F-102 upgrades

[Weaver]

Had the US been more short of aircraft for that war (say the Phantom was never built, for instance), you might suggest a re-worked 'tactical' F-102, with a gun pack in the centre missile bay, fuel in the outer ones, and Sidewinders on under-wing pylons.

I would assume that had the F4H been passed over in favor of the F8U-3, the USAF would likely have adopted more F-105's and more F-106's.  From what I remember, McNamara's rationale for selecting the F4H for a USAF fly off was

• It was an effective joint-service aircraft, being that it was already suitable for carrier operations
  
• The F-106A was expensive as hell: $4.7 to $5 million a plane, whereas the F4H was around $1.9 to $2.4 million a pop
  
• The F4H had a comparable top-speed to the F-106 at altitude (Mach 2.6-2.7 vs 2.8 for the F-106); a climb rate that, if not superior in every way, was superior at subsonic/trans-sonic speeds; the interception radius was superior to the F-106 (750 nm vs the F-106's 530-650 depending on drop-tanks); it had superior missiles in the form of the AAM-N-6 (AIM-7C), a radar with a longer engagement envelope (and possible overall range early on).
  
• The F4H/F-110 vs F-106 fly-off would allow him to more easily get his foot in the door, and force the plane on the USAF for other roles, such as the F-105
  
• The F4H was felt to be a better fighter than the F-105 in that it had a higher power to weight ratio, and lighter wing-loading; it could also carry heavier loads than the F-105 (16,700 vs 14,000 lbs), and was possibly capable of a higher top-speed at altitude (2.6-2.7 vs 2.5).
  
• Sure, the F4H couldn't fly as fast at low altitude (probably at all) with payload as the F-105; it wasn't as rugged and had more gust-response either; it lacked the F-106's ECCM equipment, and probably had a less discriminating IRST scanner; the corner velocity being fairly high compared to the F-106 meant it wouldn't turn so good at altitude (mock dogfights proved this, the F-106 almost always won): McNamara might have not realized all of this at the time, but he might very well have been more concerned with cutting costs than finer details (and the devil is always in the details).
  

I doubt they would have bought the F8U-3, though it did have speed (Mach 2.9) and range (same as the F-4B with 1 x 600 gallon centerline, or 2 x 370 gallon drop tanks) on it's side.

That's all true in terms of buying new hardware in the absence of the F-4, however what I was thinking more in terms of was a short-term quick-fix to boost numbers. Continued F-106 production gradually fills all the ADC requirement, leaving F-102 surplus, so rather than scrap them, they're converted to 'tactical' versions and sent to 'nam. As soon as there's enough continued production F-105s and 'tactical' F-106s to do the job, the -102s are retired.

The avionics would also need replacing, since the Hughes fire-control system was mainly intended to work with the SAGE air-defence system and data links.

Not really, SAGE was largely used to improve communications functionality (basically, a secure communications system that could not be easily intercepted, or jammed); most of the automation had to do with the fact that the aircraft was a single-seater (a twin-seater has a dedicated radar-operator to compute interception vectors, and launch missiles).

On an intercept the aircraft was mostly flown from the ground by the controller using a data-link. All the pilot had to do was fly it off the ground, fly the escape turn after weapons launch, and land it. As you might imagine, with late 1950s electronics this was a non-trival exercise, involving a large volume of black boxes in the plane and causing some horrible serviceability issues. Sure you could fly the aircraft like a normal plane, but then all those black boxes are just dead weight.

[scooter]

On an intercept the aircraft was mostly flown from the ground by the controller using a data-link. All the pilot had to do was fly it off the ground, fly the escape turn after weapons launch, and land it. As you might imagine, with late 1950s electronics this was a non-trival exercise, involving a large volume of black boxes in the plane and causing some horrible serviceability issues. Sure you could fly the aircraft like a normal plane, but then all those black boxes are just dead weight.

Plus that huge instrument panel limited your forward view.  I'd been told stories by the few remaining Six drivers at the 177th FW about a Six eating a Cessna on their way back to ACY from Myrtle Beach.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Weaver

The RAF was underwhelmed by AIM-4A/B Falcon, so they replace them with Firestreaks.

I'm curious why the Firestreaks were so heavy compared to our Falcons and Sidewinders?

More Power. The F-102 underperformed in speed, climb rate and ceiling, so the RAF updated version has two rocket boosters fitted in the area-rule bulges.

That's actually pretty smart, though I don't know about the idea of carrying oxidizer in drop-tanks.

That's all true in terms of buying new hardware in the absence of the F-4, however what I was thinking more in terms of was a short-term quick-fix to boost numbers.

Okay, in that case we could've done a couple of things

• Buy a shitload of F-104's: They were designed such that up to 20 could be produced every day, though I'm not sure how long it would take to set-up such a production line; the F-104G's could carry a multi-mode for air-to-air and air-to-ground, and had maneuvering flaps.
  
• Put a gun-pack in the F-102A's, modify the optical sight to use gun-ranging data, fit a pylon under the wings that can mount a Y-pylon for AIM-9B, or bombs; use new supersonic tanks that have been developed; add aerial-refueling capability and a clear-fit canopy once available
  
• Remove the avionics of the F-102A with the F-104G's NASARR system; put a gun-pack in the center bay, stuff extra fuel in the left and right bay; add an extra pylon under the wings that can mount either a Y-pylon for AIM-9 or bombs; use new supersonic-tanks that have been developed; add aerial-refueling capability and a clear-fit canopy once available
  

[rickshaw]

The Six showed that it *was* more upgradable than the Deuce- IFR, gunpack, tests as a Wild Weasel with STARM, additional versions that would have pushed the envelope to Mach 3.  If anything, GD/Convair should have been looking to allow the missile bays to mate newer AAMs, or modify the hardpoints for AIM-9s

When the Mercury 7 complained about not flying, NASA originally gave them Dueces...which then resulted in *more* complaints, and got them Sixes.

And let's not forget that as the USAF was retiring the Century Series in favor of the Teens, the Six continued to soldier on, until the 119th FIS retired their Sixes (as built in 195x) in '88.  No Block numbers, no follow-on alphabet soup.  Just F-106A/B

The F-106 was a missed opportunity IMHO.  It had greater potential than the F-102.   It also had substantially better aerodynamics and range.   If you added an extra hard point to each wing, it would have been able to carry a substantial load, plus what was in the internal weapons bay.    I'd give it AIM-9 and AIM-7 missiles, with drop tanks and bombs on the wing pylons.   Alternatively, seal the internal weapons bay and add hard points under the forward fuselage.

[PR19_Kit]

Weaver

The RAF was underwhelmed by AIM-4A/B Falcon, so they replace them with Firestreaks.

I'm curious why the Firestreaks were so heavy compared to our Falcons and Sidewinders?

'Our' Firestreaks had much larger warheads than 'your' Falcons and Sidewinders, and it was faster than the Sidewinder too, so it probably needed a higher impulse motor to produce a similar performance.

[tahsin]

The only time a F-102 came close to a fight in Vietnam was the time it was ambushed by a MiG. It was otherwise mostly duck hunting, the fabolous aerial supply flights Americans kept believing to exist but didn't. Well, still beyond the 102...

Exports to Turkey and Greece were not exports, as it is easy to understand but a nominal capability transfer by planes Americans would scrap otherwise. Reputedly the reason why Phantoms were in much demand afterwards on both sides of the Aegean...

[KJ_Lesnick]

scooter

The Six showed that it *was* more upgradable than the Deuce

Correct

tests as a Wild Weasel with STARM

I thought that was an ASAT system...

additional versions that would have pushed the envelope to Mach 3.

The aircraft was capable of already topping out at Mach 2.8, what were they planning to reach 3.0?




rickshaw

The F-106 was a missed opportunity IMHO.

You mean to convert it into an air-superiority plane, or to have had it flown earlier?

[rickshaw]

Conversion into a fighter-bomber.   It would have given the Mirage a good run for it's money in the world market if Convair and the USAF been smarter.   

[comrade harps]

If I found a F-106B in 1:72nd I'd make it into a bomber. either have the missile bay filled with fuel and the bombs on underwing racks or the other way around. Don't think there's enough clearance under the fuselage for a centreline pylon plus stores. Maybe an internal Vulcan popped on the side, just back from the nose cone.

I'm thinking some role like that of Ryan's raiders: http://34tfsthuds.us/ryans/

Give it a SEA-style or '80s European lizard wrap around camo.

[Weaver]

Weaver

The RAF was underwhelmed by AIM-4A/B Falcon, so they replace them with Firestreaks.

I'm curious why the Firestreaks were so heavy compared to our Falcons and Sidewinders?

Bigger warhead (60lb IIRC), higher impulse motor, much better proximity fuse, significantly better seeker in Firestreak and MUCH better seeker in Red Top. Red Top had a limited head-on capability in the 1960s which Sidewinder didn't get until the late 1970s. The limited range of the Firestreak/Red Top was more to do with IR lock-on range than anything else: with SARH seekers (which were seriously looked at) they could have gone much further. The design philosophy of the UK missiles was that they would primarily be engaging large, tough bombers which would need a significant warhead to take them down. The number of single-seat fighters that have survived Sidewinder hits suggests that they had a point.

The reason the Sidewinder did so much better than anything else was it's 'radical simplicity'. It was reasonably reliable in the days when that was an achievement for anything with 1950s electronics in it, it was easy to adapt to different aircraft without extensive and expensive modifications, and it was cheap.

More Power. The F-102 underperformed in speed, climb rate and ceiling, so the RAF updated version has two rocket boosters fitted in the area-rule bulges.

That's actually pretty smart, though I don't know about the idea of carrying oxidizer in drop-tanks.

All oxidisers are horrible, horrible chemicals, they just have different kinds of very serious risk associated with them. There's no such thing as a 'good' place to put them. At least in drop tanks:

a) If they leak, the leak goes straight overboard instead of building up in an internal space where it will at best cause corrosion or at worst feed a fire,

b) Maintenance crews have 100% access to a drop tank to check for leaks, whereas internal tanks can be hard to inspect,

c) If the tank does develop a fault, it can be jettisoned (in flight) or quickly removed (on the ground) and easily replaced.

That's all true in terms of buying new hardware in the absence of the F-4, however what I was thinking more in terms of was a short-term quick-fix to boost numbers.

Okay, in that case we could've done a couple of things

• Buy a shitload of F-104's: They were designed such that up to 20 could be produced every day, though I'm not sure how long it would take to set-up such a production line; the F-104G's could carry a multi-mode for air-to-air and air-to-ground, and had maneuvering flaps.
  
• Put a gun-pack in the F-102A's, modify the optical sight to use gun-ranging data, fit a pylon under the wings that can mount a Y-pylon for AIM-9B, or bombs; use new supersonic tanks that have been developed; add aerial-refueling capability and a clear-fit canopy once available
  
• Remove the avionics of the F-102A with the F-104G's NASARR system; put a gun-pack in the center bay, stuff extra fuel in the left and right bay; add an extra pylon under the wings that can mount either a Y-pylon for AIM-9 or bombs; use new supersonic-tanks that have been developed; add aerial-refueling capability and a clear-fit canopy once available
  

Well those second and third suggestions are pretty much what I was suggesting in the first place...

[sandiego89]

Another role could be nuclear strike, but with the store(s) in the weapons bay.  Like the original concept for the F-105.  Not sure what would fit?  B28, B43 perhaps. 

[scooter]

additional versions that would have pushed the envelope to Mach 3.

The aircraft was capable of already topping out at Mach 2.8, what were they planning to reach 3.0?

Convair was looking to add 2D rectangular intakes (similar to F-14/15) and a more powerful J75 engine, as a YF-12 alternative.

[KJ_Lesnick]

rickshaw

Partly.  Partly because the technology was moving on so quickly.   Bomber streams were perceived initially as the threat.  That then became individual bombers.

I was under the impression that our major concern was Soviet equipped bombers with nuclear bombs?  Since you only need one bomb to destroy a city or a base (and if you followed SAC rules, 2-4 per target as an absolute insurance policy), you would probably face single bombers or very small formations.

I don't know why you'd need a stream with such a layout unless you start as a stream.  The USSR had many bases all over it's massive territory so they'd probably fly along a series of mini-streams, of which a few might join up, but then to attack their individual targets, they'd break up into a few hundred mini-streams.  By the time they'd be over Canada, they'd probably be in several mini-streams, to several dozen already.  The speeds of the aircraft (expected first to be B-29 speed aircraft to B-47 speed planes at first, and from then to Mach 2.0 to 2.4 aircraft) would yield respectable spacing between them (The B-52 cells used in Vietnam were three-ship formations spaced between 1.0-1.5 to 2.0-2.5 miles apart longitudinally).

Even when the F-102 specification was issued in 1948, we assumed it was inevitable that they'd have nuclear bombs by 1955 (and the plane was to enter service a year before that).

Then ICBMs rendered interceptors obsolete.

I was under the impression that the USSR would fire their nuclear missiles after they realized we were either going to, or had launched our ballistic missiles; they would then attempt to get as many bombers off the ground before all their bases ended up a giant smoking craters.

Comments in various pilot's biographies.  The F-102 was considered dangerous by most of it's pilots.   It had stability problems and wasn't able to perform aerodynamics safely.

And the F-106A was better in this regard?

Conversion into a fighter-bomber.

I do remember seeing a gag-picture of 6 x 500 lb hardpoints attatched under an F-106A's wings for General Agan who was then the head of ADC.  He seemed to have a good laugh.

It would have given the Mirage a good run for it's money in the world market if Convair and the USAF been smarter.   

Well, the Mirage could carry 8800 lbs, so I'm not so sure about that.  I'm also not so sure how the two compared in the following

• Range
  
• Roll-Rate
  
• Instantaneous/Sustained Rate of Turn
  
• Climb-Rate
  

I wouldn't be shocked if the F-106A was faster, of course.


PR19_Kit

'Our' Firestreaks had much larger warheads than 'your' Falcons and Sidewinders, and it was faster than the Sidewinder too, so it probably needed a higher impulse motor to produce a similar performance.

Okay, so it was lugging a heavier warhead to a higher speed.  I'm guessing the heavier payload was to ensure target destruction, correct?

BTW: Saying "ours" and "yours" sounds kind of divisive.  Sorry about that, I meant nothing negative.

[PR19_Kit]

PR19_Kit

'Our' Firestreaks had much larger warheads than 'your' Falcons and Sidewinders, and it was faster than the Sidewinder too, so it probably needed a higher impulse motor to produce a similar performance.

Okay, so it was lugging a heavier warhead to a higher speed.  I'm guessing the heavier payload was to ensure target destruction, correct?

BTW: Saying "ours" and "yours" sounds kind of divisive.  Sorry about that, I meant nothing negative.

See Weaver's reply in post #24 above.

[rickshaw]

rickshaw

Partly.  Partly because the technology was moving on so quickly.   Bomber streams were perceived initially as the threat.  That then became individual bombers.

I was under the impression that our major concern was Soviet equipped bombers with nuclear bombs?  Since you only need one bomb to destroy a city or a base (and if you followed SAC rules, 2-4 per target as an absolute insurance policy), you would probably face single bombers or very small formations.

I don't know why you'd need a stream with such a layout unless you start as a stream.  The USSR had many bases all over it's massive territory so they'd probably fly along a series of mini-streams, of which a few might join up, but then to attack their individual targets, they'd break up into a few hundred mini-streams.  By the time they'd be over Canada, they'd probably be in several mini-streams, to several dozen already.  The speeds of the aircraft (expected first to be B-29 speed aircraft to B-47 speed planes at first, and from then to Mach 2.0 to 2.4 aircraft) would yield respectable spacing between them (The B-52 cells used in Vietnam were three-ship formations spaced between 1.0-1.5 to 2.0-2.5 miles apart longitudinally).

Even when the F-102 specification was issued in 1948, we assumed it was inevitable that they'd have nuclear bombs by 1955 (and the plane was to enter service a year before that).

And yet, in 1950, the USAF was employing bomber streams to pound North Korean targets, some 5+ years after they had exploded and used the first atomic bombs.   Not all targets would be considered worth a nuclear weapon, ran the thinking, so streams would still be employed to destroy them.   After nuclear became the main means of strategic destruction, it was then down to individual bombers.  Then ICBMs appeared and suddenly nuclear armed bombers are passe'.   Remember, what the Russians were going to do was a mystery for the most part.   The USAF modelled their opponent's strategy on their own for the most part.   What the USAF was going to, the Soviets were also going to do.

Then ICBMs rendered interceptors obsolete.

I was under the impression that the USSR would fire their nuclear missiles after they realized we were either going to, or had launched our ballistic missiles; they would then attempt to get as many bombers off the ground before all their bases ended up a giant smoking craters.

See above.  What the Russians were going to actually do was pretty much a mystery during most of the Cold War.  It wasn't until a new weapon system was deployed that the thinking changed.   The Soviets would do what they liked but until that was discovered, the USAF had their strategy aped by what they believed the Soviet planned to do.   

Comments in various pilot's biographies.  The F-102 was considered dangerous by most of it's pilots.   It had stability problems and wasn't able to perform aerodynamics safely.

And the F-106A was better in this regard?

It performed surprisingly well once it was used in dog fights by the USAF.   It had a large, delta wing with relatively low wing loading, allowing high speed sustained turns and once it had a gun, it had an assured means of destroying it's opponent.   If they had given it AIM-9 and AIM-7 instead of the Falcon/Genies, it would have made a superb dog fighter IMO.

Conversion into a fighter-bomber.

I do remember seeing a gag-picture of 6 x 500 lb hardpoints attatched under an F-106A's wings for General Agan who was then the head of ADC.  He seemed to have a good laugh.

It was an excellent joke, I don't doubt but it showed the potential of the aircraft.  What it lacked was hard points either on the wing or the fuselage to carry an adequate load.

It would have given the Mirage a good run for it's money in the world market if Convair and the USAF been smarter.   

Well, the Mirage could carry 8800 lbs, so I'm not so sure about that.  I'm also not so sure how the two compared in the following

• Range
  
• Roll-Rate
  
• Instantaneous/Sustained Rate of Turn
  
• Climb-Rate
  

I wouldn't be shocked if the F-106A was faster, of course.

Combat Range:   Mirage IIIE - 1,200 km (746 mi; 648 nmi)
                               F-106A - 2,900 km (1,600 nmi)
Rate of climb: Mirage IIIE - 237 m/s (46,600 ft/min)
                          F-106A - 29,000 ft/min (150 m/s)
Wing loading: Mirage IIIE - 270 kg/m²
                          F-10A - 52 lb/(sq ft) (255 kg/m²)

I cannot find the other points you raise.  Perhaps you can if you do some of your own research?