Lexx_Luthor

MiGbuster, good question on F-105 high level J75 endurance on afterburner; one I've been struggling with. To get back to the last tanker may require dry thrust at high altitude. I assume escort flights staggered in time, by maybe a minute (*guess*), rear flights backing up earlier flights. In addition, this is what return escorts are for; to provide protection to vulnerable aircraft returning to the last tankers. For something the size of USSR, you need to have tankers penetrate over hostile territory, and they must have escorts as well. A few tanker crews in Vietnam went deep for fighters that got into trouble. Tanker support like this quickly blows up astronomically in expense, which would make a campaign like this a challenge. And, deep tanker support requires maintaining high altitude air/electronic domination to some point into enemy lands. -- The quote was a footnote (number 14) to the Boydmania article, and it does not state that Coram's book claimed USAF would have done better with MiG-21. The author is using sarcasm to address the desire or "wish" we often see today for having had small daylight dogfighters during Vietnam. I'm not a fan of much sarcasm, and there is far too much here. The point is fascinating however: Migbuster, were the F-5, F-102, and F-104 used extensively in the Hanoi area? Granted, if USAF used the MiG-21 (or Mirage III), it (they) would almost certainly be given air refueling. For Vietnam era, of greater interest are the questions poasted earlier. Assuming even better "fictional" single seat high performance fighters, such as larger wing F-104 (more load), F11F-1F, or F8U-3, could they... (1) Use the Combat Tree as well as two seaters? (2) Deal with the communications problems as well as two seaters? (3) Detect and avoid SAMs as well as two seaters? (4) Have as good a chance at getting back to a tanker as well as the larger two seaters? Thanks!

Cater:: I think OP was relating to "real world" and generally for most of us that means Vietnam. So, if in a fictional "real world," the USAF never went with F-4, what would or could have been used later in Vietnam? That is quite the fiction, but not the extreme fantasy of a LeMay vs Savitsky simulation (SAC vs PVO). In that bizarre fantasy, anywhere from 1947 to about 1971, I assume a need for air dominance, which means gain control of the high altitude day sky, like WW2 8th AAF, and the high altitude night sky, like RAF Bomber Command. That means 24hr ability to dominate the high altitude sky as was done for all major recent USAF operations (Vietnam, Iraq, Serbia, Iraq, etc...). If needed, then go low altitude -- like P-47s and P-51s did in Germany after Luftwaffe was largely defeated at high altitude. All the basic classical SAC planeset, and then some. Speeds? 1947 to 1971. Tanker support is needed for deep penetrations into Soviet lands. A lot of tankers. A lot of local .gov support for air bases ringing the Soviet Union. A lot of expense. Actually, can be great for Su-7 pilots. Unlike the -21, it was a dream to fly. Originally it was a fighter, somewhat heavy, and very powerful, so therefore short ranged like -21.

Biggus:: Its always been my #1 fave since I was a squish. Ever notice the vertical "tape" like instruments in the Colonial Vipers in 1970s Battlestar Galactica? Never really paying attention, I always figured they were popularizing the instruments from F-105/F-106. But apparently they might have got that from the Space Shuttle panel. Scroll down the page below... Joel's Battlestar Galactica TOS Page ~> http://www.joelowens.org/bsg/index.html

I'd like some RF-107s for recon, like the what, half dozen RF-100A's? MigBuster:: Right. They were not used as fighters. If they were, and if they were optimized for that role (subject of thread which should be fun), than they might have done better. As good as F-4C? Possibly not. I like the F-4 dry T/W ratios C5 poasted last page. I assume eventually a stretched 2 seat F-105 fighter as well which might further hurt its T/W. We both know the MiG-21F was not as "fast" as F-105 at lower altitudes. I question the "fast" even at high altitudes as MiG-21 (and Mirage 3) pretty much ran out of fuel upon reaching Mach 2, and as noted in the quote below, no air refueling. C5, yea that paper's tone is a huge turn off, but might be some good points. Most interesting to me (for now) is buried in a footnote that you missed by giving up. I don't know enough to agree or disagree with the strategic angle, but I figure at the time (Vietnam), you either had heavy long range aircraft (F-4/F-105), or short range mostly daylight dogfighters (MiG/Mirage). A larger winged F-104 (carrying more fuel), maybe F11F-1F Super Tiger, or high speed (pure missile armed) F8U-3 might have done better in tight Vietnam dogfights. Could they have used Combat Tree as well, overcome the bad communications situation as well, or avoid SAMs as well, with only one seat? I'm not so sure. Would they have as good a chance at getting back to a tanker? I don't know. The listed ranges on some of these single seaters are pretty good.

Biggus, that looks like one GREAT thread there. When I get time I'll czech it out in Detail. F-102 and F-106 interceptors ~> http://www.s188567700.online.de/forum/viewtopic.php?t=803 Thanks man/manette!

Cater, we are thinking something different. To start, go back to WW2 8th Air Force escort and RAF Bomber Command vs Luftwaffe night fighters, and review the last page or so here. I think F-4C would be better as long range heavy fighter, but not in 1961 because there was no F-4C. Assuming an F-105 production momentum gets going, F-4C might not be able to break it, at least not quickly, so that leaves us with doing the best we can with F-105. As far as I know, when they were not surprised from behind, and given their non fighter role, Thud pilots in Vietnam did quite well against MiGs. After all, they flew Republics. An interesting contrarian review of Boyd and Coram's book: Boydmania ~> http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj04/fal04/mets.html I like to think of Boydmania as the top of the Boyd Bubble; when Boyd fans say buy, sell. Biggus, I've briefly seen debate over the effectiveness (or not) of SAGE. I'll see the acig thread. Thanks. I do know if you got into a tight daylight dogfight, those vacume tubes in the back seat won't help much.

Wow, I think that is a significantly better dry T/W. Thanks CV. Phantom - 0.568 Thunderchief - 0.482 Delta Dart - 0.444 Starfighter - 0.484 Pilot thanks for allowing me to clarify my thinking. I'll consider lightening an F-105 fighter, or optimizing it for a version that eliminates bombing, or more powerful J75s. I don't know if Republic ever lightened anything in its history, or just added more power and fuel. As for the F/A theme, I would not be inspired by reading the multi-role Republic P/A-47 won teh war. Pilot:: F-111 is a next generation plane, and much larger than F-4, and might be like comparing P-47 to later Douglas A-26 Invader. Now that we mentioned it, I've wondered about J75s for F-111 to get it into service early, for high altitude only, to replace F-4, and as a "cheaper" version of F-12 although sharing the same radar and weapons. Both can be used at the same time. When I read Lockheed proposed F-12 as "cheaper" stand in for F-108, well dam.

The comparison was Operation Highspeed in 1961... I need to look more into that flyoff. Trust me when I poast that Phantom is *not* a fave of mine -- that would be F-106 lol (MiG-3 second fave) -- but it is what it is. I don't think NAVY intended F4H for "multi" but for fleet defence. It was the best option out there to conduct air-air warfare for both USAF and NAVY. Granted a 2 seat J79 Voodoo2 did not exist at the time, and if it had, and could accomodate Mach2 aerodynamically, it might be even better. And they have to cure that pitch up problem. If we can assume that, we can go for Voodoo2 as another campaign variable, a very spectacular one at that. I have considered J79 Voodoos in the past, but its more paper plane than F-105, so I just went with the later. P-47 was multirole, and I learned at ubi.com that it won teh war. But I suspect multirole often happens without original design intent. Granted, you also need to have won some basic air superiority before you can dedicate fighters to ground attacks. I doubt people were thinking multirole Phantom in 1960. But there should be no surprise that multirole flows naturally from a fighter designed to carry carry 2 men, huge radar, and freaking 8 missiles along with big drop tanks at Mach 2**. No other plane of the day could match that, except a potential J79 Voodoo2. You are right to spot that. ** well not Mach 2 with all that stuff.

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. 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.

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.

Good idea. Runway 99 would flip to Runway 66, an iconic American Classic

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. 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.

Pilot:: 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 ... 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.

The following definitions in cockpit.ini under the cockpitseat section control player look angles in the cockpit. The variables are degree angles. For example.... MaxYaw=160 MinYaw=-160 MaxPitch=90 MinPitchFront=-60 MinPitchRear=-40 Yaw is left-right. Pitch is up-down. Experiment to Taste.

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....

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?

Pilot:: Bingo! I'm doing weird, as typical The-Sims go. F-105 might replace (original) F-101A as SAC high altitude penetration fighter, at least until F-110 arrives -- or F-105 is upgraded by adding a back seat, radar, and Sparrows, at a cost of some range. I'd like to make this a campaign variable -- when you start the campaign, you don't know the future, you don't know if SAC later gets two seat F-105, or F-110, or maybe both. SAC wants total air dominance which requires winning the high altitude sky over the Soviet Union, and staying there. If needed, then SAC can go "low" like P-51s and P-47s in Germany, and where AIM-9B won't be as useful, but the Soviet defenses (manufacturing, resources) will have been weakened by the high altitude campaign. I'm using 8th AAF and RAF Bomber Command vs Luftwaffe as a base model to start thinking with. Like in WW2, the first step is establishing permanent high altitude air dominance.

You mean like Maddox's Eventlog text file that records all combat across the map? There's nothing I could find like that in the SF. I wish TK would have allowed it, then we would have had 3rd Party dynamic campaign generators over the last few years.

Cater:: It matters when the war is fought at high altitude, like Formosa 1958. But this was a small experiment and I assume the missiles were maintained exceptionally well by a few NAVY guys who wanted to do this project. For those who missed it earlier, word search the article linked below for " arrival of the snakes " China and Taiwan since 1945; Part 1~> http://s188567700.online.de/CMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=151&Itemid=47 If I recall, one of the problems, among many, later in Vietnam was lack of training for firing inside missile paramaters. Once this was corrected results improved -- somewhat -- but it took near the whole war to get around to doing this -- if I recall correctly!! Most units did not maintain their missiles properly, but those that did got better missile kills. The need for near clean room maintenence in the tropics was another problem with early missiles. With our The Sims always focused on low level high gee combat, our idea of "dogfight" is not the same as high altitude fighter vs fighter combat. Up there its probably more like very slow chess manuevering at moderate high speeds. At 40k feet, the fast swept wing fighter -- neither missile launcher nor target -- can pull as much gee and gee is what caused so much problem at low levels -- well also poor seeker performance at lower altitudes and IR or radar distractions. AIM-9B was near 10 years old by Vietnam. I've always wondered about how slow missile upgrades were. The superjets got upgraded what, every year or 2, and fully replaced by new types maybe every 5 years (~1960). Missiles, maybe get upgraded once a decade back then, and fully replaced after what, a half century hehe?

Runway 88 would be runway 16. Both are kewl numbers so its all good.

Think square tiles in THE SF. Its easy numbers in the config.file so easier to make runway go up/down vertical, or side/side horizontal -- either x or y are constant and the varying coordinate is easy to follow. Granted with 2km tiles, I'm tempted to use 45 degree runways to get SQR(2) longer runways that can still fit on one tile. That means a bit more complicated numbers though. Also approach and departure waypoints. Also, placing airfield objects is easier if one coordinate is held constant over a number of objects. Or something close to that.

Trucks are safe too. Get a good 1980s to 1990s F-150 at least. Try to swing a 300 straight six or add it later. Best engine ever made. Or older Chevy if you like.

Get a truck. That's why I like trucks, well old trucks at least. They eat bolts for breakfast. Parts are cheap. Look better than any lol "car" ... Trucks - Bikes good, anything in between pffft...

I may have read there was a cockpit position change in some recent Patch.(**) TK did something different with open pit, or something. I doubt this is a bad Patch, but you may have to re-tweak things. Yes you ALWAYS have a solid reliable backup method (that means...multiple independent backups) of your game, in case something goes wrong like Patches you don't like. (**) I'm staying SF1 2006 level so I can morally support and have Compassion for any feelings of Patch Paranoia, but I can't help at all in SF2+.

Michele's Clashes book notes that during most if not all (forgot) the Vietnam War, missile testing was done at high altitudes against non manuevering drones, or something like that. For its planned role at high altitude, say for F-105 replacing F-101A as penetration fighter, against non manuevering PVO interceptors trying to catch SAC bombers, AIM-9B could be a wonder weapon. One of my fave Myth Buster stories is acig's account of the....