F-102 Ideas & Questions

[KJ_Lesnick]

The F-102 (and the F-106) were very impressive aircraft and the only major flaw (other the area rule) was the lack of a gun (which at least was fitted on the F-106A eventually).

As an interesting note, there actually was some looking into the idea of fitting either guns (2x30mm IIRC) or rockets as a backup to the missiles (which they were not confident in having as the only armament on the plane)

I understand the argument behind why the rockets were used

• Harder hitting
  
• Longer-range
  

..
However, they were not very accurate and at least one F4D pilot said he was amazed they hit anything with them.  Their poor accuracy also ensured they would be largely ineffective against fighters.  Admittedly the overarching concern was the plane's ability to destroy bombers, but interceptors are technically fighters.  Interceptors are generally designed to destroy bombers and possess superior climbing performance, top-speed and high altitude capabilities (both in terms of the ability to fly high and maneuver up high) -- these do not intrinsically make them unsuitable for other missions (air-superiority).

• The P-59, P-80/F-80, FD/FH-1, F-84, F2H Banshee, F-86 were all both fighters and interceptors despite being typically thought of as fighters
  

..
Unfortunately, it depends on them being armed properly to do both

• When all-weather capability was deemed useful for interceptors, night-fighters such as the P-61/F-61 and P-82/F-82 were used as all-weather interceptors initially
  
• Later on the F-89 was developed into such a design, as was the F-80/T-33, and F-86
  - The F-89 was originally equipped with guns, as well as the means to carry 5-inch rockets; as time went on though eventually an enlarged radar, and it's associated electronics (as I understand) ended up taking up the ammunition or guns (or both): 104 x 2.75" FFAR rockets were used as the total armament and packed into the pods.
  - The F-94 was originally designed with guns, but they were replaced with the means to carry 2.75" FFAR.
  - The F-86D due to the repositioned intakes and enlarged radar eliminated the guns and rocket-trays were carried
  

Admittedly the use of rockets in this case were largely about either increasing the hitting power of the aircraft or improving radar capability in modifications of existent aircraft.  It was sort of a desperate measure thing.

Unfortunately, with a newer aircraft design, it probably would have been best to have retained guns if for no other reason than to enable the aircraft to be usable for more roles

• The F4D was built predominantly as a fast-climbing fighter-interceptor, but it was recognized early on as being a fighter that would be able to knock the MiG-15's dead without any trouble
  - It's air-to-air armament consisted of 4 pods which carried 2.75" FFAR's in them for use against bombers, and 4 x 20mm cannon for use against fighters (and possibly bombers too)
  - Because its range was inadequate as it was, 2 of the rocket-pods were replaced with supersonic drop-tanks
  - As time went on, the rocket-pods were replaced with AAM-N-7 Sidewinders
  - Though the guns were sometimes faired over, they could be carried and employed
  
• The F3H was designed as a night-fighter, though because of it's expected performance it was used as an all-weather fighter-interceptor
  - It's air-to-air armament included 4 x 20mm cannon for use against fighters (and probably bombers) and a flush rocket-tray for use against bombers
  - The aircraft ultimately was reconfigured into a multi-purpose aircraft and was heavily strengthened and modified to the point that it's empty weight was soon the same as its original maximum weight and its performance dropped of
  - As time went on the aircraft began carrying 4 x AAM-N-2 Sparrow; later on 2 x AAM-N-7 Sidewinders were carried on the outer pylons; starting in 1958, the AAM-N-6 Sparrow III were being carried on some models
  - Though only 2 x 20mm were carried for air-to-ground missions, it was physically possible to mount them.
  

..
I'm wondering if the F-102 had the following armament

• 6 x AIM-4 carried in a single weapons bay (3-front, 3-back)
  
• 2x30mm or 4x20mm cannon
  
• Provisions for rockets in some arrangement in lieu of guns in an air-to-air loadout
  

Instead of it's actual load-out of

• 6 x AIM-4 in a 3-section bay
  
• 24 x 2.75" FFAR in the doors of the weapons bay
  

It would been better.

I'm wondering what you guys think?

[Jay-Jay]

Hello,
    In my humble "real (and rainy today) world"opinion  , it is always the dilemma when designing an airplane in general and fighter ones in particular: find the balance between the original demand and integrate updates potential from the very beginning.



Should be mentioned that F-102 was one of the first modern so-called weapon system. It was designed as part of an integrated air defense system against one identified threat, waves of soviet bombers loaded with nuclear bombs. Weapons, black boxes, procedures were designed as a whole thing and the plane was the carrier.
    Missiles were the future and guns weapons from past days, F-102 was state of the art on its time.
Rockets were "dumb" missiles but quickly available as AIMs were "smart" missiles but requiring more time to become acceptable weapons.
    USAF has got plenty of means to ensure its role with a dedicated airplane for a specific task (F-100/F-101/F-102/F-104/F-105....)
Well that's the point of view of a little frog whose air force has got no such means and must carry on all tasks with one plane (but what a plane...RAFALEEEEEEEEEE !!!!). 

In the other hand, in the Whiffworld with my ever-growing wacky young Whiffy enthusiast opinion  , just Go Ahead !!!
If you look to add guns to a F-102, I would suggest you to look on a F8U Crusader so idea of 4x20 mm seems OK for a US plane.
I could not find any reference to a 30 mm US gun and 30 mm looks more European (french-british-soviet) so I could not say anything.
But I would disregard rockets for air to air combat as they are really not suitable for Air to Air combat between fighters though very efficient as attack weapon as they wipe out any area on the ground just by aiming them to where you want to strike.

That's one of many options, think our friends will propose plenty other options to help you.

RGDS
JJ

[Dizzyfugu]

If you want to make a gun fighter from an F-102, I'd put the guns under the fuselage (4x 20mm à la F-100 were state of the art, the M61 came just a bit later) - replacing the weapon bay. F-8 style on the fuselage sides would not be plausible due to gunfire ingestion and consequential surge problems. That would, though, reduce the needed internal volume of the aircraft - it might end up at the size of a Mirage III or Mirage 2000? I could imagine a 1:100 F-102 being scale-abused to 1:72...? With the same J57 engine, this could have been a more agile thing?

[Weaver]

- The F-86D due to the repositioned intakes and enlarged radar eliminated the guns and rocket-trays were carried

Although the export F-86K had 4 x 20mm instead of the FFAR pack, so clearly the USAF could have had guns if they'd wanted them.

The real argument for FFARs was a one-pass sure kill against ever bigger and stronger bombers that could take dozens of 20mm hits and keep flying (an extension of the problem the Luftwaffe faced a the end of WWII). Post-war, those bombers gained 20mm radar-controlled guns of their own which would have made the multiple passes neccessary to land those dozens of hits highly perilous.

On to the main point, it's hard to see where you'd squeeze some guns into an F-102 without sacrifice since it's pretty tightly packed with horrid 1950s electronics. My though for an updated F-102 would be to adapt the fire control system to use 2 x AIM-4F/G Super Falcons in each side bay and fit a gun pod in the middle one. That would give you two F-106-quality Falcon kills (they were always fired in pairs) plus a gun for backup.

Frankly though, if I really had to fight through the 1960s with F-102s, I'd be looking to put a permanent fuel tank in the weapons bay and 4 x Sidewinders on the wing pylons......

[KJ_Lesnick]

Jay-Jay

Hello,
In my humble "real (and rainy today) world"opinion   , it is always the dilemma when designing an airplane in general and fighter ones in particular: find the balance between the original demand and integrate updates potential from the very beginning.

I know all of this.  I'm just thinking that since historically interceptors were designed for the following

• Fast climbing, high-speed flight
  
• To be used against bombers primarily, but also fighters and recon planes too
  

So, I'm not really specifying any new capabilities for an interceptor -- merely all of 'em.  I'm not specifying it be fitted with bomb-racks, and nuclear strike capability -- simply the interceptor role.  

Keep in mind the old WW2 Spitfire was an interceptor and it was quite useful against fighters, the F4D was also designed to kill Soviet bombers, even those with nuclear weapons against the battle-group and it still had guns and its agility made it formidable.  

Should be mentioned that F-102 was one of the first modern so-called weapon system. It was designed as part of an integrated air defense system against one identified threat, waves of soviet bombers loaded with nuclear bombs. Weapons, black boxes, procedures were designed as a whole thing and the plane was the carrier.

The Soviet bombers were indeed an existential threat to the United States and it was clearly important to devise a system that could destroy them.  However, the aircraft had agility which came partially as the result of high altitude capability and maneuvering requirements up high.

Missiles were the future and guns weapons from past days, F-102 was state of the art on its time.

That was the school of thought for the interceptors I guess, but planes like the F-100, F-101A (not the B), the F-104 which were regular old fighters did have them.

USAF has got plenty of means to ensure its role with a dedicated airplane for a specific task (F-100/F-101/F-102/F-104/F-105....)

You could make that argument but I'd like to point out the following

• The F-100 was not unimpressive though the F8U/F-8 was better (The USAF wasn't happy with it because it's turning performance might have been less than desired at low-speeds at least); it's handling characteristics were tricky due to violent pitch and yawing on stall, adverse yaw requiring heavy rudder inputs at low speeds.
  
• The F-101 had very serious problems: It was flimsy (couldn't pull specified g-load), it wasn't terribly maneuverable at the speeds it should have been; it had ornery stall characteristics; it did admittedly have a good top-speed for the time (Mach 2.25-2.40), range, and climb-rate; later models were rebuilt as either interceptors, fighter-bombers, or recon aircraft where it's speed, climb-rate were useful; the aircraft was also strengthened.
  
• The F-104 had excellent top speed, unrivalable climb-performance for the day; and could reach incredible altitudes in zoom-climbs, and had a remarkable roll-rate; unfortunately, it was also very unforgiving and gave it's pilots virtually no mercy and could prove a man-eater -- it had deep-stall characteristics and potentially unrecoverable spins, its takeoff speeds were kind of high, and it's maneuverability at low-speeds weren't very good (admittedly when maneuvering flaps were added, it could turn slightly inside an F-4 at corner-velocity though it's turning rates rapidly deteriorated below that speed) though high-speed turning rates were quite good even when supersonic and climbing (one tactic actually involved a 2G supersonic climb to wear opponents out until the lost enough airspeed, at which point you'd pounce on them).
  
• The F-105 was a tactical bomber wearing fighter's clothing: I guess because it had one engine it was labeled a fighter-bomber rather than just a light-bomber (which I think it should have been classified as) -- it was almost entirely built around delivering an 8,000 pound nuclear bomb in an internal bomb-bay (though it had provision for other weapons, none could be carried internally it seemed) at low-altitude.  Exclusively looking at handling characteristics: It's takeoff and landing speeds were crazy high -- Almost always over 200 mph, and it often operated fully loaded so you'd end up with takeoff speeds that could reach around 235 knots, you needed water-injection in addition to an afterburner, and you'd be really clawing for air as you went; you'd need at least 400-450 knots to have reasonable agility; admittedly it's acceleration was pretty good even at low-altitude and once you got it moving fast enough it could maneuver well enough.  It's slats were good to 550 knots, and at 1.2-1.3 Mach some airplanes couldn't even fly that fast, and if they could, they weren't really even stressed for any reasonable agility at that speed, and gust responses would restrict the maneuvering even more.
  

..

Dizzyfugu

If you want to make a gun fighter from an F-102

I wasn't proposing to make a gun-fighter out of it; I see no trouble with it having 6 missiles and being predominantly designed to shoot-down bombers.  I just think it should also have the provision for use against fighters as well as bombers.

F-8 style on the fuselage sides would not be plausible due to gunfire ingestion and consequential surge problems.

Actually, if I recall correctly, the F7U had side mounted intakes and, while they had problems early on with flame-outs and surges, the problem was allegedly remedied


Weaver

Although the export F-86K had 4 x 20mm instead of the FFAR pack, so clearly the USAF could have had guns if they'd wanted them.

From what you suggested, it only could carry one or the other...

The real argument for FFARs was a one-pass sure kill against ever bigger and stronger bombers that could take dozens of 20mm hits and keep flying (an extension of the problem the Luftwaffe faced a the end of WWII). Post-war, those bombers gained 20mm radar-controlled guns of their own which would have made the multiple passes neccessary to land those dozens of hits highly perilous.

I see the argument, but this raises three questions

1: Why did the Navy have guns and rockets on it's F4D even though they must have been aware of this fact too (admittedly once they switched to missiles, they seemed to stop using the rockets)?

2: Isn't it possible to use an arrangement whereby one could carry guns or rockets?  I think the F8U/F-8 had such a layout and it could destroy bombers and shoot-down fighters.

3: Would it be overkill to carry 6 missiles, rockets in the missile-doors and 2-4 x 20mm guns?

It's just a shame to see such a maneuverable fighter with no dakka to use against fighters.

On to the main point, it's hard to see where you'd squeeze some guns into an F-102 without sacrifice since it's pretty tightly packed with horrid 1950s electronics.

I'm not as familiar as I should be about the electronics bay configuration, but how much space could be freed up if some of the automation was eliminated?

For example, the need to automatically maneuver the plane into the firing position and automatically launch weapons could be deleted and simply the computer determining intercept vectors, displaying them to the pilot with the pilot flying them would work out.

The datalink could display data without having to automatically steer and maneuver the plane.

Admittedly the autoland ILS feature made sense for horrible weather...

My though for an updated F-102 would be to adapt the fire control system to use 2 x AIM-4F/G Super Falcons in each side bay and fit a gun pod in the middle one. That would give you two F-106-quality Falcon kills (they were always fired in pairs) plus a gun for backup.

Well that was the ultimate solution and the best one.  The problem was in 1953, it didn't exist.

[Jay-Jay]

    
Delightful ! it is just delightful to exchange with someone with such knowledge about planes !! 
In my humble opinion, would it be an air to air combat, I would have been shot down before knowing it !!

Well I have some time before landing to think about the question under my silken canopy, and once I would have landed, I will be back after reviewing the question a little bit further 
F-102 with guns, OK... Let see what can be done, Sharpshooter KJ (if you allow me)
BRGDS
JJ

[Jay-Jay]

Eh !! idea !! Erh..Well, Mother Earth still some way below....Arrrr, Where's my note book ?? Remember, remember, remember : What about a Vulcan M61A1 gun in a nose extension as F-4E Phantom have ? Remember, remember, remem....   

[pyro-manic]

Why not simply apply a mod similar to the one the F-106 eventually had? Gunpack in the middle weapons bay, keep the side bays for missiles. You'd have to use M39s instead of the Vulcan, but you might be able to squeeze two in there, especially if you stagger them. Alternatively a Russian-style two-barrel gun (eg. GSh-23) would work, but that's not a weapon type that's ever really been used in the West. You couldn't really shoehorn guns into the airframe as well as the existing gear - something would have to be sacrificed. For a dedicated bomber-killer like the F-102, guns were not as useful a use of space and weight compared to missiles and their systems.

[rickshaw]

Kendra, as the F-102 was originally designed for one specific purpose - defence of the USA, why would it need a gun?  No Soviet fighters had the range to reach the USA and guns are primarily a dog-fighting weapon, why would it need one?  Missiles were much more likely to bring down an intercontinental bomber than guns.   If you put a gun in the existing F-102, as others have pointed out, you'd be sacrificing your primary weapon, missiles.   Fewer missiles mean fewer intercepts and fewer chances of making absolutely 100% that you'd destroyed each intercept.  Considering the consequences of even one bomber getting through to it's target, such a sacrifice I'd suggest couldn't be contemplated.

If you're suggesting that the F-102 could then be used in other fighter roles, rather than as a pure interceptor, then I'd suggest you were trying to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.  There were other, better and cheaper aircraft that could fulfil that tactical role.  The F-102 was a strategic defensive weapon, tailored to it's role.

Now, if you wanted to design something similar to the F-102, which could be used as a tactical fighter, I'd recommend the Mirage IIIW.   Similar in size, much simpler weapon system, more versatile and about the same time frame and it has guns.

If you're really dedicated to putting a gun on the F-102, I'd suggest that the proposals to put one in the middle bay are the best available.   A gun pod on a trapeze mount, which could flip out as required would work.  There were, Pyro, a Gasht like double barrelled 20mm available at that time, but I can't seem to find the picture I've seen of it.  IIRC it was a US Navy weapon pod developed for the A-4 but tested under a OV-10 Bronco (which is where I saw a picture of it).   There was also a US 30mm cannon around at the same time but again, I can't seem to find a reference to it.  Even so, they could have just adopted the 30mm ADEM or DEFA weapons if they'd wanted to.  I suspect a staggered arrangement would have been required fit them.

The best solution would be a fuselage plug, just behind the cockpit to retain the centre missile bay and allow a gun under the fuselage.   However, again then it ceases to be a F-102.  It might also have helped it's drag problems.

[Dizzyfugu]

Basically, the F-102 was an alternative to ground-to-air missiles, since these were still under development. Taking weaponry close to the targets by aircraft was just the concept of the days - that's why the U-2 was devised, until someone built "better" SAMs behind the curtain...

Since the F-102 had a triple weapons' bay, I'd also say that putting a gun into the middle section  - either in a fixed fairing (which would make IMHO make more sense, esp. in the course of a real dogfight) or on a retractable mount. The M61 would be 1st choice, IMHO, and would be appropriate as an MLU update. Besides, The F-102 was also able to carry some FFARs (12 or 24, IIRC) in the weapon bay covers, so that a one-pass-strafing was actually possible. The FFARs charm was also the fcat that one shot would cover the area of a football field, with high chances for a hit with high effectiveness. Germany already developed this tactic in late WWII on Me 262 fighters and the Bachem Natter, and with huge and slow bomber at high altitude as targets it still made sense in the F-102 era.

[Weaver]

The F-105 was a tactical bomber wearing fighter's clothing: I guess because it had one engine it was labeled a fighter-bomber rather than just a light-bomber (which I think it should have been classified as) -- it was almost entirely built around delivering an 8,000 pound nuclear bomb in an internal bomb-bay (though it had provision for other weapons, none could be carried internally it seemed) at low-altitude.  Exclusively looking at handling characteristics: It's takeoff and landing speeds were crazy high -- Almost always over 200 mph, and it often operated fully loaded so you'd end up with takeoff speeds that could reach around 235 knots, you needed water-injection in addition to an afterburner, and you'd be really clawing for air as you went; you'd need at least 400-450 knots to have reasonable agility; admittedly it's acceleration was pretty good even at low-altitude and once you got it moving fast enough it could maneuver well enough.  It's slats were good to 550 knots, and at 1.2-1.3 Mach some airplanes couldn't even fly that fast, and if they could, they weren't really even stressed for any reasonable agility at that speed, and gust responses would restrict the maneuvering even more.

Having said all that, the F-105s did surprisingly well in Vietnam. They shot down more MiGs than they lost to them, and many of those were agile little MiG-17s that you'd think the Thud would really struggle against. The F-105 had a good internal gun, low-set tailplanes that still worked at high AoA, and although it's wing was small(ish) and heavily-loaded, the span was enough that the ailerons were far enough outboard to give a decent roll-rate. Give it a bigger wing (not trivial, I know) and some sensible missile carriage and it could have been a very useful fighter.

Weaver

Although the export F-86K had 4 x 20mm instead of the FFAR pack, so clearly the USAF could have had guns if they'd wanted them.

From what you suggested, it only could carry one or the other...

Correct, but what you seemed to be saying (sorry if I misunderstood you) was that the move to FFARs was driven by the radar taking up all the space in the nose so there was no room for guns, and I was making the point that that wasn't the case: they adopted the FFAR's by preference for the same reasons they used them on other interceptors.

The real argument for FFARs was a one-pass sure kill against ever bigger and stronger bombers that could take dozens of 20mm hits and keep flying (an extension of the problem the Luftwaffe faced a the end of WWII). Post-war, those bombers gained 20mm radar-controlled guns of their own which would have made the multiple passes neccessary to land those dozens of hits highly perilous.

I see the argument, but this raises three questions

1: Why did the Navy have guns and rockets on it's F4D even though they must have been aware of this fact too (admittedly once they switched to missiles, they seemed to stop using the rockets)?

2: Isn't it possible to use an arrangement whereby one could carry guns or rockets?  I think the F8U/F-8 had such a layout and it could destroy bombers and shoot-down fighters.

3: Would it be overkill to carry 6 missiles, rockets in the missile-doors and 2-4 x 20mm guns?

1. Because the Navy has to operate world-wide against a range of unpredictable theats with a (reletively) limited number of airframes, so versatility is more important. An F4D might find itself facing anything from a Kennel-carrying Tu-16 over the North Atlantic to a Mig-17 off North Korea.

2. Theoretically yes, but the problem with de-mountable guns is zeroing them in: you can fit the gun packs in 5 minutes, but if you then spend an hour at the butts getting then to converge at the right distance... This problem doesn't apply if the guns are all on (or very near) the centreline though. You could easily imagine a Hunter or MiG-17 being able to swap it's gun pack for a rocket pack withoutsignificant penalty, for example.

3. Not if you've got room for them, no. Check out the Vautour IIN: 4 x 30mm AND a big rocket pack AND a couple of AAMs. The problem is: "if you've got room". Personally I rather like the Skyray solution: internal guns and interchangeable FFAR pods/missiles. It only works with a missile that can stand external carriage though: early Falcons couldn't.

It's just a shame to see such a maneuverable fighter with no dakka to use against fighters.

The 102 was designed exclusively to defend the continental USA: the only conceivable targets at the time were B-29-size bombers doing Mach 0.9 max. One thing they could be sure they wouldn't see coming thr other way was a MiG-17.

On to the main point, it's hard to see where you'd squeeze some guns into an F-102 without sacrifice since it's pretty tightly packed with horrid 1950s electronics.

I'm not as familiar as I should be about the electronics bay configuration, but how much space could be freed up if some of the automation was eliminated?

For example, the need to automatically maneuver the plane into the firing position and automatically launch weapons could be deleted and simply the computer determining intercept vectors, displaying them to the pilot with the pilot flying them would work out.

The datalink could display data without having to automatically steer and maneuver the plane.

Admittedly the autoland ILS feature made sense for horrible weather...

The problem with that is you're now compromising your primary mission (missile kill against bomber) for a tertiary mission (unlikely gun-fight with an agile fighter). All-weather radar interceptions in one-man interceptors were only barely doable with 1950s electronics without remote help. Go and look at an account of the horrendous workload of an EE Lightning pilot to see what I mean. That datalink and autopilot meant more successful bomber intercepts per mission and given that even one nuclear-armed bomber getting through was a catastrophe, that had to take priority.

My though for an updated F-102 would be to adapt the fire control system to use 2 x AIM-4F/G Super Falcons in each side bay and fit a gun pod in the middle one. That would give you two F-106-quality Falcon kills (they were always fired in pairs) plus a gun for backup.

Well that was the ultimate solution and the best one.  The problem was in 1953, it didn't exist.

[/quote]

True, but I was thinking more of F-102s being replaced in the interceptor role in the 1960s by an extended F-106 production run, and then re-purposed for a more general "tactical" role(not neccessarily with the US). As I said though, my strong feeling would be to go one step further and carry a gun plus two fuel tanks in the bays and fit Sidewinders under the wings.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Jay-Jay

   
Delightful ! it is just delightful to exchange with someone with such knowledge about planes !! 

Thanks, I suppose


pyro-manic

Why not simply apply a mod similar to the one the F-106 eventually had? Gunpack in the middle weapons bay, keep the side bays for missiles. You'd have to use M39s instead of the Vulcan, but you might be able to squeeze two in there, especially if you stagger them.

Staggering isn't such a bad idea and the M-39 seemed to be a good gun (at least I never heard the horror stories about them jamming left and right like the Colt Mk. 12 the USN was using) assuming they fit.


rickshaw

Kendra, as the F-102 was originally designed for one specific purpose - defence of the USA, why would it need a gun?

The question to me isn't so much why, it's more why not?

The aircraft had excellent maneuverability that rivaled early MiG-21's; seems almost a sin not to have the means to use something with that kind of agility to cut-apart fighter planes.

No Soviet fighters had the range to reach the USA and guns are primarily a dog-fighting weapon, why would it need one?

Not sure, but I'd almost swear I heard a mention made about the 24 x 2.75" FFAR salvo being useful against fighters (I suppose it might be useful against one of 'em at least), though my opinion it would be better to have guns.

Missiles were much more likely to bring down an intercontinental bomber than guns.

Oh, I agree with you completely there; the 24 x 2.75" FFAR was basically a backup...

If you put a gun in the existing F-102, as others have pointed out, you'd be sacrificing your primary weapon, missiles.

I just thought of something... do you remember the CF-105 Arrow?  Well, I'm not an expert on it, but it had a modular bomb-bay which they called "the package".

It was based around the idea of quickly being able to change the aircraft after each interception mission (you don't have to put each missile in the bay; you just pop out the whole package, then slap a new one in which is already loaded; it also permitted a more versatile missile arrangement which included at different times the following

• One package with 8 x AIM-4's
  
• One package with 4 x AAM-N-3 Sparrow II
  
• One package with 4 x MB-1/AIR-2 Genie)
  

Yes, I know the Sparrow III was cancelled, but at the time it wasn't yet.

Imagine if you had a package arrangement which included one arrangement with

• 3 x AIM-4 (SARH), 3 x AIM-4 (IR); 24 x 2.75" FFAR in the foldable doors for it
  
• 2 x AIM-4 (SARH), 2 x AIM-4 (IR); two M-39 (because sometimes, you just need some dakka)
  

Well, it's just food for thought

If you're suggesting that the F-102 could then be used in other fighter roles, rather than as a pure interceptor, then I'd suggest you were trying to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

Not really, the same qualities that made it a good interceptor made it a good fighter.

The MiG-21 did not have guns at first; eventually they fitted them with guns; the F-106 also eventually carried guns.

There were other, better and cheaper aircraft that could fulfil that tactical role.

Actually, I'm not sure how well the F-100 did against the MiG-21 (The F-102 handled similar to an early one); the F-104 did okay though it required high-speed turns, and/or climbing turns

The best solution would be a fuselage plug, just behind the cockpit to retain the centre missile bay and allow a gun under the fuselage.

How much length would that add?


Dizzyfugu

Since the F-102 had a triple weapons' bay, I'd also say that putting a gun into the middle section  - either in a fixed fairing (which would make IMHO make more sense, esp. in the course of a real dogfight) or on a retractable mount. The M61 would be 1st choice, IMHO, and would be appropriate as an MLU update.

Could you stuff 2 x M-39's alongside each other either parallel or staggered as pyro-manic described?


Weaver

Having said all that, the F-105s did surprisingly well in Vietnam.

Actually it did, though as far as I know, the agility was supposedly to escape attack and defend itself rather than go out on the prowl (I could be wrong -- I doubt they wanted their planes to suck)

They shot down more MiGs than they lost to them

I thought the kill ratios were about equal -- still that's a pleasant surprise -- especially when they were almost all scored by guns.

many of those were agile little MiG-17s that you'd think the Thud would really struggle against.

The F-105 pilots ironically seemed to know what they were doing more than the F-4 pilots.  They played to their strengths (acceleration, high speed turning capability), and they rarely cared missiles due to all the bombs they were hauling.

Sadly, the F-4 if it had a gun from the outset would have probably done better as most of the problems with the F-4 had to do, in one way or another, with the perception that missiles would be the wave of the future and guns were outmoded

• The USN pilots did practice ACM with their F-4's, but it wasn't as emphasized as planes like the F-8
  
• The USAF grossly throttled back on ACM training after a whole bunch of accidents occurred due to it's adverse yaw and tendency to enter unrecoverable spins; they figured they'd just use their missiles
  

..

Correct, but what you seemed to be saying (sorry if I misunderstood you) was that the move to FFARs was driven by the radar taking up all the space in the nose so there was no room for guns, and I was making the point that that wasn't the case: they adopted the FFAR's by preference for the same reasons they used them on other interceptors.

Yeah, I didn't know that.

1. Because the Navy has to operate world-wide against a range of unpredictable theats

Doesn't any military have to operate against a range of unpredictable threats?

so versatility is more important.

With the limited number of frames I'd generally agree; but ironically they tended to favor dedicated attack platforms like the A-4 and A-6 rather than the F-105... (though the F9F was a fighter-bomber; variants of the F2H could deliver nukes; the F3H was re-developed into a multi-role fighter; and the F-4 had the ability to drop nuclear bombs)

An F4D might find itself facing anything from a Kennel-carrying Tu-16 over the North Atlantic to a Mig-17 off North Korea.

True, but we *did* end up deploying F-102's to SEA...

2. Theoretically yes, but the problem with de-mountable guns is zeroing them in: you can fit the gun packs in 5 minutes, but if you then spend an hour at the butts getting then to converge at the right distance... This problem doesn't apply if the guns are all on (or very near) the centreline though.

Which would be the case

3. Not if you've got room for them, no.

Yup, my guess is it wouldn't fit...

Personally I rather like the Skyray solution: internal guns and interchangeable FFAR pods/missiles.

Personally I prefer externally carried weapons if it works -- the F-15 did fine with them.

The problem was that it was flush-mounts didn't seem to come into development until the mid-late 1950's (and the F-102 started development from the late forties to the early fifties).

It only works with a missile that can stand external carriage though: early Falcons couldn't.

I assume you mean drag?

All-weather radar interceptions in one-man interceptors were only barely doable with 1950s electronics without remote help.

I thought the problem was computing and displaying the intercept vectors -- the F-102 and F-106 could do that.

Go and look at an account of the horrendous workload of an EE Lightning pilot to see what I mean.

Did the computer on that plane compute intercept vectors, or was the pilot stuck doing that?

That datalink and autopilot meant more successful bomber intercepts per mission

Not to be difficult here, but how much of a difference could it make so long as the pilot had the intercept vectors computed and displayed, and could receive datalink information visually without having the plane work as a drone?

From what I remember the USN was fine with the XF8U-3 working as I described.

[Weaver]

Weaver

1. Because the Navy has to operate world-wide against a range of unpredictable theats

Doesn't any military have to operate against a range of unpredictable threats?

No, not neccessarily (and remember the phrase was "world-wide against a range of unpredictable threats"). Sometimes the threats are highly predictable and not all "militaries" operate world-wide. The USAF of the 1950s wasn't a homgenous force who's total resource could be applied anywhere: it was divided into different commands, all with their own priorities and requirements. The modern multi-role approach ("we've got 500 F-15s which we can send anywhere from Alaska to Iraq") didn't apply in those days, for both technical and doctrinal reasons.

Consider, all at the same time, you had:

Air Defence Command (ADC) commissioning the Scorpion, F-102 and F-106 purely for air-defence of the continental USA,

Strategic Air Command (SAC) trying to commission long-range escort fighters (the F-88 which lead to the F-101) purely to escort it's bombers to Moscow,

Tactical Air Command (TAC) commissioning strike-oriented fighter-bombers (F-84, F-100, F-105) with the intention purely of bombing airfields in East Germany.

All three "militaries" produced wildly different aircraft tailored to their percieved threats/targets and area of operations. If Air Defence Command had been commissioning agile dogfighters for WWIII over West Germany, they'd have been treading on TAC's toes and the Pentagon and Congress would quite rightly have been asking them what the hell they were playing at.

so versatility is more important.

With the limited number of frames I'd generally agree; but ironically they tended to favor dedicated attack platforms like the A-4 and A-6 rather than the F-105... (though the F9F was a fighter-bomber; variants of the F2H could deliver nukes; the F3H was re-developed into a multi-role fighter; and the F-4 had the ability to drop nuclear bombs)

Just about EVERY navy fighter has had some attack capability, even if it's just a few bombs and rockets. But the versatility I meant was in the range of air targets to be engaged by "fighters". ADC could say with some confidence that they'd never meet a MiG-21 over Idaho. The USN had no such luck: they had to potentially take on everything from Cuban Sea Furies to Soviet Bears....

An F4D might find itself facing anything from a Kennel-carrying Tu-16 over the North Atlantic to a Mig-17 off North Korea.

True, but we *did* end up deploying F-102's to SEA...

Yes and look how well they didn't do: what was it? Two losses for no kills IIRC? I may not be remembering this right, but I think the reason for the F-102s was that the North Vietnamese had a small force of Il-28 Beagles and they were afraid of night-bombing attacks. If those had actually occurred then the 102s might have done quite well, but since they never did, they were left in search of a role, and unfortunately got suckered into some unwise dogfights with MiG-21s.

Deploying the ADC 102s to Vietnam was basically an act of desperation driven by the fact that TAC didn't have any all-weather air-superiority fighters because it didn't think it needed to gain air superiority: the next war was going to be a couple of hours of nuclear strikes then back to hitting each other with sticks. If the USAF had spent the 1950s actually preparing for Vietnam it would have been a very different air force in 1960, but they didn't. The US was no more preparing for the Vietnam War in the 1950s than Britain was preparing for the Falklands War in the 1970s.

The problem was that it was flush-mounts didn't seem to come into development until the mid-late 1950's (and the F-102 started development from the late forties to the early fifties).

Yes, but there's no reason why they couldn't have been developed earlier if they'd been wanted: they're actually simpler than the internal weapon bays that were all the rage in the 1950s. They wern't because a) internal bays were seen as the ideal solution, and b) some 1950s missiles were fragile enough to actually require internal bays.

It only works with a missile that can stand external carriage though: early Falcons couldn't.

I assume you mean drag?

No, I mean heat, cold and vibration: lethal to 1950s electronics. Bascially, if you put an AIM-4A/B/C on an external pylon then flew it around for a few hours, it was scrap.

All-weather radar interceptions in one-man interceptors were only barely doable with 1950s electronics without remote help.

I thought the problem was computing and displaying the intercept vectors -- the F-102 and F-106 could do that.

Yes, but not if you take their electronics out to fit a gun.

Go and look at an account of the horrendous workload of an EE Lightning pilot to see what I mean.

Did the computer on that plane compute intercept vectors, or was the pilot stuck doing that?

The pilot had a hell of a lot of mental arithmetic to do...

That datalink and autopilot meant more successful bomber intercepts per mission

Not to be difficult here, but how much of a difference could it make so long as the pilot had the intercept vectors computed and displayed, and could receive datalink information visually without having the plane work as a drone?

It's not just a matter of calculating the intercept vector once the fighter's got a lock-on, it has to be in the position to get that lock-on in the first place. The "traditional" way was that GCI talked the pilot into position but that's relatively slow, vulnerable to misunderstanding and jamming, and can only handle as many simultaneous intercepts as there are GCI operators. The automatic datalink was faster, more accurate, more jam-resistant and had greater target handling capability. The "other traditional" way is to have 2-seat fighter with a big radar and rely less of GCI, but that's a bit more hit-and miss and in the early 1950s it also implied a bigger aircraft with less performance.

From what I remember the USN was fine with the XF8U-3 working as I described.

So fine that they didn't actually buy it though....  Instead, they went for the F-4, despite it's lower flight performance, because it's big radar and back-seater made it a more effective interceptor in practice. I think that speaks volumes about the limitations of an autonomous single-seat interceptor and represents one of the key points that indicated that the 1950s quest for every more flight performance had topped out and that a more sophisticated approach was the way forward.

[PR19_Kit]

When the 20th TFW deployed to Upper Heyford with their F-111Es in the 70s I was lucky enough to be there to see the first two aircraft arrive. I ended up talking to the pilot of the #2 aircraft in the flight and he turned out to have flown F-102s in Vietnam.

Talking about that he said they tended to '.....wait on the QRA pad until a threat was inside the airfield boundary or we'd never have caught them!' He was obviously NOT impressed with the range of the '102 in pursuit mode, so I asked him why they didn't use the drop tanks, to which he replied '......the '102 with the tanks is only JUST faster than a P-51!'  

I gathered he was a LOT more in favour of the Aardvark.

[philp]

OK, haven't read all the responses so may be repeating somebody here, sorry in advance.

First off, here is a pic of a 106 with the Vulcan in the bay.  Takes up a bit of room.



The 102 and the 106 were never designed to tangle with fighters.  Not sure if Soviet tactics didn't include fighter escorts for the bombers (refueling assets?) but the purpose, as stated, for the Darts was to shoot down bombers.  Hence the 106 ability to carry a Genie (1 big boom and no more squadron of bombers).  Which all lead to change of tactics, etc.

The 102's dogfighting capability has also been discussed though a gun (or guns) may have helped some but even the EB-57s my Dad worked on at Malmstrom regularly scored "kills" against the 106s of the MTANG and others.

Also, unguided rockets were best designed for massed shoots at bombers (volley all and run) or for ground attack (very effective there) so if earlier in the program, you would probably have seen 4x20mm ala F-100, F-8 but once the Vulcan came into service, that became the gun of choice to stick on anything (F-104, F-105 which was supposed to be a nuclear bomber, even the B-52 in stinger mode).

My choice would have been the Vulcan in the belly and maybe a couple more stations for Sidewinders under the wings.  But that is just me