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

[Prowlus]

I was watching this programme called "flying through time" which this
week was about the century series fighters from f-100 to f-106 and it
mentioned that the f-104 toted the genie rocket as one of its weapon
options .
Now this programme usually gives info whilst givin the wrong imagery
or both but it did show a zipper with a weird retractable centerline
pylon supposedly for a big honking genie as so the programme is leadin
the viewer to believe .
Is this a genuine capability for a Starfighter? I would have thought
it wouldn't have the loading capacity for such a weapon or even the
software to launch it unlike the F-102 or F-106

[Kevin Brooks]

"Prowlus" > wrote in message
om...
> I was watching this programme called "flying through time" which this
> week was about the century series fighters from f-100 to f-106 and it
> mentioned that the f-104 toted the genie rocket as one of its weapon
> options .
> Now this programme usually gives info whilst givin the wrong imagery
> or both but it did show a zipper with a weird retractable centerline
> pylon supposedly for a big honking genie as so the programme is leadin
> the viewer to believe .
> Is this a genuine capability for a Starfighter? I would have thought
> it wouldn't have the loading capacity for such a weapon or even the
> software to launch it unlike the F-102 or F-106

The F-102 did not carry the Genie, but instead was armed with Falcons and
2.75-inch unguided rockets. The only aircraft to carry the Genie were the
F-89, F-101, and F-106.

www.astronautix.com/lvs/genie.htm

Brooks

[Don Harstad]

"Prowlus" > wrote in message
om...
> I was watching this programme called "flying through time" which this
> week was about the century series fighters from f-100 to f-106 and it
> mentioned that the f-104 toted the genie rocket as one of its weapon
> options .
> Now this programme usually gives info whilst givin the wrong imagery
> or both but it did show a zipper with a weird retractable centerline
> pylon supposedly for a big honking genie as so the programme is leadin
> the viewer to believe .
> Is this a genuine capability for a Starfighter? I would have thought
> it wouldn't have the loading capacity for such a weapon or even the
> software to launch it unlike the F-102 or F-106

I seem to remember that it was at least tested with a Genie. There was
footage of a launch, from the center line, in an old documentary program on
TV...maybe Wings or something?

Don H.

[Dave Kearton]

"Don Harstad" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Prowlus" > wrote in message
| om...
| > I was watching this programme called "flying through time" which this
| > week was about the century series fighters from f-100 to f-106 and it
| > mentioned that the f-104 toted the genie rocket as one of its weapon
| > options .
| > Now this programme usually gives info whilst givin the wrong imagery
| > or both but it did show a zipper with a weird retractable centerline
| > pylon supposedly for a big honking genie as so the programme is leadin
| > the viewer to believe .
| > Is this a genuine capability for a Starfighter? I would have thought
| > it wouldn't have the loading capacity for such a weapon or even the
| > software to launch it unlike the F-102 or F-106
|
| I seem to remember that it was at least tested with a Genie. There was
| footage of a launch, from the center line, in an old documentary program
on
| TV...maybe Wings or something?
|
| Don H.
|
|



Would be a very flat Genie, there can't be a lot of ground clearance on an
F-104.





Cheers


Dave Kearton

[John Keeney]

"Prowlus" > wrote in message
om...
> I was watching this programme called "flying through time" which this
> week was about the century series fighters from f-100 to f-106 and it
> mentioned that the f-104 toted the genie rocket as one of its weapon
> options .
> Now this programme usually gives info whilst givin the wrong imagery
> or both but it did show a zipper with a weird retractable centerline
> pylon supposedly for a big honking genie as so the programme is leadin
> the viewer to believe .
> Is this a genuine capability for a Starfighter? I would have thought
> it wouldn't have the loading capacity for such a weapon or even the
> software to launch it unlike the F-102 or F-106

That's what the trapeze was for but I don't believe it was bought.

[Guy Alcala]

Dave Kearton wrote:

> "Don Harstad" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | "Prowlus" > wrote in message
> | om...
> | > I was watching this programme called "flying through time" which this
> | > week was about the century series fighters from f-100 to f-106 and it
> | > mentioned that the f-104 toted the genie rocket as one of its weapon
> | > options .
> | > Now this programme usually gives info whilst givin the wrong imagery
> | > or both but it did show a zipper with a weird retractable centerline
> | > pylon supposedly for a big honking genie as so the programme is leadin
> | > the viewer to believe .
> | > Is this a genuine capability for a Starfighter? I would have thought
> | > it wouldn't have the loading capacity for such a weapon or even the
> | > software to launch it unlike the F-102 or F-106
> |
> | I seem to remember that it was at least tested with a Genie. There was
> | footage of a launch, from the center line, in an old documentary program
> on
> | TV...maybe Wings or something?
> |
> | Don H.
> |
> |
>
> Would be a very flat Genie, there can't be a lot of ground clearance on an
> F-104.

The C/L station was used to carry nukes on the F-104C and G models. Judging by
the ca. 2,000 lb weight I'm guessing Mk.28s. Genie, no, not an operational
load, although I can't say no one ever tested the idea. However, if you saw it
on some "History Channel" or similar show it's almost guaranteed to be wrong.
They aren't written for the Buff or serious historian, and they tend to be full
of easy to spot errors.

Guy

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, "Dave Kearton"
> wrote:

> "Don Harstad" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | "Prowlus" > wrote in message
> | om...
> | > I was watching this programme called "flying through time" which this
> | > week was about the century series fighters from f-100 to f-106 and it
> | > mentioned that the f-104 toted the genie rocket as one of its weapon
> | > options .
> | > Now this programme usually gives info whilst givin the wrong imagery
> | > or both but it did show a zipper with a weird retractable centerline
> | > pylon supposedly for a big honking genie as so the programme is
> | > leadin
> | > the viewer to believe .
> | > Is this a genuine capability for a Starfighter? I would have thought
> | > it wouldn't have the loading capacity for such a weapon or even the
> | > software to launch it unlike the F-102 or F-106
> |
> | I seem to remember that it was at least tested with a Genie. There was
> | footage of a launch, from the center line, in an old documentary
> | program
> on
> | TV...maybe Wings or something?
> |
> | Don H.
> |
> |
>
>
>
> Would be a very flat Genie, there can't be a lot of ground clearance on
> an
> F-104.
>
Unbidden, I have a flash thought of referring to the F-104 as the
dachshund of high-performance aircraft. ;-)

[Dave Kearton]

"Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
...
|| >
| Unbidden, I have a flash thought of referring to the F-104 as the
| dachshund of high-performance aircraft. ;-)




Quite apt.....and fortunate that Kelly Johnson left off the genitalia.






Cheers


Dave Kearton

[Steve Jahn]

According to the book Warbird Tech F-104
The Missile was fired about five times from the F-104. The airplane was also
ground tested while hanging from a crane. The test was a Skunk works
project.
Steve
"John Keeney" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Prowlus" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I was watching this programme called "flying through time" which this
> > week was about the century series fighters from f-100 to f-106 and it
> > mentioned that the f-104 toted the genie rocket as one of its weapon
> > options .
> > Now this programme usually gives info whilst givin the wrong imagery
> > or both but it did show a zipper with a weird retractable centerline
> > pylon supposedly for a big honking genie as so the programme is leadin
> > the viewer to believe .
> > Is this a genuine capability for a Starfighter? I would have thought
> > it wouldn't have the loading capacity for such a weapon or even the
> > software to launch it unlike the F-102 or F-106
>
> That's what the trapeze was for but I don't believe it was bought.
>
>

[Dave Kearton]

"Steve Jahn" > wrote in message
...
| According to the book Warbird Tech F-104
| The Missile was fired about five times from the F-104. The airplane was
also
| ground tested while hanging from a crane. The test was a Skunk works
| project.
| Steve



Well I sit corrected. Thanks



Do you know whether it was fired from the centreline or a wing station
?





Cheers


Dave Kearton

[Alistair Gunn]

Dave Kearton twisted the electrons to say:
> "Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
> ...
> || >
> | Unbidden, I have a flash thought of referring to the F-104 as the
> | dachshund of high-performance aircraft. ;-)
> Quite apt.....and fortunate that Kelly Johnson left off the genitalia.

<les barker>Dachshunds with erections, can't climb stairs!</les barker>
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

Prowlus wrote:
>
> Is this a genuine capability for a Starfighter? I would have thought
> it wouldn't have the loading capacity for such a weapon or even the
> software to launch it unlike the F-102 or F-106

Heheh. Software??? No - just lots of relays and some permission
switches.
If ever there were a "point-and-shoot" nuke, the unguided Genie
rocket was it.

After seeing the bomb loads the Euros would hang on an F-104,
I can easily imagine TWO genies, one below each wing - but
not on the centerline.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(Prowlus) writes:
> I was watching this programme called "flying through time" which this
> week was about the century series fighters from f-100 to f-106 and it
> mentioned that the f-104 toted the genie rocket as one of its weapon
> options .
> Now this programme usually gives info whilst givin the wrong imagery
> or both but it did show a zipper with a weird retractable centerline
> pylon supposedly for a big honking genie as so the programme is leadin
> the viewer to believe .
> Is this a genuine capability for a Starfighter? I would have thought
> it wouldn't have the loading capacity for such a weapon or even the
> software to launch it unlike the F-102 or F-106

There were proposals to put Genies on a bunch of aircraft, such as the
English Electric Lightning. If you're playing Global Thermonuclear
War, the Genie solves a lot of problems - it's unjammable, the target
can't jink out of the lethal radius, and you don't have all the
complications and failures of a proximity fuze (Which is still a very
difficult problem in a missile, and it should defeat any salvage
fuzing on the Bad Guy's bombs. (Rigging the bomb so that it goes off
if it hits the ground anywhere in your territory)

There was a test program for launching Genies from the F-104A, but, as
others have noted, it wasn't proceeded with. The program did,
however, evolve into a NASA study for using jets as the first stage of
a rocket system. The F-104A. the launching gear, and some of teh
effects on performance are detailed in NASA Technical Note D-1279,
"Some Operational Aspects of Using a High-Performance Airplane as a
First-Stage Booster for Air-Launching Solid-Fuel Sounding Rockets",
Horton and Messing, Jan. 1963, available online at:
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/DTRS/1963/citation.html

There were 5 operational sounding rocket launches under the name of
ALSOR, using a Deacon sounding rocket as the second stage. Altitudes
of 100-116 km were reached.

This program also led to some confusion about the F-4 and Genies. A
later followon to this program was ALARR, which used an F-4 as teh
launching aircraft, and time-expired Genie airframes and motors as the
sounding rocket. Photos of the F-4 carrying the Genie shaped ALARR
have been presented as proof that the F-4 was qualified to carry the
AIR-2, which is not the case - 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. (It wasn't anything as simple as a mechanical clock.)
There wasn't any real desire to put the Genie on the F-4 - when you've
got 4 fairly reliable AIM-7s aboard, you don't need a Genie.

It's pretty much a given that these studies, and the Bold Orion, High
Virgo, and Caleb projects were teh foundation for the U.S.A.F. air
launched ASAT of the 1980s. (High Virgo actually intercepted a
satellite)

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

[Andrew Chaplin]

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.)

[Peter Stickney]

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

[John Keeney]

"Dave Kearton" > wrote in
message ...
> "Steve Jahn" > wrote in message
> ...
> | According to the book Warbird Tech F-104
> | The Missile was fired about five times from the F-104. The airplane was
> also
> | ground tested while hanging from a crane. The test was a Skunk works
> | project.
> | Steve
>
>
> Well I sit corrected. Thanks
>
>
> Do you know whether it was fired from the centreline or a wing station?

Center line, from a drop down trapeze.

[Don Harstad]

"Steve Jahn" > wrote in message
...
> According to the book Warbird Tech F-104
> The Missile was fired about five times from the F-104. The airplane was
also
> ground tested while hanging from a crane. The test was a Skunk works
> project.
> Steve
> "John Keeney" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Prowlus" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > I was watching this programme called "flying through time" which this
> > > week was about the century series fighters from f-100 to f-106 and it
> > > mentioned that the f-104 toted the genie rocket as one of its weapon
> > > options .
> > > Now this programme usually gives info whilst givin the wrong imagery
> > > or both but it did show a zipper with a weird retractable centerline
> > > pylon supposedly for a big honking genie as so the programme is leadin
> > > the viewer to believe .
> > > Is this a genuine capability for a Starfighter? I would have thought
> > > it wouldn't have the loading capacity for such a weapon or even the
> > > software to launch it unlike the F-102 or F-106
> >
> > That's what the trapeze was for but I don't believe it was bought.
> >
> >
>
That's it! The tape I saw was of the F-104 suspended from a crane of some
sort, with the trapeze and Genie operated that way. Thanks!

Don H.

[Lyle]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:10:11 -0500, "Don Harstad"
> wrote:

>
>"Steve Jahn" > wrote in message
...
>> According to the book Warbird Tech F-104
>> The Missile was fired about five times from the F-104. The airplane was
>also
>> ground tested while hanging from a crane. The test was a Skunk works
>> project.
>> Steve
>> "John Keeney" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Prowlus" > wrote in message
>> > om...
>> > > I was watching this programme called "flying through time" which this
>> > > week was about the century series fighters from f-100 to f-106 and it
>> > > mentioned that the f-104 toted the genie rocket as one of its weapon
>> > > options .
>> > > Now this programme usually gives info whilst givin the wrong imagery
>> > > or both but it did show a zipper with a weird retractable centerline
>> > > pylon supposedly for a big honking genie as so the programme is leadin
>> > > the viewer to believe .
>> > > Is this a genuine capability for a Starfighter? I would have thought
>> > > it wouldn't have the loading capacity for such a weapon or even the
>> > > software to launch it unlike the F-102 or F-106
>> >
>> > That's what the trapeze was for but I don't believe it was bought.
>> >
>> >
>>
>That's it! The tape I saw was of the F-104 suspended from a crane of some
>sort, with the trapeze and Genie operated that way. Thanks!
>
>Don H.
>
just because a plane dosent carry a certain load, dosent mean it cant.
case in point, F-16A and the sparrow missle. they were shooting
Aim-7's from the YF-16 prototype, and basically all F-16 before the
ADV version for the ANG came into beging was able to use the sparrow
with minor software modifacation.

[WaltBJ]

(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

[Billy Beck]

(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

[Peter Stickney]

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

[WaltBJ]

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

[Jack G]

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