Wondering about the F-102...

Okay, I'll work that in. Many thanks. -- Dan Ford

On 13 Feb 2004 12:52:31 -0800, (WaltBJ) wrote:

For Dan Ford - permission granted. Need one addition. Somehow I elided
part of a sentence right after citing its straightaway speeds. I
first flew the Deuce in 1958 - it was sprightly then. Buy the tinme it
was being phased out the engines had lost some oomph (either
compressor 'moss' or the maintainers had turned down the wick) easy to
do; the adjustment is on the bottom of the fuel control) and I doubt
if any Deuce could reach 1.3 M by then.
As for the nuke picture - the GAR11/AIM26 aka the Fat Falcon had a
bout a freight car load of TNT yield - rather smaller than 0.25KT.
AMAF the same warhead (W54) as the ADM. Its prpose was to destroy the
enemy weapons, not teh carry vehicle - that was a 'collateral' kill. I
supose you could say it was teh first neutron bomb because the neutron
flux from detonation was intended to initiate enough of a reaction in
the enemy active material to raise its temperature enough to melt the
material and/or explode the conventional explosives and thus prevent
full design yield from being obtained. Thsi was importannt since the
obvious step of arming the weapons once over enemy territory
(USA/Canada) had to be acknowledged. This, of course, to prevent
possible salvage of the valuable active material from an undetonated
weapon if the carrier was downed. As for the 20 MT TNW, yes, we were
briefed. Since the fireball is about 39,000 feet in diameter, it
didn't matter much if it was air or ground burst.
Mike, I was in the 326 FIS at RG AFB (KC, MO) when the Cuban Crisis
started. About 30 minutes after JFK signed off we were heading for
Grand Island, Nebraska in 6 Deuces, each with 2xAIM26 aboard, leaving
our families back home.
RG AFB's northern border was KC's 150th Street so that gave us thought
also. Yes we had food and water in the basement but KC was too close,
and Forbes' Atlas missile sites were west too close too.
ADC doctrine at the time also incorporated ram tactics, so we were one
thoughtful bunch of troops. Later on we were down at Homestead AFB
with 20 birds, all set to be dayfighters (!) and top cover (!) for the
100s and 105s who were to transform Cuba into a parking lot. Never saw
a MiG but we got one hell of a lot of flying - 1800 hours in one (1!)
month, flying CAP for the recce birds and scrambling on anything that
flew. Many a private pilot missing his ADIZ time got a surprise when
he looked around and saw a 60 foot long Deuce sitting about 20 feet
off his wing reading his reg number to the GCI folks.
Interesting times . . . .
Additional remarks about the Deuce - that RAF type commented on
handling characteristics. With the yaw damper OFF top speed was
limited to about .85 because as you got transsonic the bird would
start an impressive dutch roll that got worse at you neared .95 and
you couldn't stop it without slowing down. Dampers on, it was smooth
and stable. It could be flown at low mach (.6) without any dampers but
like the Zipper wallowed a bit. As you got above .9 the aero center
moving aft required nose-up trim. Also I believe the RAF type flew a
Deuce with the old Case X wing, with the upturned tips. The Case XX
conical ca,bered wing (turned down leading edge) was retrofittted to
all and it was much improved on touchdown having a very noticeable
ground effect cushion and a faster cruise for the same power setting.
The Deuce, like the 101 and the 6, got the IRSTS mod. This system was
well worth its cost since it was essentially ECM-proof and totally
undetectable. It also cross-moded with the radar in ways that gave
great flexibility in tactics. Main trouble with the IRSTS, outside of
leaking coolant, was that it picked up every IR source including sun
reflections, the moon, and its own pitot heat (but that only on the
ground). Cross-checking with radar told you what you had, though.
BTW, Dan, feel free to make any editing changes you desire.
Cheers - Walt BJ

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

That a 1 kT airburst is a lot better than 100MT cumulative load
dropped on Los Angeles, New York, Seattle, etc.

True, but consider that any such missile would almost certainly have
exploded over Canada, and the debris would presumably have fallen to
the ground.

What did the Canadians think of this?

Apparently they liked it, because IIRC they also had AIR-2 Genies (US
control of warheads, of course) for their own F-101 force.

Brooks


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"WaltBJ" wrote in message
om...
I logged almost 1500 hours in the F102A and its ugly brother the TF.
It was a delightful airplane to fly, light on the controls, and was a
good formation bird. It had great performance compared with the
F94/F86D/F89 group. It could reach about .93 in military and 1.3 in AB
properly maintained the radar was every bit as good as the F4's. -
when new. Later on it lost some performance due to tired engines. It
had good range even clean - 950 miles clean, 1300 with wing tanks. Now
for the bad points. 1 - couldn't see back - 60 degree blind cone to
rear. 2 - fuel was in two sets of wing tanks - an equalizer was
supposed to make sure you ran dry simultaneously. Often it didn't and
you had to juggle the boost pumps to keep an equal amount in both
wings. Get too busy and you could flame out due to an air bubble from
the empty side. 3 - the canopy had to go before you could eject - its
metal top precluded ejecting through it. 4 - No guns, not even one. 5
- wrong engine. The J57 was a good engine but the first engine, the
Gyron, never made it into service. The second one was the Olympus but
it was way delayed. There was about a foot space between the J57 and
the inside fuselage . . . 6 - weak gear, limit touchdown at typical
landing weights was 540 feet per minute. 7 - no internal air
compressor. It used HP air to launch missiles and rockets, start the
engine if no 3000 psi Joy unit was around, brakes, and emergency gear
extension. The F84F had a compressor, why not the Deuce? 8 - No AIM9
rails - why not? 9- the Deeuce was skinned with 7075ST which was not
Alclad and therefore the bird had to be painted to rpevent
(alleviate?) corrosion. This added weight and in later days drag from
touched up paint jobs.
As for a real continental air defense mission - our conclusion was you
weren't coming back. Either the prompt radiation from a TNW was going
to get you or you were going to have to stop the bomber no matter
what. BTW a 20 MT going off 60 miles away from a fighter at 40000
gives the crew something like 3000 rad right now. Air up there is too
skinny to soak up the gammas.
The delta configuration can be treacherous if you don't watch out. The
Deuce could develop one hell of a sink rate if you got too slow. Just
pulling the nose up and adding a little bit of power results in a
higher sink rate. Getting careless on final approach was dangerous. It
could just hold level flight at 115 KIAS and full afterburner with
about a 35 degree angle of attack. Getting out of that state required
lowering the nose and losing altitude) to reduce the induced drag to
where the bird could accelerate. This was insidious because the bird
was controllable in all three axes. Pulling power to idle at 115 left
you in apparent 'level' flight but the vertical velocity indicator was
pegged - downward. Pulling G - it could develop about 6 1/2 G at 300
KIAs - but stay there too long and all your airspeed disappeared real
quick. It could fly a tighter overhead pattern than any other century
series fighter - pull too many G and the downwind would be in so close
it'd take a ninety degree bank to make the base turn. WingCos got
red-faced when they saw that. BTW its absolute altitude was 59,000
plus, subsonic in full AB. Got up there once after completing a test
hop - had read Jackie Cochrane had set a level flight altitude record
in a T38 of something like 54000 and I thought the Deuce could top
that. It did, handily. FWIW it was good XC bird and had lots of carry
room. There was the main electronic bay behind the cockpit where two
guys coudl get in there and close the hatch. I have it on good
authority that eight cases of Crown Royal would fit in there. We
genrally used the missile bay because we normally didn't take the
missiles on cross countries. Some bases (SAC) got huffy if you had
ordnance aboard.
That's about it - cheers, Walt BJ

WOW,
I stand corrected.
Thank you!

Harley

a MiG but we got one hell of a lot of flying - 1800 hours in one (1!)
month, flying CAP for the recce birds and scrambling on anything that
flew.

I gotta assume you meant 180 hours! Still about double the most I
ever had in a month in the fighting drumstick (EA-6B)

Pugs


He did not mean himself, he said we as in his unit.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Mark" wrote in message
m...
Have wondered whether the thinking behind the design was to engage
multiple
bombers (i.e. a formation) with one weapon....

That might have been a more applicable reason behind the larger warheads you
found in the SAM's like Bomarc and Nike Hercules,

Definitely. I've got the MICOMA History of the Nike Hercules (and also the
Ajax) program, and the Nike Hercules alternative nuke warhead's primary role was
to prevent the use of bunching tactics, i.e. coming in packed together so that
the bombers appeared as one target on the radar, but far enough apart that a
conventional warhead would only get one of them at most, and maybe none. The
target handling capacity of the Nike system could only engage one a/c at a time,
thus allowing most of them through the missile's engagement envelope. The nuke
warhead (IIRR the W-30, the same as used by Talos, and supposedly 5kt)
eliminated that option. Presumably it also served as an option of last resort
against a single leaker ("Fail Safe", anyone?). The really funny part is the
Army had to assure the more clueless citizens worried by living inside the
booster impact circle, that the missiles would never be launched from their
operational sites (generally around cities) for training, and that if the
missiles ever were launched they'd have a heck of a lot more to worry about than
the minuscule chance of having an empty rocket booster fall on their house.

Guy

In article , Ron
wrote:

a MiG but we got one hell of a lot of flying - 1800 hours in one (1!)
month, flying CAP for the recce birds and scrambling on anything that
flew.

I gotta assume you meant 180 hours! Still about double the most I
ever had in a month in the fighting drumstick (EA-6B)

Pugs


He did not mean himself, he said we as in his unit.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

I stand corrected, missed that, thanks for the clarification.
Pugs

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Mark" wrote in message
m...
Have wondered whether the thinking behind the design was to engage
multiple
bombers (i.e. a formation) with one weapon....

That might have been a more applicable reason behind the larger warheads
you
found in the SAM's like Bomarc and Nike Hercules,

Definitely. I've got the MICOMA History of the Nike Hercules (and also
the
Ajax) program, and the Nike Hercules alternative nuke warhead's primary
role was
to prevent the use of bunching tactics, i.e. coming in packed together so
that
the bombers appeared as one target on the radar, but far enough apart that
a
conventional warhead would only get one of them at most, and maybe none.
The
target handling capacity of the Nike system could only engage one a/c at a
time,
thus allowing most of them through the missile's engagement envelope. The
nuke
warhead (IIRR the W-30, the same as used by Talos, and supposedly 5kt)

The nuclear weapons archive indicates the Nike herc actually used the W-31m,
which came in a total of five yields (1 thru 40 KT), with two different mods
produced for the Herc (Mod 0 and Mod 2, which I assume means that the 1 KT
and 12 KT versions were available).

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-4.html

Another source (NPS, surprisingly enoough) claims that they were fitted with
W-31's and three yield options (2-20-40 KT), and two other sources indicate
the W-31 with 2 or 40 KT. So from what i can discern, the Nike Herc carried
the W-31, and nobody can agree as to how many or what yields were offered.


eliminated that option. Presumably it also served as an option of last
resort
against a single leaker ("Fail Safe", anyone?). The really funny part is
the
Army had to assure the more clueless citizens worried by living inside the
booster impact circle, that the missiles would never be launched from
their
operational sites (generally around cities) for training, and that if the
missiles ever were launched they'd have a heck of a lot more to worry
about than
the minuscule chance of having an empty rocket booster fall on their
house.

ISTR reading of a single test launch from an operational Nike site; IIRC it
was a coastal site up in New England. But that may be as suspect as the
various yields reported by different sources... We had a Nike site located
at the old Patrick Henry Airport in Newport News (the launch site was right
next to the remains of an old WWII POW camp, and the control site was
located about half a mile closer to the runways); great place to root around
as a teenager after it was shut down by the ARNG (though the missile launch
pits had been backfilled with concrete rubble). Interestingly enough, we
also had a BOMARC site operating during the same timeframe (though IIRC it
closed down a year or so earlier than the Nike site) maybe three or four
miles down the road (it is now serving multiple uses, with the admin/launch
area being the public school bus maintenance facility, and some of the ammo
bunker areas (located in an industrial/office park) being used by private
companies). We also had F-106's (and later F-15A's) from the 48th FIS
sitting alert maybe ten or twelve miles away at Langley AFB, and another
Nike herc site across the river at FT Story in Virginia Beach. We were one
well protected chunk of geography. Of course, the area had a lot of rather
densely packed high value targets (Langley, home of TAC and also IIRC an
EC-135 Looking Glass site; Norfolk and its naval and naval air station
facilities, Little Creek amphib base, Yorktown Naval weapons depot, Ft
Eustis (which we invariably called "Useless", FT Monroe (which had
additional protection, being the last active Army post complete with
*moat*), etc.

Brooks


Guy

From: "Kevin Brooks"

Of course, the area had a lot of rather
densely packed high value targets (Langley, home of TAC and also IIRC an
EC-135 Looking Glass site; Norfolk and its naval and naval air station
facilities, Little Creek amphib base, Yorktown Naval weapons depot, Ft
Eustis (which we invariably called "Useless", FT Monroe (which had
additional protection, being the last active Army post complete with
*moat*), etc.

Brooks


The 135s were KCs with TWA and battle staff functions. We used the KC-135 T.O.s
instead of the EC-135. They flew standard KC as well as Scopelight missions.
Scopelight was the east coast version of Looking Class and flew the battle
staff and CIC Atlantic. The air crew were 6 ACCS. There were similar missions
based in England and the Pacific. The names of which I forget.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

All y'all worrying about air defense nuke missile airbursts ought to
get a copy of "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons" and in (my 1957 copy)
Chapter 9 you will learn a lot about fallout. The drift of the fallout
in a wind is something quite disturbing, even in a 15 mph wind, which
for a 1 MT fission weapon results in lethal dosages hundreds of miles
downwind. That was why NORAD went to 'bombkiller' nuclear missiles, to
try to prevent that from happening.
Walt BJ

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Kevin Brooks"

Of course, the area had a lot of rather
densely packed high value targets (Langley, home of TAC and also IIRC an
EC-135 Looking Glass site; Norfolk and its naval and naval air station
facilities, Little Creek amphib base, Yorktown Naval weapons depot, Ft
Eustis (which we invariably called "Useless", FT Monroe (which had
additional protection, being the last active Army post complete with
*moat*), etc.

Brooks


The 135s were KCs with TWA and battle staff functions. We used the KC-135
T.O.s
instead of the EC-135. They flew standard KC as well as Scopelight
missions.
Scopelight was the east coast version of Looking Class and flew the battle
staff and CIC Atlantic. The air crew were 6 ACCS. There were similar
missions
based in England and the Pacific. The names of which I forget.

Thanks for the clarification. Would that difference explain the unholy
reverberations (for those of us below the flightpath) that accompanied their
takeoffs, in that they used the water injection of the KC?

Brooks

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired