bigron427
F-106 Qualified
Molon Labe
Currently: Offline
Posts: 86
Location:
Joined: June 2011
Retired: USA NBA: Decline to state (Sacto Kings) NFL: Die-hard Rams fan MLB: Go Blue!!!
|
Post by bigron427 on Jun 20, 2012 13:25:33 GMT 9
Regarding warheads: Looking through my copy of Chuck Hansen's book on U.S. nukes...The MB-1 carried a W-25 fission warhead of about 1.5 Kilotons yield. A "boosted" version with higher yield was investigated in the summer of 1956 but it doesn't look like anything came of it. [p.177].
The AIM-26A had a smaller, lighter warhead, the W-54 which had a sub-kiloton yield equivalent to about 250 tons of TNT. [p.178].
I'm not sure if they were thinking much about EMP when the warhead for the Genie was being designed in the early-mid 1950s but am sure that it would have spit out enough charged particles and junk to ruin some delicate electronics.
My pet theory regarding the Genie is that it was a quick, dirty, and effective 1950s-tech solution to the problem of reaching up and swatting down things like high altitude supersonic bombers and cruise missiles like the Lavochkin La-350 "Burya", which was pretty much the Soviet answer to the SM-64 Navajo. Theirs was successfully flight tested but not deployed due to the success of Korolev's rockets and their vulnerability to interception, probably thanks in no small part to the wide deployment of Genies by the 1958-59 timeframe.
Original source for warheads: Hansen, Chuck, "U.S. Nuclear Weapons: The Secret History", Orion Books, New York, 1988.
For a bit more on Soviet developments: Siddiqi, Asif A., "Sputnik and the Soviet Space Challenge", University Press of Florida, 2000. See page 223.
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Jun 20, 2012 22:49:30 GMT 9
The original MA-1 System was basically immune from EMT from nuke Blast. It didn't have solid state devices. It operated on sub-minature electron tubes. Most soviet made electronics were also based upon electron tube technology way into the 70's. The first timer MA-1 would use solid state devices was the HCM250 computer mode and TACAN/UHF mod in late 60's.
|
|
soc
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 106
Location:
Joined: November 2009
|
Post by soc on Jun 21, 2012 9:18:35 GMT 9
For a bit more on Soviet developments: Siddiqi, Asif A., "Sputnik and the Soviet Space Challenge", University Press of Florida, 2000. See page 223. That one is good, but for a focus on military weapons development, particularly from the political side, Steven Zaloga's book The Kremlin's Nuclear Sword is very well done. Both this one and Pavel Podvig's Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces are my go-to English language references for Soviet and Russian nuclear weapons. Podvig has more technical detail and a lot more information on testing, storage sites, bases, etc., but Zaloga's book does a better job with the political drivers and the infighting between a lot of the design bureaus, much of which was a result of either Korolev or Chelomei. I've got the entire four-volume USAF History of Airborne Armament, I'll have to dig around and see what it says about the reason for the Genie. I think I read somewhere that it was at least in part a response to the problems with guided weapons during early development. Wasn't a response to Burya though, apparently US intelligence had not a clue about that one.
|
|
finnwolf
F-106 Qualified
Currently: Offline
Posts: 18
Location:
Joined: June 2012
|
Post by finnwolf on Jul 9, 2012 7:15:18 GMT 9
I forgot to sign off (most forums automatically do that when the computer is rebooted) so it looks like I've been here for weeks, day and night. Not really.. Thanks for all the information. Weapons-wise the Six starts to look adequate for the job. Good, because in other ways it was so impressive. Still, squeezing AIM-9s and AIM-7s in there would have given the bird at least more versatility and perhaps still more historical longevity. I don't buy the Genie as an EMP weapon theory either. One of my books which is now of course in my town apartment 250 km away, estimated that if the Cuban crises would have lead to war, the air defence would have faired well... except that EMP would have been a surprise, nobody knew about it. And that was already 1962. Now, the Swedes bought Falcons for their Draken and Viggen fighters, and re-tooled the export AIM-4C to use the AIM-4G seeker (just like the AIM-4D) and a proximity fuze. I didn't know that. Only now I found out that Finnish Drakens carried that Swedish version too. But I'm sadly not too versed with air to air missiles. Like I thought that our MiG-21 bis fleet carried only Soviet-made Atolls. Until a buddy of mine who had spend his 11 month military service grease-monkeying military planes, swore that he himself had been loading genuine american Sidewinders to our MiGs. But they were sure around for our Bae Hawks, as a means for point defence. Now we have F-18s, but only 64 of them. The Paris Peace Treaty limited our first line fighter number to only 60. Which is not much considering that Finland has only 5 million population but is as large as, say, Italy. The treaty was lifted when The Soviet Union collapsed, but as an old habit our politicians don't understand that more and very expensive planes might be needed. So the supplementary and larger Hawk force is necessary at wartime too. Maybe even could be of some use. It seems, from my study of history, that governments are always a step or two behind reality, when it comes to wars. Very much the same here in Finland too. Our military forces are based on reserves. They are not equal to professional soldiers, but this is the only way a small nation of 5 million people can keep a respectable size army. Almost all men do their military service and nowadays women can volunteer. In my army days in 82 and 83 the reserve was said to be 500 000 men. Now it has dimished to 350 000 due to savings. Same type of military savings like in most nations over the Western world, Our military strategy is based in the hope that we would be attacked only during a larger war, WW III scale. So the enemy (who would always be the russians, no matter their political system) could not tie too much troops in this direction. It is no longer assumed that in modern war there would be a front line. Instead, our troops would resort to guerilla warfare making the invading troops so uncomfortable, that they would rather not come here at all. There are some problems. First we are no longer the mostly farming society like during WW2. Most are cityboys with not much survival skills or are not used to living in nature like the previous generations of farmfolk and foresters were. My second 10-day reservist exercise (after the army) happened in the midst of winter. Living in a tent, which was many times moved during the night. There was at least three feet of snow. We talked that if in addition to this misery we would actually have to fight for real, that might be too much. And it was only ten days, not months like during WW II. Then, more importantly some say that we too are preparing for a wrong, older type of war. So that when our troops would be scattered camping all around our vast woodlands, the enemy would simply fly over them and take the capital, communication systems, powerlines etc by swift paratrooper and helicopter action. While our boys would sit in the forests freezing their butts! I really appreciate the perspective from Finland. Lets us see how one of our allies is doing things. Thank you!!! But allies? In spirit perhaps, as a long time member with the western world and culture. But Finland is not a member of NATO. From time to time there is talk about joining, but the majority wants us to stay neutral like Sweden. Only a few weeks ago this Russian high general Makarov visited here and warned us not to join NATO. Our new president Niinisto then lectured the general to mind his own business. But later on the Russian president Putin confirmed that the Russian goverment is in line with the general. As you can imagine, this only raised the popularity of joining NATO over here! Still, I too am sceptical. Granted, it could bring safety. We are a member of the EU, but the European Union is not really a military alliance, so in wartime we perhaps would be left to our own devices. But joining NATO would be costly. It would certainly make us the prime target for Russia, perhaps nullifying the advantages. And our army, navy and air force have always been for the protection for our own soil, not to send our troops fighting all over the world in wars us northern europeans don't always see necessary or justified. And if WW III is not coming, joining NATO would only mean endless minor wars for us too in all parts of the world. Probably terrorist attacks here too, we do have domestic muslim immigrants. infighting between a lot of the design bureaus, much of which was a result of either Korolev or Chelomei. I have been a fan of space flight since 1969. I was seven and the first time I was allowed to stay up late was to watch the first Moon landing on TV! Hooked ever since. Sorry that the shuttle is gone. In my opinion the Soviets lost the Moon Race paradoxically because the U.S effort was centrally lead, but the dictatorial USSR only had these competing design bureaus with no central plan or national leadership.
|
|
|
Post by Mark O on Jul 9, 2012 8:54:45 GMT 9
I forgot to sign off (most forums automatically do that when the computer is rebooted) so it looks like I've been here for weeks, day and night. Not really... Don't worry, you haven't been "logged on" in the sense you think. It just saves you the trouble of logging back on for subsequent visits. Wow! Lot's of questions! Unfortunately since there are still four active duty F-106 squadrons still flying the info is classified -- OH CRAP!!! -- I've said too much!! Nah, just kidding! I'll let the real experts answer! BTW, in case no one has told you, :welcome
|
|
Jim Scanlon (deceased)
Senior Staff
FORUM CHAPLAIN
Commander South Texas outpost of the County Sligo Squadron
Currently: Offline
Posts: 5,075
Location:
Joined: July 2007
Retired: USAF NBA: Spurs NFL: Niners MLB: Giants NHL: Penguins
|
Post by Jim Scanlon (deceased) on Jul 9, 2012 11:47:15 GMT 9
Finnwolf said:
In my mind, being a member of NATO does not necessarily mean a member country is really a friend of the U.S.
I think Turkey is an example.
My idea of an ally, a nation who is more philosophically aligned with our "democratic" thinking, than being in agreement with a repressive national philosophy, like Russia or Islam.
To my knowledge, those nations of Europe who are "neutral"; Finland, Sweden, Switzerland and some small countries, are more democratic than many of the members of NATO, and seem to be more aligned with the U.S., UK, Canada, than even some of the other members of the EU.
I may be wrong, but that is how I see it.
Jim Too
:god_bless_usa
|
|
|
Post by Mark O on Jul 9, 2012 12:28:42 GMT 9
In my mind, being a member of NATO does not necessarily mean a member country is really a friend of the U.S. I think Turkey is an example. I think of France. www.aco.nato.int/page134353332.aspx"On 21 February 1966, President de Gaulle publicly stated he intended to radically alter France's participation in the Atlantic Alliance. Shortly after, on 10 March 1966, the French government indicated France would withdraw from NATO's integrated military command structure."How did they used to say it? "France is a plot to undermine NATO from the inside." Sigh...
|
|
Jim Scanlon (deceased)
Senior Staff
FORUM CHAPLAIN
Commander South Texas outpost of the County Sligo Squadron
Currently: Offline
Posts: 5,075
Location:
Joined: July 2007
Retired: USAF NBA: Spurs NFL: Niners MLB: Giants NHL: Penguins
|
Post by Jim Scanlon (deceased) on Jul 9, 2012 13:11:19 GMT 9
Mark, I try not to think of France.
They have not been a true ally of the U.S. since DeGaulle took over their armed forces in WW2.
He was not appointed, elected or anything else of their free armed forces, but just put himself in charge.
He was not liked of trusted by Monty or Ike, and certainly not by the Free French military.
France is a cess pool, and has been for many years.
Yes, they have built some great fighters and helicopters, but the only time they have ever been successful in combat, it with someone other than the French using them.
Now they have a Socialist president of a country that is run by Communists, and being taken over by Muslims.
Maybe that is why Soetoro likes them so much.
Jim Too
:god_bless_usa
|
|
|
Post by jimpadgett on Jul 10, 2012 20:48:36 GMT 9
Think of how much trouble it must have been for those buying French fighters to modify them to have the armament facing forward.
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Jul 10, 2012 22:46:21 GMT 9
The French were also the first to have a fight jet with reverse weren't they?
|
|
|
Post by bear (Deceased) on Jul 10, 2012 23:55:28 GMT 9
Question on windshield what were wires hooked to the windshield and canopy? I think they were for heat.
Bear
|
|
mwtrefethen
New to the Flightline
Currently: Offline
Posts: 3
Location:
Joined: July 2012
|
Post by mwtrefethen on Jul 17, 2012 4:08:56 GMT 9
Interesting thoughts given. The -4F (radar) and -4G (IR) provided it own individual [different pins] signature (ground) to determine bay selection (aft or fwd) to be fired depending on Armament Control Panel (ACP) position- RAD, ALL, IR. The system looked to the forward bay first if RAD was selected and the aft bay first if IR was selected. This design feature might give some creedence to the expected loading- 4Fs forward and 4Gs aft. If ALL was selected, the aft bay was selected (and fired) first if a missile (any missile) was present there, followed by firing any missile present in the fwd bay. This bay selection system was different than the F-102 [the progenitor of the F-106 which was initially called the F-102B and may pictures of early aircraft show the FC (vice FE) designation on the fuselage and the wings with "fences" vice the slot] which always looked to the aft bay first. I do not know that the change for the RAD selection was done because WSEM carriage in both bays on the "deuce" could never get to the front bay WSEM. Initially, both aircraft would extend the "WSEM missile" on cue but, because the WSEM never left [hopefully], a "hang fire" [launcher missile still present switch] condition existed and the pilot had to "guts" a clean-up operation. In the deuce, another pass with an "OK" would still select the aft WSEM [at least up through FIG 6 which was my last association]. While the like situation existed for the six, the pilot could run both bays by an ALL selection on the first pass, guts the close up, and then select RAD for the next pass to get the front bay WSEM (or vice versa). All WSEMs were "F's" excepting the 2 "G's" built at Tyndall as a special 4750th Test Sq project run by Capt Lynn Gamble and built/maintained by Amn Lonnie Nafsgar and Hughes Tech Rep Bill Hughes at the missile shop. In 1963, the F-106 WSEMs and the launcher (464054) nose switch assembly were modified. The WSEM incorporated a 2.5sec delay circuit after "G" weight release that, following the delay, activated a relay in the modified launcher switch to remove the missile present signal and the rail/door cycle could complete itself. Hence, after this, WSEM operation appeared identical to missile operation (other than the 2.5 sec delay) and both bays could be fired on one pass with ALL selected. The comment about more gas (Argon) needed to cool the head longer in the G is not pertinent in the scheme of things as there was sufficient gas to get from "C" time [doors open] to the longest time of flight to target. The "G" had a gas grain 4900 Hz generator that activated at "C" which ran a similar course. Aborting a "G" missile pass after "C" time could not save the missiles for a future pass (other than as a rocket or bomb). The 2 "G" WSEMs used a throttling cryostat (on and off switch, basically) from the AIM-4D missile head and 3 separate passes could be obtained easily with sufficient Argon. As to the "MSR" commonly referred to as McDonnell Simulator, the riveted on nomenclature plate identified it as: Recorder, Mission Simulator. e-mail me as I don't get to this site as a matter of daily [or even monthly] course if you'd wish to cuss, discuss, etc. about same (or other).
|
|
Jim Scanlon (deceased)
Senior Staff
FORUM CHAPLAIN
Commander South Texas outpost of the County Sligo Squadron
Currently: Offline
Posts: 5,075
Location:
Joined: July 2007
Retired: USAF NBA: Spurs NFL: Niners MLB: Giants NHL: Penguins
|
Post by Jim Scanlon (deceased) on Jul 17, 2012 9:39:23 GMT 9
:welcome
Good to have you in the Six Hanger, mwtrefethen.
Very interesting information on the missiles.
Hope to read more from you on future posts.
Jim Too
:patriotic-flagwaver
|
|
|
Post by shadowgunner on Jul 17, 2012 10:27:02 GMT 9
:welcome to our flightline. Your last name is really familiar. It is not a common name, I think I have worked with you sometime in my "half a carreer". Check my sig for details. :salute
|
|
finnwolf
F-106 Qualified
Currently: Offline
Posts: 18
Location:
Joined: June 2012
|
Post by finnwolf on Sept 14, 2012 3:00:16 GMT 9
I've had some personal grief lately , so I have not had the time and energy to hang around here and thank you. (nobody has died though, no women trouble either).
But wow, the Internet is great! To think that a layman can get answers from you guys that actually were there and the questions are taken seriously if one knows at least what to ask!
I'm greatful and I almost understand most of your terminology! Thanks!!
|
|