henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (07/24/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >>... the USAF hasn't >>built an interceptor for 25 years, and has forgotten how. > >I thought that the ANG Phantoms were supposed to fill this role. Were else >would the USAF need to deploy air-defence interceptors instead of sleek, >sexy air-superiority machines? :-) The ANG Phantoms are being retired in favor of sleek, sexy air-superiority machines with big "interceptor" labels stuck on them for Congress's benefit. In the same way that the USAF is trying to retire its close-air-support fleet and replace them with s-s-a-s-m's and deep-strike interdictors with easy-peel-off labels saying "close air support". Most military services, and US military aviation in particular, have quite specific ideas of what their "real" missions are. This tends to shape both hardware procurement and operational budgets. Anything that doesn't fit the "real" missions will be pushed off into a corner, or converted so that it can also do something "real" when the big one starts, as much as possible. Ignoring SAC, which is an air force within an air force, the USAF's "real" missions are air superiority and long-range tactical nuclear strike. At that, air superiority is a recent addition, and it shows: the F-16, conceived as a pure and uncompromised air-superiority fighter, has been converted into a nuclear-capable bomber to a considerable extent. The resulting changes have noticeably compromised it for air superiority. The Phantom, a decent interceptor and conventional bomber, was rammed down the USAF's throat by McNamara; the USAF wanted more F-105 nuclear-deep-strike bombers instead. (If you want to know how to tell the difference, one thing that historically has been a bit of a giveaway is a *small* internal weapons bay, just large enough to hold one or two tactical nuclear bombs but not big enough for a useful conventional load.) Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (07/24/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >... What is the status of the FLIR testing. Last I read >in AW&ST said it was being tested on an F-16... FLIR systems are becoming fairly widespread. But these are see-in-the-dark navigation systems for bombers, not target detectors for fighters. I suppose they might have some capability in that role -- anybody know? -- but I suspect not a good one, since they're not optimized for it. (A bomber navigation system wants to give the best possible image of the countryside at short range, while a fighter target detector wants to ignore the scenery completely and just pick up moving hot spots as far away as possible.) Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
aws@vax3.iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) (07/26/89)
From: aws@vax3.iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) In article <8529@cbnews.ATT.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >At that, air superiority is a recent addition, and it shows: the F-16, >conceived as a pure and uncompromised air-superiority fighter, has been >converted into a nuclear-capable bomber to a considerable extent. I disagree that the F-16 was conceived as a pure air-superiority fighter. It was designed to maneuver well and be cheap to build. Its lack of medium range missiles would give it a considerable disadvantage in CAP, fighter sweep, or other air superiority roles. It is however, very maneuverable and would be as good as anything available if it could live long enough to get close. Living that long in a high threat environment would be hard. Allen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Allen Sherzer | DETROIT: | | aws@iti.org | Where the weak are killed and eaten | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (08/04/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: aws@vax3.iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) >I disagree that the F-16 was conceived as a pure air-superiority fighter. >It was designed to maneuver well and be cheap to build. Its lack of >medium range missiles would give it a considerable disadvantage in CAP, >fighter sweep, or other air superiority roles... What we have here is, to some extent, a dispute over terms. The YF-16, the original F-16, was unquestionably designed as a uncompromised daylight visual dogfight aircraft; this is a matter of historical record, since it was the basic objective of the Light Weight Fighter competition. The question is what "air superiority" means. Since others have written me personally asking for clarification, I'll elaborate. Many people don't understand that even if you ignore bombing raids etc., there are at least four different "fighter" missions which can call for rather different aircraft designs. Two of these missions -- "escort", accompanying long-range bombers, and "intruder", going out over hostile territory looking for trouble -- have fallen out of fashion, partly due to technological and tactical change, and I won't discuss them further. (Oh, okay, a brief comment on why that happened... Escort fighters are less necessary now that bombers attack individually rather than in formation -- a response to nuclear antiaircraft weapons, among other things -- and are less practical over intercontinental ranges. Intruder missions classically involved going in at night and lurking around an enemy airfield waiting for targets; modern radar and other sensors have made this unhealthy.) The two remaining missions are "air superiority" and "interception". The boundaries do get a bit fuzzy at times. The classical interception mission is defending North America against Soviet bombers. This demands sophisticated sensors and weapons to operate under bad conditions, because the bad guys will come in at night and in bad weather if they possibly can, accompanied by massive jamming and other deceptive tactics. Long-range missiles are important to improve a single interceptor's ability to take on multiple separated opponents, and several should be carried. Short-range missiles and guns are important as backups but are not primary weapons. The interceptor itself needs long range, to engage opponents at the longest possible distance (both to give an opportunity to try again if you miss, and to try to nail the bad guys before they get close enough to launch cruise missiles and the like). Long endurance is likewise important to cope with uncertain arrival times. Having a second crewman to manage sensors and weapons is highly desirable, given the difficult environment. High maneuverability and acceleration are relatively unimportant; the mission seldom calls for dogfights. Interceptors have become unfashionable, particularly in the US, as the manned-bomber nuclear threat has declined. The best current interceptor is probably the RAF's air-defence variant of the Tornado. Air superiority is a very different kettle of fish: maintaining control of the air above a battlefield, so that your own tactical bombers can operate unhampered and the opponent's can't get at your own ground forces. Conditions will be confused and chaotic, with visual identification almost certainly required before shooting and long-range engagements thus rare. Most targets will be fairly simple aircraft, simply because they are cheaper to build and numbers count on a non-nuclear battlefield; their ability to operate at night will be somewhat limited and seriously bad weather will shut them down. There will be a lot of them, so numbers and reliability are important for an air-superiority fighter. This means simplicity, since complex systems are almost never reliable, and a deliberate refusal to push the state of the art. That also helps on keeping the price tag down, which is very important if adequate numbers are to be had. Maneuverability is very important. So is small size, both to the eye and to radar -- in this environment, almost all kills involve surprise, and an aircraft which is harder to spot has a massive advantage. Almost all combat will take place at low altitude and subsonic speed, so turning and acceleration are much more important than speed and altitude capability. Ranges will be short, although endurance is still useful. Ability to operate from crude ground facilities is useful, since this puts the aircraft closer to the front and avoids unproductive transit time. The original YF-16 is the closest thing the West has built to an uncompromised air-superiority fighter in a long time; most such projects, including the later F-16 developments, get confused with interception and bombing missions and end up being too big, complex, unreliable, and costly to be a good air-superiority fighter. Qualitative superiority cannot overcome superior in-the-air numbers; the Me262 was vastly superior to any WW2 Allied fighter, with one fighter pilot estimating that it took 8 Mustangs to cope with one Me262, but the Allies *had* 8 Mustangs for each Me262, and we all know what happened. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
shafer@drynix (Mary Shafer) (08/09/89)
From: Mary Shafer <shafer@drynix> From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >(Oh, okay, a brief comment on why that happened... Escort fighters are >less necessary now that bombers attack individually rather than in >formation -- a response to nuclear antiaircraft weapons, among other ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >things -- and are less practical over intercontinental ranges. Intruder >missions classically involved going in at night and lurking around an >enemy airfield waiting for targets; modern radar and other sensors have >made this unhealthy.) Are "nuclear anitaircraft weapons" antiaircraft weapons that use nuclear devices or are they antiaircraft weapons used against aircraft carrying nuclear devices? Did I miss some strange and wonderful weapon system? Using a nuclear device to shoot down an aircraft sounds like a really bad idea. Consider the EMP effect on your own systems, for one thing. Also, it's hard to be the first user of a nuclear device, even as a preemptive event. These would be tactical weapons and I can't imagine that control would be surrendered to the field, which would be necessary if such a weapons were to be successful. Of course, practicality, feasibility, and useability are not necessarily among the criteria used to select weapon systems. :-) -- M F Shafer shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov NASA Ames Research Center arpa!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer Dryden Flight Research Facility Of course I don't speak for NASA
welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (08/10/89)
From: welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (Richard Welty)
From: Mary Shafer <shafer@drynix>
=From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
=>(Oh, okay, a brief comment on why that happened... Escort fighters are
=>less necessary now that bombers attack individually rather than in
=>formation -- a response to nuclear antiaircraft weapons, among other
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
=>things -- and are less practical over intercontinental ranges.
=Are "nuclear anitaircraft weapons" antiaircraft weapons that use
=nuclear devices or are they antiaircraft weapons used against aircraft
=carrying nuclear devices?
the latter
=Did I miss some strange and wonderful weapon system?
they got obsoleted before our time; but there were a few nuclear
tipped AAMs; my recollection is that there was an F-101 variant
specialized to carry such a missle (perhaps named ``Genie''?)
=Using a nuclear device to shoot down an aircraft sounds like a really
=bad idea. Consider the EMP effect on your own systems, for one thing.
this was rather before people comprehended the consequences of
EMP.
=Also, it's hard to be the first user of a nuclear device, even as a
=preemptive event. These would be tactical weapons and I can't imagine
=that control would be surrendered to the field, which would be
=necessary if such a weapons were to be successful.
=Of course, practicality, feasibility, and useability are not
=necessarily among the criteria used to select weapon systems. :-)
right; this was not a rational weapon system, which was part
of why it was abandoned. too bad they ever built it in the
first place, but at least they figured it out. of course, it
would have hurt the Canadians more than the US, anyway (no
smiley here -- this was the typical US ``it's only tundra
and eskimoes anyway'' mentality in action.
richard
--
richard welty 518-387-6346, GE R&D, K1-5C39, Niskayuna, New York
crdgw1!lewis.crd.ge.com!welty welty@lewis.crd.ge.com
Officer: Do you know how fast you were going?
Driver: No. The speedometer only goes up to 85henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (08/11/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >Are "nuclear anitaircraft weapons" antiaircraft weapons that use >nuclear devices or are they antiaircraft weapons used against aircraft >carrying nuclear devices? The former. Several were developed and deployed in the 1950s, notably nuclear warheads for major SAMs (e.g. Nike-Hercules and Bomarc) and the Genie AAM (which was actually an unguided rocket with a nuclear warhead). I'm not sure about the SAMs, but Genie was successfully tested at least once with a live warhead. The attraction of nuclear antiaircraft weapons is the obvious: it's no longer necessary to get a direct hit or very near miss. A significant side issue, at the time, was that they promised to be enormously effective against the WW2-vintage tight bomber formations that were then in fashion. Formation tactics were promptly abandoned, but the missiles were still in service, with numbers dwindling, until the mid-70s I think. I wouldn't be surprised if Patriot has nuclear capability, although my references aren't handy. >Using a nuclear device to shoot down an aircraft sounds like a really >bad idea. Consider the EMP effect on your own systems, for one thing. EMP wasn't taken as seriously -- among other reasons, because it wasn't as serious with vacuum tubes! -- when most of those things were designed. >Also, it's hard to be the first user of a nuclear device, even as a >preemptive event. These would be tactical weapons [but] I can't imagine >that control would be surrendered to the field... These weapons mostly originated in "massive retaliation" days, when it was official doctrine that any significant war would immediately go nuclear. In any case, most (all?) of them were deployed primarily as strategic defences, not in tactical applications. Both USAF Aerospace Defense Command and the RCAF deployed Genie in interceptors, for example, but I don't *think* it was ever deployed in Europe. The expected targets were nuclear-armed bombers with evil intentions :-), so first use was not thought to be an issue. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
wlm@uunet.UU.NET (William L. Moran Jr.) (08/11/89)
From: archet!wlm@uunet.UU.NET (William L. Moran Jr.) In article <8796@cbnews.ATT.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >... Qualitative superiority cannot >overcome superior in-the-air numbers; the Me262 was vastly superior to >any WW2 Allied fighter, with one fighter pilot estimating that it took 8 >Mustangs to cope with one Me262, but the Allies *had* 8 Mustangs for each >Me262, and we all know what happened. This makes no sense; clearly in the situation you have just presented, if the ratio had been *less* than 8 to 1 the Me262 would have been a fine bargain. In fact, what needs to be thought about (and I think this is really what you were arguing) is that someone needs to make price/performance estimates. For example, the Me262 was a good deal because: 1) it was not that much more expensive than conventional fighters 2) it used fuel which was more available than that required for a high performance conventional fighter 3) the Germans didn't have enough pilots as it was, so building 6x as many Fw190s as there were Me262s built would not have helped (assuming this was the trade) Bill -- arpa: moran-william@cs.yale.edu or wlm@ibm.com uucp: uunet!bywater!acheron!archet!wlm or decvax!yale!moran-william ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ``There is Jackson standing like a stone wall. Let us determine to die, and we will conquer. Follow me.'' - General Barnard E. Bee (CSA)
nagle@lll-crg.llnl.gov (John Nagle) (08/12/89)
From: well!nagle@lll-crg.llnl.gov (John Nagle) In article <8893@cbnews.ATT.COM> shafer@drynix (Mary Shafer) writes: >Are "nuclear anitaircraft weapons" antiaircraft weapons that use >nuclear devices or are they antiaircraft weapons used against aircraft >carrying nuclear devices? > >Did I miss some strange and wonderful weapon system? > Yes, the Nike-Hercules, installed around U.S. cities in the period 1960-1970. Liquid-fueled, ground-controlled anti-aircraft missiles, sometimes equipped with low-yield nuclear warheads. >Using a nuclear device to shoot down an aircraft sounds like a really >bad idea. Consider the EMP effect on your own systems, for one thing. That was less of a problem with the computers of that era. Many were still tube-based. EMP is a controllable problem, if the equipment is designed and shielded for it. Things like metal mesh in the concrete of your building make a big difference. >Also, it's hard to be the first user of a nuclear device, even as a >preemptive event. These would be tactical weapons and I can't imagine >that control would be surrendered to the field, which would be >necessary if such a weapons were to be successful. That's right. There were U.S. air defense commanders in the 1960s with nuclear release authority. If somebody is about to drop a few planeloads of 20 megatonners on your city, using a few 1 kiloton interceptors to knock them down seems like a good tradeoff. >Of course, practicality, feasibility, and useability are not >necessarily among the criteria used to select weapon systems. :-) Sometimes you have to make tough decisions like that. It may be better to kill off 1% of the population of a city to save 80%. By the time somebody has to make a decision like that, the options left are limited. John Nagle
jeffm@uokmax.UUCP (Jeff Medcalf) (08/12/89)
From: jeffm@uokmax.UUCP (Jeff Medcalf) >From: welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (Richard Welty) > >From: Mary Shafer <shafer@drynix> >=From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) > >=Are "nuclear anitaircraft weapons" antiaircraft weapons that use >=nuclear devices or are they antiaircraft weapons used against aircraft >=carrying nuclear devices? > >the latter Wrong. They are the former. For example, Nike Zeus was (and is, in some countries (Britain, I think)) a nuclear-tipped surface-to-air missile. [Technically, they're the former; tactically, they're the latter, I suspect. --CDR] >they got obsoleted before our time; but there were a few nuclear >tipped AAMs; my recollection is that there was an F-101 variant >specialized to carry such a missle (perhaps named ``Genie''?) AIR-2A Genie. It was simply a rocket with a blast radius of 1.5 miles (?) which was fired in the direction of the target. I think it was command fused. The F-102 and F-106 could carry one each in addition to two Falcon missiles. The F-101 never carried, to my knowledge, the AIR-2. BTW, F-101? Maybe I am thinking of the CF-101. Is there a difference between the Voodoo and the CF101? >=Using a nuclear device to shoot down an aircraft sounds like a really >=bad idea. Consider the EMP effect on your own systems, for one thing. > >this was rather before people comprehended the consequences of >EMP. Also, the devices are small and meant to be used outside of "useful" air space, for example, over Northern Canada :-). Besides, EMP is better than loss of a city. >=Of course, practicality, feasibility, and useability are not >=necessarily among the criteria used to select weapon systems. :-) > >right; this was not a rational weapon system, which was part >of why it was abandoned. too bad they ever built it in the >first place, but at least they figured it out. of course, it > >richard No, it was rational. The entire system was almost humanless. SAGE computers directed the aircraft and SAM's. The humans simply OKd the use of the weapons and the system did the rest. In fact, F-102's or F-106's (I forget which) can perform their mission without a pilot on board. In any event, if the weapons were used over the Arctic Ocean, then the problem of EMP was nil. In any event, the problem of fallout is low, since the bursts were too high to pick up dirt.
edw@zehntel.com (Ed Wright) (08/12/89)
From: edw@zehntel.com (Ed Wright) The Nike series in particular the Herc carried either a large HE warhead or could be fitted with one of three tac nuke warheads. The idea was that the concussion and emp would knock the bomber out of the sky. From about three miles away. When (some years back as a new member of HQ 45 ADA Bde)) I asked about the rationale of popping nukes the reply was better xKT over Evanston than 12MT over the loop. To a degree that makes sense, (or does it?) Not too long ago I looked at some footage of Eisenhower and JFK essentially telling the world (about nukes) we got 'em, and if need be we'll use 'em, we're ready ! I had forgotten just how close we were to world war back then, and then I remembered all the weeks at defcon 3, the days at defcon 2 and a few bad times at defcon 1. Ed Wright
welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (Richard Welty) (08/16/89)
From: welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (Richard Welty)
In article <26728@amdcad.AMD.COM>, Jeff Medcalf writes:
*From: jeffm@uokmax.UUCP (Jeff Medcalf)
*>From: welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (Richard Welty)
*>they got obsoleted before our time; but there were a few nuclear
*>tipped AAMs; my recollection is that there was an F-101 variant
*>specialized to carry such a missle (perhaps named ``Genie''?)
*AIR-2A Genie. It was simply a rocket with a blast radius of 1.5 miles (?)
*which was fired in the direction of the target. I think it was command fused.
*The F-102 and F-106 could carry one each in addition to two Falcon missiles.
*The F-101 never carried, to my knowledge, the AIR-2. BTW, F-101? Maybe I am
*thinking of the CF-101. Is there a difference between the Voodoo and the CF101?
there were a number of Voodoo variants; some were reconnaissance, some
were fighter-bombers, and the F-101B was an interceptor, which could carry
2 Genie rockets (i checked my references the other night, and found that
they were rather spotty about the F-101, but one listed the design
armaments for the individual models, and shows the 101B with an interceptor
load. the same reference shows the 106 carrying 2 Genie rockets and
2 Falcons, but the 102 as carrying only Falcons.)
*No, it was rational. The entire system was almost humanless.
well, it depends on what you consider rational.
* SAGE computers
*directed the aircraft and SAM's. The humans simply OKd the use of the weapons
*and the system did the rest.
from this viewpoint, i could only partially agree -- it depends on
your view of the issue of taking the human `out of the loop', which
is a very, very touchy issue.
* In fact, F-102's or F-106's (I forget which) can
*perform their mission without a pilot on board.
it was the 106 that could operate entirely under SAGE control.
note that the pilot still had to be around to land the aircraft.
richard
--
richard welty 518-387-6346, GE R&D, K1-5C39, Niskayuna, New York
..!crdgw1!lewis.crd.ge.com!welty welty@lewis.crd.ge.com
Officer: Do you know how fast you were going?
Driver: No. The speedometer only goes up to 85deej@nvuxr.UUCP (David G Lewis) (08/17/89)
From: deej@nvuxr.UUCP (David G Lewis) In article <26689@amdcad.AMD.COM>, welty@lewis.crd.ge.com writes: > they got obsoleted before our time; but there were a few nuclear > tipped AAMs; my recollection is that there was an F-101 variant > specialized to carry such a missle (perhaps named ``Genie''?) The F-101 Voodoo carried the Genie missile, which was the first nuclear-armed AAM. They're no longer in service... > From: welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (Richard Welty) > > =Using a nuclear device to shoot down an aircraft sounds like a really > =bad idea. Consider the EMP effect on your own systems, for one thing. > > this was rather before people comprehended the consequences of > EMP. > > =Also, it's hard to be the first user of a nuclear device, even as a > =preemptive event. These would be tactical weapons and I can't imagine > =that control would be surrendered to the field, which would be > =necessary if such a weapons were to be successful. Note, though, that there are still tactical nuclear weapons in the arsenals of many militaries, including the US. The US Army ordinance roster includes tactical nuclear "devices" ranging from 155mm artillery shells through SRBMs (short range ballistic missiles) through GLCMs (ground launched cruise missiles), all of which are tactical in nature. The US Navy, I believe, discontinued the "first use" of nuclear depth charges and nuclear armed torpedoes (both submarine launched and ASROC launched) some years ago, but I believe the ordinance is still carried for "deterrence" (if the Russians think we're going to nuke their subs, they won't nuke our carrier battle groups...) -- David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."