Wondering about the F-102...

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
Kevin Brooks wrote:

"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,

Definitely. I've got the MICOMA History of the Nike Hercules (and also
the
Ajax) program, and the Nike Hercules alternative nuke warhead's primary
role was
to prevent the use of bunching tactics, i.e. coming in packed together so
that
the bombers appeared as one target on the radar, but far enough apart that
a
conventional warhead would only get one of them at most, and maybe none.
The
target handling capacity of the Nike system could only engage one a/c at a
time,
thus allowing most of them through the missile's engagement envelope. The
nuke
warhead (IIRR the W-30, the same as used by Talos, and supposedly 5kt)

The nuclear weapons archive indicates the Nike herc actually used the W-31m,
which came in a total of five yields (1 thru 40 KT), with two different mods
produced for the Herc (Mod 0 and Mod 2, which I assume means that the 1 KT
and 12 KT versions were available).

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-4.html

Another source (NPS, surprisingly enoough) claims that they were fitted with
W-31's and three yield options (2-20-40 KT), and two other sources indicate
the W-31 with 2 or 40 KT. So from what i can discern, the Nike Herc carried
the W-31, and nobody can agree as to how many or what yields were offered.


You're correct on the W-31. I confess I was too lazy to dig out my copy of the
Nike Herc history to check my memory, butai quick check of the website listed
below gave the info ;-)

eliminated that option. Presumably it also served as an option of last
resort
against a single leaker ("Fail Safe", anyone?). The really funny part is
the
Army had to assure the more clueless citizens worried by living inside the
booster impact circle, that the missiles would never be launched from
their
operational sites (generally around cities) for training, and that if the
missiles ever were launched they'd have a heck of a lot more to worry
about than
the minuscule chance of having an empty rocket booster fall on their
house.

ISTR reading of a single test launch from an operational Nike site; IIRC it
was a coastal site up in New England. But that may be as suspect as the
various yields reported by different sources... We had a Nike site located
at the old Patrick Henry Airport in Newport News (the launch site was right
next to the remains of an old WWII POW camp, and the control site was
located about half a mile closer to the runways); great place to root around
as a teenager after it was shut down by the ARNG (though the missile launch
pits had been backfilled with concrete rubble). Interestingly enough, we
also had a BOMARC site operating during the same timeframe (though IIRC it
closed down a year or so earlier than the Nike site) maybe three or four
miles down the road (it is now serving multiple uses, with the admin/launch
area being the public school bus maintenance facility, and some of the ammo
bunker areas (located in an industrial/office park) being used by private
companies).

If you ever get out to the SF Bay Area, you'll enjoy touring Nike Site SF88 in
the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, just across the GG bridge from San
Francisco. It's a restored Nike Site, with docents who formerly manned this or
other Nike sites giving tours (first Sunday of each month IIRR). See the URL
he

http://ed-thelen.org/

Several years ago the then caretaker of the site, the late Col. (ret.) Milt
Halsey, allowed me to borrow the Nike historical monographs and make copies (I
see Mr. Thelen has put them on line now), as well as read as many of the tech
manuals as I wanted to (there were several hundred as I recall, so I mainly
concentrated on the ones dealing with jamming and the FCS Radar ECCM modes).

Guy