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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Majden" ) writes:
"Darrell A. Larose" A.V. Roe Canada CF-105 Avro Arrow, a long range interceptor that only had a 700 nm range. The is bearly enough to fly from CFB Cold Lake to Whitehorse, Yukon. The concept as a interceptor that would meet a wave of Soviet bombers over the high Arctic, but didn't have the legs to get there! The replacement was the IM99B Bomarc SAM complete with nuclear warhead. Range of that was in the 200-400 miles bracket, a great place to have a nuclear weapon go off and scatter radiation over Canadian cities and towns. I guess the yanks didn't consider that when they gave them to us! Good thing they were never used, eh! Only good thing about the Bomarc was to be assigned to the debriefing, parking and turn around crews. ;-) The Arrow's replacement was the CF-101 Voodoo, complete with nuclear tipped Genie missles. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"Erik Pfeister" wrote in message ... (ArtKramr) wrote: I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more? Regards, Arthur Kramer Obvious, the Martin Marauder (B-26), no load, no range, no speed, no altitude. Jeez, now you've done it.....Kramer will have your ass for that one. (^-^))) George Z. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"Darrell A. Larose Except there were no forward bases to deploy the Arrow from, nor did it have air-to-air refueling capacity. Bases no, but runways yes at various locations. The Bomarc hard site was useless as it would have been taken out by an ICBM or cruise type missile long before they got one off the ground. The bombers would have come in as a clean up some time after the first strike. At the first sign of trouble fighters would be scattered all over the country so survivability was much better. I seem to have read somewhere that the airforce had ordered or wanted 700 CF-105s. They were replaced by 66 old Voodoos and two hard Bomarc sites after cancellation. Some replacement! |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Majden" wrote in message news:GUHyb.534554$6C4.421467@pd7tw1no... The Bomarc hard site was useless as it would have been taken out by an ICBM or cruise type missile long before they got one off the ground. Hmmm, isn't the idea to launch the interceptor missile BEFORE the bombers reach their targets? What Soviet ICBMs and cruise missiles had the accuracy to destroy hard targets when Bomarc enterd service? |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Majden" wrote in message news:Rwxyb.533404$pl3.92056@pd7tw3no... What makes you think that these would have been high level blasts??? Tactics with the B52 was a ground hugger to avoid SAMS and radar detection. Incinerating a Bear full of nuclear warheads would have created a severe nuclear fall out problem! The Bomarc entered service in 1959, I believe ground-hugging became the penetration tactic of choice some years after that. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
ArtKramr wrote:
I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more? The successful failu the F-16. Successful (in filling the unneeded slot of the F-5: small and nimble, with a good self defense capability and light- weight severely-limited bombing capability). Ultimately successful, too, (though still limited) when weapons came along which didn't depend upon the launching aurcraft to be accurate: AMRAAM, and the pod-installed capability for shooting HARMS, and for guiding LGBs. Failure, though, in filling the shoes of F-4s, too-rapidly retired to make room for the stripped little sportscar of the skies. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Orval Fairbairn wrote in message .. .
The classic turkey: The Fisher XP-75 Eagle -- supposed to become an escort fighter, built from parts of several production aircraft. I can't think of the reference right now, but I remember reading that one of the purposes of the P-75 program was to give GM(?) a reason to stay out of the B-29 program - so the Eagle was not entirely a failure! Eugene Styer |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:05:26 GMT, "Ed Majden" wrote:
"Darrell A. Larose Except there were no forward bases to deploy the Arrow from, nor did it have air-to-air refueling capacity. Bases no, but runways yes at various locations. The Bomarc hard site was useless as it would have been taken out by an ICBM or cruise type missile long before they got one off the ground. The bombers would have come in as a clean up some time after the first strike. At the first sign of trouble fighters would be scattered all over the country so survivability was much better. I seem to have read somewhere that the airforce had ordered or wanted 700 CF-105s. They were replaced by 66 old Voodoos and two hard Bomarc sites after cancellation. Some replacement! A few notes: 1. What cruise missiles are you referring to (in the1950's and 60's)?? 2. What ICBM had the accuracy to target a missile site? 3. How were the CF-105's going to be fueled at these "runways"?. 4. Given the range of the CF-105 and the size of Canada, you would have huge holes in your coverage. Al Minyard |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" Hmmm, isn't the idea to launch the interceptor missile BEFORE the bombers reach their targets? What Soviet ICBMs and cruise missiles had the accuracy to destroy hard targets when Bomarc enterd service? Fortunately we didn't find out what their accuracy was! If it was as bad as you seem to suggest, what the hell were we scared iof them for. Long before this, V1 buz bombs and V2s hit London. The first strike would have been ICBMs in any event, not bombers. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 40 | October 3rd 08 03:13 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 1st 04 02:31 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | September 2nd 04 05:15 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | April 5th 04 03:04 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 1 | January 2nd 04 09:02 PM |