AIR-2A Genie on F-104 true or false ?

Peter Stickney wrote:

[The] F-4's radar and FCS couldn't, in
its stock form, compute the launch and intercept points for the Genie,
or perform the electrical octoflugerons needed to set the Genie's
timers.

"Octoflugerons"?! Okay, I'll bite: WTF is an octoflugeron when it's at
home?
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

In article ,
Andrew Chaplin writes:
Peter Stickney wrote:

[The] F-4's radar and FCS couldn't, in
its stock form, compute the launch and intercept points for the Genie,
or perform the electrical octoflugerons needed to set the Genie's
timers.

"Octoflugerons"?! Okay, I'll bite: WTF is an octoflugeron when it's at
home?

The name my instructors drilled into me for an impressive, although
unintended maneuver, such as, say, spinning over the top while trying
to core a thermal (Not being too coordated, and stalling the upside
wing (Left turn, right wing, for example. It's Natures Way of telling
you to pay more attention. Or pulling too much over the top of a loop
in a T-6 and snapping out of it. Wake turbulence can be good for
premium Octoflugeron performance.

In the case of the AIR-2, the timer for detonation was basically a
specially tuned RLC (Resistance, Inductance, Capacitor) circuit. The
Fire COntrol System of the launching airplane figured out how long the
rocket would take to reach the target, and charge the capacitors to
the appropriate value. If all the appropriate conditions were met,
the warhead would detonate when the voltage dropped to a certain
level. The FCS for a Genie equipped airplane had to be able to track
the target, compute the proper pull-up point for the preferred snap-up
attack - it could also attack co-altitude - and figure the launch
point and flight time. With a flight time on the order of 5-10
seconds, a 2G maneuvering target like a bomber wasn't going to get out
of the way, once the rocket fired. The interceptor would be breaking
away and down, with the cockpit opposite the target. Since the Genie
required no guidance, you didn't have to follow it in. (Very much
Lanch and Leave) The AIM-26 (Nuclear Falcon, whic was an option for
some F-102s in the early/mid-'60s) mist have been a real fun trip.
The warhead was very small, with a kill radius of about 250 ft.
(About the same as a big AAM like a Sparrow or Phoenix) One of the
problems with the Falcon series was that they weren't able to work out
a proximity fuze - the missile had to actually hit the target to
detonate. (And they don't call them miss-iles for nothing) Making a
proximity fuze that will work through the range of aspect angles and
closing speeds that a missile has (As opposed to an AAA shell, which
is always coming up from below at some huge speed, and, since its dirt
cheap, tends to be fired in swarms) is a difficult task - you've got
to integrate the closing speeds, miss distance, the speed that the
warhead fragments will be travelling, the shape of the fragment cloud
- and, for all I know, whether the missile techs had garlic for lunch,
in order to have the fuze determine the right point to set things off.

With a "fragment cloud" that travels at pretty much the speed of
light, as with the radiation from a baby nuke, you don't have that
problem. You do, however, have to keep teh nose pointed toward the
target enough for the missile to see the radar reflection and guide.
So, you've got to fly toward your nuclear blast, once you've pulled
the trigger. Not fun at all - teh light from the fireball would still
be enough to blind you, if the flash curtains aren't as good as they
think they are.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Andrew Chaplin writes:
Peter Stickney wrote:

[The] F-4's radar and FCS couldn't, in
its stock form, compute the launch and intercept points for the Genie,
or perform the electrical octoflugerons needed to set the Genie's
timers.
.



That was the problem with the F104A launching an AIR2A Genie. It's
ASG14T1 radar (highly resembling an AI10 AI set from WW2) didn't even
have a computer. It didn't angle track, either - the pilot did that.
It did have range track and an overtake indicating needle but there
was no precision output reading in range. Some more boxes would have
been needed to get a Genie to go off at the right spot; TLAR wouldn't
have hacked it.
BTW the AIM26A Fat Falcon did have a prox fuze; unfortunately it was
determined that chaff would most likely have set it off so we had to
do odd offset attacks to keep the missile out of the chaff trail. Like
the Genie-launchers, our bellies would have been facing the FF when it
went off. Best use I'd heard for the Genie rocket motors was the idea
to screw a CBU24 to its front and use it for flak supression. Would
have beat a ballistic drop all hollow - nice stand-off weapon!
Walt BJ ex-Deuce driver
Walt BJ

In article ,
(WaltBJ) writes:

That was the problem with the F104A launching an AIR2A Genie. It's
ASG14T1 radar (highly resembling an AI10 AI set from WW2) didn't even
have a computer. It didn't angle track, either - the pilot did that.
It did have range track and an overtake indicating needle but there
was no precision output reading in range. Some more boxes would have
been needed to get a Genie to go off at the right spot; TLAR wouldn't
have hacked it.

Yeah - the same Genie interface issues would have occurred - I can't
see them sticking an MG-13 in an F-104.
One thing I've been wondering - given the way that the ASG-14 worked,
and its presentation, how hard was it to sort out multiple targets in
its field of view? I can see some potential for real problems, there.

BTW the AIM26A Fat Falcon did have a prox fuze; unfortunately it was
determined that chaff would most likely have set it off so we had to
do odd offset attacks to keep the missile out of the chaff trail. Like
the Genie-launchers, our bellies would have been facing the FF when it
went off. Best use I'd heard for the Genie rocket motors was the idea
to screw a CBU24 to its front and use it for flak supression. Would
have beat a ballistic drop all hollow - nice stand-off weapon!

Yeah - If I were in a "Picking on Hughes" mode, I'd say that a nuke
was the only way that Hughes could get a Prox Fuze to work. That is
slightly unkind - Missile prox fuzes are something that still gives
trouble, and designers still throw up their hands on them, One good
example is the Rapier SAM. They couldn't make a prox fuze for the
first generations, so they made the Marketing Decision to call it a
"Hittile", adn claim that it didn't need one. Oddly enough, when the
second generation Rapiers came out, it had a prox fuze, and all the
"Hittile" talk went away. SA-2s and Nikes were all, AFAIK, command
detonated. They didn't have the space to fit the necessary smarts in
the missile, so they left it up to the guidance computer.

I wonder what the guys flying the F-101s thought. Their options were
2 AIM-4s and 2 Genies. That sounds like a choice between Probably
Miss and really upsetting somebody on the ground's day.

Walt BJ ex-Deuce driver
Thanks, Walt, I was hoping you'd pick it up.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

(Peter Stickney) wrote:

"Octoflugerons"?! Okay, I'll bite: WTF is an octoflugeron when it's at
home?

The name my instructors drilled into me for an impressive, although
unintended maneuver, such as, say, spinning over the top while trying
to core a thermal (Not being too coordated, and stalling the upside
wing (Left turn, right wing, for example. It's Natures Way of telling
you to pay more attention.

Ain't that the truth? The first time I ever went practicing
accelerated stalls by myself, the Citabria evidently found me wanting
at the rudder. It promptly slapped me in the head with about 120
degrees of roll, about 70 degrees of pitch, and maybe 150 degrees of
yaw, all before I could catch a breath. It was exactly the way you
said: over the top to the right side. I'll never forget that.

I was quite fully attentive, very rapidly.


Billy

http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php

Octaflugeron? Is that what happened to me on my first T6 solo ride
when I tried my first loop, way ahead of the syllabus? It was going
well until the amount of back stick I was holding disagreed with the
amount of airspeed left and suddenly I'd completed a very abrupt and
uncoordinated immelmann involving about ninety degrees of ehading
change.
BTW multiple targets in the 104A were no problem - if it was chaff the
bogey was up at the front of the parade. If there was more than one
airplane you took them in order. Note that the bird and its weapons
were optimized for stern attack, and it could catch anything flying
back then. It was not a completely IFR interceptor but it was amazing
how well it coped with thin clouds. The missile seekers were
boresighted with the radar so they would growl when they saw enough IR
- all you had to do was boresight the radar on the target - that is,
have it painting a complete circle in range track mode, and the AIM9
seekers were lined up on him. In addition, if the viz was anything at
all, the IR scanner would show a cross and the intersection was where
his tailpipe was. on a multi-jet, in close, you got a vertical strobe
where each engine was, in close. Only 4 on a 52 because it couldn't
resolve the paired exhausts. Using the IR scanner you could shoot a
blacked-out target at night because all you had to do was fly the
pipper onto the intersection of the strobes and with a radar lockon,
check the range (in guns it read out in feet; in missiles, miles) and
shoot. Well thought out, simple, reliable, accurate. Why did we not
clone Kelly Johnson?
Walt BJ

Walt - any time in the 331st FIS ?
Jack G.