Wondering about the F-102...

"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

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...
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.


People could (and did) stand under a Genie explosion. Your post reminded of
the July 19, 1957 test where just that thing happened. The publicity shot
arranged by Colonel Barney Oldfield was famous at the time. I tried to find
the best site on the web for a description but it appears to no longer be
there, just mentions of it.

On a sadder note I just found out my friend Barney died within the last few
months. See
http://nebraska.statepaper.com/vnews.../3fe1a44fa2747
or http://www.oldfields.org/ .

Regards,

Tex Houston

"Tex Houston" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...
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.


People could (and did) stand under a Genie explosion. Your post reminded
of
the July 19, 1957 test where just that thing happened. The publicity shot
arranged by Colonel Barney Oldfield was famous at the time. I tried to
find
the best site on the web for a description but it appears to no longer be
there, just mentions of it.

The photos are in the latter of the two sites you provided links to--go to
"military", then the "Korea-NORAD" pages--you have to click on the rather
fancy righthand arrowpoints to page through the section, but you will
eventually get to them.

Brooks


On a sadder note I just found out my friend Barney died within the last
few
months. See

http://nebraska.statepaper.com/vnews.../3fe1a44fa2747
or http://www.oldfields.org/ .

Regards,

Tex Houston

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)
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.

Guy

"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.


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). We also had F-106's (and later F-15A's) from the 48th FIS
sitting alert maybe ten or twelve miles away at Langley AFB, and another
Nike herc site across the river at FT Story in Virginia Beach. We were one
well protected chunk of geography. Of course, the area had a lot of rather
densely packed high value targets (Langley, home of TAC and also IIRC an
EC-135 Looking Glass site; Norfolk and its naval and naval air station
facilities, Little Creek amphib base, Yorktown Naval weapons depot, Ft
Eustis (which we invariably called "Useless", FT Monroe (which had
additional protection, being the last active Army post complete with
*moat*), etc.

Brooks


Guy

From: "Kevin Brooks"

Of course, the area had a lot of rather
densely packed high value targets (Langley, home of TAC and also IIRC an
EC-135 Looking Glass site; Norfolk and its naval and naval air station
facilities, Little Creek amphib base, Yorktown Naval weapons depot, Ft
Eustis (which we invariably called "Useless", FT Monroe (which had
additional protection, being the last active Army post complete with
*moat*), etc.

Brooks


The 135s were KCs with TWA and battle staff functions. We used the KC-135 T.O.s
instead of the EC-135. They flew standard KC as well as Scopelight missions.
Scopelight was the east coast version of Looking Class and flew the battle
staff and CIC Atlantic. The air crew were 6 ACCS. There were similar missions
based in England and the Pacific. The names of which I forget.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Kevin Brooks"

Of course, the area had a lot of rather
densely packed high value targets (Langley, home of TAC and also IIRC an
EC-135 Looking Glass site; Norfolk and its naval and naval air station
facilities, Little Creek amphib base, Yorktown Naval weapons depot, Ft
Eustis (which we invariably called "Useless", FT Monroe (which had
additional protection, being the last active Army post complete with
*moat*), etc.

Brooks


The 135s were KCs with TWA and battle staff functions. We used the KC-135
T.O.s
instead of the EC-135. They flew standard KC as well as Scopelight
missions.
Scopelight was the east coast version of Looking Class and flew the battle
staff and CIC Atlantic. The air crew were 6 ACCS. There were similar
missions
based in England and the Pacific. The names of which I forget.

Thanks for the clarification. Would that difference explain the unholy
reverberations (for those of us below the flightpath) that accompanied their
takeoffs, in that they used the water injection of the KC?

Brooks

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

From: "Kevin Brooks"


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Kevin Brooks"

Of course, the area had a lot of rather
densely packed high value targets (Langley, home of TAC and also IIRC an
EC-135 Looking Glass site; Norfolk and its naval and naval air station
facilities, Little Creek amphib base, Yorktown Naval weapons depot, Ft
Eustis (which we invariably called "Useless", FT Monroe (which had
additional protection, being the last active Army post complete with
*moat*), etc.

Brooks


The 135s were KCs with TWA and battle staff functions. We used the KC-135
T.O.s
instead of the EC-135. They flew standard KC as well as Scopelight
missions.
Scopelight was the east coast version of Looking Class and flew the battle
staff and CIC Atlantic. The air crew were 6 ACCS. There were similar
missions
based in England and the Pacific. The names of which I forget.

Thanks for the clarification. Would that difference explain the unholy
reverberations (for those of us below the flightpath) that accompanied their
takeoffs, in that they used the water injection of the KC?

Brooks



That li'l ole noise? Yep, nothing beats the sound of a KC-135 on water. When we
did engine trims the people at CBPO took a strong dislike to us. The trim tab
was near there and the wind seemed to always be from the proper direction to
ensure the engine exhausts were pointed right at CBPO. Kind of rattled the
windows a tad.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Kevin Brooks"


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Kevin Brooks"

Of course, the area had a lot of rather
densely packed high value targets (Langley, home of TAC and also IIRC
an
EC-135 Looking Glass site; Norfolk and its naval and naval air station
facilities, Little Creek amphib base, Yorktown Naval weapons depot, Ft
Eustis (which we invariably called "Useless", FT Monroe (which had
additional protection, being the last active Army post complete with
*moat*), etc.

Brooks


The 135s were KCs with TWA and battle staff functions. We used the
KC-135
T.O.s
instead of the EC-135. They flew standard KC as well as Scopelight
missions.
Scopelight was the east coast version of Looking Class and flew the
battle
staff and CIC Atlantic. The air crew were 6 ACCS. There were similar
missions
based in England and the Pacific. The names of which I forget.

Thanks for the clarification. Would that difference explain the unholy
reverberations (for those of us below the flightpath) that accompanied
their
takeoffs, in that they used the water injection of the KC?

Brooks



That li'l ole noise? Yep, nothing beats the sound of a KC-135 on water.
When we
did engine trims the people at CBPO took a strong dislike to us. The trim
tab
was near there and the wind seemed to always be from the proper direction
to
ensure the engine exhausts were pointed right at CBPO. Kind of rattled the
windows a tad.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Yeah, and they did indeed rattle the windows at the homestead when they
passed overhead. Much worse than even the F-106's on a scramble. But for
sheer noise, the guys next door to you at LRC/NASA had you beat by a
mile--ever hear the sound involved when they uncorked the high speed
windtunnel for a test? We lived over near Deer Park, and when the ambient
noise was down and the conditions were right we could hear it at the house.

Brooks

All y'all worrying about air defense nuke missile airbursts ought to
get a copy of "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons" and in (my 1957 copy)
Chapter 9 you will learn a lot about fallout. The drift of the fallout
in a wind is something quite disturbing, even in a 15 mph wind, which
for a 1 MT fission weapon results in lethal dosages hundreds of miles
downwind. That was why NORAD went to 'bombkiller' nuclear missiles, to
try to prevent that from happening.
Walt BJ