The F-102 Delta Dagger (Was GWB as a Nat'l Guard Fighter Pilot threads.)

"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....

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.

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.

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

"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

"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

"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.

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.

"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.

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