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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"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? It could carry the low yield AIM-26A Falcon had a W-54 warhead with a reported yield of .25 kT; the missile was pulled from service in 1971. The AIR-2 Genie unguided rocket, with a larger W-25 at between 1 and 2 kT, was also fielded, carried by the F-89, F-101, and F-106. Genie was not retired until the F-106 left the interceptor force in favor of the F-4 and later F-15A. (What *were* we thinking?) That we were acheiving a much greater assurance of destroying an *inbound* and much larger nuclear payload than the then-current crop of conventional guided missiles afforded, that's what. Brooks all the best -- Dan Ford email: see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:
"Cub Driver" wrote: Did it in fact carry nuclear-tipped missiles? It could carry the low yield AIM-26A Falcon had a W-54 warhead with a reported yield of .25 kT; the missile was pulled from service in 1971. The AIR-2 Genie unguided rocket, with a larger W-25 at between 1 and 2 kT, was also fielded, carried by the F-89, F-101, and F-106. Genie was not retired until the F-106 left the interceptor force in favor of the F-4 and later F-15A. (What *were* we thinking?) That we were acheiving a much greater assurance of destroying an *inbound* and much larger nuclear payload than the then-current crop of conventional guided missiles afforded, that's what. Gotta' ask Ford...where were you in '62? We came damn close to armageddon while we were stationed at Elmendorf AFB (Alaska) when Dad was flying the ol' Deuce with the famed 317th FIS. After Kennedy was shown the reconnaissance photos of Soviet nuclear missile installations in Cuba, we (that is, everyone but my ol' man who was of course, away pulling alert somewhere) were ordered to move into the basement which was fully stocked with a 3-week supply of canned goods and bottled water supposedly serving as our "bomb shelter." |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Cub Driver
wrote: 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?) That a 1 kT airburst is a lot better than 100MT cumulative load dropped on Los Angeles, New York, Seattle, etc. I was just a lad then, but I understand the paranoia of the times and try not to second-guess the guys who had all the facts and also all the limitations, both technical and political. -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Have wondered whether the thinking behind the design was to engage multiple
bombers (i.e. a formation) with one weapon.... 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??? 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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
For Dan Ford - permission granted. Need one addition. Somehow I elided
part of a sentence right after citing its straightaway speeds. I first flew the Deuce in 1958 - it was sprightly then. Buy the tinme it was being phased out the engines had lost some oomph (either compressor 'moss' or the maintainers had turned down the wick) easy to do; the adjustment is on the bottom of the fuel control) and I doubt if any Deuce could reach 1.3 M by then. As for the nuke picture - the GAR11/AIM26 aka the Fat Falcon had a bout a freight car load of TNT yield - rather smaller than 0.25KT. AMAF the same warhead (W54) as the ADM. Its prpose was to destroy the enemy weapons, not teh carry vehicle - that was a 'collateral' kill. I supose you could say it was teh first neutron bomb because the neutron flux from detonation was intended to initiate enough of a reaction in the enemy active material to raise its temperature enough to melt the material and/or explode the conventional explosives and thus prevent full design yield from being obtained. Thsi was importannt since the obvious step of arming the weapons once over enemy territory (USA/Canada) had to be acknowledged. This, of course, to prevent possible salvage of the valuable active material from an undetonated weapon if the carrier was downed. As for the 20 MT TNW, yes, we were briefed. Since the fireball is about 39,000 feet in diameter, it didn't matter much if it was air or ground burst. Mike, I was in the 326 FIS at RG AFB (KC, MO) when the Cuban Crisis started. About 30 minutes after JFK signed off we were heading for Grand Island, Nebraska in 6 Deuces, each with 2xAIM26 aboard, leaving our families back home. RG AFB's northern border was KC's 150th Street so that gave us thought also. Yes we had food and water in the basement but KC was too close, and Forbes' Atlas missile sites were west too close too. ADC doctrine at the time also incorporated ram tactics, so we were one thoughtful bunch of troops. Later on we were down at Homestead AFB with 20 birds, all set to be dayfighters (!) and top cover (!) for the 100s and 105s who were to transform Cuba into a parking lot. Never saw a MiG but we got one hell of a lot of flying - 1800 hours in one (1!) month, flying CAP for the recce birds and scrambling on anything that flew. Many a private pilot missing his ADIZ time got a surprise when he looked around and saw a 60 foot long Deuce sitting about 20 feet off his wing reading his reg number to the GCI folks. Interesting times . . . . Additional remarks about the Deuce - that RAF type commented on handling characteristics. With the yaw damper OFF top speed was limited to about .85 because as you got transsonic the bird would start an impressive dutch roll that got worse at you neared .95 and you couldn't stop it without slowing down. Dampers on, it was smooth and stable. It could be flown at low mach (.6) without any dampers but like the Zipper wallowed a bit. As you got above .9 the aero center moving aft required nose-up trim. Also I believe the RAF type flew a Deuce with the old Case X wing, with the upturned tips. The Case XX conical ca,bered wing (turned down leading edge) was retrofittted to all and it was much improved on touchdown having a very noticeable ground effect cushion and a faster cruise for the same power setting. The Deuce, like the 101 and the 6, got the IRSTS mod. This system was well worth its cost since it was essentially ECM-proof and totally undetectable. It also cross-moded with the radar in ways that gave great flexibility in tactics. Main trouble with the IRSTS, outside of leaking coolant, was that it picked up every IR source including sun reflections, the moon, and its own pitot heat (but that only on the ground). Cross-checking with radar told you what you had, though. BTW, Dan, feel free to make any editing changes you desire. Cheers - Walt BJ |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
In article , WaltBJ
wrote: good stuff snipped .. a MiG but we got one hell of a lot of flying - 1800 hours in one (1!) month, flying CAP for the recce birds and scrambling on anything that flew. I gotta assume you meant 180 hours! Still about double the most I ever had in a month in the fighting drumstick (EA-6B) Pugs |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
That a 1 kT airburst is a lot better than 100MT cumulative load dropped on Los Angeles, New York, Seattle, etc. True, but consider that any such missile would almost certainly have exploded over Canada, and the debris would presumably have fallen to the ground. What did the Canadians think of this? 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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I was wondering | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 2 | August 6th 03 04:38 AM |