Talk:AGM-69 SRAM

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....

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}

-- ALCM didn't replace SRAM. The intent was for SRAM to blow a hole in Soviet air defences for the bombers to fly through before launching their ALCM or gravity bombs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.29.184 (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox?

I believe that {{Infobox Weapon}} is appropriate for this article. -MBK₀₀₄ 13:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear yield

According to the top of the article the yield may change between 17 and 210 kton TNT (one step multistep or continuopusly?). In the table at the end it is stated to be 170-200 kton in agreement with the article on the W69 warhead. However, it is probably no meaning in having a variable yield unless the variation is relatively large, thus 17-210 kton seems more likely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.227.15.253 (talk) 08:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Repurposed as first stage of ASM-135 ASAT

I will add a section about its afterlife. Any other articles or info for input?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ASM-135_ASAT_4.jpg http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2473/2 http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-135.html http://www.afspc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123317577

JABrown0101 (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AGM-69 SRAM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040407003242/http://www.strategic-air-command.com:80/missiles/Aircraft-Launched_Missiles/agm-69_SRAM_missile.htm to http://www.strategic-air-command.com/missiles/Aircraft-Launched_Missiles/agm-69_SRAM_missile.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Yield

I've examined the edit log to determine where the 17 or 210 kt claim came from and discovered it was added in 2009. It originally said a yield of approximately 170 to 210 kt, but someone seems to have misinterpreted that as a variable yield of 170 or 210 kt, and then assumed 170 was a typo. It's not. I have provided a source for the figure as 170 to 200 kt (not 210). If the weapon was a variable yield weapon (which is probable given it's apparently B61 derived), no suitable source exists to my knowledge, so no further details can be added.

It is cited properly now, so don't change it.Kylesenior (talk) 05:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)