Air To Air Nukes...WHAT ???

a reply to: scrounger

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

All one has to do is think radiation .
They cannot think for the long run .

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: scrounger

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

All one has to do is think radiation .
They cannot think for the long run .

with respect your missing the big picture and looking at it in the context of the time it was made.

the air to air / anti aircraft capability was quite limited at the time.
both in numbers and tech available (range, warhead load, detection, tracking, ect).

this was 1957 when genie was made.
at this time the primary delivery system for strategic atomic and HYDROGEN bombs was by manned bombers.

the atomic bombs ran from 15 to 21 KT plus and the new hydrogen bombs were MINIMUM from russia 1.6 MEGATONS with being made much more powerful (US was too).

the bombers if (God forbid) coming to the US for WWIII were NOT gonna be conventional explosives but either atomic but more likely hydrogen bombs.

again given the limited amount and best be described primitive (by todays standards) technical level anti aircraft defenses
given that the attack would be with alot of bombers.
given that if even ONE got to the US (or given the range of destruction close) the destruction, radiation contamination, and loss of life .

they needed a way within their technical limitations to stop ALL (or as close to all as you can get) of the bombers from dropping their bombs.

conventional missiles at the time (ground to air and air to air) just didnt have the ability to achieve this.

so their choice was to allow massive damage, radiation and death or use a SMALL nuclear tipped missile (air to air and ground to air) to stop them.

yes yes radiation is bad we know this.

but given a choice of an FEW AIR BURST 1.5 KT vs being hit with a MINUMUM 1.6 MEGATON bomb (and more likely many of them)... which do you prefer/ do the math.

again when the tech of both offensive missiles (ICBM and SLBM) and defensive missiles grew this system was removed as obselete.

when you look at it in the time it was made, you see it was the best option they had vs the threat.

thank God it was not needed to be used.

but as a "silly idea" or "bad idea"

it wasnt

scrounger

originally posted by: Gothmog

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 .

It was intended to destroy hundreds of russian bombers at once over the Atlantic or Ukraine, on the way to destroying our East coast or Western Europe, and was never used.

We have better methods now.

Thanks to Reagan.

a reply to: scrounger
Radiation is radiation .
That doesn't go away for quiet some time.

a reply to: scrounger

You're right on the money. The Navy wanted part of the "atomic budget" as well. They actually deployed P2V Neptunes on carriers as nuclear bombers. They could take off with RATO, but couldn't land on the carrier. They either had to make their way to a land base or bail out.
en.wikipedia.org...

I was in the Navy in the 80's. Our SH-3H Sea King helicopters carried the B-57 nuclear bomb as a nuclear depth charge. I was a member of the "Load Team". When we looked at the flight profile to drop one of those we knew that there was a big chance that we couldn't get out of the blast radius. The objective of dropping one was to take out a Soviet sub and buy time for the carrier to get it's strike off.

en.wikipedia.org...

Nuclear artillery didn't go away with Atomic Annie. The shells became small enough they could be fired from regular guns. The soviets in particular had a 1 kiloton shell that could be fired from every 152mm gun in their inventory.

The only reason nuclear artillery declined was because these small tactical weapons were by far the most numerous and treaty signatories understandably chose these ones to decommission to comply with the new treaty limitations, leaving their stock of strategic weapons and longer range tactical weapons intact. At least for the time being.

I'm surprised that nobody's mentioned the SADM yet.

en.wikipedia.org...

Remember the suitcase nukes for the executives and business class. Wow. They were at one time trying to account for all of those the Russians had.

a reply to: TamtammyMacx

They can't account for them because they didn't exist. The SADM is one of the smallest nukes possible and it requires four men.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: TamtammyMacx

They can't account for them because they didn't exist. The SADM is one of the smallest nukes possible and it requires four men.

Read the article. the lightest weight one was under 60 lbs,and could be carried by one soldier.

a reply to: yuppa

Yeah and they found out in testing that it was unreliable and emitted harmful radiation. Wiki doesn't mention that.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: TamtammyMacx

They can't account for them because they didn't exist. The SADM is one of the smallest nukes possible and it requires four men.

Read the article. the lightest weight one was under 60 lbs,and could be carried by one soldier.

Genie did exist and existed in fairly large numbers.

We lied about its existence for decades, so not surprising that some don't believe it now.

At one time, all f15s were able to carry them. F15 was the first plane specifically designed to survive the use of Genie, not many other planes could.

Until F15, use of Genie was basically a suicide mission, with little chance the crew would survive.



I strongly suspect that this is the reason obama killed the f22 at putin's insistence.

F22 can also carry and survive use of the modern version of Genie, which is designed to destroy an entire barrage of ICBMs over enemy territory.

There 'might' be a few flying over russia and ccp 24x7.

Or we might be using a newer plane that most are unaware of now.

F35 does not have this capability.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Originally the Phoenix design missile had the capability for a nuclear warhead. It was eliminated when the TFX was cancelled. A few miles from where I work there was a Nike / Ajax missile site. Those missiles were originally designed with a nuclear capability that was later discarded.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Originally the Phoenix design missile had the capability for a nuclear warhead. It was eliminated when the TFX was cancelled. A few miles from where I work there was a Nike / Ajax missile site. Those missiles were originally designed with a nuclear capability that was later discarded.

There is a lot that few of us know on this subject.

I know a few pieces from the manufacturing side, while you and a few others are familiar with the military portions.

Together, I bet we could write a helluva book someday.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

hell yeah man

take out ruskis and their bombers


never enough nukes.

my family is friends with the dr at the Manhattan project when he was alive and even now


so much science

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Most of the stuff I posted is open source. Anybody with access to a good library can find it. When I was on ship, the library was full of military history books and I was into it. People keep forgetting that things happened that are not on the internet. I think "link or it didn't happen" is the most ignorant statement. I used to sit in on a yearly briefing on Soviet Military Intentions. I had a clearance so I got the classified brief. There's things I remember from those that when I post some 16 year old who plays Call of Duty tries to call me out on. Of course I can't post a freaking link, so to them it didn't happen.

Nobody except those who were there remembers us sinking a Libyan Foxtrot class submarine in 1986. Yep it didn't happen. I don't know where the bodies we recovered came from.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Most of the stuff I posted is open source. Anybody with access to a good library can find it. When I was on ship, the library was full of military history books and I was into it. People keep forgetting that things happened that are not on the internet. I think "link or it didn't happen" is the most ignorant statement. I used to sit in on a yearly briefing on Soviet Military Intentions. I had a clearance so I got the classified brief. There's things I remember from those that when I post some 16 year old who plays Call of Duty tries to call me out on. Of course I can't post a freaking link, so to them it didn't happen.

Nobody except those who were there remembers us sinking a Libyan Foxtrot class submarine in 1986. Yep it didn't happen. I don't know where the bodies we recovered came from.

Same with me, if I haven't seen it in Jane's, I won't discuss it anywhere.

My way of ensuring that the things I discuss weren't supposed to be secret.


I had no idea about the Libyan sub, but doesn't surprise me.

Most of what I know came from publicly available books, the 'shop floor', or Jane's, and if it hasn't been in Jane's, I won't discuss it.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

If you have access to Jane's Fighting Ships look at the 87 and 88 editions. The quantity of Libyan Foxtrot submarines changes. Since the 87 is compiled in 86 and the 88 is compiled in 87 it shows it.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

If you have access to Jane's Fighting Ships look at the 87 and 88 editions. The quantity of Libyan Foxtrot submarines changes. Since the 87 is compiled in 86 and the 88 is compile in 87 it shows it.

Can I access it through a digital subscription?

I work from home now, and miss out on the office library, but my boss supposedly got approval for a digital subscription for me this year. Haven't received the creds yet though.

I might be able to get a coworker to look it up for me.

We never discuss submarines where I work, though we have had some projects in recent years to convert some existing systems for use on a mysterious 'flying boat' that has bay size and shape pretty similar to a boomer bay.

Hmmm....

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

I honestly don't know.