Aviation Pictures: A-Seven-th Thread--CorsAirin' Through Time and Airspace

[worktroll]

Dick Rutan just passed away, age 85, with more accomplishments in aeronautics than one could poke an aileron at. But let's try a few ...

[Daryk]

That's a sad loss... :/

[Luciora]

Found online

[Euphonium]

Found online

I didn't know Death had traded the pale horse in for a pale plane, never mind getting a custom registration!

My favourite Britis plane registration was this one:

[chanman]

Found online

One of our cadet tow planes for gliding 25 years ago was a Cessna Bird Dog with the registration C-FTAL.

https://www.aircraft.com/aircraft/201021405/c-ftal-1956-cessna-l19-305c-bird-dog
https://skiesmag.com/news/purplehillaircompletescessnal19birddogrestoration/

It's actually one of the skins for the L-19 add-on in MS Flight Simulator 2020

[Giovanni Blasini]

Nothing to see here, just a California ANG F-106 lobbing a nuke:

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

What kind of nuke?

Seems pretty small...

[chanman]

What kind of nuke?

Seems pretty small...

AIR-2 Genie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie) unguided air-to-air rocket with a 1.5 kiloton W25 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W25_(nuclear_warhead)) warhead on a timer. 6.2 mile (10km) range, 12 second flight time.

In theory, it's aimed and guided by ground control (SAGE) using a collision-course intercept.

In practice, it's a time-delay fuse with an estimated 300m lethal radius, which means uh... you'd need something like 2.25 MOA accuracy firing something with a 12 second flight time from a moving aircraft at another moving aircraft.

My only thought is that maybe the weapons designer was thinking of WW2-style mass bomber fleets and not widely-dispersed nuclear bombers spread out across the sky. I don't recall any reports of testing of the ground-intercept air-to-air rocket combination, but I'd bet any proof of ineffectiveness were quietly lost, other than this case:

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160811-the-runaway-drone-that-caused-a-cold-war-air-battle

[Giovanni Blasini]

AIR-2 Genie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie) unguided air-to-air rocket with a 1.5 kiloton W25 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W25_(nuclear_warhead)) warhead on a timer. 6.2 mile (10km) range, 12 second flight time.

In theory, it's aimed and guided by ground control (SAGE) using a collision-course intercept.

In practice, it's a time-delay fuse with an estimated 300m lethal radius, which means uh... you'd need something like 2.25 MOA accuracy firing something with a 12 second flight time from a moving aircraft at another moving aircraft.

My only thought is that maybe the weapons designer was thinking of WW2-style mass bomber fleets and not widely-dispersed nuclear bombers spread out across the sky. I don't recall any reports of testing of the ground-intercept air-to-air rocket combination, but I'd bet any proof of ineffectiveness were quietly lost, other than this case:

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160811-the-runaway-drone-that-caused-a-cold-war-air-battle

The Genie was a product of the early 1950s, with development beginning in 1951 and the missile operational by 1956.  The original idea was to counter formations of Tu-4 Bulls (the reverse-engineered B-29s in Soviet service), and I'm sure bombers in tight formations were on their mind.  But, even if they weren't, with guided missile technology in its infancy and not ready for deployment yet, machine guns inadaquate to shoot down more advanced bombers, and the unguided "Mighty Mouse" rocket clusters not offering much chance of really taking down a bomber either, the idea of using waves of Genie missiles against incoming bombers seemed the most viable method of shooting them down at the time.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Ah, the 50s, when "let's nuke it" was seen as a viable option for every issue.

[chanman]

The Genie was a product of the early 1950s, with development beginning in 1951 and the missile operational by 1956.  The original idea was to counter formations of Tu-4 Bulls (the reverse-engineered B-29s in Soviet service), and I'm sure bombers in tight formations were on their mind.  But, even if they weren't, with guided missile technology in its infancy and not ready for deployment yet, machine guns inadaquate to shoot down more advanced bombers, and the unguided "Mighty Mouse" rocket clusters not offering much chance of really taking down a bomber either, the idea of using waves of Genie missiles against incoming bombers seemed the most viable method of shooting them down at the time.

Sometimes, there are no real answers. I don't think the Genie concept was ever particularly workable as an operational concept and they never even bothered with a live test engagement. The only test detonation of a Genie was the publicity shot. I'd say that a gun interception with a swept-wing jet interceptor should have been viable*, albeit dangerous as hell since the Tu-4 swapped out the B-29's .50s for 23mm cannon one-for-one. It's the Tu-16 on a one-way trip or a Tu-95 that fighters would be hard-pressed to catch, but they'd be hard-pressed to get a Genie within launch parameters too. Not only does it have to be within 2.25 MOA dispersion, but the timing on the fuse would have to be within about half a second in order to not overshoot or undershoot the target (~900 m/s) assuming the target didn't react at all.

2.25 MOA isn't remotely practical with aircraft guns even now, let alone a giant folding fin rocket in the 50s. Nuclear security theatre maybe. I don't think a serious air defence system would be deploying AIM-4 Falcon missiles all the way into the 80s (Falcon/Genie was the weapons fit for both the Canadian CF-101 Voodoos and USAF F-106s in NORAD)

*

[glitterboy2098]

i'd argue that the main reason they were interested in nuclear warhead AAM's at the time was the lack of reliable guidance systems for missiles. so long as you could set the timer and course right before firing, the big AOE on a nuclear blast would be likely to down a bomber, even if the missile itself didn't come anywhere close to hitting. as soon as they got guidance systems that could reliably track and hit targets, the use of nuclear warhead anti-aircraft missiles stopped in the west. (the soviets kept at it a little longer, but given how their electronics tech tended to lag behind america/NATO, it's not surprising they'd want to retain the option. they mostly focused on ground launched nuclear SAM's though)

[worktroll]

Both lack of guidance options, and expectation of massed bomber formations. Both changed. Albeit with the Falcon, not necessarily for the better ;)

[nerd]

Nuclear SAMs were also produced, including RIM-8 Talos, CIM-10 Bomarc and MIM-14 Nike Hercules. Notably, some were estimated to be lethal within a kilometer of the target.

It was a response to a problem solved by improved electronics.

[chanman]

Nuclear SAMs were also produced, including RIM-8 Talos, CIM-10 Bomarc and MIM-14 Nike Hercules. Notably, some were estimated to be lethal within a kilometer of the target.

It was a response to a problem solved by improved electronics.

There were nuclear SA-2 'Guideline' (S-75 Dvina) SAMs too, but all of them had larger warheads than the Genie and were, of course, guided.
There was also a nuclear warhead option for the SARH AIM-26 Falcon variant due to concerns about accuracy. The usual quoted yield is 0.25 kT, but https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-26.html mentions a first-hand source claiming 1.5 kT, similar to the Genie. At least that one had guidance and fusing instead of the timer system of the Genie...

[Garrand]

It's hard to say how Falcon's would have performed live, as they were intended.

In Vietnam they were used outside of parameters (i.e. they were meant to be launched from a supersonic interceptor flying fast & level towards a bomber). I think they'd have been a bit better vs Soviet bombers, as opposed to MiG-21s

Damon.