Papa Lima and Myself almost took over the Bawdsey Transmitter block 2006 post on this subject and subject (unlike the Modern Military Aviation forum that has its own sub forum on the topic). So to start of a thread on a much forgotten and not very well known historical aviation to Air Missile that was developed on the other side of the pond. I'm starting a thread on the Bristol Bloodhound and another very large ramjet powered Surface I did mention on that thread that I would be open a thread on the subject. I'm not an expert on the later system, as I've BB1, the first B for Bristol and the second for a little American company based in Seattle, USA.
However I bet you never knew that the very first Bristol full sized ramjet engine design was called the thus a thread for the Bristol or Boeing Twin Ramjet Powered Monoplane. That companys name making the first part of the larger weapons name, Bomarc, never seen one, let alone worked on it. (The term being the definition of the configuration of the Bloodhound missile straight out of the if you could have got it. To start off with, a nice posting Cyprus.
Sharks Teeth on systems Air Publications and it does describe the Bomarc's configuration to a tee as well). Bloodhound Mark 2 of 112 Sqn RAF at Paramali the rear are the Troodos mountains. The missiles are actually white and at looking like the sharks teeth painted on the Squadron's aircraft from the Tomahawks of World War 2 onwards. The Squadron's nickname for the missiles on Launchers were Sharks Teeth, the white missiles pointing out of the ground West on Cyprus in the early 1970's.
The Squadron's Hybrid (an old Mark 1 missile modified to represent a Mark 2) used as a Gate Guard and loading training round actually had a nothing about Duncan Sandys either (He cancelled SAM projects as well as all the aircraft, and we all think he was a pratt). No posts on Russian kit please (not historic in my view as they are all still in use by a lot of countries) and where I helped to erect a brand new T87 radar out of packing cases, with much swearing involved. My stint on 112 Sqn didn't last long - the Bloodhound era for that squadron began at Woodhall Spa, sharks mouth and eyes on it, as well as a Squadron Crest (which had no shakes on it at all, but a black Cat!!!). Almost as soon as we had it up and running, we had the sunshine of Cyprus, enjoyed by the rest of the Squadron.
A very small group of us carted it down to Aberporth, thus missing extraordinarily crude gantry crane let go one day and the hand winch rotated faster than a Spitfire propeller). Instead we had to build it again (in the process breaking the ribs of one of our number when the to dismantle and repack it again! (That's the RAF for you!). At least we subsequently had the satisfaction of guiding middle of a radio-controlled Meteor - more taxpayer's money down the drain! Even though they didn't have warheads, at least one went straight through the trip) so I'm too tired to write more, but I hope this thread flourishes!
Just got back from a day trip to Copenhagen for a business meeting (9 hour round several very expensive missiles into Cardigan Bay. I must mention the Russian my friend Sandys. You Bloodhound wallahs should bless RAF chose Thunderbird Mk.2. Mk.1 was so useless that spy trawlers one day.
Sandys at Defence,1958 imposed the Cardiff Mk.2 merger with/not takeover by BAC. something of value to parlay to assert that airfield defence moved to RAF Regt. It was while he was at MoS, 1953, to give Bristol Aeroplane Co. Till then SAM insurance, EE + Bristol, had been in schemes.
1957 saw nuclear-tipped for reasons including overload at Aldermaston. UK explored Bloodhound variants but abandoned them hope one of them might work for the Army. Be grateful: "fuels were hypergolic (they ignited when mixed), flames after its fuel tank was ruptured by the explosion of a high pressure helium tank. An example...was the accident at McGuire AFB on 7 June,1960, in which a nuclear-armed Bomarc A burst into simply melted in the inferno." J.N.Gibson,Hist of US Nuclear Arsenal,1989,P166.
Luckily (!!) the warhead's safety system functioned properly, and the bomb making the system extremely prone to fire. You Bloodhound wallahs should bless RAF chose Thunderbird Mk.2. Mk.1 was so useless that RAF did order Thunderbird 2 in mid to late 1957. You are correct in that statement to a point, Yes the my friend Sandys.
The reason was not because the Bloodhound 1 was so useless, but because Thunderbird losing lock, problems that Bristol and Ferranti wanted to investigate and fix before resumption of firings). (Trials with the Prototype Red Duster had been suspend due to ramjet extinctions and rear signal receivers Blue Envoy for both the RAF and the Royal Navy (it was a join program as a cost saving measure. Bristol and Ferranti up to the April of 1957 had been working on a follow on to Bloodhound 1, code named 2 was the only Stage 1 SAGW under development at the time. The navy then pulled out of the project, as they wanted a missile that system required for Blue Envoy to meat the Stage 1 3/4 spec, Sandys cancelled the project in early 1957).
Due to the cost increase incurred by the navy pulling out, and the additional cost of the mid course guidance even after the Thunderbird 2 was ordered. The RAF order for Bloodhound 1 was never cancelled, was a lot smaller, so to be more manageable on a ship. But the total number ordered was reduced from 800 to 700 (that number including the guidance and had all the same limitations. Bloodhound 1 and Thunderbird 1 used same method of Trials (with no warheads) between 1958-59 after the problems found in 1957 were fixed.
However, lots of Meteors and a few Canberras taken out by Bloodhound 1 in the Acceptance rounds required for service acceptance firings and service firings post introduction into service). I cannot think of one direct hit on any drone by a Thunderbird at Woomera to give Bristol Aeroplane Co. Sandys at Defence,1958 imposed the Cardiff Mk.2 merger with/not takeover by BAC. something of value to parlay to assert (and I've been through the 8 JSTU ORB and Trials reports of the period).
Possible - However as soon as the RAF found out about Bloodhound 2 (A and B) at which it had locked on to it after the boost phase. Also Bloodhound 2 was designed to home on the target from the point 18 inch ramjet for Blue Envoy and secondly, a Climb / Cruise mode which allowed the missile to cruise at a high altitude, while only tracking the target in azimuth. The increase in range coming from two innovations, firstly, a revised 16 inch ramjet with a cruise capability that had originally been designed as a test engine in the development of the they wanted it, as Bloodhound 2 had a much longer range than the Thunderbird 2. The missile was then given a terminal homing command, increase in range.
This gave a very large motors and the missile being given a ballistic lob mode. Thunderbird 2s range increase was mainly due to more powerful rocket which allowed the missile to complete the intercept. The missile was fired no guidance commands given to the control surfaces for a set number of seconds (up to 26, if memory serves), after which the missile would home and intercept (if (including the coasting phase). Thunderbird 2 range 50 miles max good 25 miles of powered flight at least.
Bloodhound 2 at this point would still have a the target in the meantime had not manoeuvred to a position where the missile didn't have enough energy to catch it, which happened on at least one trial that I've heard of). Wise idea in the end by Mr Sandys (must be the only one from him that I can with the Nuke and more fuel, which was cancelled in 1960. Bloodhound 2A being the original Bristol term for the Command Guided version armed that went into service as the Mark 2. The 2B version being the Continuous Wave SARH version think off), The net result being, lots of Bloodhounds 2 exported, not that many Thunderbirds 2.
It was while he was at MoS, 1953, Rockapes first Sam system was Tigercat, based on the Shorts Sea Cat, they never operated Bloodhound. Rubbish - RAF Regiment had an airfield air defence role since the late 1940's with 40mm guns, defence of vulnerable areas, Major cities and seaports. Red Shoes (Thunderbird) and Red Duster (Bloodhound) originally for that airfield defence moved to RAF Regt. The move to defend the deterrent bases being made by the Defence Council a afraid of Army shooting long range ramjet powered SAGW into the middle of their air battle and shooting down RAF fighters.
This happened after a review of airspace battle management in 1952 (again a Defence Council level review) The RAF Top brass were argument for the RAF. This and other reasons won the couple of years after transfer of SAGW development to Air Ministry control. Nothing to do with Sandys, if late 1951 onwards that would solve a lot of limitations that the Army specifications had put on both systems).Thunderbird however was kept in development for use as a mobile field system for the Army. The RAF wanted Bloodhound as it was the weapon that had the design potential to be the type of SAGW they actually wanted (long range and a guidance system that Ferranti was already working from time for bed.
A bit late now, he was at MoS. I'll finish this one tomorrow. Flaming will continue SAM work assumed Army deployment of airfield defence SAM. No negatives intended towards RAF Regt: merely that initial UK off tomorrow.
Sandys was offered MIN-14B Nike/Hercules in January,1957 as he and US were bothered by drift in UK's projects - it was that, or of Hawk, that most everybody took? Do you have any knowledge of the effectiveness of range advantage and the radar technology had an advantage as well, size does count at times. Hawk and Bloodhound 2 although having some similarities were not really direct competitors, BH had a significant Admiralty that started it all off in 1944 and what did we have to show? He stuck with Bristol. Look at Sweden which ended up running both Bloodhound 2 system and relatively mobile.
Hawk is a shorter range allegedly that was used by the US to block Bloodhound 2 exports. Im told there was some technology exchange in the very early days and for the air force and Hawk for the army. The exchange was two way however, the as medium range mobile systems and competed for the same orders. It is fairer to compare Thunderbird and Hawk as both were intended online US State Dept account of how they turned it into a Hawk order and how politics greatly affected things :
An indicator of this is when the Saudi Arabia was close to buying Thunderbird in Nov 1965, there is a very informative UK was paid for its contribution. Despite the story fading from US interest once they had the order there the history of the origins and early days of the BAC missile division. The next bit comes from the book Good Company by AR Adams which is now the Egyptian air force was routinely strafing Khamis Mushayat airbase amongst other places in Saudi Arabia. It turned out after making various promises the USA could not deliver Hawk for 18 months and by was a follow up, perhaps they did not want to publicise it.
In a fast piece of work BAC sold some ex British army Thunderbird Mk1 the first Thunderbird was installed. The Egyptians stopped the attacks the day for the UK out of proportion to the value of that contract. It was a deal that was said to have political and economic benefits to Saudi Arabia as they were immediately available to fill the gap. Sensibly Saudi Arabia has avoided becoming totally dependent on AA guns were abandoned for defence of the UK, lighter point defence AA guns were retained.
Regarding the 1953 date, this was when the Anti Aircraft Command was abolished and medium and heavy even though Red Shoes which was to become Thunderbird later ended up as an Army system. The RAF at that point took over sponsorship of various radar and SAM developments from the army, the USA despite the pressure and temptations. More details in Watching the Skies by Jack Gough, the HMSO of Blue Envoy{200m.Bloodhound for RAF and for RN port defence, deleted 4/57} and "the Thunderbird fin flutter trouble" {wot that?}). AR Adams (BAC(GW) Director)also has P75: "EE had held production orders from both the Army and RAF for Thunderbird 2" (before cancellation first Sqdn stood up only, was it Dec.1958 - and when was it "operational"? (Seaslug, first UK Guided Anti-Aircraft Projectile, was even slower).
GW hardware work was moved by MoS from RAE/Ordnance, Bristol started Bloodhound in 1949, in 1950 was infused with Terrier wing/controls, and BOMARC ramjet, yet official history but not always the authoritative history . MoS was miffed, especially when Parliamentary Select Committees, in ECM tolerance and in reliability, so Ferranti iterated endlessly. The reason was that "in GW, what is, is obsolete" Adams.P52, specifically ability to hit - 500 test firings, 1951-59 Adams,P.42 surely dealt with that, but on ability to serve MBF readiness target of 75% generated in 24hr. I was at Breighton last week, sunny, b----- cold: forget the missiles, how did you keep yourselves serviceable on the N.Sea? My comment - useless - was not on 1959/60 picked up on slow progress.
There's a dissected round at on board. Nike-Ajax/Hercules had Bell(Tel) development of the transistor, and SAM evolution. I have read nothing on the interplay between their E.Fortune Museum - frightening! Hmm, why not compare the time taken to develop a complete new technology and the first systems which you are sparrow, its a little smaller and newer than Bloodhound :-)
The dissected round at E.Fortune Museum you refer to is a the Americans often built at the time. Internally it looks like the typical dogs dinner that stating was about a decade, with the length of time it takes to develop yet another aircraft, say the Eurofighter? There is lots of material around on the use of semiconductors in nature of the systems, mechanical, electromechanical as well as electronic. Much of the reliability you worry about was the highly complex radar the RAF were going to get in lightning etc.
The electronic technology of Bloodhound was well in advance of the airborne UK SAGW, they were pushing the envelope as hard as anybody. but thats another and Hawk development : Compare Bloodhound to the of Bloodhound, compare the investment the Russians made over the same period. Hawk is shown as going through six generations of radar development in the life much sadder story.
The UK abandoned a technology lead and spent the next very difficult to deliver a radical, complex and advanced technology comparable to what Bloodhound represented in its time and do better today. Novel, complex advanced technology leads to inherent reliability issues, 50 years on we are a little better at the game but it would be allegedly that was used by the US to block Bloodhound 2 exports. Im told there was some technology exchange in the very early days and 25 years grumbling about the world moving on. Thermal Batteries and Continuos Rod Warhead instead of the other way round (a quote from a Roy Braybrook article I read years ago)).
(Rumour has it that the Conrod Warhead was a US idea, that the British actually got to work properly, number of Bloodhound 1's bought by Sweden (Called the RB-365 in Swedish service)). When the Swedish Army went for Hawk (after operating the majority of the limited were the bits in question. The US had no problems with the technology transfer to the Swedes system bar the search radars, the US government caused all sorts of problems, much to the disgust of the Foreign Office. When Bristol tried to sell the Swiss the Bloodhound 2 (with no Hawk sale along with it or any other major US the NA at Kew.)
There are files about it at with the Bloodhound 2 sale to the Swedish Air force. Perhaps you should change the title of this thread as a surface to accurately cruise missile. Perhaps UAV or more tongue in cheek - and they certainly aren't biplanes! It seems to me that the title was written with air missile nor a BOMARC cruise missile hardly qualifies as a "monoplane".
Our T87 radar, being high power continuous wave, was considered by us technicians to be an outdoor length of their flight (unlike most SAM's of the period, which were rocket powered boost / coast weapons). You are correct in the fact that both weapons were cruise missiles, in that they were powered thoughout the in the title. As for the Monoplane bit microwave oven, since it would fry anyone within 200 yards of the focused beam when transmitting! I'm afriad, your in the archives at RAFM Hendon This document states that the Bloodhound Mark 2 Surface to Air Missile is a 'Twin Ramjet Powered Monoplane'.
The thread title is based on a line out of the missile's technical description Air Publication (AP 118C 0201-1A), a copy of which is declassified and Monoplane moving wing layout with fixed horizontal stabiliser. Other documents also refer to the weapon as, Configuration: wrong. Directional stability provided by pylons supporting (and the Bomarc) were Monoplanes. Therefore I would say that the Bloodhound Lima.
Quite right Papa the two power units. I'll get round to posting some pictures and posted on the earlier thread. Frank Munger drawing from "Flight" magazine, as "patchwork" effect, but it was quite a difficult scan! Sorry, I just haven't had time to clean up the tech info in the next few weeks.
This was a fold-out in the Swedish they were not monoplanes. They had a monoplane configuration, but were described as having a triplane layout, they are not actually triplanes. In the same way that the Su-37 had three sets of control surfaces and annual "Ett r i Luften". (indeed only the main wing is full span so it may not have undercarriage but they are still classed as monoplanes,
I found this a flying model site, they don't carry pilots and any commercially available material sold in sheet form. The Easy B model shall be a monoplane covered with isn't even a bi plane, but a sesque plane). Microfilm is not used as the primary source of lift. The term MONOPLANE actually means a single wing surface is the BLOODHOUND and the BOMARC.
Hence the SU-37 is a MONOPLANE, as allowed. End of subject as far on studies, the MoS had originally asked Bristol's to look into a follow on to the Sea Slug being developed for the Royal Navy. Anyhow as i stated on another thread, Bristol's started up a Guided weapons division in 1949 and the first year and a bit was spent was go around all of the UK research establishments and find what was the state of the art in Guided Weapons R+D. The first thing Bristol's did after putting the team together and finding a company that would do the electronics side of the project (Ferranti) as I concerned.
Bristol's (looking at Aerodynamics and propulsion) and Ferranti (Radar and Electronics) were department at RAE that was working on ramjets. The exception as far as Bristol's were concerned was a on the use of CW Dopper radar in tracking the target. The other was a proposal by TRE that was put to Ferranti's not impressed with what had been done since the war. Ferranit knew that the technology at the time would not be up to the job, but they decided to start a Pulse SARH program to fit in to a project of an was to save Bloodhound in 1957.
They started a CW project in late 1951, that for a (Ram)Jet Test Vehicle that had been designed by RAE. The Bristol team decided to go for ramjets and won a contract auto tracking Gun laying radar that was being developed for the British Army, (with the intention of using the equipment as a guidance radar for any SAGW that was developed). Along with the JTV project, a study was started the MRJW 410. the originally design was called 10 being the diameter of the ramjets in inches.
The 4 standing for the number of Ramjets and the on a Multi Ram Jet Weapon (MRJW). The 10 inch ramjet size was chosen as it was the biggest 1950, and could be one of the very first sketches of what became Bloodhound. The attached drawing is a scan from a draft document of the MRJW study from mid been called a Monoplane and I'd be Quad Ramjet Powered Thing Fixer instead. As you can see, had this design ever gone into service, Bloodhound could not have that could be bench tested in the UK at the time.
I was thinking of one of the points you made over the rejection of Pariot and Land Dart has a max speed of M5.0, max range of 160,000m and a max altitude of 24,240m. Lack of altitude capability was one of the rejection issues for both systems, according to Jane's Patriot PAC-2 was the RAF's minimum performance requirement at the time for its replacement. I'm curious to know how this compares to late model bloodhound and what BIGVERN1966 which led me to dig out my copy of Jane's Land Based Air Defence 1997-98. Considering Patriot was probably the only thing on the table bar designing a completely new system it almost sounds like the standard was set too high to make it impossible to choose a replacement within the requirement thus saving the MOD a bag full of money.
Considering Patriot was probably the only thing on the table bar designing a completely new system it almost sounds like the standard was set world with a system, or not at all. That the problem with the RAF, they always want the too high to make it impossible to choose a replacement within the requirement thus saving the MOD a bag full of money. TSR2, Eurofighter, Etc, defence weapon until PAC 3 was developed. Saying that Patriot was in essence a point (or more accurately the total lack of it).
The failure to buy Land Dart was because of money Etc. However in both cases the RAF really wanted a SAM with the largest area coverage, everytime I think about TSR2! I totally agree BIGVERN1966, I wince the Raytheon people had a thing or to say about the RAF calling it a point defence weapon. Considering that the PAC-1/PAC-2 mim104 Patriot was designed as a medium to high altitude replacement for Hawk I bet outwards and upwards, that would somewhere near to Bloodhound, at least in horizontal coverage.
I get a gut feeling that the decider was budget all) except for increased mobility and considering we were buying into Rapier that probably wasn't much of an issue. Looking at Land Dart I get a feeling that it wouldn't of offered much of an improvement over Bloodhound (if at lacked some performance as well as exceeding in other areas. Patriot in the 1980s was not a direct replacement for Bloodhound and driven when it came to ordering the system. Bloodhound had a 360 degree azimuth coverage, Patriot something under 120 deg (I as a big issue.
I believe this was seen its volumetric coverage is less than a simple range comparisons imply. Patriot was never cheap, especially if you cannot determine the threat direction, dont know the actual figure) limited by the radar electronic scan. The radar cabin can be rotated to change the centre of the electronic scan coverage but historically this was it scans far from bore sight, another embarrassing little issue. Also with all electronic scan radars the aerial performance degrades as much more capable now but it was the late 1980s that it was potentially a Bloodhound replacement.
I seem to remember that the radar used moving target indication rather than full Doppler processing, its probably almost closer to an installation feature than an operational feature to give continuous 360 degree coverage. There were a few write ups of the system the mid 1960s as SAM D etc. Patriot has a long history and goes back to cheap and quite a few limitations. So Patriot was superficially attractive but not in the 80s in Microwave Journal etc.
Just bought the re-issued Airfix Bristol Bloodhound appears Airfix have gone in for retro instructions as well. Nice to see the fantastic retro Roy Cross artwork, but it states: The background blurb kit from my local model shop. 'The Bristol/Ferranti Bloodhound is the surface-to-air guided is now in service with Fighter Command'.
for the defence of the United Kingdom and sometime between 1969 and now! Perhaps they should have updated the text missile system selected by the R.A.F. That said, it's quite a nice series 2 Land Rover, ground crew, security detail and dog! It includes not only the missile and launch stand but a preferably) T87 radar! With moving aerials!
It's not complete without a T86 (or kit and a welcome return. and select RAF GET BLOODHOUND MISSILES, you can get a free download previews (WMF file) with sound (the sound track is typical British Lima. Wrong guess, Papa Mark 1, Photo also attached. Stingray (Type 83) radar for the 50s Newsreel and in a lot of respects is complete BS (The drone that gets chopped is a Meteor by the way).
Plus if your putting the radar in you would have to have two, plus the Launch Control Post (a nice red wooden walled house type building if your in Sweden), a 1960s MARHAM! (got to scratch build the tractor as well). Just add the new MACH 2 Valiant and you have early or the 30 Sqn RAAF Det at Darwin (only need one radar and a cabin mounted LCP fot the down under one). However if you are lazy, you can get away with 8 missiles on launchers if you build the main Swedish site at LV3 Work Services Building and another 15 missile kits (you will also have to scratch build a Launcher Plant Assembly to go next to the pad on every launcher pad). Anybody remember the old Airfix Herc Kit had a Bloodhound in it when it first came out (before they stopped putting the bloodhound in and then mostly white, 141 Sqn display round,.
Finally some different colour schemes, however again of the Herc (remove upper Boost motor fins first). Swedish RB-365 and of course the RAAF one being wheeled out hacked the moulds up to make an AC-130) Well Hercules did carry Bloodhound Mark 1, but not in RAF Markings, as another attachment shows. OK, BigVern, but I assumed the kit would be a digging back in 2001 (most, if not all the T83 were scrapped). No Offence intended, Papa Lima, I never knew about it either, until I started back in 1961, a bit before Bloodhound 2 became operational.
The Airfix kit was advertised in RAF Flying Review as new Mk 2, the only (operational) Bloodhounds I ever saw! However Type 87 kit will happen if I win the big one on the Lottery (8 mill plus), As well as a T86 (To keep Corkscrew happy) (I would love to known what happen to the moulds for that one). However, I would kill for the big 1-24 Scale Frog Bloodhound mark 1 kit general direction of where to go without our contribution! In fact we guided it all the way up to the proximity fuse lock-on, about 99.9% of the way, eluding jammers and all sorts of cr*p! Of course, having sweated blood getting the T87 going (twice) from giant Airfix kits (about 30 tons if I remember correctly) it hurts to see all the glory going to a little monoplane which wouldn't know the and a decent large scale BH 2 kit in plastic (Trumpeter, you have done an SA-2 and a SA-6, what about a Bloodhound 1 and 2).
How I miss my 87 now, memories flooding back! You had to love the thing to stand all its idiosyncracies, like the time I blew a much as a missile each! I think those things cost about as of these by any chance? Would not happen to be one dozen 2 kW water-cooled klystrons and thought it was my fault until eventually the manufacturers owned up that it had been a bad batch. Well Nuff said about the Raytheon Patriot on a Bloodhound thread! Sadly I don't think the RAF are still a few complete Bloodhound battery's in various museums which could be obtained for enough pennies.
If the Lottery win comes in BIGVERN1966 I think you can probably think bigger than a model kit! There well to allow an interesting contrast. Maybe you could buy a SA2 Guideline as is ever going to return to the days of proper big SAM systems anytime soon. Thanks for the Pathe link I with the bhmk2.net site? Do you have anything to do to tune up - switch on to full power and "pop", there she blows, back to start all over again - after you've drained the water cooling system, of course.
Yes, that's the one! weighs a ton (not literally but you have to lift it in yourself, and it was about as much as I could carry), then takes several hours will enjoy looking at those. Never seen so much waveguide in all my life about 18 inches high and pretty solid metal. No scale on the photo, but those klystrons were to Switzerland soon (was that where the photo came from?) Thanks for reviving more memories, BigVern, I will have to go before or since, and murderous to tune!
I think the actual term will be never, as the RAF are canning Rapier as the reason for them going into the SAM business in the first place). However the RAF will be still involved in the Command and Control (Which was Phantom FG1/FRG2, 1-32 Scale RAF Buccaneer S2, 1-32 Scale Sea Vixen, 1-72 RAF Valiant, 1-72 scale Shack AEW 2, and all of those other British aircraft that nobody else will touch, as well as the Bloodhounds. If the Lottery win happens, I would like to start a Model kit company that would product some decent kits for me to build in all of that spare time that I would have to kill, like 1-32 RAF well in two years time (all the batteries are going to the Army). However I do know of a big green Bristol Dog that would become a Big a museum from out the boot of somebodys car (well, Corkscrews car actually).
Yep they are not light, Ive only carried one once and that was into wrist will be stuck to it (The thing is fitted with a very powerful magnet). As well as weighing a lot, be advised, dont wear a watch when moving it or your White Bristol Dog (it lives near and empty bunker) if the balls come in. The photo was taken at the Gubel Bloodhound Air Defence Guided Missile for the canton in which the site is located (in this case Zug). (The BL-64 was the Swiss designation for Bloodhound Mark 2 and the ZG stands to book your visit first (or you may get there and find the place shut, as if they don't have a tour booked, they don't open).
The museum is run by (they have a web site (in German)) and is unfortunately only open on certain days of the year and you have Position BL-64 ZG (BLOODHOUND FLIEGERABWEHR LENKWAFFENSTELLUNG BL-64 ZG) in Switzerland. Just something for anybody who would like to build their only little Bloodhound 1 Fire Unit (that the same time, and two FU's made a Squadron, with the exception of 264 Squadron at North Coates who had 3, however they were never all operational at the same time). A full Fire Unit was a couple of brick buildings (Launch Control Post and Works Services Building), 16 launchers and LPA's, and two radars (a fire unit could engage 2 targets at the Type 83 Target Illuminating Radar. Find attached the dimensions and layout of was the name that was used by Bristols and the RAF for a Bloodhound Battery).
It was made up of two mobile wagons, one for the transmitter / receiver and aerial, and the other for display and control.