Talk:GAM-87 Skybolt

This page is not a forum for general discussion about GAM-87 Skybolt. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about GAM-87 Skybolt at the Reference desk.

Military history: Aviation / Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Rocketry

	Rocketry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

B-52 models?

This edit (uncited) dropped the "H" from the B-52 link, with the summary, "Drop "H" as it was carried on several models.."

I think we're agreed that is was to be carried on the -H. "Was carried" is dubious anyway, as it wasn't operational and it ought to be possible to identify individual aircraft for the test program, not just models. So which models was it planned to deploy on operationally? -G? Or anything older too? Does anyone have a reason or source as to why it might only have been carried by one version? Avionics? Flight testing for just one model (and as the engines are different, this could be expected to be a requirement)? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

The intro says it was a missile. It never got nearly as far as that. It should say it was projected missile, being developed. McNamara said it was never going to be a weapon, something that had to work, but was like a Venus probe, that is, a one-off thing that might or might not work. The reason for it, when the excellent Polaris system already existed, was to "keep the boys flying". Seadowns (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the Americans were mystified by the choice of Skybolt. They said "Polaris is there for you, you can slap it!"

Polaris was of course already operational. Seadowns (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was never operationally deployed, but as discussed in the article missiles were flight-tested. VQuakr (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly what was flight-tested, or the result of the test, but I think it must have still been part or the R&D process. I don't think there was anything ready to go into production as a weapon, hence McNamara's remark.

The British choice of Skybolt was a very bad, almost crazy, military decision, whatever other reasons there may have been for it.

The article could well mention the need for continuous air patrol (CAP) to deploy Skybolt. Seadowns (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The RAF would not have maintained airborne patrols, any more than they did with Blue Steel, because that would be dangerous and it wasn't policy. The V-bombers on Quick Reaction Alert were normally kept at RS15, Readiness State 15 Minutes, with the aircraft armed and pre-flighted and the crews on hand in the mess. V-Force only once stepped up to RS05, cockpit readiness with the crews strapped in, and that was on the worst day of the Cuban Missile Crisis, when RS05 was held for several hours that afternoon. It was never found necessary to go to RS02, which meant starting engines. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The RAF were certainly considering continual airborne patrols, apparently because of the threat to airbases in the UK, which was partly the reason for the stretched Vulcan Phase 6 proposal, which had a planned endurance of 7.4 hr with six Skybolts and 12.2 hr with 2 Skybolts and had a larger six-man crew with rest bunks.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

5 failures/partial failures and 1 successful flight, IIRC. We already mention loiter time in the "Cancellation" section. I'm sure it could be clearer; there's lots of room for expansion in the article in general. We'd be better off quoting a modern-day historian about the project than a contemporaneous McNamara, though. VQuakr (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd like to see what a historian would say, but as McNamara had the say-so at the time, being the Secretary for Defense, his view is surely also important. If there was only one successful flight out of six it backs up his remark. I withdraw the word "almost" in my previous note. Seadowns (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first five test firings of Polaris in 1958-9 were also failures. This is normal in missile development. You carry out the tests to see what goes wrong, so you can fix it. There was nothing particularly wrong with Skybolt except that McNamara didn't like it. But Britain got a better deal with the Nassau Agreement to supply Polaris, which was then rolled over to supply Trident. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the projected British Skybolt operational concept definitely involved a continuous air patrol, so as to provide a viable second-strike capability. Seadowns (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

I just added an 'about' hatnote with links to similar articles (the Steen Skybolt especially being notable, possibly more-so than this article?), but there are probably enough that a disambiguation page is warranted. Walkersam (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]