Quote from: SPINNERS on December 31, 2023, 01:06:02 PMKormorans.

cheers, although they do look large for kormorans as the vigilante is a big old girl.

Quote from: NARSES2 on December 27, 2023, 06:07:49 AM

Quote from: PR19_Kit on December 26, 2023, 11:15:57 AMQuite a big BANG then....................

Yea, but I thought it would be bigger

Thank you gents 

The 980ft lethal radius usually quoted is for a detonation at over 30,000+ft, where the air is so much thinner that the shockwave dissipates to non-lethal levels much faster. Primary kill methods would be shock (if close enough), blinding and heat-flash. Of course the radiation would also kill the bomber crew eventually, but if they were far enough away to avoid the other stuff, then that probably wouldn't be fast enough to prevent them from completing their mission. A Genie warhead detonating at, say, 5000ft would do lethal damage over a much greater radius.

The Genie warhead was sized to have a greater lethal radius than the miss-distance of the rocket+fire-control in a head-on attack, which was the most difficult (but most desirable) attack profile due to the error-margin for fuzing being so tiny at very high closure rates. The AIM-26 Nuclear Falcon could afford to have a smaller warhead (0.25kt) because it was guided, and so even though it was still unlikely to hit, it would miss by a much smaller distance.

Quote from: kerick on December 24, 2023, 09:47:53 PMF-104 interceptor sounds great!
I've always wondered about the missiles carried by different interceptors. Since they are usually meant to shoot down bombers loaded with nukes headed towards  cities it would seem a heavier warhead would be better for getting a good enough hit on a Soviet bomber to knock it down with one shot. I can't imagine farting around having to take multiple shots at a bomber to knock it down considering time was not on our side. Of course bigger, heavier missiles means only a couple rounds per aircraft or bigger, heavier aircraft. One reason the Phantom became popular I suppose.

There was an interesting trade-off at work here. Yes, a bigger warhead would have a greater lethal radius, but it would also increase the range at which the interceptor had to fire in order to escape the blast itself, which in turn would decrease the accuracy of the unguided Genie. At some point the lines on the graph cross, i.e. you're losing more lethality due to the decreasing accuracy than you're gaining from the increasing blast radius. Of course, the other consideration is that increasing the weight+diameter of the warhead while simultaneously increasing the burn time of the rocket motor means you have two factors driving the size and weight of the complete weapon up sharply.

Quite true. Then it ends up becoming a larger and larger aircraft too.

North American F-109A Retaliator - 101st Fighter Interceptor Squadron, Massachusetts ANG, 1977




Another short photoset this but I'll cover another ANG squadron tomorrow. I did this back in 2010 but this time around I've managed to add Sidewinder launch rails to the wing pylons to supplement the semi-recessed Sparrows. Of course, the 3D model doesn't have missile troughs so the missiles are sunken in and the front pair just about fit. A Vigilante with a Tornado F.3 forward fuselage would be quite a looker!

Oh that someone would do a resin conversion for a 1/72 'hump-less' A-5. I tried it with chopping and filling ages ago, but it was a disaster. 

That F-109 looks good.   Would be interesting to see it with AIM-54 Phoenix missiles for the long range bomber interception...

Quote from: DogfighterZen on January 01, 2024, 01:35:25 PMThat F-109 looks good.   Would be interesting to see it with AIM-54 Phoenix missiles for the long range bomber interception...

Post #299

Quote from: SPINNERS on January 01, 2024, 02:05:39 PM

Quote from: DogfighterZen on January 01, 2024, 01:35:25 PMThat F-109 looks good.   Would be interesting to see it with AIM-54 Phoenix missiles for the long range bomber interception...

Post #299

 
I only got here in 2014 so i was 4 years late for that one. Very cool! 

Quote from: PR19_Kit on January 01, 2024, 11:09:25 AMOh that someone would do a resin conversion for a 1/72 'hump-less' A-5. I tried it with chopping and filling ages ago, but it was a disaster. 

Even better if someone were to do a third engine + Phoenix conversion for the Retaliator proposal:



The other thing I thought of for a 'Vigiceptor' is to put a rocket booster and oxidiser tanks in the former bomb bay.

Quote from: Old Wombat on December 27, 2023, 06:12:01 AM

Quote from: NARSES2 on December 27, 2023, 06:07:49 AM

Quote from: PR19_Kit on December 26, 2023, 11:15:57 AMQuite a big BANG then....................

Yea, but I thought it would be bigger

Thank you gents 

Me, too. I expected it to be in the vicinity of a couple of kilometres/miles. Of course the EMP effect would cover a wider area.

The EMP wouldn't affect Soviet aircraft, as they tended to use valves in their equipment, rather than transistors etc

Wow, those F-109's
Looks like I need another vigilante kit then doesn't it  

North American F-109A Retaliator - 159th Fighter Interceptor Squadron, Florida ANG, 1978




Another short photoset and this time showing a six Sparrow configuration (like the old Airfix Phantom).

North American F-109C Retaliator - 186th Fighter Interceptor Squadron, Montana ANG, 1975






The cone at the rear of the linear bomb bay can easily be removed and whilst it leaves a gaping hole when viewed from the back it enables a third engine to be installed. The edit to do this takes about the same time that it's taken me to type this short paragraph. For this, I've had to call it a rocket engine as there is no way that I can add the extra intake area to the existing intakes or add a dorsal intake but I did give the afterburner flame a different hue to make it look different from the regular J79's. Yes, it is very, very fast!!

Quote from: Dizzyfugu on January 03, 2024, 12:29:27 AMMakes me wonder if FAST packs from an F-15 would fit under the Vigilante's flanks/wings to extend range?

Wouldn't they foul the main undercarriage?