F-106 in Vietnam

[macelena 1,070]

I always wanted to see my Dart (yes, mine) into Vietnam. I thought of an scenario, in wich NVAF would have

sent "Bedcheck" like operations with An-2 or Il-28 into the USAF airbases. This way, interceptors would

have got a role.

 

I know that this was the event in wich the F-102 were first sent into Vietnam, but i would like to know

what do you think about this issue, such as the Dart capability to engage low level intruders, and any other thing you may consider

Edited May 19, 2009 by macelena

[DWCAce 19]

In the current issue of Combat Aircraft Col. Jack Broughton (a former 106 pilot) says that he wished the 'Six was in SEA. Would of been useful for flak suppression on the way in and air cover on the way out.

[Lt. James Cater 62]

Depends on what you consider low level.

 

I've been using the Deuce in WOE a lot recently and have been operating below 1500 ft frequently. Provided the target stays straight and level, you shouldn't have that much hassle getting a lock but those Vietnam era AIM-4s are pretty much the pits!

 

One thing i think you should also look into is also doing night intruder missions up North to hopefully catch either "bedchecks" or some stray transport (Yes i know, not really historically viable but it might be fun) using the dark to make supply runs.

Edited May 19, 2009 by Lt. James Cater

[macelena 1,070]

Depends on what you consider low level.

 

I've been using the Deuce in WOE a lot recently and have been operating below 1500 ft frequently. Provided the target stays straight and level, you shouldn't that much hassle getting a lock but those Vietnam era AIM-4s are pretty much the pits!

 

One thing i think you should also look into is also doing night intruder missions up North to hopefully catch either "bedchecks" or some stray transport (Yes i know, not really historically viable but it might be fun) using the dark to make supply runs.

 

 

As low level, i mean as low as a beagle could go nightly. If the 102 fails with its Weapons System, that of the 106 should do better. I would use

AIM-4Gs and Fs.

 

I´m not sure about how to make my SEA terrain (from check6 megapack) would work with the campaigns for WOV so i could

use them as a base, then get the attacks on night air supply you say

Edited May 19, 2009 by macelena

[+KnightWolf45 1,147]

As low level, i mean as low as a beagle could go nightly. If the 102 fails with its Weapons System, that of the 106 should do better. I would use

AIM-4Gs and Fs.

 

I´m not sure about how to make my SEA terrain (from check6 megapack) would work with the campaigns for WOV so i could

use them as a base, then get the attacks on night air supply you say

you can use campaing made for the WOV stock terrain Mac you to make the campaing from zero but its realy nice concept go for and if need help call me i will help you you also gepards DRV map its the as the Sea terrain more or less.

[macelena 1,070]

Thanks, cocas, i´ll see what can i do with this project

 

Meanwhile, Bedcheck "Charlies"

 

 

[+Cliff7600 1,148]

Well, the F-106 could be something like that :

 

What squadron should have been sent to those operations?

[macelena 1,070]

Well, the F-106 could be something like that :

 

What squadron should have been sent to those operations?

 

I use the skin from 318th FIS (those from McChord AFB, Washington, the default skin on MF´s F-15A is theirs), should their

tailcode be WA? Or was WA already in use?

[+Cliff7600 1,148]

It's ok with the little dragon patch but, as the 318 FIS does not appear in the squadrons of the game (WOV/WOE), there isn't the tailcode.

You'll need somebody to make you a decal...

 

Anyone can handle that?

 

I really don't know about the 318FIS tailcode.

 

The dragon patch decal was made by Dave.

[+Cliff7600 1,148]

The WA tail code is for the 57th wing from Nellis AB.

 

It could be MC?

[macelena 1,070]

The WA tail code is for the 57th wing from Nellis AB.

 

It could be MC?

 

 

What i would like to know is if 57th fw was using it by the era of SEA, but MC would be ok

[mppd 16]

The 318th FIS F-15s used "TC" at McChord.

Oh, also here is the correct camo pattern from T.O.1-1-4.

Mike D.

Edited June 28, 2009 by mppd

[macelena 1,070]

The 318th FIS F-15s used "TC" at McChord.

Oh, also here is the correct camo pattern from T.O.1-1-4.

Mike D.

 

 

Thanks a lot. Where did you get the SEA pattern for F-106 ?

[+Cliff7600 1,148]

Great!

 

...but, there is my limit.

I cannot do the correct camo pattern because for the wings it will need serious modding.

The one I've made got its two wings the same. It will need to use a "left_wing" and a "right_wing".

By now it's "wing". I don't know how to change that...

[mppd 16]

Thanks a lot. Where did you get the SEA pattern for F-106 ?

 

USAF T.O.1-1-4 specifies the markings and camouflage patterns to be used on USAF aircraft - as far as anyone knows, no F-106 actually received the scheme, but one is specified. If the max file is mapped with identical mirrored wings, there is nothing a modder can do, except petition the originator to fix it and re-issue the file.

[+Cliff7600 1,148]

Thank you Mppd!

 

So far, it's wrong camo but right tail code ...

[Jeremiah Weed 0]

Thank you Mppd!

 

So far, it's wrong camo but right tail code ...

 

Technically, no. "TC" was not used as a tail code until 1987, when TAC issued the order for all units to have a uniformed standard for tail codes.

 

In 1987, complying with orders from Tactical Air Command Headquarters to align all of the commands aircraft to one uniform standard, the 318th FIS complied and began to repaint the its "Starburst" tail design with the tail code "TC", (derived from McChord's International Air Transport Association airport code of "TCM") which stood for Tacoma, the major city near the base.

 

Link

 

Does it really matter for the game though? Not to me. I'm not even sure how units tail code's were marked in Vietnam, but the 318th's patented Starburst definitely wouldn't go with that SEA paint scheme, that is for sure.

[+daddyairplanes 10,234]

there was actually a historical case for the Six going to Vietnam. the CO of ADC wanted to contribute more to the war effort and initiated studies to prep the F-106 for an escort role up north. this included the modified bubble canopy, a2a refueling capability and 20mm cannon added under Project Six Shooter and the T.O 1-1-4 scheme that never was used. however the Sixes deployed to Korea instead due to the pueblo siezure and stayed over a year in S. korea. got a interesting pic in a book of a 106 with 12 mk 82s loaded but was done for photo op not for real.

[macelena 1,070]

there was actually a historical case for the Six going to Vietnam. the CO of ADC wanted to contribute more to the war effort and initiated studies to prep the F-106 for an escort role up north. this included the modified bubble canopy, a2a refueling capability and 20mm cannon added under Project Six Shooter and the T.O 1-1-4 scheme that never was used. however the Sixes deployed to Korea instead due to the pueblo siezure and stayed over a year in S. korea. got a interesting pic in a book of a 106 with 12 mk 82s loaded but was done for photo op not for real.

 

 

It is meat enough to a campaign in Korea. I don´t know if there is any campaign inspired by the "Second Korean War Era" (i think there is none, but

there might be, as it would only take some modifications to the original).. It´s surprising the fact that aircraft such as 106 were intended to conduct SEAD

and armed recon, th scenario i was thinking was merely a reedition of bedcheck charlie events, something wich, as i read ultimately, was a possibility

already expected in SEA (wich motivated the detachment of 59th fis- those kind of raids ocurred by An-2s against USN in Yankee Station without sucess)

Edited July 4, 2009 by macelena