Nuclear AIM-54

[SOC]

There has been a little speculation about a nuclear-armed version of the AIM-54.

When studying the WSO's instrument panel in the F-111B looking for evidence that a weapon other than the AIM-54 was to be carried, I came across an interesting panel. There are four indicators above the AIM-54 control panel, labeled AIR HE, AIR SPCL, GND SPCL, and SP. The SPCL designator is a shortened form of "special", used to denote a nuclear store.

So the question then becomes, what was the "special" air-to-air weapon for the F-111B?

The only obvious conclusion I can draw is that a nuclear-armed version of the AIM-54 was planned at some point. The only other options would have been the USAF's AIM-26, which was not integrated on any Naval platform (nor were any of the AIM-4 relations), or the USAF's MB-1 Genie, which was not integrated on any naval platform either. That leaves either a brand-new weapon, or an AIM-54 with a nuclear warhead. The latter is a possibility, given the AIM-47 lineage and the fact that a nuclear warhead was studied for the AIM-47 at one point (although in that case it was dropped in favor of an HE warhead).

Interestingly, this also implies that the F-111B had a secondary nuclear strike capability, given the GND SPCL indicator. It also implies that there was absolutely no conventional A/G capability, and there is no evidence of provision for anything other than the AIM-54 insofar as conventional AAMs are concerned. There was one other interesting switch in the cockpit which apparently allowed the AIM-54 to be fired fully active right off the rail, implying that this was a capability of the weapon from the outset and not something added during the development leading up to integration of the weapon system with the F-14A. Lastly, there was a READY/SAFE/CLEAR switch by the pilot's control stick, implying that a gun was to be carried in some podded form. That switch was identifiable in one of the pre-production machine's cockpits as well.

Anyway, apart from proving that the F-111B really was to have been restricted to the Fleet Air Defense mission with the AIM-54, apart from a potential nuclear strike capability, this does raise the question of what happened to the nuclear AIM-54.

Anyone else have any information?

 

[Thorvic]

Big Q perhaps ?

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-68.html

Although this is a USAF missile rather than Navy :-\

 

[Rickshaw]

Might it not have been designed for the Genie?

 

[SOC]

Probably not as the Genie was a USAF weapon mated to various ADC interceptors. While it was trialled on the F-4C and F-104 I've never heard of it being tested on a USN aircraft.

 

[Pioneer]

Probably not as the Genie was a USAF weapon mated to various ADC interceptors. While it was trialled on the F-4C and F-104 I've never heard of it being tested on a USN aircraft.

For years I have been trying to find photos / pics of an F-104 armed with a trial Genie AAM
Can anyone help????????????????????????????????????


Regards
Pioneer

 

[SOC]

The only place I've seen a photo is in the WarbirdTECH volume on the F-104. It shows an F-104 mounted on a static test rig fitted with an experimental ventral fairing housing a semi-submerged Genie.

 

[F-14D]

If I remember right, the Genie was unguided and therefore would be of no use to the USN

 

[Matej]

Is it right that the AIM-54 was never used in a real fight by a U.S. Navy, only by Iran?

 

[sferrin]

Is it right that the AIM-54 was never used in a real fight by a U.S. Navy, only by Iran?

They took a few shots in Iraq.

 

[F-14D]

Quote from: Matej on October 29, 2007, 10:07:20 am
Is it right that the AIM-54 was never used in a real fight by a U.S. Navy, only by Iran?


They took a few shots in Iraq.

In Gulf War I Air Force did not permit USN to use AIM-54. There was an encounter afterwards where both USN using AIM-54 and F-15s using AIM-120 took shots at the extreme outer ranges of the two respective missiles, but got no kills.

Iran got a lot of kills with F-14/ AIM-54. Iraq became so afraid of the combination that in Gulf War I, when F-14A/Bs would light up their AWG-9s, the Iraqis would turn and run right then.

 

[SOC]

After pillaging Ryan's SACs and whatnot, it would seem that the F-111B was going to carry quite a diverse weapons load. Shrike, Sidewinder, and various conventional and nuclear bombs. The SACs mention a gun pod as well, explaining the switch on the stick. But now everything is confused thanks to the weapons tables in the SACs. Has anyone uncovered anything else significant about the F-111B in the last two years? Was there a change at some point removing a lot of the weapons capability, maybe to save weight due in the avionics? 2 years later, and this is still fascinatingly confusing.

 

[sferrin]

The only place I've seen a photo is in the WarbirdTECH volume on the F-104. It shows an F-104 mounted on a static test rig fitted with an experimental ventral fairing housing a semi-submerged Genie.

There's a video on youtube of the F-104 firing the Genie. Also there was an episode of "Great Planes" on the miltary channel a couple weeks ago on the F-104 that had a five or ten minutes on the F-104/Genie effort with lots of footage. very interesting.

 

[r16]

somewhere on the Tomcat Sunset Forum , there is an account of a visiting USAF team to Kazakhistan and the friendly banter drifted to which American plane impressed the Kazakhs most . USAF team was naturally amused to discover that it was the F-14 with its unescapeable Nuke Phoenix . In the same thread there is also a brief mention of a personal experience of a "sting" to discover the veracity of any such claim of capability .

 

[Abraham Gubler]

From the 1967 SAC all of the F-111B’s air to ground stores are unguided bombs, dispensers, flares and rockets. So they would not require additional avionics units to operate. The only thing requiring its on black box would be Shrike and the CP-741/A is listed on the avionics table.

Adding a nuclear laydown capability to the air to ground system would make sense considering the F-111B’s performance and the contemporary retirement of the A-5A. This would restore the long range, high and fast nuclear strike capability to the US Navy.

That’s a very good pickup on the AIR SPCL capability. A nuclear AIM-54 would provide improved terminal effectiveness against very high speed targets (Mach >3) that would challenge the prox fuse’s reaction time to keep the target within a lethal distance of the conventional warhead.

The AIM-54’s conventional warhead could have been replaced with a similar sized nuclear unit like the W54 (Davy Crockett, AIM-26) for 10 to 1,000 equivalent tonnes of TNT (x 160 to x 16,000 boost in explosive power over the conventional warhead). Not enough to destroy a spread out formation of bombers (kms) but more than enough to wipe out close formation or a Mach >3 follow on Soviet bomber.

 

[F-14D]

From the 1967 SAC all of the F-111B’s air to ground stores are unguided bombs, dispensers, flares and rockets. So they would not require additional avionics units to operate. The only thing requiring its on black box would be Shrike and the CP-741/A is listed on the avionics table.

Adding a nuclear laydown capability to the air to ground system would make sense considering the F-111B’s performance and the contemporary retirement of the A-5A. This would restore the long range, high and fast nuclear strike capability to the US Navy.

That’s a very good pickup on the AIR SPCL capability. A nuclear AIM-54 would provide improved terminal effectiveness against very high speed targets (Mach >3) that would challenge the prox fuse’s reaction time to keep the target within a lethal distance of the conventional warhead.

The AIM-54’s conventional warhead could have been replaced with a similar sized nuclear unit like the W54 (Davy Crockett, AIM-26) for 10 to 1,000 equivalent tonnes of TNT (x 160 to x 16,000 boost in explosive power over the conventional warhead). Not enough to destroy a spread out formation of bombers (kms) but more than enough to wipe out close formation or a Mach >3 follow on Soviet bomber.

As far as I know, a nuclear AIM-54 was not seriously considered (although in the early-mid '60s there was still an enthusiasm for everything carrying a nuke), as the problems for shipboard and carrier air use would probably outweigh the advantages. It's worthy of note that the requirements for the far superior F-14, while specifying a robust air-to-ground capability did not include any nuclear capability.

Frankly, I'd never want to use an F-111B in a significant air to ground role (even if the wings could hold the stores) as it would be too much of a missile and flak magnet.

 

[Yoyodyne]

The information is probably apocryphal, but I have heard that switch panel markings can have little to do with intended payloads. The mfr just puts it all on the panel to cover any contingency as the procurement process grinds onward. "Of course we can carry nukes, see, we have a switch!"


The example I was cited was the arming switch on the F-4, which apparently had CONVENTIONAL and NUCLEAR positions, but no SAFE position. Since, I was told, the F-4 did not normally carry nuclear weapons, the nuclear position was used as the 'safe' setting. My conjecture is that something like this could have been done on the F-111.


Again, probably apocryphal, probably wrong for numerous versions of the Phantom if not all, and likely completely wrong vis a vis the F-111.

 

[carsinamerica]

The Nuclear Weapons Databook Volume I: U.S. Nuclear Forces and Capabilities, by Thomas Cochran, William Arkin, Milton Hoenig (published by NRDC) has multiple mentions of a nuclear warhead project for the AIM-54, under study from FY82 through at least FY84 (detailed on pg 245).

 

[bobbymike]

Good article from Air Force Magazine on US Nuclear Air Defense Systems.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2012/July%202012/0712nuclear.pdf

 

[sferrin]

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

A switch on the pilot's left-hand console of F-111B BuNo 151972, which was used for Phoenix missile system testing by Hughes...

 

[Grey Havoc]

Lockheed F-104A Starfighter: Pyrrhic victory.

Not happy with the F-104 light-weight fighter concept, the USAF demanded Lockheed that it must be able to carry and launch the AIR-2A Genie nuclear armed air-to-air missile. They thought the F-104 …

elpoderdelasgalaxias.wordpress.com

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

I'm not sure the F-104A's range was all that short unless you mean that it'd need to do a rear-quarter attack instead of a front-beam or head-on, or you factored it's range as being down-low while other aircraft like the F-100 were measured up high.

The F-104 was usable as an F-105 escort, and was supposedly preferred for this purpose. I'm not sure if you needed all four drop-tanks for it, but it seemed better than the F-4 was in terms of performance down-low.

 

[NMaude]

In Gulf War I Air Force did not permit USN to use AIM-54.

Why didn't the USAF allow the USN to fire AIM-54s?

Now as a nuclear armed Phoenix I think the W-54 would've been a good candidate (The W-25 carried in the AIR-2A was too large in diameter).

 

[rooster]

Probably not as the Genie was a USAF weapon mated to various ADC interceptors. While it was trialled on the F-4C and F-104 I've never heard of it being tested on a USN aircraft.

For years I have been trying to find photos / pics of an F-104 armed with a trial Genie AAM
Can anyone help????????????????????????????????????


Regards
Pioneer

A coworker engineer work friend of mine nearly 20 years ago who climbed the ranks to become a general told me he sat on alert in the 60s as a 104 pilot and his aircraft was armed with a nuclear AAM. I don't remember the type or if he even offered the type as it was supposed to have been top secret at the time.

This is the first mention in this thread I have heard anyplace else the starfighter was actually armed even in a trial with a nuclear AAM.

 

[World B4]

I can't imagine the USN not ever seriously considering a nuclear AIM-54, as a counter to soviet bombers with long range nuclear anti-ship missiles. Not just in terms of combat, but also as a a deterrent against the soviets starting a war in general, if their ability to destroy a carrier before it get within range to launch it's nuclear weapons, but also as a political counter. They can destroy our carrier with a nuke, but we can shoot them down with a nuke first. Provides a degree of redundancy in combat. Plus the whole nuke obsession in the cold war.

 

[TomS]

I can't imagine the USN not ever seriously considering a nuclear AIM-54, as a counter to soviet bombers with long range nuclear anti-ship missiles. Not just in terms of combat, but also as a a deterrent against the soviets starting a war in general, if their ability to destroy a carrier before it get within range to launch it's nuclear weapons, but also as a political counter. They can destroy our carrier with a nuke, but we can shoot them down with a nuke first. Provides a degree of redundancy in combat. Plus the whole nuke obsession in the cold war.

We had nuclear Terrier. Maybe that was considered enough?

 

[sferrin]

I can't imagine the USN not ever seriously considering a nuclear AIM-54, as a counter to soviet bombers with long range nuclear anti-ship missiles. Not just in terms of combat, but also as a a deterrent against the soviets starting a war in general, if their ability to destroy a carrier before it get within range to launch it's nuclear weapons, but also as a political counter. They can destroy our carrier with a nuke, but we can shoot them down with a nuke first. Provides a degree of redundancy in combat. Plus the whole nuke obsession in the cold war.

We had nuclear Terrier. Maybe that was considered enough?

I read somewhere that we kept that around to deal with the SS-NX-13. (Submarine launched antiship ballistic missile.) But then it went away and so did the nuclear Terrier.

SS-NX-13 [KY-9] SLBM

The SS-NX-13 submarine-launched ballistic missile was a short-range, two-stage, storable liquid-propellant missile apparently designed for anti-ship missions

www.globalsecurity.org

There was also the W-81

"Los Alamos-designed W-81 warhead proposed for use on Navy "Standard" SM-2 anti-aircraft rocket. "Standard" is a follow-on to "Terrier" weapon system and uses same launchers and radars. W-81 yield was two to four kilotons. (LANL)

The W-81 was the warhead for the Navy's Standard SM-2 anti-aircraft rocket (a Terrier replacement); it had a yield on the order of two to four kilotons. The extended range SM-2 (ER) entered service in 1980 and is intended to counter nuclear-armed anti-ship missiles.

Development engineering of the W-81 began at Los Alamos in October 1977; the warhead was canceled in 1986 when Congress deferred production of a "nuclearized" Standard missile."

Because a nuclear-armed Kitchen, Shaddock, Kingfish, or Shipwreck could ruin your whole day.

 

[rooster]

Probably not as the Genie was a USAF weapon mated to various ADC interceptors. While it was trialled on the F-4C and F-104 I've never heard of it being tested on a USN aircraft.

For years I have been trying to find photos / pics of an F-104 armed with a trial Genie AAM
Can anyone help????????????????????????????????????


Regards
Pioneer

A coworker engineer work friend of mine nearly 20 years ago who climbed the ranks to become a general told me he sat on alert in the 60s as a 104 pilot and his aircraft was armed with a nuclear AAM. I don't remember the type or if he even offered the type as it was supposed to have been top secret at the time.

This is the first mention in this thread I have heard anyplace else the starfighter was actually armed even in a trial with a nuclear AAM.

I remembered this earlier that when the starfighter were on alert that the nuclear AAM was shrouded in a fake fuel tank shell that would be removed if they had to scramble but they never did.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Moved discussion of TRISAT and NCTR to new topic:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/an-asx-2-trisat-nctr-system.37134/#post-455639

 

[pathology_doc]

I can't imagine the USN not ever seriously considering a nuclear AIM-54, as a counter to soviet bombers with long range nuclear anti-ship missiles. Not just in terms of combat, but also as a a deterrent against the soviets starting a war in general, if their ability to destroy a carrier before it get within range to launch it's nuclear weapons, but also as a political counter. They can destroy our carrier with a nuke, but we can shoot them down with a nuke first. Provides a degree of redundancy in combat. Plus the whole nuke obsession in the cold war.

IIRC the Navy had a policy that nuclear weapons must be under direct control. Hence the nuclear Terriers were all beam-riders even after the missile got its SARH capability, and nuclear Talos did not have an interferometer head.

 

[Dilandu]

IIRC the Navy had a policy that nuclear weapons must be under direct control. Hence the nuclear Terriers were all beam-riders even after the missile got its SARH capability, and nuclear Talos did not have an interferometer head.

Hm, I always assumed it was just because they didn't need the precise homing capability of conventional versions. The neutron kill radius for warhead was greater than possible beam rider inaccuracy. And - which make sence about nuclear weapons - beam rider was much more jam-resistant than SARH, thus allowing to hit target that used advanced ECM's.

 

[sferrin]

​

F-104A Starfighter with MB-1 Genie Missile Article​

F-104A Starfighter with MB-1 Genie Missile Article

A copy of a very interesting article on the F-104A Starfighter with MB-1 Genie Missile. Credit: AlternateWars.com Download here or here ...

aviationarchives.blogspot.com

 

[publiusr]

Really, it should have been a Voodoo or something with this chasing Pike’s SNW Enterprise rather than the unarmed Starfighter following Kirk’s TOS ship

 

[sferrin]

Really, it should have been a Voodoo or something with this chasing Pike’s SNW Enterprise rather than the unarmed Starfighter following Kirk’s TOS ship

Even Spock can be wrong at times. The F-104 wasn't equipped with nuclear AAMs An F-106 chasing it down would have been cool.