F-102 Ideas & Questions

[Weaver]

I think it was the case that the F-106's FCS could do the calcs to launch the Genie accurately, while the F-102's couldn't, so it needed the guided AIM-26 which was no different, from the aircraft's point of view, to firing a standard Falcon.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Weaver

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

Yes they did employ arrangements which included

• 2 x AIM-4 (Left); 1 x AIM-26, 1 x AIM-4 (Center); 2 x AIM-4 (Right)
  
• 2 x AIM-4 (Left); 2 x AIM-26 (Center); 2 x AIM-4 (Right)
  

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.

Sounds good...

Personally, if I wanted a "tactical" F-102, I'd go for a Vulcan in the centre bay

Well I just think it would be better than the F-100.

I'd also want a normal windscreen and gunsight as a matter of priority....

Well you'd need the gunsight, I assume you'd do a six-shooter style set-up for the canpoy

I think it was the case that the F-106's FCS could do the calcs to launch the Genie accurately, while the F-102's couldn't

If I recall it had to do with hindering the AIM-26 development...

[KJ_Lesnick]

I was also thinking about something...

The F4D-1 was able to mount a Radar and FCS which could compute intercept vectors automatically, maneuver the airplane into firing position and release rockets automatically (later it was updated to fire Sidewinders)... that being said, they were able to fit this fire control system into the plane and still stuff 4 x 20mm cannon up it's nose anyway.

Why couldn't that be done on the F-102A?

[rickshaw]

Depends on the fuselage diameter, the radar scanner diameter and the fuselage length, Kendra.

Essentially by now you've redesigned the F-102 to be longer, fatter and with a smaller radar scanner...   

[Weaver]

I was also thinking about something...

The F4D-1 was able to mount a Radar and FCS which could compute intercept vectors automatically, maneuver the airplane into firing position and release rockets automatically (later it was updated to fire Sidewinders)... that being said, they were able to fit this fire control system into the plane and still stuff 4 x 20mm cannon up it's nose anyway.

Why couldn't that be done on the F-102A?

Well the Skyray's guns wern't "up it's nose", they were in the wings at about 1/3 span, and the reason you couldn't do that with an F-102 is that a Skyray's subsonic delta wing was relatively thick.

The previous discussion about guns on the F-102 has been based on the idea of a retrofit, which is where the difficulty comes, since the front end is full of electronics generally regarded as essential. Obviously, if you completely resdesigned the front end to have more volume you could fit some guns in, but that rather goes beyond the limits of what's practical for an existing design.

[Weaver]

Weaver

Well the Skyray's guns wern't "up it's nose", they were in the wings at about 1/3 span, and the reason you couldn't do that with an F-102 is that a Skyray's subsonic delta wing was relatively thick.

I didn't know that...
Regardless, the XF5D-1 had 4 x 20mm cannon in it's wings and they were only 4% or so thickness.  The F-102's were around 4.65% and were overall larger in area so I wouldn't be surprised if they were thicker at their most extreme.

The Skylancer's 4 x 20mm cannon were moved further inboard than on the Skyray, into the thick area below and behind the air intakes.

Skylancer diagram here: http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5091/5583805725_e58f589e38_o.jpg

Strangely, it is actually harder to find a decent cutaway of the Skyray. Most of the "plans" on the web are construction plans for RC models, not the real thing and don't show the guns.

Here are some pics of the gun ports on a display bird (From here: http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/bill_spidle4/f4d-1_139177/index.php?Page=1 ):





More like 50% span than the 30% I mentioned earlier, and it's hard to believe they didn't screw up the wing aerodynamics to some extent. According to Greg Goebel's page on the Skyray, they were often removed and the ports faired over in service. The aircraft only carrier 65 rounds per gun and was short on fuel, so maybe they wern't considered worth the weight? (From here:  //www.airvectors.net/avskyray.html )

[PR19_Kit]

Off topic I know but did anyone do a kit of a Skylancer? An aircraft FULL of Whiff potential to my mind.......

[Weaver]

Think Anigrand do one but at their usual prices....

[NARSES2]

Think Anigrand do one but at their usual prices....

Yup, nice kit and there's one in the stash 

[KJ_Lesnick]

Okay, so for a WHIF idea, let's just put an M61 gun-pack in the plane once that becomes available.

The questions are basically

• Did the aerodynamics knowledge exist in 1958 to create a gunpack like the F-106's later carried?
  
• Would anybody thinking of putting a gun on the F-102 have thought of it in that timeframe?
  
• How long would it take to remove the center-bay doors, remove the tubes, trapeze things, put an ammo-box, the M61 and the gun-pack into position?
  

[Weaver]

Okay, so for a WHIF idea, let's just put an M61 gun-pack in the plane once that becomes available.

The questions are basically

• Did the aerodynamics knowledge exist in 1958 to create a gunpack like the F-106's later carried?

Yeah sure. It might have needed some flight testing and tweaking to get it to clear gun gasses properly and not be too draggy, but nothing that presented a serious problem.

• Would anybody thinking of putting a gun on the F-102 have thought of it in that timeframe?

I think 1958 is a bit early for anyone to be considering a gunpack for the 102: missiles were still the latest greatest thing and the 102 was still mainly doing the continental air defence role where it wasn't particularly relevent. However if they were, then the Vulcan would certainly be top of the list for consideration.

I think the most likely scenario for a "tactical" F-102 is an extended F-106 production run that sees all the 102s replaced in the interceptor role by the mid-1960s and then re-purposed, either within the USAF or as second-hand exports.

• How long would it take to remove the center-bay doors, remove the tubes, trapeze things, put an ammo-box, the M61 and the gun-pack into position?
  

Should be a matter of a couple of hours at most if the gun pack is sensibly designed. The rocket tubes are integral to the bay doors.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Yeah sure. It might have needed some flight testing and tweaking to get it to clear gun gasses properly and not be too draggy, but nothing that presented a serious problem.

Understood

I think 1958 is a bit early for anyone to be considering a gunpack for the 102: missiles were still the latest greatest thing and the 102 was still mainly doing the continental air defence role where it wasn't particularly relevent. However if they were, then the Vulcan would certainly be top of the list for consideration.

There was the F-102C, but I think it was mostly air-to-ground in arrangement

I think the most likely scenario for a "tactical" F-102 is an extended F-106 production run that sees all the 102s replaced in the interceptor role by the mid-1960s and then re-purposed, either within the USAF or as second-hand exports.

Would more F-106's be ordered starting with the desire to redesign the plane, or later?

Should be a matter of a couple of hours at most if the gun pack is sensibly designed.

Understood.

[Weaver]

There was the F-102C, but I think it was mostly air-to-ground in arrangement

Still havn't seen a pic of that: are there any?

Would more F-106's be ordered starting with the desire to redesign the plane, or later?

You mean to redesign the F-102 into the F-106 or to redesign the F-106 later?

Either way, since it didn't happen, who knows? IIRC, the original plan was to build a lot more F-106s, but the run was cut back, partly because of rising costs and partly because of the changing threat. What might change that in whiff world? Well maybe there was more money for F-106s because some other program was cut, and/or maybe the Soviet missile program ran into more problems and delays and they fielded another generation o f faster bombers....

[KJ_Lesnick]

Still havn't seen a pic of that: are there any?

Allegedly it ended up in a technical school in Honolulu at one point.  For all I know it could have been junked by now.

You mean to redesign the F-102 into the F-106 or to redesign the F-106 later?

Would modifying the F-102 to carry a gun and use it as a tactical fighter end up resulting in more F-106's ordered to replace the F-102's?[/quote]Admittedly why was the F-106A fitted with a gun if the whole intercept mission called for only missiles and rockets/nuclear-tipped rockets and so forth?

[Weaver]

Would modifying the F-102 to carry a gun and use it as a tactical fighter end up resulting in more F-106's ordered to replace the F-102's?

No, other way around: more F-106s get bought because they're better interceptors and that frees up 102s for export/re-purposing.

Admittedly why was the F-106A fitted with a gun if the whole intercept mission called for only missiles and rockets/nuclear-tipped rockets and so forth?

I suspect the F-106's gun came out of a couple of co-incident things:

1. The use of the nuclear AIR-2A was becoming increasingly unacceptable (the gun pack uses it's space in the bay).

2. By the time of project gunfighter, the USAF had rediscovered the value of guns in Vietnam and had also discovered that the F-106 was a surprisingly good dogfighter, so giving it the gun gave them the potential to deploy it overseas (like the F-102s in Vietnam) even though it never actually happened in practice.