Talk:CIM-10 Bomarc

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Pierre Trudeau in NDP?

message: 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)
thread_title:  No original research 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: North Bay Ontario Display

message: 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  Great historical document / reference.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)
thread_title: Missing Info, clarification needed

message: Why is it Bomarc and not BOMARC? 134.117.254.247 (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be of course --Petebutt (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  All capitals? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130218153547/http://www.secretsdeclassified.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100617-111.pdf to http://www.secretsdeclassified.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100617-111.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140117024915/http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2376 to http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2376
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130817173907/http://astronautix.com/lvs/bomarc.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/bomarc.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100619012409/http://www.castlearchdale.net/id38.html to http://www.castlearchdale.net/id38.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061110073809/http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/bomarc.html to http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/bomarc.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130817173907/http://astronautix.com/lvs/bomarc.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/bomarc.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 .  Cxbrx (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a couple of non WP:RS sites ( ) 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)
thread_title:  "...helium tank exploded"? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "See Also" Suggestion