HGM-25A Titan I

Titan I

Launch of a Titan I SM/567.8-90 ICBM from Cape Canaveral
Function ICBM
Manufacturer Martin Company
Country of origin United States
Cost per launch US$ 1.5 million
Size
Height 31 m
Diameter 3.05 m
Mass 105,140 kg
Stages 2
Launch history
Status Retired
Launch sites Cape Canaveral LC-15, LC-16, LC-19 & LC-20
Vandenberg AFB OSTF SLTF LC-395
Total launches 70
Successes 53
Failures 17
First flight 6 February 1959
Last flight 5 March 1965
First stage
Engines 1 LR-87
Thrust 1,900 kN (430,000 lbf)
Specific impulse 290 seconds
Burn time 140 seconds
Fuel RP-1/LOX
Second stage
Engines 1 LR-91
Thrust 356 kN (80,000 lbf)
Specific impulse 308 sec
Burn time 155 seconds
Fuel RP-1/LOX

The Martin Marietta SM-68A/HGM-25A Titan I was the United States' first multistage rocket Intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), in use from 1959 until 1965. Incorporating the latest design technology when designed and manufactured, the Titan I provided an additional nuclear deterrent to complement the U.S. Air Force's SM-65 Atlas missile. It was the first in a series of Titan rockets, but was unique among them in that it used liquid oxygen and RP-1 as propellants, while the later Titan ICBM versions all used storeable fuels instead. Though the SM-68A was operational for only three years, it was an important step in building the Air Force's strategic nuclear forces.

Origins

The program began in January 1955 when the ICBM Scientific Advisory Committee recommended a alternate approach to the ICBM.[1] In May 1955 the Air Material Command invited contractors to submit proposals and bids for the two stage alternate source ICBM. In September 1955 Martin was declared the contractor for the Titan missile. In early October the Air Force's Western Development Division was ordered to commence the Titan program.[1] The Titan was developed in parallel with the Atlas (SM-65/HGM-16) Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM). The Air Force's goal in launching the Titan program was threefold: one, to serve as a backup should Atlas fail; two, to develop a large, two-stage missile with potentially superior performance; and third to introduce competition which the head of Ballistic Missile Division, Brigadier General Bernard Schriever, thought might spur the Atlas contractor to work harder[2] Martin was selected as the contractor for two reasons. First it proposed a superior organization.[3] Second was that Martin proposed a method of dealing with the problem of igniting a liquid fueled engine at high altitude.[3]

The Titan I was initially designated B-68 in the numbering sequence of bombers.[4] It was later designate SM-68; then in 1962 it was redesignated HGM-25A.

Program Management

The previous strategic missile programs of the Air Force had been administered using the "single prime contractor concept" (later called the weapon system concept).[5] This had resulted in three badly botched programs; the programs of the Snark, Navaho and Rascal missiles had slipped an average of 5 years and had cost overruns of 300 per cent or more.[6] The Teapot Committee had been created to evaluate requirements for, and methods of accelerating the development of ballistic missiles. Applying the Teapot committee's recommendations to manage ballistic missile programs the Air Research and Development Command established the Western Development Division and Brigadier General Bernard Schriever was detailed to command it. Schriever devised an entirely new organization for program management. The Air Force was to act as "prime contractor," the Ramo-Woolridge Corporation was contracted to provide systems engineering and technical direction of all ballistic missiles. The airframe contractor also would assemble the sub-systems provided by other Air Force contractors.[7] This new organization was very controversial.[8]

Budgetary Problems

The Titan, proposed as a fall-back in case the Atlas failed, was by December 1956 accepted as a "principal ingredient of the national ballistic missile force."[9] Almost from the beginning Titan was threatened with cancelation.[10] In response to claims that the Titan was redundant arguments were made that the Titan offered greater performance and growth potential than the Atlas. Suggestions were made that it could make a superior space launch vehicle.[10] The Titan program was under constant budgetary pressure. In the summer of 1957 budget cuts led Secretary of Defense Wilson to make major changes in the Titan production rate from the proposed seven per month to two a month, which effectively reduced the Titan to a research and development program.[11] On October 5, 1957 Americans woke to learn that the Soviet Union had put Sputnik, the first satellite, in orbit. The public and press were shocked. Americans suffered a crisis of confidence. The launch of Sputnik was often compared to Pearl Harbor.[12] The effect ended any talk of canceling Titan. Priority was restored.[13] 1958 saw increases in funding and plans for additional Titan squadrons.

Characteristics

Produced by the Glenn L. Martin Company (which became "The Martin Company" in 1957), Titan I was a two-stage, liquid-fueled missile with an effective range of 5,500 nautical miles (10,200 km). The first stage delivered 300,000 pounds (1,330 kN) of thrust, the second stage 80,000 pounds (356 kN). The fact that Titan I, like Atlas, burned RP-1 and LOX meant that the oxidizer had to be loaded onto the missile just before launch from an underground storage tank, and the missile raised above ground on the enormous elevator system, exposing the missile for some time before launch. The complexity of the system combined with its relatively slow reaction time – fifteen minutes to load, raise and launch the first missile, made it a less effective weapon system. Following the launch of the first missile the other two could be fired at 7-1/2 minute intervals.[14]

Titan I utilized radio-inertial command guidance. The inertial guidance system originally intended for the missile was instead eventually deployed in the Atlas E and F missiles.[15] Less than a year later the Air Force considered deploying the Titan I with an all-inertial guidance system but that change never occurred.[16] (The Atlas series was intended to be the first generation of American ICBMs and Titan II (as opposed to Titan I) was to be the second generation deployed). The Titan 1 was controlled by an autopilot which was informed of the missile's attitude by a rate gyro assembly consisting of 3 gyroscopes. During the first minute or two of the flight a pitch programmer put the missile on the correct path.[17] From that point the AN/GRW-5 guidance radar tracked a transmitter on the missile. The guidance radar fed missile position data to the AN/GSK-1 (Univac Athena) missile guidance computer in the Launch Control Center.[18] The guidance computer used the tracking data to generate instructions which were encoded and transmitted to the missile by the guidance radar. Guidance input/output between the guidance radar and guidance computer occurred 10 times a second.[19] Guidance commands continued for the sage 1 burn, the stage 2 burn and the vernier burn ensuring the missile was on the correct trajectory and terminating the vernier burn at the desired velocity. The last thing the guidance system did was to determine if the missile was on the right trajectory and pre-arm the warhead which then separated from the second stage.[17] In case of the failure of the guidance system at one site, the guidance system at another site could be used to guide the missiles of the site with the failure.[20]

Titan I also was the first true multi-stage (two or more stages) design. Whereas in Atlas, all rocket engines were ignited at launch (including two small thrust vernier engines) due to concerns about igniting rocket engines at high altitude and maintaining combustion stability.[21] Martin, in part, was selected as the contractor because it had "recognized the 'magnitude of the altitude of the altitude start problem' for the second stage and had a good suggestion for solving it."[3] Titan I's second-stage engines were reliable enough to be ignited at altitude, after separation from the first stage booster. The first stage, besides including heavy fuel tanks and engines, also had launch interface equipment and the launch pad thrust ring with it. When the first stage had finished consuming its propellant, it dropped away, thereby decreasing the mass of the vehicle. Titan I’s ability to jettison this mass prior to the ignition of the second stage meant that Titan I had a much greater total range (and a greater range per pound of second-stage fuel) than Atlas, even if the total fuel load of Atlas had been greater.

As North American Aviation's Rocketdyne Division was the only manufacture of large liquid propellent rocket engines the Air Force Western Development Division decided to develop a second source for them. Aerojet-General was selected to design and manufacture the engines for the Titan. Aerojet produced the excellent LR87-AJ-3 (booster) and LR91-AJ-3 (sustainer). George P. Sutton wrote "Aerojet's most successful set of large LPRE was that for the booster and sustainer stages of the versions of the Titan vehicle".[22]

The warhead of the Titan I was an AVCO Mk 4 re-entry vehicle containing a W38 thermonuclear bomb with a yield of 3.75 megatons which was fuzed for either air burst or contact burst. The Mk 4 RV also deployed penetration aids in the form of mylar balloons which replicated the radar signature of the Mk 4 RV.[23]

Research and development

The Titan I was tested in a comprehensive test program prior to deployment. The testing consisted of Series I, which tested the first stage while Series III tested the complete missile (Series II had been cancelled).[24] From the first successful launch on 5 February 1959 with Titan-1 A3 through to 29 January 1962 Titan-1 M7. There were seven variants of the Titan I Research and Development missile: six A-types (four launched) seven B-types (two launched), six C-types (five launched), ten G-types (seven launched), 22 J-types (22 launched), four V-types (four launched), seven M-types (seven launched). 62 produced (49 launched and two exploded). They were tested and launched at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station from Launch Complexes LC15, LC16, LC19 and LC20.

The first four tests of the Titan I (the Lot A missiles) were carried out on February 6, February 25, April 3, and May 4, 1959, all with dummy second stages. The success of these initial flights left launch crews unprepared for the coming events. On August 14, the first attempt to fly a Lot B (all-up version with a live second stage but dummy warhead) ended in disaster when the missile was released from LC-19 before it had built up sufficient thrust. The pad umbilical sent a shutdown signal to the engines and the Titan fell back onto the pad and exploded.[25]

In December, the second attempt to launch a complete Titan ended in practically identical fashion when vibration tripped the range safety destruct package on the first stage of Missile C-3 one second after liftoff, leading to another pad explosion.[26] On February 2, 1960, Missile B-7 marked the first successful flight of a Titan with a live upper stage. On February 5, Missile C-4 failed at T+52 seconds when the guidance compartment collapsed from aerodynamic pressure, causing the RVX-3 reentry vehicle to separate.[26] The missile pitched down and was blown up by Range Safety. After first stage destruction, the second stage separated and began engine ignition, sensing that normal staging had taken place. With no attitude control, it began tumbling end-over-end and quickly lost thrust. The stage plummeted into the Atlantic Ocean some 30–40 miles downrange. After the successful flight of Missile G-4 on February 24, Missile C-1's second stage failed to ignite on March 8 due to a stuck valve preventing the gas generator from starting.[27] A run of successful launches followed during the spring, but the first attempt at flying a Lot J (operational prototype missile) on July 1 went awry when a broken hydraulic line caused total loss of control within moments of liftoff.[28] The Titan began flying on a near horizontal plane before Range Safety issued the destruct command at T+11 seconds. The next launch at the end of the month (Missile J-4) suffered premature first stage shutdown and landed far short of its planned impact point. Cause of the failure was a LOX valve closing prematurely, which resulted in the rupture of a propellant duct and thrust termination. Missile J-6 on October 24 set a record by flying 6100 miles.

The string of failures during 1959-60 led to complaints from the Air Force that Martin-Marietta weren't taking the Titan project seriously (since it was just a backup to the primary Atlas ICBM program) and displayed an indifferent, careless attitude that resulted in easily avoidable failure modes such as Missile C-3's range safety command destruct system relays being placed in a vibration-prone area.[26][29]

In December, Missile V-2 was undergoing a flight readiness test in a silo at Vandenberg Air Force Base. The plan was to load the missile with propellant, raise it up to firing position, and then lower it back into the silo. Unfortunately, the silo elevator collapsed, causing the Titan to fall back down and explode. The blast was so violent that it ejected a service tower from inside the silo and launched it some distance into the air before coming back down.[30]

Although most of the Titan I's teething problems were worked out by 1961, the missile was already eclipsed not only by the Atlas, but by its own designated successor, the Titan II, a bigger, more powerful ICBM with storable hypergolic propellants. The launch pads at Cape Canaveral were quickly converted for the new vehicle and as Vandenberg lacked actual pads (only silos), the Titan I quickly found itself homeless. After a brief period as an operational ICBM, it was retired from service in 1965 when Defense Secretary Robert McNamara made the decision to phase out all first generation cryogenically-fueled missiles in favor of newer hypergolic and solid-fueled models. While decommissioned Atlas (and later Titan II) missiles were recycled and utilized for space launches, the Titan I inventory was simply scrapped.[31]

Operational deployment

Titan-1 Strategic Missile (SM) production began during the final stages of the Research and Development program. A "Blue Suit" launch of SM-2 from Vandenberg AFB LC-395-A3 on 21 January 1962, the last development flight of M7 was from Cape Canaveral's LC-19 on 29 January 1962.[32][33] In total, 101 Titan-1 SMs were produced to be tested from underground silos at Vandenberg Air Force Base or stationed in silos in six squadrons of nine missiles each across America. Fifty-four missiles in silos in total, with one missile as a spare on standby at each squadron, bringing to 60 in service at any one time.

Titan was originally planned for a 1 X 10 (one control center 10 launchers) "soft" site.[34] In mid-1958 it was decided that the American Bosh Arma all-inertial guidance system designed for Titan would, because production was insufficient, would be assigned to Atlas and the Titan would switch to radio-inertial guidance.[35] The decision was made to deploy Titan squadrons in a "hardened 3 X 3 (3 sites with one control center with 3 silos each) to reduce the number of guidance systems required.[34] (radio-inertial guided Atlas D squadrons were similarly sited).[36] The Titan I was first American ICBM based in underground silos, and it gave USAF managers, contractors and missile crews valuable experience building and working in vast bunkers containing everything the missiles and crews needed for operation and survival. The complexes were composed of a control center, powerhouse, and two antenna silos for the ATHENA guidance radars.

These early silos, however, had certain drawbacks. First, the missiles took about 15 minutes to fuel, and then had to be lifted to the surface on huge elevators for launching, which slowed their reaction time. Rapid launching was crucial to avoid possible destruction by incoming missiles, even though Titan shelters were designed to withstand nuclear blasts. Second, the missiles' placement close together in groups of three—necessary because they shared a single ground-based radio guidance system—made them vulnerable to nuclear attack. All-inertial guidance, which does not depend on ground computers, was not yet perfected.

The distance between the antenna silos and the most distant missile silo was between 1,000 and 1,300 feet (400 m). These were by far the most complex, extensive and expensive missile launch facilities ever deployed by the USAF[37][38][39]. Launching a missile required fueling it in its silo, and then raising the launcher and missile out of the silo on a massive elevator. Before each launch the guidance radar had to be calibrated by acquiring a special target at a precisely known range and bearing. When the missile was launched, the guidance radar tracked the missile and supplied precise velocity range and azimuth data to the missile's guidance system. Because of this the complex could only launch and track one missile at a time.

Although Titan I's two stages gave it true intercontinental range and foreshadowed future multistage rockets, its propellants were dangerous and hard to handle. Super-chilled liquid oxygen oxidizer had to be pumped aboard the missile just before launch, and complex equipment was required to store and move this liquid. Kerosene fuel also was pumped aboard just before launch.

In its brief career, six squadrons were equipped with the Titan I. Each squadron was deployed in a 3x3 configuration, which meant a total of nine missiles were divided into three launch sites in Colorado, Idaho, California, Washington state and South Dakota. Each missile site had three Titan I ICBM missiles ready to launch at any given time. See squadron article for location of launch sites.

568th SMS
569th SMS
724th SMS
725th SMS
850th SMS
851st SMS
Map Of HGM-25A Titan I Operational Squadrons
Larson AFB, Washington
Mountain Home AFB, Idaho
Lowry AFB, Colorado
Lowry AFB, Colorado
Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota
Beale AFB, California

Specifications

First Stage:

Second Stage:

Service history

The number of Titan I missiles in service, by year:

Retirement

When the storable-fueled Titan II and the solid-fueled Minuteman I were deployed in 1963, the Titan I and Atlas missiles became obsolete. They were retired from service as ICBMs in early 1965. The count as of 5 March 1965 (the final launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB): 17 were launched from VAFB (September 1961 – March 1965); one was destroyed in Beale AFB Site 851-C1 silo explosion 24 May 1962; 54 were based in Silos with SAC by 20 January 1965; 29 were in storage SBAMA (three at VAFB, one at each Base, including an extra at Lowry = 9 and 20 in storage at SBAMA elsewhere), a total of 101 production SM vehicles. The 83 surplus missiles remained in inventory at Mira Loma AFS. SM-65 Atlas missiles had already been converted to satellite launchers in the early 1960s, and the Titan I's had about the same payload capacity as an Atlas. It did not make economic sense to refurbish the 83 remaining missiles as launch vehicles. About 33 were distributed to museums, parks and schools as static displays (see list below). The remaining 50 missiles were scrapped at Mira Loma AFS near San Bernardino, CA, the last was broken up in 1972, in accordance with the SALT-I Treaty of 1 February 1972.

The official count is 101 Titan I Strategic Missiles produced: 17 Test launched, 1 lost, 50 destroyed Mira Loma, 33 at museum/display (some missing).

On 6 September 1985 Strategic Defense Initiative (AKA "Star Wars" program), a scrapped Titan I Second Stage was used in a Missile Defense test. The MIRACL Near Infrared Laser, at White Sands Missile Range, NM was fired at a stationary Titan I second stage that was fixed to ground. The second stage burst and was destroyed by the laser blast. The second stage did not contain any fuel or oxidizer. It was pressurized with nitrogen gas to 60-psi. A follow-up test 6 days later was conducted on a scrapped Thor IRBM, its remnants reside at the SLC-10 Museum at Vandenberg AFB.

Static displays and articles

There should be 33 Static Titan 1 Strategic Missiles and two (plus five possible) Research and Development Missiles to account for (of these 22 have been positively identified by Serial Number, eight known but need to be identified) and three are unaccounted for, missing.

Titan I in Cordele, GA
Close-up
LR-87 engine

Note: May have been at the 14th American Rocket Society meeting at a Wash, DC hotel on 1 Nov 59

then at Charlie Bell’s junkyard on US-1 Titusville, Fla., now Puerto Rico? (see below)

Note: Two stacked Titan-1 first stages created a perfect illusion of a Titan-2 Missile for museums above.

External links

  1. 1 2 Green Warren E.1962 The Development of the SM-68 Titan, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base: Air Force Systems Command, 1962, AFSC Historical Publications Series 62-23-1, p. vi.
  2. ↑ Green Warren E. The Development of the SM-68 Titan, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base: Green Warren E., 1962, AFSC Historical Publications Series 62-23-1, p. 11.
  3. 1 2 3 Green Warren E. The Development of the SM-68 Titan, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base: Air Force Systems Command, 1962, AFSC Historical Publications Series 62-23-1, p. 17.
  4. ↑ "Titan Missile". Strategic-Air-Command.com. Retrieved 2016-06-02. Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  5. ↑ Green Warren E.1962 The Development of the SM-68 Titan, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base: Air Force Systems Command, 1962, AFSC Historical Publications Series 62-23-1, p. 3.
  6. ↑ Green Warren E.1962 The Development of the SM-68 Titan, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base: Air Force Systems Command, 1962, AFSC Historical Publications Series 62-23-1, p. 4.
  7. ↑ Sheehan, Neil 2009 A Fiery Peace in a Cold War Bernard Schriever and the Ultimate Weapon, NewYork: Vintage Books, 2009, pgs. 233-234.
  8. ↑ Sheehan, Neil 2009 A Fiery Peace in a Cold War Bernard Schriever and the Ultimate Weapon, NewYork: Vintage Books, 2009, pgs. 255-257.
  9. ↑ Green Warren E.1962 The Development of the SM-68 Titan, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base: Air Force Systems Command, 1962, AFSC Historical Publications Series 62-23-1, p. 36.
  10. 1 2 Green Warren E.1962 The Development of the SM-68 Titan, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base: Air Force Systems Command, 1962, AFSC Historical Publications Series 62-23-1, p. 37.
  11. ↑ Green Warren E.1962 The Development of the SM-68 Titan, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base: Air Force Systems Command, 1962, AFSC Historical Publications Series 62-23-1, p. 41.
  12. ↑ Divine,Robert A. The Sputnik Challenge, New York: Oxford University Press, 1990, ISBN 0-19-505008-8, p. xv.
  13. ↑ Divine, Robert A. The Sputnik Challenge, New York: Oxford University Press, 1990, ISBN 0-19-505008-8, p. xv.
  14. ↑ Hoselton, Gary A., Titan I Guidance System, Brekenridge, Colorado: Association of Air Force Missileers, Volume 6, Number 1998, p. 4.
  15. ↑ Guidance Changes Made on Atlas, Titan, Aviation Week July 28, 1958, page 22
  16. ↑ Titan Guidance Switch, Aviation Week April 6, 195, page 31
  17. 1 2 Hoselton, Gary A., Titan I Guidance System, Brekenridge, Colorado: Association of Air Force Missileers, Volume 6, Number 1, 1998, p. 4.
  18. ↑ United States Air Force The T.O. 21M-HGM25A-1-1 Technical Manual Operation and Organizational Maintenance HGM-25A Missile Weapon System, United States Air Force, 1964, paragraph 1-159 - 1-161
  19. ↑ Hoselton, Gary A., Titan I Guidance System, Brekenridge, Colorado: Association of Air Force Missileers, Volume 6, Number 1, 1998, p. 5.
  20. ↑ United States Air Force The T.O. 21M-HGM25A-1-1 Technical Manual Operation and Organizational Maintenance HGM-25A Missile Weapon System, United States Air Force, 1964, paragraph 1-173
  21. ↑ Walker,Chuck Atlas The Ultimate Weapon, Burlington Canada: Apogee Books, 2005, ISBN 0-517-56904-3, p. 11
  22. ↑ Sutton, George P History of Liquid Propellent Rocket Engines, Reston Virginia: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2006, ISBN 1-56347-649-5, p. 308
  23. ↑ Hansen, Chuck, Swords of Armageddon, 1995, Chukelea Publications, Sunnyvale, California, page Volume VII Page 293
  24. ↑ Green Warren E.1962 The Development of the SM-68 Titan, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base: Air Force Systems Command, 1962, AFSC Historical Publications Series 62-23-1, p. 91.
  25. ↑ Green Warren E.1962 The Development of the SM-68 Titan, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base: Air Force Systems Command, 1962, AFSC Historical Publications Series 62-23-1, p. 93.
  26. 1 2 3 Green Warren E.1962 The Development of the SM-68 Titan, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base: Air Force Systems Command, 1962, AFSC Historical Publications Series 62-23-1, p. 94.
  27. ↑ Green Warren E.1962 The Development of the SM-68 Titan, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base: Air Force Systems Command, 1962, AFSC Historical Publications Series 62-23-1, p. 95.
  28. ↑ Green Warren E.1962 The Development of the SM-68 Titan, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base: Air Force Systems Command, 1962, AFSC Historical Publications Series 62-23-1, p. 96.
  29. ↑ Green Warren E.1962 The Development of the SM-68 Titan, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base: Air Force Systems Command, 1962, AFSC Historical Publications Series 62-23-1, p. 128.
  30. ↑ See, Earl , Titan Missile Memoirs, Huntington Beach, California: American Aviation Historical Society Journal, Summer 2014, p. 118.
  31. ↑ http://astronautix.com/lvs/titan1.htm
  32. ↑ "List of Titan Launches". Wikipedia. Retrieved 2015-02-13.
  33. ↑ "List of Titan Launches". Johnathan's Space Report Launch Vehicle Database. Retrieved 2015-02-13.
  34. 1 2 Green Warren E..1962, The Development of the SM-68 Titan, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base: Air Force Systems Command, 1962, AFSC Historical Publications Series 62-23-1, p. 54.
  35. ↑ Guidance Changes Made on Atlas, Titan, Aviation Week, July 28, 1958, page 22
  36. ↑ Walker,Chuck Atlas The Ultimate Weapon, Burlington Canada: Apogee Books, 2005, ISBN 0-517-56904-3, p. 154
  37. ↑ Simpson, Charles G, The Titan I part 1', Breckenridge, Colorado: ssociation of Air Force Missileers, July 1993, p. 3.
  38. ↑ Green Warren E., 1962, The Development of the SM-68 Titan, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base: Air Force Systems Command, 1962, AFSC Historical Publications Series 62-23-1, p. 77.
  39. ↑ Kaplan, Albert B. and Keyes, Lt. Colonel George W.1962 Lowry Area History 29 September 1958 - December 1961, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ballistic Missile Construction Office (CEBMCO), 1962, pg. 4.
  40. ↑ missilebases.com (2011). "History of Missile Bases". missilebases.com. Retrieved 4 September 2011.

See also

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Titan (Rocket).

{{aircontent |see also=

|comparable aircraft header=Comparable missiles

|lists=

|see also=

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Monday, February 15, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.