What if

Hot Research Topics => Aircraft, Armor, Weapons and Ships by Topic => Topic started by: tigercat2 on June 12, 2017, 09:48:56 AM

Title: F-102 upgrades
Post by: tigercat2 on June 12, 2017, 09:48:56 AM
After researching both the F-102 and F-106, I was wondering if there was ever a plan to upgrade F-102s with the J-75 engine and update the avionics to make sort of a "poor man's" F-106.  Since there were 1000 F-102s built and only 340 F-106s, such an upgrade could have offered more capability at a low cost.


Wes W.
Title: Re: F-102 upgrades
Post by: Captain Canada on June 12, 2017, 10:00:51 AM
Makes sense to me ! I didn't know the production numbers were that far apart.

Title: Re: F-102 upgrades
Post by: rickshaw on June 12, 2017, 07:57:46 PM
F-102 and F-106 were basically obsolete by the time they were built and in service.  There are no need for either as interceptors.   There was no serious Soviet bomber threat for either to combat over the North Pole.   What few Soviet bombers did probe US defences could be handled by the aircraft as they were constructed.   So there was no need to upgrade either.    If I was to upgrade one of them, I'd go for the F-106.   It was large enough and had sufficient room in its internal weapons bay to carry bombs there and on it's wing hard points for it to be turned into a useful fighter-bomber.   The F-102 had problems with it's aerodynamics to make it a dangerous aircraft to fly.   It was just supersonic and only then on after burner.   The F-106 was built from the lessons learnt with the F-102.  It was an appreciatively better aircraft.   :thumbsup:
Title: Re: F-102 upgrades
Post by: Weaver on June 12, 2017, 09:30:05 PM
Some F-102s were sent to Vietnam, but achieved a very poor combat record, mainly due to the lack of a gun and problems with the Falcon missile, which was never intended for dogfight work and had an excessively long warm-up time. 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. 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. You'd probably want to simplify it for 'Nam, with something like the Starfighter or Thuds' NASAAR radar.

Another mod to consider, whether for 'Nam or some other scenario, would be the J-79 engine. Depending on the version (which depends, of course, on the year) it'd provide little to no extra thrust, but it was over 1000lb lighter and had much better fuel consumption. The J-79 would fit in the J-57 'envelope' - Vought proposed it for an advanced lightweight Crusader that was in competition with the F-5E for the MAP order. Whether this is worthwhile depends entirely on the scenario, of course.

Exports might provide another upgrade path. The only real-world F-102 exports were to Greece and Turkey in the 1970s, with no upgrades on offer from the US and no local capability to do their own. Had the aircraft been exported earlier and/or to a more capable customer, they might have asked for US-led upgrades or come up with their own. It was possible to refit each of the F-102's missile bays to carry a single Super-Falcon-size weapon in place of the two earlier versions. Three SARH Super Falcons (or two plus a gun-pack), combined with two or four Sidewinders on new under-wing pylons and upgraded avionics would give you a usefully improved interceptor if you didn't or couldn't trade the aircraft in for F-106s.

Some possible what-if customers:

Canada
Japan
Germany
Belgium
Netherlands
Denmark
Norway
Italy
Spain
Switzerland

Note that the F-102's fire-control system was a highly classified item, so it's unlikely they'd have been exported outside of NATO or other most-favoured allies. Switzerland wasn't in NATO or course, but since they got permission to fit Hughes FCS and Falcons to their Mirages, presumably they could have had them in an F-102 airframe if they wanted them.

The UK and France are off the list because they had their own aircraft industries. However you could imagine an alternate timeline in which they were more 'internationalist' in the 1950s and entered into joint production of the F-102 in the same way that the NATO consortium built the F-104 a decade later.
Title: Re: F-102 upgrades
Post by: scooter on June 13, 2017, 02:19:20 AM
Quote from: Weaver on June 12, 2017, 09:30:05 PM
Note that the F-102's fire-control system was a highly classified item, so it's unlikely they'd have been exported outside of NATO or other most-favoured allies. Switzerland wasn't in NATO or course, but since they got permission to fit Hughes FCS and Falcons to their Mirages, presumably they could have had them in an F-102 airframe if they wanted them.

That's ironic, because the export versions of the 106 would have been backdated to MG-10 SAGE gear instead of the Hughes MA-1 SAGE avionics.
Title: Re: F-102 upgrades
Post by: zenrat on June 13, 2017, 03:41:17 AM
I built a JASDF Dagger with gunbelly.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi70.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi82%2Fgavinmaillardet%2FPDRV%2FDelta%2520Dagger%2FConvair%2520F-102%2520Delta%2520Dagger%2520004_zps73yfmsu3.jpg&hash=aca8c88e819b177ff78583a9565bd65beefeed91)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi70.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi82%2Fgavinmaillardet%2FPDRV%2FDelta%2520Dagger%2FConvair%2520F-102%2520Delta%2520Dagger%2520010_zpster8ezmq.jpg&hash=9340d56552cdee2dc434b1d1660ecfbbbfd86690)
http://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php/topic,41546.0.html


Title: Re: F-102 upgrades
Post by: Weaver on June 13, 2017, 04:51:42 AM
If the UK had bought into the F-102 program for political reasons, the RAF would have ended up with an under-performing airframe fitted with dubious weapons. Here's an idea for a fairly radical UK-led upgrade programme:

1. British Engine. This would probably have been the case right from the start in order to sweeten the pill for the UK industry and reduce the dollar expenditure, in much the same way as the Spey was fitted to the Phantoms.

2. British Weapons. The RAF was underwhelmed by AIM-4A/B Falcon, so they replace them with Firestreaks. Firestreak needed a missile support pack to provide cooling and electronic interface, so those could go in the missile bays with two or three missiles on external fuselage pylons fitted to the panels that replace the doors. Fitting them on wing pylons would be difficult because the F-102 wing is too thin to take the packs, unlike the Javelin's. It might even be possible to fit a combined MSP for all two/three missiles in one bay and put fuel in the others.

3. Enlarged Fin. This would probably be neccessary to counteract the side-area of the externally carried missiles, in much the same way as it was for the Lightning. The obvious thing to do from a modelling point of view is to fit the F-106 fin.

4. 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. From a modelling point of view, this would just mean cutting off the rear point off the bulges and fitting a flat plate with a hole in it. The simplest way to carry the oxidiser would be to put it in the drop tanks instead of fuel, which would also simplify refuelling. If it's a nasty substance like HTP, then tanks could be pre-loaded in a safe room and then wheeled out to the plane and clipped on. If it's a cryogenic like Liquid Oxygen, then the tanks could be kept plugged in to a refrigeration trailer until just before take off. I'm not sure if the real-worls De Havilland Spectre or Armstrong-Siddeley Screamer units would fit in the bulges, but you could easily imagine scaled down versions of both.

A French version would probably have the J-57 since their engine development was behind the US and UK, but otherwise it would be similar, just with SEPR rockets and R-530 AAMs. Since the R-530 was radar-guided and didn't need the cooling pack, they could probably be fitted on the wing pylons, with the rocket oxidiser in the weapons bay instead.
Title: Re: F-102 upgrades
Post by: Mossie on June 13, 2017, 05:36:02 AM
Part of the reason for discrepancy between the numbers where that a lot of funding was stuck into correcting the F-102A's problems, this pulled funding away from the F-102B (which became the F-106).  For the same reasons, you don't see don't many F-102 projects as it became the F-106.

Early in the F-102B program, it was slated to take the J67, a licence built RR Olympus, which slots nicely into Harold's idea for a British F-102 (or F-106).  There were developmental problems with this engine so when it was canned in favour of the J75.

I've got a book that shows some of the interim designs as things move on from F-102A to F-102B to F-106A.  I'll see if I can dig it out, I'm pretty sure there is a version that shows a variant with a J75 that looks more F-102 than F-106.
Title: Re: F-102 upgrades
Post by: Captain Canada on June 13, 2017, 07:19:34 AM
Interesting points Weaver thanks for the insight ! :thumbsup:
Title: Re: F-102 upgrades
Post by: sandiego89 on June 13, 2017, 11:30:55 AM
Besides the NATO and trusted type countries Weaver lists I could also see WHIF scenarios for pushing a dumbed down 102 to other forces, which could have served as a hedge against expanding Soviet clients, or for other forces when you are happy to sell them arms, but not the best of the best, so perhaps expand the list to:

Thailand
taiwan
Middle East, various customers
South/Central America   
Title: Re: F-102 upgrades
Post by: PR19_Kit on June 13, 2017, 12:52:50 PM
Perhaps the 'dumbed down' versions could do away with the missiles and use a similar belly mounted Vulcan cannon to the F-106 'Six Shooters'?
Title: Re: F-102 upgrades
Post by: Mossie on June 13, 2017, 03:22:57 PM
Quote from: Mossie on June 13, 2017, 05:36:02 AM
I've got a book that shows some of the interim designs as things move on from F-102A to F-102B to F-106A.  I'll see if I can dig it out, I'm pretty sure there is a version that shows a variant with a J75 that looks more F-102 than F-106.

Found it, in Convair Advanced Designs II.  It's a naval variant based on the F-102A, with a tandem cockpit similar to the F-106B and either J67 or J75 engines.  It has upturned wingtips and a clipped tail (like the F-106), but is otherwise very similar to the F-102A.
Title: Re: F-102 upgrades
Post by: KJ_Lesnick on June 14, 2017, 05:47:46 PM
rickshaw

QuoteF-102 and F-106 were basically obsolete by the time they were built and in service.
You mean because of the time-delays due to area-ruling fixes and stuff? 
QuoteIf I was to upgrade one of them, I'd go for the F-106.   It was large enough and had sufficient room in its internal weapons bay to carry bombs there and on it's wing hard points for it to be turned into a useful fighter-bomber.
I'd agree with that.  Plus, the F-106A was what the F-102 was supposed to be.
QuoteThe F-102 had problems with it's aerodynamics to make it a dangerous aircraft to fly.
I've never heard anything to suggest that, where did you get that from?


Weaver

QuoteSome F-102s were sent to Vietnam, but achieved a very poor combat record, mainly due to the lack of a gun and problems with the Falcon missile, which was never intended for dogfight work and had an excessively long warm-up time.
I thought the cooling-time for the seeker-head was an issue that was related solely to the F-4 (something to do with the amount of cooling and circulation rate in the pylon design)?  Regardless, the rest is largely correct, the AIM-4 lacked a proximity fuse and needed a direct hit.  The AIM-26 was better, and the F-102 could carry 1-2 in the center weapons bay; there were some variants of the F-102 that carried at least a single super-falcon in the outer-bay as well.

QuoteHad 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
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.
QuoteThe 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).
QuoteAnother mod to consider, whether for 'Nam or some other scenario, would be the J-79 engine.
Yup.
QuoteNote that the F-102's fire-control system was a highly classified item, so it's unlikely they'd have been exported outside of NATO or other most-favoured allies. Switzerland wasn't in NATO or course, but since they got permission to fit Hughes FCS and Falcons to their Mirages, presumably they could have had them in an F-102 airframe if they wanted them.
Switzerland is the home of the BIS -- it's a nation that's also a bank.  If you control the bank of the world, you control the world.  They can get anything they want :-X
Title: Re: F-102 upgrades
Post by: rickshaw on June 14, 2017, 10:37:58 PM
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on June 14, 2017, 05:47:46 PM
rickshaw

QuoteF-102 and F-106 were basically obsolete by the time they were built and in service.
You mean because of the time-delays due to area-ruling fixes and stuff? 

Partly.  Partly because the technology was moving on so quickly.   Bomber streams were perceived initially as the threat.  That then became individual bombers.   Then ICBMs rendered interceptors obsolete.    That occurred in a space of 10 years, barely time for the F-102 to reach service and the F-106 was in development.   The scenario was changing too quickly for them to cope with.

Quote
QuoteThe F-102 had problems with it's aerodynamics to make it a dangerous aircraft to fly.
I've never heard anything to suggest that, where did you get that from?

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.

Title: Re: F-102 upgrades
Post by: scooter on June 15, 2017, 01:59:17 AM
Quote from: rickshaw on June 12, 2017, 07:57:46 PM
F-102 and F-106 were basically obsolete by the time they were built and in service.  There are no need for either as interceptors.   There was no serious Soviet bomber threat for either to combat over the North Pole.   What few Soviet bombers did probe US defences could be handled by the aircraft as they were constructed.   So there was no need to upgrade either.    If I was to upgrade one of them, I'd go for the F-106.   It was large enough and had sufficient room in its internal weapons bay to carry bombs there and on it's wing hard points for it to be turned into a useful fighter-bomber.   The F-102 had problems with it's aerodynamics to make it a dangerous aircraft to fly.   It was just supersonic and only then on after burner.   The F-106 was built from the lessons learnt with the F-102.  It was an appreciatively better aircraft.   :thumbsup:

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
Title: Re: F-102 upgrades
Post by: Weaver on June 15, 2017, 03:30:26 AM
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on June 14, 2017, 05:47:46 PM
QuoteHad 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.


Quote
QuoteThe 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.

Title: Re: F-102 upgrades
Post by: scooter on June 15, 2017, 03:59:27 AM
Quote from: Weaver on June 15, 2017, 03:30:26 AM
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.
Title: Re: F-102 upgrades
Post by: KJ_Lesnick on June 15, 2017, 08:25:08 PM
Weaver

QuoteThe 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?
QuoteMore 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.

QuoteThat'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
Title: Re: F-102 upgrades
Post by: rickshaw on June 15, 2017, 10:31:09 PM
Quote from: scooter on June 15, 2017, 01:59:17 AM
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.
Title: Re: F-102 upgrades
Post by: PR19_Kit on June 16, 2017, 02:16:03 AM
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on June 15, 2017, 08:25:08 PM
Weaver

QuoteThe 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.
Title: Re: F-102 upgrades
Post by: tahsin on June 16, 2017, 05:02:01 AM
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...
Title: Re: F-102 upgrades
Post by: KJ_Lesnick on June 16, 2017, 09:22:38 PM
scooter

QuoteThe Six showed that it *was* more upgradable than the Deuce
Correct
Quotetests as a Wild Weasel with STARM
I thought that was an ASAT system...
Quoteadditional 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

QuoteThe F-106 was a missed opportunity IMHO.
You mean to convert it into an air-superiority plane, or to have had it flown earlier?
Title: Re: F-102 upgrades
Post by: rickshaw on June 16, 2017, 09:42:31 PM
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.    :banghead:
Title: Re: F-102 upgrades
Post by: comrade harps on June 17, 2017, 08:18:18 AM
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/ (http://34tfsthuds.us/ryans/)

Give it a SEA-style or '80s European lizard wrap around camo.
Title: Re: F-102 upgrades
Post by: Weaver on June 17, 2017, 11:12:07 AM
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on June 15, 2017, 08:25:08 PM
Weaver

QuoteThe 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.

Quote
QuoteMore 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.

Quote
QuoteThat'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...
Title: Re: F-102 upgrades
Post by: sandiego89 on June 17, 2017, 04:34:53 PM
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. 
Title: Re: F-102 upgrades
Post by: scooter on June 17, 2017, 05:59:43 PM
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on June 16, 2017, 09:22:38 PM
Quoteadditional 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.
Title: Re: F-102 upgrades
Post by: KJ_Lesnick on June 17, 2017, 06:09:37 PM
rickshaw

QuotePartly.  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).
QuoteThen 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.
QuoteComments 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?
QuoteConversion 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.
QuoteIt would have given the Mirage a good run for it's money in the world market if Convair and the USAF been smarter.    :banghead:
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
I wouldn't be shocked if the F-106A was faster, of course.


PR19_Kit

Quote'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.
Title: Re: F-102 upgrades
Post by: PR19_Kit on June 18, 2017, 12:03:08 AM
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on June 17, 2017, 06:09:37 PM

PR19_Kit

Quote'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.
Title: Re: F-102 upgrades
Post by: rickshaw on June 18, 2017, 12:58:06 AM
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on June 17, 2017, 06:09:37 PM
rickshaw

QuotePartly.  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.

Quote
QuoteThen 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.   

Quote
QuoteComments 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.

Quote
QuoteConversion 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.

Quote
QuoteIt would have given the Mirage a good run for it's money in the world market if Convair and the USAF been smarter.    :banghead:
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?

Title: Re: F-102 upgrades
Post by: KJ_Lesnick on June 18, 2017, 09:47:22 PM
rickshaw

QuoteAnd 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.
True, but we weren't nuking those targets...
QuoteNot all targets would be considered worth a nuclear weapon, ran the thinking, so streams would still be employed to destroy them.
Good point...
QuoteRemember, 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.
Did we plan to use streams for nuking too?
QuoteIt performed surprisingly well once it was used in dog fights by the USAF.
Yeah
QuoteIf they had given it AIM-9 and AIM-7 instead of the Falcon/Genies, it would have made a superb dog fighter IMO.
Yeah, that would have been something to see...

QuoteIt was an excellent joke, I don't doubt but it showed the potential of the aircraft.
Yup...
QuoteCombat Range:   Mirage IIIE - 1,200 km (746 mi; 648 nmi)
                               F-106A - 2,900 km (1,600 nmi)
F-106 wins
QuoteRate of climb: Mirage IIIE - 237 m/s (46,600 ft/min)
                          F-106A - 29,000 ft/min (150 m/s)
Wait, I thought their initial climb-rate was 40000 - 45000 feet per minute?
QuoteWing loading: Mirage IIIE - 270 kg/m2
                          F-10A - 52 lb/(sq ft) (255 kg/m²)
F-106A wins

I think the F-106 does quite well