State of the Art, 1963

In message , Bill
Silvey writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
news
Against which platforms? Some are designed to survive it, otheres have
not heard of it.

Well that's the rub, isn't it? Again we go back to the issue of not all
that maneuverable bombers versus agile tactical fighters or medium bombers.

Modern kit tends to be designed to live through EMP, TREE and the other
nasty effects of a nuclear weapon. (As Walt points out, flash blindness
may remain a problem - and this presupposes no lethal blast or heat
damage)

Which gets you to the same conclusion as most other theatres... if you
need that much targetting, you can kill da bum with HE.

Right...but the point is, with an area-effect weapon like a Genie it wasn't
needed. Kablammo.

Still got to aim it at the right piece of sky. Fighters are small and
the sky is large.

Air to air tacnukes were designed to be fired at formations of slow,
lumbering Soviet bombers coming across the DEW line, not fast, agile
fighters.

Or bombers with decent (by 1960s standard) ECM.

How would ECM have deferred an unguided weapon like the Genie?

It wouldn't, which is a reason why you'd want Genie rather than a
radar-guided missile.

Except a Genie took up three Falcon slots. (How many Sidewinders could
you put on a rack in place of three Falcons or one Genie?)

But how many Sidewinders would it take to kill a bomber?

One, when a freak accident got an AIM-9 fired at a B-52 during training.
(Small sample size, I know...)

And for that
matter, how much fuel for maneuvering in to place would you have after a
fast burn to range, to get the bombers before they could even drop *near* a
big city, never mind their primary or secondary targets?

Your weapons work or they don't; a second pass is a nice-to-have but
don't count on having time, fuel or ordnance to make it.
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk