F-102 Ideas & Questions

[KJ_Lesnick]

Would a modular bomb-bay (a module which could be pre-loaded, popped-in/removed) have been a useful idea?
Would it have been overly complicated?

[PR19_Kit]

Would a modular bomb-bay (a module which could be pre-loaded, popped-in/removed) have been a useful idea?
Would it have been overly complicated?

That sort of idea had already been worked out. Any of the aircraft with a rotating bomb door could have its weapons pre-loaded and then the entire door swapped out. Examples that come to mind are the XB-51, the B-57B, the P6M Seamaster and the Buccaneer.

[rickshaw]

Would a modular bomb-bay (a module which could be pre-loaded, popped-in/removed) have been a useful idea?
Would it have been overly complicated?

Not overly complicated.  Kit has already mentioned several aircraft that did that but they tended to be tactical bombers rather than fighters.    The F-89 did something similar in it's later marks having a reloading trolley which matched it's wingtip pods and which allowed reloading much faster than what normally could be accomplished.

It all depends on what sort of mission you envisage for the aircraft.   What it would require would be a considerable redesign of the aircraft structure to accept the stresses of a non-contiguous fureslage.  Whereas the weapons bay would have once been a part of the fuselage structure, it no longer could be.

[Mr.Creak]

Would a modular bomb-bay (a module which could be pre-loaded, popped-in/removed) have been a useful idea?
Would it have been overly complicated?

Wasn't the gun pack on the Hunter more or less that? (But for guns and ammo rather than bombs, of course).

It all depends on what sort of mission you envisage for the aircraft.   What it would require would be a considerable redesign of the aircraft structure to accept the stresses of a non-contiguous fureslage.  Whereas the weapons bay would have once been a part of the fuselage structure, it no longer could be.

Not necessarily: have the module as a "bolt/ strap-in" unit to go in the existing bay. Although this would possibly reduce the usable load, since the module walls/ structure would take up some of the available volume and weight allowance.
Or, if designing from scratch, make the bay in the aircraft large enough to accept a "normal-sized bomb bay" module - stresses wouldn't be any different from an ordinary bay.

[Weaver]

The "bay" in the F-102 was actually three long, thin bays with separate doors and two Falcons in each. I don't know if the inter-bay walls were structural or not, but if they were, then you would need three separate modules. Not neccessarily a show stopper, but they'd be a bit restricted width-wise...

[PR19_Kit]

The Lightning, the twin jet UK built one, also had 'modular' armarment as the part of the lower fuselage that held the pylons for its Firestreak/Red Top missiles was removable amd could be replaced by twin retractable Microcell rocket launchers. In practice it was very rarely done, but it was possible.

[Weaver]

The Lightning, the twin jet UK built one, also had 'modular' armarment as the part of the lower fuselage that held the pylons for its Firestreak/Red Top missiles was removable amd could be replaced by twin retractable Microcell rocket launchers. In practice it was very rarely done, but it was possible.

The front end of the F.6's belly tank could be described as a module too, since it could hold either a pair of ADENs or more fuel.

I don't know if they fully developed it, but there was definately a scheme for a tac-recce Lightning which had a  cameras and IR Linescan setup split betwen the "missile" pack and the belly tank.

[jcf]

The Arrow was to use a swappable weapons pack, but that was designed in from the start on a
twin-engine aircraft with a wide fuselage. Fitting a pack to the F-102 would require a load of
redesign.

[Gondor]

Such a pod if designed right could be swapped out of the bay and the normal trapezes could be placed in

If designed right you don't need to swap out the trapeze arms which could raise or lower the gun pod for servicing/ rearming. Agreed that this means there is less space but for flexibility and less time to change between gun and missiles it could be better. "All you have to do is take the doors off!!"

Gondor

[Weaver]

I'm thinking about the length of the M39 and assuming my measurements aren't wrong, two of those could fit inside the F-102's center-weapon's bay provided the guns were mounted in a streamlined blister.  I don't know how much ammo could be fitted in the remainder of the bay (there's also the ammo-belt arrangement).

Such a pod if designed right could be swapped out of the bay and the normal trapezes could be placed in

Seem reasonable. The diagonal dimension of the bay must be at least 1 x Falcon wingspan and the length at least 2 x Falcons long (probably more to allow the trapezes "swing room"), so that gives you a rough minimum dimension. My rough guess is that a Hawk gunpod would fit comfortably in one, and that hold an ADEN plus 150(?) rounds, so a couple of M-39s should be possible. The only problem might be the width across the combined breeches, but you might be able to get around that by staggering them, and that in turn might actually make the feed situation easier.

[KJ_Lesnick]

I have two ideas here so I'm going to just post both

I: Vulcan Equipped F-102A
..
Though the F-102A was designed as a bomber-killer, the fact was that

• It was quite agile, and probably more so than the F-100A/C
  

..
So, if it were fitted with an M61 (c. 1958?) mounted in a streamlined blister in the central bay, it would make a formidable combatant.  The ammo drum could be placed in the center bay in lieu of the trapezes and missile racks which would maximize the available room for the drum; additional space could be made by removing the center-weapon bay doors.  

Additions to the aircraft would require the following
..

• The radar would now need the means to provide ranging data for the gunsight.
  
• The addition of an in-flight refueling probe for TAC missions (not actually required but damned useful)
  

..
I don't know if anybody would have thought of such an arrangement (gun-pack) in those days, but in theory it would allow air-superiority as well as it's normal interception missions particularly if the gun-pack could be swapped in and out reasonably quick.  Having ADC's versions without the gunpack; TAC overseas commands operating with them.


II: Weapon Pack in Lieu of Weapons Bay

A weapons pack similar to that carried on the CF-105 Arrow could not only permit a gun arrangement (from either the outset or early on), but could potentially allow for faster arming/re-arming, and allow a more versatile missile arrangement.  

Some arrangements that could be useful would be the following
..
Conventional: Falcon & Rocket

• 6 x AIM-4; 24 x 2"-2.75" FFAR
  
• Basically same load-out as the F-102A actually carried
  

..
Conventional: Falcon & Gun

• 4 x AIM-4; 1 x M61
  
• Allows for more versatility for overseas operations
  
• Allows for air-superiority missions (admittedly the AIM-4's suck)
  

..
Conventional: Sparrow III's

• Folding fins could allow 3 x AIM-7's to be carried inside the plane
  
• The AIM-7 was generally regarded as being a better weapon to the AIM-4 (longer range, I think it has a proximity fuse)
  

..
Conventional: Sidewinder & Gun

• I'm pretty sure you could stuff at least a single AIM-9 in the space you could put 1 to 2 AIM-4's in
  
• Stuffing 2 might be do-able if one or each of the weapons were angled down or outwards and/or the missile was oriented 90-degrees to the other
  
• M61 in the center location in a streamlined blister, drum and feed located above it
  

And yes, I have thought about the possibility of external carriage of AIM-9's... I can go into that if you want to hear it.

Nuclear: Falcon's and Genie's

• 4 x AIM-4, 1 x Genie
  
• Makes more sense than the rockets
  

..
Nuclear: Falcon's and a Nuclear Falcon

• 5 x AIM-4; 1 x AIM-26
  
• Technically the AIM-26 could come in a non-nuclear arrangement.  It might have had a longer range, had a proximity fuse and could home in on a jamming source
  

..
Nuclear: Falcon's and Nuclear Falcon's

• 4 x AIM-4; 2 x AIM-26
  

..
Nuclear Falcon's

• 4-6 x AIM-26 depending on what the bay can accomodate
  

..
Nuclear: 2-3 x Genie

• Number dependent on volume and MTOW
  
• It would make destroying bombers easy as hell..
  

..

[Weaver]

Didn't they deploy, or at least study, a fit of 4 x AIM-4 + 1 x nuclear AIM-26 in real life?

For your Vulcan pack, you might get more ammo in if you use a conventional box rather than a drum, given how long and thin the bay is. A Vulcan doesn't have to use a drum (IIRC, the early F-105 installation used a box) and the drums are pretty much custom designed for each installation, so custom-designing a box shouldn't be much of an issue.

Personally, if I wanted a "tactical" F-102, I'd go for a Vulcan in the centre bay, fuel tanks plus fin pockets for 2 x conformal Sparrows in the side bays, and 2-4 Sidewinders on outerwing and/or overwing pylons. I'd also want a normal windscreen and gunsight as a matter of priority....

[RLBH]

Didn't they deploy, or at least study, a fit of 4 x AIM-4 + 1 x nuclear AIM-26 in real life?

I believe that was the standard alert load for the F-106; I'd be surprised if F-102s didn't carry it.

[Weaver]

Didn't they deploy, or at least study, a fit of 4 x AIM-4 + 1 x nuclear AIM-26 in real life?

I believe that was the standard alert load for the F-106; I'd be surprised if F-102s didn't carry it.

Thought the alert load for the 106 was 4 x AIM-4F/G + 1 AIR-2A Genie.....

[sandiego89]

Didn't they deploy, or at least study, a fit of 4 x AIM-4 + 1 x nuclear AIM-26 in real life?

I believe that was the standard alert load for the F-106; I'd be surprised if F-102s didn't carry it.

Thought the alert load for the 106 was 4 x AIM-4F/G + 1 AIR-2A Genie.....

Concur with weaver on the nuclear loadout: Genie for the F-106 and the AIM-24A "nuclear Falcon" for the F-102, though it appears some Genie trials were done with the F-102: "the unguided (genie) never formed part of the (F-102's) arsenal, though F-102A 53-1797 was used to test the weapon at Holloman AFB, New Mexico in mid-1957."

From wings of fame volume 17, page 77

But in Whif.....