Here's some interesting work ongoing in Libya removing IRFNA from missiles.
Pete
Pete
British Ordnance Collectors Network
Join over 14,000 collectors of inert military ordnance. Get expert identification help for shells, fuzes, grenades, and more — plus access our classifieds marketplace and decades of archived knowledge. Free to register, takes seconds.
Ongoing Disposal Work in Libya
- Thread starter peteblight
- Start date
There is an accident waiting to happen. IRFNA (Inhibited Red Fuming Nitric Acid) is an extremely aggressive oxidizer, willing to use virtually any organic material as a fuel. Back when we still used it (Lance and earlier) we occasionally had to vent tanks and such, but it was always done remotely unless an extreme emergency. Standing around during a cloud release like this was always considered a very poor career move.
We did some sampling work with IRFNA a number of years ago, the liquid was so corrosive it melted the glass instruments we were using for sampling. From memory the only materials resistant were PTFE and Aluminum.
Pete
Pete
This was probably due to the inhibiting agent (0,5 % Hydrofluoric acid). This is added to Melange to enable the use of chromium steel and aluminum equipment. The Hydrofluoric acid forms a thin layer of stable fluoride, thus perventing further corrosion (passivation effect). On the other hand, the Hydrofluoric acid attacks glassware after some time.
Oh, and be sure to use the proper safety gloves while handling RFNA. Otherwise this might happen:
[video=youtube;UHNkil-zOaI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHNkil-zOaI[/video]
Last edited:
I noticed the man in the foreground on the first photo is not wearing a full-face mask. I wonder whether he still has a face. I was one of several instructors who used to teach Lance de-tanking procedures at the UK's Army School of Ammo, to NATO students. As part of the training we used to visit a certain place complete with resident (not so) mad scientist and were invited to briefly sniff some UDMH (unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine - fuel for Lance, smells like rotten fish) but not the IRFNA I think. The course ended in Exercise Safe Drain, where the students de-tanked a simulated propellant from a notional Lance missile at a rail crash site. The draining normally went ok but the students' confidence in the 1950s self contained breathing apparatus was never very high. Its operation relied on the wearer breathing out enough moisture to start and maintain a chemical reaction with a caustic chemical in a cage on their back, to produce oxygen. Oh and once one of my legs was crushed by one of the pallets - my own silly fault for being in the way. I thought the US plan to deal with damaged Lance missilies in uninhabited out of the way places by pumping .50 MG fire into them was a fast, safe and fun way to make the scene safe. Fond memories!
Does anyone know how much IRFNA a Scud B holds?
Cheers
Cheers
Thanks Yodamaster, do you have a reference for that?
Cheers
Pete
Cheers
Pete
Mass of the empty rocket with warhead 269A (nuclear warhead) - 2076 kg.
Mass of the full rocket with warhead 269A (nuclear warhead) - 5862 kg.
5862-2076 = 3786kg - it`s rocket fuel+oksigen (during +15 degree by Celsius).
Last edited:
I heard that Lance had a problem whereby the ablative coating on the inside of the IRFNA tank degraded to a point where a thick sludge or particulate caused blockages in the rocket motor, which in turn caused the missile to be a `drop short', at NAMFI (NATO Missile Firing Installation). This was because there was insufficient IRFNA to mix with the UDMH in the motor and thrust could not be maintained. I believe the shelf life was therefore reduced to ten years. The question then is, how do you detank that without clogging the detanking equipment? By use of .50" in a remote location? Has the same problem been experienced with other systems that use IRFNA?
I seem to recall that the RSP/detank procedure that we were instructed in when dealing with drop shorts involved the judicious use of a .50 round as you have said.
I was never lucky enough to witness a Lance launch. I'm sure that the detanking processess portrayed above in Libya are as safe as possible but I would be a bit concerned about the number of staff present during the operation.
This problem was well known in the second half of the 80s. While at White Sands Missile Range a program was conducted that tested many "off-the-shelf" missiles between 1985-1989. We hated the system at that time, as a significant number did exactly as described and "dropped short". The closest one I personally observed hit about 75 meters from the launcher. Our procedures were to give it 12 hours, then vent the tanks. This was done by donning a Scott Air Pack and dropping a 1.25lb charge (M112 block) of C4 on the lower (rear) third of the missile and detonating it by radio control (XM122). Most of these missiles carried M74 submunitions and they were frequently scattered over a small area, but this was not seen as a major problem due to the range area and our normal submunition workload.
I worked periodic support missions at NAMFI from 1983-85 while stationed at the 16th EOD in Athens - while I never saw Lance fired from the range there, I would be surprised if there was a problem. Nearly every system was fired from the leading portion of the launch area, and it took very little to make it to the edge of the cliff. 300m + down the cliff would vent most any tanks.
I worked periodic support missions at NAMFI from 1983-85 while stationed at the 16th EOD in Athens - while I never saw Lance fired from the range there, I would be surprised if there was a problem. Nearly every system was fired from the leading portion of the launch area, and it took very little to make it to the edge of the cliff. 300m + down the cliff would vent most any tanks.