Wondering about the F-102...

"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

"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."

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

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

"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

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

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

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