Talk:AGM-62 Walleye

Sources

The article is based on John Darrell Sherwood, Nixon's Trident: Naval Power in Southeast Asia, 1968-1972, (Washington: DC: Naval Historical Center, forthcoming). I received an advanced copy of this book and wrote the article from it. It should be published in 2007.Johnfmh 13:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Power?

Since the fins could be adjusted and the bomb directed, is there any information about a power source? Presumably batteries? 192.77.126.50 (talk) 11:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a propeller and a generator in the rear end of the missile/bomb. Se this rear-end photo. /83.227.130.26 (talk) 09:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear Walleye II

The article says "no known nuclear armed Guided Weapon Mk 6 Walleye IIs are thought to have been completed", citing Reference 2. That web page actually says "Although the W-72 was stockpiled, it's possible that no Walleye missiles were ever completed as all-up nuclear rounds". It therefore offers no proof either way that operational nuclear-armed Walleye missiles existed. Searching online with terms like Walleye and W72 and Mk6 Mod 0 shows that most other web sites derive from two base references, Designation Systems (Ref 2) and the Carey Sublette list of nuclear weapons. Maybe looking through old copies of Jane's Weapons Systems might reveal something.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.127.176.33 (talk)

@Kylesenior: I'm pinging you as you seem to have some expertise/knowledge on the broader topic. Do you know of any sources that might be of help with this question? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the source they say "Although the W-72 was stockpiled, it's possible that no Walleye missiles were ever completed as all-up nuclear rounds" I.e. they're speculating and offer no basis for the speculation. Unless someone out there has something saying it was standard procedure to store the missile bodies separate from the warheads (nuclear or conventional) I'd suggest ignoring that speculation.

It seems particularly unlikely now I've actually read the article and seen this weapon was an unpowered glide bomb. I know for example that there were significant safety concerns over things like the SRAM, where a warhead lacking most modern safety features was attached to a ton of solid rocket propellant, but this doesn't have any of those safety concerns and those concerns didn't start getting raised until the 1980s when IHE weapons started entering the stockpile.

At the very least any rework should reflect that fact the source was speculating, but I think it should just be removed.Kylesenior (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd also add that the W54 the W72 was derived from was designed to be a "wooden round" that was low maintenance and could be stored many years between servicing.Kylesenior (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

If its a guided bomb it should be GBU, not AGM

If the AGM 62 is a guided glide bomb, it should have the GBU designation. 2601:41:C401:6B80:3883:51F5:6FF:A992 (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

It may have originally been intended to be powered, or to have a powered variant. BilCat (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The weapons was the first/one of the first guided bombs and likely predates the GBU nomenclature. Regardless, all official docs Ihave seen use AGM. Kylesenior (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)