If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"David E. Powell" wrote in message s.com... "Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... In message m, David E. Powell writes Thanks! I hadn't known about the 2.75 rockets, sounds like the F-94 Scorpion. The Falcon must have been a decent missile, the -106s and other fighters used them into the 80s and early 90s. No, it sucked really badly (less than 5% Pk in Vietnam, although against fighters at low level with some hostile factors) but it was a low priority for replacement or enhancement. Whoa - Considering how long they served I would have thought the opposite. No, Paul is correct. The Falcon did not have a very good record (F-4D's accounted for five Migs with it over Vietnam). But remember that it was really the first generation AAM in the USAF. A good summary of the Falcon and its capabilities can be found at Andreas' site: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-4.html Maybe it was felt they had better odds against bombers. It probably would have. Or there was some sort of upgrade by the '80s. Considering alot of ANG fighters that escorted bombers up and down the seacost in the Cold War carried them. The Falcon did go through upgrades throughout its career. The final ones in service (AIM-4F/G limited to use on the F-106) were undoubtedly better and more capable than the early sixties variants, with greater range, larger warheads, and better maneuverability than the original AIM-4A and later AIM-4D. It still was not a 8great* missile, but developing further improvments or going to the expense of trying to integrate a newer missile into the F-106 as it approached the twilight of its career was not going to happen. The Swedes produced their own conventionally armed variant of the AIM-26, the Rb-27, which served with their Drakens (and IIRC Viggens) up through the mid-eighties. I wonder if GWB ever flew with the nuclear version....? Who knows? But it would have been unlikely, as the AIM-26 was phased out of US service by 1971. Brooks DEP Maybe that's why the F-106 got a cannon.... |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Did you mean F-102s??? as drones???
First QF-106s appeared in late 80s... Mark "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message news "Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... In message m, David E. Powell writes Thanks! I hadn't known about the 2.75 rockets, sounds like the F-94 Scorpion. The Falcon must have been a decent missile, the -106s and other fighters used them into the 80s and early 90s. No, it sucked really badly (less than 5% Pk in Vietnam, although against fighters at low level with some hostile factors) but it was a low priority for replacement or enhancement. The real deal is that most F-106s were decoys, by the mid 1970s. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
I seem to recall that one method of employing the 2.75 rocket against a
bomber entailed a 'beam' attack where the heading crossing angle (between the interceptor and target) was somewhere in the vicinity of 135 degrees. IIRC the combination of short range and high closure caused for a VERY interesting time in 'getting out of the way' of the debris (assuming you hit anything; and if you didn't not running into the side of the target) Mark "David E. Powell" wrote in message s.com... "Guy Alcala" wrote in message . .. "Paul J. Adam" wrote: In message m, David E. Powell writes Third. did the F-102 have a gun or just internal missiles in a weapon bay? Falcon missiles (six IIRC) in the bay, plus 24 x 2.75" rockets (launch tubes in the bay doors). From memory there were twelve tubes each with two rockets nose-to-tail: this was sometimes downloaded to twelve, and F-102s in Vietnam did some very light ground attack (using their IR sensor to find targets like campfires and the rockets to engage). My recollections may be at variance with the facts, so check before using Thanks! I hadn't known about the 2.75 rockets, sounds like the F-94 Scorpion. The Falcon must have been a decent missile, the -106s and other fighters used them into the 80s and early 90s. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" writes: In message m, David E. Powell writes Thanks! I hadn't known about the 2.75 rockets, sounds like the F-94 Scorpion. The Falcon must have been a decent missile, the -106s and other fighters used them into the 80s and early 90s. No, it sucked really badly (less than 5% Pk in Vietnam, although against fighters at low level with some hostile factors) but it was a low priority for replacement or enhancement. As an anti-fighter weapon, it suffered from 2 serious flaws: It had an extremely long initialtion time - the delay between when you decide to fire the missile, and the missile has to be woken up, (The batteries started, gyros brought up to speed, the seeker receiver warmed up & tuned, for a radar missile, or, in the case of an IR Falcon, cooled for more sensitivity, and then the missile is "briefed", if you will, by the Fire COntrol System on the airplane, so that the seeker is looking at the right target, and the range & velocity gates are set correctly. With a Falcon, as I understand it, this could take 5-10 seconds, which is a danged long time, in a dogfight. But, then, a MiG-17 pulling 8Gs on the deck is a different matter than an Mya-4 pulling 2 Gs at 36,000'. The second problem was that the Falcons never got a Proximity Fuze. Prox Fuzes are just about the most difficult systems that a missile will have - they have to take into account the shape of the fragment pattern of the warhead, and the velocity that the fragmants will have. A simple "Closest Approach" fuze will inievietably fire late. It's much more difficult for a missile than for an artillery shell, becasue the missile has to deal with a larger variety of closing velocities adn aspect angles. Almost all Falcons had to actually hit the target to detonate the warhead. That's perhaps, not unrealistic when you're firing a salvo of them at a big bomber-sized target, but it's very unlikely that it will be successful against a maneuvering fighter. (Secret Analysts Trick - When somebody boasts that they've invented a "Hittile", a missile so accurate that it doesn't need a Proximity Fuze, that menasn that they couldn't get one to work, and thas are trying to make a feature out of a bug.) -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...
Maybe it was felt they had better odds against bombers. It probably would have. The Falcon was originally designed for shooting down bombers and not fighters. Only the AIM-4D was considered as a "dogfight" missile. The Falcon did go through upgrades throughout its career. The final ones in service (AIM-4F/G limited to use on the F-106) were undoubtedly better and more capable than the early sixties variants, with greater range, larger warheads, and better maneuverability than the original AIM-4A and later AIM-4D. This is a bit wrong. The Falcon came originally in two versions and entered service with the F-89J with the -A and -C versions (three each to every F-89) either late in 1956 or early 1957. The -A being radar guided, and the -C infrared. The -E was a larger variant with radar guidance and this entered production shortly after the -A's and -C's. The -F was an improved -E and was the standard radar version. About the same time the -G was introduced as an infrared variant of the -E/-F. IIRC, the -D was not introduced until about '60, and was the last variant procured. It was basically the smaller -A/-C airframe with the -G guidance and motor. Some were purpose built, but most were reconstructed -A/-C's. It is confusing that the last Falcon would be given an "earlier" designation, but remember that all were manufactured prior to the tri-service (re)designations in 1962. The AIM-26s were even larger than the -E/-F/-G's and so were given a different designations. AIM-26A was the nuke version of the Falcon. The AIM-26B had a conventional warhead, and was produced under licence in Sweden as the Rb-27 (as you say). The AIM-47 was to have armed the F-108, and later the YF-12. The Falcon, FWIW, was, like BOMARC, given a "fighter" designation; F-98 Falcon (BOMARC was F-99). The designation changes was as follows: USAF Tri-Service GAR-1 AIM-4 GAR-1D AIM-4A GAR-2 AIM-4B GAR-2A AIM-4C GAR-2B AIM-4D GAR-3 AIM-4E GAR-3A AIM-4F GAR-4A AIM-4G GAR-11 AIM-26A GAR-11A AIM-26B GAR-9 AIM-47A -- Regards, Michael P. Reed |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael P. Reed" wrote in message om... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... Maybe it was felt they had better odds against bombers. It probably would have. The Falcon was originally designed for shooting down bombers and not fighters. Only the AIM-4D was considered as a "dogfight" missile. The Falcon did go through upgrades throughout its career. The final ones in service (AIM-4F/G limited to use on the F-106) were undoubtedly better and more capable than the early sixties variants, with greater range, larger warheads, and better maneuverability than the original AIM-4A and later AIM-4D. This is a bit wrong. And then you go on to acknowledge that the Falcon did indeed go through a development program that left the later variants decidedly more capable than the first version...? Note I said "the final ones in service", not the "final version fielded". Brooks The Falcon came originally in two versions and entered service with the F-89J with the -A and -C versions (three each to every F-89) either late in 1956 or early 1957. The -A being radar guided, and the -C infrared. The -E was a larger variant with radar guidance and this entered production shortly after the -A's and -C's. The -F was an improved -E and was the standard radar version. About the same time the -G was introduced as an infrared variant of the -E/-F. IIRC, the -D was not introduced until about '60, and was the last variant procured. It was basically the smaller -A/-C airframe with the -G guidance and motor. Some were purpose built, but most were reconstructed -A/-C's. It is confusing that the last Falcon would be given an "earlier" designation, but remember that all were manufactured prior to the tri-service (re)designations in 1962. The AIM-26s were even larger than the -E/-F/-G's and so were given a different designations. AIM-26A was the nuke version of the Falcon. The AIM-26B had a conventional warhead, and was produced under licence in Sweden as the Rb-27 (as you say). The AIM-47 was to have armed the F-108, and later the YF-12. The Falcon, FWIW, was, like BOMARC, given a "fighter" designation; F-98 Falcon (BOMARC was F-99). The designation changes was as follows: USAF Tri-Service GAR-1 AIM-4 GAR-1D AIM-4A GAR-2 AIM-4B GAR-2A AIM-4C GAR-2B AIM-4D GAR-3 AIM-4E GAR-3A AIM-4F GAR-4A AIM-4G GAR-11 AIM-26A GAR-11A AIM-26B GAR-9 AIM-47A -- Regards, Michael P. Reed |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Mark" wrote in message . com... Did you mean F-102s??? as drones??? First QF-106s appeared in late 80s... No, this is about the time that the Tarvernaut comes out with his more outlandish tales of F-106's serving as deep strike fighters, carrying the mythical "optical nuke" (whatever the hell that is--nobody here was able to figure it out the last time he dropped off the deep end with this crap), and their mysterious AIM-7 Sparrow armament that nobody else has been able to verify. (Scary music begins) Welcome to the Tarver Zone... (Music fades) Brooks Mark "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message news "Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... In message m, David E. Powell writes Thanks! I hadn't known about the 2.75 rockets, sounds like the F-94 Scorpion. The Falcon must have been a decent missile, the -106s and other fighters used them into the 80s and early 90s. No, it sucked really badly (less than 5% Pk in Vietnam, although against fighters at low level with some hostile factors) but it was a low priority for replacement or enhancement. The real deal is that most F-106s were decoys, by the mid 1970s. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Kevin Brooks wrote: The Swedes produced their own conventionally armed variant of the AIM-26, the Rb-27, which served with their Drakens (and IIRC Viggens) up through the mid-eighties. Draken was actually in service until late 1998 (because that's when Gripen was qualified as an air defence fighter and the principle then was to have two types in service in that role), Viggen never used RB 27, but the IR-guided Falcon RB 28 was planned as a self defence missile for the ground attack and recce Viggens. (Very weird to wire it for Sidewinders on the under fuselage stations and Falcons on the outer wing stations never used for anything else. Not used, but I'm not sure for exactly what reason - maybe on wing life, maybe flutter, maybe unsuitability as a self defence missile (assuming that was the real reason).) However, Swiss Mirages used the RB 27 as well. -- Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/ A weapon is a device for making your enemy change his mind. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Urban Fredriksson" wrote in message ... In article , Kevin Brooks wrote: The Swedes produced their own conventionally armed variant of the AIM-26, the Rb-27, which served with their Drakens (and IIRC Viggens) up through the mid-eighties. Draken was actually in service until late 1998 (because that's when Gripen was qualified as an air defence fighter and the principle then was to have two types in service in that role), No argument there. But were the *Rb-27's* still in service after the eighties? If so, Andreas needs to change his info... Brooks Viggen never used RB 27, but the IR-guided Falcon RB 28 was planned as a self defence missile for the ground attack and recce Viggens. (Very weird to wire it for Sidewinders on the under fuselage stations and Falcons on the outer wing stations never used for anything else. Not used, but I'm not sure for exactly what reason - maybe on wing life, maybe flutter, maybe unsuitability as a self defence missile (assuming that was the real reason).) However, Swiss Mirages used the RB 27 as well. -- Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/ A weapon is a device for making your enemy change his mind. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Vague (very) recollection that the 'response' time of the missile could be
improved by getting the missile bay doors open and missile rails down. This would get the missile in a 'warm' state (so to speak) and would come off the rail in rapid order (after the pilot actually desired to fire). This, however, came with the penalty that you'd better be pretty close to a firing solution, because the missiles were running on the own 'juice' and you'd end up with a potential dud/hung missile.... (Could be wrong here, my wetware is getting tired) wrt the hit-to-kill bit.... there was a 'crush' strip on the leading edges of the missile wings. When it got 'plonked' the warhead (very small -- another drawback) would go off Mark "Peter Stickney" wrote in message ... In article , "Paul J. Adam" writes: In message m, David E. Powell writes Thanks! I hadn't known about the 2.75 rockets, sounds like the F-94 Scorpion. The Falcon must have been a decent missile, the -106s and other fighters used them into the 80s and early 90s. No, it sucked really badly (less than 5% Pk in Vietnam, although against fighters at low level with some hostile factors) but it was a low priority for replacement or enhancement. As an anti-fighter weapon, it suffered from 2 serious flaws: It had an extremely long initialtion time - the delay between when you decide to fire the missile, and the missile has to be woken up, (The batteries started, gyros brought up to speed, the seeker receiver warmed up & tuned, for a radar missile, or, in the case of an IR Falcon, cooled for more sensitivity, and then the missile is "briefed", if you will, by the Fire COntrol System on the airplane, so that the seeker is looking at the right target, and the range & velocity gates are set correctly. With a Falcon, as I understand it, this could take 5-10 seconds, which is a danged long time, in a dogfight. But, then, a MiG-17 pulling 8Gs on the deck is a different matter than an Mya-4 pulling 2 Gs at 36,000'. The second problem was that the Falcons never got a Proximity Fuze. Prox Fuzes are just about the most difficult systems that a missile will have - they have to take into account the shape of the fragment pattern of the warhead, and the velocity that the fragmants will have. A simple "Closest Approach" fuze will inievietably fire late. It's much more difficult for a missile than for an artillery shell, becasue the missile has to deal with a larger variety of closing velocities adn aspect angles. Almost all Falcons had to actually hit the target to detonate the warhead. That's perhaps, not unrealistic when you're firing a salvo of them at a big bomber-sized target, but it's very unlikely that it will be successful against a maneuvering fighter. (Secret Analysts Trick - When somebody boasts that they've invented a "Hittile", a missile so accurate that it doesn't need a Proximity Fuze, that menasn that they couldn't get one to work, and thas are trying to make a feature out of a bug.) -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN | ChuckSlusarczyk | Home Built | 105 | October 8th 04 12:38 AM |
Bush's guard record | JDKAHN | Home Built | 13 | October 3rd 04 09:38 PM |
bush rules! | Be Kind | Military Aviation | 53 | February 14th 04 04:26 PM |
us air force us air force academy us air force bases air force museum us us air force rank us air force reserve adfunk | Jehad Internet | Military Aviation | 0 | February 7th 04 04:24 AM |
D.C. Air Guard Unit Flies New 737s | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | January 14th 04 11:12 PM |