State of the Art, 1963

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
news
In message , Bill
Silvey writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message

And the Genie's kill radius is not that large.

Are you factoring in EMP with that kill radius?

Against which platforms? Some are designed to survive it, otheres have
not heard of it.

Well that's the rub, isn't it? Again we go back to the issue of not all
that maneuverable bombers versus agile tactical fighters or medium bombers.

If air-to-air tacnukes worked really well, they'd still be around.
They didn't, so they aren't.

I don't know if that's entirely accurate. The role of air-to-air
tacnukes wasn't "versus fighters". If it had been, I'm sure
something more than a "point, pull, and pray" type of firing
mechanism would've been used. Proximity detection, SARH and that
sort of thing would've been incorporated.

Which gets you to the same conclusion as most other theatres... if you
need that much targetting, you can kill da bum with HE.

Right...but the point is, with an area-effect weapon like a Genie it wasn't
needed. Kablammo.

Air to air tacnukes were designed to be fired at formations of slow,
lumbering Soviet bombers coming across the DEW line, not fast, agile
fighters.

Or bombers with decent (by 1960s standard) ECM.

How would ECM have deferred an unguided weapon like the Genie?

As the technology and indeed the political climate changed, the
role of the Genie began to diminish. Also, political and military
leadership I think probably grew less and less cavalier about
throwing around a few nukes here and there just to even up the odds.
I'm sure that today, a Genie would be just as effective versus a
Tu-22 as it would've versus grouped formations of Bear bombers.

Except a Genie took up three Falcon slots. (How many Sidewinders could
you put on a rack in place of three Falcons or one Genie?)

But how many Sidewinders would it take to kill a bomber? And for that
matter, how much fuel for maneuvering in to place would you have after a
fast burn to range, to get the bombers before they could even drop *near* a
big city, never mind their primary or secondary targets?


--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" writes:
In message ,
Bill Shatzer writes
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Charles Talleyrand wrote:
Imagine four your favorite combat aircraft of 1963 going up
against four modern F/A-18s in a BVR engagement. Suppose
that the 1963
pilots were smart and willing to employ the best tactics
available. Even so we suppose the F-18s win almost every
engagement.
Basically, how does the combat go?

Launch the nuclear-tipped Genies at maximum range.

"Close" is good enough.

Trouble is, the Hornets may manage to deny the enemy a radar lock (what
ECM did they bring?) and the Genies may never get fired.

Even if they do... that's a _big_ smoke trail and the fighters are going
to evade it. And the Genie's kill radius is not that large. Then F-102s
with Falcons (unreliable and inaccurate) mix it up with Hornets armed
with late-model Sidewinders and AMRAAMs.

An AIR-2's kill radius was about 1500' (450m). Time of FLight was
typically figured to be 5 seconds. Hornet or no, there's not a whole
lot of jinking that's going to get you clear of a Genie's kill zone.
There's no guidance, you can't jam it, and it's time fuzed, rather
than proximity fuzed. I wouldn't count it out. It was, in fact, also
possible to aim & fire the thing without radar.

The "can't jink" part was really what the Genie was all about. Well,
that & the No Proximity Fuze thing - missile fuzes weren't all that
good in the 1950s. Oh, yeah, and the Nuke Killer bit. Salvage Fuzing
isn't an issue if you zap teh bomb as well as the bomber.


If air-to-air tacnukes worked really well, they'd still be around. They
didn't, so they aren't.

There really isn't much need for them nowadays. The End of the World
will now be delivered by Ballistic Missile, and missile fuzes adn
maneuverability have improved tremendously. Well, all that and the
idea that setting A-Bombs off over your own country to save it doesn't
sound very bright. You also have to mount specia lguards for them,
have special paperwork for them, and using them at all becomes a
National Leadership Decision sort of thing.

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

All y'all don't understand the true target of the tac nukes. They were
never designed as vehicle killers - they were weapon killers. Shooting
down a bomber and then having its 20MT TN go off on ground impact
(because it was so armed on entering enemy territory - doctrine)
leaving a 3000 REM/Hr trail of fallout several hundred miles long
isn't a victory by any means. So the tac nukes detonating within a
certain radius of the target emitted a prompt neutron flux intense
enough to initiate a pit-slagging reaction in the enemy weapon, also
probably initiating a one-point burst many orders of magnitude less
than the weapon's design yield.
And one other factor - anyone looking in the direction of the tac nuke
will most likely suffer from flash blindness for some time - most
likely in excess of their fuel time. I guess y'all never heard of the
USAFE strike pilots' eyepatches, either.
BTW your ROE is obviously shoot anything you detect - pretty harsh,
no? Oops, there went our mail/fresh fruit and veggies/beer
ration/replacements (pick one).
walt BJ

In message , Bill
Silvey writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
news
Against which platforms? Some are designed to survive it, otheres have
not heard of it.

Well that's the rub, isn't it? Again we go back to the issue of not all
that maneuverable bombers versus agile tactical fighters or medium bombers.

Modern kit tends to be designed to live through EMP, TREE and the other
nasty effects of a nuclear weapon. (As Walt points out, flash blindness
may remain a problem - and this presupposes no lethal blast or heat
damage)

Which gets you to the same conclusion as most other theatres... if you
need that much targetting, you can kill da bum with HE.

Right...but the point is, with an area-effect weapon like a Genie it wasn't
needed. Kablammo.

Still got to aim it at the right piece of sky. Fighters are small and
the sky is large.

Air to air tacnukes were designed to be fired at formations of slow,
lumbering Soviet bombers coming across the DEW line, not fast, agile
fighters.

Or bombers with decent (by 1960s standard) ECM.

How would ECM have deferred an unguided weapon like the Genie?

It wouldn't, which is a reason why you'd want Genie rather than a
radar-guided missile.

Except a Genie took up three Falcon slots. (How many Sidewinders could
you put on a rack in place of three Falcons or one Genie?)

But how many Sidewinders would it take to kill a bomber?

One, when a freak accident got an AIM-9 fired at a B-52 during training.
(Small sample size, I know...)

And for that
matter, how much fuel for maneuvering in to place would you have after a
fast burn to range, to get the bombers before they could even drop *near* a
big city, never mind their primary or secondary targets?

Your weapons work or they don't; a second pass is a nice-to-have but
don't count on having time, fuel or ordnance to make it.
--
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