![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Mark" wrote in message m... Have wondered whether the thinking behind the design was to engage multiple bombers (i.e. a formation) with one weapon.... That might have been a more applicable reason behind the larger warheads you found in the SAM's like Bomarc and Nike Hercules, but not in the case of the Genie, or especially in the case of the meager warhead yield of the nuclear Falcon. Genie had an assured destruction radius of something like 300 meters, IIRC--not likely to get a lot of aircraft that way, though it does kind of make it hard for the single aircraft you are shooting at to evade it (and as it was unguided, no countermeasures could be effective against it). Falcon only had around one-sixth the yield of Genie. Somehow I can't picture B-17 type formations of Bears coming down from the north (more like multiple aircraft flying multiple/coordinated routes), but you never know??? The threat was assumed to more likely be single penetrators, I think. Brooks Mark "Cub Driver" wrote in message ... On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 23:11:48 GMT, "Harley W. Daugherty" wrote: Also the mission profile during a nuclear war left a LOT to be desired. Did it in fact carry nuclear-tipped missiles? (What *were* we thinking?) all the best -- Dan Ford email: see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I was wondering | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 2 | August 6th 03 04:38 AM |