F-105 air superiority fighter variant.

[Lt. James Cater 62]

I've managed a 75% kill rate with the AIM-9B. Usually I would get a 100% hit rate too. I did not modify the missile in any way. All you have to do is fly to within guns range (I'd say .3 to .5 miles) and wait until your target is flying straight for a bit. Put your gunsight pipper just above your target, wait until you have a good tone (if you don't already) and loose a winder at him. It works great for those times when you run out of 20mm. Basically, use it like a rocket and don't give the target a chance to manuver before your ordnance arrives. It's the only way to be sure.

 

Reminds me of the problems i had with Atolls while flying a MIG-21 in ACES OF NORTH VIETNAM. Found out by trial and error that .8 of a mile was the killer launch point.

[UnknownPilot 33]

I've managed a 75% kill rate with the AIM-9B. Usually I would get a 100% hit rate too. I did not modify the missile in any way. All you have to do is fly to within guns range (I'd say .3 to .5 miles) and wait until your target is flying straight for a bit. Put your gunsight pipper just above your target, wait until you have a good tone (if you don't already) and loose a winder at him. It works great for those times when you run out of 20mm. Basically, use it like a rocket and don't give the target a chance to manuver before your ordnance arrives. It's the only way to be sure.

 

 

 

This is the basic gist of what I was angling toward. Basically, what you're saying is, burn massive amounts of fuel, and spend a long time, getting to within not just gun's range, but a dead 6 shot within guns range, wait for tone, then wait some more just to make sure, then probably wait again for him to stop trying to evade for a second (basically giving you permission to shoot him), THEN fire your missile and hope it hits.

 

Meanwhile, you could have shot him to bits 10 times over. Not to mention the option of high deflection shots or snap shots, either of which would drastically reduce your fuel consumption and either allow you more opportunity to shoot others down, or reduce your time on station getting shot at by AAA.

 

The gun is the better option. This was true long past when the Navy thought it was dead. It was true right up into the modern era. And soon will be true yet again (for many reasons).

 

 

 

Lt James, you would rate the AIM-4 as higher than the AIM-9B? While I bash the 9B, I have seen it actually track and try to hit (most if the time actually, it just tried unsuccessfuly is all), however I've never seen the AIM-4 track anything, at all, ever...

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Well I know the OP was thinking possible real life F-105 fighter version, and I'm thinking GAME.

 

Okay for Vietnam, give F-105 a dedicated air-air gunsight, and with its speed even at low level, sure why not. F-4 far better with radar and Combat Tree. F-105 could make an interesting alternate campaign idea (for all you normal players), using F-105 for escort and CAP. What about adding radar and Sparrows with a back seat? Assuming they could have done it, would it fly?

[Lt. James Cater 62]

 

This is the basic gist of what I was angling toward. Basically, what you're saying is, burn massive amounts of fuel, and spend a long time, getting to within not just gun's range, but a dead 6 shot within guns range, wait for tone, then wait some more just to make sure, then probably wait again for him to stop trying to evade for a second (basically giving you permission to shoot him), THEN fire your missile and hope it hits.

 

Meanwhile, you could have shot him to bits 10 times over. Not to mention the option of high deflection shots or snap shots, either of which would drastically reduce your fuel consumption and either allow you more opportunity to shoot others down, or reduce your time on station getting shot at by AAA.

 

The gun is the better option. This was true long past when the Navy thought it was dead. It was true right up into the modern era. And soon will be true yet again (for many reasons).

 

 

 

Lt James, you would rate the AIM-4 as higher than the AIM-9B? While I bash the 9B, I have seen it actually track and try to hit (most if the time actually, it just tried unsuccessfuly is all), however I've never seen the AIM-4 track anything, at all, ever...

 

Take a WOE F-102 into combat and see if won't have success with the Falcon. I was really skeptical at first but became a convert quickly. As a matter of fact i still have an unfinished campaign in a Deuce with the pilot having a whole lot of success.

[UnknownPilot 33]

Well I know the OP was thinking possible real life F-105 fighter version, and I'm thinking GAME.

 

Okay for Vietnam, give F-105 a dedicated air-air gunsight, and with its speed even at low level, sure why not. F-4 far better with radar and Combat Tree. F-105 could make an interesting alternate campaign idea (for all you normal players), using F-105 for escort and CAP. What about adding radar and Sparrows with a back seat? Assuming they could have done it, would it fly?

 

Well, with it's power and it's gun, it IS a fighter... vs MiG-17s at least. I've used it as such. Just takes some effort and skill. However I probably need to go back to IL2 to brush up on mine. Been playing with über-fighters like the MiG-29A & OVT, Su-27A & SM, F-16A, and even F-14A.

 

 

However, in regards to what-ifs in the Century Series.... What-if, the F-104 hadn't been tossed aside, abandoned so pre-maturely, but instead, had some of it's potential explored? It was after-all the single most effective fighter ever - it attained air superiority just by it's mere presence, grounding the MiG-21s, having the NVPAF fear for their very existance. Poorer (than nations willing to spend insane amounts on military [namely us and the sovs]) or not, the Italians, Germans, and Japanese got a lot out of them and extended their life span quite dramatically.

 

What-if, that bastard McNamara hadn't forced the USAF to use a Navy plane? In lieu of an AF F-4, simply upgrade the F-101. McDonnell wasn't very inventiv in it's designs, you can see the Voodoo in the Phantom, and the Phantom in the Eagle. But anyway... the Voodoo already had 2 seat capacity, just give it a gun, the Phantom's radar, slap on some Sparrows and Sidewinders, and add more thrust (Phantom engines). Did it have full length leading edge slats? I can't recall. If not, then give it some. Perhaps even give it a "combat flaps" setting which could be used up to M.8 or so and provide more lift (ie, turning ability) in concert with the L.E. slats. That's sometihng I've been thinking about for a while now and would love to see.

 

Then that takes us into - What-if after all this, they still decided they wanted more: more agility than either of those platforms could offer... 2 potentials, 1 is to boost the Delta Dart. It could have been our own Mirage. Another is to order the F-102 (though at that point, I'd re-designate it F-108, or 9).

 

The trouble with the Fang is we'd need a modding guru to make it for us. And technically, it would be ideal to have a new LOD for the slats on the upgraded Voodoo, but you really could get by without it in a pinch (just code in the effects).

 

 

For the Thud.... I'd say you'd have to build on the deisgn, but produce brand new airframes, if you really wanted that for intensive A2A roles - lighten it, increase wing area (and with that, fuel), give it more thrust, etc. Probably more work than hot-rodding the Voodoo, Starfighter, and/or Dart.

 

Take a WOE F-102 into combat and see if won't have success with the Falcon. I was really skeptical at first but became a convert quickly. As a matter of fact i still have an unfinished campaign in a Deuce with the pilot having a whole lot of success.

 

 

I don't have WOE, unfortunatly. SFP1 and SF2:V are the only titles I have, and SF2:V is the only one that I've really used.

 

What sorts of missions are they (that you were seeing success with it in)? And were those the IR or SARH versions?

[Lt. James Cater 62]

UP,

 

My first campaign flying a Deuce, i used the IR missle 99% of the time. Since then it's been a 50/50 setup. The 102 is tricky to fly since it's in no way a dogfighter. Get it up REAL high and it's a hell of a MIG killer.

 

As far as intercepts go, get in behind the targets (usually IL-28s) Knock down a couple and get the hell out of Dodge as soon as your mission is accomplished. AI pilots can score with SARH shots from a distant while the escorts are trying to get you.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Pilot yes I heard about F-104 grounding the MiGs. Most effective fighter ever, at least until India/Pak, but Pak may not have flown them properly. Not sure. Need to bone up on those engagements.

 

I like the big wing F-104 idea Lockheed had (and Chinese J-7E double delta MiG-21F), but even more so the Super Tiger (F11F-2 or -1F) which I'd share with the Air Force. I'd make a spankin' Offence Secretary. But two seats was the way to go for air-air, so maybe McNamara had at least one good idea making USAF look at F4H, and they saw that it was Good. Maybe not so great idea renaming it.

 

Lighten up on F-105 structure will you? Interesting thought. When Tu made the -128 interceptor, it was too heavily constructed, being made by career bomber builders, and it paid the price. It never got lightened but we can fix that in a fantasy upgrade as well.

 

I'm interested in potential F-101 derivatives, but they would have to finally cure the pitch up problem. Maybe give it two J79s, a bent wing, Hstab anhedral, blend canopy into fuselage a bit, etc....

[UnknownPilot 33]

You were that weird guy at Ubi that insisted on calling the 109, the "Fb-109", weren't you?

 

 

 

Yeah, the only way to make the Thud truly effective in A2A is to improve acceleration and turn rate. And the best way to do both is to lighten it. It would have to be a top-down from the drawing board re-think by the engineers. And it would still need more wing. And probably a larger fuselage as well for a turbo-fan for better efficiency/range. It would be sort of like the F-8 to A-7 process.

 

2 seats are really NOT THE way to go for A2A, just A way to go. If you insist on using missiles as your primary tool, then you need hyper-complex radar, and in that age, that meant someone dedicated to it. But.... with the right ground coordination, proper training, and capable planes with acceptance that the gun is the final say, you could do quite well. IOW, picture 104s used in a manner similar to the intent of the Fishbeds.

 

And of course, once technology improved sufficiently (late 70s), the next generation didn't need 2 people at all, and had more capability to boot (Eagle, Falcon, etc).

 

Either way, like I said, the 101 has 2 seats already. And I love how it looks, it would be sooo cool to see it improved in a what-if scenario. Like I said, a pair of Phantom engines, and the Phantom's radar and missile setup, except with a gun, and you're basically all set. But add in the flaps and slats and you're even better off.

 

Now if you get into more intensive redesigns, like new canopies, wings, etc. That gets into serious LOD stuff, and that is likely to be a long(er) time coming.

 

 

A large wing 104 would be cool. But I don't think you need to even do that. Better radar, and more thrust, and you're basically good to go. Especially if you can improve on the AIM-9B (which the AF was notoriously bad at lol), but even that isn't a requirement. Also, I'd add some conformal drop tanks as well for increased range, which would allow them to use more fuel getting up higher, faster, and then drop down on the enemy in a superior E position (which they'd then be able to keep pretty easily). Or even burn it for brute forcing through the thick air to avoid SAMs and/or spooking the intended prey.

[Spinners 15,986]

McNamara and his notion of commonality;

 

F-110/F-4 - genius idea

 

F-111 - disaster

 

I'm sure the US taxpayer would have greatly appreciated wasting millions of dollars turning the 'one-oh-wonder' into the 'one-oh-whatever' when McDonnell had, of course, already done the work in creating the F-4 for the Navy.

 

Historical Note - In no way did McNamara 'inflict' the F-4 on the USAF. In 1961, almost as soon as he got his legs under his desk, he did order a series of direct competitive evaluations against USAF aircraft and the results showed that the F-4B was better than anything the USAF had on every count - mission, performance, maintenance and serviceability and also highlighted that the basic design was, potentially, the world's best tactical reconnaissance aircraft. That's why it was ordered for the USAF. For the avoidance of any doubt, I am in no way praising McNamara but I am praising the qualities of the F-4 in the era in which it was born.

[Derk 265]

A large wing 104 would be cool. But I don't think you need to even do that. Better radar, and more thrust, and you're basically good to go. Especially if you can improve on the AIM-9B (which the AF was notoriously bad at lol), but even that isn't a requirement. Also, I'd add some conformal drop tanks as well for increased range, which would allow them to use more fuel getting up higher, faster, and then drop down on the enemy in a superior E position (which they'd then be able to keep pretty easily). Or even burn it for brute forcing through the thick air to avoid SAMs and/or spooking the intended prey.

 

Look up the stories about the GE-19 engined F 104A and you're halfway there....

 

Hou doe,

 

Derk

[+Dave 2,322]

LTC Andy Bush out foxed an F-15A in his F-104G. I know some of you recall him telling us that story.

 

 

[MigBuster 2,884]

A couple here:

 

http://www.916-starfighter.de/Zipping%20at%20FL%20730.htm

 

 

http://www.916-starfighter.de/Ruminations%20on%20the%20F-104.htm

Edited April 18, 2010 by MigBuster

[UnknownPilot 33]

LTC Andy Bush out foxed an F-15A in his F-104G. I know some of you recall him telling us that story.

 

 

 

Is there a link to this somewhere? I'd love to read it.

[+Dave 2,322]

Is there a link to this somewhere? I'd love to read it.

 

Been trying to find it all day. Bottom line was the s**t hot rocket ace F-15 pilot underestimated the F-104G and got his ass handed to him.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Pilot::

Yeah, the only way to make the Thud truly effective in A2A is to improve acceleration and turn rate. And the best way to do both is to lighten it.

 

First I'd try NAVY style air to air training, formation, and tactics. Later make structure changes if still needed. Lighten might bring better range with that accel. You don't need turn rate but you need speed. Smaller wing helps there, at least in the olde days. Some fun examples:

 

F-104 kept Vn MiGs on the ground, and it didn't do it with its world famous turn rate.

 

P-47 put Luftwaffe Fb-109s under the ground, and it made full use of its world champion Heavy Weight title.

 

-- yea I was the weirdo at ubi.com....you could tell by looking at my SF mods here lol

 

 

Beyond training, the techie hardware change I'd make for basic F-105 clear weather day fighter is add good air-air gunsight (and AIM-9B). For the longer term, hopefully to match historical F-4C timing, I'd add a back seat for a dedicated electronics guru. As Offense Secretary, I'd make my Air Force take air warfare seriously, and "share" with them the idea of placing non-pilot combat electronics air crew in line for command rank rise like the far smarter RAF did.

 

You may be right about today. The single seat MiG-25 interceptor performed well during the first US/Iraq War, over its own friendly territory...I think. Right now I'm thinking F-104s came off bad in Vietnam over SAMs in the electronic warfare environment, but they were not equipped for that. I wonder if the extra workload of missile detection and avoidance is better with two seats. Would the Combat Tree that popped up in Vietnam be useful on a single seat fighter with a smaller, shorter range radar?

 

 

 

"Weird" questions like that. I've been enjoying this long seemingly never ending interview with George Spangenberg. Word search for F8U-3 ...

 

 

 

:

:

In 1957 Congress was screaming. We had to cancel one. Up to that point in time the Navy had never had less than two fighters in production at the same time.

:

:

The kind of radar detection ranges we had, the conversion from when you first saw the enemy to where you could get in a position of launching missiles, it came down to the difference of two radar sweeps that made the difference between success and failure. You sure had a hell of a lot better chance to do that with a radar operator, meaning two-man.

:

:

 

Page 2 ~> http://www.georgespangenberg.com/history2.htm

 

Even weirder: If we read Michel's Clashes book, we find USAF back seaters were often told to say nothing -- shut up: Major huge problems with air crews. Most of the TAC air-air problems were unrelated to missile tech. TAC tried to blame hardware alone. Apparently a lot of officers lost careers at the time when they tried to say otherwise. Or so I've read.

[UnknownPilot 33]

Not so great examples.....

 

Lighter means more of everything, range, accel, climb, and turn. More power can help in turn too (somewhat). But in this case, more wing would be a god-send in addition to a lighter structure - if for no other reason, greater internal fuel capacity (meaning less need for draggy external tanks which also feck with the mass locations).

 

However, yes, speed is important. IF you can get enough of it, then you need less turning. And that is why your examples are less than perfect there. The 104 had such a thrust and speed advantage over the MiGs that they would have stood no chance, you wouldn't have to turn there. However, they could certainly 'hang' with the 21s (they weren't exactly aerobats themselves afterall).

 

The Jug at altitude was faster than the mustang. And it was that thrust loading, at altitude, that allowed it to actually fly rings around the Bf-109's. Plus, the truth is, the Jug isn't quite as bad as Oleg made it. (exceedingly true for the Hellcat as well) Watch the movie at Zeno's, it can dance. However, not nearly as well as the 109 can, but as I said, when you take them up high and the 109 is gasping for air, struggling to stay above stall speed, and the Jugs have no problem exceeding theirs, then can zip and zoom around with near impunity.

 

And weren't you just pining for more wing on a Starfighter? hehe

 

 

For a Starfighter mod, I'd shoehorn in a better radar, and cram some ECM and RWR equipment into that dorsal spine, and see if the engine techs could wring a bit more out of the design, or even replace it with something more powerful in the same form-factor (and with better low throttle cruise consumption IF possible). Also make that probe on the C-10 be retractable. Then basically just do something like the Blackbird - take off, get to the edge of friendly space, re-fuel, filling the center conformal tank and inboard wing tanks (might skip the tip tanks, they really mess with roll rates), then proceed on the mission.

 

Toss in some better comms with the ground, air-borne dedicated radar, ground radar, recon flights, and other friendly air traffic. Much of that I'm sure they did, I'd just work on trying to improve it all.

 

The only benefit to a back seater is to work an overly complex radar system that can't be done while also flying the plane. Now, true, they also offer a second pair of eyes, and when working as a team can present a benefit there too, but.... probably not enough to put a person at risk and add extra weight. Or at the very least, not enough to stretch a design to add one that wasn't there to begin with (from the drawing board, or using a 2 seater to begin with.... ok).

 

 

 

I dunno... I could see a simply part's swap into the 101 and pair that with the 104 in the high-cost/low-cost system we have today (and have had since the F-15/16 combo). Then you could make the 105s their own escort with some simple tweaks. Or... swap the updated 101 for the updated 105 in that scenario. And depending on where you want to go.... I know you are big on SAC and high alt and bombers... I'd keep the Hustler and push forward on the Valkyrie, then boost the 106 to be the high-alt escort. OR... perhaps just buy more YF-12s, that could work too. (but we don't have a YF-12 in game, and I have been approaching this hypothetical discussion with an eye toward game integration)

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

However, yes, speed is important. IF you can get enough of it, then you need less turning.

Okay you got it. And accel gives you enough speed -- well, energy, quickly enough. You make a good case for putting F-105 on a diet. I don't know the build style for that plane. How would it have been "lightened" back in the day? I want it.

 

There is a mass or fuel penalty for an extra seat, so I'd say single seat is better for smaller clear weather day fighters, at least in the classical era.

 

Concerning your Starfighter mod, do you take inspiration from later international versions? The F-104G added lots of equipment. I've been thinking, for the game, if early F-104 is called upon in a war, a "field mod" would be done to make that catamaran thing less draggy, or replaced by the manufacturer with a pair of pylons if things get hot, or a single pylon for only one missile if two pylons interact badly. Whatever it takes.

 

 

Plus, the truth is, the Jug isn't quite as bad as Oleg made it.

lol

Never played it in that game. I did setup a test mission once. Armed player TB-3 with spawning airplanes next to it. P-47 was the quickest to blow up. I do remember that hehe.

[UnknownPilot 33]

How to lighten back in the day? It all depends. It could well be that it would not be possible to lighten it, without knowing the structure from a designer's perspective, I can't really say. However, I'd approach it sort of like replica car builders with an enthusiast mind-set and OEM budget. IOW, think of a unibody car made into a replica via a tube frame chassis with body panels attached. It's lighter and stronger than the original. I remember reading how Grumman planned to redesign the glove area of the F-14 to remove the vane, expand it slightly, and in the process create more room for fuel, add strength, and improve handling, all without adding weight. So that sort of thing. Scour the systems looking for anything that didn't need to be there, down to, and including, excess threads on bolts. (F-Body lightening mantra "don't try to remove a pound, try to remove an ounce 16 times") As it's to be more A2A oriented, perhaps look to removing hardpoints meant to carry heavy bombs and the structure to go with them, see if any weight could be shed from the electronics as a result (not needing ground attack radar and such), and finish it all up with a bit more money spent on materials (assuming it was built to a low bid, I'm guessing some more money could be spent on materials for reduced weight and/or ehanced strength).

 

However.... the real question is... why?

 

Here's what I mean by that - yes, I realize this is all a "what-if" and it's based around making teh 105 more of a fighter, but, to what end? When I was talking about single seat vs 2 seat fighters before, I was not suggesting it should be left a single seater. I was simply debating a stand-alone philosophical point. In THAT era, Sparrows pretty much meant a radar so complex you had to have a back seater. Not until the F-15 came out would that change. So, what would the 105 be used for in this scenario? What else would be used with it? If you keep it single seat, then you pretty much need to mod the Voodoo and use them in that pairing, the 105 would be the in-close fighter, meant to be cheaper and armed only with gun and Sidewinders, while the 2 seat Voodoo would be the expensive counterpart, meant for longer range capability, armed with Sparrows backedup by 'Winders and guns.

 

Alternately, if the 104 is meant to be kept around, then we already have an effective, single seat SRM armed close in fighter. Why have 2? In that case, take the Wild Weasal Thud (2-seater) and return to the drawing board with that for the lightening re-design and whatever other improvements could be made to it.

 

Or in a third option, lift engines and radar and weapons from the Phantom to slot them into the Voodoo, improve the Starfighter, use that as your pair, then just work on giving the Thud more thrust and more effective (Starfighter-like) flaps for combat, so that it would in essence be an A/F (not the other way 'round), and again, potentially act as it's own escort, or go hunting once the drop has taken place.

 

 

Just some thoughts.

[squid 21]

Allright gentlemen ... i want your final suggestions on paper on my desk by Friday noon to have a look with Ben and the Board during the weekend

[Lt. James Cater 62]

I've managed a 75% kill rate with the AIM-9B. Usually I would get a 100% hit rate too. I did not modify the missile in any way. All you have to do is fly to within guns range (I'd say .3 to .5 miles) and wait until your target is flying straight for a bit. Put your gunsight pipper just above your target, wait until you have a good tone (if you don't already) and loose a winder at him. It works great for those times when you run out of 20mm. Basically, use it like a rocket and don't give the target a chance to manuver before your ordnance arrives. It's the only way to be sure.

 

Just re-read this post.

 

Great for Fighters, suicidal against Bombers. Against a formation of IL-28s, you are going to be quite dead.

 

One alternate use for the 9B is to shoot one at an aircraft which is fleeing and out of gun range. If it locks, chances are good that the target will break on the missle and hopefully allow you to close in.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

pffft Kelly this is a Republic job, not a feather duster.

 

 

 

"Why" F-105 fighter is a hard question. Allow me to flounder. Assume F-101A (original idea) needs replacing as a long range high speed high altitude fighter: The original was to be single seat with radar, Falcons (well there ya go) and cannon. A 2nd generation Voodoo2 with J79s is tempting, but I need to know more about the single test plane that was flown with these engines. One of the problems F-101 would have is inability to safely pull AoA at high speed/high altitude because of the pitch up problem. Most likely, a quick upgrade with J79s won't help the pitch up. A longer term re-work would be needed. That's where early F-105 comes in.

 

A fictional F-105 long range fighter version is, for us today, somewhat less a paper plane than a well re-worked 2nd generation Voodoo2. For me, this gives the edge to F-105 My game depends on fantasy, but I try to minimize it. F-105 does this.

 

 

The F-105 bomb bay topic always comes up. You need the fuel so leave it alone for now, or if time permits, maybe re-engineer it and dedicate the space to a permanent fuel tank...optimize it for fuel only, forget bombs. If possible, this optimization could save weight, or add fuel, or both if we are lucky...unless...

 

 

Yea, replace the ground radar with air-air radar. For quick initial single seat F-105 fighter, just use AIM-9B, or maybe USAF Falcon I don't know its something to think about. If the bomb bay is used, the AIM-26 nuc Falcon is welcome in my game, assuming that would work. It would cost the bay fuel, and take more time to design I guess. Just to get something in a hurry, hang Sidewinders under the wings, leave bomb bay for fuel.

 

 

I guess there could be two single seat versions. The first a quick lash up with Sidewinders and radar, the second a more re-worked, perhaps lightnened, design with nuc bomb bay Falcons.

 

 

If the F-105 replaced the F-101A, eventually you want to add a second seat for better engagement performance especially at night. Fortunately we have F-105F and other 2 seat Thuds to get ideas from, so that can help minimize paper plane status. Early F-105 does have shorter range than F-101A, and a 2 seat F-105 fighter would further lose range as we might derive from the real 2 seaters, although the 2 seat Voodoos also lost range compared to the single seat Voodoos. A difficult question for me now is what range would J79 Voodoo2s have.

 

I want F-104, but if you need that extra penetration range or loiter time beyond the last tanker, you need something larger. If you want to maximize night ops, or BVR in general, you need a bigger radar than -- I think -- F-104 could carry, along with a back seat with a dedicated hardcore electronics enthusiast. That's not to say F-104 can't be used. It can work wonders as return escort, to protect the deeper ranging fighters and bombers on their way back to the last tanker when they are most vulnerable.

 

---

 

In the end, even if McNamara is left manufacturing 4 seat Thunderbirds, the F-110 may emerge as the best available long term replacement for F-101. It sure had the missile load and good range. In my game, NAVY will play a supporting role in long range penetrations over Soviet lands, and USAF on its own might could maybe see the Phantom as a good thing.

 

Think of it as a campaign variable. F-105 may be used, or it may not. I like to think a fantasy campaign (starting 1947) would have variables like -- would USAF pay for licence for Merlin engine for F-82, or use Allison. Either is possible. Since I want RAF in the game, Merlin has a good chance. Swap B-29 Washingtons for Merlins. Or if not, use Allison like the real thing.

 

A hard hitting variable is UK selling USSR the Nene, or the Derwent, or both engines, before the campaign starts. That could have interesting consequences if they don't.

 

But the most important reason: F-105 looks so good in shiny silver plate.

[UnknownPilot 33]

Interesting points.

 

It's late and I don't have a lot of time to post or contemplate, but just wanted to chime in real quick here. A soviet-style strategy of using a front line, short range fighter (ala Fulcrum) in the form of the Starfighter, either for running CAP for CAS missions, or as you said, return escort, that's a neat idea, and it retains a use for the 104 (and it would be damn good at it).

 

Were there 2 seat combat 104s? Seems that you'd be hard pressed to add a second seat without doing something detrimental to it that wouldn't instantly relegate it as a trainer. And without the second seat, the clumsy interfaced early powerful radar would be a no-go, even if you could shoe-horn one into it's radome.

 

My take on the Voodoo is that it wouldn't have to be a 2nd gen. That the 105 we are talking about would itself be far more of a second gen. Because my paradigm is the afforementioned F-8 to A-7 process, but in reverse. They really aren't the same plane, they are just based on the same design and principles, but so different that few parts would be interchangable. Perhaps this would not result in something quite so drastic (as a new body design [in how the A-7 is shorter and wider]), but it would certainly be a design re-think and new production.

 

Yes, the existing 2 seat Thud is a jumping off point. But so is the 2 seat Voodoo. And here's the thing, slapping in the Phantom radar and engines should be far less of a job than the Thud redesign being talked about. That would make it cheaper, faster, and far more tempting to the brass.

 

Regarding the pitch up, that's not really such a problem. It's really about AoA severity. That can be helped firstly with warning klaxons and something akin to the Fulcrum and Flanker where there is a tactile pressure on the stick informing the pilot of the edge, but not preventing him from exceeding it. How to do that? Well... I don't know, but I figure if the Kommandogeraet could be made in the early 40s, then this can be done in the early 60s.

 

Then you supplement that with modified flaps, and perhaps even leading edge slats (similar to the E Phantoms), and you help reduce the AoA change in any given turn in the first place (not to mention helping improve it's dogfighting capabilities).

 

And it too looks great in silver. Better than the Thud IMO.

 

But then that brings me back to my previous point. If we assume that worked, and was done, then any deep penetration would be done by that, the role you suggested for the 104 would not change, and we're back to the 101/104 pair, because at that point, a deep penetration short range fighter is redundant. And so because of that.... perhaps the move would be best to simply go with the 2 seat Thud, seal up the bay to customize for fuel (it should save emtpy weight while also increasing capacity), put in the big radar, remove unneeded ground attack items and associated bracing, and try to get an engine boost for it, and there ya go.

[Biggus 0]

Are you guys trying to reinvent the F-106?

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

F-106 had a vacume tube computer for back seater.

 

Pilot, was Spitfire used as return escort to help 8th AAF, at least from time to time? Too bad they didn't have wingtip refueling back then.

 

 

Yes, the existing 2 seat Thud is a jumping off point. But so is the 2 seat Voodoo. And here's the thing, slapping in the Phantom radar and engines should be far less of a job than the Thud redesign being talked about. That would make it cheaper, faster, and far more tempting to the brass.

I assume single seat Thud replaces single seat F-101A, about 1961 maybe. MiG-21 and Su-7 interceptor escorts -- like Bf protecting Fw bomber destroyers -- are a crushing threat to J57 F-101s, at least in daylight, and USAF would need something new very quickly. Once the single seat Thud gains momentum in the long range fighter role, its the new "base" for development so to speak. As for the F-101 AoA problem, the "active inhibitor" thing or something never worked fully, and I don't think it helped gain AoA, but limited the pilot's actions for safety ** I think. Curing the problem quickly enough by 1961 or so, along with J79s, might require a deep enough re-work to allow the 1 seat F-105 to step in.

 

But, consider the real F-101B interceptor. Assuming the back seat is a good thing to have, its possible a mix of both types can be used at the same time: 2 seat F-101B along with 1 seat F-105. If the single seat Thud has Sidewinders, and F-101B has nuc Genies (or, mythologically, nuc Falcons), it could be a good combination.

 

The 2 seat F-105 is alternative to F-110 Specter, although to be honest I think Specter (Phantom) is the better deal, but in a world without McNamara, F-110 may not come to be. Or it may -- nice campaign variable. Perhaps McDonnell can pitch its original NAVY product to the AF like Douglas pitched an Airforcialsized A3D. The B-66 shows there is precedent for USAF, on its own thinking, to do something like this.

 

Okay F-101 just might look better than Thud. But the F-105 has its own unique shape. Anyways what kind of a long range deep bombing campaign are you gonna have without a Republic fighter? It makes no sense dammit. Like P-47, once SAC gains high altitude air domination, the essential "out of box" Republic F-105 philosophy can chew up low altitudes far better than F-101 can, unless F-101 is deeply re-designed. Well, something like that I guess lol.

 

Oh hell I've gone back to the fantasy game. OP was trying to relate this to the real world.

[UnknownPilot 33]

I assume single seat Thud replaces single seat F-101A, about 1961 maybe. MiG-21 and Su-7 interceptor escorts -- like Bf protecting Fw bomber destroyers -- are a crushing threat to J57 F-101s, at least in daylight, and USAF would need something new very quickly. Once the single seat Thud gains momentum in the long range fighter role, its the new "base" for development so to speak. As for the F-101 AoA problem, the "active inhibitor" thing or something never worked fully, and I don't think it helped gain AoA, but limited the pilot's actions for safety ** I think. Curing the problem quickly enough by 1961 or so, along with J79s, might require a deep enough re-work to allow the 1 seat F-105 to step in.

 

Ah, see that's what I meant. The inhibitor/limiter/tactile warning (ie, stiffness on the controls), would not reduce AoA, just tell the pilot where that edge is so that he would not go over it. Just like what is done on the Flanker. If the pilot pulls past, he exceeds max AoA. The difference is that in the Flanker it just Cobra's and you can maintain control over it.

 

The other stuff I mentioned - more powerful engines and improved "combat flaps" and perhaps even leading edge slats... those would be the things to reduce AoA. Because if you think of it in terms of say 190 vs Spit. Factor out all differences in control, for a given G load, the 190 rotates in place more than the Spitfire does. Basically the 190 pulls higher AoA than the Spit because of it's higher wing loading. Now since we aren't talking about a weight reduction or wing increase for the 101 here, we'd have ot modify the wing to get more lift out of the given area, and do that by temporarily changing it's shape, via flaps and slats working in concert. More powerful engines further this by maintaining higher speeds and also reducing speed bleed, thus limiting AoA from 2 directions.

 

But that's just a tangental point, not an argument for 101 over 105.

 

 

 

But, consider the real F-101B interceptor. Assuming the back seat is a good thing to have, its possible a mix of both types can be used at the same time: 2 seat F-101B along with 1 seat F-105. If the single seat Thud has Sidewinders, and F-101B has nuc Genies (or, mythologically, nuc Falcons), it could be a good combination.

 

The 2 seat F-105 is alternative to F-110 Specter, although to be honest I think Specter (Phantom) is the better deal, but in a world without McNamara, F-110 may not come to be. Or it may -- nice campaign variable. Perhaps McDonnell can pitch its original NAVY product to the AF like Douglas pitched an Airforcialsized A3D. The B-66 shows there is precedent for USAF, on its own thinking, to do something like this.

 

Okay F-101 just might look better than Thud. But the F-105 has its own unique shape. Anyways what kind of a long range deep bombing campaign are you gonna have without a Republic fighter? It makes no sense dammit. Like P-47, once SAC gains high altitude air domination, the essential "out of box" Republic F-105 philosophy can chew up low altitudes far better than F-101 can, unless F-101 is deeply re-designed. Well, something like that I guess lol.

 

Oh hell I've gone back to the fantasy game. OP was trying to relate this to the real world.

 

 

I don't buy this 110 Spectre thing. Sure, someone else said there was a comparison and the Phantom was seen as better, but that smacks of severe politics and a heavy thumb on the scale. Or perhaps just an unnatural desire for multi-role. Multi-role is bunk. Let's look at the Navy's perspective for a minute, if I were orchestrating an air assault from the Navy, I would never strap bombs to a Phantom - I've got Corsairs, Skyhawks and Intruders! They will do that job far better, and also not require wasting a fighter/interceptor to boot. It makes about as much sense as trying to strap bombs to a Crusader or Starfighter (and yes, they tried that too.... oy!).

 

So, from that angle, let's assume there is no messed up desire for multi-role like that, and no bastard McNamara out there to strip the Airforce of it's design ethos by pressing Navy planes into their service.

 

What did the Airforce need, and what could it use? The 105 is an excellant bomber, and the followup, the F-111 will be even better. The F-100 is an excellent fast FAC, paired up with the Bronco for slow FAC. The F-100 and F-5 are both excellent CAS planes. The F-104 is an excellent short range fighter, which with good missiles would be even MORE deadly. The F-106 is a great large bomber interceptor.

 

So what's missing is the inbetween, the fighter interceptor (meaning, something that intercepts fighters). This needs Sparrow and Sidewinder capability. Sidewinders alone just won't get it done. Should also have a gun as backup. If possible should be something that will easily integrate into the existing logistics framework as well (from parts to crew training and everything in between), and also be quick to roll out.

 

While if it were me personally, the appeal of the Voodoo from both aesthetics and (apparent) logic, would cause me to go down that path (just like how F-Body guys put Corvette parts on their cars, it's just pulling from stock and slapping them on - with little to no customization ever being needed).

 

However.... let's just say with the F-111 in planning, and the 101 not being heavily utilized, the Thud is the one that gets eyed.... ok, so, slap in a second seat, change out the radar, modify the bombay for internal tankage, put it on a diet, strap on some Sparrows and Sidewinders, try to wring a little more thrust out of it (even if that means an engine swap) and maybe even some combat flaps, and call it a day.

 

Would THAT result be better than a Phantom? I dunno.... better than the F-4B for sure (for this purpose). Look at what the AF asked McDonnell to do to it afterall. Since Republic is already adding a second seat for Wild Weasel anyway, it's not difficult to do the rest of this, in fact, it's natural and seemingly easier than the wing re-work and trying to find some place to add a gun and ammunition (to something that didn't have one), all without adversely affecting anything.

 

 

I'd say that keeps it within the realm of plausability. And also within the realm of ini edits (as you're just tweaking the radar/avionics, fuel capacity, and weight mainly. Not sure about a combat flaps setting, but that would seem to be possible through such edits as well, but I don't really know for sure).