stand off missiles

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

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

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

"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/uk...eel/bsteel.htm


Keith

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/uk...eel/bsteel.htm


Keith



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

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/uk...eel/bsteel.htm

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

-HJC

"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/uk...eel/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).

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 MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"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/uk...eel/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

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/uk...eel/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