Talk:Hopi (missile)

Guidance

Is there a source that explicitly states the Hopi was unguided? The sources I have refer to the weapon explicitly as a "missile", not a rocket, and state that there is "no information available" about guidance planned for the weapon. One source does caveat that that means it can't be determined if it was to be guided at all, true, but given the availabe information, and the fact that it's called "missile" in the sources, calling it an "unguided rocket" here is very close to WP:SYNTH. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If you have any actual sources for it having guidance, then it would of course be a missile. Andreas Parsch is not much more of a reliable source than I am (and GWH trumps both of us, with exactly the same years of background through Usenet). Thinking that it must have been ASM-N-9 because there's a matching gap is likely enough, but absolutely no reason to assume that this implies guidance (see below). It's the sort of "research by optimism" that wouldn't even pass muster in this place — please don't accuse me of WP:SYNTH, if you're claiming that it's a missile because it's guided, and that only because it was called a missile!. Of course it's unguided: it's 1958 and it was tested from Skyraiders, Furies and Skyhawks, none of which carried any of the necessary hardware for any sort of guided ordnance (other than something totally autonomous and seeker-based, like Sidewinder). How would air-surface autonomous guidance have worked at this time? There would have been an on-board inertial platform requiring alignment and targeting information immediately prior to launch. Vulcan / Blue Steel managed this, but it took two non-piloting crewmembers to do it. How many guided ASMs were there at this time, and what were they like? They weren't this sort of short-range bombardment rocket for single-seaters, where "stand off" is a matter of escaping fireballs, not avoiding air defences.

There are two possible differentiators between rockets and missiles. One (almost universal, including I think the US Army) is that missiles are guided, rockets are not. This is, according to the relevant wiki pages, the convention for Wikipedia.

The second system, used by the US Air Force for at least some periods (1955+) is that GAM- is a guided air-surface missile, but that GAR- is a guided air-air rocket. So "rockets" are anti-aircraft weapons — except when they're not. Guided surface-air weapons were IM- missiles instead, which in turn leads to the inconsistent AIM- designations for Sparrow & Phoenix (both AA at that time, surface-launched Sea Sparrow is long afterwards). Neither did BOAR turn into BOAM (it was withdrawn around the same time as the naming change).

Chuck Hansen gives the Hopi as "missile" (without further detail) and Genie & BOAR as rockets, but then he also describes Honest John as a "missile" (despite its MGR- designation). So he's not only following the Air Force scheme for Air Force weapons, but also seems to be extending it inexplicably to rocket artillery.

Anyway, there seems to be some argument for describing Hopi either way: by guidance it's an unguided rocket. By Air Force nomenclature it's air-surface, therefore a missile. Take your pick for which to use, but the WP convention seems to be the one based on guidance (and thus it's a rocket). What would really be piling error upon supposition would be to assume that it was guided and for that reason we designate as a missile. If there is any reason to call it a missile, it's solely because period nomenclature distinguished rocket/missile on the basis of target, not guidance. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't really "assuming" anything - it's just that there's no evidence either way. But you do make a good argument. I hadn't considered the aircraft issue (although I'm pretty sure Furies, at least, were able to launch Bullpups?). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Bullpup is a good comparison, although it's a couple of years after Hopi. It was carried by both Furies and Skyhawks, although the nuclear Bullpup-D wasn't. In 1960 that was just cleared for the F100 (a single seater) and F105, later for the Phantom. AIUI, Bullpup wasn't regarded as desperately accurate from single seaters as the pilot was generally too busy avoiding ground fire to fly the missile particularly accurately as well. I don't think it was ever regarded as credible for the -D to be used from a single seater, because of the need to escape the blast - but then, with a nuclear warhead, maybe a rather literal "fire and forget" was seen as acceptable.

Bullpup system avionics were pretty simple, as they were command guided rather than autonomous navigation (somewhat surprisingly, this is actually less effort for the carrier aircraft). Such a system might have been applied to Hopi, but there's still no evidence for it. There aren't even any discernible control surfaces on the missile airframe. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Too bad so much of the data seems to have been lost. If they ever invent time travel, I suspect a lot of us would be descending upon the China Lake area, circa late 1950s. ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously if I did have a Tardis, I'd use it to take a video recorder back to the 1960s and record the "lost" Dr Who episodes. Particularly the one describing how to build a Tardis. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)