Archie to SAM: A Short Operational History of Ground-Based Air ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

FROM GUNS TO MISSILES The third family of antiaircraft missiles, man-portable ones, also resulted from this post–World War II Army effort to obtain more effective and mobile antiaircraft protection. In 1954, the Army Equipment Development Guide recommended that first priority be given to the low-altitude (below 10,000 feet) air threat. It went on to note the need to research infrared techniques to enable operations in poor visibility conditions. In 1955, Convair began its own feasibility studies of a lightweight, man-transportable, low-altitude missile system, as there was no formal military requirement for such a weapon. The company named it Redeye, a system built around a small infrared guided missile that could be carried and fired by one man. In November 1956, the company presented the concept to Army and Marine representatives. 55 The shoulder-launched system looked like a World War II bazooka (fig. 50). Its launching tube weighed less than four pounds, while the rocket weighed 14.5 pounds and measured 43 inches in length and 2.75 inches in diameter. A boost rocket would push the missile out about 25 feet, where the main motor would ignite, safely away from the operator. The infrared homer was designed to guide the device and its 1.2-pound warhead into the target for an impact explosion. The company estimated a maximum range of two nautical miles and a probability of kill of 0.35 to 0.40. 56 The Army responded with a requirement in July 1957 that called for a one-man system that could destroy aircraft flying at low altitudes with speeds up to 600 knots at a maximum range of 4,100 meters. The Army also wanted an antitank capability and the system operational by fiscal year 1961. Two other companies besides Convair bid on the contract, Sperry (Lancer) and North American (Shoulder-Launched Antiaircraft Missile), but the Army rejected both because of excessive weight. The Army had some doubts about Convair’s Redeye proposal, specifically its seeker and weight, and sought further research. But, the Marines, with one million dollars in research and development money to use or lose, pushed the Army to begin development. Thus, in April 1958, Convair received a one-year contract for a feasibility study and demonstration from the Army and Marine Corps. 57 98
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Figure 50. Redeye launch. The Redeye gave the individual American soldier a weapon that could down aircraft. This first-generation missile was limited by its inability to identify friend from foe and restricted engagement envelope. (Reprinted from Redstone Arsenal.) The military characteristics were refined and approved by the secretary of the Army in February 1959. Redeye was designed to destroy aircraft flying up to 600 kts, up to 9,000 feet, at horizontal ranges out to 4,500 yards, and maneuvering up to six Gs. The one-man system was not to exceed 20 pounds in weight but was to have a reliability of 90 percent and a single shot-kill probability of 0.5. The Army set specific priorities in case of competing characteristics for (1) weight, (2) simplicity, and (3) effectiveness. 58 The program encountered technical problems in meeting these requirements relative to inadequate speed, inability to maneuver soon enough, and inadequate discrimination. It appeared that the Redeye would only be effective against targets up to 400 kts and would have difficulty 99
Page 2 and 3:
Report Documentation Page Form Appr
Page 4 and 5:
Air University Library Cataloging D
Page 6 and 7:
Contents Chapter Page DISCLAIMER .
Page 8 and 9:
CONTENTS Chapter Page 7 BALLISTIC M
Page 10 and 11:
CONTENTS Figure Page 30 George Pred
Page 12 and 13:
CONTENTS Figure Page 70 Blowpipe .
Page 14 and 15:
Foreword Dr. Kenneth Werrell’s hi
Page 16 and 17:
About the Author Dr. Kenneth P. Wer
Page 18 and 19:
PREFACE excluded from the original
Page 20 and 21:
PREFACE always been a factor in air
Page 22 and 23:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Artillery Institute
Page 24 and 25:
ANTIAIRCRAFT DEFENSE THROUGH WORLD
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Figure 7. British 40 mm light antia
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71: ANTIAIRCRAFT DEFENSE THROUGH WORLD
Page 92 and 93: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES American air
Page 94 and 95: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES company deliv
Page 96 and 97: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES (discussed la
Page 98 and 99: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES flak rockets
Page 100 and 101: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES 1953, the rat
Page 102 and 103: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES to 1,285 in J
Page 104 and 105: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Figure 40. Ar
Page 106 and 107: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES cember 1958,
Page 108 and 109: Figure 42. Nike Hercules. The Nike
Page 110 and 111: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Airmen test-f
Page 112 and 113: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Bomarc failed
Page 114 and 115: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Despite knowl
Page 116 and 117: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Figure 47. Ha
Page 118 and 119: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Army decided
Page 122 and 123: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES with both les
Page 124 and 125: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES that fired ov
Page 126 and 127: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Figure 53. Br
Page 128 and 129: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES The two-decad
Page 130 and 131: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES A. H. Peterso
Page 132 and 133: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES “SAMs Spur
Page 134 and 135: Chapter 3 Airmen versus Guerrillas:
Page 136 and 137: AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS the next y
Page 138 and 139: AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS war with t
Page 140 and 141: AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS Figure 56.
Page 142 and 143: AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS firings fr
Page 146 and 147: AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS and Navy c
Page 148 and 149: AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS American A
Page 154 and 155: AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS but modifi
Page 156 and 157: AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS In all, du
Page 158 and 159: AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS least an e
Page 162 and 163: AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS War Vietna
Page 164 and 165: AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS D.C.: Depa
Page 166 and 167: AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS 97, 121; a
Page 168 and 169: Chapter 4 Operations between Vietna
Page 170 and 171:
OPERATIONS BETWEEN VIETNAM AND THE
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Chapter 5 Ballistic Missile Defense
Page 204 and 205:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE Army cons
Page 206 and 207:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE Figure 80
Page 208 and 209:
Figure 81. Spartan launch. The Spar
Page 210 and 211:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE a limited
Page 212 and 213:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE these wer
Page 214 and 215:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE ment to c
Page 216 and 217:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE developin
Page 218 and 219:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE Radar Int
Page 220 and 221:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE when the
Page 222 and 223:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE casualtie
Page 224 and 225:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE fluential
Page 226 and 227:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE missiles
Page 228 and 229:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE psycholog
Page 230 and 231:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 6. Army O
Page 232 and 233:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE April 196
Page 234 and 235:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 54. Reiss
Page 236 and 237:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 74. GWAPS
Page 238 and 239:
Chapter 6 Ground-Based Air Defense
Page 240 and 241:
GROUND-BASED AIR DEFENSE SINCE 1990
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Chapter 7 Ballistic Missile Defense
Page 260 and 261:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE IN THE 19
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Figure 96. Arrow launch.The Arrow i
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Chapter 8 Summary, Trends, and Conc
Page 292 and 293:
SUMMARY, TRENDS, AND CONCLUSIONS ev
Page 294 and 295:
SUMMARY, TRENDS, AND CONCLUSIONS te
Page 296 and 297:
SUMMARY, TRENDS, AND CONCLUSIONS EC
Page 298 and 299:
Index A-1, 128, 227-28, 232 A-4, 12
Page 300 and 301:
INDEX Convair, 98 Crotale, 158 D-da
Page 302 and 303:
INDEX Gulf of Tonkin incident, 115
Page 304 and 305:
INDEX Remagen, 24, 57, 270 RF-4C, 1
Page 306 and 307:
INDEX SAM, 34, 74, 81-82, 84, 87, 9
Page 308:
Archie to SAM A Short Operational H
show all

Archie to SAM: A Short Operational History of Ground-Based Air ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?