Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

F-102A pilots on Intercepts

Recommended Posts

Nicknamed Delta Dagger, the Convair F-102, which was referred to as “The Deuce” by its aircrew, entered service in 1954.


The F-102A spent most of its career operating out of Alaska, Greenland, Iceland and in other NATO and SEATO (South East Asia Treaty Organization) countries to defend their airspace from possible raids conducted by the heavily armed Tu-16 Badger, Tu-95 Bear or Myasishchev M-4 Bison aircraft, three types of Soviet bombers introduced between 1954 and 1956 .


Several accounts of the pilots involved in this kind of QRA (Quick Reaction Alert) service, are reported in Ted Spitzmiller’s book Century Series The USAF Quest for air supremacy 1950-1960. As the one in which George Andre, a former F-102 pilot, explains a typical alert base:


“Most featured an alert hangar at the end of the longest runway with high-speed taxiways leading on to the runway for immediate scramble. […] Generally a pilot stood alert for 8, 12 or sometimes 24 hour period. We slept with our boots on, and always could make a less than 5 minute airborne time from the sound of the scramble horn.”


Even if the interceptors were guided to the target by SAGE (Semi-Automatic Ground Environment, the system that coordinated the NORAD response to a Soviet air attack by providing command guidance for ground controlled interception by air defense aircraft) or by GCI (Ground Control Intercept) Radars, obviously the pilots remained responsible for flying the aircraft and for the weapon launch, as said by Roger Pile, another former Deuce driver:


“On-board radar searched for the target, but it was up to the pilot to locate it, select the appropriate armament, lock on to it and fly the plane to the release point […] The pilot was also responsible to retain the attack in spite of radar jamming, dispensing chaff and to switch to alternative modes should it be necessary.”


One of these “alternatives modes” was the installation on The Deuce of a passive infrared search and track (IRST) equipment, that could be selected by the pilot to avoid the enemy bombers counter-measures. Moreover the IRST could also be used to fire the Falcon missiles against the target as explained again by Pile:


“It was a softball sized sensor-head located immediately in front of the center of the windshield. […] The pilot could select IR dominant with the radar in standby, search or slaved to the IR tracker after lock-on to the target. If the radar was in standby, the target might never know you were locked on to him as the IRST was a passive receptor only and did not emit any signals. If in “search mode”, he might think you were still searching for him. If the radar was slaved to the IR head, you might get “burn-through” (pick him up on the radar) to give you an accurate distance from him and lock on to him with the radar. This would also allow the radar-guided (AIM-4A) missiles to also lock on to him and be guided to the target as well as the heat seekers (AIM-4Ds).”


But even if the Delta Dagger was basically a bomber interceptor, pilots discovered that, thanks to F-102’s lower wing loading, The Deuce had an advantage (in certain parts of its flight envelope) in dogfight against its opponents.


“I flew the F-102 transitioning into the F-106. I was very impressed with its turning ability. Many pilots claim their aircraft turns better than other. Of course, aerial combat will prove this, but short of that, I found another way to measure the turning capability of different aircraft and used that for comparison. That is to take the aircraft to 10,000’ at initial approach airspeed and perform a split-S as tight as possible. The F-102 would do it under 2,500’. The T-33 about 3,300’. The F-106 at 3,100’ and the F-4 at about 7,000’. I repeat the F-4 at 7,000,”  pilot Bill Jowett recalled.








  • Like 5

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the odds of a F-102 intercepting an M-4 were about the same as seeing an article posted about the F-35 not having any "overpriced failure" comments. Notice there were no follow on bombers afterwards and Tupolev became the sole producer.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not a Bison?


I controlled an intercept of a Bison once, no big deal other than we were all wondering what Museum they ripped off

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Jedi fluffed the logical analogy, as it required a negation and that confuses souls.


Probability of F-102 intercept M4 = HIGH

Probability of finding NO overpriced failure comments on F-35 threads = LOW to ZERO


does not computilate


unless I just fluffed up my interpretation of this.




On the other hand, SAC and RAF pulled ADC and Army pants down using B-47s and Vee bombers. Lots of jamming B-47s used for those runs. I once read a comment of a witness on the ground to one of these things. Contrails all over the sky. I hope to find that again.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  Here's an interesting film about the SAGE system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06drBN8nlWg&feature=player_embedded . And here's a couple on the F-102 and it's MG-10 Weapons Control System: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usrTeRaiFWE , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q5k3hOKuXY , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-VzmXPxQk4 . Real good stuff if you're interested in the Dagger. Enjoy.

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that was my point. Given the disposition and numbers of the F-102 and M-4, the odds of an intercept involving both of them was somewhere just north of getting to have sex with your favorite celebrity.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By NuclearWinter
      i have made several installs of SF1 to have  specific aircraft 'only' show up overspecific terrains (though some of that can be addressed in other ways).
      (it is irritating to have a n.korean mig15 show up over germany in 1980 when your in a tomcat)
      does anyone knowwhere 'Veltro 2K's F-102A Delta Dagger ' is?     i would like a F-102 for my Vietnam War installs (i can use a f-106) to sub, but............
      i seem to have spotty luck trying the search function here
      I think i've seen f-102s in SEA camo in books before...BTW
      Also, would it have been 'at all' feasable for the NVAF to have tried to send a IL-28 flight escorted by mig-21z to hit some thing in northern S.Vietnam? Armed Recon by any MiGs in Nrthn S.Vietnam? If they had tried to send recon flights south it would have drawn attention to their intentions. I doubt the ability of the VietCong or NVA regulars to have sent coordinates to whoever in N.V. with anything remotely resembling 'real-time.' Certainly, NV had knowledge of many fixed targets if they could get that far south and have the gas to get back.
      In my version of the vietnam war the NVAF does fly south to interfere armed recon or what have you in the southern N. Vietnam by the good guys...if only to fly in different parts of Vietnam and tangle with migs...the less air defenses the better i say.  i would like to have f-102s to go ahead and intercept some intruding migs into south V. airspace.
      in my 'en-hanced version' install of sf1 vietnam war i have f-106s...(and mig-23z and F-4Sz)...its as if the war didn't end when it did 
    • By MigBuster

      View File The F-104G Intercept Challenge
      The F-104G intercept challenge
      SF2 Desert Terrain (only tested in 2013 version)
      Thirdwire F-104G
      See DETAILS for mission details
      Submitter MigBuster Submitted 12/21/2014 Category User Made Missions  

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..