Navy missile CATO

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Sooner Boomer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2011
Messages
5,750
Reaction score
4,439
On July 18 at approximately 9 a.m. (EDT) a Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) test missile exploded after suffering a malfunction as it was fired from the guided-missile destroyer USS The Sullivans (DDG 68) during a planned missile exercise off the coast of Virginia. There were no injuries and only minor damage to the port side of the ship resulting from missile debris.

More at:

https://news.usni.org/2015/07/22/de...le-explodes-after-launch-no-injuries-reported
 
First and foremost, I'm glad nobody was hurt! That being said, I'd like to see a video.
 
Actually, Shade posted this yesterday in newsfeed at the bottom of this forum. Nevertheless, it is a very interesting and concerning story because solid propellant motors form the basis of the US military tactical missiles. In particular the Standard Missile is a must-work in the US defense against aircraft at sea.
 
Yes it is concerning as I don't remember that ever happening before with a Navy solid propellant tactical missile. Voids in the propellant grain and/or case-bonding defects will cato the motor so the finished motors are x-rayed to make sure there are not voids or debonding. Unless the missile was damaged after manufacturing this type of failure should not have occurred. I'm sure there will be major accident investigation and a fleet-wide missile inspection to insure this won't happened again.

Bob
 
I wonder how old this motor was. I know on the Minuteman program the Air Force had a aging and surveillance program and after many decades recast all of the old motors. Yes, motors are x-rayed and checked for voids and debonds. Probably, someone is going back right now and checking the paperwork and also looking for DR's (discrepancy reports). I don't know if damage or handling problems are reported in the field. In a case like this such paperwork could be enlightening.
 
I wonder how old this motor was. I know on the Minuteman program the Air Force had a aging and surveillance program and after many decades recast all of the old motors. Yes, motors are x-rayed and checked for voids and debonds. Probably, someone is going back right now and checking the paperwork and also looking for DR's (discrepancy reports). I don't know if damage or handling problems are reported in the field. In a case like this such paperwork could be enlightening.
The SM-2MR Block IIIA went into production in 1991 and the DDG 68 Sullivans was commissioned in 1997 so it is likely the missile was not more than 20 years old. The details of the booster motor are classified.

Bob
 
The details of the booster motor are classified.Bob

It is probably very similar to the SM1 booster. I used to work for a company that did some testing on those boosters for service life extension.

Static testing shown here https://youtu.be/Ngd4XgnGqsE?t=235

The real cool part is the remotely operated cutting of the hardened casing to obtain propellant samples. https://youtu.be/Ngd4XgnGqsE?t=280. The grain configuration can be seen at 4m:55s. Apparently all approved for public release (?).

Jeroen
 
Last edited:
It is probably very similar to the SM1 booster. I used to work for a company that did some testing on those boosters for service life extension.

Static testing shown here https://youtu.be/Ngd4XgnGqsE?t=235

The real cool part is the remotely operated cutting of the hardened casing to obtain propellant samples. https://youtu.be/Ngd4XgnGqsE?t=280. The grain configuration can be seen at 4m:55s. Apparently all approved for public release (?).

Jeroen
According to unclassified web based sources the original SM1 & SM2 boosters were Terrier Hercules MK 12 motors with an average thrust of 257.5 kN for 4.4 seconds. (Hobby rating is a 1,133,000T257,500 motor!) These were later replaced by the Hercules MK 70 (a re-grained MK 12) on later SM2 variants but it appears this would not have been on the missile that failed.

https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-66.html

https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-67.html

https://www.astronautix.com/engines/ter2mod1.htm
 
A follow-up report is here. https://news.usni.org/2015/07/27/na...es-following-uss-the-sullivans-launch-failure

"SM-2s with the older Mk 104 Mod 2 Dual Thrust Rocket Motors (DTRM) manufactured by the defunct Thiokol Coporation (now part of Orbital ATK) before 1992 — which also manufactured the shuttle programs SRBs — have been placed on the “Wartime Use Only” list, USNI News has learned."

The problem I have with this is that it was the booster that failed, not the sustainer motor.......

Bob
 
Back
Top