Talk:AGM-69 SRAM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: criterion not met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

This page is filled with inaccuracies. The AGM69A(SRAM) was not decomissioned in 1990, it was still in service in 1993. The B-1b "Lancer" was armed with SRAMs at several SAC bases and not just Dyes AFB (Ellsworth AFB in South Dakota was one as well). --66.60.181.171 22:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I know the SRAM was in service in 1991 at SAC bases for use on the B52, I used to work on them as a 463 for the AF....

[edit] Cause for retirement

I heard that it was not the safety of the warhead, but the aging and unreliable rocket motor that caused the premature retirement of the missile. Citation information could clear this up.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.189.252.111 (talk • contribs).

-- The age of the missile was to blame. The solid rocket propellant deteriorated over the years, shrinking slightly inside the booster casing and developing cracks. This caused uneven burning and explosions in flight during several test-firings late in its career. This raised safety concerns, especially for the bomber crews, since they could be subjected to these explosions at missile launch. There was no way to replace the aging propellant, as the booster bodies were completely sealed. This was the primary reason for the retirement, although safety claims of the W69 warhead persist. {Submitted by retired AF Missileer -- SRAM/ALCM/ACM 7MMS Carswell AFB 1986-1992 & 384MS McConnell AFB 1992-1994}