• May 28, 2018, 00:35:20 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Terrier Missiles  (Read 6904 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dave Nesbitt

  • Global Moderator
  • Shore Patrol
  • *****
  • Posts: 34
Re: Terrier Missiles
« Reply #3 on: January 27, 2006, 04:27:45 AM »
Level of Weapon Protection:

The armed guards were there to protect the weapons. The same level of protection was afforded the Standard Weapons as well as the "Special" Weapons. The reason there were no guards while in the yards is because all weapons are off-loaded before entering the yards, no weapons, no guards.

The ASROC was also a nuclear capable weapon (torpedo or depth charge), in the early days (1960-1961), when we loaded a depth charge (nuclear), it was obvious to all what type of weapon we were loading. If we were loading from the pier, the weapon would come on a flat bed truck with a lead vehicle and chase vehicle brimming with armed marines. The pier would be blocked to all other traffic. Around the ASROC deck, we had to erect a 12 foot high canvas screen to shield the actual weapon from sight. The weapon itself was painted purple. There was no doubt as to what we were loading. Finally, someone got smart and changed the requirements to provide the same level of protection to both types of weapons. These requirements remained unchanged until the early 70s, when a radical group known as " The Weathermen" advertised that they could detonate a weapon in 30 minutes and the were bent on doing just that! So some Special Procedures were put in place to protect the weapon during transit.

Offline dougau

  • Shipmate
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Terrier Missiles
« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2006, 20:14:11 PM »
Ed. Note: The nuclear capability of the BT-3A (N) and the nuclear support capability of the USS King was never classified. Whenever asked if the USS King was nuclear capable, the crew was trained to answer “Yes”. However, the deployment of these weapons was classified, leading to the oft heard phrase “I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons on board the USS King”. Mark Donovan, FC1 (SW), 1986-1990]

Right Mark,

But you would always know what was going on because "FC's With guns" would always be outside open hatches of the missile house when the GMM's were doing PMS, other times like in the yards they wouldn’t. So what were they protecting? The equipment or the missile? :-X

Offline Mark D

  • Administrator
  • OOD
  • *****
  • Posts: 100
Terrier Missiles
« Reply #1 on: December 07, 2005, 14:00:28 PM »
    One of the main missions of the USS King was Anti-Aircraft Warfare utilizing the Terrier Missile System. The Terrier missile began active deployment in 1956 and was the Navy's first shipboard medium range surface-to-air missile. By the time the USS King was placed into commission in November of 1960, four variants of the Terrier missile were available.

   The RIM-2D, also known as the BT-3A (Beam-Riding, Tail Controlled, Series 3A), had an improved airframe from the previous BW (Beam-Riding, Wing Controlled) versions and the wings were replaced by fixed strakes. The control surfaces were moved to the tail, which greatly enhanced the missiles agility. The BT-3A also had a longer burning charge for the auxiliary power system and an end-burning sustainer, which increased the missiles range to about 20 nm. This missile was also the first Terrier which could be used effectively in a surface-to-surface (anti-ship) mode. This missile was also available as the BT-3A (N), which carried a nuclear warhead.

   The RIM-2E originally designated the HT-3 (Homing, Tail Controlled, and Series 3) saw a change from beam-riding guidance to semi-active radar homing guidance. This missile used many of the same components of the RIM-24 Tartar missile, which was essentially a short range Terrier missile without a booster. This guidance method greatly increased the effectiveness of the missile against low-flying targets.

   The RIM-2F, which was the last variant of the Terrier missile, was an improved RIM-2E. Also known as the HTR-3 (Homing, Tail Controlled, Retrofit, Series 3), it had a new sustainer motor and power supply, which again doubled the range of the missile to 40 nm. Other improvements included solid-state electronics, improved ECCM (Electronic Counter Counter-Measures), multiple target ability, and improved anti-ship capability.

   Production of the RIM-2 Series ended in 1966, which was gradually replaced by the RIM-67 Standard ER missile. The last of the Terrier missiles remained in service until the end of the 1980's. The USS King was not capable of supporting the RIM-67 until completion of her AAW Modernization in 1977.

   The SM-1ER (Standard Missile, Extended Range) was designated as the RIM-67A. They were identical to the Medium Range version (RIM-66) with the exception of the use of the Atlantic Research Corp. Mk 30 solid-fuel rocket sustainer motor and the Hercules Mk 12 booster. These missiles were all solid-state and boasted a 40 nm range. Their speed and altitude capabilities were also enhanced as well as improvements that increased the missiles reliability.

   There were also three different types of warheads available. The nuclear warhead was only available for the BT-3A (N) missile. The BT-3A and the HTR-3 missile used fragmentation type warheads. The SM-1ER used the continuous rod warhead. The continuous rod warhead consisted of dozens of metal rods attached end-to-end and "folded" around an explosive core. When the warhead detonates, the rods expand and rotate much like a huge saw blade.

[Ed. Note: The nuclear capability of the BT-3A (N) and the nuclear support capability of the USS King was never classified. Whenever asked if the USS King was nuclear capable, the crew was trained to answer "Yes". However, the deployment of these weapons was classified, leading to the oft heard phrase "I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons on board the USS King". Mark Donovan, FC1 (SW), 1986-1990]

   In 1986, the USS King and the USS Coontz were the only remaining Terrier platforms capable of deploying the HTR-3 missile as well as the BT-3A and the SM-1ER. The HTR-3 support electronics were disabled in 1987 and the USS King became one of the last ships to disable the BT-3A support electronics in 1989.

[Ed. Note: There were rumors in the early 1980's that a nuclear variant of the SM-2ER (the successor to the SM-1ER) was under development. By the mid to late 1980's, the rumors stated that the development had been scrapped. One explanation for this was that the SM-2ER missiles were not under any control until their terminal guidance phase (which is a requirement for shipboard tactical nuclear weapons), but with the electronics associated with the upgrades to support the SM-2ER, this was not true. The most likely reason these plans were scrapped (if they existed at all) was due to the imminent retirement of all of the Terrier platforms. The decommissioning schedule of these ships was known in the early 1980's as alluded to in a Congressional Budget Office report from March of 1982, which examined the costs and alternate approaches for President Reagan's 600 Ship Navy. Even though the Reagan Administration was planning on building up a larger, stronger navy, these plans called for the deactivation of all of the Farragut Class and Adams Class ships by 1992, which were to be replaced by the Arleigh Burke Class destroyers. Although the program did not advance as they originally planned (hoping to add 24 new destroyers to the fleet between 1990 and 1992), the deactivations were still carried out on schedule. Mark Donovan, FC1 (SW), 1986-1990]

« Last Edit: May 13, 2011, 08:28:01 AM by Mark D »
FC1(SW), WF / CF Division, 1986 - 1990
USS King (DLG-10/DDG-41) Association Historian