Genie vs AIM-26 Falcon question.

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
3 June 2011
Messages
17,303
Reaction score
8,996
With the AIM-26 using the same warhead as Genie, being guided, having longer range, and a quarter of the weight, why did Genie stay in service longer than the AIM-26? And why was Genie used on the F-106 with the guided AIM-26 being used on the earlier F-102? Anybody have any insight into this?

Thanks.
 
Just a guess: The unguided, but faster Genie allowed the launching aircraft to turn away from the explosion, whereas
the SAR guided, but slower AIM26 would force it to keep the course to the target. With MACH 2 it may have been pretty close
at the point of detonation ?
 
Genie did not use the same warhead as AIM-26. Genie had the W25, nominal yield 1.5 kt. Falcon had the W54, nominal yield 0.25 kt.
 
TomS said:
Genie did not use the same warhead as AIM-26. Genie had the W25, nominal yield 1.5 kt. Falcon had the W54, nominal yield 0.25 kt.

From Andreas' site:

"* The 250 T yield is the figure quoted by most public sources. However, according to a first-hand account of an individual who worked with the weapon, the true nominal yield was actually 1.5 kT. "

Regardless, however, this doesn't explain why the F-106 would stick with the earlier, unguided weapon. If Genie was more useful why develop the AIM-26 in the first place?
 
I'm really doubtful that they could get 1.5 kt out of a 50-pound physics package. Genie needed four times that much.

I don't know for certain why AIM-26 went away so fast, but I suspect it came down to reliability. Falcon was never the most consistent missile around, and pairing that unpredictability with a nuclear warhead sounds undesirable. Genie at least could be counted on to operate when needed.
 
Interesting details here:


http://www.ausairpower.net/Falcon-Evolution.html#mozTocId264424


The -102 didn't have Genie because it would not fit. As for Nuclear Falcon, do the math on employing a Mach 2 SARH AAM from a Mach 1.2 fighter, and where you are when it goes bang. Note also (according to SOC) that the goal was to inert the bombs rather than destroy the aircraft.


The Swedes subsequently used the conventional version of the nuclear Falcon, because its prox fuze and big continuous-rod warhead were actually lethal.
 
LowObservable said:
As for Nuclear Falcon, do the math on employing a Mach 2 SARH AAM from a Mach 1.2 fighter, and where you are when it goes bang.

And yet that's exactly what they did. So was it a case of "hey, this is a dumb idea, let's stick with Genie"?
 
SARH means that you keep the target in your radar illumination envelope until detonation. Genie was fire-and-forget (as is a rock).
 
LowObservable said:
SARH means that you keep the target in your radar illumination envelope until detonation. Genie was fire-and-forget (as is a rock).

Yes. And? Could we just address the question please? Does anybody know if the USAF specifically said, "hey, this AIM-26A wasn't such a bright idea after all, let's make room to keep the Genie instead for the F-106". Just seems strange they'd go through the trouble of making an AIM-26A in the first place.
 
I'm just working from SOC's piece in AusAirpower, which states that the USAF did not want to spend the time and money to equip the F-102A with Genie, where the F-106 was designed to carry it from the outset.

But clearly with an unguided weapon, you can break immediately after launch. With a SARH, you have to follow it in. This is nonoptimal healthwise when the warhead is Instant Sunshine.

It also seems possible, from SOC's account and the fact that the Swedes adopted it, that the GAR-11A/AIM-26B with the big CR warhead may have given a similar Pk without the nuclear complications. Note that the Brits had CR on the Firestreak and Red Top: a bomber peppered with frag could struggle gamely on and deliver its weapon, but one missing half the wing or a large piece of the tail probably would not.
 
sferrin said:
LowObservable said:
SARH means that you keep the target in your radar illumination envelope until detonation. Genie was fire-and-forget (as is a rock).

Yes. And? Could we just address the question please? Does anybody know if the USAF specifically said, "hey, this AIM-26A wasn't such a bright idea after all, let's make room to keep the Genie instead for the F-106". Just seems strange they'd go through the trouble of making an AIM-26A in the first place.

I think the real issue about the Falcon's family was poor reliability. Someone said the Falcon would have struggled to shot down an airliner in level flight... The Genie was much more simple and "dumb" enough to reach the target without complications. It must be said also that some troubles was experimented earlier with the Hughes E-4 FCS installed on F-86D, that had painful teething troubles. Maybe (but it is my speculation), in Convair deltas the AI radar was refined, but the weapon itself (Falcon) was not satisfactory.
 
Not sure if this is the right place for this question but does anyone know if the Soviets had or looked at an equivalent to these? That is, an air-to-air weapon with nuclear warhead.
 
I have no idea what the USAF thought. But often--and particularly at that time--things got done as much because they could be as for any other reason. And then there is what my Dad said to sum up his Army service: "Son, there are three ways of doing anything: The right way, the wrong way, and the Army way."

I think the AIM-26A was the product of expedience and muddled, ex post facto requirements analysis than anything else. It was a design contradiction . Genie was a brute-force but logical solution to the problem of insuring the certain destruction of a dangerous, non-maneuvering, high-altitude target: an unguided, more or less ballistic weapon with a warhead lethal enough to make up for accuracy limitations in the aircraft fire control. Falcon pursued an opposing, more elegant logic: make up for accuracy limitations in the aircraft fire control and the limited lethality of a small conventional warhead with a guidance package capable of leading the missile to the target. As others have said, the latter approach proved unreliable, probably due to the electronics technology of the day and the relatively greater complexity of the solution. Seen in this light, the nuclear Falcon was an illogical design that managed to combine the worst features of these two opposed solutions: nuclear explosions over our Canadian neighbors' heads and unreliable guidance and control. So my guess is that the nuclear option was driven by doubts about the conventional Falcon's ability to get close enough to destroy high performance bombers and the need to rehabilitate (and preserve funding for) a USAF guided missile program.

We should also remember that the nuclear AIM-26A was cancelled, revived in 1959, and deployed in 1961. This was just as the U-2 program was showing Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy that the Soviet Union did not have any significant, strategic bomber force, much less one capable of threatening the continental US. I expect that that revelation ended any serious interest in pursuing the complex, expensive, possibly dangerous, AIM-26A nuclear solution. The Genie was at least simple, although why we bothered with them once we knew that their designed targets did not exist is a mystery to me.
 
Not sure if this is the right place for this question but does anyone know if the Soviets had or looked at an equivalent to these? That is, an air-to-air weapon with nuclear warhead.

You mean a dedicated nuclear only missile/rocket as opposed to a nuclear variant of a conventional air to air missile or a dual capable missile?
 
Either way - a nuclear variant is fine too. I am just curious if the USSR had either or contemplated either. I would have thought that with their serious concerns of attack by NATO and the USA, consideration to arm at least V-PVO Interceptors such as the MiG-25 or Su-15 with a nuclear missile would have been given thought. If nukes were already being used or potentially used, having the option of a missile that might guarantee a kill on multiple bombers at once would have been attractive.

I have read that nuclear warheads were options for the S-25 Berkut (SA-1) SAM, V-760 (SA-2E) variant of the S-75 Dvina SAM and S-200D "Dubna" (SA-5c) SAM. These were all in the 10 - 25KT range and bigger than what a typical air-to-air missile would carry but perhaps;s a smaller (~1 - 2KT) weapon would be doable. Then again, perhaps the limits of Soviet technology at the time or even their stockpile of nuclear warheads prevented them.
 
Last edited:
As far as i know there was a Nuclear warhead variant of R-33 for MiG-31.
 
From James Vaughan
1712213375716
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom