# Talk:RTV-A-2 Hiroc

What modern aircraft carries an oxidizer onboard? This section is per the dubious tag I put in the article. Kees08(Talk) 01:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It appears I misinterpreted the source, it was talking about internal fuel pods, and went on to say it also had oxidizer which was separated by a bulkhead, I have removed it. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Right, that makes more sense, thanks! Kees08(Talk) 04:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The only internet source shows it as HIROC in lieu of Hiroc; which is correct? Kees08(Talk) 02:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe both are correct, but Hiroc would be more likely to be used. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the referencing here...the third book is published by Xlibris and the fourth, Lulu. I'm pretty sure those are generally considered not to be reliable sources, per WP:SPS, unless those are specific authors considered reliable? - The Bushranger One ping only 09:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Iazyges and Maury Markowitz: who added those sources. Note there's actually an edit filter in the works to flag sources from those publishers; they really aren't acceptable sources except under very special conditions. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
@The Bushranger: well now that's a horrifyingly bad idea. Lulu is often used to do small print runs of older works, which for some reason gets them listed as the publisher although they are really just the printer. In the case here in this article, the book in question is a reprint of Rosenberg's 1964 book published by the USAF Historical Division Liaison Office. This is far from uncommon for Lulu. Can you point me to the discussion so I can express my displeasure? Maury Markowitz (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
@Maury Markowitz: Aha. Well it's not a "you can't do this", filter, more a Are you sure you want to do that Dave? kind of filter; the discussion is here. In this case, as it's a reprint of a USAF book, then it's perfectly acceptable, although I'd try (were it me) to cite it as the "original" so people like me don't go "But Lulu" when they see it.  I'm pretty sure Achieving Accuracy is WP:SPS though (it keeps coming up in gBooks searches for my work on these old missile projects, if I'm wrong I'd be delighted). - The Bushranger One ping only 03:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately that's not how it works in practice - "suggestions" on the Wiki invariably get taken up as rules. By the way, it just appeared on Archive, so this particular case is not a problem, but I don't want to have to argue it all the time. Maury Markowitz (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


### Is that a joke?
A very small, derivated missile from a V-2 that was rated at 8,000 miles range? Impossible.  
In April 1946, Convair received a 1.9 million dollar contract from the US Government to build and test ten MX-774 rocket.[7][12] This was part of a large number of missile projects being developed by the US Army at that time, which included both ballistic missiles like Hiroc, and a variety of long-range cruise missiles as well.[13] The original design of the Hiroc called for a missile that could deliver a 5,000 pounds (2,300 kg) payload 5,000 miles (8,000 km), and which had an accuracy that allowed it to deliver it to within 5,000 feet (1,500 m) of the target. The development was headed by Karel Bossart, who would go on to contribute to the creation of the Atlas rockets.[14] The MX-774 was based directly upon the design of the V2 Rocket, with several noticeable changes, such as an integrated propellant tank, swivelling engines, pressurized body, and detachable nose cap.[15]
Much more advanced missile project like Minuteman or Atlas were barely capable to do that range. The performance calculated are cleary NOT for the actual missiles built, also because the payload was 5,000 lb while the actual FULL weight was less!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.3.98 (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC) 

The RTV-A-2 HIROC was NOT the United States first attempt at an ICBM as this article states. It was utterly incapable of achieving a range of 8,000 miles with a payload of 500 pounds as claimed. In fact no Army or Air Force study of the 1940s even entertained the idea of attempting a range in excess of 5,000 miles much less any real project. The study which resulted in MX-774 originated as a study to produce a missile capable of delivering a 5,000 lb. warhead over a range of between 1,500 and 5,000 miles with a CEP of 5,000 feet. Such an accomplishment was  clearly beyond the propellants and technology of the times. With a maximum specific impulse of 338 seconds the 2885 pounds of LOX and ethanol propellants of the RTV-2-A simply could not propel 1,205 pounds of anything very far. MX-774 which produced the RTV-A-2 aka HIROC was a very early experimental vehicle. A casual glance at the specifications should make that clear as there is no way a vehicle with it's size and thrust could ever reach anywhere distant much less the 8,000 miles claimed in the Wikipedia article. Nor did it have a warhead of 500 pounds. It carried an instrument and camera package intended for parachute recovery. I realize that the person who wrote this article apparently lacks any credentials as either a historian or engineer (for no one who had a clue about the history of RTV-2-A would make such an assertion). MX-774 was canceled in favor of the Navy’s RTV-N-12 Viking in 1949 as the viking was clearly a superior research vehicle. Karel Bossart who was responsible for the design was a brilliant engineer and made many important innovations on the MX-774 including a monocoque structure design, a separable nose cone, and gimbaled rocket motors. He was later responsible for the design of the subsequent B-65 / SM-65 / CGM-16 / HGM-16 Atlas which WAS America’s first ICBM. For proof of my assertion I cite MX-774, Pages 44-50 of The Development of Ballistic Missiles in the United States Air Force 1945-1960 by Jacob Nufeld, published by the Office of Air Force History, United States Air Force, Washington D.C. 1990, ISBN 0-912799-62-5
Mark Lincoln  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:360:6670:4D8B:F184:CA11:22FB (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC) 

This article is seriously deficient in several respects and laughable in others. I am putting this notice in case any contributor wishes to disagree. First there is a general unawareness of the state of missile technology in the USA in the 1940s. Second there are some almost idiotic "facts" sated in the article. For an example there is the caption "Prototype intercontinental ballistic missile" on the photo of the RTV-A-2. It was NOT a prototype of an ICBM and the postulation it could possibly be such is ridiculous. It was as the designation states the Research Test Vehicle Army 2. There seems to be much confusion over what various programs were during the 1940s. The RTV-A-3 (NATIV) was not anything  but a research vehicle either though it was a product of MX-770 as was the B-64/SM-64 missile. The MX-774 program was the research effort the exact objective of which changed. The only flight vehicle the MX-774 program produced was the RTV-A-2 which was also known as the Hiroc. The RTV-A-2 was not based upon the V-2 in fact it was a repudiation of the V-2 design with it's gimbaled four chamber XLR-35-RM-1 engine, monocoque fuselage and separable payload. The V-2 used a turbo pump to provide fuel flow while the RTV-A-2 used pressurized fuel tanks. They both had fins . . .
The Truman Doctrine was not the cause of the Black Christmas of 1946 a the article states. The Truman Doctrine was not announced until March 1947. Black Christmas was the result of massive defense budget reductions caused by the end of WWII and the anticipation of the return of peacetime budgeting. The defense budget plummeted to less than a quarter of what it had been in 1945. The RTV-A-2 was a product of the MX-774 program but it was not THE MX-774 program. Finally the assertion it had a range of 8,000 miles is absurd and only an idiot could imagine any rocket weighing 1,200 lbs with less than 3,000 pounds of fuel and a specific impulse of around 203 seconds could have a range is so ridiculous that one must question the credulity of iQ of the person who wrote such drivel. This article needs an extensive reality check.
By the way for a reality check I supply the following examples of the vast changes in the USAF guided missile program of the 1940s.
Source: AF and the National Guided Missile Program 1944-1950 AFD-110321-029
The Army Air Force Guided Missile Program April 1946 (p76)
MX-770 North American 500 mi winged rocket - (Nativ, Navajo)
MX-771A Martin 175-500 mi subsonic (Matador)
MX-771B Martin 175-500 mi supersonic
MX-172A Curtis-Wright 500-1500 mi subsonic
MX-172B Curtis-Wright 500-1500 mi supersonic
MX-173A Republic 500-1500 mi subsonic
MX-173B Republic 500-1500 mi supersonic
MX-174A Convair 1500-5000 mi subsonic
MX-174B Convair 1500-5000 mi supersonic
MX-175A Northrop 500-1500 mi subsonic (Snark)
MX-175B Northrop 500-1500 mi supersonic (Boojum)
MX-767 Air Material Command Modification of B-29 to attack drone

Black Christmas
The Army Air Force Guided Missile Program March 1947 (p79)
MX-770 North American 500 mi winged rocket - (Nativ, Navajo)
MX-771A Martin 175-500 mi subsonic (Matador)
MX-172B Curtis-Wright 150 mi supersonic changed to meet AAF-AGF military characteristics
MX-173B Republic 1,500 mi supersonic ramjet or rocket
MX-174B Convair 1500-5000 mi supersonic
MX-175B Northrop 500-1500 mi supersonic (Boojum)
MX-767 Air Material Command Modification of B-29 to attack drone

Revised July 1947 (p83)
MX-770 North American 500 mi winged rocket - (Navajo I)
MX-771A Martin 500 mi subsonic (Matador)
— North American 1,500 mi supersonic ramjet to follow MX-770 - (Navajo II)
MX-775B Northrop 5000 mi supersonic turbojet (Boojum)
— North American 5,00 mi supersonic ramjet to follow Navajo II (Navajo III)
MX-767 Air Material Command Modification of B-29 to attack drone

Revised March 1948 (p117)
MX-770 North American 1000 mi test vehicle, followed by a 3,000 mi test vehicle, followed by 5,000 mi missile rocket dropped as propulsion - (Navajo)
MX-771A Martin 500 mi subsonic turbojet (Matador)
MX-775A Northrop 5000 mi subsonic Snark  followed by supersonic turbojet
MX-767 Air Material Command Banshee, modification of B-29 to attack drone

Revised July 1949 (p118)
MX-770 North American 1000 mi test vehicle, to be followed by a 1,700 mi air launched version and a  5,500 mi surface launched missile - (Navajo)
MX-775A Northrop 5000 mi subsonic Snark followed by supersonic turbojet
MX-767 Air Material Command Banshee, modification of B-29 to attack drone

Revised July 1950 (p150)
MX-770 North American 1000 mi air launched missisle, followed by a 3,000 mi test vehicle, followed by 5,000 mi missile rocket dropped as propulsion - (Navajo)
MX-775A Northrop 5000 mi subsonic Snark downgraded to development of guidance
MX-767 Air Material Command Banshee, modification of B-29 to attack drone
Mark Lincoln (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The missile in this article was the RTV-A-2 Hiroc, not the MX-774 as the latter designation was for the program under which it was developed. See "The Air Force And The National Guided Missile Program 1944-1950" by Max Rosenberg, USAF Historical Division Liaiaon Office, 1964.  The Type description is a quote from Lloyd Stanley who was one of the engineers who was a participant in the program from beginning to end (see Atlas The Ultimate Weapon" ISBN-1-894959-18-3 page 16). The "range" given in the block prior to my edit was absurd. The data block was targeted first because the misrepresentations, while understandable if due to inadequate research, were so blatantly bad. The confusion of the RTV-A-2 with the MX-774 program which produced it has become commonplace but is wrong. Should Wikipedia repeat common errors or should hew to the truth?
Mark Lincoln (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I have made extensive revisions. There were significant errors and omissions. While a previous editor had cited Neufeld "The Development of Ballistic Missiles in the United States Air Force 1945-1960" none had apparently ever read Rosenberg's much more germain "The Air Force and the National Guided Missile Program 1944-1950." Not cited is Mary Self's "Early experimental guided missiles" as it could add nothing specific. I did not change the citation of Neufeld's “The Development of Ballistic Missiles in the United States Air Force 1945-1960" though why any taxpayer would purchase the 1990 rip off of the document when it is freely and readily available from the Department of Defense for free I do not know. There are things I could have documented through other sources but I did not alter the citations given by previous editors unless there was a very good reason.
Mark Lincoln (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Thought I would give you a ping in case you had time to collaborate with Mark Lincoln. Thanks for your time so far Mark. Kees08 (Talk) 00:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I decided to add some final polishing to this article today. My personal library on the early guided middle era and the early space age is considerable and I could add much more to the RTV-A-2 article. The article is not a history of the MX-774 program or the early guided missile program of the Army Air Force/USAF. Still I felt that a bit more was needed to be stated about the origin, development, flight test and results of the program which was on of the most significant of its age despite never having a fully successful flight. Because of the subsequent Atlas (MX-1593, WS-107A, B-65, SM-65) from Convair the RTV-A-2 (MX-774B) is often treated retrospectively as a footnote or mere prelude when it was an important step in developing guided missile technology and represented a significant improvement over the  technology of the Germans. If I had to pick I would recommend Kennedy as the single best single coverage of the program. I would also recommend the same source for the elusive NATIV. The era of early rocketry in the United States is difficult to research. Writing of it for Wikipedia is constrained by Wikipedia standards rejecting the dreaded Original Research. Thus the closest to the source information I can cite are from Rosenberg, Kennedy, Neufeld or another published history rather than actual source material they used. The Wikipedia article now has sufficient information to inform a reader and sufficient documentation to provide persons researching the subject to pursue the subject.
Mark Lincoln (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Mark Lincoln (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)