Subsonic fighters carrying long range AAM

[Archibald]

thread to discuss a concept of the late 50's / early 60's : the subsonic interceptor carrying ong range AAMs.
Here's a list of projects
- Douglas F6D Missileer
- CF-100 mk8
- Canberra mk12
- Breguet Br.1170 TALP

[SPINNERS]

How about some info on that Bregeut Br.1170? I couldn't find any images on Google.

[Archibald]

it's a forgotten project!!! I have apic of it (coming from a book by Jean Cuny) but I'm not at home tonight... I'll post it  ASAP !!!
The TALP was an Aeronavale program quite similar to the F6D (loiter+ long rage AAM are most important than performances...)
I saw pics and pse"cs of the Canberra Mk12 on British secret projects (bombers). It was basically a Canberra B.8 with a bigger radome and two red deans on the wingtips.  

[rallymodeller]

Most of the post Mk-5 proposals for the CF-100 were centered around missiles. In fact, there was a Mark 5 prototype series (the 5M, about eight converted) that was wired for Sparrow II missiles. The main reason for this was that even as early as 1954 it was realized that CF-100s didn't have enough of a speed advantage over bombers in the B-52/Tu-20 class to be able to intercept them effectively; the Clunk was originally designed to splash bombers of the Tu-4/B-29/B-50 class. So giving a Mach 2 missile to the CF would have made it beter able to do the interception mission.  

[Shasper]

Only reason most of these met their fate was because their were missile haulers instead of true dogfightin' a/c.


Shas B)

[elmayerle]

For a more modern approach to something like this, how about a "Missileer" version of the two-seat A-10?  repalce the GAU-8 with suitable radar and fire control and hang a large number of AAMs under the wing.

[Shasper]

Ev, can you say "EB-52"?



Shas B)

[Phnx28]

We're forgetting the Reds here, guys! The closest I can find are the Yak-25K types; variously converted for either four K-5/AA-1 Alkali (probably "Yak-25K-5") and RP-1U or RP-2U Izumrud/Scan Odd radar, or two K-8/AA-3 Anab (hence probably "Yak-25K-8") and Orel-D/Skip Spin radar or prototypes thereof. Some few (tens at most) of each variant were converted from production Yak-25 Flashlights and technically usable as service machines , even though that eventuality never materialized in OTL. My source so far is here at Greg Goebel's marvelous Air Vectors site which I'm sure is well known to all here; but more detailed leads would be most appreciated for sure .
Granted the Alkalis aren't exactly "long" range AAMs :zzz:, but I figured the Yak-25K-5s would count at least for general inclusion in the concept of a subsonic missile truck since the Flashlights mostly paralleled the Canucks in service. Both Yak-25K-5s and -25K-8s would also have had an advantage over the later CF-100s, Missileers et al because the K-series Flashlights were to have kept their twin NS-37 cannons for any and all work not worth using a pricey missile on. Needless to say in future derivations of my "Stalingrad's Shadow" timeline these babies go a bit farther than in real life, as do their Western counterparts. ^_^  

[GTX]

Well if we're talking about Soviet concepts, how about an interceptor (or airborne picket maybe) version of the Tu-95 Bear.  Long loiter, ability to carry a big radar and the capacity to carry dozens of long range AAMs.

Regards,

Greg

[MartG]

I reckon the reason all of these projects fell by the wayside is that the politicians and senior air staff just couldn't get their heads round the difference between a fighter and an interceptor.

They couldn't see how a slow and comparatively un-manoeuverable aircraft could shoot down bombers, given their own experience during WW2 of 'interceptors' like the Spitfire, Hurricane, Mustang, etc. However the shift from the primary armament being guns to missiles meant that interceptors no longer had to get in close and maneouver to a firing position against a target.

If the concept had managed to overcome the obstacles and get into service it may have spawned a few interesting aircraft.

Anyone for a Phoenix armed Vulcan ?

[Phnx28]

I reckon the reason all of these projects fell by the wayside is that the politicians and senior air staff just couldn't get their heads round the difference between a fighter and an interceptor.

They couldn't see how a slow and comparatively un-manoeuverable aircraft could shoot down bombers, given their own experience during WW2 of 'interceptors' like the Spitfire, Hurricane, Mustang, etc. However the shift from the primary armament being guns to missiles meant that interceptors no longer had to get in close and maneouver to a firing position against a target.

If the concept had managed to overcome the obstacles and get into service it may have spawned a few interesting aircraft.

Anyone for a Phoenix armed Vulcan ?

Agreed overall, although I'd equate the interceptor role to the WWII vogue "strategic fighter" concept that led to the Bf110 and such. This leads to my point here about preferring a missile-armed Tu-16P/HJ-6 Badger interceptor to a Bear variant; the jets give better capability to dodge any potential counterfire and the missile load should be light enough to vastly extend range over the bomber versions'. After all, the ranges on some of these babies make them mighty tempting escort fighters if they stick to BVR against the supersonic, point-defense guys the pols loved so much (military-industrial proof that all politics is, indeed, local ).  

[gooberliberation]

Anyone for a Phoenix armed Vulcan ?

Yes, please  

[mrdj]

I think the concept the governments of the time had trouble with was the cost of these projects, and the increasing costs of their replacements. The 1950's was a time of great breakthroughs, and aircraft and concepts were being replaced very quickly.

By the time missiles were seen as a viable part of an aircraft's arsenal, supersonic replacements were on the way. A few subsonic aircraft like the Javelin and F89J entered service and aquired missiles during their careers, but thier replacements were already in progress (Lightning and F102), and future projects underway (Fairey Delta III and F-103), and had missiles in development to replace them all (Bloodhound and BOMARC).

Other developments of subsonic misile carriers that were dismissed were simply overtaken by events. Why have a CF-100 Mk6, when you could have an Arrow? Defense budgets were coming under more scrutiny, and sinking money into a project that was inferior to what you had in flight test didn't make sense.

[AeroplaneDriver]

I'll throw this out for those still crossing their fingers for the Nimrod coming out of HornFix;

What if the Nimrod AEW.3 had not been an unmittigated disaster?  How about Nimrod AEWs loitering between Scotland and Norway with a race of AIM-54s on the wings and in the bomb bay.  Sort of a one-stop 'find it, track it, blow it out of the sky' concept to pick off the first Bears while the Tornados are scrambling.

[Archibald]

Most of the post Mk-5 proposals for the CF-100 were centered around missiles. In fact, there was a Mark 5 prototype series (the 5M, about eight converted) that was wired for Sparrow II missiles. The main reason for this was that even as early as 1954 it was realized that CF-100s didn't have enough of a speed advantage over bombers in the B-52/Tu-20 class to be able to intercept them effectively; the Clunk was originally designed to splash bombers of the Tu-4/B-29/B-50 class. So giving a Mach 2 missile to the CF would have made it beter able to do the interception mission.

I thought they were aimed at CF-105 equipment testbed only ? (not operational aircrafts)
A variant of the concept is the supersonic bomber / airliner changed into an ultra-long-range interceptor. I heard in "secret projects" that a Tu-160 variant had been considered with a MiG-31 weapon system (and a B-1 with Phoenix)

There's some fascinating ideas on this thread (as usual on this forum) particularly the Nimrod "flying AAM arsenal"    or the Vulcan phoenix carrier