wikieditoroftoday, Mfa06, Mark Schierbecker, Foxhound66, TexianPolitico, DexDor, TGCP, Babak902003,
Strange Passerby, Illegitimate Barrister, Plinio Cayo Cilesio, Dainomite, America789, Cyberbot II, Adnan bogi, Redalert2fan, Shkvoz,
Tamlinwah, UnbiasedVictory, How Shuan Shi, Narutzy, Milfandcookies69 and Anonymous: 93
Medium Extended Air Defense System Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium%20Extended%20Air%20Defense%20System?
oldid=654374542 Contributors: Rlandmann, Thue, Riddley, Oneiros, Wk muriithi, Cwolfsheep, Giraedata, Pearle, Wendell, ThePara-
noidOne, Joriki, Graham87, JubalHarshaw, FlaBot, Zotel, MoRsE, Bgwhite, Noclador, Arado, John Smiths, Gaius Cornelius, Los688,
Caerwine, Sandstein, Garion96, Deepdraft, SmackBot, Sonoma-rich, Robotbeat, Mdd4696, Bluebot, Jprg1966, Wybot, MilesVorkosigan,
Cydebot, Fnlayson, Aldis90, Hcobb, OuroborosCobra, CommonsDelinker, Rebell18190, Plovassy, Casonsnow, Gt6pilot, MenoBot, Ma-
trek, WikHead, Grautbakken, Addbot, Yobot, High Contrast, MauritsBot, RightCowLeftCoast, FrescoBot, Rbruma, RjwilmsiBot, DexDor,
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, Monty12345, Pokbot, ProtoFire, America789, Cyberbot II, BlevintronBot, Comm2007, Cheerioswithmilk,
Monkbot, Bobgocom and Anonymous: 26
Bazooka Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bazooka?oldid=654811335 Contributors: Bryan Derksen, Jagged, Maury Markowitz,
Patrick, Infrogmation, CORNELIUSSEON, CatherineMunro, Tristanb, Harris7, Andrewman327, DJ Clayworth, Raul654, Finlay McWal-
ter, Riddley, Robbot, AlainV, Pibwl, Modeha, Michael Snow, Lupo, DocWatson42, Oberiko, Lupin, MathKnight, Finn-Zoltan, Bobblewik,
Josquius, Yossarian, Gscshoyru, Pm215, Jh51681, Trevor MacInnis, Grstain, Mike Rosoft, Ularsen, DaveMcLain, Discospinster, Rama,
ESkog, Pink18, El C, Cap'n Refsmmat, Kross, Bobo192, Tronno, King nothing, Nsaa, Thatguy96, Storm Rider, Alansohn, Gary, Eleland,
LtNOWIS, PatrickFisher, Joshbaumgartner, Bukvoed, Riana, Cal 1234, Dragunova, Sleigh, Gene Nygaard, Nuno Tavares, Before My Ken,
WadeSimMiser, GraemeLeggett, Mandarax, Rjwilmsi, Miserlou, MWAK, FlaBot, Musical Linguist, SuperDude115, TheDJ, Chobot,
Jcarkeys, Cactus.man, Digitalme, PainMan, Sus scrofa, Hairy Dude, Kencaesi, Jimp, RussBot, Theredstarswl, Fabartus, Hydrargyrum,
Bullzeye, NawlinWiki, ENeville, Journalist, Spartan5, RUL3R, Flapeyre, Asams10, Nlu, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Theda, Gun-
man47, Nothlit, QmunkE, Groyolo, DVD R W, Yvwv, Crystallina, SmackBot, KnowledgeOfSelf, Bradtcordeiro, Ozone77, Jab843, Fry-
master, Kintetsubualo, HalfShadow, Alex earlier account, Hmains, Amatulic, Chris the speller, Thumperward, MalafayaBot, RayAYang,
Xaxxon, DHN-bot, Ado, Veggies, Trekphiler, Yaf, Derekbridges, Metarhyme, Akulkis, The PIPE, Buidinhthiem, Bejnar, Kuru, 3Jane, J
1982, Hotspur23, LWF, AllStarZ, KarlM, BillFlis, Grandpafootsoldier, Courcelles, Trelio, Flubeca, Ehistory, CmdrObot, Jim101, Lmcel-
hiney, KnightLago, Djy, Cydebot, Kevin23, Teratornis, RottweilerCS, Nabokov, Rspeed, Aldis90, Epbr123, N5iln, Tbonge, James086,
AntiVandalBot, SummerPhD, Prolog, Jj137, SadanYagci, Corella, HanzoHattori, Sjlain, Desertsky85451, RebelRobot, Makron1n, Iu-
lus, Breuben, Acroterion, Geniac, VoABot II, Askari Mark, Ordnanceferret, Nat495, KConWiki, Bleh999, Cyktsui, BilCat, MartinBot,
FlieGerFaUstMe262, El0i, J.delanoy, AAA!, Richiekim, Uncle Dick, Ginsengbomb, Textangel, I Play Poker, Linuxmatt, Fountains of Bryn
Mawr, Tascha96, Juliancolton, , Cometstyles, Smitykidy, Ja 62, CA387, Zazzer, Lights, MBlue2020, VolkovBot, Thomas.W,
Vandervahn, DOHC Holiday, Magnet For Knowledge, Philip Trueman, TXiKiBoT, Marskuzz, A4bot, Dj stone, Anna Lincoln, Lradrama,
Wiikipedian, Martin451, Seb26, Slysplace, RandomXYZb, SQL, Koalorka, Sealman, Jimmi Hugh, Trey, UnneededAplomb, Honest-
Man67, Dogah, Dreamafter, BonesBrigade, Jauerback, Flyer22, Oda Mari, Oxymoron83, Freecake, Ilhanli, Skinny87, Hoyiu, Dino246,
Abraham, B.S., Jbgreen, Witchkraut, Dust Filter, ClueBot, Plastikspork, Mgreason, Juhotheman, Foofbun, Nerite, Piledhigheranddeeper,
Excirial, Jusdafax, Asmaybe, Sarge0900, UltimateDestroyerOfWorlds, ChrisHodgesUK, Berean Hunter, Qwfp, GPS73, Pgerckn, Amaelk-
ing, Docswerve, Wikiuser100, JimmyPowell323, Addbot, FernandoFHC, Nohomers48, Tiago Morbus S, Joeboe1998, CanadianLin-
uxUser, Wikimedian2radf, Roux, Favonian, Fireaxe888, Numbo3-bot, Tide rolls, Lightbot, CountryBot, KEN, The Bushranger, Luckas-
bot, Yobot, Kadrun, Evans1982, PMLawrence, Brian in denver, Eric-Wester, 5infBrig, AnomieBOT, Piano non troppo, Ulric1313, Mate-
rialscientist, Theoprakt, Jpablo2, Xqbot, Capricorn42, Winkpolve, Dellant, WotWeiller, Pajeron, GrouchoBot, Riotrocket8676, Amaury,
AustralianRupert, KVLG, Nnvincent, Blah blan, JovanCormac, Grr82, VI, Kwiki, Xtrooper, DrilBot, Iwillmodifythispage!, Degen Earth-
fast, Tinton5, Pikiwyn, Borusmat12, Jeangabin, Trappist the monk, Yadayadayaday, MFIreland, Diannaa, Tbhotch, NameIsRon, Jacke-
hammond, DASHBot, Nascentguruism, Dachtorstrange, Werieth, Sam1945, Hyperboy3096, DASHBotAV, Romeoveten, ClueBot NG,
Nateho, This lousy T-shirt, Primergrey, Helpful Pixie Bot, Abock, Gunnai, MoD Research, GargleBlaster9467, Dr. Whooves, Citation-
CleanerBot, OldHickory120, Tyranitar Man, BattyBot, Tkbx, Spital8katz, Ajaxore, S1D3winder016, Irondome, Antraman, Wotchit,
Vintovka Dragunova, Rs0wner301, Bluebonnet122, ArmbrustBot, Vinny Lam, Perfect Orange Sphere, Monkbot, Andy.W25215, Qw-
ertyabc12398, Mathwew95067, Smithquick, Cutiriarteesuntitan, Elmasmelih, Thydoctor311 and Anonymous: 388
M47 Dragon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M47%20Dragon?oldid=630448030 Contributors: Michael Hardy, GABaker, Rland-
mann, Riddley, Bobblewik, Maclyn611, CanisRufus, Cap'n Refsmmat, Kross, PatrickFisher, Joshbaumgartner, Gene Nygaard,
Woohookitty, YurikBot, Anders.Warga, Los688, Nick-D, Ominae, Jprg1966, Il palazzo, Scott 110, John, Saxbryn, Tigey, Cydebot,
Aldis90, Rettetast, R'n'B, Notreallydavid, W. B. Wilson, Koalorka, Dreamafter, Jmp98251, JL-Bot, Ridge Runner, Arjayay, Another
Believer, XLinkBot, Bernie Brown, Hueydoc, SJSA, MatthewVanitas, Milstuxyz, Dave1185, Addbot, Lightbot, Luckas-bot, Ptbot-
gourou, Digre 90, Brian in denver, WotWeiller, GrouchoBot, Ashrf1979, LucienBOT, D'ohBot, Redrose64, Full-date unlinking bot,
ROG5728, Jackehammond, EmausBot, ZroBot, Illegitimate Barrister, Reallyfastcar, Takahara Osaka, Cyberbot II, Mogism, JPhebus,
Wotchit, MarkusContagia and Anonymous: 29
BGM-71 TOW Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-71%20TOW?oldid=654867403 Contributors: Patrick, GUllman, Cyde, Delir-
ium, Ahoerstemeier, Jniemenmaa, Rlandmann, GCarty, JidGom, RadicalBender, Riddley, Nurg, Liotier, DocWatson42, Oberiko, Math-
Knight, Srittau, Urhixidur, Klemen Kocjancic, Mormegil, Rich Farmbrough, MaxMad, Night Gyr, Bender235, Aranel, El C, Rackham, Roy
da Vinci, Thatguy96, Joshbaumgartner, Sandstig, Bukvoed, Mace, Oghmoir, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Alanmak, SDC, Graeme-
Leggett, Rjwilmsi, FlaBot, Nimur, Chobot, YurikBot, Noclador, Arado, John Smiths, Hede2000, Gaius Cornelius, Los688, Mmccalpin,
Zouden, Phichanad, Nick-D, Victor falk, SmackBot, Looper5920, Theman50554, Stretch 135, Ominae, Deon Steyn, KocjoBot, Michael
Dorosh, Mike McGregor (Can), Tnkr111, Gilliam, Chris the speller, Jprg1966, The1exile, Modest Genius, Snowmanradio, The PIPE,
Ugur Basak Bot, Ohconfucius, Pinecone, Lunarbunny, Akubra, Zahid Abdassabur, Hotspur23, LWF, BillFlis, Carrellk, Kythri, Andr-
wsc, Dl2000, Octane, Dp462090, WeggeBot, JBDRanger, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Vanished user 4ii389ddjjf3, Monkeybait, Tototom, Jiterati,
Aldis90, Smiteri, Thijs!bot, Sulaimandaud, Luna Santin, CombatWombat42, CosineKitty, Avaya1, Meeowow, Parsecboy, VoABot II,
Arz1969, BilCat, Red Sunset, Homeboy88, Nono64, Zorakoid, Notreallydavid, Trumpet marietta 45750, SirBob42, Halmstad, Tourbillon,
Kyle the bot, Dreddmoto, CobraDragoon, Arc.spirit, LanceBarber, GeeTeeBee, Abd897, LarsHolmberg, Dreamafter, Smsarmad, VT-
Louie456, Dino246, Drmies, Masterblooregard, CAVincent, Sturmvogel 66, Staygyro, PN79, Dana boomer, DumZiBoT, Terry J. Carter,
Hueydoc, Dave1185, Addbot, EZ1234, AkhtaBot, Angry Shoplifter, Zorrobot, The Bushranger, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Ptbotgourou,
Brian in denver, AnomieBOT, Ulric1313, ArthurBot, Xqbot, Luke85, Smiththr, GrouchoBot, Mark Schierbecker, GiW, Gire 3pich2005,
BasilioC, Unmotivate, RedBot, YOUCLEEMAN, Tim1357, Diannaa, Sparrish88, Jackehammond, Stochtastic, Mztourist, John of Read-
ing, ZxxZxxZ, TeeTylerToe, Illegitimate Barrister, Josve05a, L1A1 FAL, KazekageTR, MelbourneStar, David O. Johnson, Bowiechen,
DBigXray, BG19bot, Jigben, Lightning Ace1995, Mark Arsten, Glevum, Zackmann08, America789, Cyberbot II, Adnan bogi, Shady190,
Irondome, Redalert2fan, Z07x10, Wotchit, Maxx786, Crock81, Al Khazar, Fduchello, ArmbrustBot, Wareditor2013, Varixai, Ulemzii,
TheEpTic, FA18 Super Bug, Zigel and Anonymous: 154
XM70E2 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM70E2?oldid=608185803 Contributors: Bearcat, Malcolma, Aldis90, AnomieBOT,
Clark358, L1A1 FAL, The Determinator and Jon.jeckell
M72 LAW Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M72%20LAW?oldid=647727311 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Jdlh, Patrick, Darrell
Greenwood, Julesd, Evercat, PaulinSaudi, Tempshill, Wernher, Riddley, Yosri, Profoss, DocWatson42, MathKnight, Everyking, Zinn-
mann, Bobblewik, Mzajac, Mikko Paananen, Klemen Kocjancic, TRS-80, Chepry, Solitude, Rich Farmbrough, Night Gyr, ZeroOne,
Aqua008, El C, Tronno, Haham hanuka, Thatguy96, Apocal, Gene Nygaard, Admiral Valdemar, Dan100, Kelly Martin, D.E. Watters,
Michaelkvance, Tabletop, GraemeLeggett, FlaBot, Nemo5576, MoRsE, YurikBot, RussBot, Gaius Cornelius, Alex Bakharev, Lavender-
bunny, Manxruler, Arima, Alex43223, Mieciu K, Wknight94, Petri Krohn, GraemeL, Bagheera, Tierce, Nick-D, SmackBot, McGeddon,
Mike McGregor (Can), Chris the speller, Jprg1966, Colonies Chris, Emurphy42, Derekbridges, Britmax, Nakon, Hotspur23, Svartkell,
Shattered, Nobunaga24, Boreas74, Randroide, Cydebot, Normfromga, Rieman 82, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, SkonesMickLoud, DotDarkCloud,
Signaleer, StalinOS, AntiVandalBot, Dybdal, Avaya1, Tengriteg, Magioladitis, Puddhe, Wnewbury, BilCat, Zombastic, Biggyniner, Ret-
tetast, J.delanoy, LordAnubisBOT, McSly, Ndunruh, Juliancolton, Gothbag, Tourbillon, Thomas.W, Vandervahn, DOHC Holiday, W. B.
Wilson, LeilaniLad, Simon9, Khutuck, Zaher1988, Andy Dingley, Koalorka, Crserrano, Blackshod, Dreamafter, Kernel Saunters, Bachcell,
VVVBot, Buttons, ZH Evers, Jt, ClueBot, Binksternet, Kliu1, Zach4636, Mild Bill Hiccup, Arjayay, Creeping Death 1982, Chaosdruid,
Berean Hunter, GPS73, Peter spinale, Chanakal, WikHead, Hueydoc, Addbot, Nath1991, The Bushranger, Drpickem, Luckas-bot, Mi-
leyDavidA, Yobot, Brian in denver, AnomieBOT, Metalhead94, MChoate67, LilHelpa, Obersachsebot, Adser, Capricorn42, WotWeiller,
AdmiralProudmore, Mark Schierbecker, AK85, Owltalon1111, GVilKa, Jonathon A H, Higheld1730, FrescoBot, CaptainFugu, Thomph-
son, MKFI, Marbito11, Full-date unlinking bot, TangoSixZero, Heymslove, ROG5728, Raymond C. Watson, Jr., DexDor, Jackehammond,
WikitanvirBot, JCRules, Illegitimate Barrister, , L1A1 FAL, KazekageTR, Whoop whoop pull up, ClueBot NG, Sonertje80,
Helpful Pixie Bot, Reallyfastcar, Dainomite, Glevum, Sean-is-over-there, Katangais, Takahara Osaka, Zackmann08, Mun Wizard, Amer-
ica789, Khazar2, Shady190, EagerToddler39, MidnightRequestLine, Rs0wner301, Albert777MAX, Nastunye1991, Shkvoz, ArmbrustBot,
Nhuagra, Brad Dyer, HoodsCZ, Smbash, Addinqaisara and Anonymous: 202
M55 (rocket) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M55%20(rocket)?oldid=634466685 Contributors: Reid Kirby, IvoShandor, Keith D,
SalineBrain, JEN9841, The Bushranger, Brian in denver, VX, Brutaldeluxe and Anonymous: 4
AT4 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT4?oldid=650768332 Contributors: Leandrod, Charles Matthews, PaulinSaudi, Riddley,
Sappe, DocWatson42, YanA, Bradeos Graphon, One Salient Oversight, Blue387, Rich Farmbrough, Rama, Night Gyr, TerraFrost,
Mwanner, Rackham, La goutte de pluie, Zelda, Hooperbloob, Interiot, Hohum, Ravenhull, Kenyon, Fred26, Woohookitty, Mindmatrix,
GraemeLeggett, BD2412, MZMcBride, Nemo5576, YurikBot, Jimp, Fabartus, Grubber, Gaius Cornelius, Ve3, Dahlis, Aeon1006, Jor70,
Phichanad, Hayden120, GMan552, Nick-D, SmackBot, Looper5920, Ominae, Deon Steyn, Skickahit10, Jonathan Karlsson, Mike Mc-
Gregor (Can), ERcheck, Bluebot, Stratosphere, Hibernian, Sadads, Htra0497, Derekbridges, Ohconfucius, IgWannA, LWF, Andrwsc,
RekishiEJ, CapitalR, ShelfSkewed, Orca1 9904, Cydebot, Rieman 82, TenthEagle, Nabokov, Lpwa, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, DPdH, USMA,
Fae, Meeowow, Magioladitis, Puddhe, Gwern, CommonsDelinker, Mange01, Schmee1 2, Fordtrucksrule88, Ndunruh, Tatrgel, DanMP5,
STBotD, Spellcast, Ariobarzan, Gothbag, Thomas.W, W. B. Wilson, TXiKiBoT, Zaher1988, Damrung, Gamer416, Bahamut0013,
Koalorka, Dreamafter, BotMultichill, Tonylam85, Natlava, Phe-bot, Dabloodz, Oxymoron83, Afernand74, Kumioko, Ken123BOT, Msjay-
hawk, Pyroash, Plastikspork, Asmaybe, DumZiBoT, Editorofthewiki, Bobfran, SJSA, Addbot, EZ1234, Nohomers48, Ginosbot, Light-
bot, ShadowOps, JEN9841, Yobot, PMLawrence, AnomieBOT, Quebec99, Sandip90, Xqbot, GrouchoBot, Mark Schierbecker, FrescoBot,
Mrzeppolainen22, RedBot, Plasticspork, ROG5728, RjwilmsiBot, Ripchip Bot, Jackehammond, Beyond My Ken, KS3259, EmausBot, Il-
legitimate Barrister, Doddy Wuid, BartekJerzy, HupHollandHup, Armcav, DogFoxen, Romeoveten, ClueBot NG, Ninja of Tao, Diaments
7.0, Chrome1453, Helpful Pixie Bot, Mastanerfma2117, Dainomite, Glevum, Andriel duran, Jwimbrow, DavidLovesGrammar, Irondome,
Rs0wner301, Shkvoz, Bosnian Control, , Crow, Polanksy kolbe, RestyBohol61, Pointro and Anonymous: 169
M141 Bunker Defeat Munition Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M141%20Bunker%20Defeat%20Munition?oldid=647971766
Contributors: Riddley, DocWatson42, Thatguy96, PaulHanson, Firsfron, SmackBot, Chris the speller, Aldis90, W. B. Wilson, Kumioko
(renamed), EoGuy, Leofric1, The Bushranger, DexDor, Jackehammond, Babak902003, Chrome1453, PhnomPencil, Smbash and Anony-
mous: 5
M24 mine Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M24%20mine?oldid=655217601 Contributors: Avocado, Nemo5576, RussBot,
Megapixie, SmackBot, Deon Steyn, Eassin, CmdrObot, Sam Blacketer, Addbot, Smile4Chomsky, User0529, Brian in denver, Laodah
and Anonymous: 1
FIM-43 Redeye Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-43%20Redeye?oldid=649080819 Contributors: AxelBoldt, Ixfd64, Rland-
mann, GCarty, Riddley, Rich Farmbrough, Haham hanuka, Hooperbloob, A2Kar, Ashley Pomeroy, Sleigh, Gene Nygaard, CruiserBob,
Mindmatrix, Anty, Zambani, FlaBot, Zotel, MoRsE, Sus scrofa, Megapixie, Groyolo, SmackBot, Ominae, KelleyCook, LWF, Nobunaga24,
OnBeyondZebrax, JoeBot, CmdrObot, Tec15, Nabokov, Aldis90, BokicaK, Two way time, BilCat, LorenzoB, Spellmaster, Commons-
Delinker, Rjswr, DOHC Holiday, Balmung0731, Dtom, Lucasbfrbot, Kumioko (renamed), Martarius, The Thing That Should Not Be, AN
OLD MAN, Jopsach, Chaosdruid, Addbot, Nohomers48, LatitudeBot, Fluernutter, Lightbot, Luckas Blade, O Fenian, Brian in denver,
Miguelito0292, The red power12, HRoestBot, Yanaphop, Antemister, Dewritech, Wingman4l7, KazekageTR, Csp77, Will Beback Auto,
Ramaksoud2000, Zackmann08, Khazar2, ArmbrustBot, Ballistametalcraft, Bill Fortin and Anonymous: 43
AGM-114 Hellre Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114%20Hellfire?oldid=655562769 Contributors: The Epopt, Mav, Bryan
Derksen, Infrogmation, Rambot, Rlandmann, Daniel Quinlan, Echoray, Wernher, Oaktree b, David.Monniaux, Riddley, Altenmann, Pro-
foss, DocWatson42, Oberiko, Greyengine5, There is no spoon, Leonard G., Bobblewik, Mustafaa, Mzajac, Michael Rowe, Pettifogger,
Cynical, Blue387, Zigmar, Acad Ronin, Mtnerd, N328KF, Rich Farmbrough, Guanabot, StoneColdCrazy, Ivan Bajlo, Night Gyr, Wegian-
Warrior, ZeroOne, Loren36, Harald Hansen, Tronno, Cwolfsheep, Thatguy96, Joshbaumgartner, Wtmitchell, TaintedMustard, Bradipus,
Wyatts, Drbreznjev, Ahseaton, Bobrayner, Mindmatrix, Trevorparsons, BlaiseFEgan, Wayward, GraemeLeggett, Dovid, Ashmoo, De-
monuk, MatthewDBA, Rjwilmsi, Erebus555, Supersteve1440, Chobot, Ahpook, YurikBot, Arado, Hydrargyrum, Manxruler, Megapixie,
TDogg310, 21655, Arthur Rubin, Cassini83, Orcaborealis, Curpsbot-unicodify, Diagraph01, Nick-D, Groyolo, SaveTheWhales, Smack-
Bot, Looper5920, Emoscopes, Deon Steyn, Pgk, Fallsend, Lonelymiesarchie, Chris the speller, Thumperward, Moshe Constantine Hassan
Al-Silverburg, The1exile, Htra0497, TheGerm, Quartermaster, OrphanBot, MJCdetroit, A.R., John, MilborneOne, Spartanfox86, Butko,
Joelo, Micoolio101, Stevebritgimp, Publicus, Lorikeet, Chillin1248, Tutoon, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Hydraton31, Msnicki, Nabokov,
Aldis90, Thijs!bot, Wikid77, Woody, Carloseduardo, Grahamdubya, Miller17CU94, Hcobb, Kaaveh Ahangar, Heroeswithmetaphors, Bo-
kicaK, Waerloeg, 3R1C, Born2ie, DagosNavy, JAnDbot, Epeeeche, Schon, PhilKnight, .anacondabot, C d h, Puddhe, BilCat, LorenzoB,
E104421, DerHexer, Edward321, TazMage, Raza0007, STBot, CommonsDelinker, Numbo3, Clarkcol, KylieTastic, STBotD, Dorgan-
Bot, Num1dgen, Enry6473, Tourbillon, Zaher1988, Ng.j, Damrung, Nickpullar, Andy Dingley, Falcon8765, Eurocopter, Koalorka,
Verox, SieBot, Loudoggie, OKBot, ZH Evers, ClueBot, Mild Bill Hiccup, Scorpene, DragonBot, Ktr101, Wilsone9, The Founders In-
tent, VsevolodKrolikov, Staygyro, Chaosdruid, DumZiBoT, Grautbakken, Dave1185, Addbot, Some jerk on the Internet, EZ1234, Con-
tiAWB, Hardwarefreak, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Vendettanjm, Tangopaso, Nallimbot, KamikazeBot, 8ung3st, AnomieBOT,
Archon 2488, Asok71, Rubinbot, 1exec1, Materialscientist, GB fan, Simultaneous movement, MauritsBot, Xqbot, Tomdo08, Abce2, Mark
Schierbecker, SassoBot, Mastermaozi, Misortie, FrescoBot, Kyteto, Tavernsenses, Armigo, 1976reds, AstaBOTh15, SiPlus, Enemen-
emu, MCQknight, DadOfBeanAndBug, Reaper Eternal, Tumna, RjwilmsiBot, Ankurbhageria, EmausBot, Babak902003, SingleIntegral,
Sp33dyphil, Anirudh Emani, Righteous9000, Gplav, Illegitimate Barrister, Ebrambot, BP OMowe, Bob drobbs, WarHeroZ, Iron Archer,
Ready, NADIN2, ChuispastonBot, Masc80, Cgt, ClueBot NG, Jack Greenmaven, Catlemur, Doh5678, Blade-of-the-South, Mesoderm,
Helpful Pixie Bot, Mbedway, BG19bot, SlimRindy, Tlai1977, BattyBot, Jafder, America789, Irul 901, , Faizan, Aftabbanoori,
FISH MAN C, Kbd201214, Fabwiki88, Monkbot, ByronLove12, TredBear, Faraz092, Tjdunn1979, FlorentPirot and Anonymous: 237
M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M270%20Multiple%20Launch%20Rocket%20System?

oldid=655340040 Contributors: Rlandmann, David Newton, Riddley, Demerzel, Profoss, DocWatson42, MathKnight, Bobblewik, Mzajac,
Blue387, Willhsmit, Cmcapellan, Klemen Kocjancic, Rob cowie, N328KF, Rama, ZeroOne, El C, Func, Cwolfsheep, King nothing, That-
guy96, Andrew Gray, Bukvoed, Hohum, Cal 1234, TheAznSensation, Gene Nygaard, Alai, Dziban303, SDC, GraemeLeggett, Rjwilmsi,
Vegaswikian, MoRsE, Chobot, Mmx1, Chwyatt, BramvR, YurikBot, Noclador, Andynormancx, Arado, Witan, Los688, Manxruler, Py-
rotec, Tony1, Mieciu K, Rfsmit, Nikkimaria, Modify, Attilios, SmackBot, Eskimbot, Jprg1966, Hibernian, Namangwari, Ammar shaker,
Decltype, A.R., Derek R Bullamore, John, LWF, Cowbert, PRRfan, Highspeed, Van helsing, Cydebot, Argus n, Daniel J. Leivick,
Profhobby, Thijs!bot, Dogaroon, Deathbunny, Marek69, Hcobb, Mathieu121, Bjenks, YK Times, Basilicum, Parsecboy, Puddhe, BilCat,
Sam ware, Ultraviolet scissor ame, Rebell18190, Realman208, STBotD, Orthopraxia, Jetwave Dave, RaptorR3d, Tourbillon, Lalicea, Im-
perator3733, SpaceyHopper, Pvt. Green, Koalorka, Tharskjold, Kernel Saunters, Idsnowdog, Son of Zealandia, TabooTikiGod, ClueBot,
Lastdingo, Tonitrum, Ktr101, Sa, Jellysh dave, DumZiBoT, Killkola, Neutrino 1, Dave1185, Addbot, Nohomers48, Chamal N, Pad-
dyboot, Lightbot, Zorrobot, Yobot, Worm That Turned, Brian in denver, AnomieBOT, Piano non troppo, Eumolpo, Xqbot, Gpadilla81,
Mark Schierbecker, SassoBot, WikiDudeia, Ojoc, FrescoBot, John-Greece, LittleWink, Lovetravel86, Vinie007, Xiglofre, Rolen47, Tobe-
Bot, SansPedes, Lordrichie, DexDor, Jackehammond, Tom120, Illegitimate Barrister, L1A1 FAL, Rcsprinter123, Kevinmax07, Phd8511,
Dainomite, Glevum, Alvin Lee, EdwardH, BattyBot, America789, Cyberbot II, Njf001, Irondome, Llamapoth, Black houk, Shkvoz, Rabea-
Malah, YiFeiBot, Aubmn, Dbsseven, Mohammedbahaa11 and Anonymous: 160
Hydra 70 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra%2070?oldid=651306003 Contributors: Magnus Manske, The Epopt, Ted
Longstae, Leandrod, Patrick, Rlandmann, Echoray, RayKiddy, Riddley, Pibwl, Vfrickey, Greyengine5, Bobblewik, Ericg, Rich Farm-
brough, Rama, Neurophyre, Thatguy96, LtNOWIS, Joshbaumgartner, Trjumpet, Wyatts, Gene Nygaard, TomTheHand, BD2412, MZM-
cBride, FlaBot, Bgwhite, Arado, Epolk, Gaius Cornelius, Lavenderbunny, SEWilcoBot, Kvn8907, IDude 101, Sardanaphalus, Smack-
Bot, Deon Steyn, Jprg1966, Htra0497, Pkk, Ligulembot, Jimvin, Beetstra, Dammit, Sir Vicious, MarsRover, Orca1 9904, Cydebot,
Fnlayson, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, Corella, Born2ie, Magioladitis, JeJonez, BilCat, JaGa, Tgeairn, 72Dino, Reedy Bot, Youngjim, Assas-
sin3577, Banality, Bedwyr, ClueBot, Masterblooregard, Jellysh dave, Addbot, Pigr8, LaaknorBot, Numbo3-bot, Tide rolls, Lightbot, The
Bushranger, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Airborne1228, Metalhead94, Twix2247, FrescoBot, Dinamik-bot, Underlying lk, PleaseStand, DexDor,
EmausBot, John of Reading, Dudy001, Righteous9000, ZroBot, Anir1uph, Smuorz, Helpful Pixie Bot, KShiger, Enigmatum, BattyBot,
Justincheng12345-bot, America789, Cyberbot II, Albert777MAX, Ruzzel01, Samhpes, Strorm, HWClifton, Mongoose Army and Anony-
mous: 57
M202 FLASH Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M202%20FLASH?oldid=634518178 Contributors: Riddley, DocWatson42, That-
guy96, Alansohn, Anthony Appleyard, Hohum, Marasmusine, GregorB, Coolhawks88, Awiseman, SmackBot, Cla68, Ocatecir, Wilhelm
Wiesel, Daniel J. Leivick, Aldis90, Groogokk, L0b0t, Dave gross, JamesBWatson, Milo03, Theconster, Dispenser, W. B. Wilson, Vipinhari,
Lamro, AlleborgoBot, Trey, Dwane E Anderson, Martarius, Ktr101, EpicDream86, CapnZapp, Addbot, Nohomers48, LaaknorBot, Aky-
oyo94, Cod4master9, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Brian in denver, 5infBrig, Mark Schierbecker, Hellomichael2000, Surv1v4l1st, Lucien-
BOT, Yadayadayaday, Smoerble, Archtimmy, Sdafhgh, Subtropical-man, TheEvanCat, Wingman4l7, Skrunyak, ClueBot NG, Jdcollins13,
Roko121, Makecat-bot, Faizan, Everybodyswillyisaspeedboat and Anonymous: 35
M139 bomblet Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M139%20bomblet?oldid=629761038 Contributors: Julesd, Rwendland, RussBot,
Crism, Ospalh, BorgQueen, Nabokov, Lklundin, IvoShandor, VX, Chribba, Schr75 and Anonymous: 7
Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding-Fin%20Aerial%20Rocket?oldid=653410368 Contributors: The
Anome, Rlandmann, Oberiko, Roo72, CanisRufus, Cap'n Refsmmat, Sietse Snel, Thatguy96, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, Woohookitty,
Uncle G, GraemeLeggett, JdforresterBot, Megapixie, Snarius, Asams10, HoratioVitero, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Thatnewguy, The PIPE,
Vgy7ujm, Joelo, Dammit, Cydebot, Aldis90, Bearpatch, PhilKnight, BilCat, Satyen Akolkar, W. B. Wilson, Abu America, Sturmvogel
66, Jellysh dave, Dave1185, Magus732, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Yobot, EVCM, SargethePoet, FrescoBot, LucienBOT, Jackehammond,
Dewritech, ZroBot, H3llBot, TitaniumCarbide, KLBot2, Samf4u and Anonymous: 16
T34 Calliope Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T34%20Calliope?oldid=645287732 Contributors: Mzajac, Sole Soul, Pacier, King
nothing, Hohum, Axeman89, Woohookitty, GraemeLeggett, BD2412, Sus scrofa, RussBot, Arado, Mieciu K, Cambion, SmackBot,
Hmains, The PIPE, Robosh, Like tears in rain, Nobunaga24, Feureau, MrDolomite, SuperTank17, Cydebot, Aldis90, Thijs!bot,
FlieGerFaUstMe262, LordAnubisBOT, Instantnematode, Esagsoz, Dreamafter, Alexbot, DumZiBoT, XLinkBot, Alansplodge, MystBot,
Addbot, Magus732, DutchDevil, Delta 51, Tartarus, Luckas-bot, Brian in denver, Xqbot, FrescoBot, Kondi, MusikAnimal, Reallyfastcar,
93, Nonsenseferret, OurLordMonty, Supereditor69 and Anonymous: 33
AIR-2 Genie Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2%20Genie?oldid=653197445 Contributors: Bryan Derksen, Leandrod, Cyde,
Rlandmann, Lommer, Vanished user 5zariu3jisj0j4irj, Riddley, Bearcat, Jphieer, Danceswithzerglings, Oberiko, Leonard G., Bobblewik,
Plasma east, Ericg, Brianhe, Rich Farmbrough, LindsayH, Night Gyr, CanisRufus, RazorChicken, ArgentLA, Gunter.krebs, 119, Josh-
baumgartner, Rwendland, Hohum, GraemeLeggett, BD2412, FlaBot, Turbinator, Zotel, Arado, Gaius Cornelius, Ospalh, Asams10, PTSE,
Groyolo, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Mike McGregor (Can), Jumping cheese, Aspade, Valfontis, Calvados, John, Bel air, Fl295, Cydebot,
Jros83, Nabokov, Thijs!bot, JAnDbot, OhanaUnited, Dricherby, Trottsky, Avicennasis, A75, BilCat, LorenzoB, R'n'B, Nono64, Zipzipzip,
Notreallydavid, Cobi, Spiesr, Banjodog, WarddrBOT, Billabbott, Mtdhryk, Andy Dingley, Trailblazer2004, SieBot, Cobatfor, Adam1not,
Binksternet, Boneyard90, Ktr101, Alexbot, Chaosdruid, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Jimderkaisser, Ulric1313,
FreeRangeFrog, , Chicohutch, Citation bot 1, Cnwilliams, Gbarbee, RjwilmsiBot, EmausBot, Lucas hamster, AvicBot, ZroBot,
Redhanker, Cymru.lass, BrokenAnchorBot, Bomazi, Whoop whoop pull up, Braincricket, ChrisGualtieri, Mar044, Limnalid and Anony-
mous: 44
BOAR Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOAR?oldid=641745708 Contributors: Brammers, Cs-wolves, KimChee, ShelfSkewed,
Memphisto, BilCat, Andy Dingley, Cobatfor, Dpmuk, Addbot, The Bushranger, LucienBOT, Mono, GoingBatty, Helpful Pixie Bot, Ph-
nomPencil, Monkbot and Anonymous: 4
Hopi (missile) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopi%20(missile)?oldid=641747881 Contributors: Stone, Chris the speller, Cydebot,
BilCat, Andy Dingley, YSSYguy, The Bushranger, Helpful Pixie Bot, PhnomPencil, CitationCleanerBot and Monkbot
AGM-76 Falcon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-76%20Falcon?oldid=596546145 Contributors: Rlandmann, N328KF, Josh-
baumgartner, FlaBot, Kolbasz, Gaius Cornelius, Pirate2000, SmackBot, Cydebot, Aldis90, Sturmvogel 66, MystBot, Addbot, Lightbot,
The Bushranger, Erik9bot and Causa83
ASALM Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASALM?oldid=629472217 Contributors: Woohookitty, Johna, Slashme, Cydebot, Nick
Number, WeeWillieWiki, BilCat, The Bushranger, DASHBot, Helpful Pixie Bot, Seergenius and Anonymous: 2
Diamondback (missile) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamondback%20(missile)?oldid=641745004 Contributors: Mgiganteus1,

ShelfSkewed, Cydebot, Acroterion, BilCat, Andy Dingley, EoGuy, ChrisHodgesUK, The Bushranger, DexDor, Michaelmas1957, Helpful
Pixie Bot, CitationCleanerBot, Monkbot and Anonymous: 2
Sky Scorcher Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky%20Scorcher?oldid=641757223 Contributors: Delirium, Ahunt, Cydebot, BilCat,
Panicpgh, The Bushranger and Anonymous: 1
Wagtail (missile) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagtail%20(missile)?oldid=629472248 Contributors: Dale Arnett, SmackBot, Cy-
debot, Doc Tropics, Smartse, BilCat, Piledhigheranddeeper, The Bushranger, ClueBot NG, Darrenbreeden, Helpful Pixie Bot and Anony-
mous: 4
ADR-8 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADR-8?oldid=654205221 Contributors: The Bushranger, John of Reading, Preternat and
Anonymous: 1
AGR-14 ZAP Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGR-14%20ZAP?oldid=597232079 Contributors: Hydrargyrum, RASAM,
Faizhaider, BilCat, Addbot, Leszek Jaczuk, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Trappist the monk, DASHBot, GoingBatty and Anonymous: 1
MQR-13 BMTS Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQR-13%20BMTS?oldid=572982248 Contributors: BilCat, The Bushranger, Ma-
terialscientist, Demiurge1000, CitationCleanerBot and Anonymous: 1
MQR-16 Gunrunner Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQR-16%20Gunrunner?oldid=572982543 Contributors: Wavelength, Chris
the speller, KimChee, Optimist on the run, BilCat, Boneyard90, The Bushranger, Helpful Pixie Bot and Khazar2
Ram (rocket) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram%20(rocket)?oldid=647868739 Contributors: Leandrod, Arado, Hellbus,
James086, BilCat, Dave1185, The Bushranger, EmausBot, Magneticlifeform, Helpful Pixie Bot, BG19bot, PhnomPencil and Anonymous:
1
LOCAT Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOCAT?oldid=653410479 Contributors: DVdm, Kollision, Cydebot, BilCat, The
Bushranger and Anonymous: 1
LTV-N-4 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTV-N-4?oldid=607703959 Contributors: Cobatfor and The Bushranger
Gimlet (rocket) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimlet%20(rocket)?oldid=641748092 Contributors: Andrew Gray, Jehochman,
SmackBot, Brammers, CmdrObot, Cydebot, BilCat, Mild Bill Hiccup, Sturmvogel 66, The Bushranger, Wcoole, AustralianRupert, Helpful
Pixie Bot, PhnomPencil and Anonymous: 2
Zuni (rocket) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuni%20(rocket)?oldid=647244298 Contributors: Riddley, DocWatson42, Thomas
Ludwig, Hammersfan, Master Of Ninja, Rama, Hektor, Countakeshi, Karl Andrews, Ageekgal, Victor falk, SpLoT, Drakkenfyre, Emt147,
Dual Freq, WDGraham, Trekphiler, Cowbert, CzarB, CmdrObot, Srajan01, Pi3832, Aldis90, Honeplus, Matthew Proctor, Corella, Endie,
Albany NY, BilCat, Fanra, Cobatfor, Kumioko (renamed), XLinkBot, Dave1185, Addbot, Fireaxe888, Bbfreakr0x, BrianKnez, Light-
bot, The Bushranger, Citation bot, Xqbot, Colubedy, Full-date unlinking bot, RjwilmsiBot, Mztourist, WikitanvirBot, Discussdefense,
Sp33dyphil, ZroBot, Ari-69, Defensefacthelper and Anonymous: 13
Shavetail Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shavetail?oldid=608776772 Contributors: Chris the speller, The Bushranger and Rpmichel
BGM-109G Ground Launched Cruise Missile Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-109G%20Ground%20Launched%
20Cruise%20Missile?oldid=649790338 Contributors: Katana0182, Finlay McWalter, Riddley, Comatose51, Chowbok, Rich Farmbrough,
Xezbeth, Sole Soul, Shenme, KBi, PaulHanson, Joshbaumgartner, Andrew Gray, LunarLander, Deacon of Pndapetzim, Woohookitty,
Strongbow, BD2412, Ketiltrout, Rjwilmsi, Feydey, SchuminWeb, Kolbasz, Chwyatt, Noclador, Arado, Gadget850, Arthur Rubin, Nick-D,
Sacxpert, SmackBot, Chris the speller, Bluebot, Colonies Chris, Ligulembot, Tdrss, Bwmoll3, Azvole, Cydebot, Malcolmcraig, Woody,
CommonsDelinker, Nono64, Ndunruh, D-Kuru, UncleNat, TXiKiBoT, Universaladdress, WacoJacko, Kumioko (renamed), MBK004,
Matrek, Darthveda, Niceguyedc, Pointillist, Lineagegeek, 51edb, Addbot, DOI bot, Xenobot, Yobot, Edoe, AnomieBOT, Citation bot,
ArthurBot, I dream of horses, RedBot, John of Reading, Babak902003, Dewritech, ChrisGualtieri, GoMinU, Glcm1 and Anonymous: 25
SM-64 Navaho Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-64%20Navaho?oldid=654868489 Contributors: The Anome, Maury Markowitz,
Rlandmann, Dcoetzee, DocWatson42, Wolfkeeper, Miya, Utcursch, Karl Dickman, Grm wnr, Trevor MacInnis, Brianhe, David Schaich,
Bender235, Jeodesic, Joshbaumgartner, DonPMitchell, Scriberius, Bricktop, Marudubshinki, Rjwilmsi, Vary, Mark Sublette, Los688, Lao
Wai, Emersoni, Maxamegalon2000, SmackBot, Chris the speller, ThreeBlindMice, Skulvar, Fl295, Cydebot, DMeyering, Dawkeye, Bzuk,
Desertsky85451, RegIP, Brucelipe, GoldenKnight, Nono64, Youngjim, Wsacul, Warut, Ndunruh, D-Kuru, VolkovBot, Sdsds, GimmeBot,
Petebutt, Slysplace, LanceBarber, Thunderbird2, AMCKen, Ath55ena, Lilyu, Addbot, LaaknorBot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot,
Xosema, Xqbot, Heroicrelics, LucienBOT, RedBot, , Helpful Pixie Bot, Zedshort, Khazar2 and Anonymous: 14
SM-62 Snark Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-62%20Snark?oldid=654358023 Contributors: TwoOneTwo, Michel.SLM, Rland-
mann, Topbanana, RedWolf, Oberiko, Greyengine5, Bobblewik, Quadell, Scottperry, Dabarkey, Karl Dickman, Moki80, Relihanl, Can-
isRufus, Sortior, R. S. Shaw, Sasquatch, Alansohn, Joshbaumgartner, Andrew Gray, , Wdfarmer, Gene Nygaard, Woohookitty,
Bricktop, Edison, Rillian, FlaBot, Ground Zero, Mark Sublette, Arado, Hydrargyrum, Los688, Kah13, Ospalh, Knotnic, Curpsbot-
unicodify, Sacxpert, SmackBot, Jim62sch, Jprg1966, Trekphiler, Greg5030, Bwmoll3, R. E. Mixer, ThreeBlindMice, Fl295, Cydebot,
Crowish, Nabokov, Aldis90, Bzuk, BilCat, LorenzoB, Brucelipe, Archolman, Tdadamemd, Youngjim, Wsacul, Ndunruh, VolkovBot,
Sdsds, TXiKiBoT, GimmeBot, Unregistered.coward, AMCKen, Treekids, Nimbus227, Ktr101, Lineagegeek, Sturmvogel 66, Anticipa-
tion of a New Lovers Arrival, The, Addbot, Idiophonist, The Bushranger, Yobot, Troymacgill, JackieBot, Joshjet182, Unitsquarehead,
FrescoBot, Surv1v4l1st, LucienBOT, Reactordrone, Jackehammond, Digger554, Helpful Pixie Bot, Zedshort, Mogism and Anonymous:
31
SSM-N-8 Regulus Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSM-N-8%20Regulus?oldid=640154454 Contributors: TwoOneTwo, The
Epopt, Derek Ross, Edward, Eurleif, Minesweeper, Stan Shebs, Rlandmann, Pibwl, Oberiko, Greyengine5, Hokanomono, Bobblewik,
Chowbok, Karl Dickman, Brianhe, Rich Farmbrough, Avriette, CanisRufus, Walkiped, Joshbaumgartner, Primalchaos, Marudubshinki,
FlaBot, Mark Sublette, Sus scrofa, Fabartus, Hydrargyrum, Gaius Cornelius, Saberwyn, Ospalh, Georgewilliamherbert, Groyolo, Philip
Morten, SmackBot, Chris the speller, Florian Adler, Tsca.bot, Ntspark, Suitmonster, Shawn D., Fl295, Cydebot, Nabokov, Mdhennessey,
Woody, Dawkeye, Arch dude, Georgewienbarg, BilCat, R'n'B, Marcd30319, LordAnubisBOT, MarcoLittel, D-Kuru, TXiKiBoT, Petebutt,
LanceBarber, Work permit, Cobatfor, Lightmouse, Maralia, MBK004, NiD.29, DumZiBoT, Dave1185, Addbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-
bot, Troymacgill, FrescoBot, Oracleofottawa, Jackehammond, ZroBot, BattyBot, Khazar2, RobDuch, Llammakey and Anonymous: 19
MGM-13 Mace Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-13%20Mace?oldid=649424348 Contributors: Rlandmann, Bobblewik, Karl

Dickman, Joshbaumgartner, Asav, Mark Sublette, RussBot, Arado, Hydrargyrum, Groyolo, SmackBot, InverseHypercube, Bluebot,
Emt147, Ken keisel, Dreadstar, Bwmoll3, Fl295, Cydebot, Elmschrat, Buckshot06, BilCat, Ndunruh, Piddlepaddler, Nigel Ish, Bal-
mung0731, GimmeBot, VNCCC, Thunderbird2, SieBot, BB-61, Infofellow, PixelBot, Dana boomer, Addbot, Wreston, Lightbot, The
Bushranger, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Ulric1313, HRoestBot, Trappist the monk, Jethwarp, 777sms, GoingBatty, FlugKerl, Chesipiero, Lean-
drogfcdutra and Anonymous: 22
MGM-1 Matador Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-1%20Matador?oldid=649429064 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Rland-
mann, Jll, Topbanana, DocWatson42, Bobblewik, Chowbok, Karl Dickman, Rich Farmbrough, MeltBanana, Michael Zimmermann, Sr-
bauer, Cmdrjameson, Patrickske, Joshbaumgartner, Malo, Firsfron, Robert K S, Kosher Fan, Bricktop, GraemeLeggett, Boris Alexeev,
Mark Sublette, MoRsE, Arado, Xihr, RadioFan, Hydrargyrum, Gaius Cornelius, Lao Wai, Gadget850, SmackBot, Athaler, Hmains,
Emt147, WDGraham, Will Beback, Tdrss, MrDolomite, Haus, MrBoo, Fl295, Cydebot, Sadorsch, Thijs!bot, Woody, Darklilac, Bernd vdB,
BilCat, Brucelipe, Ndunruh, Balmung0731, GimmeBot, SieBot, Lightmouse, Wuhwuzdat, Sfan00 IMG, Sv1xv, Alexbot, Lineagegeek,
Sturmvogel 66, Polly, Addbot, Wreston, LaaknorBot, SpBot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, AnomieBOT, Kirbert, Ulric1313, Neurolysis, Lu-
cienBOT, RedBot, Full-date unlinking bot, CHESTICULAR-FORTITUDE, Jackehammond, Digger554, Wingman4l7, One.Ouch.Zero,
BG19bot, BattyBot, Aarrowsmith, Leandrogfcdutra and Anonymous: 25
Republic-Ford JB-2 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic-Ford%20JB-2?oldid=655397446 Contributors: Rlandmann, Chow-
bok, Rich Farmbrough, Firsfron, GraemeLeggett, Rjwilmsi, Mark Sublette, Bgwhite, RussBot, Hydrargyrum, Joel7687, Nick-D, Chris the
speller, Trekphiler, The PIPE, MilborneOne, Bwmoll3, Cydebot, J Clear, Gavia immer, BilCat, CommonsDelinker, Fiachra10003, Pid-
dlepaddler, VolkovBot, TXiKiBoT, Petebutt, Andy Dingley, 4wajzkd02, Lightmouse, Maralia, Nimbus227, Marc James Small, Addbot,
Meggymoo10, SpBot, Jaydec, The Bushranger, Yobot, JackieBot, Auranor, LilHelpa, Elliottwolf, Anotherclown, FrescoBot, Lzbthhrn,
MaxDel, Full-date unlinking bot, Kowalskiwalt, ZroBot, Lakenjr, Helpful Pixie Bot, Makecat-bot, XXzoonamiXX, Leandrogfcdutra,
RobDuch and Anonymous: 17
Alpha Draco Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha%20Draco?oldid=651480521 Contributors: GraemeLeggett, SatuSuro, Arado,
BilCat, Boneyard90, The Bushranger, Grondemar, DASHBot, John of Reading and Stamptrader
Crow (missile) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow%20(missile)?oldid=641746387 Contributors: SatuSuro, BilCat, Adavidb, Mild
Bill Hiccup, Sturmvogel 66, The Bushranger, PhnomPencil, BattyBot and Monkbot
MGM-51 Shillelagh Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-51%20Shillelagh?oldid=639746890 Contributors: AxelBoldt, The
Epopt, Koyaanis Qatsi, Maury Markowitz, Hephaestos, Sannse, Rlandmann, JidGom, Wik, Riddley, Altenmann, Naddy, Oberiko,
Greyengine5, Bobblewik, Burgundavia, CanisRufus, Joshbaumgartner, Ashley Pomeroy, Bart133, Hohum, Gene Nygaard, Miq, Yakolev,
Kolbasz, MoRsE, Bagheera, Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, Ways, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, Deathbunny, RebelRobot, Rettetast,
KTo288, Boston, Spacehusky, Notreallydavid, MarcoLittel, Merceris, Balmung0731, Dreamafter, Bachcell, Tumbleweed1954, Piledhigh-
eranddeeper, One last pharaoh, Addbot, Shattered Wikiglass, Nohomers48, LaaknorBot, Delta 51, The Bushranger, Legobot, Luckas-bot,
Yobot, AnomieBOT, Allocer, SCRECROW, Fallschirmjgergewehr 42, Helpful Pixie Bot, Sovngard, Sky3wire and Anonymous: 23
PGM-17 Thor Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGM-17%20Thor?oldid=653115521 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Patrick, Mic,
Minesweeper, Ahoerstemeier, Docu, Rlandmann, EdH, Jikester, Audin, Dimadick, Rholton, Modeha, Reubenbarton, Greyengine5, Wolf-
keeper, Curps, Bobblewik, Wmahan, Karl Dickman, Grm wnr, YUL89YYZ, Murtasa, Kbh3rd, A2Kar, Joshbaumgartner, Andrew Gray,
Rwendland, Sobolewski, Evil Monkey, Gene Nygaard, Adrian.benko, Crosbiesmith, Woohookitty, Bricktop, GraemeLeggett, Marudub-
shinki, Isaac Rabinovitch, Jivecat, Bubba73, Michael Slone, Schol-R-LEA, Hellbus, Van der Hoorn, Gaius Cornelius, Los688, Ospalh, Nico-
laiplum, Lynbarn, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, WSpaceport, Gjs238, Bluebot, Emt147, Snori, CSWarren, Redline, WDGraham, Trekphiler,
Richsage, Tdrss, Bwmoll3, Minna Sora no Shita, Brady1984, Neddyseagoon, R. E. Mixer, ThreeBlindMice, N2e, Acabtp, Cydebot, Hy-
draton31, Nabokov, Cancun771, Thijs!bot, Lord Hawk, WinBot, JAnDbot, Charles01, Buckshot06, Avicennasis, LorenzoB, Reihe, Sub-
space1250, Mark Lincoln, Ndunruh, ColdCase, Sdsds, GimmeBot, Petebutt, Colwing, Dirk P Broer, Johnboyes, MBK004, Nimbus227,
Reedjr5746, Sturmvogel 66, WikHead, SilvonenBot, Good Olfactory, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, AnomieBOT, JackieBot, Radio-
Broadcast, MastiBot, Full-date unlinking bot, Trapzor, Overjive, DexDor, Pouyana, ZroBot, LostCause231, Magneticlifeform, Cgruda,
BendelacBOT, Royalcourtier and Anonymous: 42
SM-65 Atlas Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-65%20Atlas?oldid=654574865 Contributors: AxelBoldt, Lee Daniel Crocker,
Brion VIBBER, Bryan Derksen, Zundark, Gareth Owen, Rmhermen, Roadrunner, Maury Markowitz, Lir, Patrick, Stewacide, Ellywa,
Ahoerstemeier, Stan Shebs, Susan Mason, Rlandmann, Andrewa, Salsa Shark, Seth ze, Wikiborg, Audin, Wik, Roachmeister, Rei, Polli-
nator, Aliekens, Carlossuarez46, Shantavira, Dimadick, Jmabel, Hadal, Wikibot, Hartze11, Reubenbarton, DocWatson42, Rs2, Oberiko,
Greyengine5, Wolfkeeper, Netoholic, Fleminra, Alison, Bobblewik, Bumm13, Dabarkey, Karl Dickman, Rich Farmbrough, Aranel, Evand,
Tom, Gershwinrb, Duk, Cwolfsheep, Apyule, Nev, Interiot, Joshbaumgartner, Ashley Pomeroy, Hunter1084, Sobolewski, Gene Nygaard,
Firsfron, Bricktop, Arru, Graham87, Jivecat, Bubba73, Margosbot, BjKa, Kolbasz, YurikBot, Angus Lepper, Jimp, Arado, Gaius Cornelius,
Ksyrie, Pstakem, Quadbox, Ospalh, Pil56, Petri Krohn, Curpsbot-unicodify, Mikus, GrinBot, MaeseLeon, Hmains, Chris the speller, Icaro,
Emt147, SeanWillard, Redline, WDGraham, Trekphiler, Chlewbot, PieRRoMaN, Ken keisel, Nakon, Dreadstar, BiggKwell, NeilFraser,
Glacier109, Tdrss, John, Bwmoll3, Minna Sora no Shita, Nobunaga24, RandomCritic, Buckboard, Novangelis, Pjbynn, Harold f, R. E.
Mixer, Fl295, Necessary Evil, Cydebot, Hydraton31, SpaceyD, Crowish, Nabokov, JayW, Thijs!bot, Nick Number, Barneyg, Fru1tbat,
JAnDbot, Avaya1, Jatkins, BilCat, LorenzoB, Brucelipe, Mark Lincoln, R'n'B, CommonsDelinker, Tdadamemd, Ndunruh, Ohms law,
Saltysailor, Donrayt, Atlasicbmman, DorganBot, Flyingidiot, Sdsds, GimmeBot, Cootiequits, Bcappel, Pmoir, Dirkbb, SQL, Falcon8765,
Pubdog, GrouchoPython, MBK004, Matrek, Scottinmesa, Chech Explorer, Easphi, Lineagegeek, Sturmvogel 66, DumZiBoT, AlanM1,
Good Olfactory, Wilder, EjsBot, Reedmalloy, Kinamand, The Bushranger, Yobot, AnomieBOT, RadioBroadcast, Ckruschke, ArthurBot,
Heroicrelics, Grinofwales, Prari, LloydS38, Full-date unlinking bot, Lotje, Gisegre, EricDBier, DexDor, EmausBot, John of Reading,
JustinTime55, Mmeijeri, Solomonfromnland, Artvill, Magneticlifeform, Whoop whoop pull up, Snotbot, Helpful Pixie Bot, H.b.sh, At-
lasmissile, Purdygb, Khazar2, N6mz, Anythingcouldhappen, Red15 and Anonymous: 80
SM-68 Titan Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-68%20Titan?oldid=594636190 Contributors: DocWatson42, Rich Farmbrough,
BD2412, RussBot, WDGraham, Cydebot, Ndunruh, Addbot, GDK, FrescoBot, DexDor, ZroBot, Khazar2 and Anonymous: 2
SSM-A-5 Boojum Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSM-A-5%20Boojum?oldid=654365723 Contributors: Cydebot, Parsecboy, Bil-
Cat, Adavidb, The Bushranger, Helpful Pixie Bot, Zedshort, Monkbot and Anonymous: 2
Supersonic Low Altitude Missile Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic%20Low%20Altitude%20Missile?oldid=643147471
Contributors: Liftarn, GCarty, Oberiko, Clarknova, Squash, CanisRufus, Sam Korn, Joshbaumgartner, Pauli133, Admiral Valdemar, Drift-
woodzebulin, Arado, Hellbus, Shaddack, Bullzeye, Curpsbot-unicodify, Groyolo, SmackBot, Chris the speller, Autarch, John, Will Pit-
tenger, Cydebot, Profhobby, BilCat, CommonsDelinker, Thaurisil, 806f0F, Sdsds, John Nevard, His Manliness, TheWatcherREME, The
Bushranger, Bomazi, Snotbot, Irondome and Anonymous: 14
AAM-A-1 Firebird Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAM-A-1%20Firebird?oldid=641749220 Contributors: WHRupp, Cydebot,
BilCat, Jackfork, Bob1960evens, Addbot, The Bushranger, Trappist the monk, DexDor, Jackehammond, Helpful Pixie Bot, Citation-
CleanerBot, , Mddkpp, JurgenNL and Anonymous: 1
AAM-N-4 Oriole Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAM-N-4%20Oriole?oldid=648059244 Contributors: Arado, CmdrObot, BilCat,
Thewellman, The Bushranger and DexDor
AAM-N-5 Meteor Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAM-N-5%20Meteor?oldid=641749018 Contributors: BilCat, The Bushranger,
Trappist the monk and DexDor
AIM-26 Falcon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-26%20Falcon?oldid=644708374 Contributors: Rlandmann, GCarty, Top-
banana, Oberiko, Jrquinlisk, Avriette, Night Gyr, Marblespire, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, Tabletop, YurikBot, Arado, Omniwolf,
Rwalker, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Florian Adler, John, Fl295, Cydebot, Hebrides, Highonhendrix, Sherbrooke, .anacondabot, T96 grh,
BilCat, Sar91, Nono64, Balmung0731, Sfan00 IMG, Jmdeur, Sv1xv, Ktr101, Perkeleperkele, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Yobot,
Veijuh, Ulric1313, DexDor, EmausBot and Anonymous: 11
AIM-47 Falcon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-47%20Falcon?oldid=644085453 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Rland-
mann, GCarty, Stewartadcock, DocWatson42, Oberiko, Mboverload, Sam Hocevar, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, Arado, Megapixie, En-
gineer Bob, Sardanaphalus, Bluebot, Florian Adler, Cydebot, Kubanczyk, J Clear, LorenzoB, Steve8675309, Balmung0731, TXiKiBoT,
Coimbra68, Lightmouse, Addbot, The Bushranger, Xqbot, FrescoBot, Darkstar8799, DexDor, Mikechou2, ChrisGualtieri and Anonymous:
6
AIM-54 Phoenix Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-54%20Phoenix?oldid=654986555 Contributors: William Avery, Maury
Markowitz, Leandrod, Rlandmann, GCarty, David Newton, Cabalamat, Jamesday, RadicalBender, Riddley, Altenmann, Ancheta Wis,
DocWatson42, Ike, Oberiko, Mat-C, Greyengine5, Iceberg3k, Bobblewik, Wmahan, N328KF, Rich Farmbrough, Avriette, Guanabot, Gi-
raedata, ArgentLA, Arthena, ExpatEgghead, Joshbaumgartner, ASK, Ashley Pomeroy, Pouya, Goldom, RJFJR, Brettr, Gene Nygaard,
Bobrayner, Woohookitty, Nvinen, The Wordsmith, Grendel-B, Isnow, M412k, Wisq, Wiarthurhu, MZMcBride, FlaBot, SchuminWeb,
Russavia, Chobot, Mmx1, YurikBot, Arado, Gaius Cornelius, DavidConrad, Megapixie, Gadget850, Asams10, Chesnok, Chase me ladies,
I'm the Cavalry, Diagraph01, SmackBot, Reedy, Prodego, Bjelleklang, YMB29, Chris the speller, Dual Freq, Snowmanradio, A.R., Bogsat,
Tdrss, John, MilborneOne, Joelo, Dale101usa, Therealhazel, MrDolomite, Siebrand, Hagman1983, Henrickson, FleetCommand, Cm-
drObot, Orca1 9904, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Hebrides, Sempai, CMarshall, Nabokov, Cancun771, Kubanczyk, Oldwildbill, DulcetTone,
Woody, Asaba, JustAGal, Hcobb, CharlotteWebb, J Clear, Escarbot, Tashtastic, CombatWombat42, Nathanjp, RebelRobot, .anacond-
abot, Vordabois, JimGoose, BilCat, LorenzoB, Oleg Str, CommonsDelinker, Reedy Bot, Bclough, Idunno271828, SenorBeef, DorganBot,
Nigel Ish, VolkovBot, HJ32, Dreddmoto, GimmeBot, Java7837, Liko81, Raryel, Sb67lippini, Kermanshahi, Thunderbird2, SieBot, Coim-
bra68, Cobatfor, Bbolen, Lightmouse, OKBot, Hamiltondaniel, ClueBot, Mt hg, GabbarSingh93, Jwkozak91, Rhododendrites, DumZi-
BoT, Nukes4Tots, Gtooletto, Dave1185, Addbot, EZ1234, Nohomers48, AndersBot, LinkFA-Bot, Lightbot, Zorrobot, The Bushranger,
Legobot, Luckas-bot, AadaamS, Yobot, Ptbotgourou, Edoe, AnomieBOT, Erik9bot, FrescoBot, Gire 3pich2005, Elite501st, MastiBot,
RaptorF22, Pilot850, DexDor, Agsftw, DASHBot, EmausBot, John of Reading, Sp33dyphil, Illegitimate Barrister, H3llBot, Heaney555z,
Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, SojerPL, , Farzam1370, BattyBot, Spital8katz, Dexbot, Hmainsbot1, Shortstar, GravRidr and Anony-
mous: 113
AIM-68 Big Q Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-68%20Big%20Q?oldid=644709789 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Rland-
mann, GCarty, Riddley, Galaxiaad, BD2412, Kolbasz, Arado, The Literate Engineer, Pirate2000, Dual Freq, Snowmanradio, Cydebot,
Barneyg, Aeroweanie, PixelBot, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, MaxDel, DexDor, EricEnfermero, EvergreenFir, Adam and Eve (your
ancients) and Anonymous: 2
AIM-82 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-82?oldid=594278708 Contributors: Rlandmann, GCarty, Karl Dickman, Joshbaum-
gartner, Galaxiaad, Engineer Bob, Pirate2000, SmackBot, Hmains, Fairsing, Cydebot, STBotD, PixelBot, Addbot, The Bushranger,
Erik9bot, MaxDel, DexDor and Anonymous: 3
AIM-4 Falcon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-4%20Falcon?oldid=648071987 Contributors: Ahoerstemeier, Rlandmann,
GCarty, Camerong, Jphieer, Oberiko, Iceberg3k, Bobblewik, Klemen Kocjancic, Ericg, J-Star, Cavrdg, ArgentLA, FrancisTyers, Kurmis,
Nvinen, Darkwand, Wiarthurhu, Orborde, Turbinator, Arado, Bill-on-the-Hill, Rwalker, Engineer Bob, SmackBot, MrDrBob, Jprg1966,
Emt147, VMS Mosaic, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Crowish, Argus n, Aldis90, Woody, MichaelMaggs, F l a n k e r, Sherbrooke, Barneyg,
JAnDbot, GurchBot, T96 grh, KConWiki, BilCat, Sar91, DorganBot, Tourbillon, Amikake3, HJ32, Ng.j, Dreamafter, Cobatfor, Ku-
mioko, Anyeverybody, MBK004, Staygyro, Dave1185, Addbot, Magus732, Reedmalloy, Lightbot, Zorrobot, The Bushranger, Yobot,
Eumolpo, Tokyotown8, GrouchoBot, N419BH, RedBot, DexDor, ZroBot, Xvr11, Helpful Pixie Bot and Anonymous: 31
AIM-7 Sparrow Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-7%20Sparrow?oldid=654871008 Contributors: The Epopt, Maury Markowitz,
Cyde, Markonen, Rlandmann, GCarty, David Newton, Cabalamat, RadicalBender, Jphieer, Pibwl, Costello, Oberiko, Philwelch,
Greyengine5, Fleminra, Leonard G., Iceberg3k, Bobblewik, Chowbok, Zancarius, Ericg, Rich Farmbrough, Mecanismo, Bender235,
ArgentLA, Interiot, Joshbaumgartner, ASK, Ashley Pomeroy, Mac Davis, Hohum, Gene Nygaard, Drbreznjev, Dan100, Firsfron,
Woohookitty, Blackeagle, GraemeLeggett, Deansfa, Rjwilmsi, Vegaswikian, Wsk, Chobot, Bartleby, YurikBot, Arado, Gaius Cornelius,
Ksyrie, Los688, Cerejota, Searchme, Phichanad, Curpsbot-unicodify, Alureiter, GrinBot, Nick-D, Sardanaphalus, Attilios, Reedy, DHN-
bot, Dual Freq, TheGerm, Battlecry, Jumping cheese, Fireswordght, John, Buckboard, CmdrObot, ThreeBlindMice, Jsmaye, Cyde-
bot, Fnlayson, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, Wikid77, Mongreldog, Barneyg, Adeptitus, CombatWombat42, Nikevich, KConWiki, BilCat, Dx87,
Steve8675309, Ndunruh, Muchclag, Nigel Ish, VolkovBot, HJ32, TXiKiBoT, Lorddragyn, Raryel, LanceBarber, Bear and Dragon,
AVKent882, Coimbra68, Dbryant 94560, Cobatfor, Lightmouse, Kumioko, Kanonkas, ABBenzin, Holothurion, ViperNerd, Kour6,
Dave1185, EZ1234, Chris19910, LC-130, Oldmountains, The Bushranger, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Mackin90, Prari, Elite501st,
LittleWink, Quanticator, Jiujitsuguy, RjwilmsiBot, DexDor, Jackehammond, WikitanvirBot, Sp33dyphil, Werieth, Illegitimate Barrister,
Dolovis, KuduIO, ClueBot NG, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, SojerPL, AhMedRMaaty, Lightning Ace1995, CitationCleanerBot, Tlai1977,
ChrisGualtieri, TheJJJunk, Z07x10, Wotchit, ArmbrustBot, Irtequa N. Ahmed, HWClifton and Anonymous: 81
AIM-9 Sidewinder Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9%20Sidewinder?oldid=655404314 Contributors: The Epopt, Derek Ross,
Lorax, Roadrunner, Maury Markowitz, Hephaestos, Stevertigo, Frecklefoot, Stan Shebs, William M. Connolley, BigFatBuddha, Rland-
mann, GCarty, Roadmr, Kierant, Echoray, Wernher, Shizhao, Cabalamat, AnonMoos, David.Monniaux, Riddley, Robbot, Jphieer, Au-
ric, Rhombus, Hartze11, Profoss, Ryanrs, YanA, Oberiko, Philwelch, Greyengine5, Wolfkeeper, Tom harrison, Orpheus, Wwoods, Flem-
inra, Leonard G., Elmindreda, Bobblewik, Comatose51, Quadell, Acad Ronin, Ericg, Mjuarez, Rich Farmbrough, Avriette, Guanabot,
Marsian, Qutezuce, Rama, User2004, Indrian, Chairboy, Alereon, Kghose, Larry V, Hooperbloob, ArgentLA, Rd232, Joshbaumgartner,
Bukvoed, Ashley Pomeroy, Wdfarmer, Hohum, Jwinius, Pauli133, Gene Nygaard, Drbreznjev, Dismas, DeepSpace, Bastin, Nuno Tavares,
Woohookitty, Bkkbrad, Nvinen, Isnow, GraemeLeggett, Darkwand, Koavf, Skaterdude182, Vegaswikian, XLerate, Naraht, Ysangkok,
Mark Sublette, Mark83, Wsk, Simishag, MoRsE, Chobot, Bgwhite, YurikBot, Noclador, Encyclops, Manicsleeper, Arado, John Smiths,
Rincewind42, Gaius Cornelius, Lavenderbunny, Ugur Basak, Kvn8907, Kassie, Asams10, Calvin08, Jor70, Hayden120, Eggfu, Bob Hu,
GrinBot, Nick-D, Groyolo, Pankkake, Sardanaphalus, Dancraggs, SmackBot, TestPilot, Bjelleklang, Deon Steyn, MarshallStack, Eskim-
bot, StarKruzr, Chris the speller, Jprg1966, MalafayaBot, Baa, DHN-bot, Dual Freq, Blueshirts, Aerobird, Battlecry, Thejason, OrphanBot,
KaiserbBot, MeekSaron, Evil Merlin, Nibuod, Ian01, Matt Whyndham, The PIPE, Dr. Sunglasses, Moleskin, Simongraham, Milbor-
neOne, Makyen, MrDolomite, Eddie Wong, Radiant chains, VoxLuna, CmdrObot, Siberia, Jsmaye, Orca1 9904, Necessary Evil, Cyde-
bot, Fnlayson, ST47, TenthEagle, CMarshall, Chrislk02, Nabokov, The Mad Bomber, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, Sukisuki, Headbomb, Frank,
Woody, Sulaimandaud, Hcobb, Javed Ali, Akradecki, Darklilac, CombatWombat42, Bzuk, Johnb210, Parsecboy, T96 grh, Puddhe, Don
Hollway, JayDuck, Kilo90, KConWiki, Dili, BilCat, ArmadilloFromHell, NJR ZA, Khalid Mahmood, Dx87, Okwestern, Rebell18190,
Brainiack16, Nvfusa, Notreallydavid, Youngjim, Ndunruh, Tatrgel, Inwind, Nigel Ish, Crkey, HJ32, TXiKiBoT, Andage01, Java7837,
18Fox, Liko81, Anna Lincoln, Raryel, Finngall, Are2dee2, SieBot, Peterson.M83, Kernel Saunters, ToePeu.bot, Coimbra68, VVVBot, Un-
registered.coward, Quakeomaniac, Cobatfor, JetLover, Yeungkinglun, Lightmouse, OKBot, Phonemic, Dailyindependent, SidewinderX,
MBK004, Lastdingo, Darthveda, Niceguyedc, Topsecrete, Masterblooregard, Alexbot, Socrates2008, Keysanger, Guppzor, DumZiBoT,
ViperNerd, Clovereld, Kwjbot, Isak'Ra, Dave1185, Addbot, DotySteve, EZ1234, Ape89, Pete mervyn, Helios87, Doniago, Aldrich
Hanssen, Numbo3-bot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, VengeancePrime, Amirobot, Glmm, Ayceman, AnomieBOT, Xqbot,
The Banner, Pajeron, Riotrocket8676, Mark Schierbecker, Hj108, SassoBot, Wikinegern, Shadowjams, Ojoc, FrescoBot, Aleuru, Ogre-
Bot, FoxBot, Trappist the monk, DixonDBot, Bryan TMF, Papamission, Mfarooqumar, DexDor, DASHBot, John of Reading, Pheasant-
pete, Sp33dyphil, BobbieCharlton, Cogiati, Illegitimate Barrister, BrokenAnchorBot, Lyncs, Mootaz10, Tnewto1, ClueBot NG, Catle-
mur, Merkelkd, Helpful Pixie Bot, SojerPL, BG19bot, Vagobot, RovingPersonalityConstruct, Kgmstwo, DPL bot, Farzam1370, Batty-
Bot, America789, Quill and Pen, F16vista, OriginalAndCreativeUsernameHere, Wotchit, Maxx786, ArmbrustBot, Exequenda, Adirlanz,
Stamptrader, Akifumii, ScrabbleZ, Strak Jegan, Jayreen29, Muraer, Efram23, Rocketmaniac2, Deviruki and Anonymous: 273
Brazo Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazo?oldid=640967634 Contributors: Woohookitty, Neelix, CMG, Cydebot, Silver Sonic
Shadow, Smartse, BilCat, Boleyn, The Bushranger, Eugene-elgato, I dream of horses, DexDor, Helpful Pixie Bot, CitationCleanerBot,
Monkbot and Anonymous: 2
Pye Wacket Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pye%20Wacket?oldid=650605448 Contributors: Edward, GraemeLeggett, Arado, Bul-
lzeye, Hawkeye7, SmackBot, Hmains, Janm67, Iridescent, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Magioladitis, R'n'B, Nono64, Indubitably, HairyWombat,
Addbot, The Bushranger, DexDor, ZroBot, Aeonx, Helpful Pixie Bot, BG19bot, Monkbot, TheGreatWhiteBird and Anonymous: 2
AGM-86 ALCM Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-86%20ALCM?oldid=654018231 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Rland-
mann, Pti, Riddley, Oberiko, Bobblewik, H1523702, Mzajac, Dabarkey, John Fader, Atlant, Joshbaumgartner, Saga City, Grammarbot,
PatrickSauncy, YurikBot, RussBot, Arado, RadioFan2 (usurped), Lavenderbunny, Frhstcksdienst, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Chris the
speller, Hibernian, DHN-bot, Il palazzo, EagleWSO, TheGerm, A.R., Vgy7ujm, SabreMau, MilborneOne, Dave420, R. E. Mixer, 5-
HT8, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Profhobby, Nabokov, Aldis90, Woody, Dustin.gartner, Hcobb, Dawkeye, OuroborosCobra, BilCat, J.delanoy,
C1010, Ndunruh, Tatrgel, STBotD, D-Kuru, VolkovBot, Davehi1, LanceBarber, VVVBot, WacoJacko, Kumioko, Yoda of Borg, Matrek,
Ktr101, Sturmvogel 66, Good Olfactory, Dave1185, Addbot, Reedmalloy, Lightbot, Zorrobot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, 1971,
Mcoupal, SassoBot, DexDor, Sp33dyphil, Werieth, Illegitimate Barrister, Mekt-hakkikt, H3llBot, Extrapolaris, 220 of Borg, America789,
AMU10, Glcm1 and Anonymous: 27
AGM-12 Bullpup Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-12%20Bullpup?oldid=612127493 Contributors: Rlandmann, GCarty, Jid-
Gom, Riddley, Karl Dickman, Avriette, Limbo socrates, Cmdrjameson, Joshbaumgartner, Ynhockey, Hohum, Gene Nygaard, Alanmak,
MoRsE, Epolk, Megapixie, JLaTondre, SmackBot, Looper5920, Bjelleklang, Tnkr111, Chris the speller, Bluebot, Jprg1966, BobThePirate,
Il palazzo, Nakon, Rodeosmurf, Olly lewis, RASAM, Edwy, Jimvin, ChrisCork, Fl295, Cydebot, Nabokov, Aldis90, BetacommandBot,
Thijs!bot, Oldwildbill, DPdH, Mongreldog, Flayer, BilCat, Naohiro19, Ndunruh, GimmeBot, Chuck Sirloin, Nathan, Lucasbfrbot, OK-
Bot, Kumioko, Mojoworker, Idsnowdog, Socrates2008, MystBot, Dave1185, Addbot, LaaknorBot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot,
Amirobot, AnomieBOT, Rubinbot, Tokyotown8, Driftkingz109, Brad101AWB, SassoBot, Le Deluge, Jiujitsuguy, Jackehammond, Bis-
cuiteater57, Theopolisme, BattyBot, ArmbrustBot, Thordk and Anonymous: 20
AGM-131 SRAM II Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-131%20SRAM%20II?oldid=639579512 Contributors: Patrick, Rland-
mann, Oberiko, Everyking, Pmcm, Amerika, Joshbaumgartner, AeroViper, Mark Bergsma, Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, Sardanaphalus,
Cydebot, BilCat, Rei-bot, MBK004, Addbot, The Bushranger, Yobot and Anonymous: 6
AGM-28 Hound Dog Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-28%20Hound%20Dog?oldid=648074034 Contributors: Maury
Markowitz, Edward, Rlandmann, DocWatson42, Oberiko, Bobblewik, Dabarkey, Karl Dickman, Blanchette, Simonbp, ArgentLA, Eleland,
Joshbaumgartner, Denniss, Woohookitty, Tabletop, Edison, Rjwilmsi, Rogerd, Mark Sublette, Bgwhite, YurikBot, RussBot, Arado, Hy-
drargyrum, Gaius Cornelius, Los688, Johantheghost, Ospalh, Pawyilee, Bagheera, SmackBot, Chris the speller, Ken keisel, Spinolio, Tdrss,
Calvados, Aaronstj, Iridescent, R. E. Mixer, Hildenja, 5-HT8, Fl295, Cydebot, Gogo Dodo, After Midnight, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, Woody,
Hubble15, Dawkeye, Sherbrooke, DuncanHill, CosineKitty, .anacondabot, JayDuck, Avicennasis, BilCat, LorenzoB, Brucelipe, Archol-
man, R'n'B, FLJuJitsu, M-le-mot-dit, Ndunruh, Spiesr, Kyle the bot, GimmeBot, PhoenixVTam, Zephyrus67, VVVBot, Ogre lawless,
Kumioko, Ath55ena, Sjdunn9, Ktr101, Sturmvogel 66, Good Olfactory, Airplaneman, TLHorstead, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger,
Luckas-bot, Yobot, Troymacgill, Ulric1313, Tokyotown8, Xqbot, Adlerbot, Xfgh7hg, Felis domestica, Pilot850, RjwilmsiBot, DexDor,
John of Reading, GoingBatty, Sp33dyphil, Dbarlett, AvicBot, ZroBot, Whoop whoop pull up, Chesipiero, Regicide1649, Firstsgt, Mike
vanderzee and Anonymous: 36
AGM-65 Maverick Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-65%20Maverick?oldid=655317361 Contributors: Rlandmann, Jeandr
du Toit, GCarty, Conti, Mulad, Nohat, Echoray, Camerong, RadicalBender, Riddley, DocWatson42, Oberiko, Greyengine5, Wwoods,
Bobblewik, Onco p53, Rich Farmbrough, Avriette, Rama, Mecanismo, Smyth, Meggar, Get It, Hooperbloob, Joshbaumgartner, Fat
pig73, Gene Nygaard, Elchup4cabra, Nuno Tavares, Bkkbrad, Nvinen, GraemeLeggett, Bertus, FlaBot, JozhGoober, Chobot, Benzene,
YurikBot, Borgx, Jimp, Arado, Bleakcomb, Gaius Cornelius, BraneJ, Phichanad, Staxringold, Alureiter, GrinBot, SmackBot, WikiuserNI,
Deiaemeth, Chris the speller, BobThePirate, Open-box, Jumping cheese, Evil Merlin, Tanyiliang, Lord Eru, SashatoBot, Tdrss, Aspade,
RASAM, Khazar, John, Dammit, CmdrObot, Rogerborg, Orca1 9904, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Co-pilot, Aldis90, O, Faigl.ladislav, Woody,
JustAGal, Hmrox, DagosNavy, CombatWombat42, Petronas, Cmhbob, T96 grh, Bg007, Puddhe, Soulbot, TeraBlight, PEAR, BilCat,
J.delanoy, Ndunruh, Tatrgel, STBotD, Red Polar Bear Ranger, Nigel Ish, Gamer112, Balmung0731, TXiKiBoT, GimmeBot, Andy Din-
gley, Keon7777777, AlleborgoBot, 400Hz100V, SieBot, YonaBot, KGyST, Phe-bot, RucasHost, Flyer22, Lightmouse, ZH Evers, Bcdm,
MBK004, Socrates2008, Rhododendrites, DumZiBoT, Vtrinchi, BodhisattvaBot, Milstuxyz, Dave1185, EZ1234, LaaknorBot, Lightbot,
Zorrobot, The Bushranger, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Jimderkaisser, Edoe, Apole7, AnomieBOT, Rubinbot, 1exec1, MCheer, Materialscientist,
WaeMaster44, Xqbot, TechBot, Dy031101, H falcon, FrescoBot, Gire 3pich2005, MondalorBot, Waceaquinas, Hellaras, Papamission,
Djfgregory, John of Reading, Sp33dyphil, ZxxZxxZ, Werieth, Dolovis, FeatherPluma, ClueBot NG, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, Lightning
Ace1995, CitationCleanerBot, Tlai1977, America789, Cyberbot II, Br'er Rabbit, Mogism, Judge john666, Wotchit, Efram23, FlorentPirot
and Anonymous: 133
AGM-69 SRAM Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-69%20SRAM?oldid=651810472 Contributors: TwoOneTwo, Patrick,
Rlandmann, Julesd, Zoicon5, Stewartadcock, Oberiko, Bobblewik, Dabarkey, Pmsyyz, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, Orangefsh, Gene
Nygaard, Kralizec!, Graham87, Wiarthurhu, FlaBot, Mark Sublette, Arado, Gaius Cornelius, Georgewilliamherbert, SmackBot, Chris
the speller, Nakon, Glacier109, FleetCommand, R. E. Mixer, SlowSam, Cydebot, Patrick O'Leary, Nabokov, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, Escar-
bot, Tantalas, BilCat, Oleg Str, Nono64, Ndunruh, VolkovBot, Jcvalle, Jwr2003b, Lightmouse, Kumioko, Maelgwnbot, MBK004, Wprlh,
Sturmvogel 66, 1ForTheMoney, Good Olfactory, Addbot, LatitudeBot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, AnomieBOT, DexDor, Bk109 and
Anonymous: 20
AGM-79 Blue Eye Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-79%20Blue%20Eye?oldid=544097729 Contributors: Rlandmann,
GCarty, Joshbaumgartner, Gene Nygaard, Pirate2000, SmackBot, Cydebot, Ianwashere, Rei-bot, Addbot, The Bushranger and Erik9bot
ASM-N-5 Gorgon V Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-N-5%20Gorgon%20V?oldid=638581292 Contributors: ShelfSkewed,
BilCat, The Bushranger, Helpful Pixie Bot and CitationCleanerBot
Bold Orion Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bold%20Orion?oldid=641757257 Contributors: Alansohn, Chris the speller, N2e,
Uruiamme, BilCat, CommonsDelinker, Manishearth, Cunard, GDK, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Anotherclown, John of Reading, GA
bot, Helpful Pixie Bot, CitationCleanerBot and Monkbot
GAM-63 RASCAL Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAM-63%20RASCAL?oldid=648072852 Contributors: Michael Hardy, Rland-
mann, Alansohn, RussBot, Arado, Ospalh, SmackBot, Oscarthecat, SeanWillard, The PIPE, Mgiganteus1, Tmangray, Blackvault, Cydebot,
Aldis90, Woody, Darklilac, Brucelipe, LurkingInChicago, Breeezee, Warut, Ndunruh, DH85868993, GimmeBot, Davehi1, Anonymous
Dissident, Binksternet, Alexbot, Threecharlie, MystBot, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, TaBOT-zerem, Rubinbot, Tokyotown8, Lil-
Helpa, GrouchoBot, Johnbv417, DexDor, Dewritech, Bamyers99, Chesipiero, Mogism, Jmnpet and Anonymous: 6
GAM-87 Skybolt Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAM-87%20Skybolt?oldid=653191964 Contributors: TwoOneTwo, Maury
Markowitz, Rlandmann, Dysprosia, Topbanana, JonathanDP81, Finlay McWalter, Yosri, DocWatson42, Oberiko, Greyengine5, Jason
Quinn, H1523702, Capnned, Sam Hocevar, Karl Dickman, Rich Farmbrough, Guanabot, Ylee, Pearle, Amcl, A2Kar, Joshbaumgart-
ner, Rwendland, Dan100, Crosbiesmith, Tabletop, GraemeLeggett, Ian Dunster, Kolbasz, YurikBot, RussBot, Arado, Gaius Cornelius,
Irishguy, Ospalh, Mangoe, Betacommand, Chris the speller, Bluebot, Il palazzo, A.R., Badgerpatrol, Soarhead77, Khazar, MilborneOne,
Fl295, Cydebot, Tec15, Monkeybait, Cancun771, Aldis90, AntiVandalBot, Dricherby, BilCat, The Real Marauder, CommonsDelinker,
KTo288, MarcoLittel, Youngjim, Whatfg, GimmeBot, A4bot, Andy Dingley, Legoktm, TruesTheLamb, D.W., ImageRemovalBot,
MBK004, Hickinbottoms, Sturmvogel 66, Shem1805, Thingg, Deep silence, Innapoy, The Bushranger, Legobot, Ckruschke, MGA73,
Midgetman433, Airborne84, Nirmos, DexDor, CrimsonBot, Wikitimeofmylife, Bomazi, Roccopoiago, Irondome, Drmandarin and Anony-
mous: 40
High Virgo Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High%20Virgo?oldid=641757231 Contributors: Alansohn, T-dot, BilCat, R'n'B, The
Bushranger, Anotherclown, John of Reading, GA bot, Sp33dyphil, Helpful Pixie Bot and Anonymous: 1
AGM-123 Skipper II Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-123%20Skipper%20II?oldid=629584419 Contributors: Rlandmann,
GCarty, Joshbaumgartner, FlaBot, ENeville, Pirate2000, Tnkr111, Dual Freq, OOODDD, Nabokov, Woody, Avicennasis, BilCat, Behtis,
Chaosdruid, Addbot, RedBot, Mir09 and AvicBot
Harpoon (missile) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon%20(missile)?oldid=648913579 Contributors: The Epopt, Mcarling,
Rlandmann, Jeandr du Toit, , Wernher, Thue, Oaktree b, Riddley, Modeha, DocWatson42, Ike, Oberiko, Greyengine5, Wronkiew,
Bobblewik, Btphelps, Mzajac, Dabarkey, Jimwilliams57, Bbpen, Karl Dickman, N328KF, Brianhe, Avriette, Rama, Mecanismo, Meggar,
Sortior, Harald Hansen, Syzygy, Travisyoung, Hooperbloob, Joshbaumgartner, Sligocki, Gene Nygaard, Yousaf465, Bobrayner, Ktzner,
Nuno Tavares, Woohookitty, Blackeagle, Pol098, Isnow, BlaiseFEgan, Paxsimius, Graham87, Descendall, Rjwilmsi, Erebus555, Orville
Eastland, FlaBot, Demarchist, Victor12, Chobot, YurikBot, Mare, StuOfInterest, Arado, John Smiths, Broken arrow, Gaius Cornelius,
Lavenderbunny, ENeville, Mieciu K, BOT-Superzerocool, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Phichanad, Curpsbot-unicodify, Warreed,
Tirronan, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Prodego, Chris the speller, Baumfabrik, Hibernian, Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, Dual
Freq, TheGerm, Open-box, Uncleharpoon, John, Beta34, Dave420, Octane, HowardSelsam, R. E. Mixer, Paulc206, 5-HT8, Spottydog3,
Cydebot, Fnlayson, Daniel J. Leivick, Nabokov, Aldis90, Epbr123, Woody, Dark Enigma, Nick Number, VijayPadiyar, Mongreldog,
Quintote, RebelRobot, MajesticX, Bubba hotep, AsgardBot, BilCat, LorenzoB, Volcore, FlieGerFaUstMe262, Bunker by, Rebell18190,
Chrthiel, Notreallydavid, Smitty, STBotD, ThePointblank, VolkovBot, Philip Trueman, TXiKiBoT, Darantares, Dormskirk, VNCCC,
Raryel, Tom MacPherson, Kermanshahi, AlleborgoBot, Wjl2, SieBot, Heb, 4wajzkd02, WereSpielChequers, BotMultichill, Ravensre,
Kurokishi, Skipzor, Lightmouse, Dodger67, Nejjk, Ken123BOT, MBK004, ClueBot, Masterblooregard, Socrates2008, El bot de la dieta,
Jellysh dave, James.tantalo, DumZiBoT, 11vert11, Dave1185, Addbot, EZ1234, Nohomers48, AkhtaBot, Scohen93, Lightbot, Bore-
dEngineer, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, OrgasGirl, Ata Fida Aziz, KamikazeBot, Apole7, AnomieBOT, Anupsadhu, FreeRangeFrog,
Xqbot, DSisyphBot, Lostmuskrat, Hj108, H falcon, Leetkrew, Le Deluge, Knightwind, Mark Renier, Grand-Duc, Pinethicket, Foxhound66,
Marclluell, Dinamik-bot, Bryan TMF, 777sms, Desagwan, RjwilmsiBot, Thatsashwin, EmausBot, TuHan-Bot, Illegitimate Barrister, Ara-
pad, Anir1uph, Prendre la fuite, Status, ChuispastonBot, HandsomeFella, EdoBot, KarlsenBot, ClueBot NG, ColMilGem, Tioperci, Shark-
mouth, Helpful Pixie Bot, SojerPL, TMX-Mike, Pine, 113727b, Kendall-K1, Aisteco, BattyBot, Rezul, Adnan bogi, SD5bot, Kbog,
Wotchit, Evano1van, Geeciii, Eric Corbett, Nguyen QuocTrung, UcAndy, Adam Cameron Smith, Usumacinta, Judah fourteen, Junchuann,
Llammakey and Anonymous: 172
UGM-89 Perseus Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-89%20Perseus?oldid=647770548 Contributors: Rich Farmbrough, Kolbasz,
Arado, Cydebot, Aldis90, BilCat, Marcd30319, Ktr101, The Bushranger, FrescoBot, RjwilmsiBot, DexDor, ObscureReality, Helpful Pixie
Bot, Lellis.easc, Monkbot and Anonymous: 1
AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-84H/K%20SLAM-ER?oldid=644845376 Contributors: Stemoni-
tis, Arado, Chris the speller, Jprg1966, Dale101usa, Gogo Dodo, BilCat, Petebutt, PraetorianD, Blaylockjam10, Stochtastic, Illegitimate
Barrister, Lemonsticks, Numbermaniac, Jodosma, UcAndy, Glcm1, WeedMan69, E.D.J. Muckenfuss and Anonymous: 7
Bat (guided bomb) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat%20(guided%20bomb)?oldid=652813123 Contributors: Maury Markowitz,

Omegatron, Riddley, Bobblewik, Trevor MacInnis, Rich Farmbrough, Roo72, RJHall, Joshbaumgartner, Gene Nygaard, GraemeLeggett,
Graham87, BD2412, Rjwilmsi, Sus scrofa, Gadget850, Johna, GMan552, Nick-D, Groyolo, That Guy, From That Show!, Hmains,
Trekphiler, Fuhghettaboutit, The PIPE, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, A1064, DPdH, Albany NY, BilCat, Ja 62, TallNapoleon,
Mugs2109, Cobatfor, TheNeilster, Ktr101, Creeping Death 1982, Thewellman, The Oracle of Podunk, Addbot, The Bushranger, Ra-
dioBroadcast, Mynameinc, FrescoBot, Hallucegenia, HRoestBot, Calmer Waters, CPMendez, DASHBot, John of Reading, SporkBot,
BattyBot, Riley Huntley, Edantu and Anonymous: 8
GT-1 (missile) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GT-1%20(missile)?oldid=650399024 Contributors: GraemeLeggett, Hmains, Dul-
cetTone, BilCat, Kguirnela, Rocketmaniac, Lastdingo, The Bushranger, Cnwilliams, Mahuna2, CitationCleanerBot, Monkbot and Anony-
mous: 4
LBD Gargoyle Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LBD%20Gargoyle?oldid=575220891 Contributors: Rlandmann, Gene Nygaard,
RussBot, Ospalh, A bit iy, Hmains, Trekphiler, The PIPE, Cydebot, Aldis90, DPdH, VoABot II, Caulde, Cobatfor, TheNeilster, Stur-
mvogel 66, Leofric1, LaaknorBot, The Bushranger, StoneProphet, KLBot2, Mddkpp, Makecat-bot and Anonymous: 7
Long Range Anti-Ship Missile Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long%20Range%20Anti-Ship%20Missile?oldid=646512698 Con-
tributors: Bobrayner, Rjwilmsi, Arado, Chris the speller, Aldis90, Hcobb, BilCat, Thewellman, Addbot, Download, Waerfelu, TGCP,
Babak902003, T-Nod, Phd8511, NobodyMinus, America789, Cyberbot II, Z07x10, Veronicawilson235, Antiochus the Great, UcAndy,
Bdm25, Glcm1, E.D.J. Muckenfuss and Anonymous: 9
Boeing Ground-to-Air Pilotless Aircraft Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing%20Ground-to-Air%20Pilotless%20Aircraft?
oldid=648370168 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Gigs, Tdrss, KylieTastic, Jdaloner, Afernand74, Johnuniq, The Bushranger, Jonesey95,
Trappist the monk, John of Reading, Frietjes, Mohamed CJ, BattyBot, HueSatLum, 30 SW and Faizan
CIM-10 Bomarc Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIM-10%20Bomarc?oldid=654926269 Contributors: Andre Engels, SimonP,
Maury Markowitz, RTC, Angela, Rlandmann, Dmsar, Bearcat, Jphieer, Rhombus, Wolfkeeper, Finn-Zoltan, Iceberg3k, Formeruser-
81, HistoryBA, Plasma east, Karl Dickman, Kevin Rector, D6, Rich Farmbrough, Guanabot, A2Kar, Joshbaumgartner, Ashley Pomeroy,
Fat pig73, Phyllis1753, Jak86, Woohookitty, Strongbow, Nvinen, Bricktop, Kralizec!, BD2412, Cxbrx, FlaBot, Ground Zero, Mark Sub-
lette, Kolbasz, Preslethe, Arado, RadioFan, Hydrargyrum, Gaius Cornelius, Los688, Brian Crawford, Jkhoury, Johna, Yaztromo, Smack-
Bot, Hibernian, DHN-bot, Rcbutcher, HoodedMan, Jbhood, Spinolio, Tdrss, Calvados, John, Vgy7ujm, Statsone, Bwmoll3, Nobunaga24,
Chetvorno, Americasroof, Charbbert, Fl295, Cydebot, NorthernThunder, Aldis90, TruthbringerToronto, Dallas84, Bzuk, Carom, Swpb,
BilCat, Marty55, LorenzoB, Chuckwatson, Abebenjoe, Patar knight, Notreallydavid, Speciate, Tesscass, TXiKiBoT, GimmeBot, Hqb,
Ng.j, LanceBarber, Moorem, Cobatfor, Hellacious, NiD.29, Niceguyedc, Nimbus227, Ktr101, Alexbot, Yggdriedi, Lineagegeek, Drg2,
SchreiberBike, Silverplate, IngerAlHaosului, Salvadoradi, Kbdankbot, Jaydec, Sanawon, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Legobot, Luckas-bot,
Yobot, Dfe6543, 1exec1, Max96, RadioBroadcast, FrescoBot, Kyteto, 777sms, Rr parker, Ryan.opel, EmausBot, Sp33dyphil, Ida Shaw,
Dolovis, Spideraz, Demiurge1000, Priwo, Helpful Pixie Bot, MattFromOntario, Curb Chain, 22WHERO, Mohamed CJ, Cfree44, Kndi-
mov, Compfreak7, Alarbus, ChrisGualtieri, Khazar2, 30 SW, MopSeeker, Limnalid, DbivansMCMLXXXVI and Anonymous: 61
LIM-49 Nike Zeus Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIM-49%20Nike%20Zeus?oldid=654518695 Contributors: Maury Markowitz,
Topbanana, Crosbiesmith, Kolbasz, Arado, Hawkeye7, Nick-D, WDGraham, John, Mr Stephen, Agne27, CommonsDelinker, Petebutt,
Eskovan, Spinningspark, Graham Beards, WereSpielChequers, Afernand74, Niceguyedc, Piledhigheranddeeper, Wilsone9, Sturmvogel 66,
The Bushranger, Legobot, AnomieBOT, Citation bot, Anotherclown, I dream of horses, EmausBot, John of Reading, BG19bot, Vilhelm.s,
Isumbard Prince, Khazar2, Avi8tor, Handenry, Cinderella157 and Anonymous: 7
LIM-49 Spartan Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIM-49%20Spartan?oldid=651617983 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Rland-
mann, Finlay McWalter, Tom harrison, Night Gyr, CheekyMonkey, La goutte de pluie, Gene Nygaard, Dziban303, Kenyon, Crosbiesmith,
FlaBot, Arado, Georgewilliamherbert, Groyolo, Dual Freq, Joema, Ken keisel, Tdrss, Gordon22, Fl295, Cydebot, Aldis90, Spartanpass,
DulcetTone, Davidelit, Woody, Escarbot, Two way time, BilCat, EscapingLife, Rann Star, Student7, Balmung0731, GimmeBot, Drag-
onBot, DumZiBoT, WikHead, Addbot, Nohomers48, LaaknorBot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, AnomieBOT, Xqbot, SuperAnth, Fres-
coBot, El Mayimbe, Chesipiero, Physicsandwhiskey, SpartanMcLoy and Anonymous: 21
Nike-X Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike-X?oldid=655494373 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Arado, Nikkimaria, Yobot, Lil-
Helpa, John of Reading, Cwmhiraeth, Regulov, BattyBot, Spumuq and Anonymous: 4
RIM-2 Terrier Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-2%20Terrier?oldid=647109195 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Rlandmann,
GCarty, David Newton, Elf, Mboverload, Mtnerd, Avriette, Robotje, A2Kar, Grutness, LtNOWIS, Deboerjo, Gene Nygaard, Blackeagle,
GraemeLeggett, FlaBot, Victor12, Chris the speller, Dual Freq, CmdrObot, Oden, Fl295, Cydebot, Thijs!bot, Kubanczyk, Woody, JAnD-
bot, Tekuli, Two way time, Roches, Alex Spade, BilCat, Saburny, CommonsDelinker, Busaccsb, SieBot, VVVBot, Cobatfor, Thinkvoyager,
MBK004, Addbot, Ginosbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Jackehammond, ZroBot, Dondervogel 2, Vagobot, Myfgsl-2, Khazar2, Llam-
makey and Anonymous: 15
RIM-8 Talos Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-8%20Talos?oldid=639960723 Contributors: Rlandmann, Tkinias, GCarty, Temp-
shill, Skaman, DocWatson42, Mboverload, Bbpen, N328KF, Murtasa, ESkog, A2Kar, Deboerjo, Ahseaton, Kelly Martin, Firsfron,
Blackeagle, Kolbasz, Ahpook, Megapixie, Arima, Ospalh, Gadget850, That Guy, From That Show!, SmackBot, Prodego, Jim62sch, Dual
Freq, MrDolomite, CmdrObot, MarsRover, Fl295, Cydebot, Kubanczyk, Woody, Thaimoss, .anacondabot, Two way time, BilCat, KTo288,
Trumpet marietta 45750, Amikake3, Petebutt, Nuance 4, Busaccsb, Cobatfor, Abu America, Hardwic2, Sjdunn9, Sturmvogel 66, Thewell-
man, Prhays, Addbot, LaaknorBot, Ginosbot, GDK, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Rubinbot, LilHelpa, Xqbot, Turnbull FL, D'ohBot,
Citation bot 1, EmausBot, Tinss, ZroBot, Josve05a, Myfgsl-2, Valleyjc, Chipperdude15, Monkbot, Llammakey and Anonymous: 14
RIM-24 Tartar Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-24%20Tartar?oldid=632168973 Contributors: Rlandmann, GCarty, Pibwl,
DocWatson42, Avriette, Rama, Deboerjo, FlaBot, YurikBot, Florian Adler, Dual Freq, OrphanBot, Woody, Fru1tbat, Tillman, Two way
time, BilCat, Balmung0731, Thunderbird2, VVVBot, Cobatfor, Thewellman, MystBot, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot,
Yobot, ArthurBot, ZroBot, Myfgsl-2, DA - DP, Llammakey and Anonymous: 5
RIM-66 Standard Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-66%20Standard?oldid=653870549 Contributors: Rlandmann, DocWat-
son42, Rjwilmsi, Bgwhite, WriterHound, Arado, Bleakcomb, Gaius Cornelius, Cerejota, Attilios, SmackBot, Hibernian, Dual Freq,
AP1787, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Rieman 82, Adnergje, Aldis90, DulcetTone, Woody, Nick Number, QuiteUnusual, Sarmadys, JAnD-
bot, Two way time, BilCat, Jamesontai, VolkovBot, TXiKiBoT, Broadbot, AlleborgoBot, Unregistered.coward, Cobatfor, MBK004, Ar-
jayay, Shem1805, Thewellman, Chaosdruid, DumZiBoT, Addbot, H92Bot, Ginosbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Troy-
macgill, Apole7, AnomieBOT, Xqbot, Anon423, Ashrf1979, Nokta strigo, FrescoBot, PigFlu Oink, Skyraider1, DexDor, EmausBot, John
of Reading, Clive tooth, Arapad, BrokenAnchorBot, Iron Archer, Krassdaniel, MainFrame, Snotbot, AeroJPRF, Bonade2004, BG19bot,
Phd8511, Myfgsl-2, Tlai1977, Kool777456, America789, OriginalAndCreativeUsernameHere, Cerabot, Maxx786, Amortias, Llammakey
and Anonymous: 43
SAM-N-2 Lark Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAM-N-2%20Lark?oldid=629583545 Contributors: RadioFan, Chris the speller,
BilCat, Cobatfor, Gene93k, Thewellman, The Bushranger, Yobot and ChrisGualtieri
Sprint (missile) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint%20(missile)?oldid=647961632 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Wolf-
keeper, Tom harrison, Bobblewik, Twinxor, Night Gyr, Crosbiesmith, Marudubshinki, Kolbasz, Arado, Ospalh, Mangoe, Moez, Hibernian,
Dual Freq, Frap, Joema, Ken keisel, Wossi, John, Fl295, Cydebot, Aldis90, Smiteri, Thijs!bot, Bot-maru, Greg L, Sherbrooke, BilCat,
CommonsDelinker, TXiKiBoT, Zephyrus67, Addbot, Mnh, Glane23, GDK, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Jim1138,
Brutaldeluxe, FrescoBot, MastiBot, K6ka, Ovnours, KLBot2, Aisteco, Svintussen and Anonymous: 16
AIM-120 AMRAAM Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120%20AMRAAM?oldid=652911734 Contributors: Lorax, Leandrod,
Patrick, Markonen, William M. Connolley, Rlandmann, GCarty, Echoray, Wernher, Cabalamat, David.Monniaux, Riddley, Vt-aoe, Jphi-
eer, Profoss, Philwelch, Greyengine5, Lupin, Everyking, Mboverload, Bobblewik, H1523702, Quadell, Maartentje, Tin soldier, Faraz,
Willhsmit, Mjuarez, Rich Farmbrough, Guanabot, Rama, Mecanismo, Night Gyr, Acq3, Loren36, SElefant, E Pluribus Anthony redux,
Chairboy, Bobo192, Ardric47, Ommnomnomgulp, ArgentLA, Jigen III, Atlant, Joshbaumgartner, Yamla, Dalillama, Pauli133, Gene
Nygaard, DeepSpace, Centralman, Bobrayner, Sylvain Mielot, Alvis, Bkkbrad, Nvinen, ^demon, GregorB, Plrk, Wisq, GraemeLeggett,
Rjwilmsi, Koavf, Rogerd, Wiarthurhu, Vegaswikian, FlaBot, Bobstay, Maayanh, Mark Sublette, Mark83, Nimur, MoRsE, Chobot, Moocha,
Mmx1, Bartleby, YurikBot, Noclador, RussBot, FrenchIsAwesome, Arado, John Smiths, Lavenderbunny, Ugur Basak, -OOPSIE-, Welsh,
Thiseye, Tony1, Mieciu K, Engineer Bob, Asams10, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Arthur Rubin, Phichanad, John Broughton, Grin-
Bot, Nick-D, Sardanaphalus, Dancraggs, Jsnx, SmackBot, Battle Ape, Deiaemeth, Jim62sch, Sam8, Boris Barowski, Sdlitvin, Vechs,
Chris the speller, Bluebot, Thumperward, MalafayaBot, SailorfromNH, Oni Ookami Alfador, Dual Freq, Il palazzo, Crazyheron, Aer-
obird, Battlecry, Snowmanradio, MrRadioGuy, A.R., Skrip00, Soarhead77, Ohconfucius, Dr. Sunglasses, Ergative rlt, LWF, Milbor-
neOne, Joelo, Dammit, Andrwsc, Phuzion, Amakuru, Virtualquark, Mmab111, CmdrObot, Hildenja, Dougsnow, Orca1 9904, Jader-
Vason, Fl295, Necessary Evil, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Lordofhyperspace, Monkeybait, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, Memty Bot, Headbomb, Saruwine,
Woody, Sulaimandaud, Dfrg.msc, Hcobb, OuroborosCobra, IAF, Barneyg, Dryke, CombatWombat42, Lan Di, Nathanjp, Magioladi-
tis, Two way time, BlakJakNZ, Diego bf109, BilCat, WolfyB, Wolfy9005, Khalid Mahmood, Jogrkim, Azil14, Whale plane, MrBell,
Notreallydavid, Duch, SenorBeef, Youngjim, Ndunruh, Rwessel, Tatrgel, Smitty, SirBob42, Francesco54, Nigel Ish, HJ32, Sdsds, TXiK-
iBoT, Raryel, Falcon8765, Zachjeli, AceFighterPilot, Bahamut0013, Squalk25, SieBot, WereSpielChequers, ToePeu.bot, Coimbra68,
Unregistered.coward, KGyST, Smsarmad, Bbolen, Lightmouse, Fredmdbud, MBK004, Danish47, HughFlo, Phoenixegmh, Cloudaoc,
HDP, Niceguyedc, Topsecrete, Vksgeneric, Manishearth, Thehelpfulone, Chaosdruid, Jellysh dave, Takavar92, Habu12, Dave1185, Jim
Sweeney, Addbot, Dryphi, Mike Babic, EZ1234, LaaknorBot, Parijatgaur, LC-130, LinkFA-Bot, Mauruf, Lightbot, The Bushranger,
Legobot, Yobot, 9K58, Nyat, AnomieBOT, 1exec1, Rockypedia, Julnap, Ulric1313, WaeMaster44, Quebec99, Driftkingz109, Xqbot,
Mark Schierbecker, Hj108, SCRECROW, Romn Wiki, Le Deluge, Erik9bot, FrescoBot, Grand-Duc, Kyteto, DrilBot, Poliocretes, Fox-
hound66, ChiefFox, Jonjo Robb, Irbisgreif, El caleuche 2009, Diannaa, Papamission, RjwilmsiBot, DexDor, DASHBot, WikitanvirBot,
Pheasantpete, LHCo, Sp33dyphil, Yoepp, ZroBot, Illegitimate Barrister, Josve05a, Dolovis, Utar, Redhanker, Anir1uph, Klmodern-
guy, BrokenAnchorBot, Victory in Germany, High Mark, Azu Mao, Tabrisius, Pandeist, ClueBot NG, Amraamny, Korrawit, Snotbot,
Heaney555z, Frietjes, Concord113, Helpful Pixie Bot, SojerPL, Tjngirlz, .onda., Phd8511, TROPtastic, Giblets46, Chalim Kenabru, No-
bodyMinus, Russellcarden, Tlai1977, Regicide1649, America789, ChrisGualtieri, N00b0l0l, 235.Corsair, OriginalAndCreativeUsername-
Here, Dexbot, Makecat-bot, Arzk02587k, Z07x10, 1999, Maxx786, Tty56, Altar Skywalker 47, Nguyen QuocTrung, Stamptrader,
ASF-14, Monkbot, Luisedwin2105, DJC631, Jerodlycett and Anonymous: 323
AN/TWQ-1 Avenger Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/TWQ-1%20Avenger?oldid=630750650 Contributors: Riddley, DocWat-
son42, Bobblewik, Avriette, Meggar, Tronno, Sandstig, Hohum, RJFJR, Wyatts, Jtrainor, Gene Nygaard, Dismas, Bobrayner, Woohookitty,
Chris Buckey, BlaiseFEgan, A Train, BD2412, Ground Zero, Cornellrockey, YurikBot, Lavenderbunny, Judas vanhel, Nick-D, Smack-
Bot, Kyrandos, DocKrin, Jprg1966, Uber555, EGGS, AllStarZ, Old Guard, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Peptuck, Thijs!bot, Deathbunny, Hcobb,
L0b0t, Ingolfson, Parsecboy, Avicennasis, Panser Born, BilCat, Jedi-gman, Sm8900, Koalorka, ASJ94, SieBot, Unregistered.coward, Mer-
cenario97, TDurden1937, PistolPete037, Tabunoki, Chaosdruid, NJGW, Addbot, Nohomers48, Bstockus, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Brian in
denver, Stellar Grifon, Equaaldoors, Luke85, Mark Schierbecker, SCRECROW, PacoLUX, Az29, AvicBot, Illegitimate Barrister, Dain-
omite, Tlai1977, BattyBot, Cyberbot II, Onepebble, UiLego, Shkvoz and Anonymous: 60
GTR-18 Smokey Sam Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTR-18%20Smokey%20Sam?oldid=645352803 Contributors: Deansfa, Or-
angeDog, BilCat, The Bushranger, LilHelpa and Anonymous: 2
Operation Bumblebee Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation%20Bumblebee?oldid=607238911 Contributors: Maury
Markowitz, Bearcat, Cerejota, SmackBot, Hmains, Bluebot, Trekphiler, J Clear, Acm acm, BilCat, Jim.henderson, Sm8900, Anna
Lincoln, Milkbreath, Sapphic, Mugs2109, Ddavev, Trivialist, Wprlh, Thewellman, Addbot, The Bushranger, DrilBot, HRoestBot,
Ginerftw, ChrisGualtieri, DoctorKubla and Anonymous: 6
RIM-50 Typhon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-50%20Typhon?oldid=640148351 Contributors: Rlandmann, DocWatson42,
Cydebot, Aldis90, Woody, Two way time, BilCat, Marcd30319, SieBot, Cobatfor, DumZiBoT, Addbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot,
ZroBot and RobDuch
RIM-67 Standard Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-67%20Standard?oldid=642872620 Contributors: Rlandmann, Gene Ny-
gaard, Tabletop, Russavia, Bleakcomb, Cerejota, SmackBot, Dual Freq, Woody, Nick Number, J Clear, Two way time, BilCat, Solicitr,
4wajzkd02, MBK004, Thewellman, DumZiBoT, Addbot, Jeneral28, Lightbot, Zorrobot, FrescoBot, Foxhound66, RedBot, EmausBot,
John of Reading, ZroBot, Iron Archer, Myfgsl-2, Altrace2, Llammakey and Anonymous: 27
RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116%20Rolling%20Airframe%20Missile?oldid=
654082971 Contributors: The Anome, Rmhermen, Edward, Mcarling, Rlandmann, GCarty, Riddley, DocWatson42, Wwoods, Qui1che,
Rich Farmbrough, Night Gyr, Darkone, BonzoESC, DarylC, Sumergocognito, Gene Nygaard, Redvers, YixilTesiphon, Nvinen, MiG,
Hideyuki, Valentinejoesmith, FlaBot, YurikBot, RussBot, Ospalh, Engineer Bob, Datafuser, Asams10, Alureiter, Allens, Jsnx, Emoscopes,
Ohnoitsjamie, MalafayaBot, Dual Freq, Leveretth, Wybot, Bogsat, Voytek s, Martian.knight, Dl2000, ShakingSpirit, OnBeyondZebrax,
Bigmak, Cydebot, Max Ackerman, Gogo Dodo, Thijs!bot, Hcobb, L0b0t, Nlkrio, Two way time, Faizhaider, Cosco, BilCat, Rettetast,
Rebell18190, M0unds, Adrian M. H., SirKillalot, Orthopraxia, VolkovBot, Andyo2000, MCTales, Koalorka, I Like Cheeseburgers, Co-
batfor, Sklei0106, Anchor Link Bot, Ygbsm, Shentosara, Lukeizzle, Jellysh dave, Takavar92, Dave1185, Addbot, Hermgenes Teixeira
Pinto Filho, Nohomers48, Doverhockey9, Download, LaaknorBot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, ArthurBot, AH-64 Longbow,
Mdewman6, Safetybearry, Sarcastic ShockwaveLover, Le Deluge, FrescoBot, EndlessUnknown, ElijahBosley, Jonesey95, Rapiervsrap-
tor, Full-date unlinking bot, Cayojoe, Desagwan, EmausBot, Babak902003, Thewolfchild, Helpful Pixie Bot, Fromthehill, Friday83260,
Qrhoo, America789, Cyberbot II, Adnan bogi, Khazar2, Myles Longe, UnbiasedVictory, Junchuann, Llammakey and Anonymous: 84
RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161%20Standard%20Missile%203?oldid=652815265 Contrib-
utors: Rmhermen, Patrick, Rlandmann, Marteau, Davidmaxwaterman, Nurg, DocWatson42, Gracefool, Oneiros, Klemen Kocjancic, D6,
Pmsyyz, ArnoldReinhold, Tim Peterson, Wdfarmer, CJ, Velella, BDD, Sleigh, Gene Nygaard, Crosbiesmith, Tabletop, Mandarax, BD2412,
Cowcabob, Demarchist, Ground Zero, Midgley, Arado, Marcus Cyron, Cerejota, Gadget850, Knotnic, Arthur Rubin, Phil Holmes, Smack-
Bot, Tigri, Deon Steyn, Chris the speller, TheFeds, Dual Freq, WDGraham, Evil Merlin, Jonovision, Derek R Bullamore, PRRfan, X15,
Joseph Solis in Australia, Karaahmet, Nabokov, Woody, Aquilosion, Hcobb, Nick Number, SusanLesch, J Clear, Deeplogic, F-451, HolyT,
CombatWombat42, Magioladitis, Two way time, BilCat, Sm8900, Nigholith, VolkovBot, ColdCase, Imperator3733, Kakoui, TXiKi-
BoT, Ghez, Lightmouse, Senor Cuete, MBK004, ClueBot, Matrek, Niceguyedc, Alexbot, Dcd139, SerMSYS, Shem1805, Chaosdruid,
Yelkrokoyade, Fastily, Lemmey, ZL47, Machinegun31, Cornholio i need tp, Addbot, Colt9033, Peti610botH, The Bushranger, Luckas-
bot, Yobot, Guy1890, AnomieBOT, E235, Citation bot, Xqbot, Kajowi, Mnmngb, Eugene-elgato, Le Deluge, FrescoBot, Mark Renier,
RedBot, Full-date unlinking bot, Misakubo, Ahanks11, RjwilmsiBot, EmausBot, Leone cuore, Sandielm, Michaeljamesx, ZroBot, Jake-
bob88, Iron Archer, ClueBot NG, Widr, BG19bot, Myfgsl-2, Datasphere, Rodaen, America789, Khazar2, Campbell1234, Tony Mach,
Z07x10, Ruby Murray, Pvpoodle, How Shuan Shi, Keijhae, Llammakey, B52CrewChief and Anonymous: 74
RIM-174 Standard ERAM Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-174%20Standard%20ERAM?oldid=655490967 Contributors:
Mcarling, Conti, Jikester, Klemen Kocjancic, Gene Nygaard, Tabletop, Rjwilmsi, Cerejota, Garion96, SmackBot, Chris the speller, Jrt989,
Tr1290, Aldis90, Hcobb, Nick Number, J Clear, Two way time, BilCat, VolkovBot, Cobatfor, Addbot, Le Deluge, FrescoBot, Jamesboru,
RedBot, Full-date unlinking bot, Jesse V., JCRules, ZroBot, BrokenAnchorBot, Iron Archer, Doyna Yar, BG19bot, Myfgsl-2, Mark
Arsten, America789, Faizan, Keijhae, BeowulfSmith, Llammakey and Anonymous: 15
BGM-75 AICBM Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-75%20AICBM?oldid=629480223 Contributors: Los688, Cydebot, Par-
secboy, BilCat, Toddy1, The Bushranger, Yngvadottir, Causa83, DASHBot, GA bot, Aeonx, CitationCleanerBot, Garamond Lethe, Eric
Corbett, Someone not using his real name and Anonymous: 1
Davy Crockett (nuclear device) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy%20Crockett%20(nuclear%20device)?oldid=654485205
Contributors: Trelvis, Bryan Derksen, JeLuF, Rmhermen, Patrick, RTC, Gabbe, Stewacide, Cyde, Poor Yorick, Nikai, , Lommer,
Jengod, Dfeuer, Raul654, Owen, Kizor, Dbenbenn, Fastssion, Iceberg3k, Twinxor, Rich Farmbrough, Pavel Vozenilek, CanisRufus,
ArgentLA, Gunter.krebs, Alansohn, Eleland, Joshbaumgartner, Velella, Cal 1234, Pauli133, Dziban303, 790, Edison, Bubba73, Bhadani,
Ian Dunster, Ground Zero, AJR, BjKa, Ahpook, Hairy Dude, StuOfInterest, Hydrargyrum, ENeville, Nathan8225, Omniwolf, Moe Ep-
silon, Georgewilliamherbert, 2over0, Kevin, Mais oui!, Erudy, Heaviestcat, SmackBot, Herostratus, Master Deusoma, Chris the speller,
Jedwards01, Hellre83, Rcbutcher, Audriusa, Frap, Kevinpurcell, Mytwocents, EVula, Gbinal, A5b, WayKurat, John, LWF, Mgigan-
teus1, Darz Mol, Iridescent, Clarityend, Pjbynn, JForget, Kalaong, Fl295, Myscrnnm, Give Peace A Chance, Nabokov, Papajohnin,
Thijs!bot, Legaiaame, E. Ripley, Widefox, L0b0t, Ingolfson, Altairisfar, Arch dude, Meeowow, JDCAce, Mr. G. Williams, VoABot II,
Tacheon, JaGa, MartinBot, Tgeairn, Coppertwig, STBotD, Funandtrvl, Mastrchf91, W. B. Wilson, TXiKiBoT, Onikas, Rdfox 76, Les
Meloures, Logan, VVVBot, Wilson44691, Judicatus, Spartan198, ClueBot, FieldMarine, Shark96z, Yamazaki-kun, Alexbot, Sturmvogel
66, Perkeleperkele, Mklobas, Qwfp, Gnowor, WikiDao, Syremusic, Good Olfactory, EjsBot, LaaknorBot, Tide rolls, The Bushranger,
Yobot, Jim1138, Magic35289, RadioBroadcast, Ozzman313, Orpheusrasgood, W Nowicki, HowardJWilk, Milzo1986, ZroBot, H3llBot,
Trentacular, ClueBot NG, Dylantv, Oddbodz, Gob Lofa, MusikAnimal, Harizotoh9, Lgfcd, HarveyHenkelmann, Thoptersaurus, Jabiss the
jiba and Anonymous: 170
LGM-118 Peacekeeper Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-118%20Peacekeeper?oldid=652132617 Contributors: TwoOneTwo,
Rmhermen, Maury Markowitz, Edward, Patrick, JohnOwens, Delirium, Stw, Ahoerstemeier, Rlandmann, Havardk, Tempshill, Taoster,
Optim, Krellmachine, Reubenbarton, Brouhaha, Oberiko, Greyengine5, Lupin, Fastssion, Monedula, MSTCrow, ConradPino, Alexan-
derWinston, Balcer, Dabarkey, NoPetrol, N328KF, Rich Farmbrough, Avriette, Cacycle, Pmsyyz, ArnoldReinhold, Ylee, Mr. Bil-
lion, Kross, Sortior, C Hanna, Hektor, Coma28, 119, Joshbaumgartner, Orangefsh, Hohum, Gene Nygaard, Dan100, Crosbiesmith,
Woohookitty, Bricktop, Randy2063, BlaiseFEgan, Teemu Leisti, Avochelm, Rillian, FlaBot, Scottrainey, Kolbasz, Russavia, Coolhawks88,
Chobot, RussBot, Arado, Xihr, Koisoke, Catharticux, Ospalh, Lockesdonkey, Bota47, Searchme, Georgewilliamherbert, Arthur Rubin,
Curpsbot-unicodify, Tierce, Junglecat, Otto ter Haar, Some guy, Sacxpert, SmackBot, Jim62sch, Wlmg, Rmosler2100, Chris the speller,
Thom2002, Hibernian, Imacdo, Tsca.bot, Eschbaumer, MJCdetroit, Cancellier, A.R., John, Adavidw, Gobonobo, Bwmoll3, Rock4arolla,
E71, Eluchil404, FleetCommand, R. E. Mixer, CmdrObot, Tjeers, HUnger, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Hydromaster, Optimist on the run, Can-
cun771, Aldis90, Raintonr, Woody, Z10x, Hcobb, Scourgeofgod, Guy Macon, Barneyg, Masamage, Spartaz, CosineKitty, Dricherby, Mee-
owow, PhilKnight, Magioladitis, Jetstreamer, Leev, Wolfram.Tungsten, BilCat, Depsidee, Juansidious, Ops101ex, Afskymonkey, StingerJ,
Trumpet marietta 45750, Plasticup, C1010, Ndunruh, Wesino, Banjodog, VolkovBot, TXiKiBoT, Jbd28, Technopat, Martin451, Alfro-
dull, Mallerd, Bungo77, HowardMorland, ToePeu.bot, Brow1901, MilFlyboy, Yerpo, 61mei31, Sim IJskes, Binksternet, Matrek, Dlabtot,
Niceguyedc, Ktr101, Excirial, PaulKincaidSmith, Lineagegeek, Sturmvogel 66, XLinkBot, Addbot, OlEnglish, Zorrobot, The Bushranger,
Luckas-bot, Yobot, Amirobot, Troymacgill, Caboose73, Alilchide, AnomieBOT, Shootbamboo, Materialscientist, Ckruschke, Mango-
man88, Xqbot, Smallman12q, Surv1v4l1st, Trinity54, Kyteto, LittleWink, RedBot, Go For TLI, Gregory J Kingsley, Vrenator, Pilot850,
Guerndt, EmausBot, John of Reading, Theus PR, Nordicman72, Mmeijeri, Dunc333, JoeSperrazza, Holbenilord, ClueBot NG, YogurtU,
CrystalArc, Kasirbot, Helpful Pixie Bot, Hornsignal, Mogism, Z07x10, TwinkleVain, WJD3916, 1990sguy, Jimkwaj1, Monkbot, Fasted-
die1911, Samharen, YouBel and Anonymous: 114
LGM-25C Titan II Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-25C%20Titan%20II?oldid=653956045 Contributors: Patrick, Cyde,
Rlandmann, Andrewa, Hike395, Mulad, Dimadick, Ray Radlein, Blainster, Reubenbarton, Netoholic, Bobblewik, Traumerei, Dabarkey,
Karl Dickman, D6, Rich Farmbrough, David Schaich, Cwolfsheep, Giraedata, A2Kar, Joshbaumgartner, Phyllis1753, Gunter, Bricktop,
Beej, Grammarbot, Strait, Bubba73, Ground Zero, CStyle, Xihr, RadioFan, Gaius Cornelius, Los688, Gadget850, JustAddPeter, Rhal-
langer, Sacxpert, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Reedy, Sam8, Hmains, Chris the speller, Autarch, Colonies Chris, Andrew502502, WDGra-
ham, AussieLegend, Aces lead, Andy120290, Glacier109, Spinolio, Zahid Abdassabur, Bwmoll3, Minna Sora no Shita, Nobunaga24, Craig-
boy, R. E. Mixer, CmdrObot, ThreeBlindMice, N2e, Cydebot, Simon Brady, Nabokov, Tewapack, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, Jbmann, Uruiamme,
Barneyg, Dwarner30uk, Entropy7, Airbreather, Unused0029, Cgingold, BilCat, LorenzoB, R'n'B, CommonsDelinker, Tdadamemd, Ndun-
ruh, Ohms law, KylieTastic, Banjodog, EdgarDurbin, Vedran8080, Itsfullofstars, Didle5, TXiKiBoT, GimmeBot, , Bcappel, Lance-
Barber, Mandsford, Christyanthemum, MBK004, EoGuy, VQuakr, Ktr101, Winston365, Sturmvogel 66, Graham1973, Good Olfactory,
Addbot, Mikebreakrun3, The Bushranger, DiverDave, AnomieBOT, JackieBot, RadioBroadcast, Ckruschke, Citation bot, Xqbot, Geo-
martin, Xiphiaz, Heroicrelics, WDGraham (public), Armigo, Thinking of England, ZroBot, Havermore, H3llBot, The Strip, Cgruda,
Leebrandoncremer, Bpatton15, Kc135ejim, 220 of Borg, BattyBot, ChrisGualtieri, Khazar2, Epicgenius, Mzriz18, USAF1975 and Anony-
mous: 55
LGM-30 Minuteman Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30%20Minuteman?oldid=655498767 Contributors: Bryan Derksen,
Robert Merkel, 0, Scipius, Ray Van De Walker, Maury Markowitz, Heron, Patrick, RTC, Nixdorf, Ahoerstemeier, Rlandmann, Mu-
lad, Zoicon5, Timc, Tempshill, Ed g2s, Wernher, Ortonmc, Dimadick, Chris Roy, Yosri, Blainster, Hadal, Alexwcovington, Reubenbar-
ton, DocWatson42, Oberiko, Greyengine5, Fastssion, Subsolar, BigBen212, Bobblewik, ConradPino, Oneiros, Dabarkey, Willhsmit,
Imjustmatthew, Karl Dickman, N328KF, Jkl, Rich Farmbrough, ArnoldReinhold, User2004, Night Gyr, CanisRufus, Kwamikagami,
Leif, C Hanna, Jhd, Hektor, Atlant, Joshbaumgartner, Equinoxe, Wdfarmer, Docboat, Kucharek, Gene Nygaard, Dziban303, Crosbie-
smith, Bobrayner, Woohookitty, BeenBeren, Peng, Bricktop, Tabletop, Amikeco, BlaiseFEgan, GraemeLeggett, BD2412, Isaac Rabi-
novitch, Wiarthurhu, Direwolf5, FlaBot, Kolbasz, Wongm, Wgfcrafty, YurikBot, RussBot, Arado, Hede2000, Welsh, Kal-El, Asams10,
Georgewilliamherbert, Johndburger, Warfreak, Curpsbot-unicodify, Carlosguitar, Some guy, Dancraggs, SmackBot, Mangoe, Reedy,
Gjs238, Betacommand, Chris the speller, Qwasty, Thumperward, Oli Filth, Cathryn, Worthawholebean, Il palazzo, WDGraham, Tsca.bot,
MyNameIsVlad, OrphanBot, Meson537, Jumping cheese, Cancellier, Acdx, A5b, Ohconfucius, Glacier109, Tdrss, Adavidw, Vgy7ujm,
JoshuaZ, Bwmoll3, Yuri Gouveia Ribeiro, Buckboard, TastyPoutine, Dl2000, Kencf0618, JHP, Chetvorno, JForget, R. E. Mixer, Cm-
drObot, B4Ctom1, ThreeBlindMice, Mushrom, Oseirus, Cydebot, RaptorEmperor, Gogo Dodo, Nabokov, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, Kubanczyk,
Bobblehead, Woody, Hcobb, Nick Number, Sherbrooke, Cbs228, Barneyg, Tillman, Kiwichipster, Kaini, Mvannier, MLilburne, Fetch-
comms, Dricherby, PhilKnight, .anacondabot, Jetstreamer, SHCarter, Buckshot06, KConWiki, BilCat, LorenzoB, Walle83, KTo288,
Ops101ex, Numbo3, Thaurisil, 999mal, Mrg3105, Assassin3577, C1010, Ndunruh, Jevansen, Banjodog, VolkovBot, That-Vela-Fella,
Sdsds, GimmeBot, Bcappel, LanceBarber, Koalorka, Bungo77, PokeYourHeadO, Gbawden, SieBot, A.shteiman, Lightmouse, Usafs-
paceguy05, BHenry1969, MBK004, ClueBot, Matrek, Icarusgeek, Darthveda, Exosketal, BrianAlex, PolarYukon, Niceguyedc, Crafts-
man2001, Ktr101, Socrates2008, Lineagegeek, Sturmvogel 66, Johnuniq, DumZiBoT, InternetMeme, AlanM1, XLinkBot, WikHead,
Smolov.Ilya, Addbot, Crossrich, ElCani, Download, The Bushranger, Yobot, OrgasGirl, CinchBug, Brian in denver, Missileguy2, Flewis,
Ckruschke, Zendell, Danmcneil, Carrite, Darkest tree, Heroicrelics, Banak, Armigo, Vicenarian, MastiBot, NicoScPo, Lissajous, Rot-
blats09, 777sms, Klangenfurt, Pilot850, EmausBot, Jmliles4290, Jasonanaggie, ZroBot, Ridoking, BrokenAnchorBot, Magneticlifeform,
Kate Mortensen, Snotbot, Rezabot, Helpful Pixie Bot, Nbarile18, Ucsbwalker, Phd8511, Polmandc, Armorking187, Twistedpictures1, No-
bodyMinus, Carsenegame, BattyBot, Purdygb, Sailing Dutchman, Ducknish, 30 SW, Mogism, AldezD, Shurakai, Wuerzele, Helloeveryper-
son, WellThenThatsNice, JamesWernerAU, Onuphriate, Monkbot, Gareld Gareld, Matthewfroberson, YouBel, Tdadamemd a1145, Tabit
Harik, Nicky mathew, Von Callay and Anonymous: 180
Mark 45 torpedo Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%2045%20torpedo?oldid=631823633 Contributors: The Epopt, TenOfAll-
Trades, Wevets, Tabletop, TotoBaggins, GraemeLeggett, Mandarax, Rjwilmsi, Hydrargyrum, Megapixie, Saberwyn, Gjs238, Rcbutcher,
William Allen Simpson, Fl295, Nabokov, Brad101, Aldis90, Smiteri, BilCat, PMG, Kguirnela, JulesVerne, Wolit, AlleborgoBot, Aedni-
chols, FreshPrinze, ClueBot, Pekelney, Alexbot, Thewellman, 1ForTheMoney, MystBot, Common Good, Addbot, AdmiralHood, Eumolpo,
Xqbot, FrescoBot, Grand-Duc, Babak902003, ZroBot, Helpful Pixie Bot, Monkbot and Anonymous: 5
Medium Atomic Demolition Munition Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium%20Atomic%20Demolition%20Munition?oldid=
631099816 Contributors: Fastssion, Bobblewik, Mzajac, Kjkolb, Hohum, Wtshymanski, Dziban303, Petwil, Koavf, Xihr, Los688,
Mais oui!, Seval, Courcelles, Dfrg.msc, TXiKiBoT, Andy Dingley, ClueBot, SuperHamster, Addbot, TaBOT-zerem, Holysmoly, ElPeste,
AvicBot, Ryan Vesey, Helpful Pixie Bot and Anonymous: 10
B61 Family Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61%20Family?oldid=642591689 Contributors: Pifactorial, Shaddack, Perry Middle-
miss, Wknight94, Georgewilliamherbert, Jsplegge, O keyes, CmdrObot, Thijs!bot, Nono64, Ndunruh, Lightmouse, MBK004, Good Ol-
factory, Addbot, Gail, Yobot, TMIneo, DexDor, Zigwae, BG19bot and Anonymous: 5
RACER IV Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RACER%20IV?oldid=527510645 Contributors: Soarhead77, Alaibot, Fabrictramp,
Cander0000, Mark Lincoln, Linefeed, OsamaBinLogin, Fratrep, Good Olfactory, Yobot and Anonymous: 2
Special Atomic Demolition Munition Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%20Atomic%20Demolition%20Munition?oldid=
650858995 Contributors: The Epopt, Robert Merkel, Patrick, RTC, Bobby D. Bryant, Gbleem, , Smack, Fastssion, Leonard G., Cee-
jayoz, ShakataGaNai, Squash, Rich Farmbrough, Night Gyr, Wtshymanski, Cal 1234, Admiral Valdemar, BillC, Bonus Onus, GregorB,
Descendall, MZMcBride, Maxim Razin, Cshay, Xihr, Los688, Mosquitopsu, TDogg310, Mais oui!, Tobi Kellner, Nick-D, SmackBot, John,
CzarB, Randroide, Ludde23, Vengen, Reedy Bot, Notreallydavid, Rwessel, TXiKiBoT, Cerebellum, Andy Dingley, Deswanson, Waco-
Jacko, Auntof6, John Nevard, Tort100, Good Olfactory, Asrghasrhiojadrhr, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, AnomieBOT,
GB fan, Tubbablub, Surv1v4l1st, Cbreeze123, Kevcmk, MajorVariola, Mikhail Ryazanov, Wukai, Limnalid and Anonymous: 44
T-4 Atomic Demolition Munition Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-4%20Atomic%20Demolition%20Munition?oldid=
624949842 Contributors: Patrick, Ezhiki, Alvestrand, Night Gyr, Pearle, Wtmitchell, Wtshymanski, Georgewilliamherbert, Colonies
Chris, Esemono, Gavia immer, Andy Dingley, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, LucienBOT, CrimsonBot and Anonymous: 2
Tactical Atomic Demolition Munition Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical%20Atomic%20Demolition%20Munition?oldid=
625151640 Contributors: Alvestrand, Wtshymanski, GregorB, Lockley, Georgewilliamherbert, Mais oui!, SmackBot, Alaibot, Mark Lin-
coln, Addbot, The Bushranger, LucienBOT, CrimsonBot and Anonymous: 1
Titan (rocket family) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan%20(rocket%20family)?oldid=645697458 Contributors: Bryan Derk-
sen, Rmhermen, Matusz, Michael Hardy, Bobby D. Bryant, Cyde, (, Minesweeper, Alo, Ellywa, Ahoerstemeier, Andrewa, Rossami,
Audin, Zoicon5, Tempshill, Miterdale, Topbanana, Robbot, Astronautics, Blainster, Rsduhamel, Alan Liefting, Reubenbarton, Oberiko,
Fleminra, ZeroJanvier, KevinTernes, Gzornenplatz, Bobblewik, Chowbok, SimonLyall, Andy Christ, Karl Dickman, Trevor MacInnis,
Alexrexpvt, SECProto, CanisRufus, Friism, Huntster, Cwolfsheep, A2Kar, Joshbaumgartner, Akaihyo, Ahseaton, Kitch, Adrian.benko,
BerserkerBen, Mazca, Bricktop, Tabletop, Jivecat, Bgwhite, Roboto de Ajvol, Hairy Dude, RussBot, Aspersions, Hydrargyrum, Logawi,
Pstakem, Rhallanger, Petri Krohn, Tsiaojian lee, Curpsbot-unicodify, Mikus, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Nickst, Hmains, Fetofs, Chris the
speller, SEIBasaurus, Solargroovy, Redline, WDGraham, Aces lead, Glacier109, John, Dwpaul, Vgy7ujm, Minna Sora no Shita, Rwboa22,
Novangelis, Dragos muresan, Joseph Solis in Australia, Hildenja, N2e, Aspie1, Necessary Evil, Cydebot, Palmtree3000, RottweilerCS,
Nabokov, JodyB, Thijs!bot, Seaphoto, JAnDbot, IanOsgood, Igodard, Captdeuce, Cgingold, LorenzoB, Duckysmokton, Hbent, Commons-
Delinker, Vox Rationis, Ndunruh, Ohms law, Banjodog, EdgarDurbin, Vedran8080, Itsfullofstars, Sdsds, GimmeBot, MEFlora, Drake
Redcrest, LanceBarber, Yintan, DaddyWarlock, MBK004, ClueBot, Viking64, Wwheaton, Enenn, AFMissileers, Sturmvogel 66, DumZi-
BoT, Addbot, Meus Nomen, Download, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Legobot, Luckas-bot, AnomieBOT, Xqbot, GrouchoBot, Anotherclown,
RibotBOT, LucienBOT, Redrose64, Hobarthudson, RedBot, MastiBot, Julien1978, Jethwarp, 777sms, EmausBot, Look2See1, Pheasant-
pete, Mmeijeri, FlyAkwa, ZroBot, T-Bjrn, H3llBot, ChiZeroOne, Hpenley, Cgruda, BG19bot, Leebrandoncremer, Ninney, Jmcontra,
Calu2000, Jamesx12345, Jack.belk and Anonymous: 80
HGM-25A Titan I Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HGM-25A%20Titan%20I?oldid=639151549 Contributors: Bryan Derksen,

Maury Markowitz, Cyde, Ahoerstemeier, Stan Shebs, Rlandmann, Andrewa, Scupper, Audin, Topbanana, Wookie, Dimadick, Jmabel,
Reubenbarton, Oberiko, Greyengine5, Wolfkeeper, Niteowlneils, Bobblewik, Dabarkey, Karl Dickman, Mike Rosoft, Rich Farmbrough,
Guanabot, CanisRufus, Cwolfsheep, AmbassadorShras, Joshbaumgartner, Andrew Gray, Gene Nygaard, Firsfron, Bricktop, Ae7ux, Men-
daliv, Bubba73, Mark Sublette, Hairy Dude, RussBot, Hydrargyrum, Howcheng, Tony1, Ageekgal, Curpsbot-unicodify, Sardanaphalus,
SmackBot, The Dark, Chris the speller, WDGraham, Tsca.bot, Aces lead, Ohconfucius, SashatoBot, Bwmoll3, Minna Sora no Shita,
Jmgonzalez, Majora4, ThreeBlindMice, N2e, Fl295, Cydebot, Thijs!bot, Esemono, JAnDbot, BilCat, Drfaustus71, Mark Lincoln, Com-
monsDelinker, Wsacul, Ndunruh, Ohms law, Vedran8080, VolkovBot, Sdsds, GimmeBot, Cootiequits, AHMartin, SieBot, Freshprose,
Gavinmoore, Arknascar44, Lightmouse, Canglesea, DaddyWarlock, Ktr101, Socrates2008, AFMissileers, Sturmvogel 66, DumZiBoT,
Good Olfactory, Addbot, OCTopus-en, JPKonz, , The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Rubinbot, RadioBroadcast,
Xqbot, DSisyphBot, GrouchoBot, Nikolay Molchanov, Full-date unlinking bot, Tim1357, John of Reading, Moof3h, ZroBot, ClueBot NG,
Keithcowing, Cgruda, Leebrandoncremer, Glacialfox, Wuerzele, Siamsky, Jackmcbarn, Jim Carter, Gotech8, Unician and Anonymous: 27
Trident (missile) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident%20(missile)?oldid=653934501 Contributors: Trelvis, The Epopt, Mav,
Edward, Patrick, Michael Hardy, Blueshade, Rlandmann, Jll, Kaihsu, Morven, Cyrius, Elde, DocWatson42, Oberiko, Fastssion, Bob-
blewik, Mdob, PDH, Jossi, Maartentje, Bbpen, Mtnerd, N328KF, Rich Farmbrough, Martpol, Night Gyr, TerraFrost, Ylee, CanisRufus,
E Pluribus Anthony redux, Clue, PhilHibbs, Rlaager, Walkiped, Me2youall, Duk, Zupi, Cwolfsheep, Phlake, Joshbaumgartner, Rwend-
land, Velella, Danntm, Jrleighton, Alai, Dan100, Crosbiesmith, Alvis, PoccilScript, James Kemp, Bricktop, Je3000, TreveX, Torqueing,
GregorB, BlaiseFEgan, Paxsimius, Graham87, Sj, Rjwilmsi, Syndicate, FlaBot, Lzz, Who, Mark83, Srleer, Chobot, Mmx1, Arado,
PhilipO, MakeChooChooGoNow, Mais oui!, Curpsbot-unicodify, David Biddulph, Dancraggs, SmackBot, Unschool, Hux, Hmains, Chris
the speller, Thom2002, WDGraham, Jcb10, Rrburke, Feenix, Aces lead, Pickle UK, Jumping cheese, WonRyong, Black Buttery, A.R.,
Wybot, Skinnyweed, John, Nejee16, Like tears in rain, Rkmlai, Dl2000, Burto88, Tr1290, Cydebot, Gogo Dodo, Capmaster, Brian.Burnell,
Aldis90, Woody, Nick Number, WhaleyTim, Cyclonenim, AntiVandalBot, Widefox, Shlgww, Kiwichipster, JAnDbot, Trig, Wikipedian-
Prolic, Warthog32, Jimjamjom, Robtheorg, Soulbot, Gabe1972, BilCat, LorenzoB, MarcusMaximus, Psym, Flami72, MartinBot, Notre-
allydavid, Davandron, Jackaranga, Mike V, Signalhead, Nug, Isaac Sanolnacov, Nsougia2, Raryel, Usergreatpower, Falcon8765, Gue-
vara27, TruesTheLamb, ZH Evers, Mtaylor848, JL-Bot, Jbloun1, Cake taken, MBK004, Antarctic-adventurer, Matrek, Tigerboy1966,
Masterblooregard, DragonBot, Vikchill, NuclearWarfare, Sturmvogel 66, Belchre, NJGW, DumZiBoT, Hawkania, Hodgo22, Addbot,
LinkFA-Bot, Tide rolls, Yobot, Infero Veritas, AnomieBOT, Trident1couk, Abcjake, Furshur, HJ Mitchell, Bambuway, Pinethicket, Rot-
blats09, IVAN3MAN, FoxBot, Trappist the monk, Paul barasi, Boundarylayer, Sp33dyphil, ZroBot, August571, Brandmeister, Watomb,
Matthewrbowker, Avfrye, Domjenkin, ClueBot NG, Deano8216, Kr4m1, MerlIwBot, BG19bot, Codepage, 220 of Borg, Cyberbot II,
Mogism, Andyhowlett, Kylefoxaustin, Stephendavion, Christmasmansam123 and Anonymous: 135
UGM-133 Trident II Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-133%20Trident%20II?oldid=647491567 Contributors: David Newton,
DocWatson42, Andrew Gray, TaintedMustard, Crosbiesmith, J M Rice, BD2412, Arado, Mais oui!, Chris the speller, Hibernian, WD-
Graham, Cydebot, Lbertybell, Aldis90, Id447, VictorAnyakin, JAnDbot, Memphisto, BilCat, RP88, Rettetast, UnitedStatesian, Lachrie,
JL-Bot, MBK004, Matrek, Dpmuk, Mild Bill Hiccup, Chaosdruid, Jellysh dave, Sietec, Ajahewitt, Addbot, Toyokuni3, Hermgenes Teix-
eira Pinto Filho, Al3xil, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Jim1138, , The High Fin Sperm Whale, LilHelpa, Geomartin, Dynami,
Abcjake, Leptosome, RedBot, Orenburg1, Trappist the monk, 10987sa, Vrenator, Pilot850, Rasim, Rail88, Boundarylayer, ZroBot, Au-
gust571, SporkBot, Lokpest, Rangoon11, Junior436068, Ebehn, Egg Centric, Jrobin08, RovingPersonalityConstruct, Phd8511, PumknPi,
Lellis.easc, BattyBot, Dexbot, Mogism, Popey000, Z07x10, Racemcd, UnbiasedVictory, RobDuch, Thepno95, Jack.belk, ThaBigCheese99
and Anonymous: 45
UGM-73 Poseidon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-73%20Poseidon?oldid=647284219 Contributors: The Epopt, Mav, Ed-
ward, Rlandmann, Jll, Robbot, Yosri, Greyengine5, Bbpen, Rich Farmbrough, Murtasa, Walkiped, Pop, Cwolfsheep, Hooperbloob,
Gunter.krebs, Crosbiesmith, Marudubshinki, Rjwilmsi, Yamamoto Ichiro, FlaBot, YurikBot, Arado, American2, Curpsbot-unicodify,
SmackBot, Gilliam, Hibernian, John, Craigboy, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Nabokov, Brian.Burnell, Woody, J Clear, BilCat, BJ Axel,
Marcd30319, VolkovBot, TXiKiBoT, Raryel, Eurocopter, AlleborgoBot, Flyer22, Maralia, Sturmvogel 66, Chaosdruid, Acunn1, Good
Olfactory, The Bushranger, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Bunnyhop11, ArthurBot, Marshallj25, Full-date unlinking bot, Trappist the monk, Pi-
lot850, EmausBot, ZroBot, ClueBot NG, Roberticus, ZomaFabrice, Dexbot, RobDuch and Anonymous: 17
UGM-96 Trident I Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-96%20Trident%20I?oldid=647080468 Contributors: David Newton,
Arado, Hmains, Thom2002, WDGraham, Cydebot, Aldis90, WASD, JAnDbot, BilCat, MBK004, Addbot, The Bushranger, AnomieBOT,
ArthurBot, Abcjake, Trappist the monk, Boundarylayer, SporkBot, MOSNUM Bot, BattyBot and Anonymous: 3
W21 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W21?oldid=603604500 Contributors: Rich Farmbrough, LtNOWIS, Malcolma, SmackBot,
Alaibot, Sherbrooke, Fabrictramp, Mark Lincoln, Squids and Chips, WereSpielChequers, Brilliantine, Addbot, Shadowjams, John of Read-
ing and Anonymous: 1
W41 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W41?oldid=620172702 Contributors: Alan Liefting, Mrzaius, Ron Ritzman, Malcolma, Sacx-
pert, SmackBot, CmdrObot, Alaibot, Fabrictramp, Mark Lincoln, Hrafn, The Bushranger, Washburnmav, Anotherclown, Xfgh7hg, Trap-
pist the monk, John of Reading, Helpful Pixie Bot, BigJim707 and Anonymous: 1
W42 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W42?oldid=646761065 Contributors: A2Kar, Woohookitty, Arado, Los688, Malcolma,
Avalon, Mais oui!, SmackBot, Chris the speller, Alaibot, Fabrictramp, Mark Lincoln, Squids and Chips, ResidentAnthropologist and
KLBot2
W60 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W60?oldid=650149639 Contributors: Mrzaius, Lockley, Wavelength, Los688, Mais oui!,
SmackBot, Chris the speller, WilliamJE, Mark Lincoln and KLBot2
W63 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W63?oldid=588938359 Contributors: Kjkolb, Mrzaius, Los688, Mais oui!, Sherbrooke, Askari
Mark, Mark Lincoln, KLBot2 and Anonymous: 1
W64 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W64?oldid=546186491 Contributors: Kjkolb, Eubot, Los688, Mais oui!, Sherbrooke, Askari
Mark, Plasticup, Yobot and KLBot2
W65 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W65?oldid=630510240 Contributors: Deb, Mrzaius, Rjwilmsi, Los688, Mais oui!, PKT, Sher-
brooke, Mark Lincoln, Tsange and KLBot2
W69 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W69?oldid=633583384 Contributors: Bryan Derksen, Maury Markowitz, Fastssion, Kappa,
Grutness, Dziban303, Yopohari, Rowan Moore, Megapixie, Georgewilliamherbert, Mais oui!, SmackBot, Nabokov, Thijs!bot, Pan Dan,
Alexbot, Addbot, LucienBOT and Anonymous: 3
MGM-140 ATACMS Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-140%20ATACMS?oldid=654871225 Contributors: Christopher Ma-

han, Lir, Rlandmann, Emperorbma, Riddley, Kokiri, DocWatson42, MistToys, Bender235, ZeroOne, Cwolfsheep, King nothing, Ander-
shalden, Joshbaumgartner, Cal 1234, Wyatts, Alai, MoRsE, Chobot, DanMS, Gaius Cornelius, Los688, Ninly, MagneticFlux, SmackBot,
Looper5920, Jprg1966, Papa November, Hibernian, Oni Ookami Alfador, A.R., John, Yasirniazkhan, Redwolf6879, CmdrObot, Cydebot,
Aldis90, Hcobb, Lan Di, James marlow, MetsBot, Bow66, VolkovBot, Occasional Reader, PDFbot, The1marauder, Rkarlsba, Lastdingo,
Tosaka1, Addbot, Nohomers48, Shleider, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Legobot, Yobot, AnomieBOT, TinucherianBot II, FrescoBot, Guin-
nessmonkey, Frankb-wik, Anir1uph, TitaniumCarbide, Touchtheskywithglory, BattyBot, America789, Fatimah M, Solarislv, Tamlinwah,
How Shuan Shi, Crossswords and Anonymous: 29
RGM-59 Taurus Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGM-59%20Taurus?oldid=629476640 Contributors: Bearcat, Exxolon, Mal-
colma, Bagheera, SmackBot, BobThePirate, Cydebot, BilCat, R'n'B, GroveGuy, Moonriddengirl, CorenSearchBot, Boneyard90, Thelefto-
rium, The Bushranger, Helpful Pixie Bot, BattyBot and Monkbot
Ares (missile) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares%20(missile)?oldid=623028899 Contributors: RussBot, Mais oui!, Paul D. An-
derson, Chris the speller, WDGraham, Cydebot, Aldis90, MBK004, Addbot, The Bushranger, Solomonfromnland and Anonymous: 1
MGM-134 Midgetman Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-134%20Midgetman?oldid=654868065 Contributors: Rlandmann,
Klemen Kocjancic, Eric Shalov, Bender235, Amcl, Gunter.krebs, Joshbaumgartner, Crosbiesmith, GregorB, Rjwilmsi, Arado, Los688,
Georgewilliamherbert, SmackBot, Chris the speller, Hibernian, A.R., Cydebot, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, DPdH, QuiteUnusual, IanOsgood,
BilCat, CommonsDelinker, TXiKiBoT, SieBot, 61mei31, Krenim, Sfan00 IMG, DumZiBoT, Addbot, Numbo3-bot, Lightbot, The
Bushranger, Luckas-bot, KamikazeBot, , ZroBot, CrimsonBot, Ace of Raves, Chesipiero, Hmainsbot1, HMitch08 and Anony-
mous: 19
RTV-A-2 Hiroc Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTV-A-2%20Hiroc?oldid=649097010 Contributors: Denni, Hartze11, Alison,
Mu301, Crystallina, SmackBot, Bluebot, WDGraham, Cydebot, MarshBot, Ohms law, Potatoswatter, Sdsds, Mugs2109, Easphi, Addbot,
Delta 51, The Bushranger, Tom.Reding, Decstop, Ebrambot and Anonymous: 1
ArcLight (missile) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArcLight%20(missile)?oldid=653662070 Contributors: Arado, WulfTheSaxon,
Will Beback, Cydebot, Hcobb, Zeldafreakx86, BGinOC, Snarfherder, Thewolfchild, The Banner Turbo, Dainomite, America789, Mogism
and Anonymous: 1
Hera (rocket) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hera%20(rocket)?oldid=639166250 Contributors: Frecklefoot, Joshbaumgartner,
Gene Nygaard, Mvpel, Ewlyahoocom, Gadget850, SmackBot, WDGraham, Bejnar, Fl295, McM.bot, Matrek, DumZiBoT, Addbot, GDK,
The Bushranger, FrescoBot, John of Reading, SporkBot, Ploeg8393, Krenair and Anonymous: 4
AGM-45 Shrike Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-45%20Shrike?oldid=644669308 Contributors: Delirium, Rlandmann, Rob-
bot, Pascal666, Bobblewik, Eranb, Mtnerd, Avriette, ZeroOne, Thatguy96, Joshbaumgartner, Bukvoed, GraemeLeggett, Yuriybrisk, Ere-
bus555, FlaBot, Mark83, Arado, TGC61780, Jor70, Nick-D, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Mike McGregor (Can), Hmains, Bluebot, Emt147,
DHN-bot, Dual Freq, Il palazzo, Buckboard, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Hydraton31, Nabokov, Aldis90, HedgeFundBob, AsgardBot, BilCat,
CommonsDelinker, Mike cronin63, Youngjim, Blood Oath Bot, Amikake3, Mdk0642, Starrymessenger, Kernel Saunters, Cobatfor, Otom-
mod, Jgb2, Alexbot, Addbot, Zorrobot, The Bushranger, Yobot, Amirobot, AnomieBOT, Jim1138, JackieBot, Anotherclown, D'ohBot,
Morganson691, Hammerfrog, ArmbrustBot and Anonymous: 24
AGM-78 Standard ARM Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-78%20Standard%20ARM?oldid=644708758 Contributors: Rland-
mann, Pigsonthewing, Bobblewik, Avriette, Joshbaumgartner, Bukvoed, Gene Nygaard, Ketiltrout, YurikBot, Arado, Gaius Cornelius,
Cerejota, Pirate2000, Hmains, Chris the speller, Dual Freq, Snowmanradio, TechPurism, Cydebot, Dougweller, Tantalas, Youngjim,
STBotD, Amikake3, Rei-bot, Da Joe, Cobatfor, Addbot, Lightbot, Luckas Blade, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Xqbot, RedBot, ZroBot,
Ridoking, Myfgsl-2, ArmbrustBot and Anonymous: 5
AGM-88 HARM Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88%20HARM?oldid=648213922 Contributors: GTBacchus, Rlandmann,
David.Monniaux, Riddley, DocWatson42, Oberiko, Greyengine5, Fleminra, Bobblewik, Onco p53, Rich Farmbrough, Avriette, Guanabot,
Meggar, KBi, Hooperbloob, Joshbaumgartner, RobertStar20, Hohum, ^demon, Mendaliv, Chinfo, Gareth E Kegg, MoRsE, Chobot, Yurik-
Bot, Noclador, Charles Gaudette, Arado, John Smiths, Spike Wilbury, Kkmurray, NorsemanII, Emijrp, Ray Chason, Selkem, Nick-D,
Attilios, SmackBot, Jtwang, Baa, DHN-bot, Dual Freq, Moonsword, Battlecry, Snowmanradio, Evil Merlin, A.R., Kelleym, Big Smooth,
JoeBot, Amakuru, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Mike65535, Metal Snake, Thijs!bot, Memty Bot, CipherPixy, Hcobb, Wikidenizen, DrBorka, Tan-
talas, CombatWombat42, Arz1969, KConWiki, AsgardBot, BilCat, Ultraviolet scissor ame, R'n'B, Nono64, McSly, Trumpet marietta
45750, Youngjim, Mads bahrt, Ndunruh, Tatrgel, STBotD, JustAnMD, VolkovBot, Balmung0731, HJ32, TXiKiBoT, Starrymessenger,
Metzby, Aubri, MegaMom, Editore99, Atani, Android Mouse Bot 3, ClueBot, Trojancowboy, Mt hg, Jwkozak91, Chaosdruid, Jax 0677,
Addbot, Oldmountains, AnnaFrance, The Bushranger, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Mackin90, AnomieBOT, Rubinbot, RjwilmsiBot, Djf-
gregory, DASHBot, Mrbubl3s, Babak902003, Sp33dyphil, Illegitimate Barrister, Shuipzv3, Nelson Teixeira, Orange Suede Sofa, ClueBot
NG, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, CitationCleanerBot, Giblets46, Nzit, JesusHacker, America789, Makecat-bot, Z07x10 and Anonymous:
63
AGM-122 Sidearm Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-122%20Sidearm?oldid=592173029 Contributors: Rlandmann, Riddley,
Oberiko, Mzajac, King nothing, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, FlaBot, JdforresterBot, Nemo5576, YurikBot, Los688, Jonas Viper,
Sardanaphalus, DHN-bot, Aerobird, TheGerm, Woody, BilCat, SieBot, Cobatfor, Alexbot, Chaosdruid, SoxBot III, Dave1185, Ad-
dbot, Queenmomcat, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Yobot, DASHBot, GoingBatty, Sp33dyphil, Righteous9000, Phredd671, Bryant81272,
Brent81272, Helpful Pixie Bot, CitationCleanerBot, BattyBot, Adirlanz and Anonymous: 5
AGM-136 Tacit Rainbow Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-136%20Tacit%20Rainbow?oldid=639556775 Contributors: Si-
monP, Rlandmann, N328KF, Rich Farmbrough, Joshbaumgartner, Gene Nygaard, FlaBot, Daderot, Gaius Cornelius, Ospalh, SmackBot,
Dual Freq, Taymoss, Fl295, BilCat, Nono64, EH101, SidewinderX, Kyle144, Addbot, The Bushranger, Yobot, Ulric1313 and Anonymous:
8
ASM-N-8 Corvus Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-N-8%20Corvus?oldid=638580088 Contributors: Kolbasz, Cydebot, BilCat,
Cobatfor, The Bushranger, John of Reading and Mark Arsten
GAM-67 Crossbow Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAM-67%20Crossbow?oldid=641757324 Contributors: Rlandmann, Bob-
blewik, Gene Nygaard, Woohookitty, Ospalh, Hmains, Fl295, Akradecki, Salad Days, BilCat, AMCKen, MystBot, Addbot, The Bushranger
and Anonymous: 1
ADM-141 TALD Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADM-141%20TALD?oldid=651725021 Contributors: SimonP, Rlandmann,

Lupo, Gene Nygaard, Ospalh, Pirate2000, BobThePirate, Dual Freq, Cydebot, Akradecki, Flayer, Arz1969, Brucelipe, LanceBarber,
Chaosdruid, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, LilHelpa, TheStarwolf, Dondervogel 2, Snotbot, Iyfa18s, ScrabbleZ and Anonymous: 6
ADM-144 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADM-144?oldid=537310768 Contributors: Rlandmann, Night Gyr, HenryLi, Megapixie,
Bluebot, BobThePirate, Chaosdruid and The Bushranger
ADM-160 MALD Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADM-160%20MALD?oldid=655393753 Contributors: SimonP, Rlandmann,
Gene Nygaard, Arado, Ospalh, Pirate2000, Nick-D, SmackBot, Sam8, Boris Barowski, Chris the speller, Dual Freq, Cydebot, Hcobb,
Akradecki, VolkovBot, PixelBot, Chaosdruid, Addbot, Lightbot, TechBot, John of Reading, Krassdaniel, America789, Mjbrennan99 and
Anonymous: 8
ADM-20 Quail Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADM-20%20Quail?oldid=632920698 Contributors: Rlandmann, Dabarkey, Karl
Dickman, Xezbeth, Petersam, Stahlkocher1, Flambe, Denniss, Hohum, Gene Nygaard, Woohookitty, Rjwilmsi, Wiarthurhu, Jmc, Yurik-
Bot, RussBot, Fuzzy901, Lavenderbunny, Neilbeach, PTSE, Pirate2000, Groyolo, Chris the speller, DMS, BobThePirate, Martin Blank,
Dual Freq, R. E. Mixer, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Thijs!bot, Woody, Dawkeye, Sherbrooke, Akradecki, Avicennasis, BilCat, Brucelipe,
R'n'B, CommonsDelinker, Youngjim, Ndunruh, Spiesr, GimmeBot, LanceBarber, Lightmouse, Kumioko, Keeper76, FieldMarine, Pix-
elBot, Chaosdruid, Airplaneman, Addbot, LaaknorBot, 55, The Bushranger, Fraggle81, Ulric1313, Sandip90, Full-date unlinking bot,
RjwilmsiBot, DexDor, John of Reading, AvicBot, ZroBot, AK456 and Anonymous: 12
Beechcraft MQM-107 Streaker Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft%20MQM-107%20Streaker?oldid=650836940 Con-
tributors: Vegaswikian, SmackBot, Chronodm, Rjones3, Cydebot, Fnlayson, CombatWombat42, BilCat, Keith D, SidewinderX, Boing!
said Zebedee, Sturmvogel 66, Chaosdruid, Addbot, The Bushranger, Ajh1492, AnomieBOT, RightCowLeftCoast, Lovetravel86, 777sms,
Dronebuddy, Illegitimate Barrister, Anir1uph, Sfdyoung, ChuispastonBot, Mddkpp, Hpskiii, LukasMatt and Anonymous: 8
Northrop BQM-74 Chukar Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop%20BQM-74%20Chukar?oldid=650620986 Contributors:
Maury Markowitz, Rlandmann, Gidonb, Jooler, Bobblewik, Trevor MacInnis, Avriette, Kbh3rd, Bukvoed, Gene Nygaard, Dziban303,
BD2412, Dcsutherland, Vegaswikian, Durin, SchuminWeb, Welsh, Sardanaphalus, Bluebot, Dual Freq, Rlevse, Acdx, Kashmiri, Dl2000,
KPWM Spotter, CmdrObot, MarsRover, Fl295, Cydebot, Nabokov, Hcobb, Akradecki, DagosNavy, Salad Days, Keith D, Commons-
Delinker, WJBscribe, Petebutt, SieBot, Cobatfor, Editore99, Lastdingo, DannaShinsho, Addbot, CarsracBot, 55, The Bushranger,
MTWEmperor, AnomieBOT, Tokyotown8, Full-date unlinking bot, 777sms, Gavbadger, Chesipiero, Technical 13, Abrahamdsl, Mddkpp,
Nsgoldberg and Anonymous: 17
XGAM-71 Buck Duck Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XGAM-71%20Buck%20Duck?oldid=654035470 Contributors: Patrick,
HorsePunchKid, Dabarkey, Karl Dickman, Xezbeth, Arado, SmackBot, Olly lewis, Takowl, Ohconfucius, Nagle, Cydebot, MarshBot,
CommonsDelinker, EH101, GimmeBot, Skipweasel, Chaosdruid, Addbot, The Bushranger, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Citation bot, Full-date
unlinking bot and 777sms
XSM-73 Goose Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XSM-73%20Goose?oldid=632079709 Contributors: Rlandmann, Karl Dickman,
Rich Farmbrough, Water Bottle, Gene Nygaard, Alai, Marudubshinki, Edison, Rjwilmsi, Feydey, SmackBot, Chris the speller, Mr
Stephen, Saxbryn, Fl295, Cydebot, Eastmain, Woody, Dricherby, Brucelipe, R'n'B, Ndunruh, Jamesontai, EH101, GimmeBot, AMCKen,
Niceguyedc, Addbot, The Bushranger, FrescoBot, ReigneBOT, John of Reading and Anonymous: 5
XSM-74 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XSM-74?oldid=544332929 Contributors: Rlandmann, SmackBot, Chris the speller, Cyde-
bot, Aldis90, Woody, Brucelipe, Andreas Parsch, Ndunruh, GimmeBot, Thunderbird2, Lightbot, The Bushranger and Anonymous: 2
Cornelius XBG-3 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius%20XBG-3?oldid=635333214 Contributors: The Rambling Man, Cy-
debot, Petebutt, The Bushranger, Chesipiero, Helpful Pixie Bot, CitationCleanerBot and Mddkpp
Fairchild BQ-3 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild%20BQ-3?oldid=568671840 Contributors: Petebutt, The Bushranger, Aus-
tralianRupert, 777sms and Chesipiero
Fleetwings BQ-1 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleetwings%20BQ-1?oldid=586193805 Contributors: Petebutt, Piledhigherand-
deeper, The Bushranger, 777sms and Chesipiero
Fleetwings BQ-2 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleetwings%20BQ-2?oldid=641626257 Contributors: DPdH, Petebutt, The
Bushranger, 777sms and Chesipiero
Gorgon (missile family) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgon%20(missile%20family)?oldid=645990836 Contributors: Rland-
mann, Robbot, Woohookitty, XLerate, Sophysduckling, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, DMS, Iridescent, Wikited, Cydebot, Aldis90, BilCat,
Petebutt, Cobatfor, SchreiberBike, Addbot, The Bushranger, Xqbot, Jackehammond, Leonidl, Jay8g, Suzukisue and Anonymous: 2
Interstate TDR Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate%20TDR?oldid=603826911 Contributors: Klemen Kocjancic, Graeme-
Leggett, MZMcBride, Wavelength, SatuSuro, Hu12, Courcelles, Cydebot, TAnthony, Reedy Bot, Petebutt, Andy Dingley, Nimbus227,
The Bushranger, Rubinbot, AustralianRupert, 777sms, GA bot, ZroBot, Wackywace, Demiurge1000, Chesipiero, Historyonthemarch,
Helpful Pixie Bot, Mddkpp, Makecat-bot and Anonymous: 4
Interstate XBDR Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate%20XBDR?oldid=609598533 Contributors: Phyllis1753, Nick-D, Cm-
drObot, Cydebot, Piledhigheranddeeper, Addbot, Vyom25, The Bushranger, LilHelpa, HRoestBot, 777sms, Wackywace, CrimsonBot,
Chesipiero, Helpful Pixie Bot, Mddkpp and Anonymous: 1
JB-4 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JB-4?oldid=626504364 Contributors: Hmains, Drmies, The Bushranger, Trappist the monk,
Merlin48, Helpful Pixie Bot, CitationCleanerBot, Monkbot and Anonymous: 1
KAN Little Joe Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAN%20Little%20Joe?oldid=611042738 Contributors: Woohookitty, Explainer,
Hmains, DRahier, ShelfSkewed, Cydebot, Aldis90, Parsecboy, Cobatfor, Addbot, The Bushranger, LilHelpa, Jackehammond, EmausBot,
BobM3, Helpful Pixie Bot and Anonymous: 2
Northrop JB-1 Bat Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop%20JB-1%20Bat?oldid=635402946 Contributors: PamD, KTo288,
The Bushranger, Trappist the monk, EmausBot, BattyBot and 30 SW
Piper LBP Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper%20LBP?oldid=592800572 Contributors: Ahunt, Wavelength, Hmains, Cydebot,
Advait.ghaisas, Arjayay, The Bushranger, 777sms, BaSH PR0MPT, Chesipiero, Helpful Pixie Bot, CitationCleanerBot and Monkbot
Pratt-Read LBE Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt-Read%20LBE?oldid=618002832 Contributors: Ahunt, Hmains, Cydebot,
Optimist on the run, FerdinandFrog, The Bushranger, 777sms, Helpful Pixie Bot, CitationCleanerBot, Mddkpp and Monkbot
Taylorcraft LBT Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylorcraft%20LBT?oldid=606959028 Contributors: GraemeLeggett, Wave-

length, Cydebot, Mild Bill Hiccup, The Bushranger, 777sms, GoingBatty, Chesipiero, Helpful Pixie Bot, CitationCleanerBot and Monkbot
ASM-135 ASAT Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135%20ASAT?oldid=639579572 Contributors: Rlandmann, Topbanana,
Twang, Robbot, N328KF, Woohookitty, Mendaliv, RussBot, Welsh, Asams10, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Jsplegge, SmackBot,
Hmains, Chris the speller, Oni Ookami Alfador, Soarhead77, Sevenless, Iridescent, Iepeulas, Joseph Solis in Australia, MarsRover, NickFr,
Cydebot, Aadrover, Aldis90, Woody, Piotr Mikoajski, Fru1tbat, Roidroid, Charibdis, BilCat, Brucelipe, R'n'B, !Darkre!6'28'14, Ndun-
ruh, Nico2007, D-Kuru, GimmeBot, CMBJ, , Iknowyourider, MBK004, Nukes4Tots, Addbot, Tassedethe, Lightbot, The Bushranger,
Ace aniki, Luckas-bot, SpaceCowboy2253, AnomieBOT, Causa83, John of Reading, Striker121, GoingBatty, ZroBot, Mikhail Ryazanov,
Jay8g, Minsbot, Space Strategos, Pratyya Ghosh, Mogism, Jamesmcmahon0, Captain Ben Sisko and Anonymous: 30
MGM-157 EFOGM Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-157%20EFOGM?oldid=654868066 Contributors: Bender235, Aldis90,
Petebutt, JL-Bot, The Bushranger, PleaseStand, Jesse V., Wackywace, Cyberbot II and Anonymous: 1
AGM-153 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-153?oldid=544224015 Contributors: Rlandmann, Wsloand, FlaBot, SmackBot,
Bluebot, BobThePirate, Chaosdruid, Addbot, The Bushranger, Erik9bot and Anonymous: 1
AGM-159 JASSM Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-159%20JASSM?oldid=544227218 Contributors: Rlandmann, Riddley,
Wsloand, SmackBot, Bluebot, BobThePirate, PRRfan, Rei-bot, Addbot, The Bushranger, Erik9bot, Ripchip Bot, Alison22 and Anony-
mous: 1
AGM-169 Joint Common Missile Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-169%20Joint%20Common%20Missile?oldid=
644712250 Contributors: Rlandmann, Riddley, Comatose51, Rich Farmbrough, Cwolfsheep, Joshbaumgartner, Gene Nygaard, Gurch,
YurikBot, RussBot, Arado, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, SmackBot, Open-box, A.R., Skrip00, Cydebot, Woody, Etr52, Two
way time, CommonsDelinker, Nono64, StalinsLoveChild, Tatrgel, HJ32, TXiKiBoT, Chaosdruid, Addbot, Lightbot, HerculeBot, The
Bushranger, JCRules, Ebrambot, Hmainsbot1 and Anonymous: 9
AGM-53 Condor Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-53%20Condor?oldid=594835809 Contributors: Rlandmann, Wernher, Ev-
eryking, Joshbaumgartner, Dziban303, Los688, Cydebot, Avicennasis, BilCat, MarcoLittel, VolkovBot, Thunderbird2, Lucasbfrbot, Mild
Bill Hiccup, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, AvicBot, Chalim Kenabru and Anonymous: 2
AGM-63 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-63?oldid=544049722 Contributors: Rlandmann, Riddley, Joshbaumgartner, Sar-
danaphalus, Cydebot, Addbot, The Bushranger, RedBot, Mir09 and Anonymous: 1
AGM-64 Hornet Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-64%20Hornet?oldid=644709420 Contributors: Rlandmann, Joshbaumgart-
ner, Arado, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, TechPurism, Cydebot, Rei-bot, Wilhelmina Will, Sturmvogel 66, Addbot, The Bushranger,
Guy1890, Erik9bot, Mir09, CrimsonBot, PhnomPencil and Anonymous: 4
AGM-80 Viper Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-80%20Viper?oldid=644671773 Contributors: Leandrod, Rlandmann, Avri-
ette, Joshbaumgartner, RJFJR, Uncle G, Nvinen, Bschorr, YurikBot, Arado, Bluebot, Cydebot, Chaosdruid, Addbot, The Bushranger and
Anonymous: 2
AGM-83 Bulldog Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-83%20Bulldog?oldid=629484134 Contributors: Rlandmann, Joshbaum-
gartner, Gene Nygaard, Graham87, BOT-Superzerocool, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Colonies Chris, Cydebot, BilCat, MarcoLittel, Rei-
bot, Addbot, The Bushranger, The High Fin Sperm Whale, Erik9bot, Shirudo and Anonymous: 2
AIM-152 AAAM Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-152%20AAAM?oldid=616077051 Contributors: Edward, Rlandmann,
GCarty, Riddley, Bobblewik, Mjuarez, Joshbaumgartner, Galaxiaad, Gimboid13, RussBot, Ospalh, Engineer Bob, Pirate2000, Riverof-
dreams, SmackBot, STBotD, Cobatfor, Chaosdruid, Addbot, The Bushranger, Subpots, MaxDel, Heavyweight Gamer, ZroBot, Garamond
Lethe and Anonymous: 7
AIM-95 Agile Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-95%20Agile?oldid=613989348 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Rlandmann,
GCarty, DocWatson42, Karl Dickman, Roo72, Joshbaumgartner, Pirate2000, Hmains, Derekbridges, Cydebot, Aldis90, Arz1969, Bal-
mung0731, HJ32, Lastdingo, Addbot, The Bushranger, Xosema, MaxDel, DexDor and Anonymous: 5
AIM-97 Seekbat Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-97%20Seekbat?oldid=647875668 Contributors: Edward, Rlandmann,
GCarty, Pibwl, Joshbaumgartner, Firsfron, FlaBot, Arado, Welsh, David Underdown, Pirate2000, Alureiter, SmackBot, Hmains, Derek-
bridges, Cydebot, BilCat, MarcoLittel, Sfan00 IMG, Addbot, The Bushranger, Mcclellanj, Erik9bot, MaxDel, Khazar2 and Anonymous:
4
AQM-127 SLAT Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AQM-127%20SLAT?oldid=646566157 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Table-
top, Nick-D, Attilios, Cydebot, TAnthony, BilCat, Meters, Yerpo, AMCKen, The Bushranger, DASHBot, GoingBatty, Helpful Pixie Bot,
Mddkpp and Anonymous: 5
FGR-17 Viper Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGR-17%20Viper?oldid=638819050 Contributors: Leandrod, Antandrus, Ground
Zero, Grafen, SmackBot, Metallurgist, MarsRover, Cydebot, Aldis90, Magioladitis, BilCat, W. B. Wilson, FergusM1970, Hqb, Spartan198,
Arugia, Addbot, The Bushranger, High Contrast, Jackehammond, T-Nod, Mogism, Liquiddude, Awd19691969 and Anonymous: 8
Have Dash Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have%20Dash?oldid=603583909 Contributors: The Anome, Attilios, Onebravemonkey,
Cs-wolves, Cydebot, Fnlayson, R'n'B, Kumioko (renamed), LP-mn, Piledhigheranddeeper, Addbot, The Bushranger, Jonesey95, ZroBot
and Monkbot
MGM-166 LOSAT Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-166%20LOSAT?oldid=614356441 Contributors: Maury Markowitz,
Ixfd64, Rlandmann, Riddley, Avriette, Alereon, Gene Nygaard, Los688, SmackBot, Cydebot, Aldis90, .anacondabot, BilCat, MajorHaz-
ard, Dreamafter, LizGere, Addbot, HatlessAtlas, The Bushranger, Mark Schierbecker, AurgelmirCro, Brittus, GoingBatty, CrimsonBot,
Cyberbot II and Anonymous: 5
NOTS-EV-2 Caleb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOTS-EV-2%20Caleb?oldid=641757598 Contributors: Woohookitty, Table-
top, SatuSuro, Chris the speller, WDGraham, Cydebot, IanOsgood, BilCat, GDK, The Bushranger, Xfansd, Aeonx and Anonymous: 1
RIM-101 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-101?oldid=645918605 Contributors: Cydebot, BilCat, The Bushranger, Monkbot and
Anonymous: 1
RIM-113 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-113?oldid=629544757 Contributors: Wavelength, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Aldis90, Bil-
Cat, R'n'B, EoGuy, The Bushranger and BG19bot
RIM-85 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-85?oldid=618194876 Contributors: Cydebot, Socrates2008, Addbot, AttoRenato, The

Bushranger and Monkbot
SSM-N-2 Triton Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSM-N-2%20Triton?oldid=642058628 Contributors: Arado, FrescoBot, RobDuch
and Anonymous: 1
UUM-125 Sea Lance Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUM-125%20Sea%20Lance?oldid=607821815 Contributors: Rlandmann,
Wmahan, Warpyght, Xezbeth, Sumergocognito, Blackeagle, FlaBot, Kuribosshoe, Gaius Cornelius, Los688, SmackBot, Hmains, Bluebot,
BobThePirate, Tdrss, Scarlet Lioness, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Appraiser, BilCat, Marcd30319, EH101, Thunderbird2, Matrek, Chaosdruid,
Addbot, The Bushranger, AdmiralHood, SassoBot, TuxLibNit and Anonymous: 9
Vought HVM Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought%20HVM?oldid=651445383 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Gene Nygaard,
GregorB, Malcolma, Alaibot, Aldis90, MajorHazard, Lastdingo, AnomieBOT and Anonymous: 1
3.5-Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3.5-Inch%20Forward%20Firing%20Aircraft%
20Rocket?oldid=584817316 Contributors: Cydebot, Malleus Fatuorum, TAnthony, Rettetast, Andy Dingley, Martin Velek, SchreiberBike,
Little Mountain 5, The Bushranger, DASHBot, Magneticlifeform and Helpful Pixie Bot
AUM-N-2 Petrel Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUM-N-2%20Petrel?oldid=629462123 Contributors: SimonP, Rlandmann, Gene
Nygaard, Marudubshinki, Epolk, Pirate2000, Hmains, Bluebot, Trekphiler, TechPurism, Cydebot, JustAGal, BilCat, R'n'B, Kguirnela,
Petebutt, Maelgwnbot, Addbot, The Bushranger, EmausBot, Mddkpp and Anonymous: 2
Mousetrap (weapon) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mousetrap%20(weapon)?oldid=599129417 Contributors: Riddley, Securiger,
DocWatson42, Klox, Roo72, Kross, Gergiev, HiFiGuy, BD2412, Catsmeat, YurikBot, Salmanazar, BorgQueen, SmackBot, Hmains,
Krzypntbllr, Rcbutcher, Trekphiler, Cydebot, Aldis90, Bobblehead, Dawkeye, Toddst1, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Cheposo, Lotje, Emaus-
Bot, H3llBot and Anonymous: 1
RUM-139 VL-ASROC Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RUM-139%20VL-ASROC?oldid=594691531 Contributors: Rlandmann,
Ehn, Tempshill, Topbanana, Riddley, Pibwl, Rorro, DMG413, CanisRufus, Cwolfsheep, Joshbaumgartner, Gene Nygaard, Alai, Prashan-
thns, GraemeLeggett, RussBot, Chris Capoccia, Los688, Saberwyn, Allens, Looper5920, Dual Freq, TheGerm, Cydebot, Two way time,
BilCat, Rettetast, Kguirnela, Thewellman, Addbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, AdmiralHood, FrescoBot, LucienBOT, RedBot, Babak902003,
ZroBot, AvicAWB, Medalofhonor105 and Anonymous: 8
RUR-5 ASROC Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RUR-5%20ASROC?oldid=654868427 Contributors: The Epopt, Rambot,
Minesweeper, Tempshill, Riddley, DocWatson42, Oberiko, Fleminra, Revth, Bobblewik, Willhsmit, Maikel, Mtnerd, Danh, Guanabot,
Bender235, Aranel, Longhair, Get It, Idleguy, A2Kar, Joshbaumgartner, ASK, TaintedMustard, Gene Nygaard, Dan100, PoccilScript,
Nvinen, GraemeLeggett, Mandarax, Arabani, Catsmeat, Chobot, Bgwhite, Borgx, RussBot, John Smiths, Gaius Cornelius, Saberwyn,
Nicolaiplum, Georgewilliamherbert, Ageekgal, Alureiter, SmackBot, Delphi00, Hmains, Kurykh, BobThePirate, Rcbutcher, Ebrockway,
Astroview120mm, John, Wikited, CmdrObot, Axefan, Sir Lothar, Cydebot, CMarshall, Brian.Burnell, Cancun771, Aldis90, Kirk Hilliard,
Thijs!bot, DulcetTone, WinBot, JAnDbot, MER-C, Dewey101, Two way time, BilCat, LorenzoB, Subspace1250, Raza0007, PMG, Rette-
tast, Kguirnela, SirBob42, Pdfpdf, 4wajzkd02, Cobatfor, Lightmouse, 61mei31, MBK004, Matrek, Pekelney, Thehelpfulone, Thewellman,
DumZiBoT, Dark Mage, Kwjbot, WardenWolf, The Bushranger, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, TaBOT-zerem, Rubinbot, 4twenty42o,
Anon423, Cantons-de-l'Est, GrouchoBot, GovertonGTU, MHolz, Jackehammond, EmausBot, Werieth, Dolovis, Philafrenzy, Dan Hunton,
Helpful Pixie Bot, Tpmcnamara, ChrisGualtieri, RobDuch, Llammakey and Anonymous: 47
RUR-4 Weapon Alpha Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RUR-4%20Weapon%20Alpha?oldid=636087182 Contributors: DocWat-
son42, Alansohn, Mathrick, RussBot, Dysmorodrepanis, Hmains, DocKrin, Trekphiler, Cydebot, Aldis90, Stoshmaster, Two way time,
BilCat, R'n'B, Busaccsb, Cobatfor, Lightmouse, MBK004, Sturmvogel 66, Addbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, AnomieBOT, Admiral-
Hood, Panda 51, FrescoBot, RobDuch, Wfoj3, YahooWill and Anonymous: 8
UUM-44 SUBROC Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUM-44%20SUBROC?oldid=628289117 Contributors: Rlandmann, GCarty,
Kolbasz, Ahpook, RussBot, SmackBot, Jagged 85, BobThePirate, Missinglincoln, JohnI, Cydebot, Aldis90, Woody, Uruiamme, BilCat,
Macguba, CommonsDelinker, TXiKiBoT, Will dwane, Pdfpdf, Cobatfor, Matrek, Addbot, Download, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Admi-
ralHood, Webwat, GovertonGTU, Comet Tuttle, Vodafone3, Jackehammond, EmausBot, Logical Cowboy, Illegitimate Barrister, Leonidl,
Dobie80 and Anonymous: 7
4.5-Inch Beach Barrage Rocket Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.5-Inch%20Beach%20Barrage%20Rocket?oldid=626493184
Contributors: Ewen, Kolbasz, Bob1960evens, Rreagan007, Magus732, The Bushranger, Trappist the monk and Anonymous: 2
7.2-Inch Demolition Rocket Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.2-Inch%20Demolition%20Rocket?oldid=643046810 Contributors:
Catsmeat, The Rambling Man, Chiswick Chap, The Bushranger, Terrortank, Trappist the monk, Helpful Pixie Bot, BattyBot and Anony-
mous: 2
Lobber Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobber?oldid=613367730 Contributors: The Bushranger, OccultZone and Monkbot
M16 (rocket) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16%20(rocket)?oldid=632645579 Contributors: GraemeLeggett, Magioladitis, The
Bushranger, Trappist the monk, JustSomePics, Mogism and Anonymous: 1
M8 (rocket) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M8%20(rocket)?oldid=608945559 Contributors: Hohum, GraemeLeggett, Scottanon,
Chris the speller, Hebrides, GroveGuy, Afernand74, The Bushranger, Orenburg1, Helpful Pixie Bot and Anonymous: 3
RTV-A-3 NATIV Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTV-A-3%20NATIV?oldid=607703118 Contributors: The Bushranger
Urban Assault Weapon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban%20Assault%20Weapon?oldid=472054104 Contributors: Riddley,
DocWatson42, Orca1 9904, Cydebot, Waacstats, Nohomers48 and The Bushranger
Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder-launched%20Multipurpose%
20Assault%20Weapon?oldid=651935738 Contributors: The Anome, Conti, Katana0182, Riddley, DocWatson42, MathKnight, Bob-
blewik, Mzajac, Kramer, Grunt, Night Gyr, ZeroOne, Loren36, CanisRufus, Gmarine3000, David kitson, Cmdrjameson, Kjkolb,
King nothing, Thatguy96, Joshbaumgartner, Sandstig, Ashley Pomeroy, Denniss, Dan100, Mahanga, BlaiseFEgan, Kralizec!, Graeme-
Leggett, Ratamacue, Dpv, YurikBot, RussBot, Gaius Cornelius, Shaddack, Arima, CLW, Raistlin8r, Hayden120, ThunderBird, SmackBot,
Looper5920, EvilCouch, Ominae, Kintetsubualo, Htra0497, Uri R, LWF, 667NotB, PETN, Patrick Berry, Wafulz, Tutoon, Cydebot,
Rieman 82, Aldis90, F-451, Flayer, Tins128, Jarl of Torvaldsland, Wonton, CommonsDelinker, Thurinym, Tourbillon, Falcon8765, Ba-
hamut0013, MajorHazard, Why Not A Duck, Basilisk59, Dodger67, JEM153012, EnigmaMcmxc, Scalhotrod, NellieBly, Nukes4Tots,
Addbot, Nohomers48, Yobot, TaBOT-zerem, Ohmygod766, Jackehammond, Acsian88, FastZcar, L1A1 FAL, HupHollandHup, ClueBot
NG, Dainomite, BattyBot, America789, Khazar2, Redalert2fan, Shkvoz, DanieB52, Bulldogdaniel24 and Anonymous: 76
RIM-7 Sea Sparrow Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-7%20Sea%20Sparrow?oldid=645911997 Contributors: Maury

Markowitz, Mcarling, RadicalBender, Jphieer, Daniel Case, Pol098, Anders.Warga, Cerejota, SmackBot, Chris the speller, Dual Freq,
WonRyong, MarsRover, Cydebot, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, Woody, CombatWombat42, Two way time, R'n'B, STBotD, SieBot, Flyer22,
Socrates2008, Jusdafax, Chaosdruid, Dcharles11, Addbot, EZ1234, Nohomers48, LaaknorBot, Lightbot, Stinkypie, High Contrast, Xqbot,
GrouchoBot, Sarcastic ShockwaveLover, ActivExpression, DexDor, WikitanvirBot, ZroBot, ClueBot NG, Geistjaeger, Helpful Pixie Bot,
Frajjsen, Myfgsl-2, Qrhoo, Sean Clark, HWClifton and Anonymous: 29
RIM-162 ESSM Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-162%20ESSM?oldid=654917044 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Mcarling,
Rlandmann, Riddley, Gidonb, N328KF, Gunter.krebs, Jigen III, Pol098, GraemeLeggett, Ketiltrout, Gurch, Victor12, Chobot, Arado, John
Smiths, Saberwyn, Zwobot, Heathhunnicutt, Orcaborealis, Alureiter, That Guy, From That Show!, SmackBot, BobThePirate, Dual Freq,
Aerobird, Jwillbur, Bogsat, J.smith, Accurizer, Musashi1600, Cydebot, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, Woody, Hcobb, E rik, Mongreldog, Combat-
Wombat42, Two way time, BilCat, GarryL200, STBot, Nono64, Okwestern, HJ32, Broadbot, Moskevap, SieBot, Quakeomaniac, Cobatfor,
Matrek, Mumiemonstret, Taifarious1, Addbot, Nohomers48, LaaknorBot, Zorrobot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Titusprime, Lil-
Helpa, Coltsfan, Le Deluge, L8AV8R, DexDor, Ngatimozart, Catlemur, Myfgsl-2, America789, Bryan3398, Khazar2, JackW2, Wrant and
Anonymous: 47
AGM-124 Wasp Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-124%20Wasp?oldid=644711410 Contributors: Rlandmann, Joshbaumgart-
ner, Arado, Engineer Bob, Pirate2000, SmackBot, Melchoir, Cydebot, BilCat, Tatrgel, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot,
Stanislao C, Erik9bot and Anonymous: 1
Compact Kinetic Energy Missile Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact%20Kinetic%20Energy%20Missile?oldid=627145724
Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Leandrod, Riddley, Rich Farmbrough, Dalillama, SDC, O keyes, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Alaibot, Aldis90,
Oosh, Marokwitz, Waacstats, MajorHazard, Dreamafter, Lastdingo, Tosaka1, Addbot, Katzilla22, Yobot, John of Reading, Cbrittain10,
America789, 786b6364, Fergus the widget and Anonymous: 5
FGM-148 Javelin Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148%20Javelin?oldid=654917390 Contributors: The Anome, Rlandmann,
PaulinSaudi, Selket, Cabalamat, Riddley, DocWatson42, Fudoreaper, Phil1988, Rlcantwell, Khatores, N328KF, Guanabot, Pmsyyz, Night
Gyr, Schloob, Loren36, Kross, Shanes, Gmarine3000, Tronno, Cwolfsheep, PatrickFisher, Joshbaumgartner, Sandstig, Linmhall, Wt-
mitchell, Hadlock, TaintedMustard, Frescard, Wyatts, Gene Nygaard, Daranz, Bacteria, Mikko Luukkonen, Jenrzzz, Tabletop, GregorB,
Macaddct1984, Xiong Chiamiov, GraemeLeggett, Elvey, Dpolychron, Josh Parris, Rjwilmsi, FlaBot, MoRsE, Schwern, Bgwhite, Rattus-
Maximus, RussBot, Arado, John Smiths, Ecryder, Snake 89, Texboy, Tertulia, Mieciu K, Engineer Bob, Searchme, Raistlin8r, Norse-
manII, JoanneB, TheQuaker, Nick-D, SmackBot, Looper5920, Jhardin.impsec, Stretch 135, Ominae, Geo B, Jprg1966, Thumperward,
Hossen27, DHN-bot, SirromN, Sct72, Il palazzo, Wilhelm Ritter, Jumping cheese, A.R., J.smith, Lunarbunny, John, Flip619, LWF,
Ocatecir, Doctor Hexagon, Andrwsc, Tigey, Ose91, JoeBot, Dave420, UncleDouggie, Octane, Whaiaun, Talono, Firehawk1717, JFor-
get, Makeemlighter, NinjaKid, Jim101, Salmagnone, Orca1 9904, Mator, Cydebot, Mough, Rieman 82, MasterMan, Captainm, Daniel
J. Leivick, Aldis90, Unicyclopedia, Hcobb, E rik, Lklundin, Dybdal, DagosNavy, JAnDbot, CombatWombat42, Demonkey36, Avaya1,
Meeowow, Canjth, Neftaly, Puddhe, Nickwotton, Zhanghia, BilCat, Spellmaster, Matamoros, KASSPER, Biggyniner, IanHarvey, Climax
Void, CommonsDelinker, GomJabbar, Jasper205, McSly, Notreallydavid, Villa mad123, Tatrgel, Je F F, Tybb, DanMP5, DorganBot,
D-Kuru, Ja 62, Gothbag, RaptorR3d, Thomas.W, James Callahan, W. B. Wilson, FergusM1970, Starrymessenger, Raryel, Robert1947,
Quindraco, Brokenwit, Andy Dingley, Falcon8765, Koalorka, EnviroGranny, Aubri, Chuck Sirloin, S.Bowers, Dreamafter, BonesBrigade,
Kernel Saunters, Archer1234, Oxymoron83, Henry Delforn (old), Lightmouse, CactusZac098, Kumioko (renamed), Dodger67, Wee Curry
Monster, ClueBot, Ol Chappy, TotesBoats, JTBX, Ottoshmidt, Auntof6, Abrech, Muro Bot, BOTarate, RegaL the Proofreader, GPS73,
XLinkBot, Nepenthes, Grautbakken, WikiDao, SJSA, Milstuxyz, Dave1185, Jim Sweeney, Addbot, Nohomers48, Cuaxdon, Shrubage,
SpBot, Herr Gruber, Lightbot, Zorrobot, The Bushranger, Aaroncrick, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Ptbotgourou, TaBOT-zerem, AnomieBOT,
Rubinbot, Stanislao Avogadro, Capricorn42, Ocelotl10293, WotWeiller, Mark Schierbecker, CalmCalamity, Brutaldeluxe, Le Deluge,
Jonathon A H, Paper mache c boy, Skcpublic, FrescoBot, ZStoler, Arteshbod-e-Setad, AstaBOTh15, Calmer Waters, Genuine Truth
Seeker, RedBot, ROG5728, Seamonkey210, RjwilmsiBot, Jackehammond, Lapkonium, J.J.I.J.R., TheArashmatashable, GIndim, ZroBot,
Illegitimate Barrister, Shuipzv3, Anir1uph, L1A1 FAL, HuskerFan13, EdoBot, , Petrb, ClueBot NG, Catlemur, Helpful Pixie Bot,
Jjoy3646, GeoMK.21, Rikojr, Reallyfastcar, Dainomite, PuckerStarsh, Glevum, Takahara Osaka, MrMartman9ippy, Trfrfdex, Amer-
ica789, Cyberbot II, BobbyV7890, Adnan bogi, Puguh.purwandaru, AKStheIMAGE, Dexbot, Trollface262, Redalert2fan, 93, Z07x10,
Maxx786, Fduchello, Evano1van, Shkvoz, Finnusertop, Thees, How Shuan Shi, Infantom, Epic Failure, Naboochodonosor, Miniman879,
IrishSpook, Deepayan Sen, Zoomplanet, Mohdtal88, Jerodlycett and Anonymous: 282
FGM-172 SRAW Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-172%20SRAW?oldid=646209617 Contributors: Rlandmann, Riddley,
Cwolfsheep, Pearle, Alansohn, Circuitloss, Gene Nygaard, Rjwilmsi, Jimp, RussBot, Arado, O^O, NawlinWiki, Nick-D, Victor falk,
SmackBot, Stretch 135, Ominae, Dasbrick, Htra0497, OrphanBot, MilborneOne, Salmagnone, Cydebot, Rieman 82, Gogo Dodo,
Aldis90, Thijs!bot, L0b0t, Propaniac, Flayer, IKrolm, KTo288, Nono64, Gunnap, Soutrik.93, One Night In Hackney, Quindraco, Ba-
hamut0013, AlleborgoBot, Kumioko (renamed), Ark Angel 4400, Socrates2008, PixelBot, Addbot, Atethnekos, Fireaxe888, Lightbot,
The Bushranger, Yobot, Boksi, Viking59, Rubinbot, AdmiralProudmore, Amendola90, Jonathon A H, Brody Kennen, RedBot, Megaidler,
Jackehammond, Reallyfastcar, Cyberbot II and Anonymous: 26
Joint Air-to-Ground Missile Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint%20Air-to-Ground%20Missile?oldid=645975672 Contributors:
Riddley, DocWatson42, Comatose51, Rich Farmbrough, Jigen III, Bobrayner, Derek R Bullamore, Will Beback, MarsRover, Cydebot,
Fnlayson, Thijs!bot, BilCat, Naniwako, Dreamafter, Matrek, Arjayay, SchreiberBike, Chaosdruid, Leofric1, Dthomsen8, Addbot, No-
homers48, The Bushranger, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Ulric1313, LaptopLuke, Babak902003, Rockstar031678, Defense358, Rockstar1986,
BattyBot, America789, Cyberbot II, Z07x10, Cyrapas, Glcm1 and Anonymous: 19
Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced%20Precision%20Kill%20Weapon%
20System?oldid=644789376 Contributors: Riddley, DocWatson42, Chowbok, Rich Farmbrough, RussBot, SmackBot, Chris the speller,
Fnlayson, Hcobb, OuroborosCobra, BilCat, Jedi-gman, Banality, VNCCC, Patrick Rogel, Chaosdruid, Dave1185, Addbot, AnomieBOT,
Werieth, ZroBot, DrunkSquirrel, Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma, BattyBot, America789, Galing, AdelanteXIV, Z07x10 and Anony-
mous: 11
AGM-87 Focus Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-87%20Focus?oldid=547272098 Contributors: Rlandmann, Riddley, Josh-
baumgartner, Galaxiaad, Pirate2000, Trickstar, Cydebot, Chaosdruid, Dave1185, Addbot, The Bushranger, ZroBot and ArmbrustBot
AGM-129 ACM Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-129%20ACM?oldid=647086124 Contributors: Maury Markowitz, Mrwojo,
Rlandmann, Bshort, Riddley, Bobblewik, ConradPino, Willhsmit, Rich Farmbrough, Avriette, Richi, Joshbaumgartner, Gene Nygaard,
Dziban303, Robert K S, BlaiseFEgan, Johndoe85839, A Train, BD2412, Rjwilmsi, Noclador, Mr Frosty, RussBot, Rxnd, Arado, Con-
scious, Hellbus, Spot87, Joel7687, Megapixie, Engineer Bob, Asams10, Benandorsqueaks, SmackBot, Cla68, Bluebot, Trebor, Hiber-
nian, Hongooi, Joe n bloe, Evil Merlin, TechPurism, Tdrss, MilborneOne, Iridescent, Bigmak, 5-HT8, Cydebot, Gogo Dodo, Nabokov,
Aldis90, Thijs!bot, Woody, KevinQuimby, CombatWombat42, .anacondabot, BilCat, LorenzoB, Brucelipe, Nono64, Rocketmaniac, Duch,
Ndunruh, DorganBot, D-Kuru, Balmung0731, GimmeBot, Billgordon1099, LanceBarber, AlleborgoBot, VVVBot, Guidosst, Praeto-
rianD, Lightmouse, Kumioko, Hamiltondaniel, Matrek, Adventhesis, Chaosdruid, Subversive.sound, Addbot, Reedmalloy, The Bushranger,
Luckas-bot, Ptbotgourou, MTWEmperor, AnomieBOT, Rubinbot, Citation bot, Trappist the monk, RjwilmsiBot, DexDor, DASHBot,
Werieth, Miguel.baillon, Strike Eagle, AnomalousGuy, 220 of Borg, Khazar2, Jmnpet, Glcm1, Balon Greyjoy and Anonymous: 49
AGM-130 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-130?oldid=655597413 Contributors: Rlandmann, Tkinias, Andrewman327, Rid-
dley, Rich Farmbrough, El Raki, Joshbaumgartner, Gene Nygaard, Gimboid13, GraemeLeggett, Bgwhite, Dorbie, Arado, Pirate2000, De
Administrando Imperio, SmackBot, DHN-bot, A.R., DabMachine, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Headbomb, Matthew Proctor, Tantalas, Avicen-
nasis, Jacobst, Ndunruh, LanceBarber, RucasHost, Dave1185, Addbot, Download, The Bushranger, AnomieBOT, Mark Schierbecker,
Pilot850, EmausBot, Sp33dyphil, Werieth, AvicBot, ZroBot, Helpful Pixie Bot, Makecat-bot, Z07x10, B14709, MopSeeker and Anony-
mous: 7
AGM-137 TSSAM Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-137%20TSSAM?oldid=654055362 Contributors: Rlandmann,
Camerong, Riddley, Bobblewik, Wsloand, Arado, Relaxing, Bluebot, Trebor, BobThePirate, Colonies Chris, Fnlayson, Aldis90, Nick
Number, Wasell, BilCat, Duch, Starrymessenger, Ng.j, PixelBot, Chaosdruid, Addbot, The Bushranger, AnomieBOT, Tokyotown8,
Xmelox, Skylar130 and Anonymous: 5
AGM-158 JASSM Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158%20JASSM?oldid=654055177 Contributors: Leandrod, Rlandmann,
Sertrel, Riddley, Onco p53, Qui1che, Rich Farmbrough, Avriette, Enric Naval, Cwolfsheep, Jigen III, Wsloand, Gene Nygaard, Hen-
ryLi, Galaxiaad, Kelly Martin, Tabletop, Kralizec!, FlaBot, Florian Huber, MoRsE, Chobot, Mare, Arado, Grafen, Warreed, Mouse-
boks, Nick-D, SmackBot, Quidam65, Bluebot, Enomosiki, Hibernian, BobThePirate, DHN-bot, WonRyong, Will O'Neil, Swatjester,
Joelo, Aquadisco, AJeong86, PRRfan, SebastianP, Jurpo, 5-HT8, Silphium, Cydebot, Solidpoint, Aldis90, Oldwildbill, Z10x, Hcobb,
OuroborosCobra, Avaya1, BilCat, Raza0007, Nono64, Zevets, Duch, Bumper12, Ndunruh, Sdsds, Chiongryan, VVVBot, Da Joe, Prae-
torianD, ImageRemovalBot, MBK004, Mild Bill Hiccup, Socrates2008, Draeath, SoxBot III, DumZiBoT, Addbot, LaaknorBot, LC-130,
Oldmountains, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Rubinbot, Bug322, Srwalden, Anotherclown, LucienBOT, Commit charge,
Adlerbot, LittleWink, MondalorBot, 09bil98z24, Lightlowemon, Stochtastic, Immunize, Rail88, Werieth, Illegitimate Barrister, Anir1uph,
BG19bot, AnomalousGuy, BattyBot, America789, Cyberbot II, Makecat-bot, Z07x10, Emily mainzer, Nguyen QuocTrung, UcAndy,
Glcm1, Thewookieroar, DADuck135 and Anonymous: 62
AGM-176 Grin Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-176%20Griffin?oldid=655590467 Contributors: Mcarling, Riddley,
DocWatson42, Fudoreaper, Gibsnag, Victor falk, Jprg1966, PRRfan, Fnlayson, Heavydpj, Woody, Hcobb, CombatWombat42, Magio-
laditis, BilCat, Ng.j, WikHead, Addbot, TutterMouse, Tassedethe, The Bushranger, Troymacgill, AnomieBOT, SwineFlew?, RedBot,
RjwilmsiBot, EmausBot, Babak902003, ZroBot, Illegitimate Barrister, Redhanker, Wbmoore, BG19bot, DrunkSquirrel, 2minty, Amer-
ica789, JurgenNL and Anonymous: 19
AGM-84E Stando Land Attack Missile Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-84E%20Standoff%20Land%20Attack%
20Missile?oldid=644672453 Contributors: Patrick, Michael Hardy, Riddley, Oberiko, Clarknova, CanisRufus, Enric Naval, Wendell,
Joshbaumgartner, Alai, Randy2063, Wavelength, RussBot, Arado, Los688, Yuravian, Bluebot, Hibernian, Moshe Constantine Hassan
Al-Silverburg, Wybot, Jimvin, Dale101usa, Skapur, 5-HT8, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Nabokov, Aldis90, DagosNavy, Appraiser, BilCat, Mega-
lodon99, Rettetast, Fusion7, Strandist, Ng.j, Cobatfor, Dvich, DumZiBoT, Addbot, Blethering Scot, The Bushranger, Yobot, BigLoo,
Xqbot, Anotherclown, Brittus, Kbar64, Soue, AO2JAMES, UcAndy and Anonymous: 19
Direct Attack Guided Rocket Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct%20Attack%20Guided%20Rocket?oldid=613447020 Contrib-
utors: Riddley, Delphi00, B4Ctom1, Aldis90, Hcobb, Jedi-gman, Ploxhoi, WacoJacko, Chaosdruid, Leofric1, Addbot, The Bushranger,
ZroBot, Illegitimate Barrister, America789, ChrisGualtieri and Anonymous: 1
Guided Advanced Tactical Rocket Laser Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided%20Advanced%20Tactical%20Rocket%20%
E2%80%93%20Laser?oldid=606381202 Contributors: Riddley, Aldis90, Jedi-gman, The Bushranger, Yobot, DASHBot, America789 and
Anonymous: 2
Low-Cost Guided Imaging Rocket Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-Cost%20Guided%20Imaging%20Rocket?oldid=
578418430 Contributors: Riddley, Jedi-gman, Leofric1, Addbot, Desagwan, ZroBot, ClueBot NG, Vacation9, Aisteco and Anonymous:
1
Precision Attack Air-to-Surface Missile Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision%20Attack%20Air-to-Surface%20Missile?
oldid=429192610 Contributors: Riddley, Rich Farmbrough, Leofric1, ContiAWB, Tbhotch and Anonymous: 1
Small Smart Weapon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small%20Smart%20Weapon?oldid=639312880 Contributors: SmackBot,
Robosh, Bluewind, Cydebot, WikHead, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Yobot, Apophenic, Wikireader41, RjwilmsiBot, SporkBot and Anony-
mous: 1
2.25-Inch Sub-Caliber Aircraft Rocket Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2.25-Inch%20Sub-Caliber%20Aircraft%20Rocket?oldid=
638185397 Contributors: Shenme, DePiep, Hmains, Little Mountain 5, Addbot, Jojhutton, The Bushranger, LucienBOT, Trappist the monk,
DASHBot, ClueBot NG and Anonymous: 2
5-Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-Inch%20Forward%20Firing%20Aircraft%20Rocket?
oldid=559301700 Contributors: Lavenderbunny, LouScheer, Rettetast, CommonsDelinker, Jellysh dave, Addbot, The Bushranger,
Luckas-bot, Captain Cheeks, DASHBot and Anonymous: 2
High Velocity Aircraft Rocket Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High%20Velocity%20Aircraft%20Rocket?oldid=641745466 Con-
tributors: Merenta, DonPMitchell, Groyolo, Hmains, LouScheer, Ourai, Carguychris, Corella, BilCat, Sphilbrick, Binksternet, Jellysh
dave, MystBot, Addbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, ApostropheSheri, Trappist the monk, Lotje, Tsx11, Magneticlifeform, Khazar2,
RobDuch and Anonymous: 10
Tiny Tim (rocket) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiny%20Tim%20(rocket)?oldid=652101512 Contributors: Bart133, Bgwhite,
Hellbus, LouScheer, The Legacy, Rekinser, JL-Bot, Lastdingo, MystBot, Addbot, Magus732, Fireaxe888, The Bushranger, Yobot, Am-
baryer, Russelldember, CXCV, SassoBot, Topherwhelan, LucienBOT, Lotje, Reach Out to the Truth, Jackehammond, Yaush, EmausBot,
ZroBot, Muta112, Magneticlifeform, Gerald Hoag and Anonymous: 6
AGM-62 Walleye Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-62%20Walleye?oldid=653525201 Contributors: Rlandmann, Riddley,

Yosri, Bobblewik, Mike Rosoft, Avriette, Night Gyr, Cmdrjameson, John Fader, A2Kar, Merenta, Joshbaumgartner, GraemeLeggett,
Ewlyahoocom, Arado, Megapixie, Emijrp, Attilios, Herostratus, DHN-bot, Dual Freq, Tdrss, Dammit, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Aldis90,
Headbomb, Tantalas, Johnfmh, Raoulduke47, Youngjim, STBotD, Balmung0731, TXiKiBoT, GimmeBot, Intellectual47, PWS-KY, Light-
mouse, Flappity, MBK004, ClueBot, Chaosdruid, Addbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, JackieBot, Djfgregory, Sp33dyphil, Whoop whoop
pull up, Helpful Pixie Bot and Anonymous: 20
B28 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B28%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=649074425 Contributors: Maury Markowitz,
Rlandmann, Camerong, CanisRufus, Hans-Peter Scholz, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, Rwendland, Hunter1084, Ahseaton, Cooperised,
Marudubshinki, Ian Dunster, Nemo5576, Wongm, Ahpook, Noclador, RussBot, Arado, Hydrargyrum, Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, As-
terion, Sardanaphalus, A5b, MegaHasher, John, MrDolomite, CMG, Nabokov, Thijs!bot, Nyttend, Nono64, Levg, Philip Trueman, Clue-
Bot, Niceguyedc, Socrates2008, Addbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, AnomieBOT, Centurionstyle, 777sms, Lucas hamster, Tommy2010,
ZroBot, CrimsonBot, EdoBot, ClueBot NG, Mkcalif01 and Anonymous: 14
Matt Gies, Fastssion, Night Gyr, Dennis Brown, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, Dziban303, GregorB, Pmj, Search4Lancer, Ewlyahoocom,
Jimp, Arado, Los688, Bullzeye, Mike18xx, Trovatore, Ospalh, Light current, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Bookworm66, Hibernian, Sbhar-
ris, Radagast83, Mgiganteus1, IronGargoyle, Nick Number, JAnDbot, AniRaptor2001, WolfmanSF, HowardMorland, Swaq, Fan Railer,
Hamiltondaniel, Alexbot, Eeekster, Winston365, Hermgenes Teixeira Pinto Filho, Moosehadley, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot,
Yobot, KamikazeBot, AnomieBOT, WaeMaster44, Xqbot, Frost111, EmausBot, Boundarylayer, Winner 42, ZroBot, A2soup, Gyrostat,
CrimsonBot, EdoBot, Whoop whoop pull up, Sqzx, Ajaxore, TimonMueller, Kristijan H., Beeshy(ninja), Kent Krupa and Anonymous:
42
B43 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B43%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=652699715 Contributors: Camerong, Ar-
gentLA, Joshbaumgartner, Gene Nygaard, Triddle, Marudubshinki, Mark Sublette, Ahunt, MoRsE, Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, Sar-
danaphalus, Jim62sch, Mitchpost, T-dot, Nabokov, SSpiy, Nick Number, LorenzoB, Petebutt, Bporopat, SieBot, Miremare, Maralia,
OekelWm, 51edb, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, LittleWink, Full-date unlinking bot, Samuel Salzman, Merlin-
sorca, ZroBot, CrimsonBot, EdoBot and Anonymous: 17
B46 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B46%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=624947341 Contributors: Rickyrab, Los688,
Georgewilliamherbert, Fedallah, Nick Number, Jo7hs2, Addbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, AustralianRupert, WikitanvirBot, Crimson-
Bot, Bomazi, EdoBot and Anonymous: 1
B53 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B53%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=651910987 Contributors: Patrick, Spamhog,
Blainster, Fastssion, Rich Farmbrough, Night Gyr, Sietse Snel, ArgentLA, Danski14, Borisborf, Joshbaumgartner, Ruleke, Wtmitchell,
Hadlock, Dziban303, Marudubshinki, Emerson7, EchoPapa, Coemgenus, Nemo5576, Chobot, DaGizza, RussBot, Rowan Moore,
Georgewilliamherbert, Sacxpert, Sardanaphalus, Criticality, SmackBot, Jim62sch, Cla68, Ken keisel, Chrylis, Giancarlo Rossi, Robosh,
Dl2000, Nabokov, SteveMcCluskey, Thijs!bot, Nick Number, Darklilac, Tangurena, Cgingold, Ascraeus, STBot, Aboutmovies, TexLex,
VolkovBot, Anynobody, Mr Xaero, LanceBarber, Mpx, Meltonkt, Afernand74, NickCT, Ktr101, RP459, Nukes4Tots, Bookbrad, Addbot,
FiriBot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Troymacgill, AnomieBOT, Westerness, Citation bot, Xqbot, Nappyrootslistener,
AustralianRupert, FrescoBot, LucienBOT, Sas1975kr, RjwilmsiBot, CrimsonBot, Wingman4l7, Bomazi, EdoBot, Cgt, ClueBot NG, Help-
ful Pixie Bot, Weedenbc, BattyBot, EvergreenFir, Bigre45 and Anonymous: 41
B57 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B57%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=652697262 Contributors: Night Gyr, Ar-
gentLA, Joshbaumgartner, Rwendland, Hohum, BRW, Kolbasz, Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, Mais oui!, Sardanaphalus, Hmains, Joe-
Cool59, Tsca.bot, M-2, PRRfan, Nabokov, J Clear, LorenzoB, Antarctic-adventurer, Addbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, AnomieBOT,
Atomicgurl00, OgreBot, Thinking of England, ZroBot, CrimsonBot, EdoBot and Anonymous: 12
Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, Chris the speller, Alaibot, Mark Lincoln, CultureDrone, MystBot, Addbot, The Bushranger, CrimsonBot
and EdoBot
B83 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B83%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=655261716 Contributors: Bryan Derksen,
Rmhermen, William Avery, Patrick, Camerong, Sappe, Stewartadcock, DocWatson42, Fastssion, ConradPino, Avriette, Night Gyr,
Sortior, Maximusnukeage, ArgentLA, Transnite, Joshbaumgartner, Vbdrummer0, Woohookitty, Oliphaunt, Former user 2, GregorB,
Marudubshinki, Urban011, Nemo5576, Kolbasz, Preslethe, RussBot, Arado, Dili, Stalmannen, Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, Thes-
porkandfoon, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Jprg1966, Thumperward, Hibernian, Rcbutcher, MarshallBagramyan, Dl2000, Kevin W., John-
logic, Cydebot, Quibik, Nabokov, Thijs!bot, Nick Number, Desertsky85451, Two way time, BilCat, Flo422, AlexiusHoratius, Afskymon-
key, Sb67lippini, SieBot, WRK, RisingSunWiki, Alexbot, 51edb, 1ForTheMoney, Nukes4Tots, Addbot, Nohomers48, Lightbot, The
Bushranger, Luckas-bot, AnomieBOT, Je Muscato, Xqbot, Wcoole, Frost111, FrescoBot, Full-date unlinking bot, CadmiumX99, Rjwilm-
siBot, EmausBot, WikitanvirBot, CrimsonBot, Yiosie2356, Sbmeirow, EdoBot, ClueBot NG, Helpful Pixie Bot, Madariga, Mark83-09 and
Anonymous: 51
B90 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B90%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=624948285 Contributors: Los688, Georgewil-
liamherbert, Hmains, Cydebot, Addbot, The Bushranger, WikitanvirBot, ZroBot, CrimsonBot, EdoBot and Anonymous: 1
Bigeye bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigeye%20bomb?oldid=589235239 Contributors: Michael Hardy, Gene Nygaard,
Gaius Cornelius, SmackBot, Cydebot, IvoShandor, Meltonkt, ClueBot NG and Anonymous: 5
BLU-14 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-14?oldid=642599561 Contributors: Mark Sublette and Magioladitis
BLU-3 Pineapple Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-3%20Pineapple?oldid=627039058 Contributors: Riddley, Rcc105, Bob-
blewik, BD2412, Nemo5576, Megapixie, SmackBot, Cydebot, Dogaroon, MystBot, Addbot, ClueBot NG and Anonymous: 5
BLU-82 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-82?oldid=646086072 Contributors: Jdlh, Frecklefoot, Omegatron, Pakaran, Riddley,
Blainster, Xanzzibar, PBP, Jyril, Varlaam, FrYGuY, Geni, Jpg, Rich Farmbrough, Rhobite, Avriette, ArnoldReinhold, MeltBanana,
Project2501a, Nborders1972, Sherurcij, Joshbaumgartner, Sumergocognito, UPH, Gene Nygaard, GregorB, Marudubshinki, Wachholder0,
Rogerd, Wiarthurhu, FlaBot, Mark Sublette, BjKa, Stereoisomer, YurikBot, Hydrargyrum, Hyuri, Bachrach44, Zwobot, Curpsbot-
unicodify, DisambigBot, SmackBot, Impaciente, Canderra, Hmains, Hibernian, PETN, ChrisCork, Cydebot, Srajan01, Nabokov, After
Midnight, Brian.Burnell, Glennfcowan, Louis Waweru, J Clear, Sherbrooke, Hurtsmyears, JAnDbot, Ryan4314, Sullivan.t.j, Japo, Loren-
zoB, Nono64, J.delanoy, Tdadamemd, NVO, CaptinJohn, Andy Dingley, LanceBarber, Maledicted, Kernel Saunters, Jvs, Rupert Horn,
TubularWorld, Beachgrinch, BHenry1969, MBK004, NovaDog, Nickersonl, Ridge Runner, XLinkBot, DragonFury, Mindblast101, Ad-
dbot, Tassedethe, Xowets, Luckas-bot, Punkbeast, LilHelpa, FrescoBot, Joep01, DexDor, Werieth, Victory in Germany, Pratyya Ghosh,
Sebastienroblin, ArmbrustBot, Prof. Mc, Hanzio kitana and Anonymous: 85
BOLT-117 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOLT-117?oldid=642899586 Contributors: Rlandmann, Riddley, ChrisO, ArgentLA,
Joshbaumgartner, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Hmains, Cydebot, Mange01, DH85868993, Starrymessenger, Cobatfor, DragonBot, Alexbot,
Sturmvogel 66, Addbot, OlEnglish, The Bushranger, Yobot, AnomieBOT, ArthurBot, The O o, GrouchoBot and Anonymous: 7
CBU-100 Cluster Bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-100%20Cluster%20Bomb?oldid=601273788 Contributors: Rland-
mann, K1Bond007, Riddley, Avriette, Joshbaumgartner, Melaen, Gene Nygaard, Elfguy, Icelight, Sammy1339, Robosh, Cydebot,
Dfrg.msc, Vincelpi, Hauserns, Num1dgen, Dreamafter, Cobatfor, Kumioko (renamed), Ktr101, Dave1185, Addbot, Polemarchus,
Luckas-bot, Spaz 1123, Throwaway85, America789 and Anonymous: 8
CBU-55 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-55?oldid=647666526 Contributors: Rich Farmbrough, Eric Shalov, Velella, FlaBot,
SmackBot, Chris the speller, O keyes, DHN-bot, Cydebot, Alaibot, Spellmaster, JJJ999, Mandsford, SilverbackNet, Lightmouse, DumZi-
BoT, Addbot, Polemarchus, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Edward Sutherland, Gunnanmon, Erjayne, Guywholikesca2+ and Anonymous: 15
CBU-72 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-72?oldid=647667550 Contributors: Eric Shalov, Gene Nygaard, Petri Krohn, Chris the
speller, LtPowers, Cydebot, Leedeth, Ascraeus, Adamdaley, DumZiBoT, Polemarchus, Decibert, Yobot, Guywholikesca2+, Hmainsbot1
and Anonymous: 3
CBU-75 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-75?oldid=544510686 Contributors: Gene Nygaard, FlaBot, Megapixie, Cydebot,
Rocketmaniac, Addbot and Polemarchus
E133 cluster bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E133%20cluster%20bomb?oldid=361174542 Contributors: Cydebot and
IvoShandor
E48 particulate bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E48%20particulate%20bomb?oldid=589235909 Contributors: Cydebot,
IvoShandor and Anonymous: 2
E86 cluster bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E86%20cluster%20bomb?oldid=589235592 Contributors: Ennerk, Cydebot,
IvoShandor, Diaa abdelmoneim and Anonymous: 2
Lazy Dog (bomb) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazy%20Dog%20(bomb)?oldid=601982859 Contributors: Finlay McWalter,
Sleske, Woohookitty, GregorB, Scottanon, G Clark, Megapixie, Malcolma, Nutster, Noworld, Cydebot, SithiR, Alaibot, BetacommandBot,
DulcetTone, Gwern, ChainSuck-Jimmy, Delicious carbuncle, Addbot, AuntieFeezle, Ikessurplus, Will Beback Auto, Rakki9999111 and
Anonymous: 10
Little Boy Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little%20Boy?oldid=655564429 Contributors: Trelvis, WojPob, The Anome, Rmhermen,
Nate Silva, Mjb, Graft, Tedernst, Jdlh, Edward, Bdesham, Patrick, RTC, Polimerek, Ixfd64, Eurleif, Kosebamse, Egil, Ahoerstemeier, Syn-
thetik, Nikai, Med, GCarty, Schneelocke, Ideyal, Mulad, Timwi, David Newton, Daniel Quinlan, Bjh21, WhisperToMe, DJ Clayworth, Itai,
Fibonacci, Jamesday, Finlay McWalter, JorgeGG, Netizen, Geo97, Dukeofomnium, Lupo, Fastssion, Wwoods, Alison, Leonard G., Bob-
blewik, Utcursch, Jodamiller, Beland, Semenko, Satori, Neutrality, Hellisp, Ropers, Kate, DanielCD, Jcm, Lithorien, Discospinster, Rich
Farmbrough, Avriette, Vsmith, Calair, SElefant, El C, J-Star, Mytg8, Caligulathegod, Bobo192, NetBot, Mordemur, Smalljim, Reinyday, R.
S. Shaw, Get It, Giraedata, Stepinrazor, Kjkolb, Obradovic Goran, Supersexyspacemonkey, Alansohn, JYolkowski, Jhertel, Anthony Ap-
pleyard, Elpincha, Miltonhowe, Wtmitchell, TenOfAllTrades, Sciurin, DV8 2XL, Gene Nygaard, Dan East, TheCoee, Ahseaton, Kitch,
Richwales, Crosbiesmith, Woohookitty, Logophile, Pol098, Commander Keane, WadeSimMiser, -Ril-, Atomicarchive, Tutmosis, Emops,
Cedrus-Libani, BD2412, Mendaliv, Coneslayer, Rjwilmsi, Tmbyrd, Hochnebel, JHMM13, Vegaswikian, Guinness2702, TBHecht, Rangek,
FlaBot, Mirror Vax, RexNL, Gurch, TeaDrinker, Thecurran, Chobot, Cactus.man, Gwernol, Silarius, Jimp, Kafziel, RussBot, Stalmannen,
Manop, Pseudomonas, Draeco, Shanel, NawlinWiki, Hawkeye7, Janke, Rhythm, Grafen, Dake, LiamE, JTBurman, Arima, AviN456, Dp-
powell, Voidxor, Foofy, Samir, Everyguy, Mistercow, CalebMichael, Deeday-UK, Georgewilliamherbert, Mamawrites, Thnidu, Tevildo,
Alias Flood, Whobot, Curpsbot-unicodify, Smurfy, Allens, Katieh5584, Maxamegalon2000, Subrock, Nick-D, Torgo, SmackBot, Evil-
Couch, Reedy, Tarret, Prodego, InverseHypercube, Ze miguel, Elminster Aumar, Delldot, Eskimbot, Lengis, Septegram, Gilliam, Hmains,
Chris the speller, Bluebot, TimBentley, Geneb1955, Rakela, Persian Poet Gal, MK8, Cbh, SchftyThree, Oni Ookami Alfador, DHN-bot,
Sbharris, Colonies Chris, Emurphy42, Harry Q. Hammer, Dave Rave, Jwillbur, Zone46, Addshore, Stevenmitchell, Fuhghettaboutit, Nakon,
SnappingTurtle, OutRIAAge, Chrylis, The PIPE, Esrever, AThing, Vemund, Rjcyer@aol.com, John, Microchip08, NongBot, Ekrub-
ntyh, NNemec, Stwalkerster, Buckboard, Whomp, MTSbot, D Money 16, Siebrand, Cordialatron, Wfgiuliano, Akusu, Igoldste, CPilgrim,
Leebert, Courcelles, Ziusudra, Tawkerbot2, Tubbyspencer, Zaphody3k, MightyWarrior, Bayberrylane, Vahidyamartino, SkyWalker, Cm-
drObot, Raysonho, Admiral.Ackbar, Scirocco6, Avillia, Old Guard, Lurlock, Funnyfarmofdoom, Slazenger, Kanags, Ryan, LarryMCole-
man, TicketMan, Give Peace A Chance, Soetermans, Michael C Price, Quibik, Nabokov, Myhlow, Cancun771, Thijs!bot, John254, A3RO,
JSmith60, Yettie0711, Dfrg.msc, CharlotteWebb, Escarbot, Eleuther, LachlanA, Rees11, AntiVandalBot, Chegis, Seaphoto, TimVickers,
Malcolm, MECU, SkoreKeep, Cbrodersen, Kariteh, DOSGuy, JAnDbot, Xhienne, ThomasO1989, MER-C, CosineKitty, Magioladitis,
Bakilas, VoABot II, Edmund372, The Anomebot2, 28421u2232nfenfcenc, LorenzoB, Frotz, Wikianon, Mark Lincoln, Cocytus, Martin-
Bot, Mermaid from the Baltic Sea, Ravichandar84, Cian584, Erkan Yilmaz, J.delanoy, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Rrostrom, Tdadamemd,
Darth Mike, Whitewolf79, Chakalacka, Marcsin, Thomas Larsen, Gmchambless1, Richard D. LeCour, NewEnglandYankee, DeltaFal-
con, Ndunruh, MKoltnow, Dubhe.sk, Shshshsh, WJBscribe, Coz23, Gtg204y, Use the force, Halibutron, CardinalDan, ACSE, Hugo999,
Nikthestunned, VolkovBot, ABF, Dtamasi, AlnoktaBOT, DancingMan, Philip Trueman, TXiKiBoT, Moogwrench, Nxavar, Musan, Mon-
key Bounce, Bsharvy, Pokehero, Szlam, Martin451, Mzmadmike, LeaveSleaves, Raymondwinn, Madhero88, Ice-creamlover27, Tommer
man, Lamro, Enviroboy, Wackojut, Nibios, Sealman, Kadiddlehopper, Slapjack10, HowardMorland, Mizunokoe, Jasonquick, SieBot,
Sonicology, Graham Beards, Scarian, Euryalus, Unregistered.coward, Caltas, Commodore Gu, WBTtheFROG, Boxingame, Toddst1,
Chromaticity, Oda Mari, User60521, Smidgie82, Ww2guru24, T24G, Steven Zhang, Lightmouse, SimonTrew, Cyfal, YingYang2, Cap-
italismojo, Arthurbuliva, Anyeverybody, TaerkastUA, Dolphin51, Pgokey, Lugnut64, Talalpa, WikipedianMarlith, Twinsday, MBK004,
Phyte, ClueBot, Trojancowboy, Avenged Eightfold, Methossant, The Thing That Should Not Be, Abhinav, Aviator619, VQuakr, Rotational,
Piledhigheranddeeper, Trivialist, Mandalorian NerfHerder Maceo, Excirial, CohesionBot, WikiZorro, EBY3221, Cenarium, Mustufailed,
Yonskii, Aitias, Salamiboy99, Versus22, Alex10alex10, Porchcorpter, InternetMeme, 21stCenturyGreenstu, Avoided, Northwesterner1,
Good Olfactory, Dilbert2000, EEng, Rmiddl, Addbot, Pspkid1992, Elemented9, Some jerk on the Internet, Hda3ku, Edgy01, Ryanniemi,
Chamal N, SpBot, Weekwhom, AgadaUrbanit, Sardur, Tassedethe, Ccenteno, Lightbot, QuadrivialMind, MaBoehm, Gail, Zorrobot, The
Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Fraggle81, Gavin Lisburn, Synchronism, AnomieBOT, Archon 2488, Jim1138, Law, Bluerasberry, Je
Muscato, Materialscientist, Gogiva, Larsanders, Vock, LilHelpa, MauritsBot, Xqbot, JimVC3, Capricorn42, Wanderer099, Soneill83,
Ruy Pugliesi, GrouchoBot, Armbrust, Sabio101, Corruptcopper, Anotherclown, RibotBOT, Amaury, Buzz-tardis, Occasionality, Fres-
coBot, Wikiisright, Crash12190, Ilovekola, Timp1206, Pinethicket, Alonso de Mendoza, Jean-Franois Clet, BRUTE, RedBot, Lars
Washington, Pikiwyn, HowardJWilk, SpaceFlight89, RazielZero, Enemenemu, Saintonge235, Time9, Matt142, Sgt. R.K. Blue, Mr.98,
IspinIm, DARTH SIDIOUS 2, RjwilmsiBot, B3an, EmausBot, Fathead101, Boundarylayer, Dewritech, Racerx11, Jttren02, Joearsenault5,
Sp33dyphil, Wikipelli, Ornithikos, 11powelljc, A2soup, Chasrob, Tomobe03, Walshie16, , H3llBot, Erianna, L Kensington,
DASHBotAV, Wikiwind, History80, ClueBot NG, Fatkid193, Jack Greenmaven, Satellizer, Dalekcan, Atomicjohn, Helpful Pixie Bot,
Aquario, Heartgoldcam1995, DBigXray, Jay8g, Blitzface, Questions99, Tyger66666666, Kendall-K1, Trevayne08, The evacipated, Zed-
short, Mrtrollingpants, Lellis.easc, BattyBot, Hghyux, Ethan Donovan, Blsbear, EuroCarGT, Ekren, Vouzounian2, Cwobeel, XXzoon-
amiXX, Frosty, Vintovka Dragunova, Epicgenius, Moriki415, Bartron2, True1111, Glaisher, Afraga8, Chrisycharming1, Lokiandthor,
Monkbot, Ibzboss, Kovinkestner, Yolohomieswag, Qwertyxp2000, InfoDataMonger, Riyaz.Meerasa, InePotter, Martin2247, Editing656,
Qubec132, Niccholas.gradishar, WIki GOBBLE, Laura s mccarthy and Anonymous: 654
M-121 (bomb) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-121%20(bomb)?oldid=599545666 Contributors: Bobblewik, Avriette, Cmdr-
jameson, GraemeLeggett, Stormbay, Megapixie, SmackBot, KelleyCook, Cydebot, SamMcGowan, MarcoLittel, Stillwaterising, Foofbun,
Sun Creator, Addbot, Brad101AWB, Helpful Pixie Bot, ArmbrustBot and Anonymous: 8
M115 bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M115%20bomb?oldid=608235213 Contributors: Stone, Wetman, DragonySixtyseven,
Cydebot, IvoShandor, Lightbot, Jason Recliner, Esq., MusikAnimal and Anonymous: 5
M117 bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M117%20bomb?oldid=589236574 Contributors: Thue, Camerong, ArgentLA, Josh-
baumgartner, GregorB, Sango123, Emarsee, YurikBot, Jinkleberries, Megapixie, Hirudo, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Cla68, DHN-bot,
Saxbryn, Cydebot, Nabokov, IvoShandor, LordAnubisBOT, Flyingidiot, Oh Snap, Bus, LanceBarber, SieBot, Excirial, Addbot, No-
homers48, Lightbot, Yobot, JackieBot, Xqbot, Mikespedia, EmausBot, Diako1971, Blacklisted.Gangster and Anonymous: 10
M47 bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M47%20bomb?oldid=527171152 Contributors: Rmhermen, Ewen, Sandstein, JMK, Cy-
debot, DPdH, IvoShandor, VX, JonRicheld and Anonymous: 1
Mark 4 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%204%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=633784096 Contributors: Fasts-
sion, Jonathan Kovaciny, Jimp, Shaddack, Los688, Ospalh, BOT-Superzerocool, Georgewilliamherbert, MrDolomite, Nabokov, Squids
and Chips, TXiKiBoT, Petebutt, Cyfal, Justin W Smith, DumZiBoT, Addbot, The Bushranger, Lucas hamster, Chasrob, CrimsonBot,
BattyBot, Rydbergite and Anonymous: 5
Mark 5 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%205%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=649425672 Contributors: Rwend-
land, Grenavitar, Arado, Shaddack, Georgewilliamherbert, Hibernian, Soarhead77, MrDolomite, Matt.smart, Youngjim, VolkovBot, Andy
Dingley, Alexbot, Addbot, The Bushranger, Citation bot, Xqbot, OgreBot, CrimsonBot, Helpful Pixie Bot, Nathanweetman and Anony-
mous: 4
sion, Avriette, Shaddack, Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, Ken keisel, John, MrDolomite, Cancun771, Mark Lincoln, TXiKiBoT, Win-
ston365, Addbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Xqbot, D'ohBot, CrimsonBot, Dexbot, Cmoibenlepro3 and Anonymous: 4
Mark 7 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%207%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=649098106 Contributors: Bob-
blewik, MarkS, Night Gyr, Chairboy, Arado, Limulus, Sardanaphalus, Jim62sch, Bluebot, Emt147, Jbhood, Ken keisel, Soarhead77,
Robosh, MrDolomite, Nabokov, SkoreKeep, Philg88, Balmung0731, Seaoneil, LanceBarber, Cobatfor, PeterWD, Addbot, The
Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Tohd8BohaithuGh1, Amirobot, JackieBot, Dickinabutt, Anna Frodesiak, CrimsonBot, BrokenAnchorBot, Whoop
whoop pull up, Mattise135, BattyBot and Anonymous: 8
Mark 8 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%208%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=651137170 Contributors: Patrick,
Fastssion, Fredddie, Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, MrDolomite, Addbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Grand-Duc, CrimsonBot, Orange
Suede Sofa, Julietdeltalima and Anonymous: 2
Mark 10 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%2010%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=624941210 Contributors:
Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, SmackBot, Addbot, The Bushranger, CrimsonBot and Anonymous: 1
Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, Jim62sch, Winston365, Addbot, The Bushranger, FrescoBot, Lucas hamster, CrimsonBot, Khazar2, Spirit
of Eagle, Vieque, Julietdeltalima and Anonymous: 1
Mark 118 bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%20118%20bomb?oldid=650117673 Contributors: ArgentLA, Joshbaum-
gartner, Rjwilmsi, Megapixie, Little Savage, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Hmains, Saxbryn, Andkore, Cydebot, DPdH, Binksternet, Stur-
mvogel 66, Addbot, Lightbot, Ulric1313, John of Reading and Anonymous: 1
Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, Rieman 82, Quibik, Hqb, Cobatfor, EphemeralMoment, ClaimJumperBill, InternetMeme, Addbot, The
Bushranger, DadOfBeanAndBug, Lucas hamster, CrimsonBot and Anonymous: 3
Mark 13 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%2013%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=637170124 Contributors: Gaius
Cornelius, Shaddack, Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, Hmains, Chris the speller, Winston365, Addbot, The Bushranger, DefenseSupport-
Party, CrimsonBot, Dexbot, Vieque and Anonymous: 1
sion, Arado, Los688, Jim62sch, Kellyprice, Nick Number, Styrofoam1994, Mark Lincoln, Ariel., Hqb, Addbot, The Bushranger, Crim-
sonBot and Anonymous: 2
DocWatson42, Gadum, Brianhe, Phyllis1753, Wtmitchell, Wachholder0, G Clark, Arado, Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, SmackBot,
KelleyCook, Brokenscope, Mikemenn, JMK, CmdrObot, A876, Nabokov, Nick Number, DuncanHill, Mark Lincoln, Keatsmuse, Wa-
coJacko, TX55, The Thing That Should Not Be, Inox-art, Addbot, JakobVoss, The Bushranger, JackieBot, LucienBOT, CrimsonBot,
Johnmorris1967 and Anonymous: 18
Mark 16 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%2016%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=624945336 Contributors: Rich
Farmbrough, Jakew, Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, Jimerb, Glacier109, John, Nick Number, Mark Lincoln, Ryan2845, Flyer22, Mo-
letrouser, ImageRemovalBot, Ktr101, Jansjunnesson, Yuhi33, Addbot, The Bushranger, Full-date unlinking bot, CrimsonBot, Template-
typedef, TwoTwoHello, Literalman and Anonymous: 5
Mark 17 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%2017%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=624945486 Contributors: David

Schaich, Mrzaius, 790, Commking, Chobot, Shaddack, Los688, Ospalh, Yabbadab, Georgewilliamherbert, SmackBot, Winterheart, Chris
the speller, Rcbutcher, Jbhood, Ken keisel, Soarhead77, Giancarlo Rossi, Twalls, Nehrams2020, Zaphody3k, DJGB, Cydebot, Cancun771,
Dricherby, Mark Lincoln, Taborgate, Natsirtguy, Tourbillon, Finngall, WereSpielChequers, Jack Merridew, Brozozo, VQuakr, Alexbot, Ad-
dbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Jim1138, High Contrast, Xqbot, DSisyphBot, Oonissie, CrimsonBot, Crashcrad-
dock, Mikhail Ryazanov, Fphelton, Mysterious Whisper and Anonymous: 12
Mark 18 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%2018%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=653916366 Contributors: Arado,
Shaddack, Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, Hmains, Hibernian, Spartan078, Ktr101, Addbot, LaaknorBot, Tassedethe, The Bushranger,
Luckas-bot, Frost111, TobeBot, CrimsonBot and Anonymous: 2
Mark 21 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%2021%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=624945644 Contributors: Su-
perm401, Klemen Kocjancic, Ashley Pomeroy, GregorB, Twerbrou, Los688, PRehse, SmackBot, Jim62sch, Davewild, Giancarlo Rossi,
Alaibot, Mark Lincoln, Cyclone77, Hqb, Bob103051, SkyLined, Addbot, The Bushranger, RedBot, WikitanvirBot, CrimsonBot, Chuis-
pastonBot and Anonymous: 5
Chobot, Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, Chris the speller, Bluebot, Cydebot, Btball, Nick Number, Hqb, Loren.wilton, Addbot, The
Bushranger, ArthurBot, FrescoBot, 777sms, CrimsonBot, Mogism and Anonymous: 3
Chobot, Arado, Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, Nick Number, Notreallydavid, Addbot, The Bushranger, AnomieBOT, AdmiralHood,
Xqbot, 777sms, CrimsonBot and Khazar2
Mark 36 nuclear bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%2036%20nuclear%20bomb?oldid=624946618 Contributors: Small-
jim, RJFJR, Hydrargyrum, Los688, Georgewilliamherbert, Ken keisel, John, Alaibot, Nick Number, BeadleB, Gene93k, Drmies, Addbot,
The Bushranger, AnomieBOT, Heroicrelics, OgreBot, WikitanvirBot, CrimsonBot and Anonymous: 7
DocWatson42, HistoryBA, ArnoldReinhold, Los688, Pawyilee, Georgewilliamherbert, Bagheera, Jmturner, Peter Isotalo, Ken keisel,
Musashi1600, Nabokov, Nick Number, Sherbrooke, Addbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, EmausBot, Lucas hamster, ZroBot, Crim-
sonBot and Anonymous: 4
Mark 77 bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%2077%20bomb?oldid=599604814 Contributors: Rlandmann, Ehn, Omega-
tron, Saforrest, Zinnmann, Bobblewik, BruceR, Tothebarricades.tk, Mozzerati, Ta bu shi da yu, Rich Farmbrough, Dom Lochet, Dinu, Car-
rKnight, Pearle, Eleland, Joshbaumgartner, Rwendland, CranialNerves, Reinoutr, E=MC^2, Ashmoo, RadioActive, Ketiltrout, Dirkbike,
Mark83, YurikBot, Gaius Cornelius, Shaddack, Dysmorodrepanis, Badagnani, Megapixie, That Guy, From That Show!, Sardanaphalus,
SmackBot, Looper5920, Hmains, Betacommand, Bluebot, Dan McKenzie, Dual Freq, MJCdetroit, Pauric, George100, Cydebot, MC10,
Gogo Dodo, Costelld, Butchpenton, Bwmcmaste, Parsiferon, Dr. Blofeld, Ryan4314, BilCat, Leon math, Trumpet marietta 45750,
Num1dgen, Philip Trueman, Capper13, Lamro, Eddu, Falcon8765, Insanity Incarnate, SieBot, Mikemoral, VQuakr, Ktr101, Alexbot,
Addbot, CarsracBot, Lightbot, Yobot, Galoubet, Stanislao Avogadro, BenzolBot, Full-date unlinking bot, Accents, Werieth, Cgt, ClueBot
NG and Anonymous: 46
Mark 81 bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%2081%20bomb?oldid=628885802 Contributors: Riddley, Night Gyr, El C,
ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, Firsfron, YurikBot, Bullzeye, Megapixie, Swhalen, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, DHN-bot, Colonies Chris,
Dual Freq, Saxbryn, Orca1 9904, Cydebot, Nabokov, R'n'B, VolkovBot, Philip Trueman, SieBot, Dodger67, Ktr101, Alexbot, PixelBot,
Dave1185, Addbot, Luckas-bot, Mean as custard, EmausBot, GWFrog, Makecat-bot, Banclark9.1 and Anonymous: 5
Mark 82 bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%2082%20bomb?oldid=621999982 Contributors: The Epopt, Rlandmann,
Ugen64, Topbanana, Riddley, Greyengine5, Bobblewik, JoJan, Brianhe, Deelkar, Night Gyr, Plugwash, El C, ArgentLA, Alansohn, Trainik,
Joshbaumgartner, GraemeLeggett, Ctempleton3, FlaBot, Nimur, Jrtayloriv, Chobot, YurikBot, Deskana, Dickcote, Sardanaphalus, Chris
the speller, Jutta234, DHN-bot, Airwolf, Saxbryn, Lahiru k, Necessary Evil, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Nabokov, Gh5046, Txomin, Huzzlet the
bot, BrokenSphere, Ndunruh, VolkovBot, W. B. Wilson, Elpusa, Rei-bot, Slobberchops, Falcon8765, SieBot, Kernel Saunters, Da Joe,
Atani, McFudd, ZH Evers, MenoBot, RisingSunWiki, Alexbot, PixelBot, SoxBot III, Airplaneman, Dave1185, Addbot, Legobot, Luckas-
bot, Yobot, TaBOT-zerem, Hwaldron, TobeBot, 777sms, EmausBot, WikitanvirBot, ZroBot, Harryleith, Diako1971, Helpful Pixie Bot,
Mbedway, Frze, Makecat-bot and Anonymous: 31
Mark 83 bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%2083%20bomb?oldid=543966981 Contributors: The Epopt, Rlandmann,
Riddley, Greyengine5, Bobblewik, Vanished user 1234567890, Night Gyr, El C, Gmarine3000, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, YurikBot,
CLW, Wknight94, RunOrDie, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Dual Freq, Saxbryn, Cydebot, Nabokov, Elpusa, Rei-bot, SieBot, Da Joe, ZH
Evers, RisingSunWiki, Threecharlie, Dave1185, Addbot, Legobot, Yobot, TaBOT-zerem, Sorruno, Obersachsebot, Green.nova343 and
Anonymous: 10
Mark 84 bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark%2084%20bomb?oldid=634293822 Contributors: The Epopt, Bryan Derk-
sen, Rlandmann, ChrisO, Xanzzibar, Greyengine5, Bobblewik, Plugwash, Get It, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, YurikBot, Sardanaphalus,
CTSCo, Chris the speller, DHN-bot, Joe n bloe, Robosh, BillFlis, Saxbryn, Stadler981, Cydebot, Nabokov, Faigl.ladislav, Dano312, Ndun-
ruh, STBotD, Nat682, Rei-bot, Falcon8765, SieBot, Da Joe, RucasHost, Cobatfor, SallyForth123, Mild Bill Hiccup, Alexbot, Dave1185,
Addbot, Lightbot, Luckas-bot, Hwaldron, Wrelwser43, Chameleon15, LilHelpa, Xqbot, Mark Schierbecker, SwineFlew?, Fuzzykiller,
EmausBot, Diako1971, BG19bot, Makecat-bot and Anonymous: 20
MC-1 bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MC-1%20bomb?oldid=361174591 Contributors: MJCdetroit, Intovert2438, Cydebot,
IvoShandor, Jellysh dave and Anonymous: 1
T-12 Cloudmaker Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-12%20Cloudmaker?oldid=654653403 Contributors: Damian Yerrick, Julesd,
Raul654, Fastssion, AlistairMcMillan, Bobblewik, Karl Dickman, Ericg, Myfanwy, Avriette, Pmsyyz, Brim, Supersheep, RazorChicken,
Alvis, Georgia guy, Scriberius, TomTheHand, GraemeLeggett, Ours, Mark Sublette, Midgley, RussBot, Hydrargyrum, DJBR, Vanished
user 34958, SmackBot, Darklock, Crc32, Betacommand, DHN-bot, Rcbutcher, The PIPE, Hotspur23, Cydebot, Srajan01, Daniel Olsen,
DPdH, Lifthrasir1, Apollyon48, LorenzoB, Nono64, Notreallydavid, Youngjim, VNCCC, Fltnsplr, AHMartin, Wombatcat, Hamilton-
daniel, Loren.wilton, MBK004, DragonBot, Addbot, The Bushranger, Jackehammond, ClueBot NG, Helpful Pixie Bot, BG19bot, Zedshort
and Anonymous: 21
Weteye bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weteye%20bomb?oldid=563664582 Contributors: Icairns, Rich Farmbrough,

Hooperbloob, Rwalker, Reid Kirby, Cydebot, IvoShandor, Thegreenj, Seraphim, Jason Recliner, Esq., Suntag, Weetoddid, DARTH SIDI-
OUS 2, DASHBotAV, Helpful Pixie Bot and Anonymous: 8
BLU-108 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-108?oldid=648879686 Contributors: Riddley, Rich Farmbrough, Tabletop, Sjakkalle,
Victor falk, Cydebot, Alaibot, DPdH, Nono64, Someguy1221, MajorHazard and Anonymous: 4
BLU-109 bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-109%20bomb?oldid=653467767 Contributors: Marc Venot, Rich Farm-
brough, Avriette, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, FlaBot, Georgewilliamherbert, Trent Arms, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Bluebot, Rcbutcher,
The1exile, Tsca.bot, Orca1 9904, Cydebot, Nabokov, Thijs!bot, DPdH, BilCat, KTo288, Orthopraxia, Elpusa, PL290, Addbot, Xqbot,
Odysseas-spartan-53, YFdyh-bot, DA - DP, FlorentPirot, Lightfeather10 and Anonymous: 15
BLU-116 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-116?oldid=654867408 Contributors: Bender235, Mieciu K, Georgewilliamherbert,
Cla68, Chris the speller, Cydebot, Legaiaame, Leofric1, Pb1791, Addbot, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Reactordrone and Anonymous: 3
CBU-24 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-24?oldid=623163573 Contributors: Rlandmann, Riddley, Pfalstad, Sardanaphalus,
EncMstr, Courcelles, Cydebot, Tanyia, Polemarchus, FrescoBot, Capricorn4049, Harryleith and Anonymous: 5
CBU-87 Combined Eects Munition Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-87%20Combined%20Effects%20Munition?oldid=
627258070 Contributors: Riddley, Rich Farmbrough, Pol098, GregorB, Welsh, Megapixie, De Administrando Imperio, Realkyhick, Smack-
Bot, Cla68, Hmains, Thomasnash, LeoNomis, Aspade, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Hcobb, Faizhaider, Fusion7, Ndunruh, Magnet For Knowl-
edge, Mmarin10, Da Joe, Addbot, Polemarchus, Sorruno, Mark Schierbecker, WikitanvirBot, Dpenn89, Vagobot, Hmainsbot1, Ineverlaugh
and Anonymous: 8
CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97%20Sensor%20Fuzed%20Weapon?oldid=626853614
Contributors: Rl, Mulad, Riddley, Moink, Bobblewik, Comatose51, Sasquatch, Grutness, Joshbaumgartner, Gene Nygaard, Traveller-
john, Gafaddict, Pol098, BlaiseFEgan, Titoxd, Sderose, ENeville, Megapixie, Voidxor, Tierce, Mikkow, Victor falk, That Guy, From
That Show!, SmackBot, Martylunsford, Bluebot, Rmt2m, Dasbrick, OrphanBot, Charivari, Breno, PRRfan, FairuseBot, CmdrObot, Cy-
debot, Ozmodiar.x, Hcobb, Alphachimpbot, Jscher5175, Ndunruh, Ohms law, Philip Trueman, MajorHazard, Texcoco, Wweesslleeyy,
Keeper76, Tosaka1, Jax 0677, Addbot, Nohomers48, Polemarchus, Herr Gruber, Lightbot, Yobot, Wikikoti, Xqbot, America789 and
Anonymous: 35
GATOR mine system Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GATOR%20mine%20system?oldid=642992148 Contributors: The Epopt,
Bjh21, Liotier, Bobblewik, Klemen Kocjancic, Alsocal, Rustl, Hooperbloob, Joshbaumgartner, Lectonar, Vuo, Travellerjohn, Pol098,
OldCommentator, Marudubshinki, Elfguy, Megapixie, Warreed, Marc Kupper, Tsca.bot, Shrumster, Saxbryn, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Hcobb,
Ndunruh, DH85868993, Sam Blacketer, Falcon8765, Quercus basaseachicensis, Cewvero, Addbot, Polemarchus, Ettrig, AnomieBOT,
Mark Schierbecker, Helpful Pixie Bot, ArthurDent006.5 and Anonymous: 11
GBU-53/B Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-53/B?oldid=654525332 Contributors: UtherSRG, NilsTycho, Pol098, Benlisquare,
Arado, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Chris the speller, Cowbert, Cydebot, CommonsDelinker, KGyST, Lightmouse, Dravecky, Myst-
Bot, Dave1185, Addbot, Yobot, Orenburg1, NortyNort, Suomi Finland 2009, Babak902003, BLM Platinum, Demiurge1000, America789,
Cyberbot II, Z07x10 and Anonymous: 12
M-69 incendiary Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-69%20incendiary?oldid=650560212 Contributors: Ewen, PaulinSaudi, Piotrus,
SmackBot, Stor stark7, Aldis90, Binksternet, John Nevard, Spamwow, Ryboodle, Wipsenade, Primergrey, Bobnugeaneas, Wasbeer and
BattyBot
PDU-5B dispenser unit Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDU-5B%20dispenser%20unit?oldid=409683285 Contributors: Bwpach,
CmdrObot, Cydebot, Alaibot, DPdH and GregtheMan
Perseus (munition) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseus%20(munition)?oldid=569770219 Contributors: Richard Arthur Norton
(1958- ), Cydebot, The Bushranger and Anonymous: 1
Tomahawk (missile) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk%20(missile)?oldid=655050133 Contributors: TwoOneTwo, The
Epopt, Bryan Derksen, Lisiate, Patrick, JohnOwens, Liftarn, Zeno Gantner, Minesweeper, Rlandmann, Ideyal, David Newton, Pti, Kaare,
Saltine, Head, Wernher, RadicalBender, Riddley, Fredrik, Sappe, Hemanshu, Hadal, SoLando, Xanzzibar, Centrx, Oberiko, Greyengine5,
Orpheus, Gugganij, MSTCrow, H1523702, Oneiros, Bbpen, N328KF, Discospinster, Brianhe, Avriette, Guanabot, Mecanismo, Nard the
Bard, SpookyMulder, Omnibus, Chairboy, TomStar81, Meggar, Harald Hansen, Duk, PiccoloNamek, John Fader, Atlant, Joshbaumgart-
ner, MonkeyFoo, Riana, TaintedMustard, Pauli133, Sleigh, Gene Nygaard, Martian, Oleg Alexandrov, Pcd72, Qnonsense, Woohookitty,
Blackeagle, Barrylb, Bricktop, GregorB, JohnC, Marudubshinki, Ashmoo, Graham87, Pentawing, Jweiss11, Ligulem, FlaBot, Ian Pitch-
ford, BryceN, Q11, Mark83, Chobot, Visor, Hahnchen, Whoisjohngalt, Jimp, JJLatWiki, Arado, John Smiths, Gaius Cornelius, Los688,
JEnnoE, WulfTheSaxon, Megapixie, Derex, Larsinio, Voidxor, Nate1481, Engineer Bob, NorsemanII, Syd Midnight, Chase me ladies, I'm
the Cavalry, Hrshgn, Arthur Rubin, Curpsbot-unicodify, David Biddulph, Nick-D, Groyolo, Uncool 1, RupertMillard, SmackBot, Delphi00,
Muspud2, GregChant, Ominae, Kim FOR sure, AustinKnight, HeartofaDog, Gilliam, Betacommand, Westsider, Chris the speller, Blue-
bot, MK8, Bjmullan, Jprg1966, Enomosiki, Hibernian, The359, DHN-bot, Colonies Chris, Htra0497, Ajay ijn, Rrburke, Jumping cheese,
WonRyong, Harishmukundan, , John, MrDolomite, Burto88, Unsunghero28, Joseph Solis in Australia, LonelyPilgrim, KPWM Spot-
ter, Mmab111, SkyWalker, Cynical Jawa, Paulc206, Smilliga, Pseudo-Richard, WeggeBot, Cydebot, Go229, Gogo Dodo, Christian75,
Profhobby, Thijs!bot, Pedrojfg, Woody, NelC, E. Ripley, Hcobb, Danielfolsom, Micahgoulart, Akradecki, GTD Aquitaine, Gangasud-
han, F-451, Bigjimr, JAnDbot, Deective, CombatWombat42, Gsking, Phennessy, Puddhe, Benjam47, BilCat, LorenzoB, Khalid Mah-
mood, Raza0007, Nono64, Marcd30319, Eskimospy, ErwinP, DarkFalls, McSly, Ritarius, Ndunruh, Echo.brian, Olegwiki, DorganBot,
D-Kuru, RjCan, Funandtrvl, Lights, Robotronik, Davie4264, Rei-bot, Oanjao, Awl, Yeokaiwei, Raryel, Razvan NEAGOE, Bob f it, One
half 3544, Andy Dingley, Meters, Thedom91, Silver Spoon, ToePeu.bot, Bblshort, Caltas, Jerryobject, Lightmouse, Kumioko (renamed),
DeknMike, Kusovac, Rkarlsba, Anyeverybody, Englanddg, Sandy of the CSARs, MBK004, ClueBot, Antarctic-adventurer, IceUnshat-
tered, Ginnerz, Mt hg, Drmies, Williebruciestewie, Socrates2008, Bf2fan1, Shem1805, Chaosdruid, Jellysh dave, Shankargopal, DumZi-
BoT, XLinkBot, Gnowor, Addbot, Jgm1937, Nohomers48, Nath1991, Oldmountains, Numbo3-bot, Tide rolls, Lightbot, The Bushranger,
Luckas-bot, Yobot, 1971, Ajh1492, Kadrun, AnomieBOT, Jsj12, The High Fin Sperm Whale, LilHelpa, Xqbot, George Dego-
nia, Jambornik, Srich32977, Ita140188, Coltsfan, RibotBOT, Editnder, Le Deluge, Lead Edwin, Captain-n00dle, FrescoBot, Mark Re-
nier, VS6507, Kyteto, AstaBOTh15, Geogene, Bgpaulus, Mjs1991, TobeBot, Ic451uk, Movis78, Yappy2bhere, VmZH88AZQnCjhT40,
Mr.SlapstickHumor, RjwilmsiBot, EmausBot, John of Reading, WikitanvirBot, Dewritech, Sp33dyphil, Tommy2010, MrGRA, Haagina-
tor, Illegitimate Barrister, Thargor Orlando, HawkMcCain, Anir1uph, Avatar9n, Peter Karlsen, RenamedUser5, Petrb, ClueBot NG, Innity
Warrior, Average Mike, Ambenson1, Tomreny, EricHolmy, 6048G, Kbar64, BG19bot, Phd8511, MusikAnimal, Codepage, Compfreak7,
DSkauai, Glacialfox, 220 of Borg, BattyBot, IcyEd, America789, TreehouseIndustries, Hikitty4570000098, Cyberbot II, WeekeeDan,
Dexbot, Cert-Albert, Z07x10, NittyKitty, Tusharmod, Stephendavion, AGM90759, SouthGal62, Nguyen QuocTrung, Ballistametalcraft,
HighQuantity, Glcm1, Vieque, DNDCAN, FlorentPirot, Adamrogowski and Anonymous: 306
FIM-92 Stinger Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92%20Stinger?oldid=655194510 Contributors: TwoOneTwo, The Epopt, Wo-
jPob, Gabbe, Sannse, Delirium, Kingturtle, Rlandmann, Netsnipe, Evercat, GCarty, Jonadab, Wik, K1Bond007, Thue, Cabalamat, Finlay
McWalter, RadicalBender, Riddley, Robbot, Penta, Yosri, Fuelbottle, Superm401, GreatWhiteNortherner, Alan Liefting, DocWatson42,
Greyengine5, Everyking, Mboverload, Horst F JENS, Bobblewik, Dvavasour, Vogon, Semenko, Avriette, Guanabot, Yuval madar, Mar-
sian, Rama, Iediteverything, Bender235, ZeroOne, TerraFrost, Sum0, TomStar81, Cmdrjameson, Get It, Andrewpmk, Sandstig, Ashley
Pomeroy, Denniss, Isaac, Konev, Sumergocognito, Zxcvbnm, Sleigh, Dismas, Kelly Martin, Billhpike, Alvis, CruiserBob, Woohookitty,
Nvinen, TomTheHand, GregorB, BlaiseFEgan, Gimboid13, Icey, Rjwilmsi, Guyd, Catsmeat, SouthernNights, Number9, Coolhawks88,
MoRsE, Chobot, Sherool, Chwyatt, Roboto de Ajvol, Sus scrofa, Noclador, Tommyt, Theredstarswl, Kauner, Arado, John Smiths,
Hede2000, Tdevries, Gaius Cornelius, Lavenderbunny, Trovatore, Megapixie, Dr U, Nick-D, Victor falk, SmackBot, 1dragon, Kyran-
dos, Ominae, Blue520, KocjoBot, KelleyCook, Kintetsubualo, Betacommand, Avin, Jprg1966, Hibernian, Silent SAM, Rolypolyman,
The1exile, Crazyheron, Trekphiler, Pisslub-S, Ma.rkus.nl, Swainy5, Bogsat, Kilonum, KG200, Databot, Dr. Sunglasses, LWF, AllStarZ,
Sir marek, MilborneOne, 667NotB, Nobunaga24, The Bread, Kyoko, Darz Mol, Andrwsc, Rickington, Calysma, JoeBot, UncleDoug-
gie, Octane, Blehfu, Randroide, Marco bisello, WeggeBot, Orca1 9904, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Bob1234321, Peripitus, Tec15, TenthEa-
gle, Myscrnnm, B, Nabokov, Aldis90, Thijs!bot, DulcetTone, Dogaroon, Sulaimandaud, Derekkhho, Timthedim, Escarbot, Guy Ma-
con, Fru1tbat, Jwkane, Tashtastic, DagosNavy, CombatWombat42, Nicholas Tan, PhilKnight, Two way time, Parsecboy, Bg007, Puddhe,
PEAR, Sandor at the Zoo, BilCat, ACfan, LorenzoB, Rettetast, Zorakoid, Mjb1981, Youngjim, Xnuala, Nigel Ish, Knowledgebycoop, Der-
Golgo, SQL, Bahamut0013, Koalorka, Schnellundleicht, SVegerotX4, Hrafn, SieBot, Kernel Saunters, Unregistered.coward, Yerpo, An-
chor Link Bot, Fredmdbud, SidewinderX, Darthveda, Syrphern, Mt hg, VQuakr, Shentosara, Seacad, Sahlqvist, Blanchardb, Ridge Runner,
Alexbot, Socrates2008, NuclearWarfare, Holothurion, Chaosdruid, Bald Zebra, Nikolay Kazak, TaalVerbeteraar, Gav egerton, MystBot,
Dave1185, Addbot, Nohomers48, Favonian, LemmeyBOT, SCSInet, Fireaxe888, Anwarma, Numbo3-bot, Judas6000, Lightbot, Cuncta-
torMagno, Smile4Chomsky, Micah Throssel, The Bushranger, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, AnomieBOT, VanishedUser sdu9aya9fasdsopa,
DemocraticLuntz, EVCM, Citation bot, Quebec99, Gaujmalnieks, TechBot, Ocelotl10293, Lostmuskrat, Mark Schierbecker, Kyng,
Miguelito0292, FrescoBot, Krj373, Kamal413, Vertpox, Enemenemu, FoxBot, Lotje, Antemister, Bryan TMF, Bernd.Brincken, Rjwilm-
siBot, John of Reading, WikitanvirBot, Livgardisten, TheArashmatashable, Illegitimate Barrister, Fallschirmjgergewehr 42, L1A1 FAL,
KazekageTR, Victory in Germany, Palaeozoic99, ClueBot NG, Lukas Tobing, Pipeexaminer, Chitt66, Helpful Pixie Bot, BG19bot, Dain-
omite, Katangais, Takahara Osaka, Zackmann08, Tlai1977, PatheticCopyEditor, America789, Gauzeandchess, Cyberbot II, GoShow,
Adnan bogi, Khazar2, Bardrick, Wikirider99, Mogism, Expertseeker90, Redalert2fan, Beowulf571, KeyboardWarriorOfZion, Z07x10,
Wotchit, Dux Ducis Hodiernus, Maxx786, Sebastienroblin, Shkvoz, Almvilp, HamiltonFromAbove, Nonstopmaximum, Vieque and
Anonymous: 298
AGM-154 Joint Stando Weapon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154%20Joint%20Standoff%20Weapon?oldid=
655386793 Contributors: Busterdog, Rlandmann, Mulad, Topbanana, Riddley, Fredrik, Bobblewik, Gdr, IdahoEv, Sam Hocevar,
Imjustmatthew, Avriette, Gmarine3000, Enric Naval, Hooperbloob, Jigen III, Joshbaumgartner, Hohum, Graham87, Yurik, Tabercil,
Rjwilmsi, Mark83, Zotel, MoRsE, Aardvark114, Charles Gaudette, RussBot, Arado, Fuzzy901, ENeville, Czyrko, Moppet65535, Victor
falk, SmackBot, Lamjus, Jprg1966, SailorfromNH, DHN-bot, KnowBuddy, Rheo1905, Swatjester, Spartanfox86, Rsquid, Iridescent,
CWY2190, Cydebot, Munchingfoo, Hcobb, Dawkeye, BokicaK, MarvinCZ, Etr52, Magioladitis, Jedi-gman, CommonsDelinker,
Numbo3, Dakirw8, Trumpet marietta 45750, MarcoLittel, Ndunruh, DorganBot, Toddy1, Starrymessenger, Elpusa, Jacek Z. Poland,
Tonylam85, VVVBot, James.Denholm, PraetorianD, Lightmouse, DMNT, Warrendya, Mt hg, Dave1185, Addbot, Blaylockjam10,
Lightbot, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, Jimderkaisser, Troymacgill, Rubinbot, Julnap, FrescoBot, LucienBOT, ALCAPWNER, Hornet24,
Full-date unlinking bot, Dinamik-bot, LLDsolitude, ZroBot, Iron Archer, Umairmch, Daveduv, Toer04, Helpful Pixie Bot, AvocatoBot,
Knightserbia, Nzit, America789, Bryan3398, Makecat-bot, UcAndy, WPGA2345, Monkbot and Anonymous: 61
ASM-A-1 Tarzon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-A-1%20Tarzon?oldid=603318978 Contributors: GraemeLeggett, Optimist
on the run, James086, Magioladitis, Socrates2008, Delta 51, The Bushranger, Eumolpo, AustralianRupert, DexDor, DASHBot, GA bot,
Demiurge1000, WikiCopter, Chesipiero, Helpful Pixie Bot, Shawmjennings, Khazar2, Froglich, Monkbot and Anonymous: 6
Azon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azon?oldid=650972563 Contributors: Lee M, Gidonb, DocWatson42, Rich Farmbrough,
Roo72, Bobo192, Remuel, Andrew Gray, Gene Nygaard, Lincspoacher, CyrilleDunant, GraemeLeggett, BD2412, Rjwilmsi, Zotel, Robert-
Walden, Kmorrow, Adamrush, MakeChooChooGoNow, IceCreamAntisocial, Hmains, Chris the speller, MagnusW, Il palazzo, Trekphiler,
The PIPE, Cydebot, Nabokov, DPdH, Nwbeeson, Hfodf, Mountmold, Mugs2109, Loren.wilton, Martarius, Sfan00 IMG, Ktr101, Truly-
stand700, Ajahewitt, Addbot, The Bushranger, MinorProphet, Unara, HRoestBot, MastiBot, Midas02, ClueBot NG, Lippy8995, Cerabot,
Jamesx12345, Monkbot and Anonymous: 21
CBU-107 Passive Attack Weapon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-107%20Passive%20Attack%20Weapon?oldid=
625441775 Contributors: Riddley, Hooperbloob, Hohum, Pol098, Cydebot, Leofric1, The Bushranger, The Utahraptor, America789,
IQ125 and Anonymous: 8
GB-4 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GB-4?oldid=622447064 Contributors: Kosher Fan, Rjwilmsi, Megapixie, Hmains, Chris the
speller, Trekphiler, MilborneOne, Cydebot, DPdH, Geniac, Adamdaley, Lightmouse, Ktr101, The Bushranger and RjwilmsiBot
GB-8 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GB-8?oldid=622817177 Contributors: Jason Quinn, Andrew Gray, Gene Nygaard, Rjwilmsi,
Hmains, Chris the speller, Trekphiler, Cydebot, Aldis90, DPdH, Geniac, Adamdaley, Ktr101, Kakofonous, The Bushranger and Anony-
mous: 1
GBU-10 Paveway II Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-10%20Paveway%20II?oldid=642992883 Contributors: The Epopt, Rid-
dley, Superm401, Night Gyr, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, Alai, Nuno Tavares, GraemeLeggett, Marudubshinki, BD2412, Rjwilmsi, Nick-
D, Tsca.bot, Phaid, Saxbryn, Cydebot, Satori Son, Ndunruh, DH85868993, Intrudermax, Falcon8765, Matrek, Socrates2008, Milstuxyz,
Dave1185, Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, La Maupin, Sorruno, AnomieBOT, Anotherclown, Brodeurs, Papamission, Diako1971,
Bartron67, Canoe1967, LMGuy and Anonymous: 10
GBU-12 Paveway II Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-12%20Paveway%20II?oldid=638200490 Contributors: The Epopt,
Rmhermen, Riddley, Night Gyr, Meggar, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, Nuno Tavares, Rjwilmsi, FlaBot, Knife Knut, YurikBot, Groy-
olo, Chris the speller, Bluebot, Jprg1966, Tsca.bot, Ortzinator, Saxbryn, Eluchil404, Cydebot, Kob zilla, Arz1969, Ndunruh, Dorgan-
Bot, Starrymessenger, Slobberchops, Intrudermax, Falcon8765, AlleborgoBot, Alexbot, Life of Riley, Milstuxyz, Dave1185, Addbot,
Nohomers48, Ettrig, The Bushranger, Bedwards08, Papamission, ZroBot, Diako1971, Mikesh, Pratyya Ghosh, ChrisGualtieri, JYBot,
Makecat-bot, Zuzavr, Caealn and Anonymous: 20
GBU-15 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-15?oldid=645911931 Contributors: The Epopt, Rlandmann, GCarty, Riddley,

Greyengine5, Abqwildcat, Bobblewik, Nm1m, N328KF, Rich Farmbrough, Night Gyr, Joshbaumgartner, Bukvoed, Rjwilmsi, Double-
Blue, YurikBot, Arado, Gaius Cornelius, Sardanaphalus, BobThePirate, DHN-bot, Tsca.bot, Radagast83, Saxbryn, Cydebot, Fnlayson,
Thijs!bot, Alphachimpbot, Cayenneman, CombatWombat42, Ndunruh, Petebutt, Falcon8765, Cobatfor, ClueBot, Thewellman, Addbot,
Nohomers48, The Bushranger, Aboriginal Noise, ZroBot, Skoot13, Frietjes and Anonymous: 9
GBU-16 Paveway II Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-16%20Paveway%20II?oldid=551348357 Contributors: Riddley, Avriette,
ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, Nemo5576, Gaius Cornelius, Cydebot, Jackson070792, TXiKiBoT, Intrudermax, Da Joe, 1ForTheMoney,
Addbot, Lightbot, The Bushranger, KLBot2, Makecat-bot, Froglich and Anonymous: 5
GBU-24 Paveway III Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-24%20Paveway%20III?oldid=628438015 Contributors: The Epopt,
David.Monniaux, Riddley, Night Gyr, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, Plrk, Josh Parris, Megapixie, SmackBot, Jprg1966, Bdiscoe, Saxbryn,
CmdrObot, Orca1 9904, Cydebot, Nabokov, Thijs!bot, Nick Number, Gwern, ElectroSoldier, Rebell18190, Youngjim, Ndunruh, Mz-
madmike, Falcon8765, AlleborgoBot, Drolz09, Milstuxyz, Addbot, Lightbot, , The Bushranger, Mark Schierbecker, FrescoBot, Ben
109, ChuispastonBot, Makecat-bot and Anonymous: 16
GBU-27 Paveway III Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-27%20Paveway%20III?oldid=642992965 Contributors: The Epopt, Si-
monP, SD6-Agent, Riddley, Bobblewik, Rich Farmbrough, Avriette, Night Gyr, King nothing, Joshbaumgartner, Carwil, Nemo5576,
Nethency, Saxbryn, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Aldis90, Ndunruh, DH85868993, Falcon8765, Flyer22, Callidior, Rkarlsba, Milstuxyz,
Dave1185, Addbot, N9XTN, The Bushranger, Obigandalf, BG19bot, Redstar2011, Makecat-bot and Anonymous: 13
GBU-28 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-28?oldid=653746534 Contributors: The Epopt, Leandrod, Rlandmann, Riddley,
Greyengine5, Everyking, Bobblewik, Btphelps, Avriette, Night Gyr, TerraFrost, Joshbaumgartner, GraemeLeggett, Carwil, Mark Sublette,
YurikBot, Kauner, Hede2000, Los688, Gadget850, Modify, Erudy, Sardanaphalus, Drcwright, Roger Hui, Snori, Jcoman, BobThePi-
rate, Tewk, Mhym, Ziggle, BillFlis, Saxbryn, MrDolomite, Dp462090, WeggeBot, Cydebot, Kw0, Javasmith, Flayer, LorenzoB, Discpad,
Yonidebot, Ndunruh, DougJustDoug, Idioma-bot, Amikake3, AlnoktaBOT, Falcon8765, Atani, Callidior, Senor Cuete, MBK004, Drag-
onBot, Alexbot, DumZiBoT, Milstuxyz, Addbot, Patton123, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Legobot, OCTopus, GrouchoBot, MrAronnax,
Sp33dyphil, ZroBot, Demiurge1000, Feddacheenee, ClueBot NG, Italicus84, BattyBot, Sdelhoyo, F111ECM, Makecat-bot and Anony-
mous: 36
GBU-37 GPS-Aided Munition Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-37%20GPS-Aided%20Munition?oldid=642340734 Contrib-
utors: Riddley, DialUp, Deltabeignet, Amorrow, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Roger Hui, Ifnord, BenAveling, Bluebot, Saxbryn, Skapur,
Cydebot, Ndunruh, Niceguyedc, MystBot, Addbot, The Bushranger, PoBibo and Anonymous: 4
GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-43/B%20Massive%20Ordnance%20Air%20Blast?
oldid=642271306 Contributors: The Epopt, Ed Poor, Yooden, Roadrunner, Hephaestos, Lisiate, Pit, Ahoerstemeier, Notheruser, Julesd,
Salsa Shark, Ciphergoth, Cherkash, Arteitle, Mulad, Scott Sanchez, Riddley, Robbot, Xanzzibar, PBP, DocWatson42, Tom harrison,
Fastssion, Curps, Joshuapaquin, Bobblewik, Zantolak, SYSS Mouse, Naryathegreat, Rich Farmbrough, Avriette, Pjacobi, Warpyght,
Night Gyr, Darkone, Loren36, Kwamikagami, Thunderbrand, TomStar81, Martey, Meggar, Duk, Vortexrealm, Supersheep, GChriss,
Obradovic Goran, RazorChicken, Joshbaumgartner, SHIMONSHA, Denniss, Johntex, Dan100, Kenyon, Dismas, Firsfron, Igny, Nick
Drake, MONGO, 171046, Lensovet, Blackcats, GraemeLeggett, Ashmoo, Rpeblack, Pmj, Ketiltrout, Rjwilmsi, Nightscream, Rogerd,
Slendro, Vary, FlaBot, RobertG, Old Moonraker, JdforresterBot, Nemo5576, Mark Sublette, Fosnez, Chobot, Scoo, YurikBot, RussBot,
Madkayaker, Hellbus, Lar, Hydrargyrum, Stephenb, Million Little Gods, Prometheusfy, Shaddack, Klysell, Mipadi, Gooberliberation,
Tony1, Zwobot, Ospalh, Gadget850, Caspian, TheMadBaron, Don Williams, Attilios, SmackBot, StarSword, WACGuy, Thumperward,
MalafayaBot, Imacdo, Arg, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Aerobird, Oralloy, OhadAston, Mytwocents, WngLdr34, Xdamr, Sampeach3,
John, Robosh, BioTube, Shinryuu, Zothip, SebastianP, Atakdoug, Macinphile, NEMT, PETN, PLAYERTN, Lahiru k, SkyWalker,
Patrick Berry, WhatDidIDoNow, N2e, Tutoon, Fl295, Slazenger, Cydebot, Arsenmm, Myscrnnm, Soetermans, Srajan01, Gbaddorf,
Nabokov, Nottheking, Mfdjoe342, Barticus88, Dfrg.msc, Philippe, Greg L, Sherbrooke, MrMarmite, Gioto, SummerPhD, F-451, JoeFri-
day, Ingolfson, HolyT, Ericoides, Lifthrasir1, GurchBot, Dricherby, Aki009, Kaplansa, Magioladitis, Father Goose, Parous, CeeWhy2,
MartinBot, Humphrey20020, AlexiusHoratius, KTo288, Nono64, Amt1018, J.delanoy, Fiachra10003, Yonidebot, Footballplayer51, Gin-
sengbomb, Tdadamemd, Gzkn, BU43B, LordAnubisBOT, D-Kuru, Ychastnik APL, Tricky Wiki44, Supertask, UnitedStatesian, 4kinnel,
Waycool27, Dethwing, WhiteKongMan, W00tfest99, Dirkbb, Wavehunter, Deconstructhis, Skipweasel, SieBot, El Wray, Scarian, Hot-
coolhot, Cm.squared, Gatrfan, Oxymoron83, Greatrobo76, Denisarona, MenoBot, MBK004, ClueBot, Rodhullandemu, Sjeter, Harland1,
Masterblooregard, Ktr101, Garscow, Lartoven, Grisunge, DumZiBoT, XLinkBot, Aseidave, Iranway, Zeliboba7, Addbot, Nohomers48,
Blethering Scot, Sadkjos, Pmod, OlEnglish, Xowets, The Bushranger, Ben Ben, Vomitron88, AnomieBOT, LilHelpa, Obersachsebot, Mau-
ritsBot, Xqbot, TinucherianBot II, Destabilizator, Vicnney, Anonymous from the 21st century, GrouchoBot, Mark Schierbecker, Shad-
owjams, BoomerAB, CaptainFugu, Arpadkorossy, RedBot, Lotje, Hellraiserbmf, NameIsRon, Beyond My Ken, Werieth, Daonguyen95,
Stringer1993, DM 794, ClueBot NG, Fauzan, Jewjitsuchris, Muon, Calidum, Mynameisnoted, Mifter Public, Ghyfawkes, Xbunnyrap-
torx, Popizzamanjoe, S1D3winder016, ChrisGualtieri, Bruce neal, Leiskalol, ELiTe GoDzz HD, Hextinium, Porkchopstephen, Benm37,
TryBanMeAgain, XXKurisuXx and Anonymous: 249
GBU-44/B Viper Strike Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-44/B%20Viper%20Strike?oldid=649025327 Contributors: Riddley,
DocWatson42, Alai, Arado, Heavydpj, Mutiny, Akradecki, Puddhe, Idioma-bot, FergusM1970, TXiKiBoT, Occasional Reader, Slysplace,
Sun Creator, Chaosdruid, Addbot, Nohomers48, The Bushranger, Yobot, SpecialOpsGuy, AnomieBOT, Seadart, Lotje, John of Reading,
Babak902003, Lateg, Wbmoore, America789, Kamen Rider Blade, Update7980 and Anonymous: 11
Joint Direct Attack Munition Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint%20Direct%20Attack%20Munition?oldid=655334092 Contrib-
utors: TwoOneTwo, The Epopt, Edward, Michael Hardy, Fred Bauder, Gbleem, Rlandmann, Salsa Shark, Med, PaulinSaudi, Riddley,
DocWatson42, YanA, Greyengine5, Wwoods, Bobblewik, Jokestress, Rob cowie, N328KF, Ularsen, Discospinster, Avriette, Pmsyyz,
Night Gyr, R. S. Shaw, Foobaz, Jigen III, Ryanmcdaniel, Joshbaumgartner, Rwendland, Hohum, Emvee, Gene Nygaard, Karpada, AirBa,
GregorB, MarkTBSc, Raivein, Amorrow, Jitsuman, Rjwilmsi, Skaterdude182, XLerate, Rangek, FlaBot, MoRsE, Chobot, Knife Knut,
YurikBot, Noclador, Arado, Millsy, Lavenderbunny, FiggyBee, Georgewilliamherbert, Phichanad, Sardanaphalus, KnightRider, Jsnx,
SmackBot, KMcD, Jim62sch, Eskimbot, JLRAtwil, Tnkr111, Durova, Thumperward, Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, DHN-bot,
Martin Blank, Htra0497, Tsca.bot, Weregerbil, John, PRRfan, Hagman1983, Porterjoh, Wilhelm Screamer, Rogerborg, MarsRover, Cy-
debot, Fnlayson, Schroding79, Hcobb, OuroborosCobra, DPdH, Dawnseeker2000, Darklilac, .anacondabot, Magioladitis, Flayer, BilCat,
PinkCake, STBot, Schwartzenator, Rebell18190, Bogey97, Dellarb, McSly, Ondal, Behappyinc10, Ndunruh, Orthopraxia, Johnpdeever,
HJ32, Wikimaster97, Elpusa, Liko81, Sintaku, Raryel, Gilisa, Falcon8765, Tranquil23, Lightmouse, FIRST Rocks, Hamiltondaniel, Sally-
Forth123, YSSYguy, RisingSunWiki, Franamax, Tosaka1, Davidganek, Arjayay, APh, Takavar92, Aseidave, Milstuxyz, Dave1185, Tor-
nadoADV, Addbot, Oldmountains, Lightbot, JEN9841, The Bushranger, Yobot, Jimderkaisser, AnomieBOT, Piano non troppo, Mitche69,
Materialscientist, Citation bot, Quebec99, Capricorn42, Willwagner602, Mark Schierbecker, Green Cardamom, Puro spana, Citation bot
1, ALCAPWNER, SwineFlew?, Oshmoz, Olegvdv68, MusicToDieTo, Desagwan, Turkishblackeagle93, Sp33dyphil, Illegitimate Barris-
ter, Wikifreund, H3llBot, Tabrisius, JonRicheld, ClueBot NG, Helpful Pixie Bot, CitationCleanerBot, Dafranca, BattyBot, America789,
Cyberbot II, Mjabb, Simonromaniac, Gcguevarra, Ruzzel01, YiFeiBot, Impsswoon, Efram23 and Anonymous: 158
Massive Ordnance Penetrator Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive%20Ordnance%20Penetrator?oldid=639384645 Contribu-
tors: The Anome, Finlay McWalter, Riddley, Nurg, Bkell, DocWatson42, Bumm13, Radical Mallard, Gene Nygaard, Bryan986, Graeme-
Leggett, Rbeas, Agamemnon2, Hydrargyrum, VinnyCee, Oobideedoobidee, SmackBot, Cla68, Oralloy, Will Beback, Dl2000, Dou-
glasCalvert, Jive Dadson, Ehistory, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Hcobb, Escarbot, Avaya1, SHCarter, Father Goose, STBot, KTo288, Nono64,
Clarkcol, Duch, Lbeaumont, Euchre, Bobsd, EricSerge, MajorHazard, MarkKochanowski, Tosaka1, Ktr101, DumZiBoT, D1ma5ad, Ad-
dbot, Krawndawg, Nohomers48, Lightbot, , Zorrobot, Smile4Chomsky, The Bushranger, Luckas-bot, AnomieBOT, Quebec99, Ri-
botBOT, SwineFlew?, DrilBot, Sfu1984, Sebastianblakehoward, RjwilmsiBot, Samuraiii, EmausBot, Sp33dyphil, ZroBot, Mattypiper,
Fritz.grobbelaar, ClueBot NG, Siha, CAWylie, Rarariot99, Makecat-bot, Dbarrentine and Anonymous: 68
Paveway Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paveway?oldid=653150271 Contributors: Michael Hardy, Docu, Dysprosia, Cabalamat,
David.Monniaux, Riddley, Zinnmann, H1523702, Rich Farmbrough, Avriette, Night Gyr, Cap'n Refsmmat, Sietse Snel, Idleguy,
Hooperbloob, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, RJFJR, Woohookitty, GraemeLeggett, Rjwilmsi, Mark83, YurikBot, Charles Gaudette, Arado,
John Smiths, Megapixie, Howcheng, Thiseye, Nlu, Groyolo, SmackBot, Sam8, Jprg1966, Cydebot, Tofof, Hcobb, Dickhooker, DPdH,
Ingolfson, CommonsDelinker, Rebell18190, Youngjim, D-Kuru, The94boss95, Rosicky96, Starrymessenger, Steven J. Anderson, Intruder-
max, SieBot, ClueBot, Niceguyedc, Alexbot, Milstuxyz, Dave1185, Addbot, Wikialoft, Nohomers48, Reedmalloy, LaaknorBot, Lightbot,
The Bushranger, Ptbotgourou, ZroBot, AvicAWB, Giblets46, F111ECM, Faizan and Anonymous: 28
Paveway IV Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paveway%20IV?oldid=648796900 Contributors: Riddley, Jason Quinn, Chowbok, Ojw,
Hooperbloob, ArgentLA, Joshbaumgartner, Arado, Thiseye, Jmcalvert, Cydebot, Lan Di, Jonashart, TeddyT, The94boss95, Rosicky96,
ClueBot, Khal0o0di, Alexbot, Philtime, LicenseFee, Qwfp, Addbot, Trevor Marron, Buster7, The Bushranger, Yobot, Mishae, Wikitan-
virBot, ZroBot, Jc9aj, America789, Makecat-bot, TheArmchairSoldier, Filedelinkerbot and Anonymous: 10
Pyros (bomb) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyros%20(bomb)?oldid=645911569 Contributors: Bobrayner, Rjwilmsi, Hebrides,
CombatWombat42, Magioladitis, Socrates2008, Addbot, The Bushranger, ZroBot, America789, Cyberbot II and Anonymous: 1
SCALPEL Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCALPEL?oldid=649025077 Contributors: Riddley, Rich Farmbrough, Bobrayner,
Scriberius, GregorB, SmackBot, Chris the speller, Ian01, The Bushranger, Mark Schierbecker, Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma, Ka-
men Rider Blade and Anonymous: 1
Small Diameter Bomb Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small%20Diameter%20Bomb?oldid=654972202 Contributors: Delirium,
Stan Shebs, Riddley, Xanzzibar, Gtrmp, Oberiko, Bobblewik, Gdr, Pmsyyz, Harald Hansen, Hooperbloob, Ryanmcdaniel, Alyeska, Josh-
baumgartner, Gene Nygaard, Pol098, GraemeLeggett, Aintnosin, Obersachse, BD2412, Arado, Voidxor, Ninly, Hemo200, Potterra, Nick-
D, SmackBot, TestPilot, Deon Steyn, Chaosfeary, Chris the speller, Jprg1966, Thumperward, MalafayaBot, Hibernian, BobThePirate,
Chendy, Tsca.bot, J.smith, Will Beback, Dr. Sunglasses, Stwalkerster, CapitalR, CmdrObot, 5-HT8, SlowSam, Orca1 9904, Necessary
Evil, Cydebot, Fnlayson, Benvogel, Nabokov, HammerHeadHuman, Hcobb, DPdH, JaceCady, BilCat, Rocinante9x, Ndunruh, DorganBot,
Ng.j, AlleborgoBot, KGyST, RucasHost, Lightmouse, Hamiltondaniel, Driftwood87, Wee Curry Monster, Tosaka1, Socrates2008, John
Nevard, DumZiBoT, PL290, Dave1185, Addbot, LaaknorBot, The Bushranger, Yobot, Edoe, Jgbwiki, AnomieBOT, GrouchoBot, Lapto-
pLuke, MerlLinkBot, Le Deluge, FrescoBot, Pingu Is Sumerian, Ver-bot, Noameshel, MastiBot, What The UFK, EmausBot, Babak902003,
Illegitimate Barrister, Mjm.css, Afranelli, KLBot2, Bivaughn, BattyBot, America789, Makecat-bot, Z07x10, Update7980, FlorentPirot and
Anonymous: 56
VB-6 Felix Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VB-6%20Felix?oldid=611728425 Contributors: FlaBot, Hmains, Trekphiler, Bwmoll3,
Cydebot, Aldis90, DPdH, Biglovinb, Ktr101, The Bushranger, DrilBot, KLBot2 and Anonymous: 4
Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind%20Corrected%20Munitions%20Dispenser?oldid=
647281440 Contributors: Riddley, Rich Farmbrough, Pol098, Arado, Warreed, SmackBot, Buckshot06, Ndunruh, Addbot, Some jerk on
the Internet, Polemarchus, Lightbot, The Bushranger, Marclluell, Makecat-bot and Anonymous: 2
342.5.2 Images
File:090605-F-1234P-054.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/090605-F-1234P-054.jpg License: Public
domain Contributors: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/090605-F-1234P-054.jpg Original artist: US Air
Force
File:1-20_Javelin_missile..PNG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/1-20_Javelin_missile..PNG License:
Public domain Contributors: U.S. Army, FM 3-22.37 JAVELIN MEDIUM ANTIARMOR WEAPON SYSTEM Original artist: HEAD-
QUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Washington, DC, 23 January 2003
File:1-27_Top_attack_flight_path..PNG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/1-27_Top_attack_flight_
path..PNG License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Army, FM 3-22.37 JAVELIN MEDIUM ANTIARMOR WEAPON SYSTEM
Original artist: HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Washington, DC, 23 January 2003
File:1-29_Direct_attack_flight_path..PNG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/1-29_Direct_attack_
flight_path..PNG License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Army, FM 3-22.37 JAVELIN MEDIUM ANTIARMOR WEAPON
SYSTEM Original artist: HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Washington, DC, 23 January 2003
File:1st_TOW_concept_mockup.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/1st_TOW_concept_mockup.jpg
License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.redstone.army.mil/ Original artist: Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, United States Army
File:2.25-Inch_SCAR.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/2.25-Inch_SCAR.png License: Public domain
Contributors: Aviation Ordnancemans Manual (AO), NAVAIR 00-80T-65 Original artist: Issued by the Chief of Naval Operations for the
U.S. Naval Air Reserve.
File:231167-3-4-Afghanistan.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/231167-3-4-Afghanistan.jpg License:
Public domain Contributors: http://www.marines.mil/unit/iimef/2ndmeb/PublishingImages/NewsStoryImages/2009/231167.jpg Original
artist: Cpl. Zachary J. Nola
File:4.5-Inch_Old_Faithful.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/4.5-Inch_Old_Faithful.jpg License:

Public domain Contributors: U.S. War Department image via ORDATA. Original artist: U.S. War Department
File:4751st_Air_Defense_Squadron_-_ADC_-_Emblem.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/4751st_
Air_Defense_Squadron_-_ADC_-_Emblem.png License: Public domain Contributors: Scan of USAF patch Original artist: United States
Air Force
File:5in_FFAR_F4U_MAG-33_Okinawa_Jun1945.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/5in_FFAR_
F4U_MAG-33_Okinawa_Jun1945.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This media is available in the holdings of the National
Archives and Records Administration, cataloged under the ARC Identier (National Archives Identier) 532561. Original artist: Dun-
can, Lt. David D., Photographer, U.S. Marine Corps
File:66_kertasinko_75.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/66_kertasinko_75.JPG License: Public do-
main Contributors: Own work Original artist: MKFI
File:82nd_Airborne_soldiers_on_Grenada_1983.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/82nd_Airborne_
soldiers_on_Grenada_1983.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Army photo from the online publication Rebuilding the Army:
Vietnam to Desert Storm, p. 395 [1]; also U.S. DefenseImagery photo VIRIN: DA-ST-85-02182 Original artist: Sgt. Michael Bogdanowicz,
U.S. Army
File:864th_Strategic_Missile_Squadron.PNG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/864th_Strategic_
Missile_Squadron.PNG License: Public domain Contributors: AFHRA FOIA Request Original artist: AF Historical Research Agency
File:A-10_firing_AGM-65.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/A-10_firing_AGM-65.JPEG License:
Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia; transferred to Commons by User:Common Good using CommonsHelper.
(Source: www.dodmedia.osd.mil / ID: DF-SD-05-12102) Original artist: Original uploader was Jumping cheese at en.wikipedia
File:A-4B_with_Mk_7_bomb_on_cat_USS_Saratoga.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/A-4B_
with_Mk_7_bomb_on_cat_USS_Saratoga.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy National Museum of Naval Aviation photo
No. 2008.122.057 [1] Original artist: U.S. Navy
File:A-4E_VA-164_1967.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/A-4E_VA-164_1967.JPEG License:
Public domain Contributors: U.S. DefenseImagery photo VIRIN: DN-SC-88-06694 Original artist: LT JG Nelson, USN
File:A-4F_VA-113_launching_Zuni_rockets_1968.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/A-4F_
VA-113_launching_Zuni_rockets_1968.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy photo [1] from the <a data-x-rel='nofollow'
class='external text' href='http://navysite.de/cruisebooks/cvn65-68/index_002.htm'>USS Enterprise (CVAN-65) 1968 cruise book</a>
available at Navysite.de Original artist: USN
File:A-4_with_ZAP.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/A-4_with_ZAP.png License: Public domain
Contributors: U.S. Navy photo via [1] Original artist: USN
File:A-6E_Intruder_releasing_a_Walleye_II.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/A-6E_Intruder_
releasing_a_Walleye_II.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. DefenseImagery [1] photo VIRIN: DN-SC-95-01059 [2] Original
artist: Vernon Pugh, USN
File:A4_fires_shrike.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/A4_fires_shrike.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors: Ocial U.S. Navy photo [1]; U.S. Navy Naval Museum of Armament and Technology [2] AGM-45 photo Original artist:
U.S. Navy
File:AAM-A-1_Firebird_on_DB-26B_Invader_August_1949.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/
AAM-A-1_Firebird_on_DB-26B_Invader_August_1949.png License: Public domain Contributors: USAF via [1] Original artist: Un-
known
File:AAM-N-4_Oriole.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/AAM-N-4_Oriole.png License: Public do-
main Contributors: http://www.flickr.com/photos/63014123@N02/5763170020/ Original artist: Naval Historical Center photo A-32035
File:AAM-N-5_Meteor.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/AAM-N-5_Meteor.png License: Public do-
main Contributors: United States Navy Original artist: Unknown
File:ACIMD_missile_on_F-14A_at_NWC_China_Lake_1980s.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/
ACIMD_missile_on_F-14A_at_NWC_China_Lake_1980s.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy Naval Museum of Ar-
mament and Technology [1] ACIMD photo Original artist: USN
File:ADM-141_TALD_and_ADM-141C_ITALD_decoy_missiles_on_display.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/
commons/7/79/ADM-141_TALD_and_ADM-141C_ITALD_decoy_missiles_on_display.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own
work Original artist: Natan Flayer
File:ADM-141_tactical_air-launched_decoys.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/ADM-141_tactical_
air-launched_decoys.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ID:DNST9104336 Original artist: Service Depicted: Navy
Camera Operator: PH2 WILLIAM A. LIPSKI
File:ADM-20C-40-MC_Quail_decoy_missile_at_NMUSAF.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/
ADM-20C-40-MC_Quail_decoy_missile_at_NMUSAF.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: National Museum of the United States
Air Force Original artist: Original uploader was Brucelipe at en.wikipedia
File:ADM-20_Quail.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/ADM-20_Quail.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors: USAF (credited as such at [1]) Original artist: Unknown
File:AGM-114_and_Hydra_70.jpeg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/AGM-114_and_Hydra_70.jpeg
License: CC BY-SA 2.5 nl Contributors: Own work Original artist: User:Dammit
File:AGM-122.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/AGM-122.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
Transferred from en.wikipedia; Transfer was stated to be made by it:User:EH101. Original artist: Original uploader was Aerobird at
en.wikipedia
File:AGM-123_Skipper_II.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/AGM-123_Skipper_II.jpg License:
Public domain Contributors: ID:DNSC8508022 Original artist: Service Depicted: Navy
File:AGM-129A_-_2006_0306_b52_2lg.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/AGM-129A_-_2006_

0306_b52_2lg.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2006_0306_b52_2lg.jpg (english Wikipedia)
Original artist: Sta Sgt. Jocelyn Rich
(uploaded by Brucelipe)
File:AGM-129_Tinker_AFB.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/AGM-129_Tinker_AFB.JPG Li-
cense: CC0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Balon Greyjoy
File:AGM-12C_Bullpup-B_missile_on_display_at_NMUSAF.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/
AGM-12C_Bullpup-B_missile_on_display_at_NMUSAF.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: National Museum of the USAF
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/051117-F-1234P-040.JPG Original artist: U.S. Air Force
File:AGM-12D_Bullpup_missile_on_display_at_Air_Force_Armament_Museum.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/
wikipedia/commons/d/dd/AGM-12D_Bullpup_missile_on_display_at_Air_Force_Armament_Museum.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors: en:Image:AGM12D.jpg Original artist: en:User:Fl295
File:AGM-154_01.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/AGM-154_01.jpg License: Public domain Con-
tributors: www.navy.mil Original artist: US Navy
File:AGM-154_03.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/AGM-154_03.jpg License: Public domain Con-
tributors: www.af.mil Original artist: MSgt Michael Ammons (US Air Force)
File:AGM-154_JSOW_01.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/AGM-154_JSOW_01.jpg License: Pub-
lic domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:AGM-45_Shrike_detonation.gif Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/AGM-45_Shrike_detonation.gif
License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy Naval Museum of Armament and Technology [1] Annular-blast photo Original artist:
USN
File:AGM-65_M-48_post_impact.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/AGM-65_M-48_post_impact.
jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Defense Visual Information Center, image DF-SC-86-11072 Original artist: USAF
File:AGM-65_M-48_pre_impact.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/AGM-65_M-48_pre_impact.jpg
License: Public domain Contributors: Defense Visual Information Center, image DF-SC-86-11071 Original artist: USAF
File:AGM-65_Maverick_MG_1382.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/AGM-65_Maverick_MG_
1382.jpg License: CC BY-SA 2.0 fr Contributors: Own work Original artist: Rama
File:AGM-69A_SRAM_loaded_into_B-1B.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/AGM-69A_
SRAM_loaded_into_B-1B.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Originally appeared on the Defense Image Digest CD-ROM.
http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DVIC_View/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=DFST8803500&JPGPath=/Assets/Still/1988/Air_Force/
DF-ST-88-03500.JPG Original artist: USAF Technical Sgt. Kit Thompson
File:AGM-76.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/AGM-76.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors:
Own work Original artist: Sturmvogel 66
File:AGM-78_at_USAF_Museum_2009.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/AGM-78_at_USAF_
Museum_2009.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: National Museum of the U.S. Air Force photo 090601-F-1234P-016 Original
artist: USAF
File:AGM-88E_HARM_p1230047.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/AGM-88E_HARM_p1230047.
jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:AGM-88_HARM_on_FA-18C.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/AGM-88_HARM_on_
FA-18C.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=2196 Original artist: U.S. Navy Photo by
Photographers Mate 3rd Class Brian Fleske.
File:AIM-120_AMRAAM.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/AIM-120_AMRAAM.jpg License: Pub-
lic domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:AIM-120_AMRAAM_P6230147.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/AIM-120_AMRAAM_
P6230147.JPG License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Captainm 14:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
File:AIM-120_first_kill.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/AIM-120_first_kill.jpg License: Public do-
main Contributors: U.S. DefenseImagery photo VIRIN: DF-SC-82-03829 Original artist: USAF
File:AIM-152_AAAM.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/AIM-152_AAAM.svg License: CC BY-SA
2.0 de Contributors: Own work, based on images found at www.designation-systems.net. Original artist: TM
File:AIM-26A_1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/AIM-26A_1.jpg License: Public domain Contribu-
tors: Transfered from en.wikipedia Original artist: Original uploader was Fl295 at en.wikipedia
File:AIM-26A_2(Nuclear_Falcon).jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2e/AIM-26A_2%28Nuclear_Falcon%29.
jpg License: PD Contributors:
Own work
Original artist:
Fl295 (talk) (Uploads)
File:AIM-47.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/AIM-47.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Na-
tional Museum of the USAF
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/060731-F-1234S-018.jpg Original artist: U.S. Air Force
File:AIM-4A_and_AIM-4G_missile_line_drawings.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/AIM-4A_
and_AIM-4G_missile_line_drawings.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Air Force Characteristics Summary AIM-4A and
AIM-4G Original artist: USAF
File:AIM-4D.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/AIM-4D.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http:
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AIM-4D.jpg Original artist: the United States Federal Government
File:AIM-54A_first_test_A-3A_NAN11-66.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/AIM-54A_first_test_

A-3A_NAN11-66.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy Naval Aviation News November 1966 [1]; Ocial U.S. Navy
photograph KN-13326 Original artist: USN
File:AIM-54C_350px.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/AIM-54C_350px.png License: Public domain
Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:AIM-54_6_Pack.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/AIM-54_6_Pack.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors: EnWiki Original artist: Service Depicted: Navy
Command Shown: N0829
File:AIM-54_Phoenix_cropped.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/AIM-54_Phoenix_cropped.jpg Li-
cense: Public domain Contributors: http://www.news.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=12162 http://www.news.navy.mil/management/
photodb/photos/030320-N-4142G-013.jpg Originally from en.wikipedia; description page is/was here. Original artist: ?
File:AIM-54_Phoenix_destroys_QF-4_drone_1983.jpeg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/AIM-54_
Phoenix_destroys_QF-4_drone_1983.jpeg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy National Museum of Naval Aviation photo
No. 1996.488.256.039 and 1996.488.256.040 Original artist: U.S. Navy
File:AIM-9B-9D-9C_NAN3-71.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/AIM-9B-9D-9C_NAN3-71.jpg
License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy Naval Aviation News March 1971 [1] Original artist: USN
File:AIM-9B_hits_F6F-5K_over_China_Lake_1957.jpeg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/AIM-9B_
hits_F6F-5K_over_China_Lake_1957.jpeg License: Public domain Contributors: Combination of U.S. Navy National Museum of Naval
Aviation photos No. 1996.488.022.007, 1996.488.022.008, and 1996.488.022.009 Original artist: U.S. Navy
File:AIM-9L_DF-ST-82-10199.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/AIM-9L_DF-ST-82-10199.jpg Li-
cense: Public domain Contributors:
This Image was released by the United States Air Force with the ID DF-ST-82-10199 <a class='external text' href='//commons.wikimedia.
org/w/index.php?title=Category:Files_created_by_the_United_States_Air_Force_with_known_IDs,,&,,lefrom=DF-ST-
82-10199#mw-category-media'>(next)</a>.
This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information.
Original artist: Sr. Airman Theodore J. Koniares
File:AIM-9L_hits_tank_at_China_Lake_1947.jpeg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/AIM-9L_hits_
tank_at_China_Lake_1947.jpeg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy National Museum of Naval Aviation photo No.
1996.488.022.024 Original artist: U.S. Navy
File:AIM-9R_shot.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/AIM-9R_shot.jpg License: Public domain Con-
tributors: U.S. Navy photo [1] from China Lake website; Transferred from en.wikipedia; transferred to Commons by User:Roberta F. using
CommonsHelper. Original artist: U.S. Navy; Original uploader was HJ32 at en.wikipedia, 7 January 2007 (original upload date)
File:AIM-9X_F-15C_2002.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/AIM-9X_F-15C_2002.JPEG License:
Public domain Contributors: US Defense Visual Information Center photo DF-SD-05-02700 Original artist: Camera Operator: TSgt.
Michael Ammons, USAF
File:AIM-9_AIM-120_and_AGM-88_on_F-16C.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/AIM-9_
AIM-120_and_AGM-88_on_F-16C.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Defense Visual Information Center (DVIC)
http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/Still/2004/Air_Force/DF-SD-04-09567.JPEG Original artist: TSGT KEVIN J. GRUENWALD,
USAF
File:AIM-9_hitting_QF-4B_at_Point_Mugu_1974.jpeg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/AIM-9_
hitting_QF-4B_at_Point_Mugu_1974.jpeg License: Public domain Contributors: Combination of U.S. Navy National Museum of Naval
Aviation photos No. 1996.488.022.027, 1996.488.022.028, and 1996.488.022.026 Original artist: U.S. Navy
File:AIR-2A_Genie_2.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/AIR-2A_Genie_2.jpg License: Public domain
File:ALCMCruiseMissile.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/ALCMCruiseMissile.JPG License: CC-
BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:AMG-154.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/AMG-154.jpg License: CC BY 3.0 Contributors: Own
work Original artist: Tutantomen
File:ANMSQ-104_Engagement_Control_Station.jpeg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/ANMSQ-104_
Engagement_Control_Station.jpeg License: CC BY-SA 2.5 nl Contributors: Own work Original artist: User:Dammit
File:AQM-127_SLAT.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/66/AQM-127_SLAT.jpg License: Fair use Contributors:
[1] Original artist: ?
File:ASALM_PTV.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/ASALM_PTV.jpg License: Public domain Con-
tributors: U.S. Air Force photograph via [1] Original artist: USAF
File:ASAT_missile_launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/ASAT_missile_launch.jpg License:
Public domain Contributors: Originally downloaded from http://www.losangeles.af.mil/SMC/HO/SNAPSHOTS%20IN%20SMC%
20HISTORY.htm
Image is a cropped version of this: Image page

Original artist: Paul E. Reynolds (USAF)
File:ASM-135_ASAT_5.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/ASM-135_ASAT_5.jpg License: Public
domain Contributors: http://www.af.mil/photos/media_search.asp?q=ASAT&btnG.x=0&btnG.y=0 (last access: Febr. 20.2012) Original
artist: USAF
File:ASROC_launch_from_USS_Joseph_Strauss_(DDG-16)_1978.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/

bc/ASROC_launch_from_USS_Joseph_Strauss_%28DDG-16%29_1978.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Ocial U.S. Navy
photograph [1] from the USS Joseph Strauss 1978 Cruise Book. Original artist: USN
File:ASROC_launcher_USS_Columbus_1962.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/ASROC_launcher_
USS_Columbus_1962.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Ocial U.S. Navy photograph NH 98463. Original artist: USN
File:AT-4Launcher.jpeg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/AT-4Launcher.jpeg License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Contributors: Own work Original artist: Polanksy kolbe
File:AT4_2REI_1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/AT4_2REI_1.jpg License: CC BY 3.0 Contribu-
tors: collection personnelle Original artist: davric
File:AT4_HEAT_and_AT8_Bunker_Busting_Projectile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/AT4_
HEAT_and_AT8_Bunker_Busting_Projectile.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: Jackehammond
File:AT4_image.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/AT4_image.jpg License: Public domain Contribu-
tors: Transferred from en.wikipedia; transfer was stated to be made by User:W. B. Wilson. Original artist: Original uploader was W. B.
Wilson at en.wikipedia
File:ATACMSMay2006.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/ATACMSMay2006.jpg License: Public do-
main Contributors: http://sill-www.army.mil Original artist: Unknown
File:AUM-N-2_on_P2V.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/AUM-N-2_on_P2V.png License: CC BY
2.0 Contributors: http://www.flickr.com/photos/63014123@N02/5763202258/in/set-72157626688627341 Original artist: Unknown.
Color correction by Ryan Crierie
File:A_Crane_lifts_an_Evolved_Sea_Sparrow_Missile_(ESSM)_aboard_the_guided_missile_destroyer_USS_McCampbell.jpg
Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/A_Crane_lifts_an_Evolved_Sea_Sparrow_Missile_%28ESSM%29_
aboard_the_guided_missile_destroyer_USS_McCampbell.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 040505-N-4700J-001 <a class='external text' href='//commons.wikimedia.
org/w/index.php?title=Category:Files_created_by_the_United_States_Navy_with_known_IDs,,&,,lefrom=040505-N-
4700J-001#mw-category-media'>(next)</a>.
Original artist: U.S. Navy photo by Lt. j.g. Joel Jackson
File:A_Trident_Missile_Breaks_the_Surface_After_Being_Fired_from_HMS_Vanguard_MOD_45151581.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/A_Trident_Missile_Breaks_the_Surface_After_Being_Fired_from_HMS_
Vanguard_MOD_45151581.jpg License: OGL Contributors:
Photo http://www.defenceimagery.mod.uk/fotoweb/fwbin/download.dll/45153802.jpg Original artist: Lt Stuart Antrobus RN
File:Active_LGM-30_Minuteman_Sites.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Active_LGM-30_
Minuteman_Sites.png License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Bwmoll3
File:Advanced_F-106.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Advanced_F-106.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors: U.S. Air Force image via [1]. (Originally uploaded on en.wikipedia) Original artist: Unknown (Transferred by The
Bushranger/Originally uploaded by The Bushranger)
File:Advanced_Precision_Kill_Weapon_System_(icon).jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3c/Advanced_
Precision_Kill_Weapon_System_%28icon%29.jpg License: PD Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Agile_flight_test_on_F-4.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Agile_flight_test_on_F-4.jpg Li-
cense: Public domain Contributors: US Navy Photo from China Lake website Original artist: U.S. Navy
File:Agm-129_acm.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Agm-129_acm.jpg License: Public domain Con-
tributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Agm-154a.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Agm-154a.png License: Public domain Contributors:
? Original artist: ?
File:Agm-158_JASSM.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Agm-158_JASSM.jpg License: Public do-
main Contributors: Department of the Air Force Original artist: U.S. Air Force
File:Agm-28_1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Agm-28_1.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
en:Image:Agm-28_1.jpg Original artist: ?
File:Agm-83a.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Agm-83a.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
Transferred from en.wikipedia; transferred to Commons by User:JuergenKlueser using CommonsHelper.
Original artist: . Original uploader was MarcoLittel at en.wikipedia
File:Agm130_sideview.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Agm130_sideview.jpg License: Public do-
main Contributors: http://www.af.mil Original artist: US Air Force
File:Aim-9-seeker-geometry.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Aim-9-seeker-geometry.svg License:
CC0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Createaccount
File:Aim_120_amraam_missile_20040710_145603_1.4.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Aim_
120_amraam_missile_20040710_145603_1.4.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Air_Force_Global_Strike_Command.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Air_Force_Global_
Strike_Command.svg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.afgsc.af.mil/art/index.asp Original artist: en:United States Army
Institute of Heraldry
File:Alpha_Draco_under_maintenance.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Alpha_Draco_under_
maintenance.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: National Archives via [1] Original artist: Unknown
File:Ambox_current_red.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Ambox_current_red.svg License: CC0

Contributors: self-made, inspired by Gnome globe current event.svg, using Information icon3.svg and Earth clip art.svg Original artist:
Vipersnake151, penubag, Tkgd2007 (clock)
File:Ambox_important.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Ambox_important.svg License: Public do-
main Contributors: Own work, based o of Image:Ambox scales.svg Original artist: Dsmurat (talk contribs)
File:Ambox_wikify.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Ambox_wikify.svg License: Public domain Con-
tributors: Own work Original artist: penubag
File:Armed_Forces_Day_of_South_Korea_(1973)_5.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Armed_
Forces_Day_of_South_Korea_%281973%29_5.jpg License: CC BY-SA 2.5 Contributors: Taken by author Original artist: Baek, Jong-sik
File:Army-fgm148.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Army-fgm148.jpg License: Public domain Con-
tributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia; transferred to Commons by User:Sreejithk2000 using CommonsHelper.
Original artist: United States Army. Original uploader was ZStoler at en.wikipedia
File:Army_mlrs_1982_02.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Army_mlrs_1982_02.jpg License: Public
domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Arty_stub.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/Arty_stub.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors:
Transferred from en.wikipedia Original artist: Original uploader was LostArtilleryman at en.wikipedia
File:Asrocnuke1962.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Asrocnuke1962.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons. Original artist: The original uploader was Tempshill at English Wikipedia
File:Atlas-B_with_Score_payload.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Atlas-B_with_Score_payload.
jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Atlas-E.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Atlas-E.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: USAF
via Gunters Space Page Original artist: USAF
File:Atlas-F.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Atlas-F.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: USAF
via Gunters Space Page Original artist: USAF
File:Atlas-icbm-erection-large.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Atlas-icbm-erection-large.jpg Li-
cense: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Air Force Original artist: U.S. Air Force
File:Atlas_2E_Ballistic_Missile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Atlas_2E_Ballistic_Missile.jpg Li-
cense: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: EricDBier
File:Atlas_C.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Atlas_C.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: US
Air Force. Version of image is found here and credited to USAF. USAF is the only organisation that can possibly have taken the image
anyway. Original artist: US Air Force
File:Atlas_missile_launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Atlas_missile_launch.jpg License: Public
File:Atombombe_Little_Boy.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Atombombe_Little_Boy.jpg License:
Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Atombombe_Little_Boy_2.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Atombombe_Little_Boy_2.jpg Li-
cense: Public domain Contributors: http://www.archives.gov/research_room/arc/ Original artist: Unknown
File:AtomicTestingMuseumB53nuclearbomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/
AtomicTestingMuseumB53nuclearbomb.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work (Original text: I (LanceBarber
(talk)) created this work entirely by myself.) Original artist: LanceBarber (talk)
File:Atomic_cloud_over_Hiroshima.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Atomic_cloud_over_
Hiroshima.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This media is available in the holdings of the National Archives and Records
Administration, cataloged under the ARC Identier (National Archives Identier) 542192. Original artist: Enola Gay Tail Gunner S/Sgt.
George R. (Bob) Caron
File:Autonetics_D-17.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Autonetics_D-17.JPG License: CC BY-SA
3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Jnanna
File:Avenger_Stinger_Missile.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Avenger_Stinger_Missile.JPEG
License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.defenseimagery.mil/ Original artist: Lance Corporal Brandon Gwathney, United States
Marine Corps
File:Avenger_missile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/Avenger_missile.jpg License: Public domain
File:Aviacionavion.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Aviacionavion.png License: Public domain Con-
tributors:
Turkmenistan.airlines.frontview.arp.jpg Original artist: Turkmenistan.airlines.frontview.arp.jpg: elfuser
File:Azon_-_the_worlds_first_smart_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/Azon_-_the_worlds_first_
smart_bomb.jpg License: Fair use Contributors:
From [1]. Original artist: ?
File:B-17-JB-2-1944.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/B-17-JB-2-1944.png License: Public domain
Contributors: 1944 United States Army Film USA Experimental Activities of AAF"; Army Pitrial Service Original artist: United States
Army pictorial service
File:B-2_spirit_bombing.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/B-2_spirit_bombing.jpg License: Public
domain Contributors: US Air Force Original artist: USAF
File:B-83_nuclear_weapon.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/B-83_nuclear_weapon.jpg License:

File:B28RE_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/B28RE_bomb.jpg License: Public domain Con-
File:B41_nuclear_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/B41_nuclear_bomb.jpg License: Public do-
main Contributors: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/ Original artist: Ultimate source: Either a photo of the Air Force or the DOE.
File:B53_at_Pantex.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/B53_at_Pantex.jpg License: Public domain Con-
tributors: National Nuclear Security Administration [1] Original artist: Unknown
File:B57_nuclear_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/B57_nuclear_bomb.jpg License: Public do-
main Contributors: http://www.nukestrat.com/dk/intrepid.htm (direct link)
Original artist: JoeCool59 at en.wikipedia
File:B83_nuclear_bomb_trainer.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/B83_nuclear_bomb_trainer.jpg
License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil Original artist: ?
File:BAT-PB4Y-wingbat.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/BAT-PB4Y-wingbat.jpg License: Public
domain Contributors: This media is available in the holdings of the National Archives and Records Administration, cataloged under the
ARC Identier (National Archives Identier) 292148. Original artist: U.S. Navy
File:BGM-109G_GAMA.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/BGM-109G_GAMA.jpg License: Public
domain Contributors: http://www.afmissileers.org/newsletters/NL2004/dec04.pdf Original artist: United States Air Force
File:BGM-109G_Gryphon_-_ID_DF-ST-83-09866.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/
BGM-109G_Gryphon_-_ID_DF-ST-83-09866.JPEG License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/
(http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imagery.html#a=search&s=DF-ST-83-09866&guid=5410e9c854274231d22c4b4e613800c192ad006f) Original artist:
MASTER SGT. PAUL N. HAYASHI
File:BGM-109G_Gryphon_-_ID_DF-ST-84-09185.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/
BGM-109G_Gryphon_-_ID_DF-ST-84-09185.JPEG License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/
(http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imagery.html#a=search&s=DF-ST-84-09185&guid=2a2ab18eba2c05df33cf7149a4861f2ac807764e) Original artist:
TSGT ROB MARSHALL
File:BGT_IRIS-T_SL-2.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/BGT_IRIS-T_SL-2.jpg License: CC-BY-
SA-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:BLU-109_aboard_F-15E.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/BLU-109_aboard_F-15E.jpg Li-
cense: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia by SreeBot Original artist: Avriette at en.wikipedia
File:BLU-109_aboard_F-16.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/BLU-109_aboard_F-16.jpg License:
Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia; transferred to Commons by Anders using CommonsHelper. Original artist:
Original uploader was Avriette at en.wikipedia
File:BLU-3_Pineapple_Cluster_bomblet.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/BLU-3_Pineapple_
Cluster_bomblet.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons. Original artist: Megapixie at
English Wikipedia
File:BLU-82B_Daisy_Cutter_Bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/BLU-82B_Daisy_Cutter_
Bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:BLU-82_Daisy_Cutter_Fireball.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/BLU-82_Daisy_Cutter_
Fireball.JPG License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.afrc.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/080715-F-9999N-007.JPG Orig-
inal artist: U.S. Air Force photo/Capt. Patrick Nichols
File:BOAR_(Bombardment_Aerial_Rocket)_on_trailer.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/BOAR_
%28Bombardment_Aerial_Rocket%29_on_trailer.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy photo via [1] Original artist: USN
File:BOAR_launch_from_F2H.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/BOAR_launch_from_F2H.jpg Li-
cense: Public domain Contributors: Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles, the Gary Verver collection Original artist: Unknown
File:BOAR_loading_on_AD-7.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/BOAR_loading_on_AD-7.png Li-
cense: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy photo via [1] Original artist: Unknown
File:BOLT117LGB.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/BOLT117LGB.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Contributors: Own work Original artist: Sturmvogel 66
File:BOMARC.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/BOMARC.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
https://www.patrick.af.mil/45SW/PA/MEDIA/multimedia.htm (cropped and converted from TIFF) Original artist: US Air Force
File:BOMARC_A_Surface-to-Air_Missile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/BOMARC_A_
Surface-to-Air_Missile.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.hill.af.mil; exact source Original artist: Unknown
File:BQM-74E_Diagram.gif Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/BQM-74E_Diagram_-_2.png License:
File:BQM-74E_launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/BQM-74E_launch.jpg License: Public do-
main Contributors: [1] at [2] Original artist: w:United States Navy photo by Ensign Lyn Niemeyer [020207-N-0000N-001] Feb. 7, 2002
File:Baker.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Baker.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http:
//archive.org/details/MSFC-5909731 Original artist: ?
File:Balad_AH1_Cobra_1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Balad_AH1_Cobra_1.jpg License: Public
domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons. Original artist: Looper5920 at English Wikipedia
File:Bandeira_da_FNLA.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Bandeira_da_FNLA.svg License: Public
File:Bark.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Bark.svg License: CC BY-SA 4.0-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0 Contrib-

utors: This vector image was created with Inkscape by Bastianowa (Bastiana) na podstawie wersji rastrowej.
Original artist: vector version Bastianow (Bastian)
File:Bat_missile_NAN6-50.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Bat_missile_NAN6-50.jpg License:
Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy Naval Aviation News June 1950 [1] Original artist: USN
File:Bat_radar_NAN6-50.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Bat_radar_NAN6-50.jpg License: Public
domain Contributors: U.S. Navy Naval Aviation News June 1950 [1] Original artist: USN
File:Bazooka_rocket.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Bazooka_rocket.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0
File:Bazookasmithsonian.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/Bazookasmithsonian.jpg License: CC BY
2.0 Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia; Transfer was stated to be made by User:Undead_warrior.
M1 Rocket Launcher Original artist: Carl Malamud
File:Bell_XGAM-63_Rascal_USAF.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Bell_XGAM-63_Rascal_

USAF.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Bell_YASM-A-1_Tarzon.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Bell_YASM-A-1_Tarzon.png Li-
cense: Public domain Contributors: USAF photo via [1] Original artist: Unknown
File:Bluetank.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Bluetank.png License: Public domain Contributors:
Own work Original artist: LA2
File:Boeing_AGM-86B_(ALCM)_USAF.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Boeing_AGM-86B_
%28ALCM%29_USAF.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Boeing_B-52D-40-BW_(SN_56-0695)_in_flight_launching_Quail_decoy_061127-F-1234S-011.jpg Source: http:
//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Boeing_B-52D-40-BW_%28SN_56-0695%29_in_flight_launching_Quail_decoy_
061127-F-1234S-011.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Boeing_B-52F_takeoff_with_AGM-28_Hound_Dog_missiles.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/
56/Boeing_B-52F_takeoff_with_AGM-28_Hound_Dog_missiles.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: US Goverment Original artist:
?
File:Boeing_GBU-39_Small_Diameter_Bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Boeing_GBU-39_
Small_Diameter_Bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.eglin.af.mil/agmsw/mm/1.html Original artist: USAF
File:Boeing_ground-to-air_pilotless_aircraft_-GAPA-1949.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/
Boeing_ground-to-air_pilotless_aircraft_-GAPA-1949.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/
photos/media_search.asp?q=raf&page=86 Original artist: U.S. Air Force
File:Bold_Orion_on_B-47.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Bold_Orion_on_B-47.jpg License: Pub-
lic domain Contributors: Air Force Space and Missile Museum [1] Original artist: Unknown
File:Bold_Orion_on_trailer_with_B-47_launch_aircraft_in_background.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/
commons/d/de/Bold_Orion_on_trailer_with_B-47_launch_aircraft_in_background.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: USAF
photograph via International Missile and Spacecraft Guide, 1960 and [1] Original artist: Unknown
File:Bomarc_B_missile_Canada_Aviation_Museum_Ottawa_2006.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/
34/Bomarc_B_missile_Canada_Aviation_Museum_Ottawa_2006.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: en:User:Bzuk
Original artist: en:User:Bzuk
File:Bomb_Weteye.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Bomb_Weteye.jpg License: Public domain Con-
tributors: US Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, California Original artist: USN Photo by J. Chassee
File:Bundesarchiv_B_145_Bild-F029235-0024,_Nrburgring,_Bundeswehrparade_zum_NATO-Jubilum.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Bundesarchiv_B_145_Bild-F029235-0024%2C_N%C3%BCrburgring%
2C_Bundeswehrparade_zum_NATO-Jubil%C3%A4um.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 de Contributors: This image was provided to
Wikimedia Commons by the German Federal Archive (Deutsches Bundesarchiv) as part of a cooperation project. The German Federal
Archive guarantees an authentic representation only using the originals (negative and/or positive), resp. the digitalization of the originals
as provided by the Digital Image Archive. Original artist: Schaack, Lothar
File:Bundeswehr_Kreuz_Black.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Bundeswehr_Kreuz_Black.svg Li-
cense: Public domain Contributors: Online-Redaktion Heer (16.12.10). Das Eiserne Kreuz. Bundeswehr. Retrieved on 19 January 2012.
Original artist: See source
File:CATM_120C_AMRAAM_p1230119.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/CATM_120C_
AMRAAM_p1230119.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:CBU-97_SFW_(8steps_attacking_process)_NT.PNG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/CBU-97_
SFW_%288steps_attacking_process%29_NT.PNG License: CC BY 3.0 Contributors: Own work by uploader (ref:
? 2008 8 ( ) 2008 8 1 and others) Original artist: Tosaka
File:CCAFS_Navaho_(Large).jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/CCAFS_Navaho_%28Large%29.
jpg License: Public domain Contributors: own work by Fl295
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CCAFS_Navaho_%28Large%29.jpg Original artist: Fl295
File:CF-101B_firing_Genie_1982.jpeg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/CF-101B_firing_Genie_1982.
jpeg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. DefenseImagery [1] photo VIRIN: DF-ST-83-11490 [2] Original artist: Photographers
Name: TSgt. Frank Garzelnick, USAF
File:CIM-10_Bomarc_missile_battery.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/CIM-10_Bomarc_missile_
battery.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: National Museum of the U.S. Air Force photo 090603-F-1234P-002 in the BOMARC
gallery Original artist: tbd (photograph is property of USAF)
File:CQM-10B_Bormarc_drone_launch_Vandenberg_1977.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/

CQM-10B_Bormarc_drone_launch_Vandenberg_1977.JPEG License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. DefenseImagery photo VIRIN:
DF-SC-84-06887 Original artist: U.S. Air Force
File:CROW_(ballistic)_on_F4D_Skyray.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/CROW_%28ballistic%
29_on_F4D_Skyray.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy via [1] Original artist: Unknown
File:CROW_(guided)_on_F-4B_Phantom_II.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/CROW_
%28guided%29_on_F-4B_Phantom_II.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy via [1] Original artist: Unknown
File:Canadian_Red_Ensign_1921-1957.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Canadian_Red_Ensign_
1921-1957.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Capsule_for_UUM-125_Sea_Lance.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Capsule_for_UUM-125_
Sea_Lance.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Defense Visual Information Center (DVIC)
http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/Still/1987/Navy/DN-SC-87-05008.JPEG Original artist: U.S. Navy
File:CarolinasAviationMuseumHonestJohn.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/
CarolinasAviationMuseumHonestJohn.JPG License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia; transferred to
Commons by User:Sreejithk2000 using CommonsHelper.
Original artist: Shawn Dorsch. Original uploader was Sadorsch at en.wikipedia
File:Castle_Union.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Castle_Union.jpg License: Public domain Con-
tributors: www.cddc.vt.edu Original artist: United States Department of Energy
File:Cbu-87_cluster_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Cbu-87_cluster_bomb.jpg License:
Public domain Contributors: http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0104/cbu-87.jpg linked from http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0104/bombs.
html Original artist: Ocial US military image
File:Cbu89bomb.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Cbu89bomb.png License: Public domain Contribu-
tors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Chrysler_SM-78_-_PGM-19A_USAF.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Chrysler_SM-78_-_
PGM-19A_USAF.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Cold_War_Map_1959.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Cold_War_Map_1959.svg License: CC
BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Image:BlankMap-World 1959.svg by Smhur, under licence GFDL & CC-BY-SA
Original artist: Smhur
File:Commons-logo.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Commons-logo.svg License: ? Contributors: ? Original
artist: ?
File:Contaminated_Johnston_Island_Launch_Emplacement_1,_Bluegill_Prime,_Thor_failure,_July_25,_1962..jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Contaminated_Johnston_Island_Launch_Emplacement_1%2C_Bluegill_Prime%
2C_Thor_failure%2C_July_25%2C_1962..jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://home.earthlink.net/~{}markinthepacific/
sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/burnedpad01.jpg Original artist: U.S Defense Nuclear Agency
File:Convair_F-106A_Delta_Dart_1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Convair_F-106A_Delta_
Dart_1.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.ang.af.mil/history/PhotoHistory/coldwar/F106GoldenBears.asp Original
artist: United States Air Force
File:Convair_Lobber_missiles.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Convair_Lobber_missiles.jpg Li-
cense: CC0 Contributors: https://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/5019071118/ Original artist: Unknown
File:Convair_X-11_launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Convair_X-11_launch.jpg License:
File:Convair_X-12_launch.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Convair_X-12_launch.JPG License:
File:Corporalmissile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Corporalmissile.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors: en:Image:Corporalmissile.jpg Original artist: en:User:Fl295
File:Cruise_missile_pydna.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Cruise_missile_pydna.JPG License:
CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Patrickske
File:DA-SC-88-01658.jpeg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/DA-SC-88-01658.jpeg License: Public do-
main Contributors: National Archives at College Park; http://research.archives.gov/description/6424504 Original artist: Frank Trevino;
Department of Defense. American Forces Information Service. Defense Visual Information Center.
File:DAGR_missile.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/DAGR_missile.JPG License: Public domain
Contributors: U.S. Air Force Original artist: U.S. Air Force Airman or employee, taken or made as part of that persons ocial duties
File:DASO_25_Video_(Cleared_for_Release)_VP8_001_Trident_II_UGM_133A_Test_Launch_02_June_2014.webm Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/DASO_25_Video_%28Cleared_for_Release%29_VP8_001_Trident_II_UGM_
133A_Test_Launch_02_June_2014.webm License: Public domain Contributors: US Navy Strategic Systems Programs Original artist: US
Navy Strategic Systems Programs
File:DavyCrockettBomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/DavyCrockettBomb.jpg License: Public
domain Contributors: Chuck Hansen, The Swords of Armageddon: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Development Since 1945 (Sunnyvale, CA: Chuke-
lea Publications, 1995).[1] Original artist: US government DOD and/or DOE photograph
File:Davy_Crockett_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Davy_Crockett_bomb.jpg License: Pub-
lic domain Contributors: Immediate source: Chuck Hansen, The Swords of Armageddon: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Development Since 1945
(Sunnyvale, CA: Chukelea Publications, 1995).[1] Original artist: U.S. federal government
File:Defence_Imagery_-_Missiles_12.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Defence_Imagery_-_
Missiles_12.jpg License: OGL Contributors: Image 45151586.jpg (item 04101137) at http://www.defenceimagery.mod.uk/ Original
artist: Royal Navy
File:Defense.gov_News_Photo_971111-N-6939M-303.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Defense.

gov_News_Photo_971111-N-6939M-303.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 971111-N-6939M-303 <a class='external text' href='//commons.wikimedia.
6939M-303#mw-category-media'>(next)</a>.
Original artist: Petty Ocer 3rd Class Christopher Mobley, U.S. Navy
File:Defense.gov_News_Photo_980220-N-0507F-001.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Defense.
gov_News_Photo_980220-N-0507F-001.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 980220-N-0507F-001 <a class='external text' href='//commons.wikimedia.
0507F-001#mw-category-media'>(next)</a>.
Original artist: Petty Ocer 3rd Class Brian Fleske, U.S. Navy
File:Defense.gov_photo_essay_080620-F-9876D-219.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Defense.
gov_photo_essay_080620-F-9876D-219.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
This Image was released by the United States Air Force with the ID 080620-F-9876D-219 <a class='external text'
href='//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Files_created_by_the_United_States_Air_Force_with_known_
IDs,,&,,lefrom=080620-F-9876D-219#mw-category-media'>(next)</a>.
Original artist: Sta Sgt. Patrick Dixon
File:Delta_II_rocket_lift_off.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Delta_II_rocket_lift_off.jpg License:
Public domain Contributors: http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=31336 Original artist: NASA/Kim Shiett
File:Demonstration_cluster_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Demonstration_cluster_bomb.
jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Historic American Engineering Record, Library of Congress, Call number HAER COLO,1-
COMCI,1-191 Original artist: U.S. Army, original print located at Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Commerce City, Colorado
File:Deployment_of_Nike_Missiles_Within_Contiguous_United_States.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/
commons/9/9e/Deployment_of_Nike_Missiles_Within_Contiguous_United_States.png License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work
Original artist: Bwmoll3
File:Diamondback_missile.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Diamondback_missile.png License:
Public domain Contributors: Characteristics of Strategic, Tactical and Research Missiles, Convair San Diego. Public Domain at [1]
Original artist: Hanson, C.M.
File:Downed_Tomahawk_cruise_missile_in_Belgrade,_Serbia.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/
Downed_Tomahawk_cruise_missile_in_Belgrade%2C_Serbia.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: belgrade serbia nikola tesla aero-
nautical museum tomahawk cruise missile Original artist: David Holt
File:Dragon_02.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Dragon_02.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
File:Dragon_04.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Dragon_04.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
File:Duke_Field_reservists_drop_last_BLU-82_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Duke_
Field_reservists_drop_last_BLU-82_bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.afrc.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/
photos/080715-F-9999N-004.JPG Original artist: U.S. Air Force photo/Capt. Patrick Nichols
File:ELEC_AN-MPQ-64_Sentinel_Radar_lg.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/ELEC_
AN-MPQ-64_Sentinel_Radar_lg.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons by User:Wdwd
using CommonsHelper. Original artist: US ARMY.
File:East_oblique_of_missile_site_control_building_-_Stanley_R._Mickelsen_Safeguard_Complex,_Missile_Site_
Control_Building,_Northeast_of_Tactical_Road;_southeast_of_Tactical_Road_South,_HAER_ND-9-B-9.tif Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/East_oblique_of_missile_site_control_building_-_Stanley_R._Mickelsen_
Safeguard_Complex%2C_Missile_Site_Control_Building%2C_Northeast_of_Tactical_Road%3B_southeast_of_Tactical_Road_
South%2C_HAER_ND-9-B-9.tif License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/nd0046.photos.199342p
Original artist:
Halpern, Benjamin
Related names:
Ralph M. Parsons Company

Raytheon Company
Morrison-Knudson and Associates
Jackson, Christiana, transmitter
Zielinski, James Edward, historian
File:Edit-clear.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f2/Edit-clear.svg License: Public domain Contributors: The

Tango! Desktop Project. Original artist:
The people from the Tango! project. And according to the meta-data in the le, specically: Andreas Nilsson, and Jakub Steiner (although
minimally).
File:Ensign_of_the_Royal_Air_Force.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Ensign_of_the_Royal_Air_
Force.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Evolved_Sea_Sparrow_Missile.gif Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Evolved_Sea_Sparrow_

Missile.gif License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/policy/vision/vis99/v99-ch3c.html Original artist:
USN
File:F-100D_308TFS_31TFW_TuyHoa_1966.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/F-100D_308TFS_
31TFW_TuyHoa_1966.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Scan from Dana Bell, Air War over Vietnam, Volume IV. Arms and
Armour Press, London, Harrisburg (PA), 1984, ISBN 0853686351, p. 17, cites U.S. Air Force as source. Also USAF photo no 020903-
o-9999r-020 [1]. Original artist: USAF
File:F-104G_with_a_ZELL-Verfaren_rocket_booster_and_a_B-43_nuclear_bomb.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/
wikipedia/commons/f/fe/F-104G_with_a_ZELL-Verfaren_rocket_booster_and_a_B-43_nuclear_bomb.JPG License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Contributors: Own work Original artist: MoRsE
File:F-105G_with_AGM-78_taking_of_Korat.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/F-105G_with_
AGM-78_taking_of_Korat.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Air Force photo 090605-F-1234P-079 [1] Original artist: U.S.
Air Force
File:F-106A_119th_FIS_launching_AIM-9_1984.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/F-106A_119th_
FIS_launching_AIM-9_1984.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. DefenseImagery photo VIRIN: DF-ST-85-09775 (cropped and
rightened) Original artist: TSgt. Ernest Sealing, USAF
File:F-14A_VF-1_launching_AIM-54_Phoenix.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/F-14A_VF-1_
launching_AIM-54_Phoenix.JPEG License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. DefenseImagery [1] photo VIRIN: DN-SC-04-17200 [2]
Original artist: USN
File:F-14_carrying_AMRAAM.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/F-14_carrying_AMRAAM.jpg Li-
cense: Public domain Contributors: ID: DNSC8305179 Original artist: Service Depicted: Navy
Camera Operator: PHC THORNSLEY
File:F-14_launching_a_TALD.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/F-14_launching_a_TALD.jpg Li-
cense: Public domain Contributors: ID:DNSC9501057 Original artist: Service Depicted: Navy
Camera Operator: VERNON PUGH
File:F-15A_With_ASM-135_ASAT_drawing.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/F-15A_With_
ASM-135_ASAT_drawing.png License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.vectorsite.net/avf15_1.html Original artist: Greg Goebel
File:F-15E_drops_2,000-pound_munitions_Afghanistan_2009.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/
F-15E_drops_2%2C000-pound_munitions_Afghanistan_2009.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.defense.gov/
dodcmsshare/photoessay/2009-12/hires_091126-F-8155K-914a.jpg Original artist: U.S. Air Force photo by Sta Sgt. Michael B. Keller
File:F-15E_gbu-28_release.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/F-15E_gbu-28_release.jpg License:
Public domain Contributors: http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DVIC_View/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=DFSD0508507&JPGPath=/Assets/
2005/Air_Force/DF-SD-05-08507.JPG Original artist: TSGT Michael Ammons, USAF
File:F-16_carrying_MALD.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/F-16_carrying_MALD.jpg License:
Public domain Contributors: ID:DFSD0108201 / 990702F9448S009 Original artist: Service Depicted: Air Force
File:F-18C_with_SLAM-ER_missile_and_AWW-13_pods_in_flight.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/
3/3b/F-18C_with_SLAM-ER_missile_and_AWW-13_pods_in_flight.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Ocial U.S. Navy pho-
tograph [1] from the Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division. Original artist: USN
File:F-22_GBU39B_AIM-120_m02006120800117.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/F-22_
GBU39B_AIM-120_m02006120800117.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.deagel.com/library2/ Original artist: US
Air Force
File:F-4B_VF-111_CVA-43.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/F-4B_VF-111_CVA-43.jpg License:
Public domain Contributors: www.usscoralsea.net[1] Original artist: Richard Tobin, USN
File:F-4D_497th_TFS_with_BOLT-117s_1971.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/F-4D_497th_
TFS_with_BOLT-117s_1971.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Air Force photo from Dana Bell: Air War over Vietnam III.
London, Arms&Armour Press 1983, p. 28. ISBN 0-85368-607-6. Cited as USAF photo. Original artist: USAF
File:F-4E_3rd_TFW_dropping_GBU-15_1985.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/F-4E_3rd_
TFW_dropping_GBU-15_1985.JPEG License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. DefenseImagery photo VIRIN: DF-ST-87-13356
Original artist: SSgt. Lee Schading, USAF
File:F-84E_launchs_rockets.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/F-84E_launchs_rockets.jpg License:
Public domain Contributors: National Museum of the U.S. Air Force Original artist: Unknown
File:F-89J_Montana_ANG_display_Great_Falls_2008.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/F-89J_
Montana_ANG_display_Great_Falls_2008.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia Original artist:
Banjodog (talk). Original uploader was Banjodog at en.wikipedia, 23 August 2008 (original upload date))
File:F4D_with_Caleb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/F4D_with_Caleb.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors: U.S. Navy photograph via [1] Original artist: Unknown
File:F94CRocketPod.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/F94CRocketPod.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Contributors: Own work Original artist: Sturmvogel 66
File:FBX_T.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/FBX_T.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http:
//www.mda.mil/mdalink/images/FBX_T.jpg Original artist: US Army employee
File:FFAR_being_loaded_on_TBF.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/FFAR_being_loaded_on_TBF.
png License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy Historical Center / Naval Aviation News, May-June 1995 [1] Original artist: Unknown
File:FFV_502_HEPD_LMAW_projectile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/FFV_502_HEPD_
LMAW_projectile.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: Jackehammond
File:FGM-148_Javelin_-_ID_030206-M-5753Q-004.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/FGM-148_

Javelin_-_ID_030206-M-5753Q-004.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=5007 Original
artist: Lance Cpl. Kevin Quihuis Jr.
File:FGM-148_Javelin_-_ID_DM-SD-04-07567.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/FGM-148_
Javelin_-_ID_DM-SD-04-07567.JPEG License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/
(http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imagery.html#a=search&s=DM-SD-04-07567&guid=cb9def718ed81dd9d9b979cc37ce2932e9082b93) Original artist:
SGT MAURICIO CAMPINO, USMC
File:FGR-17_VIPER.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/FGR-17_VIPER.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors: United States Army Public Aairs Oce, Washington, D.C. Original artist: United States Army
File:FIM-92_Stinger_USMC.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/FIM-92_Stinger_USMC.JPG Li-
cense: Public domain Contributors: Still Image: DF-ST-86-05165 Originally uploaded in November 2008 to en:Wikipedia (log) by Koalorka
(talk). Original artist: SSGT DANNY PEREZ, U.S. Air Force
File:FJ-4B_VX-5_with_Mk_12_nuclear_bomb_over_China_Lake_c1958.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/
commons/c/c7/FJ-4B_VX-5_with_Mk_12_nuclear_bomb_over_China_Lake_c1958.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S.
Navy photo [1] via chinalakealumni.org Original artist: USN
File:Fairchild_XBQ-3.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Fairchild_XBQ-3.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors: U.S. Army Air Forces Original artist: Unknown
File:Falcon_JDAM_LGBs_(1).jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Falcon_JDAM_LGBs_%281%29.
jpg License: Public domain Contributors: USAF Original artist: Tech. Sgt. Scott Reed
File:Final_US_Navy_RIM-8_Talos_firing_1979.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Final_US_Navy_
RIM-8_Talos_firing_1979.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ID:DN-ST-84-03162 / Service Depicted: Navy / National Archive#
NN33300514 2005-06-30 Original artist: Camera Operator: PH1 DAVID C. MACLEAN
File:Firing_an_AT4.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Firing_an_AT4.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors: washington state Original artist: Army.mil photo by Jason Kaye
File:First_Chemical_weapons_destroyed_at_JACADS.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/First_
Chemical_weapons_destroyed_at_JACADS.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency, see gallery
Original artist: U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency
File:First_gps_weapon_OCD.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/First_gps_weapon_OCD.jpg License:
Public domain Contributors: USAF Eglin Air Force Base Photographic Services, Public Relations Original artist: USAF Eglin Air Force
Base Photographic Services, Public Relations
File:Flag_of_Angola.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Flag_of_Angola.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: Drawn by User:SKopp Original artist: User:SKopp
File:Flag_of_Argentina.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Flag_of_Argentina.svg License: Public do-
main Contributors: Based on: http://www.manuelbelgrano.gov.ar/bandera_colores.htm Original artist: (Vector graphics by Dbenbenn)
File:Flag_of_Australia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b9/Flag_of_Australia.svg License: Public domain Con-
File:Flag_of_Austria.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Flag_of_Austria.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: Own work, http://www.bmlv.gv.at/abzeichen/dekorationen.shtml Original artist: User:SKopp
File:Flag_of_Bahrain.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Flag_of_Bahrain.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: http://www.moci.gov.bh/en/KingdomofBahrain/BahrainFlag/ Original artist: Source: Drawn by User:SKopp, rewritten by
User:Zscout370
File:Flag_of_Bangladesh.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Flag_of_Bangladesh.svg License: Public
domain Contributors: http://www.dcaa.com.bd/Modules/CountryProfile/BangladeshFlag.aspx Original artist: User:SKopp
File:Flag_of_Belgium_(civil).svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Flag_of_Belgium_%28civil%29.svg
License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Flag_of_Bolivia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Flag_of_Bolivia.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: Own work Original artist: User:SKopp
File:Flag_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Flag_of_Bosnia_and_
Herzegovina.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: Kseferovic
File:Flag_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina_(1992-1998).svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Flag_of_
Bosnia_and_Herzegovina_%281992-1998%29.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work, from other free images. Original
artist: Vernes Seferovic
File:Flag_of_Botswana.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Flag_of_Botswana.svg License: Public do-
main Contributors: Drawn by User:SKopp, rewritten by User:Gabbe, rewritten by User:Madden Original artist: User:SKopp, User:Gabbe,
User:Madden
File:Flag_of_Brazil.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/05/Flag_of_Brazil.svg License: PD Contributors: ? Original
artist: ?
File:Flag_of_Bulgaria.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Flag_of_Bulgaria.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: The ag of Bulgaria. The colors are specied at http://www.government.bg/cgi-bin/e-cms/vis/vis.pl?s=001&p=0034&n=
000005&g= as: Original artist: SKopp
File:Flag_of_Cambodia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Flag_of_Cambodia.svg License: CC0 Con-
tributors: File:Flag_of_Cambodia.svg Original artist: Draw new ag by User: _
File:Flag_of_Cameroon.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Flag_of_Cameroon.svg License: Public do-
main Contributors: Drawn by User:SKopp Original artist: (of code) cs:User:-xfi-
File:Flag_of_Canada.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cf/Flag_of_Canada.svg License: PD Contributors: ? Orig-

inal artist: ?
File:Flag_of_Chad.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Flag_of_Chad.svg License: Public domain Con-
tributors: Quelle Fonto: http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/td.html Original artist: SKopp & others (see upload log)
File:Flag_of_Chile.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Flag_of_Chile.svg License: Public domain Con-
tributors: Own work Original artist: SKopp
File:Flag_of_Colombia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Flag_of_Colombia.svg License: Public do-
main Contributors: Drawn by User:SKopp Original artist: SKopp
File:Flag_of_Croatia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Flag_of_Croatia.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: http://www.sabor.hr/Default.aspx?sec=4317 Original artist: Nightstallion, Elephantus, Neoneo13, Denelson83, Rainman,
R-41, Minestrone, Lupo, Zscout370,
<a href='//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:MaGa' title='User:MaGa'>Ma</a><a href='//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:
Croatian_squares_Ljubicic.png' class='image'><img alt='Croatian squares Ljubicic.png' src='//upload.wikimedia.org/
wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7f/Croatian_squares_Ljubicic.png/15px-Croatian_squares_Ljubicic.png' width='15' height='15'
srcset='//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7f/Croatian_squares_Ljubicic.png/23px-Croatian_squares_Ljubicic.png
1.5x, //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7f/Croatian_squares_Ljubicic.png/30px-Croatian_squares_Ljubicic.png
2x' data-le-width='202' data-le-height='202' /></a><a href='//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MaGa' title='User
talk:MaGa'>Ga</a> (based on Decision of the Parliament)
File:Flag_of_Cyprus.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Flag_of_Cyprus.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: Own work Original artist: User:Vzb83
File:Flag_of_Denmark.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Flag_of_Denmark.svg License: Public do-
main Contributors: Own work Original artist: User:Madden
File:Flag_of_Egypt.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Flag_of_Egypt.svg License: CC0 Contributors:
From the Open Clip Art website. Original artist: Open Clip Art
File:Flag_of_El_Salvador.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Flag_of_El_Salvador.svg License: Public
domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: user:Nightstallion
File:Flag_of_Estonia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Flag_of_Estonia.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: http://www.riigikantselei.ee/?id=73847 Original artist: Originally drawn by User:SKopp. Blue colour changed by User:PeepP
to match the image at [1].
File:Flag_of_Ethiopia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Flag_of_Ethiopia.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: http://www.ethiopar.net/type/Amharic/hopre/bills/1998/654.ae..pdf Original artist: Drawn by User:SKopp
File:Flag_of_Finland.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Flag_of_Finland.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1978/19780380 Original artist: Drawn by User:SKopp
File:Flag_of_France.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c3/Flag_of_France.svg License: PD Contributors: ? Origi-
nal artist: ?
File:Flag_of_Georgia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Flag_of_Georgia.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: Own work based on File:Brdzanebuleba 31.pdf Original artist: User:SKopp
File:Flag_of_Germany.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/ba/Flag_of_Germany.svg License: PD Contributors: ?
Original artist: ?
File:Flag_of_Greece.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Flag_of_Greece.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: own code Original artist: (of code) cs:User:-xfi- (talk)
File:Flag_of_Hungary.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Flag_of_Hungary.svg License: Public domain
Contributors:
Flags of the World Hungary Original artist: SKopp
File:Flag_of_India.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/41/Flag_of_India.svg License: Public domain Contributors:
File:Flag_of_Indonesia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Flag_of_Indonesia.svg License: Public do-
main Contributors: Law: s:id:Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 24 Tahun 2009 (http://badanbahasa.kemdiknas.go.id/
lamanbahasa/sites/default/files/UU_2009_24.pdf) Original artist: Drawn by User:SKopp, rewritten by User:Gabbe
File:Flag_of_Iran.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Flag_of_Iran.svg License: Public domain Contrib-
utors: URL http://www.isiri.org/portal/files/std/1.htm and an English translation / interpretation at URL http://flagspot.net/flags/ir'.html
Original artist: Various
File:Flag_of_Iraq.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Flag_of_Iraq.svg License: Public domain Contrib-
utors:
This image is based on the CIA Factbook, and the website of Oce of the President of Iraq, vectorized by User:Militaryace Original artist:
Unknown, published by Iraqi governemt, vectorized by User:Militaryace based on the work of User:Hoshie
File:Flag_of_Ireland.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Flag_of_Ireland.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: Drawn by User:SKopp Original artist: ?
File:Flag_of_Israel.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Flag_of_Israel.svg License: Public domain Con-
tributors: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Modern%20History/Israel%20at%2050/The%20Flag%20and%20the%20Emblem Origi-
nal artist:
File:Flag_of_Italy.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/03/Flag_of_Italy.svg License: PD Contributors: ? Original
artist: ?
File:Flag_of_Japan.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9e/Flag_of_Japan.svg License: PD Contributors: ? Original

artist: ?
File:Flag_of_Jordan.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Flag_of_Jordan.svg License: Public domain
File:Flag_of_Kenya.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Flag_of_Kenya.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: http://www.kenyarchives.go.ke/flag_specifications.htm Original artist: User:Pumbaa80
File:Flag_of_Kurdistan.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Flag_of_Kurdistan.svg License: Public
domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: <a href='http://validator.w3.org/' data-x-rel='nofollow'><img alt='W3C' src='//upload.
wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Invalid_SVG_1.1_%28pink%29.svg/88px-Invalid_SVG_1.1_%28pink%29.svg.png'
width='88' height='30' style='vertical-align: top' srcset='//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Invalid_SVG_1.1_
%28pink%29.svg/132px-Invalid_SVG_1.1_%28pink%29.svg.png 1.5x, //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/
Invalid_SVG_1.1_%28pink%29.svg/176px-Invalid_SVG_1.1_%28pink%29.svg.png 2x' data-le-width='91' data-le-height='31'
/></a>iThe source code of the previous SVG was invalid due to 12 errors.
File:Flag_of_Kuwait.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Flag_of_Kuwait.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: Own work Original artist: SKopp
File:Flag_of_Latvia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Flag_of_Latvia.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: Drawn by SKopp Original artist: Latvija
File:Flag_of_Lebanon.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Flag_of_Lebanon.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: ? Original artist: Traced based on the CIA World Factbook with some modication done to the colours based on information
at Vexilla mundi.
File:Flag_of_Lithuania.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Flag_of_Lithuania.svg License: Public do-
main Contributors: Own work Original artist: SuKopp
File:Flag_of_Luxembourg.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Flag_of_Luxembourg.svg License: Pub-
lic domain Contributors: Own work http://www.legilux.public.lu/leg/a/archives/1972/0051/a051.pdf#page=2, colors from http://www.
legilux.public.lu/leg/a/archives/1993/0731609/0731609.pdf Original artist: Drawn by User:SKopp
File:Flag_of_Malaysia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Flag_of_Malaysia.svg License: Public
domain Contributors: Create based on the Malaysian Government Website (archive version)
Original artist: SKopp, Zscout370 and Ranking Update
File:Flag_of_Mexico.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Flag_of_Mexico.svg License: Public domain

Contributors: This vector image was created with Inkscape. Original artist: Alex Covarrubias, 9 April 2006
File:Flag_of_Morocco.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Flag_of_Morocco.svg License: Public domain

Contributors: adala.justice.gov.ma (Ar) Original artist: Denelson83, Zscout370
File:Flag_of_Myanmar_(1974-2010).svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Flag_of_Myanmar_
%281974-2010%29.svg License: CC0 Contributors: Open Clip Art Original artist: Unknown
File:Flag_of_New_Zealand.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Flag_of_New_Zealand.svg License:
Public domain Contributors: http://www.mch.govt.nz/files/NZ%20Flag%20-%20proportions.JPG Original artist: Zscout370, Hugh Jass
and many others
File:Flag_of_Nigeria.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Flag_of_Nigeria.svg License: Public domain
File:Flag_of_North_Korea.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Flag_of_North_Korea.svg License: Pub-
lic domain Contributors: Template: Original artist: Zscout370
File:Flag_of_Norway.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Flag_of_Norway.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: Own work Original artist: Dbenbenn
File:Flag_of_Oman.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Flag_of_Oman.svg License: CC0 Contributors:
File:Flag_of_Pakistan.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Flag_of_Pakistan.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: The drawing and the colors were based from agspot.net. Original artist: User:Zscout370
File:Flag_of_Paraguay.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Flag_of_Paraguay.svg License: CC0 Con-
tributors: This le is from the Open Clip Art Library, which released it explicitly into the public domain (see here). Original artist: Republica
del Paraguay
File:Flag_of_Poland.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/12/Flag_of_Poland.svg License: Public domain Contribu-
File:Flag_of_Portugal.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Flag_of_Portugal.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: http://jorgesampaio.arquivo.presidencia.pt/pt/republica/simbolos/bandeiras/index.html#imgs Original artist: Columbano
Bordalo Pinheiro (1910; generic design); Vtor Lus Rodrigues; Antnio Martins-Tuvlkin (2004; this specic vector set: see sources)
File:Flag_of_Qatar.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Flag_of_Qatar.svg License: Public domain Con-
tributors: Drawn by User:SKopp Original artist: (of code) cs:User:-xfi-
File:Flag_of_Rhodesia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Flag_of_Rhodesia.svg License: Public do-
main Contributors: self made, supersedes original based on Rhodesia Flag.png Original artist: Sagredo, supersedes image by en:User:Actarux
File:Flag_of_Romania.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Flag_of_Romania.svg License: Public do-
main Contributors: Own work Original artist: AdiJapan
File:Flag_of_Saudi_Arabia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Flag_of_Saudi_Arabia.svg License:

CC0 Contributors: the actual ag Original artist: Unknown
File:Flag_of_Serbia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Flag_of_Serbia.svg License: Public domain Con-
tributors: From http://www.parlament.gov.rs/content/cir/o_skupstini/simboli/simboli.asp. Original artist: sodipodi.com
File:Flag_of_Singapore.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Flag_of_Singapore.svg License: Public do-
main Contributors: The drawing was based from http://app.www.sg/who/42/National-Flag.aspx. Colors from the book: (2001). The
National Symbols Kit. Singapore: Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts. pp. 5. ISBN 8880968010 Pantone 032 shade from
http://www.pantone.com/pages/pantone/colorfinder.aspx?c_id=13050 Original artist: Various
File:Flag_of_Slovenia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Flag_of_Slovenia.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: Own work construction sheet from http://flagspot.net/flags/si%27.html#coa Original artist: User:Achim1999
File:Flag_of_Somalia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Flag_of_Somalia.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: see below Original artist: see upload history
File:Flag_of_South_Africa.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Flag_of_South_Africa.svg License: Pub-
lic domain Contributors: Per specications in the Constitution of South Africa, Schedule 1 - National ag Original artist: Flag design by
Frederick Brownell, image by Wikimedia Commons users
File:Flag_of_South_Africa_1928-1994.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Flag_of_South_Africa_
1928-1994.svg License: Public domain Contributors: SVG based on this image Original artist: Parliament of South Africa
File:Flag_of_South_Korea.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Flag_of_South_Korea.svg License: Pub-

lic domain Contributors: Ordinance Act of the Law concerning the National Flag of the Republic of Korea, Construction and color guidelines
(Russian/English) This site is not exist now.(2012.06.05) Original artist: Various
File:Flag_of_South_Vietnam.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Flag_of_South_Vietnam.svg License:
Public domain Contributors: (see history) Original artist: (see history)
File:Flag_of_Spain.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9a/Flag_of_Spain.svg License: PD Contributors: ? Original
artist: ?
File:Flag_of_Swaziland.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Flag_of_Swaziland.svg License: CC0 Con-
File:Flag_of_Sweden.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4c/Flag_of_Sweden.svg License: PD Contributors: ?
Original artist: ?
File:Flag_of_Switzerland.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Flag_of_Switzerland.svg License: Public
domain Contributors: PDF Colors Construction sheet Original artist: User:Marc Mongenet
Credits:
File:Flag_of_Syria_(1932-1958;_1961-1963).svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Flag_of_Syria_
%281932-1958%3B_1961-1963%29.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: User:AnonMoos
File:Flag_of_Thailand.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Flag_of_Thailand.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: Own work Original artist: Zscout370
File:Flag_of_Tunisia.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Flag_of_Tunisia.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: http://www.w3.org/ Original artist: entraneur: BEN KHALIFA WISSAM
File:Flag_of_Turkey.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Flag_of_Turkey.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: Turkish Flag Law (Trk Bayra Kanunu), Law nr. 2893 of 22 September 1983. Text (in Turkish) at the website of the
Turkish Historical Society (Trk Tarih Kurumu) Original artist: David Benbennick (original author)
File:Flag_of_UNITA.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Flag_of_UNITA.svg License: CC BY-SA 1.0
Contributors: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Unita.jpg Original artist: Ceresnet
File:Flag_of_Venezuela.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Flag_of_Venezuela.svg License: Public do-
main Contributors: ocial websites Original artist: Zscout370
File:Flag_of_Vietnam.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Flag_of_Vietnam.svg License: Public do-
main Contributors: http://vbqppl.moj.gov.vn/law/vi/1951_to_1960/1955/195511/195511300001 http://vbqppl.moj.gov.vn/vbpq/Lists/
Vn%20bn%20php%20lut/View_Detail.aspx?ItemID=820 Original artist: Lu Ly v li theo ngun trn
File:Flag_of_Yemen.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Flag_of_Yemen.svg License: CC0 Contributors:
Open Clip Art website Original artist: ?
File:Flag_of_Zimbabwe.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Flag_of_Zimbabwe.svg License: Public do-
main Contributors: Own work after www.flag.de Original artist: User:Madden
File:Flag_of_the_Czech_Republic.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Flag_of_the_Czech_Republic.
svg License: Public domain Contributors:
-x-'s le
-x-'s code
Zirlands codes of colors
Original artist:
(of code): SVG version by cs:-x-.
File:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg Li-
cense: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: Zscout370
File:Flag_of_the_People{}s_Republic_of_China.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Flag_of_the_

People%27s_Republic_of_China.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work, http://www.protocol.gov.hk/flags/eng/n_flag/
design.html Original artist: Drawn by User:SKopp, redrawn by User:Denelson83 and User:Zscout370
File:Flag_of_the_Philippines.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Flag_of_the_Philippines.svg License:
Public domain Contributors: The design was taken from [1] and the colors were also taken from a Government website Original artist:
User:Achim1999
File:Flag_of_the_Republic_of_China.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Flag_of_the_Republic_of_
China.svg License: Public domain Contributors: [1] Original artist: User:SKopp
File:Flag_of_the_Soviet_Union.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Flag_of_the_Soviet_Union.svg Li-
cense: Public domain Contributors: http://pravo.levonevsky.org/ Original artist:
File:Flag_of_the_United_Arab_Emirates.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Flag_of_the_United_
Arab_Emirates.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ae/Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg Li-
cense: PD Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a4/Flag_of_the_United_States.svg License:
PD Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Flag_of_the_United_States_Navy.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Flag_of_the_United_
States_Navy.svg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.flagpictures.org/downloads/print/usnavy1.svg Original artist: United
States Department of the Navy
File:Fleetwings_XBQ-1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Fleetwings_XBQ-1.jpg License: Public do-
main Contributors: United States Army Air Forces photo Original artist: Unknown
File:Fleetwings_XBQ-2A.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Fleetwings_XBQ-2A.jpg License: Public
domain Contributors: United States Army Air Forces Archive Original artist: Unknown
File:Fleetwings_XBQ-2A_front.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Fleetwings_XBQ-2A_front.jpg Li-
cense: Public domain Contributors: USAAF photo # (USA)3866 Original artist: Unknown
File:Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg License: Cc-by-
sa-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Fregatte_Sachsen_(F_219).jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Fregatte_Sachsen_%28F_219%29.
jpg License: CC BY 2.0 Contributors: originally posted to Flickr as Fregattee SACHSEN Original artist: Bundeswehr-Fotos
File:Front_view_of_an_XM70E2_towed_rocket_launcher.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Front_
view_of_an_XM70E2_towed_rocket_launcher.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: I took a photo of it at an outdoor, US government
owned museum Original artist: Jon.jeckell
File:GAM-67_on_B-47.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/GAM-67_on_B-47.png License: CC BY 2.0
Contributors: http://www.flickr.com/photos/63014123@N02/5763239364/in/set-72157626688627341 Original artist: Ryan Crierie
File:GBU-10_xxl.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/GBU-10_xxl.jpg License: Public domain Contrib-
utors: ? Original artist: ?
File:GBU-12s_loading_on_F-14.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/GBU-12s_loading_on_F-14.jpg
License: Public domain Contributors: Navy NewsStand Photo ID: 041211-N-4953E-144
Navy NewsStand Home Original artist: United States Navy, Photographers Mate 2nd Class Danny Ewing Jr.
File:GBU-15_xxl.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/GBU-15_xxl.jpg License: Public domain Contribu-
File:GBU-24_xxl.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/GBU-24_xxl.jpg License: Public domain Contribu-
File:GBU-28_xxl.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/GBU-28_xxl.jpg License: Public domain Contribu-
File:GBU-38_munition_explosions_in_Iraq.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/GBU-38_munition_
explosions_in_Iraq.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.flickr.com/photos/soldiersmediacenter/2333229360/in/
photostream/ Original artist: Andy Dunaway
File:GBU-99_AGM-12B_AGM-12C.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/GBU-99_AGM-12B_
AGM-12C.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: en:Image:GBU-99 AGM-12B AGM-12C.jpg Original artist: U.S. military
File:GT-1_on_B-25J.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/GT-1_on_B-25J.png License: Public domain
Contributors: USAAF photo A-61220 [1] Original artist: Unknown
File:GTR-18_launch_Crow_Valley_Philippines_1984.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/
GTR-18_launch_Crow_Valley_Philippines_1984.JPEG License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. DefenseImagery photo VIRIN:
DF-ST-86-05156 Original artist: SSgt. Daniel D. Perez, USAF
File:GTR-18s_ready_to_launch_Philippines_1984.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/GTR-18s_
ready_to_launch_Philippines_1984.JPEG License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. DefenseImagery photo VIRIN: DF-ST-86-05162
Original artist: SSgt. Daniel D. Perez, USAF
File:Gadsden_flag.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Gadsden_flag.svg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Con-

tributors: Own work Original artist: Lexicon, Vikrum
File:Gbu_16_paveway_loading.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Gbu_16_paveway_loading.jpg Li-
cense: Public domain Contributors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gbu_16_paveway_loading.jpg Original artist: uploaded by Avriette
File:Gemini-Titan_11_Launch_-_GPN-2000-001020.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/
Gemini-Titan_11_Launch_-_GPN-2000-001020.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Great Images in NASA (Description)
Original artist: NASA/KSC
File:GeminiPatch.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/GeminiPatch.png License: Public domain Contrib-
File:General_Effects_of_Atomic_Bomb_on_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki.ogv Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/
commons/b/b1/General_Effects_of_Atomic_Bomb_on_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki.ogv License: Public domain Contributors: This video
was digitized from the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration holdings or another U.S. Federal government source, and made
available online by the International Amateur Scanning League and FedFlix, a project of Public.Resource.Org. The digital video le was
originally available and sourced from the Internet Archive.
Original artist: Department of Defense
File:German_MEADS_Battle_Manager_0323.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/af/German_MEADS_Battle_Manager_0323.jpg
License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors:
MEADS International
Original artist:
MEADS International
File:German_MEADS_Launcher_0335.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c9/German_MEADS_Launcher_0335.jpg License: CC-
BY-SA-3.0 Contributors:
MEADS International
Original artist:
MEADS International
File:German_helmet.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/German_helmet.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own
work Original artist: F l a n k e r
File:Gimlet_FJ-2_F6F.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Gimlet_FJ-2_F6F.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S.
Navy photograph via [1] Original artist: USN
File:Gimlet_on_F2H.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Gimlet_on_F2H.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S.
Navy via [1] Original artist: Unknown
File:Goldsboro_Mk_39_Bomb_1-close-up.jpeg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Goldsboro_Mk_39_Bomb_1-close-up.
jpeg License: Public domain Contributors: http://2013.riverrunfilm.com/sites/default/files/films/LegendOfTheBuriedBomb.jpg Original artist: U.S. Air Force
File:Gun-type_fission_weapon_en-labels_thin_lines.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Gun-type_fission_weapon_
en-labels_thin_lines.svg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: Based on an illustration by FastFission (Image:Gun-type Nuclear weapon.png) and a modied
version by Howard Morland (Image:Gun-Type Fission Weapon.png). The bullet and the target were slighty modied (the bullet was a stack of rings). Original
artist: Vector version by Dake with English labels by Papa Lima Whiskey, lines modied by Meld
File:HICS_Lines_Connectivity2.PNG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/HICS_Lines_Connectivity2.PNG License: Public
domain Contributors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_control_center_(ICBM)#Photo_Gallery Original artist: United States Air Force
File:HIMARS_-_missile_launched.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/HIMARS_-_missile_launched.jpg License: Public
domain Contributors: http://www.pentagon.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=24398; exact image source Original artist: U.S. Army photo
File:HIMARS_DA-SD-07-43938.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/HIMARS_DA-SD-07-43938.jpg License: Public do-
main Contributors: Defense Visual Information Center, United States Department of Defense U.S. Marine Corps photo - released (DOD ID: DA-SD-07-43938,
070601-M-1391M-010) Original artist: LCPL Seth Maggard, USMC
File:HMAS_Toowoomba_FFH-156_Gulf_of_Oman.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/HMAS_Toowoomba_FFH-156_
Gulf_of_Oman.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 091104-N-3038W-255 <a class='external text' href='//commons.wikimedia.org/w/
index.php?title=Category:Files_created_by_the_United_States_Navy_with_known_IDs,,&,,lefrom=091104-N-3038W-255#mw-category-
media'>(next)</a>.
Original artist: Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class John Phillip Wagner Jr.
File:HNLMS_De_Zeven_Provincien_fires_a_SM-2.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/HNLMS_De_Zeven_
Provincien_fires_a_SM-2.jpg License: CC BY-SA 1.0 Contributors: http://www.defensie.nl/actueel/foto/materieel/vaartuigen Original artist: Ministerie van
Defensie
File:Hans_Bethe.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Hans_Bethe.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Los Alamos Na-
tional Laboratory Original artist: Los Alamos National Laboratory
File:HardtackOak.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/HardtackOak.JPG License: Public domain Contributors: http://en.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HardtackOak.JPG Original artist: Unknown
File:Harpoon_asm_bowfin_museum.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Harpoon_asm_bowfin_museum.jpg License:
CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: own work by Avriette
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Harpoon_asm_bowfin_museum.jpg Original artist: Avriette
File:Harpoon_launched_by_submarine.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Harpoon_launched_by_submarine.jpg License:
Public domain Contributors: ID:DNSC8307009 Original artist: Service Depicted: Navy
File:Harpoonlaunch.gif Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Harpoonlaunch.gif License: Public domain Contributors: own work

by Darantares
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Harpoonlaunch.gif Original artist: Darantares
File:Have_Dash_II.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Have_Dash_II.png License: Public domain Contributors: Air Force
illustration via [1] Original artist: Unknown
File:Hawk_CWAR_radar.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Hawk_CWAR_radar.jpg License: Public domain Contribu-
tors: Transferred from en.wikipedia; transferred to Commons by User:Common Good using CommonsHelper. Original artist: Original uploader was Megapixie
at en.wikipedia
File:Hawk_System.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Hawk_System.jpg License: CC BY-SA 2.5 Contributors: ? Original
artist: ?
File:Hawk_launch_better.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Hawk_launch_better.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
File:Hawk_mobile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Hawk_mobile.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original
artist: ?
File:Hawk_rada_hpir.jpeg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Hawk_rada_hpir.jpeg License: Public domain Contributors: De-
fense Visual Information Directorate, Armed Forces Information Services (AFIS). Original artist: SSGT Strausbaugh, Location: MCAS, KANEOHE BAY
File:Heat-Homing_Rocket_on_AD_Skyraider_c1952.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Heat-Homing_Rocket_on_
AD_Skyraider_c1952.JPG License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy Naval Museum of Armament and Technology [1] Sidewinder photo Original
artist: USN
File:Heinkel_He_111_during_the_Battle_of_Britain.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Heinkel_He_111_during_the_
Battle_of_Britain.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This is photograph MH6547 from the collections of the Imperial War Museums (collection no.
4700-05) Original artist: Unknown
File:Hellfire-motor-drawing1.gif Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Hellfire-motor-drawing1.gif License: Public domain
Contributors: Originally from en.wikipedia; description page is/was here. Original artist: Original uploader was Riddley at en.wikipedia
File:Hera_rocket_on_launch_pad.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Hera_rocket_on_launch_pad.jpg License: Public do-
main Contributors: Seize the High Ground New Ideas about Space and Missile Defense After the War, 1991-1997, Page 198 (http://www.smdc.army.mil/2008/
Historical/Book/Chap5.pdf) Original artist: US Army
File:Herbert_York.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Herbert_York.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This image is
available from the National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Oce Photo Library under number PLU-57-004. Original artist: Federal Government
of the United States
File:Hi-Hoe_sounding_rocket_on_F4H_Phantom.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Hi-Hoe_sounding_rocket_on_
F4H_Phantom.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy via [1] and [2] Original artist: Unknown
File:Hibex.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Hibex.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: HIBEX on http://www.
wsmr-history.org/ Original artist: White Sands Missile Range Museum
File:HibexAction1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/HibexAction1.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: HIBEX Mis-
sile in action on http://www.wsmr-history.org/ Original artist: Unknown
File:High_Virgo.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/69/High_Virgo.jpg License: Fair use Contributors:
General Dynamics via [1] Original artist: ?
File:Hiroshima_Damage_Map.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Hiroshima_Damage_Map.png License: Public domain
Contributors: U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey Original artist: U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, Chairman: Franklin D'Olier (1877-1953)
File:Honestjohnhillyard.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Honestjohnhillyard.jpg License: CC BY-SA 4.0 Contributors:
Own work Original artist: Spinedork
File:Hopi_on_AD-5N.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Hopi_on_AD-5N.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S.
Navy photo via [1] and [2] Original artist: Unknown
File:Hourglass_drawing.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Hourglass_drawing.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ?
Original artist: ?
File:House_1953_Nevada_Nuclear_Test_5_psi.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/House_1953_Nevada_Nuclear_Test_
5_psi.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: The Eects of Nuclear Weapons, Editors Samuel Glasstone and Philip Dolan Original artist: US Government
File:Hughes_Brazo.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/76/Hughes_Brazo.jpg License: Fair use Contributors:
Hughes via [1] Original artist: ?
File:Hvar.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Hvar.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Hydra_70_03.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Hydra_70_03.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original
artist: ?
File:Hydra_70_M261.jpeg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Hydra_70_M261.jpeg License: CC BY-SA 2.5 nl Contributors:
Own work Original artist: User:Dammit
File:INF_inspection.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/INF_inspection.JPEG License: Public domain Con-
tributors: http://www.defenseimagery.mil; <a data-x-rel='nofollow' class='external text' href='http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imagery.html#guid=
9597524fd15099711706f7c437bb639a093db255'>VIRIN: DF-ST-90-00450</a> Original artist: Jose Lopez
File:Image-GBU-24_Missile_testmontage-gi_BLU-109_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Image-GBU-24_
Missile_testmontage-gi_BLU-109_bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: the three images were taken from http://www.dtra.mil/newsservices/
photo_library/RD/RD-1.cfm
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Missile_test_montage.jpg Original artist: uploaded by James Efrem Ringold
File:Interstate_TDR-1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Interstate_TDR-1.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S.

Navy photograph Original artist: Unknown
File:Interstate_TDR-1_on_display_at_Naval_Aviation_Museum.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Interstate_TDR-1_
on_display_at_Naval_Aviation_Museum.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: VectorSite [1] Original artist: Greg Goebel
File:Interstate_TDR-1_three-view_silhouette.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Interstate_TDR-1_three-view_
silhouette.png License: Public domain Contributors: vectorsite.net [1] Original artist: Greg Goebel
File:Interstate_XBDR-1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/Interstate_XBDR-1.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
NASA [1]; Transferred from en.wikipedia
Original artist: NASA. Original uploader was The Bushranger at en.wikipedia, 1 April 2010 (original upload date)
File:Interstate_XBDR-1_flying.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Interstate_XBDR-1_flying.png License: Public do-
main Contributors: XBDR-1 Mock Up, Interstate Aircraft & Engineering Corp. Rpt No. W 272. National Archives File 72-AC-1B. Original artist: Interstate
Aircraft & Engineering Corp.
File:Interstate_XBDR-1_piloted_side_view.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Interstate_XBDR-1_piloted_side_view.
png License: Public domain Contributors: XBDR-1 Mock Up, Interstate Aircraft & Engineering Corp. Rpt No. W 272. National Archives File 72-AC-1B.
Original artist: Interstate Aircraft & Engineering Corp.
File:Interstate_XBQ-4.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Interstate_XBQ-4.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Na-
tional Archives Original artist: U.S. Army Air Forces
File:Interstate_XTD3R.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Interstate_XTD3R.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
U.S. Navy Naval Aviation News/[1] January 1946, p. 19. Original artist: USN
File:Irani_F-14_Tomcats_carrying_AIM-54_Phoenixs.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Irani_F-14_Tomcats_
carrying_AIM-54_Phoenixs.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.iiaf.net/archive/aircraft/images/f_14__caring_hawk_missle.jpg Original
artist: IIAF
File:IranianMobileHawk.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/IranianMobileHawk.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors:
http://www.iranmilitaryforum.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=20264.0;attach=40993;image Original artist: M-ATF, from military.ir and iranmilitaryfo-
rum.net
File:Iranian_F-4E_Phantom_II_armed_with_AGM-65_Maverick.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Iranian_F-4E_
Phantom_II_armed_with_AGM-65_Maverick.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.iiaf.net/archive/aircraft/images/f4mavrick_jpg.jpg Orig-
inal artist: IIAF
File:Iraq_firefight.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Iraq_firefight.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original
artist: ?
File:Israeli_Air_Defense_-_MIM-104D_Patriot_-_pic001.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Israeli_Air_Defense_-_
MIM-104D_Patriot_-_pic001.jpg License: CC BY 4.0 Contributors: File:IAF-Patriot-2014-Chuck-Hagel.jpg Original artist: DoD Photo by Erin A. Kirk-
Cuomo, Graphic Proccessing by User:MathKnight
File:Ivy_King_Blast.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Ivy_King_Blast.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original
artist: ?
File:JASSM_mockup_0048.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/JASSM_mockup_0048.jpg License: Public domain Con-
tributors: Photograph by me Original artist: Marco Jansen
File:JB-2-Ground_Preperation_1944.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/JB-2-Ground_Preperation_1944.png License:
Public domain Contributors: 1944 United States Army Film USA Experimental Activities of AAF"; Army Pitrial Service Original artist: United States
Army pictorial service
File:JB-2_Loon_(V-1_Buzz_Bomb)_USAF.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/JB-2_Loon_%28V-1_Buzz_Bomb%29_
USAF.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:JB-2_in_flight_test_1944.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/JB-2_in_flight_test_1944.png License: Public domain
Contributors: 1944 United States Army Film USA Experimental Activities of AAF"; Army Pitrial Service Original artist: United States Army pictorial
service
File:JB-4_in_shop.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/JB-4_in_shop.png License: Public domain Contributors: United States
Army Air Force photo via International Missile and Spacecraft Guide 1960 and [1] Original artist: Unknown
File:JDAM_GBU30_MER.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/JDAM_GBU30_MER.jpg License: Public domain Contrib-
utors: USAF at [1]; USN at [2] Original artist: USAF
File:JDAM_family_(1).jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/JDAM_family_%281%29.jpg License: Public domain Contribu-
tors: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/ORD_JDAM_Drawings_lg.jpg Original artist: USAF
File:Javelin3.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Javelin3.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.redstone.
army.mil/history/systems/JAVELIN.html Original artist: ?
File:Jb2-1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Jb2-1.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia
Original artist: Original uploader was Bwmoll3 at en.wikipedia
File:Jb2-2.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Jb2-2.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia
Original artist: Original uploader was Bwmoll3 at en.wikipedia
File:John_F._Kennedy,_White_House_color_photo_portrait.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/John_F._Kennedy%
2C_White_House_color_photo_portrait.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This media is available in the holdings of the National Archives and Records
Administration, cataloged under the ARC Identier (National Archives Identier) 194255. Original artist: Cecil Stoughton, White House
File:Juno_II_rocket.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Juno_II_rocket.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Down-
loaded from the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Image (MIX) Server: http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/MSFC-5900711.html Original artist:
NASA
File:Jupiter-C_vs_Jupiter_IRBM.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Jupiter-C_vs_Jupiter_IRBM.jpg License: Public do-

main Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Jupiter_Deployment_Italy.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Jupiter_Deployment_Italy.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors:
http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/systems/jupiter/chapter7.html Original artist: ?
File:Jupiter_emplacement.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Jupiter_emplacement.jpg License: Public domain Contribu-
tors: http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/systems/jupiter/photos/jupiter.html Original artist: U.S. government
File:KAN-1_Little_Joe_missile_at_Point_Mugu_c1945.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/KAN-1_Little_Joe_missile_
at_Point_Mugu_c1945.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy All Hands magazine March 1961, p. 8. Original artist: U.S. Navy
File:KAN_Little_Joe.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/KAN_Little_Joe.png License: CC BY 2.0 Contributors: http://
www.flickr.com/photos/publicresourceorg/493966168/#/ Original artist: Unknown
File:KUM-1_or_PTV-N-2_Gorgon_IV.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/KUM-1_or_PTV-N-2_Gorgon_IV.jpg Li-
cense: CC BY 2.0 Contributors: originally posted to Flickr as Missile, Air-to-Air, Drone and Test, Gorgon IV, also Designated KUM-1 or PVT-N-2 Original
artist: Cli
File:Kepler-solar-system-2.gif Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Kepler-solar-system-2.gif License: Public domain Contribu-
File:Keres-AGM-78-hatzerim-2.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Keres-AGM-78-hatzerim-2.jpg License: CC BY 2.5
File:LAW-1961.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/LAW-1961.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Naval Photograhic
Center, Naval District, Washington DC 20374 Original artist: Photographer Roger G. Pineda
File:LBD-1_glide_bomb_at_NAS_Mojave_1946.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/LBD-1_glide_bomb_at_NAS_
Mojave_1946.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy National Museum of Naval Aviation photo No. 1996.488.002.010 Original artist: U.S.
Navy
File:LGM-30G_Minuteman_III_MIRV.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/LGM-30G_Minuteman_III_MIRV.jpg Li-
cense: Public domain Contributors: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/photos/index.asp?galleryID=529&page=4 Original artist: USAF
File:LOCAT_rocket.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/LOCAT_rocket.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S.
Army via [1] Original artist: Unknown
File:LTV-N-4_rocket_at_NOTC_Inyokern_in_1949.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/LTV-N-4_rocket_at_NOTC_
Inyokern_in_1949.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy All Hands magazine April 1949, p. 38. Original artist: U.S. Navy
File:Lacrosse.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Lacrosse.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.
wsmr-history.org/Lacrosse.htm Original artist: White Sands Missile Range Museum
File:Lark_missile_launch_at_NOTS_China_Lake_in_1950s.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Lark_missile_launch_
at_NOTS_China_Lake_in_1950s.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy All Hands magazine March 1956, p. 60. Original artist: U.S. Navy
File:Larkmissile.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/Larkmissile.png License: PD Contributors:
http://dmn.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Lark-missile.jpg Original artist:
Smithsoneon
File:Launch_of_a_RIM-50_Typhon_missile_c1962.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Launch_of_a_RIM-50_Typhon_
missile_c1962.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy All Hands magazine November 1962, p. 33. Original artist: USN
File:Launched_FIM-92A_Stinger_missile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Launched_FIM-92A_Stinger_missile.jpg
License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.marines.mil; <a data-x-rel='nofollow' class='external text' href='http://www.marines.mil/unit/3rdmaw/
_layouts/imagemeta.aspx?image=http://www.marines.mil/unit/3rdmaw/PublishingImages/2009/090728-M-2708O-091.JPG'>ID: 5966</a> (cropped) Orig-
inal artist: Christopher O'Quin, U.S. Marine Corps
File:Law_ftbenning_1960_04.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Law_ftbenning_1960_04.jpg License: Public domain
File:Lazy_dog_bombs.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Lazy_dog_bombs.jpg License: CC BY 3.0 Contributors: Own
work Original artist: Ikessurplus
File:Lazy_dog_dispenser.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Lazy_dog_dispenser.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
http://www.chinalakealumni.org/1961.htm Original artist: Skyraider
File:Little_Boy_Internal_Components.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Little_Boy_Internal_Components.png License:
GFDL Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Little_Boy_arming_plugs_in_October_2009.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Little_Boy_arming_plugs_in_
October_2009.JPG License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Nick-D
File:Little_boy.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Little_boy.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Copy from U.S. Na-
tional Archives, RG 77-AEC. Chuck Hansen, The Swords of Armageddon: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Development Since 1945 (Sunnyvale, CA: Chukelea Publi-
cations, 1995)[1] Original artist: US government DOD and/or DOE photograph
File:Loading_three_AGM-86_ALCMs.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Loading_three_AGM-86_ALCMs.jpg Li-
cense: Public domain Contributors: http://www.minot.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123400731 Original artist: Senior Airman Kristoer Kaubisch or Senior
Airman Andrew Crawford
File:Lockheed_Martin_Hellfire_II.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Lockheed_Martin_Hellfire_II.jpg License: CC-
BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Lockheed_Martin_Longbow_Hellfire.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Lockheed_Martin_Longbow_Hellfire.jpg
License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: Stahlkocher Original artist: ?
File:Lockheed_Martin_headquarters.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Lockheed_Martin_headquarters.jpg License:

CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons by User:Kelly using CommonsHelper. Original artist: Coolcaesar at en.wikipedia
File:Lt_Ayers_and_prototype_AIM-95_1970.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Lt_Ayers_and_prototype_AIM-95_

1970.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Originally from en.wikipedia; description page is/was here. Original artist: Original uploader was HJ32 at
en.wikipedia
File:Luccaitaly1944.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Luccaitaly1944.png License: Public domain Contributors: This me-

dia is available in the holdings of the National Archives and Records Administration, cataloged under the ARC Identier (National Archives Identier) 531216.
Original artist: Department of Defense. Department of the Army. Oce of the Chief Signal Ocer.
File:M-118Bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/M-118Bomb.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work

Original artist: Sturmvogel 66
File:M1134_ATGM_Vehicle_fires_TOW_missile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/M1134_ATGM_Vehicle_fires_

TOW_missile.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.flickr.com/ Original artist: Soldiers Media Center, United States Army
File:M117_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/M117_bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: from a PDF

document on https://naveodtechdiv.navsea.navy.mil/ Original artist: ?
File:M139_Sarin_bomblet.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/M139_Sarin_bomblet.jpg License: Public domain Contrib-

utors: Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological War -Chapter 2- p. 59 in PDF Original artist: Chemical and Biological Defense Command Historical
Research and Response Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD (United States Army)
File:M202A1.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/M202A1.png License: Public domain Contributors: TM 3-1055-456-12

M202A1 Operators Manual. Original artist: US Army
File:M202_FLASH.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/M202_FLASH.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: United

States Army Original artist: Unknown
File:M60A2_at_AAF_Museum.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/M60A2_at_AAF_Museum.jpg License: Public domain

Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons by Ain92 using CommonsHelper. Original artist: Yellowute at English Wikipedia
File:M72-LAW-firing.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/M72-LAW-firing.png License: Public domain Contributors: ?

Original artist: ?
File:M727-Hawk-hatzerim-1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/M727-Hawk-hatzerim-1.jpg License: CC BY 2.5 Con-

File:M72A2_LAW_1969.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/M72A2_LAW_1969.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:

United States Army Original artist: Mr. Larry Johnson, Photo Facility Branch, Audio-Visuals Department, Ft Lewis Washington
File:M72_1.gif Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/M72_1.gif License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from

en.wikipedia; transfer was stated to be made by User:TFCforever. Original artist: Original uploader was Riddley at en.wikipedia
File:M72_LAW_Vietnam.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/M72_LAW_Vietnam.jpg License: Public domain Contribu-

tors: http://www.history.army.mil/books/Vietnam/7-ff/Ch6.htm Original artist: Department of Defense
File:M730-Chapparal-hatzerim-1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/M730-Chapparal-hatzerim-1.jpg License: CC BY

2.5 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:M77_Cluster_Munition_With_Hand.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/M77_Cluster_Munition_With_Hand.jpg

License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: Jackehammond
File:MAR-I_radar.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/MAR-I_radar.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.

wsmr-history.org/MAR-I.htm Original artist: US Army
File:MATADOR.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/MATADOR.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: https://www.

patrick.af.mil/45SW/PA/MEDIA/multimedia.htm (cropped and converted from TIFF) Original artist: United States Air Force
File:MBT-70_Shillelagh_rocket_firing.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/MBT-70_Shillelagh_rocket_firing.JPG Li-

cense: Public domain Contributors: R.P.Hunnicutt. Abrams. A history of American main battle tank Vol.2. Presidio Press, 1990. ISBN 0-89141-388-X
Original artist: US Army
File:MEADS_360-Degree_Launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/26/MEADS_360-Degree_Launch.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-

3.0 Contributors:
MEADS International
Original artist:
MEADS International
File:MGM-13_Mace.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/MGM-13_Mace.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Orig-

inal artist: ?
File:MGM-18_Lacrosse_02.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/MGM-18_Lacrosse_02.jpg License: Public domain Con-

tributors: Redstone Arsenal Historical Information
http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/missiles/lacrosse_02.jpg Original artist: U.S. Army
File:MGM-51.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/MGM-51.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from

en.wikipedia; transfer was stated to be made by User:TFCforever. Original artist: Original uploader was Riddley at en.wikipedia
File:MGM-51_Shillelagh2.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/MGM-51_Shillelagh2.jpg License: Public domain Contribu-

tors: http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/M551.html
http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/missiles/shillelagh_01.jpg Original artist: US Army
File:MGM-52_Lance.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/MGM-52_Lance.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http:

//www.wsmr-history.org/Lance.htm Original artist: White Sands Missile Range Museum
File:MGR-1_Honest_John_02.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/MGR-1_Honest_John_02.jpg License: Public domain

Contributors: Redstone Arsenal Historical Information
http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/missiles/honest_john_03.jpg (original)
http://history.redstone.army.mil/miss-honestjohn.html (now) Original artist: U.S. Army
File:MGR-1_Honest_John_rocket.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/MGR-1_Honest_John_rocket.jpg License: Public
domain Contributors: http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/missiles/missiles0007.html Original artist: US military
File:MGR-3_Little_John_01.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/MGR-3_Little_John_01.jpg License: Public domain Con-
http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/missiles/little_john_15jul63_rsa_01.jpg Original artist: U.S. Army
File:MIM-104_Patriot_Operators.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/MIM-104_Patriot_Operators.png License: Public
domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: Noclador
File:MIM-104_Patriot_Radar_unit_JASDF_Iruma_Airbase_2006-2.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/MIM-104_
Patriot_Radar_unit_JASDF_Iruma_Airbase_2006-2.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: Tokoroten 's le Original artist: Tokoro_ten
File:MIM-14_Nike-Hercules_02.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/MIM-14_Nike-Hercules_02.jpg License: Public do-
main Contributors: Redstone Arsenal Historical Information
http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/hercphotos/herc_wsmr_1970_02.jpg Original artist: U.S. Army
File:MIM-14_Nike-Hercules_11.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/MIM-14_Nike-Hercules_11.jpg License: Public do-
main Contributors: Redstone Arsenal Historical Information
http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/hercphotos/nike_herc_40.jpg Original artist: U.S. Army
File:MIM-23_HAWK_PAR_radar_2.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/MIM-23_HAWK_PAR_radar_2.jpg License:
File:MIM-46_Mauler.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/MIM-46_Mauler.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ?
Original artist: ?
File:MIM-46_Mauler_launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/MIM-46_Mauler_launch.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-46.html Original artist: Unknown
File:MIM-72_Chaparral_07.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/MIM-72_Chaparral_07.jpg License: Public domain Con-
http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/missiles/chaparral_07.jpg Original artist: U.S. Army
File:MLRS-system.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/MLRS-system.JPEG License: Public domain Contributors: http:
//www.defenseimagery.mil; Still Asset Details for DA-SC-84-02320 Original artist: Unknown
File:MLRS_(Multiple_Launch_Rocket_System)_Vehicles_at_Camp_Bastion,_Afghanistan_MOD_45148148.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.
org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/MLRS_%28Multiple_Launch_Rocket_System%29_Vehicles_at_Camp_Bastion%2C_Afghanistan_MOD_45148148.jpg Li-
cense: OGL Contributors:
Photo http://www.defenceimagery.mod.uk/fotoweb/fwbin/download.dll/45153802.jpg Original artist: Cpl Ian Houlding
File:MLRS_05.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/MLRS_05.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.redstone.
army.mil/history/archives/mlrs/mlrs_05.jpg Original artist: Unknown
File:MMIII_C5_airdrop(Oct_1974).jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/27/MMIII_C5_airdrop%28Oct_1974%29.jpg License: PD
Contributors:
USAF Historical archives
Original artist:
USAF Minuteman Program Oce (crossrich (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC))
File:MOAB_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/MOAB_bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original
artist: ?
File:MQM-74A_Chukar_launch_US_Navy_1972.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/MQM-74A_Chukar_launch_US_
Navy_1972.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy Naval Aviation News August 1972 [1] Original artist: USN
File:MQM-74C_Chukar_II_floating.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/MQM-74C_Chukar_II_floating.jpg License:
Public domain Contributors: ID:NST8505588 Original artist: Service Depicted: Navy
File:MQM107E.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/MQM107E.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.af.mil/
photos/media_search.asp?q=MQM-107 Original artist: U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Michael Ammons
File:MQM107EF16.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/MQM107EF16.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http:
//www.af.mil/photos/media_search.asp?q=MQM-107 Original artist: U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Michael Ammons
File:MQR-13_BMTS_launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/MQR-13_BMTS_launch.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors: U.S. Army via [1] Original artist: Unknown
File:MQR-16A_Gunrunner.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/18/MQR-16A_Gunrunner.jpg License: PD Contributors:
Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles (via National Aerospace Education Council) Original artist:
unknown
File:MX-774_missile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/MX-774_missile.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http:
//www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/050419-F-1234P-026.jpg Original artist: U.S. Air Force photo
File:Maintenance_check_on_a_Patriot_missile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Maintenance_check_on_a_Patriot_
missile.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia; transferred to Commons by User:Trixt using CommonsHelper.
Original artist: U.S. Army. Original uploader was Lyta79 at en.wikipedia
File:Maple_Leaf_(from_roundel).svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Maple_Leaf_%28from_roundel%29.svg License:
CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors:
Roundel_of_the_Royal_Canadian_Air_Force_(1946-1965).svg Original artist: Roundel_of_the_Royal_Canadian_Air_Force_(1946-1965).svg: F l a n k e r

File:Marder_Roland.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Marder_Roland.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Trans-
ferred from en.wikipedia; transfer was stated to be made by User:High Contrast. Original artist: Original uploader was Edurcastro28 at en.wikipedia
File:Marines_1st_Battalion,_6th_Marines_in_Marjeh,_Afghanistan.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Marines_1st_
Battalion%2C_6th_Marines_in_Marjeh%2C_Afghanistan.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: [1] Original artist: U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance
Cpl Andres J. Lugo
File:Marineshumping2001.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Marineshumping2001.jpg License: Public domain Contribu-
tors: http://www.pacom.mil Original artist: Sergeant Joseph R. Chenelly, United States Marine Corps
File:Mark-5-nuclear-bomb-nose-cavity.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/71/Mark-5-nuclear-bomb-nose-cavity.jpg License: PD
Contributors:
via Scott Carson, @scottcarson1 https://twitter.com/scottcarson1957/status/557730742453944322 Original artist:
US Atomic Energy Comission
File:Mark17CAM.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Mark17CAM.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Image taken
by uploader Original artist: Nehrams2020
File:Mark_28_Thermonuclear_Bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Mark_28_Thermonuclear_Bomb.jpg License:
Public domain Contributors: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1036 Original artist: USAF
File:Mark_36_nuclear_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Mark_36_nuclear_bomb.jpg License: Public domain Con-
tributors: Carey Sublettes Nuclear Weapons Archive Original artist: Federal Government of the United States
File:Mark_45_Nuclear_Torpedo.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Mark_45_Nuclear_Torpedo.jpg License: CC BY 2.0
Contributors: originally posted to Flickr as Mark 45 Nuclear Torpedo Original artist: Cli
File:Mark_5_nuclear_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Mark_5_nuclear_bomb.jpg License: Public domain Con-
tributors: [1] Original artist: Federal Government of the United States
File:Mark_77_bomb_loaded_on_FA-18.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Mark_77_bomb_loaded_on_FA-18.jpg Li-
cense: Public domain Contributors: ID:DNST9400999 Original artist: Service Depicted: Navy
Camera Operator: PH2 BRUCE TROMBECKY
File:Mark_7_nuclear_bomb_at_USAF_Museum.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Mark_7_nuclear_bomb_at_USAF_
Museum.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia Original artist: Original uploader was Chairboy at en.wikipedia
File:Mark_81_bombs.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Mark_81_bombs.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ID:
DNST8304608 Original artist: Service Depicted: Marines
Camera Operator: MAJ T. CAMPBELL
File:Mark_83_Bombs.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Mark_83_Bombs.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 041108-N-8704K-002 <a class='external text' href='//commons.wikimedia.org/w/
index.php?title=Category:Files_created_by_the_United_States_Navy_with_known_IDs,,&,,lefrom=041108-N-8704K-002#mw-category-
media'>(next)</a>.
Original artist: Service Depicted: Navy
Operation / Series: IRAQI FREEDOM
Camera Operator: PH3 (AW/SW) JOSHUA KARSTEN, USN

File:Martin_ASALM.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Martin_ASALM.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S.
Air Force illustration via [1] Original artist: Unknown
File:Martin_XTM-61_Matador.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Martin_XTM-61_Matador.JPG License: CC BY-SA
3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Kirbert
File:Mc-1_gas_bomb.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Mc-1_gas_bomb.png License: Public domain Contributors: Orig-
inally from en.wikipedia; description page is/was here. Original artist: Original uploader was ClockworkSoul at en.wikipedia
File:Medium_Atomic_Demolition_Munition_(internal).jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Medium_Atomic_
Demolition_Munition_%28internal%29.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Medium_Atomic_Demolition_Munition_(with_scientists).jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Medium_Atomic_
Demolition_Munition_%28with_scientists%29.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Brookings Institution Original artist: Department of Defense photo-
graph
File:Mercury_Atlas_9_HR.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Mercury_Atlas_9_HR.jpg License: Public domain Contrib-
utors: Transferred from en.wikipedia; transferred to Commons by User:Magnus Manske using CommonsHelper.
Original artist: NASA. Original uploader was Bubba73 at en.wikipedia
File:Mercury_Capsule2.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Mercury_Capsule2.png License: Public domain Contributors:
This is a cropped and rotated version of : http://nix.larc.nasa.gov/info?id=S62-04976&orgid=8 Original artist:
Original uploader was SunKing at en.wikipedia
File:Merge-arrow.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Merge-arrow.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original
artist: ?
File:Minuteman3launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Minuteman3launch.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ?
Original artist: ?
File:Minuteman_I.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Minuteman_I.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: https://www.
patrick.af.mil/45SW/PA/MEDIA/multimedia.htm (converted from TIFF) Original artist: US Air Force
File:Minuteman_III_MIRV_path.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Minuteman_III_MIRV_path.svg License: Public do-

main Contributors: http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/Minuteman.pdf. Completely re-drawn and re-worked from scratch by User:Fastfission in Inkscape. Orig-
inal artist: Fastssion
File:Minuteman_III_diagram.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Minuteman_III_diagram.png License: Public domain
Contributors: [1] Original artist: User:Acdx
File:Minuteman_III_in_silo_1989.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Minuteman_III_in_silo_1989.jpg License: Public
File:Minuteman_guidance_computer_(1).jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Minuteman_guidance_computer_%281%
29.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Misil_regulus.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Misil_regulus.JPG License: GFDL Contributors: Own work Original
artist: G36
File:MissileGap_NIE11-8-60.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/MissileGap_NIE11-8-60.png License: Public domain
Contributors: http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0000267734.pdf National Intelligence Estimate 11-8-60 Orig-
inal artist: US Intelligence Board
File:Missle_template.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Missle_template.svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors:
Kh-35_ight_sketch.svg Original artist: Kh-35_ight_sketch.svg: Allocer
File:Mk-82_xxl.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Mk-82_xxl.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Mk-84_xxl.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Mk-84_xxl.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Mk._81_250-lb_and_Mk._82_Snakeye_I_500-lb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Mk._81_250-lb_and_
Mk._82_Snakeye_I_500-lb.jpg License: CC BY 2.0 Contributors: This le was derived from: Mk. 81, Mk. 82 Bombs (2834533691).jpg:
<a href='//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mk._81,_Mk._82_Bombs_(2834533691).jpg' class='image'><img alt='Mk. 81, Mk. 82 Bombs
(2834533691).jpg' src='//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Mk._81%2C_Mk._82_Bombs_%282834533691%29.jpg/50px-Mk.
_81%2C_Mk._82_Bombs_%282834533691%29.jpg' width='50' height='33' srcset='//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Mk._81%
2C_Mk._82_Bombs_%282834533691%29.jpg/75px-Mk._81%2C_Mk._82_Bombs_%282834533691%29.jpg 1.5x, //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/
commons/thumb/7/70/Mk._81%2C_Mk._82_Bombs_%282834533691%29.jpg/100px-Mk._81%2C_Mk._82_Bombs_%282834533691%29.jpg 2x'
data-le-width='1280' data-le-height='853' /></a>
Original artist: Mk._81,_Mk._82_Bombs_(2834533691).jpg: Cli from I now live in Arlington, VA (Outside Washington DC), USA
File:Mk11_mark-91-pic1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Mk11_mark-91-pic1.jpg License: Public domain Contribu-
File:Mk12.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c9/Mk12.jpg License: PD Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Mk15.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Mk15.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia
Original artist: Original uploader was Robartin at en.wikipedia. Later version(s) were uploaded by Ian Dunster at en.wikipedia.
File:Mk17_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Mk17_bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist:
?
File:Mk43.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Mk43.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from
en.wikipedia; transfer was stated to be made by Mathonius. Original artist: Original uploader was Georgewilliamherbert at en.wikipedia
File:Mk44_Lazy_Dog_bomb.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Mk44_Lazy_Dog_bomb.png License: Public domain
Contributors: Own scan from Bombs and Bomb Components (TM 9-1325-200) Original artist: Departments of the Army, Navy and Air Force
File:Mk4_Fat_Man_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Mk4_Fat_Man_bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contribu-
File:Mk8-pic1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Mk8-pic1.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Mk8-pic2.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Mk8-pic2.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Mk_14_nuclear_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Mk_14_nuclear_bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contrib-
File:Mk_17_thermonuclear_bomb,_Strategic_Air_Command_Memorial_in_Fort_Worth_NAS_JRB,_TX.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/
wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Mk_17_thermonuclear_bomb%2C_Strategic_Air_Command_Memorial_in_Fort_Worth_NAS_JRB%2C_TX.jpg License: CC0
Contributors: Own work Original artist: Paul Helton
File:Mk_28_F1_Thermonuclear_Bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Mk_28_F1_Thermonuclear_Bomb.jpg Li-
cense: CC BY-SA 2.5 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Hans-Peter Scholz (User:Zwergelstern)
File:Mk_28_nuclear_bomb_Ellsworth_AFB_1984.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Mk_28_nuclear_bomb_
Ellsworth_AFB_1984.JPEG License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. DefenseImagery [1] photo VIRIN: DF-ST-85-05150 [2] Original artist: TSgt. Boyd
Belcher, USAF
File:Mk_4_FFAR.jpeg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Mk_4_FFAR.jpeg License: CC BY-SA 2.5 nl Contributors: Own
work Original artist: User:Dammit
File:Mk_6_nuclear_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Mk_6_nuclear_bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contribu-
File:Mk_6_reentry_vehicle_on_display_at_National_Atomic_Museum.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Mk_6_
reentry_vehicle_on_display_at_National_Atomic_Museum.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/6758/
images/Nam13.jpg Original artist: ?
File:Mk_84_bomb_explosion_Vietnam_c1972.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Mk_84_bomb_explosion_Vietnam_
c1972.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy photo [1] available on midwaysailor.com Original artist: Bud Taylor, VF-161, USN
File:Mk_8_nuclear_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Mk_8_nuclear_bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contribu-
File:Mobile_Minuteman_train.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Mobile_Minuteman_train.png License: Public domain

Contributors: Personal Collection Original artist: US Air Force
File:Mousetrap_(7.2-Inch_ASW_Rocket).jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Mousetrap_%287.2-Inch_ASW_Rocket%
29.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Mt-Olympus_Nike_Zeus.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/Mt-Olympus_Nike_Zeus.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors: http://www.williamson-labs.com/kwaj-stories.htm Original artist: US Army
File:MuseeMarine-sabre-p1000456.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/MuseeMarine-sabre-p1000456.jpg License: CC
BY-SA 2.0 fr Contributors: Own work Original artist: Rama
File:NIKE_AJAX_Anti-Aircraft_Missile_Radar3.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/NIKE_AJAX_Anti-Aircraft_
Missile_Radar3.jpg License: CC BY-SA 2.0 Contributors: Flickr: NIKE AJAX Anti-Aircraft Missile Radar Original artist: brewbooks
File:NIKE_Zeus.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/NIKE_Zeus.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.
redstone.army.mil/history/chron2b/1957.html Original artist: US Army, Redstone Arsenal
File:NMUSAF_Tarzon.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/NMUSAF_Tarzon.jpg License: CC BY-SA 2.0 Contributors:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/37467370@N08/7466266344/ Original artist: Greg Goebel
File:Nagasakibomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Nagasakibomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://
www.archives.gov/research/military/ww2/photos/images/ww2-163.jpg National Archives image (208-N-43888) Original artist: The picture was taken by
Charles Levy from one of the B-29 Superfortresses used in the attack.
File:Navaho_missile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Navaho_missile.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://
nix.ksc.nasa.gov/info;jsessionid=1jck07ju63ajp?id=MSFC-9142272&orgid=11 Original artist: NASA Marshall Space Flight Center
File:Naval_Ensign_of_Germany.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Naval_Ensign_of_Germany.svg License: Public do-
main Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Naval_Ensign_of_Italy.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Naval_Ensign_of_Italy.svg License: Public domain Contrib-
utors: Italian Navy web site Original artist: Denelson83
File:Naval_Ensign_of_Japan.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Naval_Ensign_of_Japan.svg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0
Contributors: and File:DSP Z 8702 C.pdf Original artist: David Newton, uploader was Denelson83
File:Naval_Ensign_of_Pakistan.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Naval_Ensign_of_Pakistan.svg License: Public domain
File:Naval_Ensign_of_Thailand.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Naval_Ensign_of_Thailand.svg License: Public domain
File:Naval_Ensign_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Naval_Ensign_of_the_United_
Kingdom.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Naval_Jack_of_Canada.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Naval_Ensign_of_Canada.svg License: Public domain
File:Navy_rockets_enlarged.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Navy_rockets_enlarged.png License: Public domain Con-
tributors: U.S. Navy photo via China Lake archives [1] Original artist: Unknown
File:Nike-missile-family.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Nike-missile-family.jpg License: Public domain Contribu-
tors: http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/missiles/missiles.html, http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/missiles/army_family_missiles_
02.jpg Original artist: United States Army
File:Nike_Ajax_Marion,_KY_PA250202.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Nike_Ajax_Marion%2C_KY_PA250202.
JPG License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Original uploader was Chris Light at en.wikipedia Original artist: Chris Light (talk).
File:Nike_Ajax_acquisiton_radar.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Nike_Ajax_acquisiton_radar.jpg License: Public do-
main Contributors: https://airdefense.bliss.army.mil Original artist: Unknown
File:Nike_Ajax_assembly_line.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Nike_Ajax_assembly_line.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors: http://web.archive.org/web/20040905111521/http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/ajaxphotos/nike_ajax_30.jpg Original artist: US
Army Redstone Arsenal
File:Nike_Ajax_base_aerial_view.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Nike_Ajax_base_aerial_view.jpg License: Pub-
lic domain Contributors: http://web.archive.org/web/20040306104150/http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/ajaxphotos/nike_ajax_06.jpg Original
artist: US Army Redstone Arsenal
File:Nike_Ajax_base_on_alert.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Nike_Ajax_base_on_alert.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors: http://web.archive.org/web/20040306104049/http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/ajaxphotos/nike_ajax_01.jpg Original artist: US
File:Nike_Ajax_missile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fe/Nike_Ajax_missile.jpg License: PD Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Nike_Ajax_production_model_test_launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Nike_Ajax_production_model_test_
launch.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://web.archive.org/web/20041025102102/http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/ajaxphotos/
nike_ajax_14.jpg Original artist: US Army Redstone Arsenal
File:Nike_Ajax_test_launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Nike_Ajax_test_launch.jpg License: Public domain Con-
tributors: http://web.archive.org/web/20040306104205/http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/ajaxphotos/nike_ajax_07.jpg Original artist: US
File:Nike_Hercules.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Nike_Hercules.jpg License: PD Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Nike_Hercules_Corporal_intercept.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Nike_Hercules_Corporal_intercept.jpg Li-
cense: Public domain Contributors: http://history.redstone.army.mil/ihist-1960.html Original artist: US Army
File:Nike_Hercules_Evolution.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Nike_Hercules_Evolution.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors: http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Mythology/Military/NikeHercules.html Original artist: US Army Rocket and Guided Missile Agency
File:Nike_Hercules_IFC-functie_overzicht.gif Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Nike_Hercules_IFC-functie_overzicht.gif

License: Public domain Contributors: Internet (Information pamphlet on the Nike Hercules missile system) Original artist: USAADS
File:Nike_Hercules_IFC_radars.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Nike_Hercules_IFC_radars.JPG License: CC BY-
SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Butch
File:Nike_Hercules_Integrated_Fire_Control_area.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Nike_Hercules_Integrated_Fire_
Control_area.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://web.archive.org/web/20040629085219/http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/
hercphotos/nike_herc_46.jpg Original artist: US Army Redstone Arsenal
File:Nike_Site_SF-88L_Missile_Control.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Nike_Site_SF-88L_Missile_Control.jpg Li-
cense: CC BY 2.0 Contributors: ickr Original artist: Marcin Wichary
File:Nike_Zeus_A_test_launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Nike_Zeus_A_test_launch.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors: http://www.ninfinger.org/models/scaleroc/Nike-Zeus%20A%20antimissile/nza%2001.jpg Original artist: US Army
File:Nike_Zeus_D_launch_at_Point_Mugu.jpeg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Nike_Zeus_B_launch_at_Point_Mugu.
jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://pepperdine.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15730coll8/id/40 Original artist: U. S. Navy Photo
File:Nike_Zeus_Sign_at_Bldg_4505_COL_Drewry_and_Mr._C_A_Warren_(BTL)_25_Apr_63.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/
commons/a/af/Nike_Zeus_Sign_at_Bldg_4505_COL_Drewry_and_Mr._C_A_Warren_%28BTL%29_25_Apr_63.jpg License: Public domain Contrib-
utors: http://www.smdc.army.mil/smdcphoto_gallery/eagle/feb07/14-N-Z%20Sign%20at%20Bldg%204505%20COL%20Drewry%20and%20Mr.%20C%
20A%20Warren%20(BTL)%2025%20Apr%2063.jpg Original artist: US Army
File:Nike_Zeus_acquistion_radar_on_Kwajalein_c1962.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Nike_Zeus_acquistion_
radar_on_Kwajalein_c1962.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy All Hands magazine January 1963, p. 8. Original artist: U.S. Navy
File:Nike_Zeus_static_display_and_test_launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Nike_Zeus_static_display_and_test_
launch.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.ninfinger.org/models/scaleroc/Nike-Zeus%20A%20antimissile/Zeus02.jpg Original artist: US
Army
File:Nike_Zeus_system_illustration.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Nike_Zeus_system_illustration.jpg License: Pub-
lic domain Contributors: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKPOF-077-001-p0083.aspx Original artist: US Army
File:Nike_Zeus_tracking_radars_on_Kwajalein_in_1960s.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Nike_Zeus_tracking_
radars_on_Kwajalein_in_1960s.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Army photo 15-C02-06 from the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense
Command gallery [1] Original artist: U.S. Army
File:Nike_ajax_32.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Nike_ajax_32.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Redstone Ar-
senal Historical Information
http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/ajaxphotos/nike_ajax_32.jpg Original artist: U.S. Army
File:Nike_family_01.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Nike_family_01.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Red-
stone Arsenal Historical Information
http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/nikefam/nike_family_04.jpg Original artist: U.S. Army
File:Nike_family_02.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Nike_family_02.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Redstone
Arsenal Historical Information
http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/nikefam/nike_family_02.jpg Original artist: U.S. Army
File:Nike_hercules_us70_2009.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/Nike_hercules_us70_2009.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Contributors: Own work Original artist: Zorin09
File:Nike_missile_former_site_Michigan.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Nike_missile_former_site_Michigan.jpg Li-
cense: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Digital Visual Library
Image page
Image description page
Digital Visual Library home page Original artist: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, photographer not specied or unknown
File:North_American_AGM-28B_Hound_Dog_USAF.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/North_American_AGM-28B_
Hound_Dog_USAF.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:North_Dakota_ANG_female_weapons_handlers_with_AIM-4C_1972.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/North_
Dakota_ANG_female_weapons_handlers_with_AIM-4C_1972.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. DefenseImagery photo VIRIN: DF-SD-07-
26072 Original artist: USAF
File:Northrop_AGM-136A_Tacit_Rainbow.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Northrop_AGM-136A_Tacit_Rainbow.
jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/090305-F-1234P-003.jpg Original artist: US Air
Force photo
File:Northrop_Boojum_(final).png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Northrop_Boojum_%28final%29.png License: Public
domain Contributors: USAF via [1] Original artist: Unknown
File:Northrop_SM-62_Snark_061218-F-1234P-002.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Northrop_SM-62_Snark_
061218-F-1234P-002.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: US Goverment Original artist: ?
File:Northrop_SM-62_Snark_061218-F-1234P-006.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Northrop_SM-62_Snark_
061218-F-1234P-006.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: US Goverment Original artist: ?
File:Norwegian_javelin.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Norwegian_javelin.jpg License: CC BY 2.0 Contributors: Army
Summit 09 (1 of 27) Original artist: Soldatnytt from Oslo, Norway
File:Nuvola_apps_kaboodle.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Nuvola_apps_kaboodle.svg License: LGPL Contributors:
http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/gnome-themes-extras/0.9/gnome-themes-extras-0.9.0.tar.gz Original artist: David Vignoni / ICON KING
File:O'Brien_firing_Sea_Sparrow.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/O%27Brien_firing_Sea_Sparrow.jpg License: Pub-
lic domain Contributors: U.S. Navy source: U.S. Navy NewsStand photo ID 031105-N-0000D-003 and http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/975.htm Orig-
inal artist: Ensign Kristin Dahlgren, U.S. Navy
File:Old_NIKE_Missile_radar_dome_with_ravens.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Old_NIKE_Missile_radar_

dome_with_ravens.JPG License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia
Original artist: G.Goodwin Jr.. Original uploader was Slant6guy at en.wikipedia
File:Old_NIKE_Radar_Tower_@_Arctic_Valley.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ef/Old_NIKE_Radar_Tower_%40_Arctic_
Valley.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors:
I (Slant6guy:) (talk)) created this work entirely by myself. Original artist:
Gerald and Snark
File:Operation_Castle_-_Romeo_001.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Operation_Castle_-_Romeo_001.jpg License:
Public domain Contributors: This image is available from the National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Oce Photo Library under number
XX-33. Original artist: United States Department of Energy
File:Operation_Upshot-Knothole_-_Badger_001.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Operation_Upshot-Knothole_-_
Badger_001.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This image is available from the National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Oce Photo
Library under number XX-34. Original artist: Federal Government of the United States
File:P-61_GorgonIV_NAN1-48.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/P-61_GorgonIV_NAN1-48.jpg License: Public do-
main Contributors: U.S. Navy Naval Aviation News January 1948 [1] Original artist: USN
File:PATRIOT_battery_in_Poland,_2010.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/PATRIOT_battery_in_Poland%2C_2010.
JPG License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.defenseimagery.mil; <a data-x-rel='nofollow' class='external text' href='http://www.defenseimagery.
mil/imagery.html#guid=c37bb82d6fc04d92725ab884f64e07cb55525e8f'>VIRIN: 100602-A-2092W-007</a> Original artist: Lawree Roscoe Washington
Jr., U.S. Army
File:PD-icon.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/62/PD-icon.svg License: PD Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Patriot_PAC3_JASDF_20080518.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Patriot_PAC3_JASDF_20080518.jpg License:
Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: Los688
File:Patriot_System_1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Patriot_System_1.jpg License: CC BY-SA 2.5 Contributors: ?
Original artist: ?
File:Patriot_System_2.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Patriot_System_2.jpg License: CC BY-SA 2.5 Contributors: ?
Original artist: ?
File:Patriot_antenna_mast_grp.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Patriot_antenna_mast_grp.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Patriot_antenna_mast_grp.jpg Originally uploaded 06:19, 23 January 2005 (UTC) by Nvinen (talk) to en:
Wikipedia (log). Original artist: (This image was downloaded from http://www.jcmd.jte.osd.mil/mini-test.htm PD-USGov-Military)
File:Patriot_missile_launch_b.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Patriot_missile_launch_b.jpg License: Public domain
File:Patriot_radar_anmpq53.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Patriot_radar_anmpq53.jpg License: Public domain Con-
tributors: This image was downloaded from http://www.jcmd.jte.osd.mil/mini-test.htm . Originally from en.wikipedia; description page is/was here. Original
artist: Original uploader was Nvinen at en.wikipedia
File:Paveway_III_laser_guided_bomb_seeker_head.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Paveway_III_laser_guided_
bomb_seeker_head.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Paveway_III_laser_guided_bomb_seeker_head.jpg Original
artist: uploaded by Megapixie
File:Paveway_II_p1230135.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Paveway_II_p1230135.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Con-
File:Paveway_ILA06.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Paveway_ILA06.JPG License: Public domain Contributors: Own
work Original artist: axesofevil200
File:Paveway_IV_Harrier_GR9.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Paveway_IV_Harrier_GR9.jpg License: OGL Contrib-
utors: defenceimagery.mod.uk Original artist: Defence Imagery
File:Peacekeeper-missile-testing.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Peacekeeper-missile-testing.jpg License: Public do-
main Contributors: http://www.smdc.army.mil/SMDCPhoto_Gallery/Missiles/Missiles.html
Original artist: David James Paquin (attributed) Original uploader was Solipsist at en.wikipedia
File:Peacekeeper_RV_vehicles_close_up.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Peacekeeper_RV_vehicles_close_up.jpg Li-
cense: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Peacekeeper_Rail_Garrison_Car_-_Dayton_-_kingsley_-_12-29-08.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/
Peacekeeper_Rail_Garrison_Car_-_Dayton_-_kingsley_-_12-29-08.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Gregory J Kingsley
File:Peacekeeper_missile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Peacekeeper_missile.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
Original source: http://www.af.mil/photos/factsheet_photos.asp?fsID=112 (This link is now dead. See a cached version: [1]) Original artist: United States Air
Force
File:Pegasus_(Topping_model).png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Pegasus_%28Topping_model%29.png License: CC
BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Gadget850
File:People_icon.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/People_icon.svg License: CC0 Contributors: OpenClipart Original artist:
OpenClipart
File:Pershing_1B_-_A_Battery_3-84_-_White_Sands_(1986).png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Pershing_1B_-_A_
Battery_3-84_-_White_Sands_%281986%29.png License: Public domain Contributors: United States Army Original artist: United States Army
File:Pershing_1_launch_(Feb_16,_1966).png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Pershing_1_launch_%28Feb_16%2C_
1966%29.png License: Public domain Contributors: Scan of photo Original artist: Warren C. Weaver
File:Pershing_II_-_4th_test_launch.jpeg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Pershing_II_-_4th_test_launch.jpeg License:
Public domain Contributors: http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imagery.html#guid=81894c73d072e83e0badc37ef36695d2eb679d28 Original artist: DoD
File:Pershing_and_Redstone.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Pershing_and_Redstone.jpg License: Public domain Con-

http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/pershing/pershing_redstone.jpg Original artist: U.S. Army
File:Pershing_static_burn.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Pershing_static_burn.jpg License: Public domain Contribu-
tors: Redstone Arsenal Historical Information
http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/pershing/pershing_inf_8sep88_01.jpg Original artist: ?
File:Phoenix_missile_at_Grumman_Memorial_Park.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Phoenix_missile_at_
Grumman_Memorial_Park.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: The Wordsmith
File:Photo_m55_rocket_disassembly_cse.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Photo_m55_rocket_disassembly_cse.jpg Li-
cense: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency, see gallery Original artist: U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency
File:Piper_LBP-1_Glomb.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Piper_LBP-1_Glomb.png License: Public domain Contribu-
tors: U.S. Navy photograph from Naval Aviation News [1] via [2] Original artist: Unknown
File:Plumbbob_John_003.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Plumbbob_John_003.jpg License: Public domain Contribu-
tors: http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/photos/photodetails.aspx?ID=446 Original artist: Photo courtesy of National Nuclear Security Administration / Nevada
Site Oce
File:Plumbbob_John_Nuclear_Test.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Plumbbob_John_Nuclear_Test.jpg License: Pub-
lic domain Contributors: nuclearweaponarchive.org [1] Original artist: USAF
File:Pluto-SLAM.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/Pluto-SLAM.png License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.
vectorsite.net/twcruz_3_16.png Original artist: Greg Goebel
File:Polaris_missile_launch_from_HMS_Revenge_(S27)_1983.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Polaris_missile_
launch_from_HMS_Revenge_%28S27%29_1983.JPEG License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. DefenseImagery photo VIRIN: DF-SC-84-04513 Orig-
inal artist: USN
File:Portal-puzzle.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fd/Portal-puzzle.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Pratt-Read_LBE-1_Glomb.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Pratt-Read_LBE-1_Glomb.png License: Public do-
main Contributors: U.S. Navy photo via [1] Original artist: Unknown
File:Predator_and_Hellfire.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Predator_and_Hellfire.jpg License: Public domain Contrib-
utors: http://www.ifpafletcherconference.com/2010/powerpoint/Lance_Mans-Day2-final4web.ppt Original artist: Brigadier Lance Mans, Deputy Director,
NATO Special Operations Coordination Centre
File:Pye_Wacket_missile_prototype_(AEDC_Photo_59-1907-C).jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Pye_Wacket_
missile_prototype_%28AEDC_Photo_59-1907-C%29.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: US Air Force Materiel Command, Arnold Engineering
Development Center, PYE WACKET, Photo 59-1907-C Original artist: US Air Force
File:Question_book-new.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/Question_book-new.svg License: Cc-by-sa-3.0 Contributors:
Created from scratch in Adobe Illustrator. Based on Image:Question book.png created by User:Equazcion Original artist:
Tkgd2007
File:RAF-Molesworth-25Jan1989.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/RAF-Molesworth-25Jan1989.jpg License: Public
domain Contributors: http://www.defenseimagery.mil Original artist: MSGT Patrick Nugent Date: 25 Jan 1989
File:RAF_Museum_Cosford_-_DSC08475.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/RAF_Museum_Cosford_-_DSC08475.
JPG License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Rept0n1x
File:RARE_cutaway.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/RARE_cutaway.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: NOTS
Technical Program Review, 1956, Chapter 6: Propellants and Propulsion for Missiles [1] Original artist: U.S. Naval Ordnance Test Station
File:RB24B_RB24J_RB27_RB28.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/RB24B_RB24J_RB27_RB28.JPG License: CC BY-
SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Adrian R Johansson
File:RIM-116_Loading.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/RIM-116_Loading.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=59375 Original artist: Mass Communication Specialist Third Class Ann Marie Lazarek
File:RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missile_Launcher_3.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/RIM-116_Rolling_
Airframe_Missile_Launcher_3.jpg License: CC BY-SA 2.5 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Darkone
File:RIM-24_Tartar_on_USS_Berkeley_(DDG-15)_1970.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/RIM-24_Tartar_on_USS_
Berkeley_%28DDG-15%29_1970.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Ocial U.S. Navy photograph [1] from the USS Berkeley (DDG-15) 1970 Cruise
Book. Original artist: USN
File:RIM-2_Terrier_on_board_USS_Boston_(CAG-1).jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/RIM-2_Terrier_on_board_
USS_Boston_%28CAG-1%29.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Ocial U.S. Navy photograph NH 98295, from the collections of the Naval His-
torical Center. Original artist: USN
File:RIM-67A_launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/RIM-67A_launch.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http:
//www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-67.html Original artist: US Navy
File:RIM-67B_Standard.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/RIM-67B_Standard.JPEG License: Public domain Contrib-
utors: http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/1988/Navy/DN-SC-88-01299.JPEG Original artist: LT. RAINE
File:RIM-67_intercepts_Firebee_drone_at_White_Sands_1980.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/RIM-67_intercepts_
Firebee_drone_at_White_Sands_1980.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. DefenseImagery photo VIRIN: DN-SC-82-00008 and DN-SC-82-00009
File:RIM-7_Sea_Sparrow_-_ID_070813-N-4166B-041.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/RIM-7_Sea_Sparrow_-_ID_
070813-N-4166B-041.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=49454 Original artist: Jordon R. Beesley (Mass
Communication Specialist 2nd Class)
File:RIM-8_Talos_Test_Firing.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/RIM-8_Talos_Test_Firing.jpg License: Public domain

Contributors: Ocial U. S. Navy Photograph Original artist: Paul Malloy
File:RTV-A-3_NATIV_on_launcher.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/RTV-A-3_NATIV_on_launcher.jpg License:
Public domain Contributors: USAF via [1] Original artist: Unknown
File:RTV-N-15_Pollux.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/RTV-N-15_Pollux.jpg License: CC BY 2.0 Contributors: origi-
nally posted to Flickr as Missile, Test, RTV-N-15, also Designated Pollux Original artist: Cli
File:Radioactive.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Radioactive.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Created by Cary
Bass using Adobe Illustrator on January 19, 2006. Original artist: Cary Bass
File:RakArtBtl_122_(2).jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/RakArtBtl_122_%282%29.jpg License: CC0 Contributors:
Own work Original artist: Gwy
File:Ram_and_HVAR_on_F4U.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Ram_and_HVAR_on_F4U.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors: Ocial U.S. Navy photograph 80-G-439903, now in the collections of the U.S. National Archives. Original artist: U.S. Navy
File:Ram_on_F8F.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Ram_on_F8F.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy via
[1] Original artist: Unknown
File:Recoilless_gun_155mm_Davy_Crockett3.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Recoilless_gun_155mm_Davy_
Crockett3.jpg License: CC BY-SA 2.5 Contributors: Own-work, taken at the United States Army Ordnance Museum (Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD)
Original artist: Mark Pellegrini
File:Red_pog.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0c/Red_pog.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Redeye_Surface_to_Air_Missile_06.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Redeye_Surface_to_Air_Missile_06.jpg Li-
cense: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Redeye_Surface_to_Air_Missile_Launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Redeye_Surface_to_Air_Missile_
Launch.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/missiles/missiles0013.html
http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/missiles/redeye_01.jpg Original artist: n/a
File:Redeye_launcher_comparison.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Redeye_launcher_comparison.png License: Public
domain Contributors: From a US GOV PDF le at http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/pdf/redeye/redeye.pdf (History of the Redeye weapon system)
Original artist: US Gov
File:Redstone_04.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Redstone_04.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.
redstone.army.mil/history/archives/redstone/redstone.html Original artist: USGov-Military-Army
File:Redstone_09.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Redstone_09.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://history.
redstone.army.mil/redstone/redstone_09.jpg Original artist: USGov-Military-Army
File:Regulus_missile.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Regulus_missile.png License: Public domain Contributors: Origi-
nally from en.wikipedia; description page is/was here. Original artist: Original uploader was The Epopt at en.wikipedia
File:Republic-Ford_JB-2_Loon.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Republic-Ford_JB-2_Loon.JPG License: CC BY-SA
3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: elliottwolf
File:Retired_Maj._Gen._Doug_Pearson_and_Capt._Todd_Pearson_in_front_of_an_F-15A_Eagle_both_flew.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.
org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Retired_Maj._Gen._Doug_Pearson_and_Capt._Todd_Pearson_in_front_of_an_F-15A_Eagle_both_flew.jpg License: Public
domain Contributors: U.S. Air Force Original artist: Erik Hogmeyer
File:Robert_McNamara_official_portrait.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Robert_McNamara_official_portrait.jpg
License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.defense.gov/photos/newsphoto.aspx?newsphotoid=11425 (http://www.defense.gov/dodcmsshare/
newsphoto/2009-07/hires_PCC-53242.jpg direct link]) Original artist: DoD photo by Oscar Porter, U.S. Army.
File:RocketSunIcon.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/RocketSunIcon.svg License: Copyrighted free use Contributors: Self
made, based on File:Spaceship and the Sun.jpg Original artist: Me
File:Rockeye_cluster_bomb_after_drop_with_bomblets.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Rockeye_cluster_bomb_
after_drop_with_bomblets.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy Naval Museum of Armament and Technology [1] Rockeye II photo Origi-
nal artist: USN
File:Romanian_MIM-23_HAWK.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Romanian_MIM-23_HAWK.jpg License: CC BY-
SA 2.0 Contributors: originally posted to Flickr as December 1st: Rockets Original artist: nicubunu
File:Roundel_of_the_USAF.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Roundel_of_the_USAF.svg License: Public domain Con-
tributors: MIL-STD-2161A (AS), DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE STANDARD PRACTICE PAINT SCHEMES AND EXTERIOR MARKINGS FOR US
NAVY AND MARINE CORPS AIRCRAFT (1 MAY 1993) and USAF TO 1-1-4, TECHNICAL MANUAL EXTERIOR FINISHES, INSIGNIA AND
MARKINGS, APPLICABLE TO USAF AIRCRAFT (CHANGE 6 - 20 MAR 1998). Original artist: Zscout370
File:SA-2_site_being_blanketed_by_cluster_bombs_from_F-105_Thud_Wild_Weasels.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/
commons/b/b9/SA-2_site_being_blanketed_by_cluster_bombs_from_F-105_Thud_Wild_Weasels.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/090605-F-1234P-045.jpg Original artist: US Air Force
File:SADM(cropped).jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/SADM%28cropped%29.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contribu-
File:SAM-7-batey-haosef-1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/SAM-7-batey-haosef-1.jpg License: CC BY 2.5 Contribu-
File:SCAR_tiny.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/SCAR_tiny.png License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy photo
via China Lake archives [1] Original artist: Unknown
File:SDB3.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/SDB3.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.af.mil/shared/
media/photodb/photos/060801-F-2907c-176.jpg Original artist: Master Sgt. Lance Cheung
File:SFW_CBU-97.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/SFW_CBU-97.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
Self-photographed
Picture taken by my FUJIFLIM Finepix S6500fd.
Original artist: User:Texcoco
File:SIP_rocket.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/SIP_rocket.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.
nawcwpns.navy.mil/clmf/sip.html Original artist: US Navy
File:SM-2_Block_IV_080605-N-0000X-006.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/SM-2_Block_IV_080605-N-0000X-006.
jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/080605-N-0000X-006.jpg Original artist: U.S. Navy photo by
the Missile Defense Agency
File:SM-3_launch_to_destroy_the_NRO-L_21_satellite.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/SM-3_launch_to_destroy_
the_NRO-L_21_satellite.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=55403 Original artist: Unknown
File:SM-65_Atlas_Missile_Sites.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/SM-65_Atlas_Missile_Sites.png License: CC BY-SA
3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Bwmoll3
File:SM_2060315-N-4884C-025.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/SM_2060315-N-4884C-025.jpg License: Public do-
main Contributors: http://www.navy.mil/view_photos_top.asp Original artist: U.S. Navy
File:SSM-N-8_Regulus_I_on_display_at_Bowfin_Park.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/SSM-N-8_Regulus_I_on_
display_at_Bowfin_Park.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: own work by Avriette
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1622543_9777f49991_o.jpg Original artist: Avriette
File:Schweizer_Armee_Dragon_PAL.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Schweizer_Armee_Dragon_PAL.jpg License:
Public domain Contributors: Own photograph. Shot at the Army Days 2006 (Heerestage 2006) in Thun. Original artist: Wikimedia Commons user TheBernFiles.
File:SeaRAM_1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/SeaRAM_1.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: US Navy Original
artist: US Navy
File:Sea_Sparrow_Mark115_Fire_Control_Director.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Sea_Sparrow_Mark115_
Fire_Control_Director.JPEG License: Public domain Contributors: ID:DNSC8706132 Original artist: Service Depicted: Navy
File:Sea_Sparrow_Mark_91_FCS.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Sea_Sparrow_Mark_91_FCS.jpg License: Public
domain Contributors: ID:DNST9004632 Original artist: Service Depicted: Navy
Camera Operator: PH2 TRACY LEE DIDAS
File:Seal_of_the_US_Air_Force.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Seal_of_the_US_Air_Force.svg License: Public do-
main Contributors: SVG created from this image Original artist: Arthur E. DuBois, according to [1]
File:Searchtool.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/61/Searchtool.svg License: ? Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Seekbat.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Seekbat.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.
designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-97.html Original artist: USAF
File:Sergeant_missile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Sergeant_missile.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Orig-
inal artist: ?
File:Shavetail.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Shavetail.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.
wsmr-history.org/Shavetail.htm Original artist: White Sands Missile Range Museum
File:Shoulder-launched_Multipurpose_Assault_Weapon.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Shoulder-launched_
Multipurpose_Assault_Weapon.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Shuttle.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Shuttle.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Sidewider_missile_20040710_145400_1.4.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Sidewider_missile_20040710_
145400_1.4.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Sidewinder9Xfirst_launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f7/Sidewinder9Xfirst_launch.jpg License: PD Contributors: ?
Original artist: ?
File:SidewinderBOA.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/SidewinderBOA.jpg License: PD Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Sidewinder_1A+1C.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9a/Sidewinder_1A%2B1C.jpg License: PD Contributors: ? Original artist:
?
File:Sidewinder_Fin.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/Sidewinder_Fin.JPG License: CC BY-SA 4.0 Contributors: Own
work Original artist: Muraer
File:Sm2-Launch-USN.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Sm2-Launch-USN.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
Transferred from en.wikipedia Original artist: Original uploader was TomD1939 at en.wikipedia
File:Small_ICBM_Hard_Mobile_Launcher_USAF.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Small_ICBM_Hard_Mobile_
Launcher_USAF.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=541 Original artist: Unknown
File:Snark.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Snark.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist:
Greg Hume
File:Snark_rocket.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Snark_rocket.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: https://www.
patrick.af.mil/45SW/PA/MEDIA/multimedia.htm (cropped and converted from TIFF) Original artist: US Air Force
File:Soldier_with_Bazooka_M1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Soldier_with_Bazooka_M1.jpg License: Public do-
main Contributors: This image is available from the United States Library of Congress's Prints and Photographs division under the digital ID cph.135435.
Original artist: U.S. Army Signal Corps photograph..
File:Sparrow_III_launch_F3H-2M_NAN2-59.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Sparrow_III_launch_F3H-2M_
NAN2-59.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy Naval Aviation News February 1959 [1] Original artist: USN
File:Sprint-i-box.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Sprint-i-box.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.

designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/sprint.html Original artist: US Army employee
File:Sprint_missile_maneuvering_after_launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Sprint_missile_maneuvering_after_
launch.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.smdc.army.mil/smdcphoto_gallery/Missiles/121-SprintSystemTestM2-48.jpg Original artist: US
Army
File:Squirt_missile_leaving_the_launcher.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Squirt_missile_leaving_the_launcher.jpg
License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.wsmr-history.org/Squirt1.htm Original artist: US Army
File:Standard_Missile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Standard_Missile.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
ID:DNSC8410094
Original artist: Service Depicted: Navy
Command Shown: N0537
Camera Operator: DON MUHM

File:Standard_Missile_-_ID_060730-N-8977L-012.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Standard_Missile_-_ID_
060730-N-8977L-012.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=37663 Original artist: Mass Communication
Specialist 2nd Class Johansen Laurel
File:StingerMissile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/StingerMissile.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original
artist: ?
File:Stinger_Crew_Operation_Desert_Shield.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Stinger_Crew_Operation_Desert_
Shield.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.flickr.com/photos/imcomkorea/3017966586/in/set-72157608801255735/ Original artist: SSGT
F. LEE CORKRAN
File:Subroc_Anti-Submarine_Missile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Subroc_Anti-Submarine_Missile.jpg License:
CC BY 2.0 Contributors: originally posted to Flickr as Missile, Anti-Submarine, Subroc Original artist: Cli
File:T-12-USORDMUS.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/T-12-USORDMUS.JPG License: Public domain Contributors:
Transferred from en.wikipedia; transferred to Commons by User:PMG using CommonsHelper. Original artist: Original uploader was DJBR at en.wikipedia
File:T-34-rocket-launcher-France.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/T-34-rocket-launcher-France.jpg License: Public
domain Contributors: http://library.uwa.edu/Special%20Collections/WW2%20Postcards/Signal_Corp/DefaultSC.asp Original artist: Unknown
File:T37_rocket.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/T37_rocket.png License: Public domain Contributors: Technical Manual
TM9-296 Original artist: U.S. War Department
File:T66_launcher.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/T66_launcher.png License: Public domain Contributors: Technical
Manual TM9-392, page 3 Original artist: United States War Department
File:TG9181003d.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/TG9181003d.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: US Air Force
Original artist: US Air Force
File:THAAD_Launcher.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/THAAD_Launcher.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ?
Original artist: ?
File:TM-61C_Matador_at_Gatow.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/TM-61C_Matador_at_Gatow.JPG License: CC
BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: MoRsE
File:TM-61_Matador_missile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/TM-61_Matador_missile.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors:
This Image was released by the United States Air Force with the ID 091204-F-1234S-001 <a class='external text' href='//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.
php?title=Category:Files_created_by_the_United_States_Air_Force_with_known_IDs,,&,,lefrom=091204-F-1234S-001#mw-category-
media'>(next)</a>.
Original artist: USAF
File:TM-76_Mace_missile_by_Mike_Hazzard.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/TM-76_Mace_missile_by_Mike_
Hazzard.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work, upload per OTRS Original artist: Mike Hazzard
File:TOW_fired_from_Jeep.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/TOW_fired_from_Jeep.jpg License: Public domain Con-
File:TV_3516_Asagiri.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/TV_3516_Asagiri.JPG License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors:
Own work Original artist: George.Hutchinson
File:Tank_template.gif Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Tank_template.gif License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original
artist: ?
File:Tarzon_loaded_on_B-29.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Tarzon_loaded_on_B-29.png License: Public domain
Contributors: USAF via [1] Original artist: Unknown
File:Taylorcraft_LBT-1_Glomb.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e4/Taylorcraft_LBT-1_Glomb.png License: Fair use Contribu-
tors:
Taylorcraft Foundation, collection of Mr. Forrest Barber [1] Original artist: ?
File:Tems11.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Tems11.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Text_document_with_red_question_
mark.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Created by bdesham with Inkscape; based upon Text-x-generic.svg from the Tango project. Original artist:
Benjamin D. Esham (bdesham)
File:The_Rockets_Red_Glare-U.S._Marines_launch_a_4.5_rocket_barrage_against_the_Chinese_Communists_in_the_Korean_fighting._-_
NARA_-_532422.tif Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/The_Rockets_Red_Glare-U.S._Marines_launch_a_4.5_rocket_
barrage_against_the_Chinese_Communists_in_the_Korean_fighting._-_NARA_-_532422.tif License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. National Archives
and Records Administration Original artist: Unknown or not provided
File:Thor_IRBM.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Thor_IRBM.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: https://www.
patrick.af.mil/45SW/PA/MEDIA/multimedia.htm (cropped and converted from TIFF) Original artist: US Air Force
File:Thor_Raf_launch_3aug59.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8c/Thor_Raf_launch_3aug59.jpg License: PD Contributors:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/thor.htm Original artist:
USAF
File:Tiny_tim_ar.GIF Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Tiny_tim_ar.GIF License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Naval
Weapons Center China Lake Weapons digest, ocial U.S. Navy photo [1] Original artist: USN
File:Titan2_color_silo.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Titan2_color_silo.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S.
Air Force photo in: U. S. Air Force Space and Missile History Oce - Historical Overview of the Space and Missile Systems Center - Ballistic Missiles, p. 19
[1]; downloaded from en.wikipedia, original uploader User:Reubenbarton. Original artist: USAF
File:Titan_1_ICBM.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Titan_1_ICBM.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http:
//www.losangeles.af.mil/photos/mediagallery.asp?id=$-$1&page=1&count=48 (image link) Original artist: U.S. Air Force
File:Titan_23G_launches_Clementine.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Titan_23G_launches_Clementine.jpg License:
File:Titan_23G_rocket.gif Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Titan_23G_rocket.gif License: Public domain Contributors: ?
Original artist: ?
File:Titan_II_launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Titan_II_launch.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. De-
fenseImagery photo VIRIN: DF-ST-84-06932; National Museum of the U.S. Air Force photo 140124-F-DW547-006 Original artist: U.S. DoD
File:Titan_IVB_launching_Lacrosse_satellite.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/Titan_IVB_launching_Lacrosse_
satellite.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imagery.html#guid=418188f210a4a9a0b5da16711e9fbd8197f4b2ad
Original artist: U.S. Air Force/Sta Sgt. Pamela Taubman
File:Titan_I_Cordele,_GA.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Titan_I_Cordele%2C_GA.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Con-
tributors: Own work Original artist: Bubba73
File:Titan_I_close_up.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Titan_I_close_up.JPG License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors:
Own work Original artist: Bubba73
File:Titan_I_engine.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Titan_I_engine.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work
Original artist: Bubba73
File:Titan_Missile_Family.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Titan_Missile_Family.png License: Public domain Contrib-
File:Tomahawk_Block_IV_cruise_missile_-crop.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Tomahawk_Block_IV_cruise_
missile_-crop.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
Tomahawk_Block_IV_cruise_missile.jpg Original artist:
derivative work: The High Fin Sperm Whale
File:Tomahawk_Operators.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Tomahawk_Operators.svg License: CC0 Contributors: Own
work Original artist: Silver Spoon
File:Tory_II-A_nuclear_ramjet_engine.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Tory_II-A_nuclear_ramjet_engine.jpg Li-
cense: Public domain Contributors: Nevada National Security Site Tour Booklet, part 3 Original artist: Federal Government of the United States.
File:Tory_II-C_nuclear_ramjet_engine.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Tory_II-C_nuclear_ramjet_engine.jpg Li-
cense: Public domain Contributors: Nevada National Security Site Tour Booklet, part 3 Original artist: Federal Government of the United States.
File:Tow_atm.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Tow_atm.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: [1] from http://www.
wsmr-history.org/ Original artist: White Sands Missile Range Museum
File:Trident-C-4.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Trident-C-4.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.
navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=9430 Original artist: US Navy
File:TridentMissileSystem.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/TridentMissileSystem.png License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contrib-
utors: Originally from en.wikipedia; description page is/was here.
Original artist: Original uploader was WikipedianProlic at en.wikipediabr/> (Original text : en:User:WikipedianProlific)
File:Trident_C4_first_launch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Trident_C4_first_launch.jpg License: Public domain
File:Trident_II_missile_image.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Trident_II_missile_image.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors: High Res image from Lockheed Martin NOTE: According to NTI, this image is a U.S. Department of Defense photo, therefore is in the public
domain. Also here, on US Navy web site Original artist: Unknown
File:UGM-109_hits_target_on_San_Clemente_Island_1986.JPEG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/UGM-109_
hits_target_on_San_Clemente_Island_1986.JPEG License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. DefenseImagery photo VIRIN: DN-SC-86-06115 and
DN-SC-86-06115 Original artist: USN
File:USA-stub.PNG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/USA-stub.PNG License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Origi-
nal artist: Bahamut0013
File:USAF-stub.PNG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/USAF-stub.PNG License: Public domain Contributors: Own work
Original artist: Bahamut0013
File:USAF_AIM-9M-9_DF-SD-07-01080.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a7/USAF_AIM-9M-9_DF-SD-07-01080.jpg License:

PD Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:USAF_F-15C_fires_AIM-7_Sparrow.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/USAF_F-15C_fires_AIM-7_Sparrow.jpg
License: Public domain Contributors:
This Image was released by the United States Air Force with the ID 050119-F-7709A-023 <a class='external text' href='//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.
php?title=Category:Files_created_by_the_United_States_Air_Force_with_known_IDs,,&,,lefrom=050119-F-7709A-023#mw-category-
media'>(next)</a>.
Original artist: U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Michael Ammons
File:USAF_ICBM_and_NASA_Launch_Vehicle_Flight_Test_Successes_and_Failures_(highlighted).png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.
org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/USAF_ICBM_and_NASA_Launch_Vehicle_Flight_Test_Successes_and_Failures_%28highlighted%29.png Li-
cense: Public domain Contributors: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770078693_1977078693.pdf (pg10of44) http:
//naca.larc.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19770078693
Title: Apollo launch-vehicle man-rating: Some considerations and an alternative contingency plan
Original artist: Harris, E. D.; Brom, J. R.
File:USAF_MOP_test_release_crop.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/USAF_MOP_test_release_crop.jpg License: Pub-
lic domain Contributors: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dod_dtra/4327700817/ Original artist: DoD photo
File:USAF_logo.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/USAF_logo.png License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.
dobbins.afrc.af.mil/shared/media/ggallery/hires/AFG-060112-014.jpg Original artist: USAF
File:USMC-120517-M-YE622-006.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/USMC-120517-M-YE622-006.jpg License: Public
domain Contributors:
This Image was released by the United States Marine Corps with the ID 120517-M-YE622-006 <a class='external text' href='//commons.wikimedia.org/w/
index.php?title=Category:Files_created_by_the_United_States_Marine_Corps_with_known_IDs,,&,,lefrom=120517-M-YE622-006#mw-
category-media'>(next)</a>.
Original artist: Lance Cpl. Benjamin Pryer
File:USN-stub.PNG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/USN-stub.PNG License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Origi-
nal artist: Bahamut0013
File:USSNorfolkDL1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/USSNorfolkDL1.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Origi-
nally from en.wikipedia; description page is/was here. Original artist: Original uploader was Ahseaton at en.wikipedia
File:USS_Cusk;0834807.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/USS_Cusk%3B0834807.jpg License: Public domain Contribu-
tors: http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08348.htm USN photo courtesy of http://ussubvetsofwwii.org Original artist: Unknown
File:USS_Forrestal_explosion_29_July_1967.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/USS_Forrestal_explosion_29_July_
1967.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID USN 1124794 <a class='external text' href='//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=
Category:Files_created_by_the_United_States_Navy_with_known_IDs,,&,,lefrom=USN'>1124794#mw-category-media (next)</a>.
Original artist: Ocial U.S. Navy Photograph
File:USS_John_Paul_Jones_(DDG-53)_launches_RIM-174_June_2014.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/USS_
John_Paul_Jones_%28DDG-53%29_launches_RIM-174_June_2014.JPG License: Public domain Contributors:
This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 140619-N-ZZ999-167 <a class='external text' href='//commons.wikimedia.org/w/
index.php?title=Category:Files_created_by_the_United_States_Navy_with_known_IDs,,&,,lefrom=140619-N-ZZ999-167#mw-category-
media'>(next)</a>.
Original artist: U.S. Navy photo
File:USS_Lake_Erie_(CG-70)_SM-3_start.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/USS_Lake_Erie_%28CG-70%29_SM-3_
start.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=45496 Original artist: Lt. Chris Bishop Deputy Director, U.S. Navy
photo (RELEASED)
File:USS_Los_Angeles_(CA135)_Regulus_h97391.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/USS_Los_Angeles_%28CA135%
29_Regulus_h97391.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Ocial U.S. Navy Photograph, from the collections of the Naval Historical Center NH 97391
File:USS_Mahan_SM-2ER_on_the_rail.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/USS_Mahan_SM-2ER_on_the_rail.jpg Li-
cense: Public domain Contributors: ID:DNSN8306748 Original artist: Service Depicted: Navy
File:USS_New_Orleans_(LPD-18)_launches_RIM-116_missile_2013.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/USS_New_
Orleans_%28LPD-18%29_launches_RIM-116_missile_2013.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 130521-N-YR391-001 <a class='external text' href='//commons.wikimedia.org/w/
index.php?title=Category:Files_created_by_the_United_States_Navy_with_known_IDs,,&,,lefrom=130521-N-YR391-001#mw-category-
media'>(next)</a>.
Original artist: U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Gary Granger Jr.
File:USS_Theodore_Roosevelt_conducts_a_live-fire_exercise.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/USS_Theodore_
Roosevelt_conducts_a_live-fire_exercise.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: https://www.flickr.com/photos/usnavy/14989078441/ Original artist:
(U.S. Navy photo/Released) 140818-N-ZZ999-003
File:USS_Tunny_SSG-282_Regulus1_launch_NAN9-58.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/USS_Tunny_SSG-282_

Regulus1_launch_NAN9-58.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy Naval Aviation News September 1958 [1] Original artist: USN
File:USS_Worden_CG-18_Mark_10_launcher.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/USS_Worden_CG-18_Mark_10_

launcher.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Service Depicted: Navy
Camera Operator: PH2 MICHAEL D.P. FLYNN Original artist: ?
File:US_Navy_020227-N-2722F-030_USS_Stennis_-_JDAM.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/US_Navy_

020227-N-2722F-030_USS_Stennis_-_JDAM.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 020227-N-2722F-030 <a class='external text' href='//commons.wikimedia.org/w/
index.php?title=Category:Files_created_by_the_United_States_Navy_with_known_IDs,,&,,lefrom=020227-N-2722F-030#mw-category-
media'>(next)</a>.
Original artist: U.S. Navy photo by Photographers Mate 2nd Class James A. Farrally II.
File:US_Navy_020705-N-5055W-006_RIMPAC_2002.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/US_Navy_

020705-N-5055W-006_RIMPAC_2002.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
media'>(next)</a>.
Original artist: U.S. Navy photo by Photographers Mate 2nd Class Jane West.
File:US_Navy_030319-N-4142G-020_Ordnance_handlers_assemble_Joint_Direct_Attack_Munition_(JDAM)_bombs_in_the_forward_mess_
decks.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/US_Navy_030319-N-4142G-020_Ordnance_handlers_assemble_Joint_Direct_
Attack_Munition_%28JDAM%29_bombs_in_the_forward_mess_decks.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 030319-N-4142G-020 <a class='external text' href='//commons.wikimedia.org/w/
index.php?title=Category:Files_created_by_the_United_States_Navy_with_known_IDs,,&,,lefrom=030319-N-4142G-020#mw-category-
media'>(next)</a>.
Original artist: U.S. Navy photo by Photographers Mate Second Class Felix Garza Jr.
File:US_Navy_030321-N-3235P-510_On_the_flight_deck_aboard_the_aircraft_carrier_USS_Harry_S._Truman_(CVN-75),_2000_lbs_GBU-31_
Joint_Direct_Attack_Munitions_(JDAM)_are_transported_to_the_flight_deck.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/
US_Navy_030321-N-3235P-510_On_the_flight_deck_aboard_the_aircraft_carrier_USS_Harry_S._Truman_%28CVN-75%29%2C_2000_lbs_GBU-31_
Joint_Direct_Attack_Munitions_%28JDAM%29_are_transported_to_the_flight_deck.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 030321-N-3235P-510 <a class='external text' href='//commons.wikimedia.org/w/
index.php?title=Category:Files_created_by_the_United_States_Navy_with_known_IDs,,&,,lefrom=030321-N-3235P-510#mw-category-
media'>(next)</a>.
Original artist: Photographers Mate 1st Class Michael W. Pendergrass / U.S. Navy
File:US_Navy_030830-N-6187M-001_Sailors_remove_a_hoisting_sling_from_an_ammo_crate_carrying_2000-pound_Mark_84_general_
purpose_bombs.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/US_Navy_030830-N-6187M-001_Sailors_remove_a_hoisting_sling_
from_an_ammo_crate_carrying_2000-pound_Mark_84_general_purpose_bombs.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 030830-N-6187M-001 <a class='external text' href='//commons.wikimedia.org/w/
index.php?title=Category:Files_created_by_the_United_States_Navy_with_known_IDs,,&,,lefrom=030830-N-6187M-001#mw-category-
media'>(next)</a>.
Original artist: U.S. Navy photo by Photographers Mate 3rd Class Lance H. Mayhew, Jr.
File:US_Navy_040205-N-5859A-001_An_F-A-18E_Super_Hornet_assigned_to_the_Eagles_of_Strike_Fighter_Squadron_One_One_Five_
(VFA-115)_carries_ten_Mark_83_bombs.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/US_Navy_040205-N-5859A-001_An_
F-A-18E_Super_Hornet_assigned_to_the_Eagles_of_Strike_Fighter_Squadron_One_One_Five_%28VFA-115%29_carries_ten_Mark_83_bombs.jpg
License: Public domain Contributors:
This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 040205-N-5859A-001 <a class='external text' href='//commons.wikimedia.org/w/
index.php?title=Category:Files_created_by_the_United_States_Navy_with_known_IDs,,&,,lefrom=040205-N-5859A-001#mw-category-
media'>(next)</a>.
Original artist: U.S. Navy photo by Lt. j.g. Matthew Abbot.
File:US_Navy_040429-N-1082Z-116_Aviation_Ordnanceman_Airman_Lauren_Carr,_from_Atlanta,_Ga.,_puts_a_switch_on_a_2,000_lbs_
MK-84_general-purpose_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/US_Navy_040429-N-1082Z-116_Aviation_
Ordnanceman_Airman_Lauren_Carr%2C_from_Atlanta%2C_Ga.%2C_puts_a_switch_on_a_2%2C000_lbs_MK-84_general-purpose_bomb.jpg License:
Public domain Contributors:
This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 040429-N-1082Z-116 <a class='external text' href='//commons.wikimedia.org/w/
index.php?title=Category:Files_created_by_the_United_States_Navy_with_known_IDs,,&,,lefrom=040429-N-1082Z-116#mw-category-
media'>(next)</a>.
Original artist: U.S. Navy photo
File:US_Navy_041128-N-5345W-016_Aviation_Ordnanceman_3rd_Class_William_Miller_arms_a_AGM-65_Maverick_laser-guided_missile.
jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/US_Navy_041128-N-5345W-016_Aviation_Ordnanceman_3rd_Class_William_Miller_
arms_a_AGM-65_Maverick_laser-guided_missile.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
media'>(next)</a>.
Original artist: U.S. Navy photo by Photographers Mate Airman Kristopher Wilson
File:US_Navy_050327-N-6694B-001_An_F-A-18C_Hornet_rolls_into_a_turn_while_flying_a_combat_mission_over_Iraq.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/US_Navy_050327-N-6694B-001_An_F-A-18C_Hornet_rolls_into_a_turn_while_flying_a_
combat_mission_over_Iraq.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 050327-N-6694B-001 <a class='external text' href='//commons.wikimedia.org/w/
index.php?title=Category:Files_created_by_the_United_States_Navy_with_known_IDs,,&,,lefrom=050327-N-6694B-001#mw-category-
media'>(next)</a>.
Original artist: U.S. Navy photo by Cmdr. Don Berry
File:US_Navy_080714-N-8135W-176_The_Canadian_frigate_HMCS_Regina_(FFH_334)_fires_a_Harpoon_anti-ship_missile_during_a_Rim_
of_the_Pacific_(RIMPAC)_sinking_exercise.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/US_Navy_080714-N-8135W-176_
The_Canadian_frigate_HMCS_Regina_%28FFH_334%29_fires_a_Harpoon_anti-ship_missile_during_a_Rim_of_the_Pacific_%28RIMPAC%29_
sinking_exercise.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
media'>(next)</a>.
Original artist: U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Kirk Worley
File:US_Navy_081120-N-0000X-001_Members_of_USS_Fitzgerald{}s_(DDG_62)_Harpoon_handling_team_carefully_lower_an_all-up-round_
Harpoon_missile_into_its_launch_rack_on_the_aft_VLS_deck_during_ammunition_onload_operations.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/
wikipedia/commons/1/1b/US_Navy_081120-N-0000X-001_Members_of_USS_Fitzgerald%27s_%28DDG_62%29_Harpoon_handling_team_carefully_
lower_an_all-up-round_Harpoon_missile_into_its_launch_rack_on_the_aft_VLS_deck_during_ammunition_onload_operations.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors:
This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 081120-N-0000X-001 <a class='external text' href='//commons.wikimedia.org/w/
index.php?title=Category:Files_created_by_the_United_States_Navy_with_known_IDs,,&,,lefrom=081120-N-0000X-001#mw-category-
media'>(next)</a>.
Original artist: U.S. Navy photo by Ensign James Lamb
File:US_Navy_090929-N-2515C-443_The_amphibious_transport_dock_ship_USS_Green_Bay_(LPD_20)_fires_a_surface-to-air_intercept_
missile_from_the_Rolling_Airframe_Missile_(RAM)_launcher_during_Combat_System_Ship_Qualification_Trials_off_t.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/US_Navy_090929-N-2515C-443_The_amphibious_transport_dock_ship_USS_Green_Bay_
%28LPD_20%29_fires_a_surface-to-air_intercept_missile_from_the_Rolling_Airframe_Missile_%28RAM%29_launcher_during_Combat_System_
Ship_Qualification_Trials_off_t.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 090929-N-2515C-443 <a class='external text' href='//commons.wikimedia.org/w/
index.php?title=Category:Files_created_by_the_United_States_Navy_with_known_IDs,,&,,lefrom=090929-N-2515C-443#mw-category-
media'>(next)</a>.
Original artist: U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Larry S. Carlson
File:US_Navy_980220-N-0507F-003_U.S._Marine_Corps_Lance_Cpl._Leander_Pickens_arms_an_AIM-9_Sidewinder_missile_on_a_FA-18C_
Hornet.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/US_Navy_980220-N-0507F-003_U.S._Marine_Corps_Lance_Cpl._Leander_
Pickens_arms_an_AIM-9_Sidewinder_missile_on_a_FA-18C_Hornet.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 980220-N-0507F-003 <a class='external text' href='//commons.wikimedia.org/w/
index.php?title=Category:Files_created_by_the_United_States_Navy_with_known_IDs,,&,,lefrom=980220-N-0507F-003#mw-category-
media'>(next)</a>.
Original artist: DoD photo by Petty Ocer 3rd Class Brian Fleske, U.S. Navy
File:US_Pacific_Army_and_Indian_Army_soldiers_during_a_joint_session_in_India,_2009.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/
commons/4/46/US_Pacific_Army_and_Indian_Army_soldiers_during_a_joint_session_in_India%2C_2009.jpg License: CC BY 2.0 Contributors: Flickr:
Eyes on target Original artist: The U.S. Army
File:US_Rim-8g_missile.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/US_Rim-8g_missile.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
en:Image:US Rim-8g missile.jpg Original artist: U.S. Navy
File:US_Surveillance_Radar_in_Test_at_White_Sands_0563a.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/31/US_Surveillance_Radar_in_
Test_at_White_Sands_0563a.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors:
MEADS International
Original artist:
MEADS International
File:US_flag_48_stars.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/US_flag_48_stars.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own
work based on PD info Original artist: Created by jacobolus using Adobe Illustrator.
File:US_pilot_mock-sings_as_missile_hits_target.theora.ogv Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/US_pilot_mock-sings_as_
missile_hits_target.theora.ogv License: Public domain Contributors: RT http://www.rt.com/news/american-pilot-target-video-582/, originally from LIVE-
LEAK.COM) Original artist: 101st Airborne pilot identied only as Mexican
File:UUM-44_SUBROC_launch_sequence_c1964.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/UUM-44_SUBROC_launch_
sequence_c1964.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy All Hands magazine December 1964, p. 12. Original artist: U.S. Department of Defense
File:United_States_Department_of_Defense_Seal.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/United_States_Department_of_

Defense_Seal.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: United States Department of Defense
File:United_States_Department_of_the_Army_Seal.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Emblem_of_the_United_States_
Department_of_the_Army.svg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.defense.gov/multimedia/web_graphics/ Original artist: U.S. Dept. of Defense
File:United_States_Department_of_the_Navy_Seal.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Seal_of_the_United_States_
Department_of_the_Navy.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Keeleysam Original artist: United States Army Institute Of Heraldry
File:UnrestoredMatadorAtCAM.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/UnrestoredMatadorAtCAM.jpg License: Public do-
main Contributors: Own work by Sadosrch, originally uploaded on en.wiki as en:File:UnrestoredMatadorAtCAM.JPG Original artist: Shawn Dorsch, (Sadosrch)
File:Usa_edcp_location_map.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Usa_edcp_location_map.svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Contributors: Own work Original artist: Uwe Dedering
File:Uum-125a.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Uum-125a.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.
designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-125.html Original artist: <a data-x-rel='nofollow' class='external text' href='http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/
m-125.html'>See citation -- Drawing: U.S. Navy</a>
File:VB-1_Azon_2_(ORDATA).jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/VB-1_Azon_2_%28ORDATA%29.jpg License: Pub-
lic domain Contributors: http://maic.jmu.edu/ordata/srdetaildesc.asp?ordid=3858 Original artist: Unknown
File:VB-6_Felix_Guided_Bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/VB-6_Felix_Guided_Bomb.jpg License: Public do-
main Contributors: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1046 Original artist: United States Air Force
File:VLAlaunch.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/VLAlaunch.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.
chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/missiles/wep-vla.html Original artist: No photo credit on web page
File:Viper_002.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Viper_002.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.
redstone.army.mil/history/archives/viper_001.jpg Original artist: United States Army
File:W53_nuclear_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/W53_nuclear_bomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/ Original artist: DOE or USAF
File:Walleye_rednose_navy_photo.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Walleye_rednose_navy_photo.jpg License: Public
File:West_Point_Cadets_and_Nike_Zeus.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/West_Point_Cadets_and_Nike_Zeus.jpg
License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.smdc.army.mil/smdcphoto_gallery/eagle/feb07/15-West%20Point%20Cadets%20and%20Nike%20Zeus.
jpg Original artist: US Army
File:Wet_eye_bomb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Wet_eye_bomb.jpg License: CC BY 2.0 Contributors: http://www.
flickr.com/photos/armymaterielcommand/878617642/ Original artist: U.S. Army Materiel Command
File:Wfm_thaad_diagram.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Wfm_thaad_diagram.svg License: Public domain Contribu-
tors: http://www.mda.mil/global/images/system/thaad/38112.pdf
Original artist: US Government
File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Con-
tributors:
Wiki_letter_w.svg Original artist: Wiki_letter_w.svg: Jarkko Piiroinen
File:Wikinews-logo.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Wikinews-logo.svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: This is a
cropped version of Image:Wikinews-logo-en.png. Original artist: Vectorized by Simon 01:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Updated by Time3000 17 April 2007 to
use ocial Wikinews colours and appear correctly on dark backgrounds. Originally uploaded by Simon.
File:Wikisource-logo.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Rei-
artur Original artist: Nicholas Moreau
File:XAGM-53_Condor_missile_1973.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/XAGM-53_Condor_missile_1973.jpg License:
Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia
Original artist: U.S. Navy. Original uploader was MarcoLittel at en.wikipedia 13 September 2009 (original upload date)
File:XASM-N-8_Corvus_at_China_Lake_c1958.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/XASM-N-8_Corvus_at_China_
Lake_c1958.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy photo [1] via chinalakealumni.org Original artist: USN
File:XASM-N-8_Corvus_missile_drawings_1957.PNG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/XASM-N-8_Corvus_missile_
drawings_1957.PNG License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Navy Missile System Characteristics A4D-2 Skyhawk - XASM-N-8 Corvus [1] available at
Alternatewars.com Original artist: USN
File:XF3D-1_AAM-N-2_NAN7-54.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/XF3D-1_AAM-N-2_NAN7-54.jpg License: Pub-
lic domain Contributors: U.S. Navy Naval Aviation News July 1954 [1] Original artist: USN
File:XGAM-71_Buck_Duck_decoy_missile_on_B-29_mothership_launch_pylon.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/
XGAM-71_Buck_Duck_decoy_missile_on_B-29_mothership_launch_pylon.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia Origi-
nal artist: Original uploader was Olly lewis at en.wikipedia
File:XM157_Rocket_Pod.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/XM157_Rocket_Pod.jpg License: Public domain Contribu-
tors: US Army FM 1-40 Attack Helicopter Gunnery Original artist: ?
File:XM158_Rocket_Pod.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/XM158_Rocket_Pod.jpg License: Public domain Contribu-
tors: US Army FM 1-40 Attack Helicopter Gunnery Original artist: ?
File:XM70E2_breach.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/XM70E2_breach.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own
work Original artist: Jon.jeckell
File:XM70E2_revolver.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/XM70E2_revolver.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors:
Own work Original artist: Jon.jeckell
File:Xagm-48a.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/Xagm-48a.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Transferred from

en.wikipedia; transferred to Commons by User:JuergenKlueser using CommonsHelper.
Original artist: USAF. Original uploader was MarcoLittel at en.wikipedia
File:Xmim-115a-1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Xmim-115a-1.jpg License: CC BY-SA 2.0 fr Contributors: Self-
made. Original photo by the US Army, Public Domain, from [1] Original artist: Rama
File:Xsm-73-1.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/Xsm-73-1.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Originally from
it.wikipedia; description page is/was here. Original artist: Original uploader was EH101 at it.wikipedia
File:Xsm-73.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Xsm-73.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:YMGM-157B.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/YMGM-157B.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Army
photo via [1] Original artist: Unknown
File:ZAIM-68A_Big_Q_arrangement_drawing.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/ZAIM-68A_Big_Q_arrangement_
drawing.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: U.S. Air Force via [1] Original artist: Unknown
File:Zeus_Missle_Track_Radar.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Zeus_Missle_Track_Radar.jpg License: Public do-
main Contributors: http://www.smdc.army.mil/smdcphoto_gallery/eagle/feb07/15-Missile%20Track%20Radar%20with%20Soldier%20WSMR.jpg Original
artist: US Army
File:Zeus_site_on_Kwajalein.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Zeus_site_on_Kwajalein.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors: http://www.williamson-labs.com/kwaja.htm Original artist: US Army
File:Zuni_unguided_rocket.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Zuni_unguided_rocket.jpg License: CC BY 2.0 Contribu-
tors: originally posted to Flickr as Missile, Air-to-Surface, Solid Propellant, Zuni Original artist: Cli
342.5.3 Content license
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0

US Missiles Rockets and Bombs

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

US Missiles Rockets and Bombs

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

US Missiles Rockets and Bombs

1 MGR-1 Honest John 1

2 MIM-3 Nike Ajax 6

3 MIM-14 Nike Hercules 16

3.1.1 Project Nike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

8 MGR-3 Little John 46

9.6 Jupiter MRBM and Juno II launches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

17 Roland (missile) 101

17.5 Rolandgate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

18 Terminal High Altitude Area Defense 106

20 Medium Extended Air Defense System 113

22 M47 Dragon 128

22.3 Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

23 BGM-71 TOW 131

25 M72 LAW 138

25.5 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

26 M55 (rocket) 145

28 M141 Bunker Defeat Munition 153

28.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

29 M24 mine 155

30 FIM-43 Redeye 156

31 AGM-114 Hellre 159

32 M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System 165

32.6 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

34 M202 FLASH 173

35 M139 bomblet 175

36 Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket 177

36.3.2 US military Warheads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

37 T34 Calliope 180

38 AIR-2 Genie 181

40 Hopi (missile) 186

41 AGM-76 Falcon 187

43 Diamondback (missile) 190

44 Sky Scorcher 191

45 Wagtail (missile) 192

47 AGR-14 ZAP 194

48 MQR-13 BMTS 195

49 MQR-16 Gunrunner 197

50 Ram (rocket) 198

53 Gimlet (rocket) 202

54 Zuni (rocket) 204

56 BGM-109G Ground Launched Cruise Missile 207

57 SM-64 Navaho 211

58 SM-62 Snark 214

58.1.1 Technical description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

59 SSM-N-8 Regulus 217

60 MGM-13 Mace 220

61 MGM-1 Matador 223

62 Republic-Ford JB-2 228

62.1 Wartime development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

63 Alpha Draco 233

64 Crow (missile) 235

65 MGM-51 Shillelagh 237

66 PGM-17 Thor 240

67 SM-65 Atlas 245

68 SM-68 Titan 254

69 SSM-A-5 Boojum 256

70 Supersonic Low Altitude Missile 258

71 AAM-A-1 Firebird 260

71.4 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

72 AAM-N-4 Oriole 262

73 AAM-N-5 Meteor 264

74 AIM-26 Falcon 265

75 AIM-47 Falcon 267