Tactical Nuclear Bombers vs Fighter-Bombers

Started by KJ_Lesnick, August 05, 2013, 11:01:38 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

PR19_Kit

Quote from: Mr.Creak on August 15, 2013, 12:06:29 PM
1 Weirdly FAS (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/f-86.htm) states that the F-86 was redesigned as a fighter bomber in the F-86H!

AFAIK that's correct. See here for instance :-

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p86_16.html

and many other references say the H was a dedicated ground attack model.
Kit's Rule 1 ) Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings, and/or a longer fuselage
Kit's Rule 2) The backstory can always be changed to suit the model

...and I'm not a closeted 'Take That' fan, I'm a REAL fan! :)

Regards
Kit

KJ_Lesnick

Mr. Creak

QuoteBut, if carrying bombs had had an impact on the primary mission they'd have been left out.
Not if they weren't needed at all, the F-86D for example was a pure interceptor, other than drop-tanks it didn't need to carry anything outside.

QuoteAh, got it.
Understood

QuoteIt wasn't until the closing stages of Korea that F-86s were assigned to ground attack. Up until then it had been a case of "any old type will do that job".
I didn't know that.

QuoteWeirdly FAS (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/f-86.htm) states that the F-86 was redesigned as a fighter bomber in the F-86H!
Crazy huh?
That being said, I'd like to remind everybody in a manner reminiscent of the SNL bit on Julian Assange, that no matter how I die: It was murder (even if there was a suicide note or a video of me peacefully dying in my sleep); should I be framed for a criminal offense or disappear, you know to blame.

Mr.Creak

Quote from: PR19_Kit on August 15, 2013, 04:13:42 PMAFAIK that's correct. See here for instance :-
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p86_16.html
and many other references say the H was a dedicated ground attack model.
Yeah, but the point is that the "dedicated ground attack model" actually carried less air-surface ordnance than the "fighter" version.   ;)
What if... I had a brain?

KJ_Lesnick

Mr. Creak

QuoteYeah, but the point is that the "dedicated ground attack model" actually carried less air-surface ordnance than the "fighter" version.   ;)
Maybe in theory, but for practical purposes, no...

The F-86F could carry the following

  • 8 x HVAR, possibly 2 x 120 gallon tanks: 1072 lbs (just 8 x 5" HVAR); 2644 lbs to 2656 lbs with everything (JP-4 is either 6.55 or 6.6, I've heard both figures used and truthfully temperatures will have affect on exact density)
  • 2 x 750 pound napalm tanks & 2 x 120 gallon tanks: 3072 to 3084 lbs
  • 2 x 1000 pound bombs & 2 x 120 gallon tanks: 3572 to 3584 pounds
  • 1 x 1200 pound nuclear store (inboard left), 2 x 200 (inboard right), 2 x 120 gallon tanks: 4082 to 4104 lbs
  • Maximum payload was 5,300 but evidently the pylons couldn't hold all that unless you could occupy all four hardpoins and carry the HVAR (I'm not sure if that was do-able)
.
The F-86H-10NH could carry the following

  • 2 x 1000 pound bombs, 2 x 200 gallon tanks: 3620 to 3640 lbs
  • 1 x 1200 pound nuclear bomb, 3 x 200 gallon tanks: 5130 to 5160 lbs
If you look at the OEW's, the fuel weight, the MTOGW's and you'll find there's 6,000 to 7,000 pounds to spare.  While theoretically the F-86F can carry more; in practice, the F-86H could haul a greater load.
That being said, I'd like to remind everybody in a manner reminiscent of the SNL bit on Julian Assange, that no matter how I die: It was murder (even if there was a suicide note or a video of me peacefully dying in my sleep); should I be framed for a criminal offense or disappear, you know to blame.

Mr.Creak

Ah, the light begins to show.
Thanks for that.
What if... I had a brain?