SAGAR TECHNICAL

sagar Technical Stories

Return to Home

Proposed Purpose -Try to capture some of the life and times of the era.

Proposed format:

Descriptive Story Name

Author's name and e-mail address

Approximate location and date of events

The tale - Remember the point, the audience,

and that we are not paid by the word ;-))

Also see People Stories

Listed usually most recently arrived at the top (near this point) until a better organization makes itself evident.

Click on high-lighted name to send e-mail to that person.

Fueling Ajax in New Mexico heat :-(( - June 2012

Have Kit, what Launcher Angle? - Nov 2011

SCR-784, a compact version of the 584 & more - May 2011

Over The Top - July 2010

Over Rated Fuse - July 2010

Tracking radar could theoretically be ready to fire the second missile in 30 seconds total? - Mar 2009

Nike was "Mobile" - well, how "mobile"? - Jan 2009

Jamming Exercises - September 2008

Our generator operator :-(( - August 2008

Multi-path missile track during launch problem - August 12. 2008

Wrong kind of spit and polish ;-)) July 25, 2008

Nike Hercules HAPOT Program April 4, 2008

Hercules Tracking Antennas development & details - May 11,2007

April Fool, any day ;-) from Roy Mize April 3, 2007

BIRDiE Techie July 2006

Army Air Defense Board - integrating a TPS-1D into the Nike Ajax Acquition system Jan 2006

Old Herc Radars didn't die, they worked some where else - November 2005

NIKE Vs Tac Ftrs 1963

A bit on current HARM (missiles)

And how cold does it get in Fairbanks, Alaska? from George Wallot

Another Accuracy Check from Rick Eldridge

The Long Walk - (the boosters didn't ignite!) from Rod van Ausdall

More Missile Master & Naval officer "swears-in" Army recruit - from French, Jay

Missile Master from Gerald Schloetter

Radar Picket Ships from Lee Morgan

SAGE was a fraud by Les Earnest

Scoring Bomb "Hits" by Harry Mc Clure & J.P.Moore

Missile Launch accident prevention S. Korea, by John J Federico, Jr.

ladder warmers by Bill Shaw

Life in the Launcher Area by John J Federico, Jr.

Dicke-Fix receiver by Bill Shaw & Rolf Dieter Görigk

Chan 2 interferrence by R. H. Bridgman

Strong winds by J. P. Moore

vacuum tubes by Peter Wurzbach

improvements made to the Nike system by Rolf Dieter Görigk

Fueling Ajax in New Mexico heat :-(( - June 2012

from [email protected]

Hi Ed,

Gosh, you sure surprised me. I was boring my wife repeating old 'war stories' and Red Canyon Missile Range came up. I was telling (once again) about the base there and the beautiful chapel

Ed says "Yeah - wives have to put up with a lot - mine just spaces out - "

when suddenly I thought I would get on the internet and do a search for Red Canyon Missile Range. I never expected to find anything...but you never know. I didn't realize the life of the base was so short. I was just a visitor there, going to fire every year. We had it better than some as we flew civilian as the advanced party doing the missile assembly and check-outs before the second week when the firing crew came in on contracted air transport and made the long trip by bus from Fort Bliss/El Paso Airport to the Canyon.

Those contractors who flew the main party deserve mention as they were not very safe. Every body came back to home base after the shoot on those things. One flight the hydraulics were so bad the cargo doors wouldn't stay shut so we couldn't fly over twenty thousand feet as there was no oxygen. Their fix was to string a quarter inch rope across the back 15 feet and told us not to sit beyond the rope. The gap between the doors was wide enough to see the ground below. We didn't know about oxygen deprivation in those days which would explain everyone falling asleep and getting headaches etc. Except for Rosy Hendren who got air-sick even getting near one of those old prop jobs.

Things I remember. First I'm fairly certain the Ajax was bigger than 12 inches in diameter as the middle war-head was over 12 inches in Diameter as I recall and weighed 313 lbs. The fuel was Red Fuming Nitric Acid and the Oxidizer I think was later J-4, I've forgotten what was used before that. I know the acid came in a barrel that looked like an over sized beer keg. We were always careful with the stuff, cracking the bung and gradually unscrewing the lid because of a danger of blow-out especially in those hot New Mexico summers.

The starting mix was UDMH, Un-Symmetrical Dimethyl Hydrazine, pretty nasty stuff that, supposedly caused something similar to leukemia if exposed to it. All we had to protect us was those old rubberized hooded suits with a face mask, rubber boots and some heavy duty rubber gloves which was always checked for pin holes before we suited up for the fueling portion of the exercise.

God, the fueling exercise was a miserable affair. I'll bet it was 140 degrees inside those suits in those New Mexico summers. I remember rolling the hand-truck with the Acid to the prep area, sweat pouring down my face so bad I couldn't see where I was going! Everybody learned quick to tear off a bottom of the T-shirt and wrap it around your head.

It wasn't all bad. Actually going to fire was like going to a school or family re-union, we would meet people we had gone to tech school with sometimes even some body from basic training. Guys who were back from every where.

Have Kit, what Launcher Angle? - Nov 2011

from Enno Dittmar

> ... find a model kit of the NIKE Hercules,

> I finally got lucky and managed to purchase one of the

> original "History Makers" Kits from Revell -

> it dates back as far as 1982, so its 30 years old!

Great, I likely have the same version :-))

( Gathering dust, I should cover it with a plastic box ;-))

I should have saved the attractive box :-|

> There were to my memory two different launcher erection angles,

Oh - I am almost 60 years out of date - and Ajax only also -

With the above limitations :

- The prelaunch configuration of the computer

( to compute the approximate predicted point of impact

if the missile is launched 'right now' )

considered the launcher to be vertical.

I did not notice any difference in that part of the Hercules

analog computer.

[ I have no info about the later digital ( 1974? ) computer. ]

- In our (1953) Ajax training, we were told that :

a) the angle of the launcher was limited,

and that it was totally dependent upon the location

of the Booster Disposal Area. The idea being

to drop the boosters into a relatively safe area.

b) the near vertical angle was adopted to permit the

Nike site to efficiently attack aircraft from any azimuth.

( The longer time to perform the initial dive was

an engineering compromise for the any_azimuth capability.)

( I notice the smaller HAWK and Patriot, and later missiles,

are aimed at the expected Intercept Point,

for faster intercept and marginally greater range.)

- Until your e-mail, I have never heard any other suggestion.

Best Regards,

Ed Thelen

Dear Ed,

I am a German Air Force Officer who started his military career as a BCO in a German NIKE Battery (I served with Delta Battery, SAM Bn 24 in Ristedt, Lower Saxony, Germany), the last one to phase out here in Germany, and one with special warheads, too.

Having searched stores, shops and the internet for literally decades now to find a model kit of the NIKE Hercules, I finally got lucky and managed to purchase one of the original "History Makers" Kits from Revell - it dates back as far as 1982, so its 30 years old! The kit is in perfect shape and I have almost finished the assembly.

I intend to build a static display inside a glass box on a wooden pedestal with a brass plate stating the name and basic facts of the NIKE Hercules and place it in my office - sort of an altar (not for praying, though). :o)

To do so, I need some technical information about the launcher, which I have been unable to find on your fabulous website. Maybe you can help me out. There were to my memory two different launcher erection angles, depending on target azimuth (direct or over shoulder trajectory) and warhead type (we had conventional BHE warheads loaded during normal readiness status). One angle was close to vertical, something around 86.5°. The other one was significantly less, could it be 67.5°?

I should like to fix the launcher of the model in a correct elevation for the display. You can find a variety of photos where the launcher is elevated only half way up to make it fit into a photo frame (like the one of my training crew at Fort Bliss attached to this mail, I am the tall bearded guy in the center underneath the booster connection ring). But that's not operationally accurate, and therefore I would like to use one of the correct elevation angles, preferably the lower one to keep the display box smaller.

Hopefully you have this information available - judging by the quality of your website you probably know it by heart!

Thank you very much in advance.

Fondest regards to an old NIKE buddy from Germany,

Enno

SCR-784, a compact version of the 584 & more - May 2011

from Jim Spieth

Subject: 1947

See Jim's pre Japan invasion story The articles about radars and anti-aircraft guns I accidentally found while searching for something else brought back a flood of memories of my brief time in the army, fall of '46 to spring of '48.

I was trained on radars at Ft.Sill where the SCR-784, a compact version of the 584 was modified to track mortar and artillery shells to plot position and direct our fire. Properly located ourselves we could plot guns plus or minus 10 yards. By stopping the dipole motor and positioning the beam vertical and scanning at ground-level we could spot troop movements on the range scope, too, by the unusual wigglings among the ground clutter.

Most fascinating when getting back to Ft, Bliss was the assignment at Ore Grande firing range testing the new, improved 120mm anti-aircraft gun involving a B-29 pulling target sleeves at 30,000 feet since the Soviets now had copies of our B-29 and the 90 couldn't get up that far. Other tests involved B-26 Martin Marauders pulling sleeves over 40mm sites and the problems of spotting and locking onto the much faster new jets just coming on-line.

Of special interest was since Oro Grande was just across from White Sands we had to shut down every time Werner VonBraun was going to fire a V2 rocket up showing us how to do it. Watching through a theodolite telescope was like being there in person---got to watch the birth of our missile program!

At Sill we also used a portable radar called ANTPQ-3, a 100 mile search unit scaled down to 10,000 yards where the antenna was made out of tubular aluminum covered with chicken-wire---honest---chicken-wire! The frequency was so low chicken-wire could focus the beam and since it couldn't be tilted enough you had to bounce the beam off a hill to get elevation!

Ah, the memories!

Over The Top - from George Peltonen- July 2010

Hi Ed,

Reading various articles on the Hercules Capabilities, reminded me of a live fire in 1960 or 1961. I was stationed with the Nike Battery above Eielson AFB in Alaska. We were the host Firing Battery for the Fairbanks Defense. I was a SP5 Acq Operator during a live fire (ASP?).

We were all watching the Horizontal/Vertical Plotting Board while the Herc was in flight, the plotting board pen climbed so high, it actually got caught on the top of the Plotting Paper, the BCO opened the doors and freed the pen from the top of the paper were it was snagged. We had two Range Safety Officers in the BC Van with us, one wanted to manually detonate the missile since he thought it was a "Moon Shot"

but the other safety officer said "no, let it go, the computer still has control", the pen started back down and we had a successful intercept. I don't remember what the Altitude on the Plotting Boards was, but this Missile went to the top and then some with successful results. As I recall, we had no range restrictions from this site and certainly had some long range intercepts.

Ed here -

- the plotting board goes up to 100,000 feet -

- the flight path is 1/2 g as opposed to ballistic (0 g)

what were you shooting at??

I know your question "what were you shooting at??" is rhetorical,

me ???

but we were shooting at an actual, live manned Air Force Fighter Jet from Eielson AFB. In the Fairbanks area there was a severe shortage of live aircraft in the sky to run tracking tests etc. During live firings we used live, manned Air Force Jets, the radars were off-set 1600 mils

that's 1600 milliradians for the math-majors or about 92 degrees

and we had two Air Force Officers looking over our shoulders all the time and they had communications at all times with the pilot. Normally they would bring the pilot who was to fly this mission to the Site prior to see first hand how this worked, but for some reason, this pilot had not been briefed because he had no intention of being a target for some Amy Missile Test. The two Air Force Officers in the BC Van had a hard time convincing this pilot he would be safe and he eventually flew the mission. This was a time before the T1 Flight Simulator and no RCATS in Alaska.

Over Rated Fuse - from Tom Woodbury - July 2010

I was attached to the 55th Maintenace Battallion at Camp Humprhreys in the Signal Platoon. We repaired communciation equip that came from the field. Made approx 5 trips to D Battery in my 21 month hitch there 1968 through 69 helping to bring the TRC 47s back to life. Like snapshots in life there are certain memories that always linger.

Recalled getting orders from my Warrant Officer(Billy Southern) that one of the TRC 47 transmitter sections went up in smoke. Grabbed a TRC 47 transmiiter section we had in a illegal can room jammed with all sorts of communciation equipment.

Took the 2-3 hour or so up to D Battery and was firmally chewed out by a officer there. Seems I had repaired that same transmitter a short while earlier and overlooked the very large over rated fuse that someone had put in. Power supply shorted and blew out the transformer. Transmitter was full of Tar. Good thing they had some sort of chemical that removed the tar. Installed old transformer and blown cap and all was well again for awhile. Officer there really putting down the 55th Maintenance, but i did remind him that we were there to help. That sort of soothed him down.

Tracking radar could theoretically be ready to fire the second missile in 30 seconds total? - Mar 2009

Tracking radar could theoretically be ready to fire the second missile in 30 seconds total? - Mar 2009

from Jerry Wilkinson

> Ed:

> I am a former USAF type but vaguely familiar with N/H from my NORAD experience.

> I toured the site in the Everglades National Park and have a couple of questions.

> 2) The guide also said that the tracking radar could theoretically be ready to

> fire the second missile in 30 seconds total. I don't recall it being that fast as well

> as other things have to be done to actually fire. I agree that it is amazingly fast.

Lets assume two or more missiles are ready and "vertical" ;-))

We are dealing with two tracking radars, each with aids to tracking the next

- target

- missile

as fast as practical.

Lets do the Missile Tracking Radar, (MTR)

as there are fewer complexities.

a) behind the MTR operator is a cabinet with the

elevation, azimuth, and range of each launcher preset.

b) after the missile bursts, the MTR operator can command

the radar to slew to the correct elevation and azimuth,

and simultaneously the MTR range servo to slew to lock on

to the next designated missile.

This is actually the easiest, fastest, and most automatic part of the

"get ready to fire another missile" operation.

Target tracking radar(s)

a) there is an electronic aid to help slew the TTR (and slaved TRR)

to the target designated by the Battery Control Officer (BCO)

b) elevation has to be searched for manually by the Elevation Operator.

c) if the new target is not successfully jamming the TTR or the

Acquisition radar (both are needed) the TTR should be able to lock on

to the next target with in 20 seconds of designation.

(say 10 seconds max to get azimuth and range,

and another 10 seconds max to get the elevation and

"Target Tracked"

Actually, if a target is not currently being tracked,

the TTR crew tries to second guess the BCO

about what target is likely to be designated,

and are already tracking it. They can do this because

they see the same Acquisition display the BCO sees,

and they can watch the target designation indicator

move as the BCO moves it - almost a game -

However, there are several procedural consideration, issues, -

that can slow the actual launch of the second or succeeding missiles -

a) after a missile burst at/near the 1st target, the BCO needs some

time to verify the 1st target is disabled enough to go for a second target -

To aid this, there is a target speed indicator for him to look at-

Likely, the target, being badly damaged, will slow dramatically,

of enough to convince the BCO that the target does not

need the attention of another round.

b) If the BCO determines another missile is needed,

- the target is already tracked

- the next missile is likely already tracked.

- the computer is settled

(about 2 seconds after missile tracked and target tracked)

and the next missile is on its way as soon as he hits the fire switch.

(I would guess, in this circumstance, the BCO could send another

missile within 10 seconds after determining the target needs

another missile.)

c) However, if the BCO decides the target is disabled,

and other targets are available, he can with in seconds

move the target designation symbol over the new target

and hit the designate switch.

While the BCO is studying the old target,

the acquisition operator should be aiding this process,

determining Identification Friend of Foe status,

determining if aircraft is in a "safe" flight area,

or other helpful observations.

So, lets say that the BCO could determine that the old target

is no longer a danger (10 seconds?)

and designates another target (5 seconds?)

and the hot TTR crew is hot

and the target is not jamming hard,

they might get "Target Tracked" in say 15 seconds

and the computer and plotting boards settle in 2 seconds

and the BCO is satisfied that the time is right to fire (?5 seconds)

We have an approximate delay between

missile burst and FIRE command to next missile of

say 37 seconds, plus or minus who knows -

I don't know - 40 seconds minus the fudge factor of a friendly docent?

To me, the major uncertainty of over 30 seconds is the time

it takes for the BCO to make a hopefully correct assessment

of the damage inflicted on the target - no trivial task -

The target can play games also :-|

like playing possum, dead, come to life later ;-))

====================

Nike was "Mobile" - well, how "mobile"? - Jan 2009

from david tincher

A little background about "mobile" Nike. by Ed Thelen

I was assigned to Charlie section as senior launcher crewman and fire panel opr. I was there in[C 5/6 Baumholder, Germany] when in 1962 we tested the mobile concept.

It didn't work out very well. Making a Herc site mobile took forever and you could not fire off the mobile launcher. We had moved C section about 40 miles to a training area, what we didn't know was this was a French army mortar impact area and they were going to fire the next day.

We remobilized the equipment and went back to Baumholder. No sleep, no hot food, no real knowledge of what we were doing -

S.N.A.F.U of the first order.

David.

I asked for more fun details ;-)) and David responded :-))

As you will soon discover I am not very good at this sort of project. I am trying to recall events that took place almost fifty years ago. I know I will leave out some details and perhaps include some faulty recollections. This project will take a while as I am also dealing with a cataract problem that limits the time I can spend on this infernal machine. I shall press on.

I will begin with a description of C-5/6 Charlie section. C-5/6 was an above ground Nike Herc site. Charlie section consisted of a large concrete pad enclosed by an by eighteen foot high earthen berm on three sides, built into this berm was a firing panel room of concrete protected by three blast proof doors. At one end of this berm was large concrete building called the hangar where the herc rounds where kept prior to loading. This building had two large retractable doors. To load the launchers you opened the front door of the hangar and swung out two movable gates and rolled the round to the launcher. The other end of the berm was open to access the pad by trucks, missile trailers, etc.

Now comes the hard part. The crew of C-section were informed that starting on I believe a Monday morning we would involved in test project to make a Nike Herc launch site mobile. None of the section crew had ever heard of such a program and no one in the battery had either. The operation began with the arrival of the equipment and the tech reps from I believe Ft Bliss. They began to unpack and try to explain the equipment to us.

The first step was to take off the loading rails from the outboard launcher. We then had to support the launcher while the very large and heavy attaching plates were unbolted and removed from the concrete, this took about three hours. The next step was to charge the hydraulic jacks and manhandle them into place on the side of the launcher, as I remember there were six of them. This took about five hours. The jacks weighed about 3-5 hundred pounds apiece.

We then had to manually pump the jacks to raise the launcher high enough to install two sets of wheeled bogey's. The bogey in front had a heavy duty tow bar that connected the launcher to intermediate bogey which was then connected to a trailer hitch on 5 ton tow vehicle. This hook up was a nightmare to drive and almost impossible to back up. This operation took about six hours. After the hooking up was complete the rest of section was loaded, launch firing panel, launch control indicator, cable's etc.

The launcher was now mobile. Elapsed time about fourteen hours. We then moved the mobile unit out of the exclusion area to the limited area to join the rest of the launcher convoy. We then finished loading misc. equipment, tents, personal equip, camouflage nets, etc. The time was around midnight and we were told that move was to begin around seven o'clock the next morning. We had to finish up any personal things and to be ready to reassemble in the launcher area at 0500 hrs. Makeup of the launcher convoy as well as I can remember thru the fog of very little sleep and fifty years of memory loss is as follows: Mp escort jeep, convoy commander and 1st sgt jeep. commo van 3/4 ton truck, Nike Herc missile trl 5ton tk, assy crew with assy equip 5 ton tk, mobile launcher with section pers & equip 5ton tk, 500 gallon water truck, L.C.Trailer and security pers 5 ton tk, generator pers with gen 5 ton tk, launcher plt ldr & plt sgt jeep. I believe 10 vehicles total. I have tried to reconstruct this part of the operation as accurately but I know I am not 100% factual.

Convoy to training area(day two)

The convoy left C-5/6 at approx. 0645 headed for a training area that two this day I am unsure of it's exact location I seem to keep thinking it was around Wetslar Germany. You must remember ever thing I relate is from a very tired P.F.C. not exactly a member of the command staff. The trip to the training area was fairly uneventful except for German civilian's shouting and laughing at the chains we had on the wheels of the trucks. The convoy arrived at the designated area about 1300 hrs. We started to unload pick the spots to set up the launch area. While I am in this section I forgot include a motor pool 5 ton with a fuel trailer attached and mess hall 5 ton with trailer. That would increase the convoy to thirteen for launcher area.

Set up day two.

This part of my knowledge of the events will be interrupted because of four hour stint on K.P. I finished my K.P. duties about 1700 hrs and rejoined the fray at the launch site. I was immediately assigned to finish the checkout of the firing panel circuits. It was now getting dark and growing colder. To help the crews we brought in all of the vehicles and used their headlights to light up the scene. About this time things really started down hill.

I noticed that our battalion ex and our battery CO were engaged in rather heated discussion with three French army officers. I was about forty feet away and did not hear the whole conversation but I heard enough to know it was not good. I will offer a liberal translation. The French officer told our Bn ex that we setting up in a French mortar range impact area and that they intended to fire the next day 0800 hrs. The Bn ex turned to our Bt CO and told him he would have to move the site. Our Bt CO replied in very loud voice "If I move this S.O.B. I will move it back to Baumholder". The Bn ex then replied "you have twelve hours".

And so the disaster continued and in fact intensified. The Bt commander told M/sgt Gjardahl launcher Plt sgt what we had to do. Sgt Gjardahl called the platoon together and gave us the word to start undoing what we done over the past five hours. Sgt Gjardahl stated that he knew we were tired and wet but he had to ask for one more max effort. We had to do in twelve hrs in the semi darkness, what we had accomplished in the previous twenty four +plus hours. We started immediately to try to accomplish this seemingly impossible task with a remarkable lack of complaint.

I think that Baumholder, whose nickname was "the _ _ _hole of the world", began to look like Heaven. The first steps were to remove all cables and equipment from around the launcher so that we could gain access with the wheeled bogeys. While one crew packed up the L.C.I. and the firing panel and their cabling another crew was manhandling the bogey's into place near the launcher. The launcher was then jacked up and the bogey's attached. We then turned our attention to disassembling the rest of the area, ground defense equip, tents, misc vehicles any thing that would be in the way of moving the tow vehicle's into place.

A strange thing happened during this part of the operation. I will relate it as I remember it. I was working to attach one of the bogeys and we needed more light. We called for some one to move a truck so we could light up this area, someone jumped into the truck and started to back it up. This person backed directly over a tripod mounted .50 cal M.G jamming it into the rear tandem wheels. We yelled and the driver stopped, out jumped Sgt Gjardahl and asked who ran over that gun? We replied "you did". His answer was "Not me, I don't have a license for that truck".

This was the way it went all thru the night. As I remember we had the launcher site ready to move by about 0430 hrs in the morning about nine and half hours. The mess Sgt had some how made bisquits and bacon and coffee. We ate, laied down and waited for M.P. road clearance.

Road clearance came about 0630 and we left to return to our site in Baumholder arriving about 1300 Hrs. Upon reaching the site the Bt Co said put the equip in limited area, told the troops go "do what ever you want." "I don't want to see you until tomorrow."

I will send this to you now if you have any questions I will try to answer them. I am having eye surgery Feb 9 so I kinda wanted to get it to you so you could determine if it has any worth. I know I left many things out due a perhaps faulty memory. Maybe some one else can fill in the blanks I hope so. I will sent more info in a separate e-mail as I am over my time on this computer as recommended by my eye doctor.

David

Jamming Exercises - September 2008

from Randy Williamson

> 1st site: S-13 Redmond, WA

> started 1st site: 8/66

> left 1st site: 11/70

> 1st site comments: IFC MTR & TTR operator. In '69 they ran an SR-71 from Anchorage, AK to San Diego, CA. He gave us position updates every 30 secs. We locked on at 202K inbound. We broke lock at 200K when he started jamming. We didn't even get a smell until he quit jamming at 198K outbound. The computer said the missile couldn't catch him. I said, "I'd better find another job!" I took the test for Border Patrol and started there 11/70. They closed down our site while I was in the BP academy. I retired from the USBP 11/90.

Ed Thelen responded

Sure sounds scarry to me -

I was in Chicago in 1955 - never saw jamming, not even in training :-((

I didn't like that one bit - jamming doesn't seem that hard to do -

Since we had a constant pulse repitition frequency,

spoofing us wouldn't have been very hard either

We could have been in big trouble and not even known it. :-((

I was sure that there were techniques to try to fight it -

but could only guess - the operators had no clue -

Did you get any jamming training using the T-1 trailer?

Was it realistic?

Your listing is on the web site now :-))

http://www.ed-thelen.org/ppl-w.html#S-13

Best Regards

Ed Thelen

Randy replied

We got a lot of training with jamming and we thought we were very good at it. Of course we didn’t know what the Russians had so I have no idea if what we were seeing was anywhere near realistic. We used to get a lot of “cross training” missions. There was an AFNG unit flying B-57 Canberras out of either McChord AF base or Fairchild AF base, I don’t remember which that used to run penetration missions against us.

We must have given them some ego problems as about the only times they penetrated us was when we were training a newer crew or they cheated. Often for their last run they would come in under our radar mask and then pop up and overfly the IFC area at about 200 feet. One time they were running a B-52 against us when we suddenly got totally wiped out. In just a few minutes we received a call from ARADCOM asking if we had just received some jamming that had looked like “Telephone Poles” moving across our a-scopes. We replied yes and were told “No you didn’t. Forget anything like that ever happened.” So we figured the B-52 ECM officer cut loose with something the Russians might not know about.

We got a lot of Russian “trawlers” off the coast and whenever they were around we would go into “ELINT” conditions and limit our radars to a 10% frequency shift. We used to joke that if we had a problem that was stumping our maintenance men we could call up the Russian Consulate and they could probably suggest a fix.

We had a T-1 trailer and used it extensively. We never tracked in an automatic mode on the TTR because if you broke lock due to jamming the antennas would slew anywhere. We would set up an “assisted” mode (Did you have that on your TTR?) where the gyros in the Azimuth and Range positions continued to track on the same course as before lock was broken. The Elevation operator would begin an elevation search while the TRR operator tried to find a hole in the jamming.

Our maintenance men, who were running the T-1 training, were seeing our a-scopes and what effect the jamming was having. They would simply reduce the gain on the signal until we were tracking on the ragged edge. I always enjoyed T-1 training even though I knew we ultimately were going to lose. You just can’t track a signal that isn’t there.

Randy

Ed replies -

Yes, we had "assisted mode". It was the rotary switch position between "manual" and "automatic". I think we called it "Aided". An operator could elect to use it for his station anytime. "Assisted mode" used his handwheel to control the rate of change for his position, say in Azmuth, Elevation, Range. It seemed very smooth. [It wasn't actually a gyro, just very clever electronics involving rate feedback.] We played with it occasionally - but probably would not have thought to switch it on if we got into trouble. Click here for a more complete discussion of target tracking radar operations.

Our generator operator :-(( - August 13. 2008

from Ed Thelen

I am moderately convinced that every group of say more than 20 people has a "black sheep" or "goat" - the kind of person who will certainly step into an open pail of paint if available -

- and if the "goat" is removed, another person will "rise" to the occasion

- or maybe "group dynamics" will select another to be "goat" ??

The "goat" of our IFC area was easy to identify. He was short, rat faced, sloppy past extreme (even worse than me), if he had cigarettes - one was in his mouth, and close to "retarded". You have to give everyone a job, we didn't have spare folks - so Captain Hill appointed him IFC generator operator.

The guys noted that he liked to smoke while filling the 5 foot high 40 KW 400 cycle generators with gasoline - and after some warnings, they got physical with him to discourage further cigarette smoking while pouring gasoline. He was resentful about this. (He apparently got out of generator school successfully - maybe the school people strip searched him daily to remove cigarettes? Maybe all tests were pencil and paper?)

We had two generators, and when we went on red alert, "we" fired up both generators. "We" synchronized and phased to city power one generator, we went off city power, generating all our power incase our city power went off for some reason.

One night, during a long alert, the on-line generator was getting low on fuel. Normal operation was to synchronize and phase the off-line generator and transfer the load to the fresh generator - then turn off the used generator, let it cool and refuel it. Our "goat" apparently decided the above procedure was unnecessary. He stood on a stool and started to pour a 5 gallon can of gas into the hot, roaring, on-line engine. !!!

Fortunately it was a hot night and the doors of the vans were open and we saw the bright flames just as they started. Fortunately the required big red fire extinguishers were handy to the generators. Van folks poured out and put out the fires. Would you believe the "goat" was only slightly burned, and we could repaint and fix up the generator without a report to headquarters.

Our "goat" disappeared - and Woody Woodward showed up and was quietly competent with the generators.

A few months after our "goat" disappeared, "Casey" started sitting on his bed, sharpening his bayonet, a lot. He no longer talked much with folks - After a few months, he attacked his buddy "Brisco" with the bayonet - for reasons unexplained "Brisco" survived, and "Casey" disappeared.

The gasoline 40 KW generators were OK, but the phase indicators were faulty. The phase indicators were improperly designed and burned out way too fast. Techies know that the peak AC voltage is about 141 % above the "RMS voltage" or equivalent heating voltage. The phase A of the generator was connected to phase A of the power source to be phased with. (There were three bulbs, one for each phase pair.) The goal being that there be little voltage between the synchronized phases when you "cut over" to the generator. The above implies that when the two sources are exactly out of phase, but at about the same frequency, there will be about 280 % of nominal voltage across the phase lights - for several seconds as you gently try to phase up. The phase lights were rated for 200 % of nominal voltage - but the 40 % over voltage intervals during phasing caused very short bulb life - there was a retrofit correcting this situation after about a year on site.

The above sounds more complicated than it really is - give me a pencil and paper, and let me wave my hands, and it will be simple ;-))

Multi-path missile track during launch problem - August 12. 2008

from Rolf D. Goerigk

Hello Ed,

[Referring to the new Multi-path section.]

the section looks fine to me.

This was a very complicated problem with cheating and lying involved. The U.S. Colonel Wilfred O. Boettiger mentioned in his book "Former Classified" (Xlibris Corporation 1-888-7XLIBRIS / www.Xlibris.com / 14741-BOET) ISBN: 1-4010-5048-4) that the Nike units competed in everything in the 50`s and early 60`s.

Later things were getting worse because being "good" or "the best" was related to promotion and whatever.... So, telling the HHQ Commander a problem that nobody could solve (understand) was bad, very very bad!

Looking at the problem, the worst case was the loss of a NATO assignment.!!!

Losing 2 out of your 4 batteries, what would you as a battalion commander say/report to HHQ? "I don`t no why but we cannot acquire a (some) missile."!? And no solutions!

Radar theory and problems were not part of the IFC maintenance course!

One fine day I met my first BCO on site in Wiesmoor. At the time he was "Regiment Commander" (He left the Air Force as General). We talked about the problem and I told him my (emergency) version of solving the problem during war time. (Remember the trucks in the line of site.?) He told me that another battery (24th battalion) had the same problem and solved it by building up a fence between the IFC and LA.

WOW, I told him that this measure would not solve the problem constantly. "Well, they reported to me that the problem is solved!" (In short.) "Yes Sir".

Some time later I talked to a friend of mine who was "Chief" at the time at the mentioned site. His comment: "Bullshit"! Nothing was solved. The large folder with all the orders, complains, plans and ... was untraceable and removed from the safe!!!!

It´s not good to have a (Nike) problem that couldn't be solved.

To shorten the story. There was a lawsuit between the landowner and the Federal Republic. Finally, a fence was build (expensive) at the point were the MTR antenna was pointing at (wrong). The mesh or wire netting was not blocking the reflection instead the fence only attenuated the reflection because of the mesh design. So the aiming point moved a bit.

During a Tactical Evaluation the problem did not show up and everything was in fine order!

Many good (NATO) comments/points and "Ready for Promotion." The winner was/is? The liar!

By looking at the Nike site locations in northern Germany I assume that quiet a few sites suffered from multipath effects. However, before the system was digitized the problem was played down (dail slack etc.) I guess.

All the best!

Rolf

Wrong kind of spit and polish ;-)) July 25, 2008

from R B Logan

Another Belle Isle story.

Transferred in to our unit [was] a career S.F.C. with no nike training, but his rank put him in charge of a pit. Old army says keep the troops busy so he told the boys to find some car wax so they could make the white coat [of the Nike missiles] shine.

I got a hurried call from our trained former pit boss telling me the above story. Quickly I called our warrant officer and field sarg. Four legs could be seen running to the pits where "spit and polish" was told waxing the nike could cause wax in the fin gear causing malfunctions,

Two weeks later Old Sarg was transferred out.

Nike Hercules HAPOT Program April 4, 2008

from Norm Ramos

I was a Missile Engineering Representative and Test Engineer.for the Douglas Co. I got to the Douglas Facility on Sept. 16, 1957, when only 2 or 3 sets were tested and issued,

I was one of a few persons who worked on this "NEW" Innovation of putting complete Hercules Sets together, [ except for the IFC and Launch Area cabling which remained as a consistent part of the system testing ], to be issued to the using Missile Batteries as a complete and tested system, and, there were "NO" malfunctions of the system, so it saved lead time in putting the systems in the field... I left the facility when we were at system No. 80 on Oct.1, 1958 and went to the Douglas Thor Missile, Test Firing Facility at Sacramento, CA.

As we tested the different components of the launch area, if we found any latent malfunction,or re-occurring malfunctions, we would repair same, and write a written report to the headquarters of the Field Service Engineering Section in Lawndale, CA. Myself and a Keith Johnson developed a Missile Simulator, using the Transponder to receive shaping signals from the IFC area [ Western Electric Co. the prime contractor ] the simulator, an interface, remained on the ground and we lifted the Transponder on the end of the Missile Launcher so that the IFC area could see us from about 3300 feet, as the Transponder was up in the air quite a ways. There was the Supervisor Richard Mansfield, and Al Nell, Keith Johnson, Scott ( I can't remember the last name ) and an ex Lt. Thomas, who was stationed at Fort Baker, in Marin County CA. and my self.

By the way !!!! Did you know that it was "IMPOSSIBLE TO FIRE THE NIKE AJAX MISSILE" Schematic wise that is.... That was because the two major electrical drawings, one for the IFC area, and one for the Launch site area.... "WERE NOT CONNECTED".... When the drawings called by the name [ "Bed Sheet Drawings" ] were drawn up , there was an error, as the 2 sheets were not physically connected by any wires or circuitry.

But the latter drawings were corrected. Also when we first set up the permanent cabling between the IFC area and us, at the Launch site, the "Spiral 4 Cable" that is 1250 feet long, that is a communications cable, gave us "FALSE" alert signals Red, Yellow, Blue and White. We had available various vendors of cables made to "SPECS" but the Sierra Cable Co. thought that "A" of one end of the cable, was to connect to "A" at the other end connector, but this is not the case. "A" is supposed to go to "D" and vice versa, to get the phase shift correct, and truly be a spiral cable.

IFC and us, almost came to "BLOWS" over why the alert signals were snafued, they checked every cable to the middle ,and we did the same at our end, but NOBODY !!!! checked the middle cable that was only rolled out a small amount because of the distance involved, luckily we did this testing prior to having the laborers bury to cables for protection, thank heaven.

And as I said some inspector at the Sierra Cable Co. thought there was a mistake in the drawings, and had the cable solderers do it BACKWARDS, needless to say they got the word "FAST" that's what the HAPOT Program was designed for, find errors,so we sent a message to have each Battery check out the cables to be sure they did not have a bad one issued to them, causing long delays before coming on line....

Best Regards too, norm

Hercules Tracking Antennas development & details - May 11,2007

from Kenneth Woodard

I just discovered your Hercules web site. I am an old retired Bell Labs guy who had the overall physical design responsibility for the Hercules tracking antennas.

As a part of that work, I and two other non-Bell Labs consultant microwave theoreticians were awarded the patent for the Cassegrain twist reflector arrangement; and I did the mechanical physical design of the reflectors and their assembly.

So I welcome and appreciate the compliments in your text about the twist reflector Cassegrain antenna, and your recognition of our concerns about other possible inaccuracies in the system caused by solar heating of parts of the radar tracking antenna assemblies and the effects of wind and the benefits of the little bubble radome which was considered essential from the start.; The sixty foot tall boresight tower was also my design responsibility.

In the reflectors, placing and holding the hundreds of feet of embedded fine diameter wire, all within the necessary tolerances, was a large concern but as you recognized, use of radome technology, with fiberglass honeycomb sandwich for the mechanical structure, was the ideal solution. While close control of the wire positioning in the honeycomb skins, and control of the dielectric of the resin and glass construction was a manufacturing challenge, it all worked out better than we ever could have hoped for.

One problem we discovered quite early in the design of the precision tracking antennas, you might find of interest. The elevation axis is supported by the two vertical yoke arms cast integrally with the azimuth-turntable. The elevation servo motors which drive the elevation axis supporting the RF electronics & reflector assembly are mounted to the inside metal wall of only one of the yoke arms. Whenever the tracking radars were powered (whether driving the structure or not), the servomotors would generate and dissipate heat. This heat soaking into the metal of that one yoke arm was enough to cause that side of the yoke to slowly grow vertically. If the antenna sits powered long enough, this heating of course temporarily tilts the elevation axis making it no longer parallel to the leveled azimuth plane. This non parallelizm of the elevation axis to the leveled azimuth plane affects the azimuth tracking accuracy when the antenna tracks an object at higher and higher elevation tracking angles (becoming worst when pointed nearly straight upward).

My solution was to attach an equivalent wattage of heating strips inside the metal yoke structure supporting the elevation axis on the side opposite from the servo motors; which strips would be powered - and heating that side of the yoke anytime the servo motors were "on" - whether driving the elevation structure or not - and which heat and resultant vertical metal growth would match that of the side with the servo motors, and keep the plane of the elevating radar beam truly perpendicular to the leveled azimuth plane at all elevation angles. Tests on early models proved that this correction worked will.

What a neat solution!! Simple, inexpensive, reliable, almost no design time, understandable by the "rest of us", no side effects, ...

signed Ed Thelen, IFC maintenance and later engineer

Later I was the lead mechanical engineer on the first large experimental Nike Zeus target tracking antenna which was massive enough to require use of hydraulic servo motors. If you could direct me to any internet site which discusses that early Zeus three axis tracking antenna, I would certainly appreciate it. And needless to say I'd love to hear from any of my old Nike friends.

Kenneth Woodard [email protected]

April Fool, any day ;-)

from Roy Mize April 3, 2007

My best one wasn't an April Fools joke. In the late 1950s I taught analog computer maintenance on Nike Ajax/Hercules AT&T built computers.

One of the devices had many contacts. I inserted a thin clear plastic tab between the contacts and then had the students troubleshoot the system. Even when they narrowed the malfunction to the appropriate device, it was still a puzzle. Nothing seemed to be wrong.

Roy

BIRDiE Techie July 2006 "Harold" - hld41 at bellsouth dot net - received July 4th, 2006

(somewhat modified after dusting out cobwebs and typos)

From June 1963 until June 1966 I was at the Air Defense School at Ft Bliss, first as a student and second as an instructor in these systems.

An interesting point is that the equipment vans were air mobile but the airconditioning trucks were not!

The units used discrete component logic and each digital card had a 50-ohm resister from +5 vdc to ground as a voltage stabilizer and noise reducing factor. That generated a lot of heat. [200 cards dumped 100 wats with these resistors]

The PPI crt's had four banks of six each beam power tubes of very large size - it used electromagnetic deflection with symbology [such as circles denoting a target] placed on the deflection coils as a high frequency rf riding on the deflection ramp current. Much heat- required three semis to haul the A/C and generator. The tubes were beam tetrodes about 1.5 inches diameter and 5 inches high.

In the 5, there was a van with two consoles and an electronics van containing digital logic and analog display circuitry. The second van could have a third console. The 6 did not have a computer and had one console in the single van.

The computer was a 16-bit serial processor with a bit time of 7.6 microsecond and required 16 clock bit times to move one word through the cp/u. Main memory was a ferrite coated drum running [about 12,000 RPM] rpm with about 40 tracks of 1024 bits each divided into 32 16-bit words each.

Data read/write heads were a quarter-inch dia. These were manually adjusted to a few mils off the drum . It used an air pressure sensor to adjust the spacing while it was running. A little too much and a big gouge was made on the drum. It was in a temperature controlled oven so thermal expansion would not mess it up.

The computer was dispersed in several cabinets and used combined ( lo or hi either could be true or false) hi/lo logic.

It was a five-function calculator with a diode-pegboard fixed program and a very simple fixed routine: convert polar radar data to a Cartesian coordinate reference frame and increment each target symbol (friend, foe, no ID) each sweep on the PPI. Increment with each radar sweep. The symbol would jump to a new calculated position and the console operator would manually move the track over the blip. This would give new velocity data for the next sweep update. If the target kept the same heading and speed the computer would do all tracking. Any change required operator intervention

Timing signals were generated to transfer data to the missile batteries. According to stories from the field, protocol prohibited action based on computer-encoded commands as to firing. There was capability to hook on to SAGE and NORAD data. I remember a great deal about the electronics. The course intro described the mission and the tie-in with Nike sites. I would be happy to try to answer any of your questions, but please remember a hell of a lot of water has been under the bridge since then.

[Any books? stories? ...]

No books - those were locked in a safe each night. Student schematics went with the students to field assignment.

We were told by some students coming back for retraining that the Martin reps did all maintenance, so after 11 months of training they pulled KP and policed the grounds. One man was busted down to E-1 for doing a little hands-on maintenance.

RTL IC's were used to update a prototype in 1965 and eliminated the huge power load on the logic curcuits. Martin wanted to convert all units but the Pentagon has their eye on a Hughes system. Martin could not provide a mean time between failure becvause in six months testing it did not fail. That was enough to turn down the Martin proposal. The only thing tat operated on the Hughes system when I got out was a binary counter arranged in octal pattern. Impressed the brass in a dog and pony show.

There was a feeling among the artillery vets that all this electronics was gilding the lily, and the missile batteries could do fine with a field radio and on-site radar. The signal corps folks who were transferred from Monmouth to Blissand put under artillery command were much irritated at being in the real army. They were retiring left and right, and the boomlet in Vietnam incouraged even more to get out.

The BIRDiE was a PR effort and was a level of redundancy at the battery level.. It was a good practical exercise in appliacation of high tech, and maybe prepared the military to accept such new hardware. Mainly it was peacetime and they had to spend money somewhere.

Harold

Former MOS 362.15 (BIRDiE repair instructor)

Army Air Defense Board

- integrating a TPS-1D into the Nike Ajax Acquition system - received Jan 2006

from Don Minow Jan 2006

... I came across your web site and it brought back memories of my involvement with the Air Defense Board at Ft. Bliss from mid-1955 through November, 1962.

Some background:

In June, 1955, I completed basic training with the Army and was sent to the Army Air Defense Board (Board 4) at Ft. Bliss, Texas. My role there was as an enlisted Electronics Engineer with the Board's Support Division. I served in that capacity, rising to the rank of Sergeant E5 until my discharge in June, 1977, at which time I took the position of Chief of the Board's Electronics Laboratory as a Civil Service employee. I remained with the Board in that capacity until November, 1962, when I left Ft. Bliss for employment in the civilian sector in California.

During my time at Ft. Bliss, the Board was conducting service tests of missile systems including the Nike Ajax and Hercules. My role was in the Support division, however that did not dampen my natural curiosity. I began to wonder whether the local L-Band radars - I believe they were TPS-!D's - could somehow be integrated into the Nike Systems to provide some measure of electronic countermeasure. To this end, I came up with the concept of displaying the L-Band acquisition radar signal on the PPI console of the Nike Acquisition Radar. I scrounged the necessary parts to convert the rotational information from the TPS-1D to a format usable by the Nike System, and built a video adaptor to provide a compatible video signal from the TPS-1D to the Nike System.

From what I have read, this concept eventually was developed into something called a HIPAR as part of an upgrade to the Nike Hercules System.

In recognition of this early attempt, I received a Commendation and cash award from the Department of the Army. I am attaching a copy of the Commendation certificate for your information and addition to your collection of Nike history.

Don Minow

Hey - that is neat - instead of just bitching and moaning - you did something.

Admittedly you had a little more freedom to tinker than we on site - but your project was right on! and $200 was big money in 1962. I was a computer engineer then making $7,000 a year, $580 a month, and damned proud of it. More than my dad ever made as an elected county official. I bought a nice little house for $12,000.

Old Herc Radars didn't die, they just worked somewhere else - from Richard "Max" Vickroy November 2005

Mr. Thelen,

I recently found your web site and have found it to be interesting and informative. After reading through most of it I began thinking about the comments on how the Nike equipment is getting very hard to find. In '78 I left B battery in Fla. after applying for Alaska assignment and "miraculously" actually getting it. Only problem was I was assigned to an outfit called Atmospheric Sciences Laboratory at Ft. Greeley. When I got there ( I drove) I found that I was assigned to Greeley, attached to Ft. Wainwright and further attached to Poker Flats Rocket Research Lab which was under the purview of the Univ. of Alaska. They had a TTR and an MTR that had been modified with a telemetry package that recieved meteorological data from either a balloon borne radiosonde or a Rocketsonde that we launched on a Loki or a SuperLoki booster. On the balloon launches we "skin tracked" aluminum foil tied to the sonde train. On rocket launches we would position the radar to "catch" the sonde package at apogee. It worked really well. The Range also used a lot of NIKE boosters to launch quite a few different types of payload packages (Talos, Castor, etc.) .

The point of all this is that I think they have retired those radars and still may have them on site (if the Navy hasn't scarfed them up). The Navy uses the trunions for some type of ship borne radar. Evidently, no one has produced a radar trunion as stable as the NIKE-HERC's. Anyway, when I left there in '80 they were still using them but I heard thru the grapevine that they couldn't find parts for them anymore so they deactivated them. Someone who was interested could probably pick up the radars and their control consoles for a song, if they still have them. I also heard that the Bureau of Land Management was always interested in old NIKE equipment. They use them to track insects, of all things.

This is turning into a manuscript but when I left Alaska I was assigned to WSMR in New Mexico with this same ASL outfit. We had six old NIKE systems used for the same purpose. I found enough repair parts to fill five old RC vans full to the brim. This included four or five complete MonoPulse Duplexors. I also picked up the Panama Met Teams two radars when ASL closed their site there. They were pretty much junk as they had set on the dock in Panama for a year unprotected and were full of water and mold. I even had two radar trailers for road marching the radars. All of this equipment has since been deactivated but could still be at WSMR or Ft. Bliss. It was all functional when deactivated. It could be in the WSMR junk yard or, again, could have been picked up by BLM.

Well, I thought someone might be interested in all this, thought it might help the people trying to set up the old sites. I hate to see part of my life slip into obscurity.

Richard "Max" Vickroy

NIKE Vs Tac Ftrs 1963 from Kevin Gilroy - October 2005

> Ed, I came across your Nike web page and thought you might be able to

> help me. I am a retired USAF Colonel, who flew Wild Weasel missions in

> Vietnam, and am writing what is to be Volume 1 of the US anti-SAM

> operations.

WOW !!

> I have a good friend retired Lt Gen Phil Gast who has told

> me of a General Palmer who mentioned (bragged) to Gen Sweeny USAF

> TAC/CC that the Army Nikes were shooting down TAC fighters in every

> joint exercise.

The stories I heard were about bombers vs. Nike systems.

> The result was a test done in December of 1963 of

> fighters from George AFB in Victorville, Ca against the USMC Hawk

> Battalion at 29 Palms.

A quick point of reference -

Nike systems,

Ajax

and its second generation

Hercules

were designed to defend against high altitude bombers

such as potential flights from over the North Pole.

It had longer range missiles, and pulse radar.

HAWK systems were designed for a different purpose.

It used a radar of different principle

a form of Doppler, chirp, CW, FM, ...

that was good at low level targets in a lot of clutter

with shorter range missiles

Unfortunately I know very little more about HAWK :-((

and don't know any HAWK or ECM techie web sites :-((

> The Air Force used ELINT aircraft to locate the

> sites as well as electronic warfare A/C to jam the sites, followed up

> by fighters doing attack runs. The Air Force called it Operation

> Rabbits Foot. According to Phil Gast the fighters won the first

> engagements, followed by a halt in the exercise for Raytheon to "peak"

> the radars. Following that, the Hawks won hands down. The results were

> briefed up the AF Chain of Command with recommendations for self

> protection jammers for the fighters as well as the recommendation for a

> designated anti-SAM fighter. It appears that all the copies of the

> exercise report were destroyed and that no action was taken on the

> recommendations. I am trying to see if any reference to that exercise

> exists in either the Army of Marine Corps historical documents. Have

> you heard at all about this exercise or can you point me in the right

> direction.

I have heard urban legends of Air Force vs. Nike

- one where the Air Force came lower than anyone's

effective radar range, (curvature of the earth)

toss bombed,

(a relatively new technique at the time)

and claimed victory over Nike.

There are of course various forms of interservice rivalries

- guys bragging in a bar

- battles for bigger pieces of congressional budgets

and the fog of various confusions over real and/or imagined

events, Individual viewpoints ...

Third to fifteenth hand distortions, ...

And I have no clue what is relatively correct.

:-((

&