Talk:CIM-10 Bomarc

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pierre Trudeau in NDP?[edit]

On what planet was PET ever a member of the NDP? There's no reference, so the claim is being removed. --Rhombus 01:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He actually was a member of both the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), and the NDP. He was also a protege of F.R. Scott, a prominent CCF/NDP executive member and one of Trudeau's professors at McGill law school. What his pre-Liberal background has to do with this article is another matter, and is irrelevant to this article.--Abebenjoe (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No original research[edit]

Does the following passage from the article indicate that the article violates the policy on no original research?

"Sources: Russ Sneddon, director of the USAF Armament Museum, Eglin AFB, Florida. (Provided information about missing CIM-10 exhibit airframe serial 59-2016, one of the museum's original artifacts from its founding in 1975 and donated by the 4751st Air Defense Squadron at Hurlburt Field, Eglin Aux. Fld. 9. As of mid-April 2005, the suspect missile was still stored in a secure compound behind the Armaments Museum.)"

HistoryBA 21:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still remember reading through squadron quarterly history reports filed down at Maxwell AFB of an incident that happened at, I believe, Dow AFB back in the 1960s(?). One day, the protective doors over the launchers opened, the BOMARCs raised to their launch positions, their APUs fired up, and for all intents and purposes it looked like they were getting ready to fly off - unfortunately, nobody had ordered them too! After a few minutes, the APUs shut down, the launchers lowered, and the doors closed - again with no apparent commands being issued by anyone on the base. I found the story so improbable that I made a copy of the declassified report - it's buried in a box somewhere. jmdeur 17:00 25 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.148.60.151 (talk)

One of the legends about the Bomarc may explain that. The missile sites were controlled by remote computer sites that correlated radar returns with flight plans to determine IFOs (known military or commercial flights) and UFOs (possible enemy bombers). Each missile site had at least two telephone lines relaying digital info to the missile controllers. The missiles could be activated by a combat console at the computer site. Scuttlebutt was that a test was run at an unspecified Bomarc site with the missile controllers on and both lines deactivated. Within two minutes, the random static on the dead lines replicated the relatively simple command to open the launch doors and raise the missle ramp. Theoretically the actual fire command was too complex to be generated by random static. I guess this scuttlebutt falls below OR, but it is a part of the story. Naaman Brown (talk) 11:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Regarding Warner Robins BOMARC Display[edit]

From the mid-1980s to the early 1990s, a BOMARC was on display near the front of the museum at Robins AFB. This BOMARC has since been removed. The location where the BOMARC was displayed can be seen at http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=Robins+Air+Force+Base&ie=UTF8&z=18&ll=32.59222,-83.589773&spn=0.002133,0.005402&t=k&om=1&iwloc=A

Rumors concerning missing missiles at La Macaza[edit]

I was born and raised in L'Annonciation, the neighboring town of La Macaza. I've heard numerous rumors concerning the missiles and nuclear warheads, that were at La Macaza. I've heard that they where hidden somewhere in the mountains surrounding the base. That's probably just some unfounded rumors but it became popular folklore in the region. --Eric Lacasse 20:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC-4)

North Bay Ontario Display[edit]

The missile display at the corner of Lakeshore Drive, and Judge Ave (Lee Park) was removed in the early hours of September 15th, 2009. I have a photo of the missile being loaded onto a truck, but a) don't know how to post it. and b) it has no real relevence to the page, the missile, or the history of anything except this particular display. I have added the date of it's removal to the page, and will leave it up to the wiki administration as to whether or not to simply remove this display from the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.198.91 (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference that documents the removal of the Bomarc from Veterans Park in North Bay. The removal is notable because it was prompted by fears of sanding or drilling releasing thoriated magnesium, which is radioactive. Cxbrx (talk) 01:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Info, clarification needed[edit]

Missing: Details about the (significant) differences between the Bomarc "A" and "B" versions. I have a hard document, which also includes outlines of the two missiles. Should it be posted? (How)? Great historical document / reference.

Missing: Tail #'s and disposition of each. (I had much of this information, I will need to check to see if I still have it, and if the information has a good place to put it. This would also relates to "North Bay Ontario Display")

Briefly covered, more can be said: Use of the guidance and "surplus" missiles after removal from service.

Only lightly covered: Listing of the variants, pointing them too this page. This would include the F-99, IM-99, CIM-99A, CIM-99B, CQM-10B etc...

Clarification - what does this mean? "The liquid-fuel booster of the Bomarc A was no optimal solution."

Clarification: From the quote: "...leading to several serious accidents"; there was only one Broken Arrow incident with a Bomarc. I am concerned with the accuracy of this document or the interpretation of it here.United_States_military_nuclear_incident_terminology#Broken_Arrow ; see http://wikimapia.org/1322826/Site-of-Bomarc-Missile-accident

Missing: No coverage of the B-57 Light Bomber Modified for Bomarc testing

Enough for now....

Bomarc (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All capitals?[edit]

Why is it Bomarc and not BOMARC? 134.117.254.247 (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be of course --Petebutt (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)-[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose these articles be merged, or alternatively a list of all Bomarc sites with relevant info be raised, which can be linked to the CIM-10 Bomarc article.--Petebutt (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I'm a bit connected to the article subject, but I think these could stand alone on their own as they were a lot larger than some of the Nike sites, and functionally existed as separate entities from their nearby bases. A group article could also be a good idea, but I see no reason to put this into the main missile article, especially since a list would take up a large chunk of things. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I took a close read of the article, and it appears the site was actually not at Otis AFB at all, but within the boundaries of Camp Edwards (Massachusetts Military Reservation), close by. The Camp Edwards article already has a mention of the site. I believe the article should be merged to either one of those two articles (or the Otis AFB site itself), because I've already found that a huge chunk of User:SW 30's indecipherable text actually related to the Boston Air Defense Sector/26th AD, rather than the site, and moved it there. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CIM-10 Bomarc. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on CIM-10 Bomarc. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"...helium tank exploded"?[edit]

Under the heading "Operational history: United States: Bomarc incident" it states "...a Bomarc A with a nuclear warhead caught fire...after its on-board helium tank exploded" (emphasis added). This is the only mention of helium in the article, and it is perplexing since helium is not explosive (nor even flammable). That doesn't mean that a pressurized tank of helium could not have ruptured, but "explosion" is, I suspect, the wrong word to use in this context. Can anyone shed any light on this? Bricology (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, burst or ruptured might be better. I prefer burst. Here's a contemporary newspaper article Bomarc Helium Blew Up that says that a helium bottle burst and that the helium bottle was between two fuel tanks. A masters thesis abstract uses the term "ruptured". Helium is sometimes used with liquid-fueled rockets, see [1]. Cxbrx (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found a couple of non WP:RS sites ([2] [3]) that refer to the amount of pressure in the helium tanks. Perhaps they used Bomarc and Nuclear Armament 1951-1963 from http://theblackvault.com as a source. That source seems a bit suspect, but Special Pages -> External links showed 191 links to the site, so it is probably not a complete hoax. A document with that name is cited by canada.ca as 'Freedom of Information Act [FOIA], "ADC [Air Defense Command] Historical Study No. 21, BOMARC and Nuclear Armament 1951–1963." ' and elsewhere. Cxbrx (talk) 00:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"See Also" Suggestion[edit]

Since this was a Very Long-Range SAM System, with virtually no equal. Aside from several cancelled programs and concepts. The only near equivalent was the SA-5 Gammon, with shorter range but much higher speed. Should a link to that be added?


It was also a Semi-Mobile System, whereas the BOMARC was a very heavy rigid system (integrated into a massive Radar-Computer SAGE Network, and reinforced structures for the missiles themselves)

__________Range/Alt (km)_Speed____Service

GAMMON: 160-300/20-40__Mach 8 (4?)____1967

BOMARC: 400-710/20-30__Mach 2.8-3__1959


What do you think? Should they be linked to each other?2603:7080:CB3F:5032:B83C:EFE0:92FB:12B0 (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CIM-10_Bomarc&oldid=1200913241"