DOCSLIB.ORG

Dod Financial Management Regulation Volume 15, Appendix B

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dod Financial Management Regulation Volume 15, Appendix B DoD Financial Management Regulation Volume 15, Appendix B APPENDIX B - NONRECURRING COSTS RECOUPMENT CHARGES MAJOR DEFENSE EQUIPMENT Approved Effectivec,d Item Description Charge Date CATEGORY I - FIREARMS Rifle, 5.56mm M-16 Series (A) [No Charge] Gun, Machine, 7.62mm, M240 (A) 65.07 28 Mar 89 Gun, Machine, 50 CAL, M-2 (A) 1.82 28 Mar 89 CATEGORY II - ARTILLERY AND PROJECTILES Gun, M-61, 20mm (AF) 1,342.00 6 Dec 84 Gun, GAU-8, 30mm (AF) 27,881.00 22 Jan 81 Gun Pod, GPU-5/A, 30mm (AF) 60,239.00 11 Aug 82 Howitzer, Towed, 105mm, M101A1 (A) 850.00 11 Jun 87 Howitzer, Towed, 155mm, M198 (A) 47,483.00 14 Feb 86 CATEGORY III - AMMUNITION Cartridge, 20mm (A) (a) Cartridge, 30mm (GAU-8) (AF) .50 28 Mar 89 Cartridge, 40mm, HE (A) .11 28 Mar 89 Cartridge, 40mm, HE, M406 (A) .01 Cartridge, 40mm, M385 Dummy .19 15 May 91 Cartridge, 40mm, FXD HEDP M433 SNGL RD 72/BX (A) .43 15 May 91 Cartridge, 60mm, HE (A) .47 28 Mar 89 Cartridge, 60mm, HE, M49A2/A3/A4 (A) (a) Cartridge, 60mm, HE, M720 W/FMO M734 (LAP) (A) 5.00 15 May 91 Cartridge, 81mm, ILLUM (M301)(only) (A) .04 7 May 81 Cartridge, 81mm, HE, M374A2/A3 (A) (a) Cartridge, 81mm, HE, M374A3 W/M567 Fuze (A) 3.24 15 May 91 Cartridge, 105mm, APFSDS-T M735 (A) 68.00 28 Mar 89 Cartridge, 105mm, APFSDS-T M833 88.00 5 Jul 91 Cartridge, 105mm, M490 (A) .57 7 May 81 Cartridge, 105mm, M724Al (A) 1.42 7 May 81 Cartridge, 105mm, APFSDS-T M774 (A) (a) Cartridge, 105mm, APFSDS-T M774 2/BX (A) 24.00 15 May 91 Cartridge, 105mm, HEAT-T MP M456 (A) 3.59 7 May 81 Cartridge, 105mm, HE, HEP-T, M393A2 (A) (a) Cartridge, 4.2", M329A2 w/o Fuze w/old Obturator (LAP) (A) 4.08 15 May 91 Cartridge, 4.2", HE (A) (a) Cartridge, 4.2", HE, M329 (A) (a) Cartridge, 4.2", ILLUM (M335)(includes M577 fuze) (A) 4.03 20 Jan 82 Cartridge, 120mm, APFSDS-T M829 (A) 126.60 2 Dec 88 Cartridge, 120mm, TPCSDS-T M865 (A) 37.82 2 Dec 88 Cartridge, 120mm, HEAT TP-T M831 (A) 83.03 2 Dec 88 Cartridge, 120mm, HEAT MP-T M830 (A) 293.59 2 Dec 88 Grenade, M42 (A) .01 10 May 91 Projectile, 5"/38 CAL (N) 15.60 9 Jul 84 Projectile, 5"/54 CAL (N) 74.42 4 May 84 Projectile, 155mm, M107 (A) 3.22 21 May 79 DoD Financial Management Regulation Volume 15, Appendix B Projectile, 155mm, M483/M483A1 (A) 2.20 2 Mar 82 Projectile, 155mm, HE RAP (M549) (A) 13.76 5 Feb 81 Projectile, 155mm, CLGP, M-712 COPPERHEAD (A) 4,152.00 17 Sep 81 Projectile, 155mm, HE, ADAM M692/M731 (A) 111.00 30 May 86 Projectile, 155mm, HE, ADAM M692(A) 434.00 23 Nov 82 Projectile, 155mm, HE, ADAM M731 (A) 228.00 23 Nov 82 Projectile, 155mm, HE, RAAMS M718 (A) 229.00 23 Nov 82 Projectile, 155mm, HE, RAAMS M741 (A) 99.00 23 Nov 82 Projectile, 155mm, HE, RAAMS M718/M741 (A) 57.00 30 May 86 Projectile, 155mm, M483Al (A) 2.41 10 Sep 80 Projectile, 175mm, HE M437 (A) 2.33 26 Mar 80 Projectile, 8", HE M106 (A) .04 21 May 79 Projectile, 8", HE, ICM (A) 15.48 21 May 79 Projectile, 8", HE, ICM M509 (A) (a) Projectile, 8", HE, M650 (A) 83.04 21 May 79 CATEGORY IV - LAUNCH VEHICLES, GUIDED MISSILES, BALLISTIC MISSILES, ROCKETS, TORPEDOES, BOMBS, AND MINES Bomb, Anti-Armor Cluster Munition CBU-90 (AF) 3,351.00 28 Mar 89 Bomb, Combined Effects Bomblet, CBU-87 (AF) 1,080.00 6 Dec 84 Bomb, Cluster, TMD/Gator Mines, CBU-89 (N) (a) Bomb, MK-20, Cluster Bomb, Rockeye (N) 117.39 25 Mar 83 Bomb, MK-82, 500#, General Purpose (N) 3.29 25 Mar 83 Bomb, MK-83, 1,000#, General Purpose (N) 10.40 25 Mar 83 Bomb, MK-84, 2,000#, General Purpose (N) 12.80 25 Mar 83 Bomb, BLU-109 with FMU-143/B Fuze 1,097.00 18 May 89 Bomb, BLU-109 with FMU-143/B Fuze 889.00 24 Oct 90 Bomb, BLU-109 with FMU-143B/B Fuze 847.00 24 Oct 90 Bomb, BLU-109 w/o Fuze 747.00 18 May 89 Bomb, M-117, 750#, General Purpose (AF) 20.00 6 Dec 84 Bomb, Guided, Walleye Series (N) 6,183.00 6 Dec 84 Fuel Air Explosive Weapon, FAE II (N) (a) Gun Mount, 5"/54, MK-45 MOD I (N) 142,566.00 1 Oct 84 Gun Mount, 76mm Gun, MK-75 (N) 62,749.00 6 Dec 84 Launcher, HARPOON, Baseline, AN/SWG-1(V) (N) 80,562.00 20 Jan 78 Launcher System, HARPOON Shipboard Command and Launch Control, AN/SWG-1A(V) (N) 109,603.00 11 Dec 86 Launcher, Hellfire (A) 14,715.00 14 May 85 Launcher, TOW (A) 3,029.00 16 Sep 77 Launcher, MK-13 (MOD 0 to MOD 3)(N) 78,125.00 17 Nov 78 Launcher, PATRIOT (A) 214,782.00 18 Nov 78 Launcher, Roland (A) 324,828.00 24 Sep 80 Launcher, Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) (A) 132,400.00 (prior to 1985) Launcher, Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) (A) 173,000.00 2 Dec 85 Launcher, Vertical, MK-41(w/o canister) (N) 1,232,863.00 14 Dec 87 Launcher, Vertical, MK-41(w/canister) (N) 1,239,246.00 14 Dec 87 Launcher, Eight Cell, MK-41 (N) 154,108.00 Nov 89 Launcher, MK-41 VLS w/RIM-7P Capability (N) 279,638.00 5 Nov 91 (Additive to Eight Cell Launcher) Launcher, MK-41 VLS canister only (MK-13/15) 6,383.00 Nov 89 Launcher, LAU-127/A (F/A-18 Aircraft) 3,530.00 22 Jan 92 333 Volume 15, Appendix B DoD Financial Management Regulation Launcher, LAU-128/A (F-15 Aircraft) 3,530.00 22 Jan 92 Launcher, LAU-129/A (F-16 Aircraft) 3,530.00 22 Jan 92 Light, Antitank Weapon, 66mm, LAW M72 Series (A) 1.32 28 Mar 89 Mine Canister, M87 (Volcano) (A) 270.00 15 May 91 Missile, Advanced Medium Range (N) (e) (N/A) Missile, AIM-4A-G, Falcon (AF) 3,321.00 12 Mar 82 Missile, AIM-7, Skyflash Portion (N) 820.30 7 May 81 Missile, AIM-7, C/D/E Sparrow (N) 2,733.00 7 May 81 Missile, AIM/RIM-7F/M, Sparrow (N) 7,646.00 2 Jun 82 Missile, AIM/RIM-7P (N) 40,258.00 24 Apr 91 Missile, NATO SEASPARROW Surface Missile System (NSSMS) (N) (a) Missile, AIM-9 J/P/N, SIDEWINDER (AF) 333.00 12 Mar 82 Missile, AIM-9L SIDEWINDER (N) 2,604.00 18 May 78 Missile, AIM-9H SIDEWINDER (N) 3,457.00 26 Oct 78 Missile, AIM-9M SIDEWINDER (N) 6,368.00 25 Mar 83 Missile, AIM-54A-C, PHOENIX (N) 71,295.00 10 Jan 83 (Includes Front End - 35,019; Aft End - 36,276) Missile, AIM-120, AMRAAM (AF) 114,182.00 22 Jan 92 Missile, AMRAAM Air Vehicle Instrumented (AAVI) 114,182.00 22 Jan 92 Missile, AGM-45, Shrike (N) 4,890.00 11 Aug 78 Missile, AGM-65A/B, Maverick (AF) 3,722.00 3 Feb 81 Missile, AGM-65D (AF) 3,811.00 (prior to 1987) Missile, AGM-65D (AF) 5,343.00 3 Nov 87 Missile, AGM-65E, Laser Maverick (AF) 24,213.00 6 Dec 84 Missile, AGM-65F MAVERICK (AF) 6,331.00 3 Nov 87 Missile, AGM-88, Harm (N) 21,249.00 20 Apr 82 Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS)(A) 148,275.00 1 Oct 88 Missile, MIM-72 Chaparral Series (A) 5,445.00 10 Nov 79 Missile, MIM-72 Chaparral Series (A) 2,099.91 16 Dec 88 Missile, MIM-72 Chaparral (w/smokeless motor) (A) 2,102.91 16 Dec 88 Missile, Dragon, HEAT and Practice (A) 378.00 24 Mar 80 Missile, R/U/AGM-84 Harpoon (N) 44,083.00 20 Jan 78 Missile, HELLFIRE, Heat (A) 4,124.00 14 May 85 Missile, HELLFIRE, Dummy (A) 531.00 14 May 85 Missile, HELLFIRE, Training (A) 2,719.00 14 May 85 Missile, High Value Site Defense (HVSD)(commercial derivative of the PHALANX)(N) 164,070.00 15 May 91 Missile, I-Hawk Series (A) 7,053.00 12 Nov 80 Missile, Lance (A) 76,205.00 21 May 79 Missile, Nike Hercules (A) 448,055.00 28 Mar 89 Missile, MIM-104 Patriot (includes canister) (A) 82,836.00 18 Nov 82 Missile, Pershing Series (A) 128,378.00 Missile, Redeye (A) (a) Missile, Roland (A) 4,422.00 24 Sep 80 Missile, SURE Defense, RBS-17 (Derivative of HELLFIRE) (A) 3,300.00 20 May 87 Missile, AGM-78, Standard ARM (N) (a) Missile, RGM-66D, Standard ARM, MR (N) (a) Missile, RIM-66B-2--66B, RIM-66E(MR), RIM-67A-13(ER), Block V Standard SM-I (N) 12,602.00 15 Sep 77 Missile, RIM-66D and RIM-67B Standard II, 334 DoD Financial Management Regulation Volume 15, Appendix B MR, ER, SM-2 (N) 89,651.00 6 Dec 84 Missile, 5" Rolling Airframe, RAM, X-RIM-116A (N) (a) Missile, SLAM (Standoff Land Attack Missile) (N) (e) (N/A) Missile, Standard (SM-2) (MR/ER) Block II (N) 40,253.00 21 Apr 89 Missile, Standard (SM-2) BLK I RIM 66G/H/I (N) 64,192.00 22 Jul 91 Missile, Standard (SM-2) BLK II RIM 66G/H/I (N) 25,423.00 22 Jul 91 Missile, Standard (SM-2) BLK III RIM 66G/H/I (N) 38,695.00 22 Jul 91 Missile, Stinger (A) 5,480.00 28 Jul 79 Missile, Stinger (Basic)(A) 7,600.00 20 Dec 88 Missile, Stinger (Basic)(A) 3,800.00 3 May 91 Missile, Stinger (Post)(A) 302,200.00 20 Dec 88 Missile, Stinger (Post)(A) 66,100.00 3 May 91 Missile, Stinger (RMP)(A) 3,700.00 20 Dec 88 Missile, Stinger (RMP)(A) 3,000.00 3 May 91 Missile, Surface Launch (SLM) SM-2 Derivative 32,695.00 22 Jul 91 Missile, Tomahawk (N) (a) Missile, BGM-71A, Basic TOW HEAT and Practice (A) 293.00 16 Sep 77 Missile, I-TOW (A) 487.00 3 Nov 81 Missile, BGM-71D, TOW II (A) 658.00 19 Dec 83 Missile, M-65 Subsystem, Airborne TOW (A) 28,578.00 7 May 81 Missile, M-65 Subsystem, Airborne TOW (A) 27,800.00 17 May 89 Rocket, Antisubmarine, ASROC (N) 855.00 20 Dec 84 Rocket, Antisubmarine, ASROC (RUM-139A) (N) 923.00 (N/A) Rocket, 2.75" Series (A) .87 26 Mar 80 Rocket, M-77, Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) Tactical, Practice, and Training (A) 615.00 2 Dec 85 Rocket, Vertical Launch Anti-Submarine Rocket (VLA)(N) 98,926.00 14 Dec 87 Torpedo, MK-46 MOD 2 (N) 8,993.00 28 Mar 89 Torpedo, MK-46, NEARTIP O/A Kit (Converts MK-46 MODs 1/2 to MOD 5) (N) 3,795.00 26 Jan 80 Torpedo, MK-46 MOD 5 (N) 9,308.00 Torpedo, MK-48 (N) 86,255.00 21 Jul 77 Torpedo, MK-48 ADCAP Kit (N) 103,322.00 25 Nov 80 CATEGORY V - PROPELLANTS, EXPLOSIVES AND INCENDIARY AGENTS Grenade, M42 (A) .01 25 Apr 91 CATEGORY VI - VESSELS OF WAR AND SPECIAL NAVAL EQUIPMENT CG - Guided Missile Cruiser (N) (a) DD-963 (N) (a) DD - Destroyer (N) (a) DDG - Guided Missile Destroyer (N) (a) FF-1, USS BROOKE 1,275,485.00 21 Apr 89 FF-2, USS RANSEY 1,101,730.00 21 Apr 89 FF-3, USS SCHOFIELD 1,041,670.00 21 Apr 89 FF-4, USS TALBOT 1,059,345.00 21 Apr 89 FF-5, USS RICHARD L.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Historic Context of the Nike Missile Site
    HISTORIC CONTEXT OF THE NIKE MISSILE SITE The NIKE Missile sites were the first nationwide U.S. air defense system designed to protect against a Soviet nuclear attack. In the 1950s, they were highly visible, powerful symbols of U.S. military power as well as the Soviet threat. The sites were the outgrowth of an increasing concern over the Soviet ability to equip jet aircraft with nuclear bombs, and continued to develop into an early defense against Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs). During World War II, the U.S. military began to experiment with missiles and rockets in response to the German rocket program. In 1943, the U.S. Army established the Rocket Branch of the Ordnance Corps, and in 1945 recruited Bell Laboratories and the Douglas Aircraft Company as part of the team (USACE 1997:5; Bright 1997:321). Although Bell Laboratories and Douglas had completed a prototype weapon by 1946, funding cutbacks after the war delayed further progress. In 1951, Western Electric, then the prime contractor of the project, had developed a 34-foot, two- stage missile guided by a system of three radars. The new missile could travel at Mach 2 (Bright 1997:321). This missile used a highly volatile liquid fuel composed of jet fuel and nitric acid, and had to be handled with full protective gear in specially constructed magazines. This was exceptionally revolutionary and complex technology for the time. The first radar would identify the target 125 miles away, the second would track the target, and a third would track the missile's course and alter it in response to the target tracking radar.
    [Show full text]
  • US Fleet Organization, 1939
    US Fleet Organization 1939 Battle Force US Fleet: USS California (BB-44)(Force Flagship) Battleships, Battle Force (San Pedro) USS West Virginia (BB-48)(flagship) Battleship Division 1: USS Arizona (BB-39)(flag) USS Nevada (BB-36) USS Pennsylvania (BB-38)(Fl. Flag) Air Unit - Observation Sqn 1-9 VOS Battleship Division 2: USS Tennessee (BB-43)(flag) USS Oklahoma (BB-37) USS California (BB-44)(Force flagship) Air Unit - Observation Sqn 2-9 VOS Battleship Division 3: USS Idaho (BB-42)(flag) USS Mississippi (BB-41) USS New Mexico (BB-40) Air Unit - Observation Sqn 3-9 VOS Battleship Division 4: USS West Virginia (BB-48)(flag) USS Colorado (BB-45) USS Maryland (BB-46) Air Unit - Observation Sqn 4-9 VOS Cruisers, Battle Force: (San Diego) USS Honolulu (CL-48)(flagship) Cruiser Division 2: USS Trenton (CL-11)(flag) USS Memphis (CL-13) Air Unit - Cruiser Squadron 2-4 VSO Cruiser Division 3: USS Detroit (CL-8)(flag) USS Cincinnati (CL-6) USS Milwaukee (CL-5) Air Unit - Cruiser Squadron 3-6 VSO Cruise Division 8: USS Philadelphia (CL-41)(flag) USS Brooklyn (CL-40) USS Savannah (CL-42) USS Nashville (CL-43) Air Unit - Cruiser Squadron 8-16 VSO Cruiser Division 9: USS Honolulu (CL-48)(flag) USS Phoneix (CL-46) USS Boise (CL-47) USS St. Louis (CL-49)(when commissioned Air Unit - Cruiser Squadron 8-16 VSO 1 Destroyers, Battle Force (San Diego) USS Concord (CL-10) Ship Air Unit 2 VSO Destroyer Flotilla 1: USS Raleigh (CL-7)(flag) Ship Air Unit 2 VSO USS Dobbin (AD-3)(destroyer tender) (served 1st & 3rd Squadrons) USS Whitney (AD-4)(destroyer tender)
    [Show full text]
  • Winning the Salvo Competition Rebalancing America’S Air and Missile Defenses
    WINNING THE SALVO COMPETITION REBALANCING AMERICA’S AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSES MARK GUNZINGER BRYAN CLARK WINNING THE SALVO COMPETITION REBALANCING AMERICA’S AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSES MARK GUNZINGER BRYAN CLARK 2016 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS (CSBA) The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments is an independent, nonpartisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options. CSBA’s analysis focuses on key questions related to existing and emerging threats to U.S. national security, and its goal is to enable policymakers to make informed decisions on matters of strategy, security policy, and resource allocation. ©2016 Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. All rights reserved. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Mark Gunzinger is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Mr. Gunzinger has served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces Transformation and Resources. A retired Air Force Colonel and Command Pilot, he joined the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2004. Mark was appointed to the Senior Executive Service and served as Principal Director of the Department’s central staff for the 2005–2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. Following the QDR, he served as Director for Defense Transformation, Force Planning and Resources on the National Security Council staff. Mr. Gunzinger holds an M.S. in National Security Strategy from the National War College, a Master of Airpower Art and Science degree from the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, a Master of Public Administration from Central Michigan University, and a B.S. in chemistry from the United States Air Force Academy.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report DE-EE0005380: Assessment of Offshore Wind Farm
    THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN Final Report DE-EE0005380 Assessment of Offshore Wind Farm Effects on Sea Surface, Subsurface and Airborne Electronic Systems Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy Prepared by: Hao Ling (UT) Mark F. Hamilton (ARL:UT) Rajan Bhalla (SAIC) Walter E. Brown (ARL:UT) Todd A. Hay (ARL:UT) Nicholas J. Whitelonis (UT) Shang-Te Yang (UT) Aale R. Naqvi (UT) 9/30/2013 DE-EE0005380 The University of Texas at Austin Notice and Disclaimer This report is being disseminated by the Department of Energy. As such, the document was prepared in compliance with Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-554) and information quality guidelines issued by the Department of Energy. Though this report does not constitute “influential” information, as that term is defined in DOE’s information quality guidelines or the Office of Management and Budget's Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (Bulletin), the study was reviewed both internally and externally prior to publication. For purposes of external review, the study benefited from the advice, technical responses and comments of an expert group of stakeholders. That group of contributors and reviewers included representatives from academia, private corporations, national laboratories, and a broad spectrum of federal agencies. ii DE-EE0005380 The University of Texas at Austin Acknowledgments For their support of this report, the authors thank the entire U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Wind & Water Power Technologies Program team, and in particular Brian Connor, Gary Norton, Bryan Miller, Michael Hahn, Gretchen Andrus, and Patrick Gilman.
    [Show full text]
  • Cranfield University
    CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY LEIGH MOODY SENSORS, SENSOR MEASUREMENT FUSION AND MISSILE TRAJECTORY OPTIMISATION COLLEGE OF DEFENCE TECHNOLOGY PhD THESIS CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF DEFENCE TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF AEROSPACE, POWER AND SENSORS PhD THESIS Academic Year 2002 - 2003 Leigh Moody Sensors, Measurement Fusion and Missile Trajectory Optimisation Supervisor: Professor B.A. White July 2003 Leigh Moody asserts his right to be identified as the author. © Cranfield University 2003 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the written permission of Cranfield University and without acknowledging that it may contain copyright material owned by MBDA UK Limited. i ii ABSTRACT When considering advances in “smart” weapons it is clear that air-launched systems have adopted an integrated approach to meet rigorous requirements, whereas air-defence systems have not. The demands on sensors, state observation, missile guidance, and simulation for air-defence is the subject of this research. Historical reviews for each topic, justification of favoured techniques and algorithms are provided, using a nomenclature developed to unify these disciplines. Sensors selected for their enduring impact on future systems are described and simulation models provided. Complex internal systems are reduced to simpler models capable of replicating dominant features, particularly those that adversely effect state observers. Of the state observer architectures considered, a distributed system comprising ground based target and own-missile tracking, data up-link, and on-board missile measurement and track fusion is the natural choice for air-defence. An IMM is used to process radar measurements, combining the estimates from filters with different target dynamics. The remote missile state observer combines up-linked target tracks and missile plots with IMU and seeker data to provide optimal guidance information.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 HISTORY and DEVELOPMENT of MILITARY LASERS
    History and Development of Military Lasers Chapter 2 HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF MILITARY LASERS JACK B. KELLER, JR* INTRODUCTION INVENTING THE LASER MILITARIZING THE LASER SEARCHING FOR HIGH-ENERGY LASER WEAPONS SEARCHING FOR LOW-ENERGY LASER WEAPONS RETURNING TO HIGHER ENERGIES SUMMARY *Lieutenant Colonel, US Army (Retired); formerly, Foreign Science Information Officer, US Army Medical Research Detachment-Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, 7965 Dave Erwin Drive, Brooks City-Base, Texas 78235 25 Biomedical Implications of Military Laser Exposure INTRODUCTION This chapter will examine the history of the laser, Military advantage is greatest when details are con- from theory to demonstration, for its impact upon the US cealed from real or potential adversaries (eg, through military. In the field of military science, there was early classification). Classification can remain in place long recognition that lasers can be visually and cutaneously after a program is aborted, if warranted to conceal hazardous to military personnel—hazards documented technological details or pathways not obvious or easily in detail elsewhere in this volume—and that such hazards deduced but that may be relevant to future develop- must be mitigated to ensure military personnel safety ments. Thus, many details regarding developmental and mission success. At odds with this recognition was military laser systems cannot be made public; their the desire to harness the laser’s potential application to a descriptions here are necessarily vague. wide spectrum of military tasks. This chapter focuses on Once fielded, system details usually, but not always, the history and development of laser systems that, when become public. Laser systems identified here represent used, necessitate highly specialized biomedical research various evolutionary states of the art in laser technol- as described throughout this volume.
    [Show full text]
  • Army Ballistic Missile Programs at Cape Canaveral 1953 – 1988
    ARMY BALLISTIC MISSILE PROGRAMS AT CAPE CANAVERAL 1953 – 1988 by Mark C. Cleary 45th SPACE WING History Office TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface…………………………………………………… iii INTRODUCTION……………………………………… 1 REDSTONE……………………………………………… 15 JUPITER…………………………………………………. 44 PERSHING………………………………………………. 68 CONCLUSION………………………………………….. 90 ii Preface The United States Army has sponsored far fewer launches on the Eastern Range than either the Air Force or the Navy. Only about a tenth of the range’s missile and space flights can be attributed to Army programs, versus more than a third sponsored by each of the other services. Nevertheless, numbers seldom tell the whole story, and we would be guilty of a grave disservice if we overlooked the Army’s impressive achievements in the development of rocket- powered vehicles, missile guidance systems, and reentry vehicle technologies from the late 1940s onward. Several years of experimental flights were conducted at the White Sands Proving Ground before the Army sponsored the first two ballistic missile launches from Cape Canaveral, Florida, in July 1950. In June 1950, the Army moved some of its most important guided missile projects from Fort Bliss, Texas, to Redstone Arsenal near Huntsville, Alabama. Work began in earnest on the REDSTONE ballistic missile program shortly thereafter. In many ways, the early Army missile programs set the tone for the development of other ballistic missiles and range instrumentation by other military branches in the 1950s. PERSHING missile launches continued at the Cape in the 1960s, and they were followed by PERSHING 1A and PERSHING II launches in the 1970s and 1980s. This study begins with a summary of the major events leading up to the REDSTONE missile program at Cape Canaveral.
    [Show full text]
  • CG 68 Anzio [Ticonderoga Baseline 4, VLS] - 1994 SM-2MR Blk III
    CG 68 Anzio [Ticonderoga Baseline 4, VLS] - 1994 SM-2MR Blk III United States Type: CG - Guided Missile Cruiser Max Speed: 35 kt Commissioned: 1994 Length: 172.8 m Beam: 16.8 m Draft: 9.6 m Crew: 379 Displacement: 8910 t Displacement Full: 9466 t Propulsion: 4x General Electric LM-2500 Gas Turbines, COGAG Sensors / EW: - AN/SQS-53C(V)1 - Hull Sonar, Active/Passive, Hull Sonar, Active/Passive Search & Track, Max range: 74.1 km - AN/SQR-19B(V)1 TACTAS - (1992, CG Version) TASS, Passive-Only Towed Array Sonar System, TASS, Passive-Only Towed Array Sonar System, Max range: 129.6 km - AN/SPY-1B MFR - (1992, CG Version) Radar, Radar, FCR, Surface-to-Air, Long-Range, Max range: 324.1 km - AN/SLQ-32(V)3 [ECM] - (Group, 1983) ECM, OECM & DECM, Offensive & Defensive ECM, Max range: 0 km - AN/SLQ-32(V)3 [ESM] - (Group, 1983) ESM, ELINT, Max range: 926 km - AN/SPG-62 [Mk99 FCS] - (Group, 1983) Radar, Radar Illuminator, Long-Range, Max range: 305.6 km - AN/SPQ-9 [Mk86 GFCS] - (Group, 1983) Radar, Radar, Target Indicator, 3D Surface-to-Air & Surface-to-Surface, Max range: 37 km - AN/SPS-49(V)7 AEGIS - (Group, 1983) Radar, Radar, Air Search, 2D Long-Range, Max range: 463 km - AN/SPS-55 - (Group, 1983) Radar, Radar, Surface Search & Navigation, Max range: 64.8 km - AN/SPS-64(V)9 [RM 1220 6X] - (20kW, USN, 1x antenna) Radar, Radar, Surface Search & Navigation, Max range: 37 km - Mk1 Mod 2 ROS - (20kW, USN, 1x antenna) Visual, LLTV, Weapon Director & Target Search, Slaved Tracking and Identification, Max range: 185.2 km Weapons / Loadouts: - 25mm/75 Bushmaster Mod 1 Burst [12 rnds] - Gun.
    [Show full text]
  • USAF USAF Weapons 2008 USAF Almanac by Susan H.H
    Gallery of USAF USAF Weapons 2008 USAF Almanac By Susan H.H. Young Note: Inventory numbers are total active inventory figures as of Sept. 30, 2007. Bombers B-1 Lancer Brief: A long-range, air refuelable multirole bomber capable of flying missions over intercontinental range, then penetrating enemy defenses with the largest pay- load of guided and unguided weapons in the Air Force inventory. Function: Long-range conventional bomber. Operator: ACC, AFMC. First Flight: Dec. 23, 1974 (B-1A); Oct. 18, 1984 (B-1B). Delivered: June 1985-May 1988. IOC: Oct. 1, 1986, Dyess AFB, Tex. (B-1B). Production: 104. Inventory: 67. Unit Location: Dyess AFB, Tex., Ellsworth AFB, S.D., Edwards AFB, Calif. Contractor: Boeing; AIL Systems; General Electric. Power Plant: four General Electric F101-GE-102 turbo- fans, each 30,780 lb thrust. B-1B Lancer (Richard VanderMeulen) Accommodation: four, pilot, copilot, and two systems officers (offensive and defensive), on zero/zero ACES II ejection seats. B-1B. Initiated in 1981, the first production model of Unit Location: Whiteman AFB, Mo. Dimensions: span spread 137 ft, swept aft 79 ft, length the improved variant B-1 flew in October 1984. USAF Contractor: Northrop Grumman; Boeing; Vought. 146 ft, height 34 ft. produced a total of 100. The active B-1B inventory was Power Plant: four General Electric F118-GE-100 turbo- Weights: empty equipped 192,000 lb, max operating reduced to 67 aircraft (from the remaining 92) with con- fans, each 17,300 lb thrust. weight 477,000 lb. solidation to two main operating bases within Air Combat Accommodation: two, mission commander and pilot, Ceiling: more than 30,000 ft.
    [Show full text]
  • Naval Postgraduate School Graduation Exercises / October 1966
    Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Institutional Publications Commencement Ceremony programs 1966-10 Naval Postgraduate School Graduation Exercises / October 1966 Naval Postgraduate School (U.S.) Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/41169 UNITED ST ATES NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL "' ON WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH OF OCTOBER NINETEEN HUNDRED SIXTY-SIX HERRMANN HALL . • MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Re+ l.( 4-'2-S. r 4- PR~bRnm JJ INVOCATION Commander FRANCIS J. FITZPATRICK, OiC, USN INTRODUCTION OF SPEAKER Rear Admiral EDWARD J. O'DONNELL, USN 0 Superintendent, Naval Postgraduate School ADDRESS TO GRADUATES The Honorable FULTON FREEMAN American Ambassador to Mexico AWARDING OF DIPLOMAS Rear Admiral EDWARD J. O'DONNELL, USN PRESENTATION OF CANDIDATES FOR DEGREES Professor Etv'tMETT F. O'NEIL Chairman, Department of Government and Humanities Commander WILLIAM T. SORENSEN, USN Chairman, Department of Naval Warfare Professor RIQiARD W. BELL Chairman, Department of Aeronautics Professor CHARLES H. ROTHAUGE Chairman, Department of Electrical Engineering Professor ROBERT E. NEWTON Chairman, Department of Mechanical Engineering Professor GEORGE J. HALTINER Chairman, Department of Meteorology and Oceanography Professor EUGENE C. CRITTENDEN, Jr. Chairman, Department of Physics Professor JACK R. BORSTING 0 Chairman, Department of Operations Research REQUIREMENTS Dean W. F. KOEHLER Dean of Programs, Naval Postgraduate School CONFERRING OF DEGREES Rear Admiral EDWARD J. O'DONNELL, USN BENEDICTION Captain SAMUEL D'. CHAMBERS, CHC, USNR l~f bRR~~Rlf~ Those officers whose names are preceded by a star (*) are graduated In Absentia 4 Diplomas of Completion 0 Engineering Science Lieutenant Commander Tommy G. COOPER, USN Training Squadron TWENTY-NINE Lieutenant Benjamin R. HALLOWELL, Jr., USN Air Anti-Submarine Squadron FORTY-ONE *Lieutenant Commander Thomas K.
    [Show full text]
  • USS Talbot (DD-114)
    USS Talbot (DD-114) USS Talbot (DD-114) as built, interwar paint scheme. A view of "Red Lead Row" in San Francisco harbor, 1920s. USS Biddle (DD-151). The removal of the aft mast, absence of aft funnel, and absence of aft torpedo bank indicates modification for ASW duties. USS Dickerson (DD-157) after APD conversion. Aft mast, forward funnels, and both torpedo banks have been removed. Davits installed and four LCP(R) loaded. USS Dent (DD-116) as built, in WWI dazzle camouflage pattern. USS Breckenridge (DD-148). Her mainmast, aft funnel, and aft torpedo bank have been removed. Note the additional ASW ar USS Camden (ID-3143) with USS Talbot (DD-114) at Philadelphia Navy Yard, Philadelphia, PA., 28 August 1919. US Navy photo # NH 47001, from the collections of the US Naval Historical Center, Courtesy of the Naval Historical Foundation, Crosby Collection. US Naval Historical Center. 103k. Destroyers moored together at San Diego, California, circa the early 1920s. These ships are (from left to right): USS Dent (DD-116); USS Rathburne (DD-113); USS Talbot (DD-114); and USS Roper (DD-147). Courtesy of Commander Donald J. Robinson, USN (Retired), 1983. U.S. Naval Historical Center Photograph. USS Talbot (DD-114/APD-7) was a Wickes class destroyer that served briefly towards the end of the First World War, but that was much more active as a fast transport in the Pacific during the Second World War. The Talbot was named after Silas Talbot, an officer in the Continental Navy who was eventually captured while commanding a privateer, and later served in the new US Navy. The Talbot left New York on 31 July at the start of a round-trip to Britain and back, the first of four she carried out during and immediately after the First World War.
    [Show full text]
  • Ballistic, Cruise Missile, and Missile Defense Systems: Trade and Significant Developments, June 1994-September 1994
    Missile Developments BALLISTIC, CRUISE MISSILE, AND MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS: TRADE AND SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS, JUNE 1994-SEPTEMBER 1994 RUSSIA WITH AFGHANISTAN AND AFGHANISTAN TAJIKISTAN AUSTRALIA 8/10/94 According to Russian military forces in Dushanbe, the 12th post of the Moscow INTERNAL DEVELOPMENTS border troops headquarters in Tajikistan is INTERNAL DEVELOPMENTS attacked by missiles fired from Afghan ter- 9/27/94 ritory. The Russians respond with suppres- 7/94 Rocket and mortar attacks leave 58 people sive fire on the missile launcher emplace- It is reported that Australia’s University of dead and 224 wounded in Kabul. Kabul ment; no casualties are reported. Queensland can produce a scramjet air- radio attributes this attack to factions op- Itar-Tass (Moscow), 8/11/94; in FBIS-SOV-94-155, breathing engine, which may offer payload posing President Burhanuddin Rabbani. 8/11/94, p. 36 (4564). and cost advantages over conventional SLVs. More than 100 rockets and mortar shells Chris Schacht, Australian (Sydney), 7/20/94, p. 6; are fired on residential areas of Kabul by 8/27/94 in FBIS-EAS-94-152, 8/8/94, pp. 89-90 (4405). anti-Rabbani militia under the control of During the early morning hours, Tajik Prime Minister Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Mujaheedin launch several missiles at the 7/94 northern warlord General Abdul Rashid Russian Frontier Guard observation posi- It is reported that the Australian government Dostam. tion and post on the Turk Heights in awarded Australia’s AWA Defence Industries Wall Street Journal, 9/28/94, p. 1 (4333). Tajikistan. The missiles are launched from (AWADI) a $17 million contract to produce the area of the Afghan-Tajik border and from the Active Missile Decoy (AMD) system, a Afghan territory, according to the second “hovering rocket-propelled anti-ship missile commander of Russian border guards in decoy system” providing for ship defense against sea-skimming missiles.
    [Show full text]