Vern
Interesting to hear about Marham,the area highlighted is next to what was (or perhaps part of !!) the MSF (missile servicing flight) when I was at Marham in circa 1976,we had the misfortune to be moved there from Cottesmore.
I was on 231ocu and the large frying pan with the glider parked on it was one of our parking bays (i vividly remember a night engine surge up on there…very spectacular :D)
Our old (condemned/shored up) building was just out of the top of your pic (up the small footpath) and we also used the single ‘spectacles’ by the rwy threshold for parking.
Boy did the place shake when a full fuel load Victor 2 slammed full bore to get moving up to the top of the ‘hill’ (RWY).

regards baz

Well here is the Vailant and 242 Sqn site photo, and looks like the photo was taken from the ATC tower.

From what I’ve been told the building with the two sloped roof in the top right of the photo on my pervious post (just to the right of the far right HAS) was used by the 242 Sqn Missile Servicing Section, so it dates from the Bloodhound era of the Station.

A well presented piece of research but with a bit of a mis-statement at the start. There was no such thing as a Bristol Thunderbird. T-bird was a product of the Guided Weapons Division of English Electric Aviation and while it was indeed more conventional with its cruciform wing layout, it certainly was not closely related to Bloodhound. Apart from the obvious differences in power and control, there was great competitive animosity between the two teams. (I should know; I was an aerodynamicist on the EE side based at Luton and then at the GW wind tunnel at Warton.)

Indeed there were differences in size, power plant and control. However both weapons were born out of the Army’s Red Heathern studies, and at the git go were ‘Army’ Weapon projects for the same operational requirement. RAF got involved after a bun fight with the Army over operational control of UK based Air Defence assests (RAF wasn’t keen on the Army shooting long range SAM’s into the middle of thier air battles, while the Army wasn’t keen on giving control of thier forces to the RAF). Defence Council forced the issue in late 1952, and gave SAM development to the Air Ministry. Army wanted Thunderbird because it was simpler and more moblie than Bloodhound, while the RAF thought the Army’s Spec for the two systems left a lot as reguards range and method of guidance, and reckoned Bloodhound could be soupped up to meet thier requirement.

No Doubt Alertken will add a quick fire summary if he reads this post.

As for animosity between the two teams, what happened between them during the development of the Mk 1 systems was nothing compared to the in house fighting when EE and Bristol became BAC, from what I’ve read in certain documents.

Swiss Bloodhound Mk 2 Sites

The Swiss had 5 Operational Bloodhound Mk 2 sites, plus a Training unit that could be used Operationally if required.

The Swiss designation of the system was Boden-Luft-Lenkwaffen 64 (Ground to Air Guided Weapon (19)64 (year of planned service entry)), which was shortened to BL-64. The 6 sites known as Boden-Luft-Lenkwaffenstellung 64, followed by the name of the Canton in which they were located in german, hence the site’s names were shorted to BL-64 followed by the two letter code for said Canton.

Hence the sites at

Bettwil in Aargau was known as BL-64AG
Torny-le-Grand in Freiburg was known as BL-64FR
Emmen in Luzern was known as BL-64LZ
Laupersdorf in Solothurn was known as BL-64SO
Menzingen in Zug was known as BL-64ZU
Schmidrüti in Zürich was known as BL-64ZH

3 sites had 2 full Fire Units (Swiss used the BH1 term for a missile battary) with 16 launchers and two radars.

2 sites had a single fire unit with 8 launchers and one radar.

While the training unit at Emmen had one radar and four launchers.

The site at Menzingen, is actually near a village called Gubel and actually has 8 missiles on lauchers as one of the fire units on the site has been preserved as a museum (along with the scorpion radar (T87), Launch control cabin and other equipment including a fully operational simulator and a cutaway missile).

Aerial views of five of the six sites below (can’t find the Emmen site at the mo). Planeman’s aerial view of the BL-64 site at Schmidrüti, is actually the site at Bettwil (Schmidrüti only had one fire unit, like Laupersdorf).

More on Bloodhound overseas

Quite a good view of how the Swiss operated Bloodhound Mk 2 (BL-64) from hardened sites can be found on these two videos on Youtube (Audio in German).

Overseas

Swedish got Bloodhound Mk 1 for evaluation in 1960 under the local designation of Rb-365. Swedish Army trials were carried out by Luftvarnsregemente (Lv) 3 at Norrtalje. the 8 missile pads used for the trials are still on google maps. Swedish Air Force also operated a small Rb-363 trials unit at Wing F2 (much like the set up at RAF Newton). Swedish Army were not impressed with the Rb-365, and ordered the MIM-23 Hawk, while the Air Force did get the Bloodhound 2.

Luftvarnsregemente LV 3 Rb-365 site below

Misson Missile still there according to Google maps.

My father worked at Hatfield from the late 1960s until moving to the Stevenage plant in the late 1980s. Here is a photo he took of Blue Streak engine testing (I’m afraid I don’t know the year):

My late grandfather also worked at the Manor Road end of the site on Blue Streak (though he was involved in the bean counter side of things) and also later worked at Stevenage for DH Props, HSD and BAe Dynamics. My Mother told me about Blue Streak engine testing at Hatfield and how loud it was.

This is one of mine, of Hunter F6 XG210, which was being used at Hatfield in trials of some sort, during the 1979 open day:

SRAAM Trials, what later became the AIM-132 ASRAAM.