Air To Air Nukes...WHAT ???

So I just learned that their was a time when they were using nukes to shoot down other planes.

I was thinking this is a little overkill.

MB-1/AIR-2 GENIE MISSILE with a 1.5-kiloton nuclear warhead in use from the mid-50's to early 80's

Here is a link to them

Boeing Missles

I guess as a pilot if you got hit with one of those you weren't ejecting.
And the pilot firing the missiles had to get out fast as well.

The firing aircraft had to pull away in a sharp turn to escape the blast after launching the weapon, a challenging feat.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I suppose those are for when Dead isn't good enough. We truly are a stupid species.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I suppose those are for when Dead isn't good enough. We truly are a stupid species.

Actually , it was designed to take out multiple aircraft at the same time.
Most likely fired from a mile away or so .
Timed to detonate in front of the aggressor aircraft such that momentum would carry them into the blast radius .
Instant "Ace" status .

Just another silly idea from a bunch of educated morons .

Sounds almost as bad as using Nuclear Artillery shells, they had that developed in the 50’s. Including the “Honest John” nuclear warhead rocket. Haha!

Maybe they had them to shoot down things they were not able to shoot down in the past, like...

I would assume they were thinking of using this against a flight of bombers and not just one lone bomber.

There was also a nuclear torpedo to be used against carrier groups and other ship groups. This torpedo was different from the torpedo tube launched nuclear missile. The torpedo never left the water. The missile would surface and fly to the target. This missile was made odsolete by the development of the verticle launch tubes for subs. They might might still have the torpedos in service.

They even considered nuclear explosions for civil engineering projects at one time.





Edit:

There is a theory that the manhole cover on the hole for Project Sedan was the first man made object ever shot into space. As it was not tracked and blasted beyond escape velocity if it survived, there is no proof af this.

1 missile could destroy an entire bomber wing.

I don’t think the Soviets ever had a comparable weapon, though most of their Surface to air missiles could carry a nuclear warhead.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Genie was a rocket. It was unguided.

There was a missile, the Falcon, but I don't believe it ever made it into production. I think it used the same warhead as the Davy Crockett.

The primary weapon to be used against mass formations of Soviet copies of the B-29, often nick named the Ding Dong. The only one to ever be used was fired by an F-89 Scorpion in a test. The F-101 Voodoo and F-106 Delta Dart could carry them as well but they never used them. Canada had them for a while too.

Get a load of this thing! I remember watching an old TV show called “Wings” as a kid, had this on one of the episodes.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: StratosFear

Canada had them for a while too.

That's right, they were on the Avro Arrow that never went into production.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: StratosFear

Canada had them for a while too.

That's right, they were on the Avro Arrow that never went into production.

Well, actually the Avro Arrow was "replaced" in its' anti-soviet bomber role by the Bomarc surface to air missile, which was deployed until 1972 and could carry conventional as well as a W40 nuclear warhead.

Never mind the puny 1.5KT nuclear Genie missile
The Bomarc W40 nuclear warhead carried a 10Kt yield !!!

10KT >> 1.5 KT

When the Canadian military just MUST have a "bigger stick" than the other guy.....


Note: I may have mispelled the word "stick", above - you need to replace "st" with "d"....

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I suppose those are for when Dead isn't good enough. We truly are a stupid species.

The Genie missiles were unguided and therefore not very accurate. They were fired in the general direction of the target and relied on the blast radius to overcome the inherent inaccuracy.

If the Army was willing to use an artillery launched Nuke, why wouldn't the USAF want the similar in flight.

Also yes total and complete insanity, DoD has a strong track record of buying the newest gadget sight unseen.

If the Army was willing to use an artillery launched Nuke, why wouldn't the USAF want the similar in flight.

a reply to: Irishhaf

lol you literally took the words from my mouth, I was typing up a response about the Nuclear capable artillery .

Then I saw yours and was like Oh NVM

a reply to: M5xaz

It is the only way to be sure I guess

a reply to: Gothmog

i must respectfully disagree with it being a "silly idea"


What people are doing right out of the gate is looking at this from TODAYS standards.
a standard of MODERN ANTI AIR and air to air capability along with TODAYS offensive delivery systems.

Back then we had LIMITED air to air / ground to air defensive abilities
to be honest from detection, guidance, payload, and range our air to air /ground to air missiles can best be described as primitive.


along with very limited intercontinental weapon delivery systems.

we and the russians only had one really reliable delivery system for atomic weapons (the big stick) and that was aircraft.

so if there was gonna be a WWIII at that time nukes probably would have been used and if russia wants to hit us this far they aint gonna use conventional explosives.

so their only real threat was from nuclear bombers.

those would have been in large amounts (ok large for what they had) and given armed with nukes you cant let one get though.

hell you could not one even get close (close with nukes is a MUCH BIGGER AREA of devastation) .

we didnt have the number of air defense fighters/ ground missiles ready to go and engaging the bombers takes time...
each minute gets them closer and they would scatter after maybe the first pass of the fighters or at first sight.

with ground to air missiles you also have the same limitations abit maybe greater range over air to air.
however air to air can extend the range over ground to air.

In either case you had to destroy as many and more accurately all before they could drop their nuke payload.

so being realistic at the time of the genie (and other nuclear defensive missiles) they were (for the tech available) the best chance of defense .
yes nuclear fallout from our own missiles (especially ground to air) could harm us.

but one or a few 1.5K missiles airburst vs being hit with multiple 10+K or megaton bombs?
the missiles made alot more sense.

as ICBM and SLBM took over such systems were removed as ineffective .

so from the view of the time, they were not the best option, but the only effective option if the worst were to come.

scrounger

originally posted by: Irishhaf
If the Army was willing to use an artillery launched Nuke, why wouldn't the USAF want the similar in flight.

Also yes total and complete insanity, DoD has a strong track record of buying the newest gadget sight unseen.

Ok first you have to compare apples to apples

the genie was a DEFENSIVE anti bomber system

the army systems (artillery) would be OFFENSIVE nuclear systems..
more comparable to air force atomic bombs and tactical atomic missile systems.

to which they wanted a piece of the "atomic budget" and only way to get that was have nukes of their own.
be artillery, mines , ground to ground missiles, and man portable demolition nukes (side note i never believed we got rid of them and dont have some developed today).

as tech for size and delivery systems improved, alot of nuke weapons systems were either ended or replaced with better systems.

but to be fair once ICBM/SLBM with thermonuclear warheads came about, alot of other nukes were unneeded.
because if a "battlefield nuke" was used , you would (not might) then have the "balloon go up"/ strategic nukes used.


so having alot of "tactical nukes" became redundant and in reality not feasible..

scrounger

originally posted by: 38181
Sounds almost as bad as using Nuclear Artillery shells, they had that developed in the 50’s. Including the “Honest John” nuclear warhead rocket. Haha!

yeah i've read about that. or the nuclear hand grenades. 1 mile kill radius.

air to air nukes seem a bit nutty.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33