Oerlikon SAMs

[Petrus]

Interestingly, in the 1950s the Swiss Oerlikon company designed several surface-to-air missiles. Here are links to very few websites that contain any information on the projects:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/mx-1868.html

http://waffen-der-welt.alices-world.de/missiles/sam/ch_rsd.html

http://www.ttu.fr/site/english/endocpdf/missilesuccess2.pdf (you must scroll down up to 'RSC and Micon')

The first of the above-mentioned websites says that besides the US who bought the Oerlikon missiles for testing they were used by Sweden, Italy and Japan. Is it true? If so, did any of the coutries that had purchased them used them operationally?

I would be very grateful for any info on the Oerlikon SAMs, including their pictures.

Best regards,
Piotr

 

[Andreas Parsch]

The first of the above-mentioned websites says that besides the US who bought the Oerlikon missiles for testing they were used by Sweden, Italy and Japan. Is it true? If so, did any of the coutries that had purchased them used them operationally?

I wrote the first of the linked articles. It's been a while, and I don't remember exactly where I found the info about Sweden, Italy and Japan. It was either Bill Gunston's "Missile Encyclopedia" (likely) and/or an old "Jane's". I'll try to track down the source tonight (if I don't forget about it : ). That said, I'm pretty sure the source did not mention how many missiles were sold or how they were used (if at all!).

And it's of course possible that one or more of the sources I used for the article are just plain wrong. It has happened before, and if someone can provide a definite history of the RSC missile family on the international market, I'd be happy to revise my webpage .

Regards
Andreas

 

[Andreas Parsch]

I wrote the first of the linked articles. It's been a while, and I don't remember exactly where I found the info about Sweden, Italy and Japan. It was either Bill Gunston's "Missile Encyclopedia" (likely) and/or an old "Jane's". I'll try to track down the source tonight (if I don't forget about it : ). That said, I'm pretty sure the source did not mention how many missiles were sold or how they were used (if at all!).

Ok, I've looked. The info that RSC variants (-54 and/or -56) were in service with Sweden, Italy, Switzerland and Japan is from

Frederick I. Ordway III, Ronald C. Wakeford: "International Missile and Spacecraft Guide", 1960 .

Gunston only says that RSC/RSD-57 and -58 were used by Italy, Sweden and Japan for "training purposes".

Ordway/Wakeford is an invaluable source for 1950s missiles, but there are a few errors in it. So the info on the use of the Oerlikon missiles could be incorrect.


Andreas

 

[EEP1A]

The first of the above-mentioned websites says that besides the US who bought the Oerlikon missiles for testing they were used by Sweden, Italy and Japan. Is it true? If so, did any of the coutries that had purchased them used them operationally?

I would be very grateful for any info on the Oerlikon SAMs, including their pictures.

In August 1958, Japanese Self Defense Force received the Oerlikon missiles for testing. At that time, they were developing indigenous surface to air missile and to fill the technological gap after the WW2, they decided to purchase missile available then for reference.
The picture was taken by me 22 years ago at the Gifu Air Base, north of Nagoya. It was retired long ago and was displayed there.
As you can see from the chart, taken from the official history of TRDI (Technical Research and Development Institute) of Japanese Defense Agency (sorry it is in Japanese), they began indigenous SAM development from 31st year of Showa (1956) and in 33rd (1958) they bought Oerlikon for reference and in 35th (1960) and 36th (1961), they made the prototype SAM called TSAM-1. But the Japanese decided to introduce Nike Ajax, and later on HAWK, Nike Hercules (called Nike-J) and Patriot SAMs.

But from this year (March 2007), Japanese capital is defended by indigenous SAM, the Type03 medium range SAM. (See picture also taken by me)

EEP1A

 

[Petrus]

Thank you for information and pictures.

Best regards,
Piotr

 

[sferrin]

http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1955/1955%20-%200007.pdf



Looks like many of us will be busy the next little while.

 

[Petrus]

http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1955/1955%20-%200007.pdf



Looks like many of us will be busy the next little while.

It would be great to see the next page ;-)...

Piotr

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Did you try

http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1955/1955%20-%200008.pdf
http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1955/1955%20-%200009.pdf

;D

?

 

[Petrus]

Lots of thanks. It's very interesting.

Regards,
Piotr

 

[Pioneer]

Sorry, but I obviously missed this Interesting topic/subject!

For years I too have been looking for solid information as to the actual operation capability of the RSC/RSD-57 and RSD-58 SAM systems!
For their era they seem very attractive designs.
I can't help wonder how much post-WWII German scientific/engineering might have gone into these systems?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[cardonet]

You may try this
https://archive.org/stream/missilesrockets2195unse#page/n1551
https://archive.org/stream/missilesrockets5195unse#page/n259

 

[Pioneer]

Why thank you cardonet!
What an historical find!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

So, can anyone clarify why the RSC/RSD-57 and RSD-58 series failed to gain popularity in militaries?
Can anyone take an educated guess where the capability of the RSC/RSD-57 and RSD-58 would lay in terms of other same era SAM's please?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[r3mu511]

^if the article's info still applies that those two SAMs were still using beam-rider guidance in 1959, then accuracy-wise they would be at a disadvantage compared to a semi-active guided US mim-23 hawk which attained IOC in august 1959 (data from designationsystems.net)...

beam-riding guidance would suffer from the divergence and attenuation of the radar beam as the SAM gets closer to the target and distance from the guidance radar increases, whereas with semi-active homing guidance the SAM seeker would receive a tighter beam spread and greater power density the closer it gets to the target since it is receiving the reflected RF energy from the target's surface...

the article also states the rsc/rsd-57/58 SAMs were using liquid-fueled propulsion (with a solid-fuel version in development or "being substituted for the liquid-fuel" at the time of the article's writing), so it would be compared to something like the solid-fuel propelled US mim-23 hawk...

to it's credit the rsc/rsd would outrange the original mim-23, with the rsc/rsd rated at ">20 miles" vs. 15 miles for the mim-23-A version...

 

[cardonet]

In fact RSC and RSD gave birth to an improved (solid fueled) system named RSE that was tested during the 1960s.
https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=RSE%20Kriens%20(Missile)&item_type=topic

 

[zen]

Liquid fuel has issues, mostly due to it's corrosiveness and the dangers of handling it.
Upside is the rocket chamber is throttle-able and vector-able. Something that is harder for solid fuel rockets.

Beam riding works out to about 30nm, as Sea Slug's upgraded version proves. But depends on the warhead and fuze.

So Oerlikon failed due to no one buying it enough to get the ball rolling, and the later Kriens effort is just too late for the system's technology and too expensive.

 

[r3mu511]

^with regards to the divergence of the radar beam for beam riding guidance, one would need to take into account that the Sea Slug used a large Type 901 fire control radar of around 9 ft in diameter... this large diameter antenna apperture would give it a tighter beamwidth of around 0.9 deg (data as per Friedman's "World Naval Weapon Systems", value also ties in reasonably well to the theoretical beamwidth given by the Airy disk formula "~70*wavelength/diameter" for a wavelength at 0.033m, ie. x-band at 9 GHz)... the tighter beamwidth would mean less divergence at range which would thus aid in a beam riding missile's accuracy...

a second factor would be that the Sea Slug had a ~200 lb warhead (as compared to the ~90 lb warhead for the RSC/RSD), this would mean a larger effective kill radius hence giving a larger warhead more "wiggle" room for any accuracy losses at range...

 

[Pioneer]

Thank you gents for your knowledge!
I'm looking for a SAM system for an 'Alternative Australian Defence Forces ORBAT', on another forum and was thinking the RSC/RSD-57 and RSD-58 series might have been a good and non-aligned SAM system to counter Indonesia's Tu-16 Badger's!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Petrus]

Japanese SAMs of 1960s

In August 1958, Japanese Self Defense Force received the Oerlikon missiles for testing. At that time, they were developing indigenous surface to air missile and to fill the technological gap after the WW2, they decided to purchase missile available then for reference.
The picture was taken by me 22 years ago at the Gifu Air Base, north of Nagoya. It was retired long ago and was displayed there.
As you can see from the chart, taken from the official history of TRDI (Technical Research and Development Institute) of Japanese Defense Agency (sorry it is in Japanese), they began indigenous SAM development from 31st year of Showa (1956) and in 33rd (1958) they bought Oerlikon for reference and in 35th (1960) and 36th (1961), they made the prototype SAM called TSAM-1. But the Japanese decided to introduce Nike Ajax, and later on HAWK, Nike Hercules (called Nike-J) and Patriot SAMs.



EEP1A

In the meantime I have found (at http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/uchyuu_kaihatsu_shi/48859220.html) few pictures of early Japanese (test) missiles: TLRM-1 and TLRM-2. See attachments.

Also I have compiled some data on TLRM-2 (mostly from https://archive.org/details/Aviation_Week_1963-07-15):
Over-all length: 20.3 ft (6.187 m)
2nd state diameter: 16.5 in (0.42 m)
AUW: 730 kg (info on the missiles weight is here: http://kokkai.ndl.go.jp/SENTAKU/syugiin/038/0388/03802070388001a.html, it may be extracted using Google Translate)
1st stage thrust (solid fuel): 12,840 lb (5,825 kgp)
2nd stage thrust (liquid fuel: kerosene and nitric acid in concentric tanks): 2,200 lb (997 kgp)

TSAM-1 missile's dimensions were similar to that of TLRM-2, its weight was 'slightly' lower than that of TLRM-2, 1st stage thrust 12,540 lb (5,688 kgp), 2nd stage thrust 2,200 lb. In addition to the main delta-shaped fins of the 2nd stage TSAM-1 had also four smaller delta fins in the front part thereof (see the drawing attached to http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1898.msg16336.html#msg16336 by EEP1A).

The missiles used beam-riding guidance (possibly developed on the basis of the Oerlikon's system?).

Unfortunately it seems that there is no further informaction on these missiles on the Internet. Perhaps anyone here may add something?

Piotr

 

[cardonet]

Re: Japanese SAMs of 1960s

Unfortunately it seems that there is no further informaction on these missiles on the Internet. Perhaps anyone here may add something?

Piotr

Additional pictures
http://archive.aviationweek.com/issue/19630729/#!&pid=45

 

[Petrus]

Re: Japanese SAMs of 1960s

Additional pictures
http://archive.aviationweek.com/issue/19630729/#!&pid=45

Very interesting, thank you!

 

[Tzoli]

Did anybody able to unearth drawings of the missile, dimensions and about the launcher?

 

[moonbeamsts]

Interestingly, in the 1950s the Swiss Oerlikon company designed several surface-to-air missiles. Here are links to very few websites that contain any information on the projects:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/mx-1868.html

http://waffen-der-welt.alices-world.de/missiles/sam/ch_rsd.html

http://www.ttu.fr/site/english/endocpdf/missilesuccess2.pdf (you must scroll down up to 'RSC and Micon')

The first of the above-mentioned websites says that besides the US who bought the Oerlikon missiles for testing they were used by Sweden, Italy and Japan. Is it true? If so, did any of the coutries that had purchased them used them operationally?

I would be very grateful for any info on the Oerlikon SAMs, including their pictures.

Best regards,
Piotr

Found thishttps://www.wikiwand.com/en/RSA_(missile)

 

[madhon]

Thank you gents for your knowledge!
I'm looking for a SAM system for an 'Alternative Australian Defence Forces ORBAT', on another forum and was thinking the RSC/RSD-57 and RSD-58 series might have been a good and non-aligned SAM system to counter Indonesia's Tu-16 Badger's!

Regards
Pioneer

Which forum ?

 

[Petrus]

Did you try

http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1955/1955%20-%200008.pdf

http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1955/1955%20-%200009.pdf

Thankfully I did try and download it when it had been available (now, as you may know something is just happening at flightglobal.com and their archives cannot be accessed; personally I'm afraid they would introduce a paywall there).
Here is the article 'SWISS GUIDED MISSILE. A Revealing Description of the Oerlikon Ground-to-Air Guided Missile Type 54' from the Flight magazine of 7 January 1955.

BR
Piotr

Edit:
The Flight magazine archive is now at https://www.flightglobal.com/flight-international/flight-magazine-archive where you'll see the following annoucement:

As part of the flightglobal.com relaunch, the Flight magazine archive is undergoing maintenance to transition to our new web platform. It will be back online as soon as possible.
Thanks for your patience.

 

[Petrus]

As for the Oerlikon missiles in Japan, here is a note from the "Missiles and Rockets. Magazine of World Astronautics" of August 1957:

Mitsubishi Electric Machinery Co., Ltd., has applied to the Japanese government for permission to pay Buehle Contraves & Company of Switzerland for the patent rights for the production in Japan of Oerlikon guided missiles. A provisional agreeement gives Mitsubishi all the patent rights for the production in Japan of the Oerlikon-56 and its fire control system.
The Swiss firm is asking 8% as patent rights of the Oerlikon missiles and 5% of the revenue from sales of launchers and firing control system. The contract is to be valid for 15 years. It will be two or three years before Mitsubishi can start mass production in Japan of guided missiles because of government permits, preparations and completion of final contracts with the Swiss firm.
The Japanese Defense Agency this fall will import a complete set of Oerlikon-56 rockets and a launcher from the Swiss firm at a cost of $1,080,000 with the aim of studying and testing the Swiss weapon.

 

[Petrus]

Additional pictures

Aviation Week — July 29 1963

Explore the full July 29 1963 issue of Aviation Week. Browse featured articles, preview selected issue contents, and more.

archive.aviationweek.com

As it seems that something wrong has happened to the Aviation Week's archives and their website does not work properly, here are pictures from the "Aviation Week" of 29 July 1963 page 45.

Piotr

 

[Petrus]

(now, as you may know something is just happening at flightglobal.com and their archives cannot be accessed; personally I'm afraid they would introduce a paywall there).

It seems I was right, unfortunately: this is an e-mail I've just received from FlightGlobal that reads:

Dear Piotr, There is still time to subscribe to FlightGlobal Premium and benefit from our discounted introductory rates. From 1 July registered users will only be able to read 4 articles for free every month on FlightGlobal. Subscribe now to get full access to the latest award-winning content from FlightGlobal.

Upgrade today to secure the following benefits:​ Get access to all FlightGlobal content, including the latest from Flight International and Airline Business: US airlines take jets out of storage, add flights as recovery begins RAAF F-35s on the rise Down Under Exclusive interviews with industry thought leaders – check out big interviews with the sector’s leading players: Hear from Chief Executive Ed Sims on how WestJet reacted quickly to the virus Air Baltic CEO Martin Gauss discusses restarting operations on its modern fleet Premium Daily News alert – get commentary on the key stories of the day in our Daily Briefing newsletter sent Tuesday to Saturday Access to Flight International magazine in print or digital format plus digital editions of Flight Dailies 20 years + of stories in the FlightGlobal news archive

 

[Pioneer]

Thank you gents for your knowledge!
I'm looking for a SAM system for an 'Alternative Australian Defence Forces ORBAT', on another forum and was thinking the RSC/RSD-57 and RSD-58 series might have been a good and non-aligned SAM system to counter Indonesia's Tu-16 Badger's!

Regards
Pioneer

Which forum ?

Beyond the Sprues


Regards
Pioneer

 

[Dilandu]

Thankfully I did try and download it when it had been available (now, as you may know something is just happening at flightglobal.com and their archives cannot be accessed; personally I'm afraid they would introduce a paywall there).

Seems like Wayback Machine could help here. Just tried the link - seems working at least for specific page.

 

[Basil]

In fact RSC and RSD gave birth to an improved (solid fueled) system named RSE that was tested during the 1960s.

https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=RSE%20Kriens%20(Missile)&item_type=topic

RSE Kriens - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Petrus]

In fact RSC and RSD gave birth to an improved (solid fueled) system named RSE that was tested during the 1960s.

https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=RSE%20Kriens%20(Missile)&item_type=topic

RSE Kriens - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As for the RSE Kriens/Micon missile system, which is far less known than its predecessor by Oerlikon, it is quite interesting what guidance system it actually used.

Available sources are no so clear. English Wikipedia says "Beam control" that suggers that the missile rode up a radar beam (as Oerlikons did). German Wikipedia (which is probably a bit better informed) says "Kommando-Zieldeckungs-Lenkverfahren", which sounds quite similar to "command guidance", and http://waffen-der-welt.alices-world.de says (in German!) "Commandbeamrider" (see: http://waffen-der-welt.alices-world.de/missiles/sam/ch_micon.html).

So was it a beam-rider system? Taken into consideration that it was developed in the early 1960s it seems rather strange that the Swiss used a system that was already considered rather obsolete at that time.

It's intriguing what the waffen-der-welt.alices-world.de says on the system:

MICON (MIssile CONtraves) wurde ab 1959 entwickelte, als RSD fertig entwickelt war. MICON ist etwas größer als RSD und erhielt viele Neuerungen gegenüber dem Vorgänger. Sie wurde von einem einstufigen Feststoff-Raketenmotor mit zwei Beschleunigungsstufen angetrieben. Das Radar war in der Lage drei Lenkwaffen auf das gleiche Ziel zu steuern. Die MICON-Batterie sollte aus einer Computereinheit in einem Befehlsstand, einem Generatorfahrzeug, einem Radarwagen mit einem Rundsuch-Monopuls-Radar, einem Verfolgungsradar, zwei Richtradare und vier Doppelstarter bestehen. Das Fahrgestell des Doppelstarter basierte auf dem Fahrgestell des GDF-Flak-Systems, wie viel später auch Skyguard. Das System fand allerdings keine Kunden, war aber Mitte der 1960er Jahre voll ausentwickelt.

Translation by Google:

MICON (MIssile CONtraves) was developed from 1959, when RSD was fully developed. MICON is slightly larger than RSD and has many innovations compared to its predecessor. It was powered by a single-stage solid-fuel rocket motor with two stages of acceleration. The radar was able to steer three guided missiles towards the same target. The MICON battery was to consist of a computer unit in a command post, a generator vehicle, a radar car with a survey monopulse radar, a tracking radar, two directional radars and four dual launchers. The chassis of the double starter was based on the chassis of the GDF anti-aircraft system, as was the Skyguard much later. The system found no customers, but was fully developed by the mid-1960s.

Does anyone here know more on that?

BR
Piotr

 

[zen]

The logical answer is both. The beam is guiding the missile, but tracking of the target is separated. Thus coping with the divergence between where the target is to where the target will be when the missile arrives.
Thus the computer is predicting where the target will be, and guiding the missile towards that.

 

[Petrus]

The logical answer is both. The beam is guiding the missile, but tracking of the target is separated. Thus coping with the divergence between where the target is to where the target will be when the missile arrives.
Thus the computer is predicting where the target will be, and guiding the missile towards that.

So you mean a two-beam system, don't you?
A system that Oerlikon had used in its missiles before the Micon appeared, consisting of two radars: one tracking the target, the other guiding the missile, unlilke a single-beam arrangements used in early versions of Terrier or Sea Slug, where the missile rode up the beam tracking the target. Btw Talos had also a two-beam system with semi-active radar terminal homing.

If so the Micon wasn't a big improvement over the Oerlikon missiles.

 

[zen]

Actually separate radars for target tracking and missile guidance is quite a potent system and resolves the problem of earlier beam riding systems.
Combined tracking and guidance works over short distances/timescales because of the minor divergence of the target from where it is at launch of interceptor, to where it will be at Intercept.
It makes for a more compact snd lightweight system.

But at longer ranges/timescales, the divergence increases, and puts a combined system into forcing the intercepting missile to constantly maneuver, chasing the targets current location and loosing energy and accuracy in the process.
The difficult part is in the computer prediction algorithm based on what it receives from the target tracking radar and the accuracy of the guidance beam.
But the upside is the intercepting missile can be sent on a much more efficient flightpath. Even against crossing targets not heading towards your missile system.

 

[Dilandu]

So was it a beam-rider system? Taken into consideration that it was developed in the early 1960s it seems rather strange that the Swiss used a system that was already considered rather obsolete at that time.

Well, if all you got is a hammer... While beam-riding concept wasn't exactly top-class at this time, it was still perfectly useful, and have significant advantages (like the immunity to jamming, and the ability to - in case of radar being unable to lock on target - to aim the beam manually, using optical sight). Considering that developing anything more complex - like semi-active guidance - would require a very extensive efforts, it seems logical that Contraves decided simply to retain the available system.

 

[zen]

Considering that developing anything more complex - like semi-active guidance - would require a very extensive efforts, it seems logical that Contraves decided simply to retain the available system.

This is likely the key to why it wasn't ordered, and Bloodhound purchased instead. The Swiss weren't going to finance the computer or Target Tracking radar elements to the level of performance required. They had produced a new missile, but not the system as a whole and it's that backroom stuff, unsexy as it is, that actually turns a missile into something useful.

 

[cardonet]

In fact RSC and RSD gave birth to an improved (solid fueled) system named RSE that was tested during the 1960s.

https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=RSE%20Kriens%20(Missile)&item_type=topic

RSE Kriens - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As for the RSE Kriens/Micon missile system, which is far less known than its predecessor by Oerlikon, it is quite interesting what guidance system it actually used.

Available sources are no so clear. English Wikipedia says "Beam control" that suggers that the missile rode up a radar beam (as Oerlikons did). German Wikipedia (which is probably a bit better informed) says "Kommando-Zieldeckungs-Lenkverfahren", which sounds quite similar to "command guidance", and http://waffen-der-welt.alices-world.de says (in German!) "Commandbeamrider" (see: http://waffen-der-welt.alices-world.de/missiles/sam/ch_micon.html).

So was it a beam-rider system? Taken into consideration that it was developed in the early 1960s it seems rather strange that the Swiss used a system that was already considered rather obsolete at that time.

It's intriguing what the waffen-der-welt.alices-world.de says on the system:

MICON (MIssile CONtraves) wurde ab 1959 entwickelte, als RSD fertig entwickelt war. MICON ist etwas größer als RSD und erhielt viele Neuerungen gegenüber dem Vorgänger. Sie wurde von einem einstufigen Feststoff-Raketenmotor mit zwei Beschleunigungsstufen angetrieben. Das Radar war in der Lage drei Lenkwaffen auf das gleiche Ziel zu steuern. Die MICON-Batterie sollte aus einer Computereinheit in einem Befehlsstand, einem Generatorfahrzeug, einem Radarwagen mit einem Rundsuch-Monopuls-Radar, einem Verfolgungsradar, zwei Richtradare und vier Doppelstarter bestehen. Das Fahrgestell des Doppelstarter basierte auf dem Fahrgestell des GDF-Flak-Systems, wie viel später auch Skyguard. Das System fand allerdings keine Kunden, war aber Mitte der 1960er Jahre voll ausentwickelt.

Translation by Google:

MICON (MIssile CONtraves) was developed from 1959, when RSD was fully developed. MICON is slightly larger than RSD and has many innovations compared to its predecessor. It was powered by a single-stage solid-fuel rocket motor with two stages of acceleration. The radar was able to steer three guided missiles towards the same target. The MICON battery was to consist of a computer unit in a command post, a generator vehicle, a radar car with a survey monopulse radar, a tracking radar, two directional radars and four dual launchers. The chassis of the double starter was based on the chassis of the GDF anti-aircraft system, as was the Skyguard much later. The system found no customers, but was fully developed by the mid-1960s.

Does anyone here know more on that?

BR
Piotr

 

[Dilandu]

This is likely the key to why it wasn't ordered, and Bloodhound purchased instead. The Swiss weren't going to finance the computer or Target Tracking radar elements to the level of performance required. They had produced a new missile, but not the system as a whole and it's that backroom stuff, unsexy as it is, that actually turns a missile into something useful.

Essentially yes. They aimed mostly on export market, hoping that small & neutral countries might be interested in simpler, but cheaper missile, with no political affiliations attached. But USSR soon flooded the market with significantly more capable S-75 "Dvina", and USA started selling MIM-24 "Hawk" - and both those SAM's vastly outperformed the humble RS-series. Development of more advanced missile would took years - and Swiss engineers have reasons to assume that anything they could put on market would be outperformed with Soviet and American new development. The fact that despite many countries being interested in buying samples, no one returned for a military order, also showed that Oerlikon SAM's weren't as good as anticipated. So they decided to scrap the whole program, since it did not pays off as anticipated.

 

[Dilandu]

P.S. I wonder, would they have more sucsess if they tried to pitch the RC-series missiles to Yugoslavia? Yougoslavia at this time period was quite concerned about its nonalignment status, and thus have little ability to obtain advanced weapons from both East and West. They might actually get interested in SAM's coming from non-affiliated source...