And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
With the AIR-2 Genie rocket with 1.5 kt yield W25 nuclear warhead, it had a good chance of taking out a Soviet bomber if WWIII had happened. With AIM-4 Falcon guided missiles, probably not so much.
the only way an AIM-4 either radar or IR, could take out another airborne threat is to drop it in front of them and have them fly into it. aside from that, the Genie was gravity dropped from the weapons rack with a twenty five foot lanyard to activate the rocket. the missile was unguided. permissive links were somewhat crude. the missile warhead fusing was set to detonate at a set distance/time from launch and could not be guided after launch if the target changed heading/speed. It was a weapon only in name only but more of a political device of the cold war. For all intents and purposes, the use of the missile was in the hands of commander NORAD and outside political controls. the rational for this was that the missile was to be used over CONUS and never outside the political boundaries of the USA. These issues were also present in the Safeguard ABM system-also nuclear armed-and more than technical issues, the lack of political control was prominent it that systems cancelation.
Canada had Genies, too, though we had dual custody of the warheads (they couldn't use them without us letting them have them). The kill radius and fairly short flight time would've made bomber maneuvering at high altitude fairly irrelevant. IIRC, the launching fighter had to make an immediate diving, hard turn after launch to keep from downing itself.
AIM-4s weren't that bad. They had severe limitations which made them next to useless against fighters. But against strategic bombers, you might score a hit with one of your four shots.
well, my experience was with the F-4D and the mixed radar and IR units. they were for shit against fighters. We had serious doubts they would have hit a stationary blimp. I have no memory of any that managed to properly launch and guide that hit the target in operational use. OTGH, they always had entertaining failure modes.
Huh, I'd forgotten the AIM-4 Falcon wasn't proximity fused, so had to physically hit the target. It did manage (somehow) 5 kills out of likely hundreds fired in anger. But I don't ever recall reading that the radar-guided version was also envisioned as a rear-firing defensive missile for a heavy bomber. What a fiasco that would've been!
With the AIR-2 Genie rocket with 1.5 kt yield W25 nuclear warhead, it had a good chance of taking out a Soviet bomber if WWIII had happened. With AIM-4 Falcon guided missiles, probably not so much.
ReplyDeletethe only way an AIM-4 either radar or IR, could take out another airborne threat is to drop it in front of them and have them fly into it.
ReplyDeleteaside from that, the Genie was gravity dropped from the weapons rack with a twenty five foot lanyard to activate the rocket. the missile was unguided. permissive links were somewhat crude. the missile warhead fusing was set to detonate at a set distance/time from launch and could not be guided after launch if the target changed heading/speed. It was a weapon only in name only but more of a political device of the cold war.
For all intents and purposes, the use of the missile was in the hands of commander NORAD and outside political controls. the rational for this was that the missile was to be used over CONUS and never outside the political boundaries of the USA. These issues were also present in the Safeguard ABM system-also nuclear armed-and more than technical issues, the lack of political control was prominent it that systems cancelation.
there I go being Capt Obvious again, sorry...
DeleteCanada had Genies, too, though we had dual custody of the warheads (they couldn't use them without us letting them have them). The kill radius and fairly short flight time would've made bomber maneuvering at high altitude fairly irrelevant. IIRC, the launching fighter had to make an immediate diving, hard turn after launch to keep from downing itself.
DeleteAIM-4s weren't that bad. They had severe limitations which made them next to useless against fighters. But against strategic bombers, you might score a hit with one of your four shots.
well, my experience was with the F-4D and the mixed radar and IR units. they were for shit against fighters. We had serious doubts they would have hit a stationary blimp. I have no memory of any that managed to properly launch and guide that hit the target in operational use. OTGH, they always had entertaining failure modes.
DeleteYeah, that's what I've read. :)
DeleteHuh, I'd forgotten the AIM-4 Falcon wasn't proximity fused, so had to physically hit the target. It did manage (somehow) 5 kills out of likely hundreds fired in anger. But I don't ever recall reading that the radar-guided version was also envisioned as a rear-firing defensive missile for a heavy bomber. What a fiasco that would've been!
Delete