stand off missiles

[[email protected]]

The Air Staff in the UK were looking at standoff missiles in the late
50s/early 60s. These would have been turbojet or ramjet missiles. They
were always objected to on the grounds of 'vulnerability'.

Can anyone answer some questions?

1. A ramjet missile travelling Mach 2 to 3 at 70,000ft.
(a) would this be vulnerable to 'conventional' SAMs?
(b) if it were attacked with a nuclear tipped SAM then:
(i) what would be the effect in terms of EMP on the defence? Would the
radars etc have to be hardened? and
(ii) what would be the effect on the ground below of a 10kT explosion
at 70,000ft?

2. Low level: how vulnerable would such a missile be to conventional
SAMs travelling at say M1.5 at 500 feet?

Thanks in advance,

Nicholas Hill

[Henry J Cobb]

wrote:
> The Air Staff in the UK were looking at standoff missiles in the late
> 50s/early 60s. These would have been turbojet or ramjet missiles. They
> were always objected to on the grounds of 'vulnerability'.

Couldn't they have built something like the AGM-28 with American help?

http://www.boeing.com/history/bna/hounddog.htm

-HJC

[W. D. Allen Sr.]

The problem in the 50s and 60s was guidance and navigation, not propulsion.
No matter how fast you go if you do not know where you are going what
difference does speed make?

An old Regulus missile controller, plus Minuteman and Peacekeeper guidance
tester!

end

> wrote in message
om...
> The Air Staff in the UK were looking at standoff missiles in the late
> 50s/early 60s. These would have been turbojet or ramjet missiles. They
> were always objected to on the grounds of 'vulnerability'.
>
> Can anyone answer some questions?
>
> 1. A ramjet missile travelling Mach 2 to 3 at 70,000ft.
> (a) would this be vulnerable to 'conventional' SAMs?
> (b) if it were attacked with a nuclear tipped SAM then:
> (i) what would be the effect in terms of EMP on the defence? Would the
> radars etc have to be hardened? and
> (ii) what would be the effect on the ground below of a 10kT explosion
> at 70,000ft?
>
> 2. Low level: how vulnerable would such a missile be to conventional
> SAMs travelling at say M1.5 at 500 feet?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Nicholas Hill

[Keith Willshaw]

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
> > The Air Staff in the UK were looking at standoff missiles in the late
> > 50s/early 60s. These would have been turbojet or ramjet missiles. They
> > were always objected to on the grounds of 'vulnerability'.
>
> Couldn't they have built something like the AGM-28 with American help?
>
> http://www.boeing.com/history/bna/hounddog.htm
>
> -HJC
>

They used the UK designed and built Blue Steel

http://members.aol.com/nicholashl/ukspace/bsteel/bsteel.htm


Keith

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 19:55:53 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>
>"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
>> wrote:
>> > The Air Staff in the UK were looking at standoff missiles in the late
>> > 50s/early 60s. These would have been turbojet or ramjet missiles. They
>> > were always objected to on the grounds of 'vulnerability'.
>>
>> Couldn't they have built something like the AGM-28 with American help?
>>
>> http://www.boeing.com/history/bna/hounddog.htm
>>
>> -HJC
>>
>
>They used the UK designed and built Blue Steel
>
>http://members.aol.com/nicholashl/ukspace/bsteel/bsteel.htm
>
>
>Keith
>


And had lots of others on the drawing board. Several of them making
the AGM-28 look pretty low tech.

[Henry J Cobb]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
>>Couldn't they have built something like the AGM-28 with American help?
>>http://www.boeing.com/history/bna/hounddog.htm
>
> They used the UK designed and built Blue Steel
> http://members.aol.com/nicholashl/ukspace/bsteel/bsteel.htm

Which had a fraction of the standoff range of the Hounddog.

-HJC

[Paul F Austin]

"Henry J Cobb" wrote
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
> > "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
> >>Couldn't they have built something like the AGM-28 with American help?
> >>http://www.boeing.com/history/bna/hounddog.htm
> >
> > They used the UK designed and built Blue Steel
> > http://members.aol.com/nicholashl/ukspace/bsteel/bsteel.htm
>
> Which had a fraction of the standoff range of the Hounddog.
>
Blue Steel was more of a somewhat faster, somewhat longer range Rascal
(GAM-63).

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >,
writes
>The Air Staff in the UK were looking at standoff missiles in the late
>50s/early 60s. These would have been turbojet or ramjet missiles. They
>were always objected to on the grounds of 'vulnerability'.
>
>Can anyone answer some questions?
>
>1. A ramjet missile travelling Mach 2 to 3 at 70,000ft.
>(a) would this be vulnerable to 'conventional' SAMs?

In that era, no. Think SR-71.

>(b) if it were attacked with a nuclear tipped SAM then:
>(i) what would be the effect in terms of EMP on the defence? Would the
>radars etc have to be hardened? and

Radars, radios, plenty of stuff, especially early 1960s.

EMP is overrated today because kit is hardened, and back then many
systems were resistant by design (discrete transistors are tougher than
ICs, vacuum tubes virtually immune). It wouldn't be a showstopper, but
you do need to harden your system to keep it fully effective if nuclear
weapons are part of your air-defence plan.

>(ii) what would be the effect on the ground below of a 10kT explosion
>at 70,000ft?

In terms of blast and heat, not too great. EMP would be nastier but it's
lower and smaller than optimum for generation and propagation.

>2. Low level: how vulnerable would such a missile be to conventional
>SAMs travelling at say M1.5 at 500 feet?

At that point in history, not at all: SAMs didn't do targets that low
and fast. (Now, AAA and small-arms... depends what you're flying over
and how alert they are)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Keith Willshaw]

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
> > "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
> >>Couldn't they have built something like the AGM-28 with American help?
> >>http://www.boeing.com/history/bna/hounddog.htm
> >
> > They used the UK designed and built Blue Steel
> > http://members.aol.com/nicholashl/ukspace/bsteel/bsteel.htm
>
> Which had a fraction of the standoff range of the Hounddog.
>

Indeed but was rather faster and the it was only intended
as an interim measure until Skybolt came into service
but of course Skybolt was cancelled by the US

Keith

[Henry J Cobb]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
> ...
>>Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>>They used the UK designed and built Blue Steel
>>>http://members.aol.com/nicholashl/ukspace/bsteel/bsteel.htm
>>
>>Which had a fraction of the standoff range of the Hounddog.
>
> Indeed but was rather faster and the it was only intended
> as an interim measure until Skybolt came into service
> but of course Skybolt was cancelled by the US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skybolt_ALBM
> The first fully successful flight occurred on December 19th, 1962, but
> on that same day the whole program was cancelled and the production of
> the operational GAM-87A stopped. The US simply had no need for the
> missile any more, with improved silo-based missiles and SLBMs making
> their counterforce largely invunerable anyway.
>
> This left the RAF, and the British forces as a whole, in a terrible
> position; development of both their ICBM and a newer standoff missile
> for their V bombers had both been cancelled. This left them with no
> credible nuclear deterrant. The program was offered to the British to
> continue funding, but instead US Secretary of State Robert McNamara
> persuaded them to buy the Polaris SLMB, and thus the nuclear deterrant
> was passed from the RAF to the Royal Navy.

Sounds like a happy ending after all?

Note that the USSR could have easily nuked every airbase in the UK but
never had a decent ability to track British boomers.

-HJC

[[email protected]]

Henry J Cobb > wrote in message >...
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
> > "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
> >>Couldn't they have built something like the AGM-28 with American help?
> >>http://www.boeing.com/history/bna/hounddog.htm
> >
> > They used the UK designed and built Blue Steel
> > http://members.aol.com/nicholashl/ukspace/bsteel/bsteel.htm
>
> Which had a fraction of the standoff range of the Hounddog.
>
> -HJC

The designs were for ramjet or turbojet missiles with 1000 mile range
- rather similar, but not the same as Hound Dog (which wdn't fit the V
bombers). But can anyone give me as assessment of their vulnerability?

[PS thanks for the link to my site!]

Nicholas Hill