Aircraft that never lived up to their promise

"Alan Minyard"
4. Given the range of the CF-105 and the size of Canada, you would have
huge holes in
your coverage.

66 Voodoo's sure didn't plug these holes! Nor did the Bomarcs at two
eastern bases. Most airports used for dispersal have supplies of jet fuels.
The U.S. had cruise type missiles and I expect the Russians had their own
versions. Don't forget, the Bomarc was used until the early 1970s where
weapons were much better. By the way an Arrow could be equipped with a Geni
as it had a large weapons bay.

"Steven P. McNicoll"
The Bomarc entered service in 1959, I believe ground-hugging became the
penetration tactic of choice some years after that.

Ever heard of the strike recon squadrons of CF-104's used at NATO bases
in Europe???? These were ground huggers in the 1960s. Bomarcs were still
in service in the early 1970s.

In article vKKyb.541308$9l5.70736@pd7tw2no,
"Ed Majden" wrote:

"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.

Because something like 75% of them were targeted at *cities*, not
missile sites. And a two-mile miss with a megaton-class warhead on a
city isn't really a miss.

Long before this, V1 buz bombs and V2s hit London.

....and if three or four of them were carrying even small nukes, London
would have ceased to exist.

The first strike would have
been ICBMs in any event, not bombers.

Not in the late 1950s. The Soviets just didn't have that many missiles,
despite the "missile gap" silliness of the 1950s and 1960s.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article hZKyb.535342$6C4.165107@pd7tw1no,
"Ed Majden" wrote:

"Steven P. McNicoll"
The Bomarc entered service in 1959, I believe ground-hugging became the
penetration tactic of choice some years after that.

Ever heard of the strike recon squadrons of CF-104's used at NATO bases
in Europe???? These were ground huggers in the 1960s.

....because they only had to go about ten miles. It's a lot different
type of aerial warfare when you fly over your house when you start your
nuclear attack runs.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Ed Majden" wrote in message
news:vKKyb.541308$9l5.70736@pd7tw2no...

"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.

Quite a lot missed and they were firing from only 200 miles away


The first strike would have
been ICBMs in any event, not bombers.


Contrary to their claims at the time the Soviets did not have
the ICBM force they claimed and were believed to have
even as late as the Cuban missile crisis.Although NEI estimates put their
strength at between 200 and 500 missiles in realty they had only
made a few deployments of at most 100 missiles and were not about to
expend them on possible Bomarc sites.

Keith

"Ed Majden" wrote in message
news:hZKyb.535342$6C4.165107@pd7tw1no...

"Steven P. McNicoll"
The Bomarc entered service in 1959, I believe ground-hugging became the
penetration tactic of choice some years after that.


Ever heard of the strike recon squadrons of CF-104's used at NATO
bases
in Europe???? These were ground huggers in the 1960s.


Ever heard of arithmetic? The 1960s would be after 1959.

"Steven P. McNicoll"
Ever heard of arithmetic? The 1960s would be after 1959.

Yes, and the Bomarc was in service until the early 1970's.

"Keith Willshaw"
Contrary to their claims at the time the Soviets did not have
the ICBM force they claimed and were believed to have
even as late as the Cuban missile crisis.Although NEI estimates put their
strength at between 200 and 500 missiles in realty they had only
made a few deployments of at most 100 missiles and were not about to
expend them on possible Bomarc sites.

If what you say is correct, you can't say much for the American
intelligence community. Either that, or Ike was right! "Beware of the
military industrial complex in America". The military build up was not for
security but to keep industries running.
Glad we didn't have to carry out a test to see which concept was the correct
one!

"Ed Majden" wrote in message
news:dJLyb.535476$6C4.410916@pd7tw1no...

Yes, and the Bomarc was in service until the early 1970's.


You're not even trying to understand.

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" escreveu na mensagem
...
The successful failu the F-16.

Is it correct to say that the F-16 is also implicated on the failure of the
F-20 Tigershark project ??

In brief :

- F-20 should be an aircraft cleared for export for non-NATO countries
(F-16 weren't cleared for that)
- F-16 were cleared for export (Seems like General Dynamics was in deep
financial trouble)
- F-20 program went down the drain

Does that kind of affirmation have some veridical background or is it just
another BS that can be found in some "not very reliable" books and
magazines?