F-102 Ideas & Questions

[rickshaw]

Just thought I'd throw this into the mix:

The F-102 received several major modifications during its operational lifetime, with most airframes being retrofitted with infrared search/tracking systems, radar warning receivers, transponders, backup artificial horizons, and improvements to the fire-control system.[17] A proposed close-support version (never built) would have incorporated, in addition, an internal Gatling gun, an extra two hardpoints for bombs (in addition to the two underwing pylons for drop tanks that were fitted to all production F-102s), bigger internal fuel tanks, and an in-flight-refueling probe.[17]

[Source]

Kendra had you actually even looked at Wikipedia before starting this thread?

[Weaver]

The F-102C's been discussed further back in the thread, but it's not clear how the gun was to be fitted, ie, was it at the expense of missiles, electronics or something else. That makes it a bit hard to evaluate whether it's really what Kendra wants, i.e. an F-102 "fighter" with a gun, or a ground attack type with compromised fighter abilities. Kendra's original question was about whether an F-102 with a gun would have been a better fighter, and the existence of a "mysterious" gun-armed close support proposal doesn't really answer that.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Why did the F-102 have a three section bay and the F-106A have one?

[Weaver]

At a guess, I'd say that the three-section bay gives a theoretically more rigid fuselage because you can have full-depth longitudinal members running though it. However they probably then realised how limiting it's dimensions would be for accomodating improved and bigger missiles, so they decided to invest in a bit more metal in the F-106's fuselage and have a one big flexible (in every sense of the word) bay.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Weaver

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

Makes sense enough.  Still I'm not sure if McNamara would have still insisted on trying to force the F4H/F-4 on the USAF before more F-106's were bought (Admittedly I don't think the F-4 was a bad interceptor).


Rickshaw

Most of the information on the F-102C I read was either on Joe Baugher's page, though I had read Wikipedia: I'm surprised the gatling comment slipped right past me!



Weaver

Understood

[Weaver]

Weaver

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

Makes sense enough.  Still I'm not sure if McNamara would have still insisted on trying to force the F4H/F-4 on the USAF before more F-106's were bought (Admittedly I don't think the F-4 was a bad interceptor).

Well one of my favorite scenarios is one in which the F-4 either never happened at all, or it was only bought as the AH-1 attack plane instead of a failed A-6 program, so that creates an opportunity for advanced F-105s, F-106s, operational F-107s etc... 

[KJ_Lesnick]

Weaver

Well one of my favorite scenarios is one in which the F-4 either never happened at all, or it was only bought as the AH-1 attack plane instead of a failed A-6 program

What's wrong with the A-6?

[rickshaw]

Weaver

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

Makes sense enough.  Still I'm not sure if McNamara would have still insisted on trying to force the F4H/F-4 on the USAF before more F-106's were bought (Admittedly I don't think the F-4 was a bad interceptor).

Well one of my favorite scenarios is one in which the F-4 either never happened at all, or it was only bought as the AH-1 attack plane instead of a failed A-6 program, so that creates an opportunity for advanced F-105s, F-106s, operational F-107s etc... 

AH-1?  Attack Helicopter?  Or have I missed something?

[jcf]

Weaver

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

Makes sense enough.  Still I'm not sure if McNamara would have still insisted on trying to force the F4H/F-4 on the USAF before more F-106's were bought (Admittedly I don't think the F-4 was a bad interceptor).

Well one of my favorite scenarios is one in which the F-4 either never happened at all, or it was only bought as the AH-1 attack plane instead of a failed A-6 program, so that creates an opportunity for advanced F-105s, F-106s, operational F-107s etc... 

AH-1?  Attack Helicopter?  Or have I missed something?

Original designation under pre-1962 USN designation system: A for Attack, H for McDonnell, -1 for first of type.
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f4_1.html

[rickshaw]

Ah, thanks, Jon!

[Weaver]

Weaver

Well one of my favorite scenarios is one in which the F-4 either never happened at all, or it was only bought as the AH-1 attack plane instead of a failed A-6 program

What's wrong with the A-6?

Nothing now, but it's avionics development was traumatic, with delays, rising costs etc... You could easily see, in an parrallel whiff-world, all this turning into a public scandal that sees the project cancelled and the Navy fall out of love with fancy electronics. They then decide that what they want is, effectively, a "big Skyhawk" which is what the AH-1 (which later became the Phantom) was: a single-seat, no nonsense attack plane with lots of bombs and speed. Alternatively, you could lok at it as a USN equivalent to the USAF's F-105..... 

[KJ_Lesnick]

The A-4's wings were better for subsonic flight than the AH-1; on the other hand a supersonic low altitude attack aircraft like the F-105 would rock I'd think something with lots of blown flappery

[Weaver]

The A-4's wings were better for subsonic flight than the AH-1; on the other hand a supersonic low altitude attack aircraft like the F-105 would rock I'd think something with lots of blown flappery

Exactly: the original attack version of the Phantom was effectively a Navy F-105.

[KJ_Lesnick]

There is clearly a communication's gulf here, I'm arguing against you and you're agreeing with me then arguing your position...

[rickshaw]

As Winston Churchill quipped, "Great Britain and the United States, two nations divided by a common language."