The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 23, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: And now for something completely different...RAAF chooses EE Lightning over Mirage.
Volkodav    5/24/2009 4:55:42 AM
The Lightning was a contender for RAAF how serious a contender I don't know. The main choice always seemed to be between the Mirage and the Lockheed Starfighter with the Phantom and Lightning being only bit players.

The Lightning was apparently ruled out due to it's lack of ground attack capability, not that the Mirage was a wiz in the air to ground department either. The RR Avon and Ferranti Airpass radar of the Lightning were actually considered for the baseline Mirage III EO as they would have offered significantly improved performance.

Imagine now that the RAAF had selected an evolved derivative of the Lightning.

Would we have used it in Vietnam?
What modifications and improvements would it have incorporated?
What upgrades would it received during its life?
What weapons would it have been certified for,i.e. Sidewinder, Paveway?
What would the sale to Australia have meant for the program as a whole and then for the British and Austrlaian aviation industries?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14   NEXT
doggtag       5/27/2009 11:07:13 PM

I wish the RAAF had stuck with the SAAB Draken.It would have forced Martin to do two things to Bullpup.

a. Fix that damned fuse. It never worked right.

b. Replace base flares and radio LoS telecommand with inertial guidance and am E/O pilot interfaced steering unit.
 

I'm afraid I don't follow. What has the Draken in RAAF service got to do with the Bullpup design?

 

Curious and confused.


 


I'm sure he was thinking along the lines of what other western guided air-to-surface munitions would have been available for your 'Roo Drakens, other than dumb bombs, so they could perform as anything other than principally air-air fighters.
Buy French (Matra?) AS.20s and AS.30s?
Sweden's own RB04 and RB05?
Unguided rockets?
 
(yeah, yeah, I know, Wiki entries, but that Draken 35 MOD Level 4 sounds like it might have been pretty interesting...)
 
And if you were going to go with Swedish aircraft there, why not then upgrade later to the Viggen instead, with SkyFlash AAMs later on instead of the troublesome Sparrows?
Your pilots might have liked the 37's STOL performance and ability to operate under austere conditions (although the Scandanavian winters that Viggens operated in and summers in Australia are two entirely different extremes, so the aicraft may have needed extensive environmental upgrades).
And certainly that beefy 30mm KCA would've quelled any naysayers in the surface attack role.
 
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       5/28/2009 12:57:33 AM
I'm sure he was thinking along the lines of what other western guided air-to-surface munitions would have been available for your 'Roo Drakens, other than dumb bombs, so they could perform as anything other than principally air-air fighters.
 
Quite. I just thought it curious that us owning Draken would force an American company to fix up a dud design. Martin could have done samd we gone with a Yank or Anglo-French plane as well.
 
I have often wondered why the decision to replace the Sabre could not have been put off for a few more years (the choice to go with the Miracle was made before many other options like F-4 came along) to encompass a wider variety of higher capability strike fighters, or indeed why, if not replace the Sabre in the timeframe that we did, opt for the F-100 Hun.
 
It seems that whilst historically we have opted for short-legged interceptors and longer ranging bombers, that we then decided on a paradigm shift post-Miracle IOC to halve the fleet of 116 and use the latter 50 as ground attack capable. Wwas this done when we already had the bomb trucking Cranberry in service with a view to replace same with the new fangled Pig? Why dilute the number of fighter/interceptors and ultimately have an overlap of three strike/bombers?
 
What value would having Miracle, cranberry and Pig all dropping iron at the same time achieve in a doctrinal sense?
 
Granted, the Cranberry was soon relegated to photo/survey mapping duties until about 1982ish, but it still seems like overkill.
 
However, if we had decided earlier on (around the Malayan/Korean confrontations) to replace the Sabre with a multirole fighter that was to be used in ground attack roles then surely the F-100 would have been a serious option. Rugged and reliable (as to the usual bug fixes) and not as complex as the other century Series. Capable of firing 4xAIM-9 as well as the usual A2G loads. The transitional timeline would have fitted with the Sabre replacement and we would have gotten a platform that allowed crews to become familiar with higher performances several years before we actually did once the Miracle came to be.
 
Food for thought.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Bullpup missile   5/28/2009 4:59:17 AM

I wish the RAAF had stuck with the SAAB Draken.It would have forced Martin to do two things to Bullpup.

a. Fix that damned fuse. It never worked right.

b. Replace base flares and radio LoS telecommand with inertial guidance and am E/O pilot interfaced steering unit.
 

I'm afraid I don't follow. What has the Draken in RAAF service got to do with the Bullpup design?

 

Curious and confused.


 

 
As a guided weapon the Bullpup was the SIMPLEST A2G guided weapon we could build around the time the Draken was built. With a Navy pilot trying to use it the Bullpup was designed to be aimed through the ginsight. That was a Human factors mistake. We should have aimed it using the later technique we developed for WALLEYE.
 
Like many SAAB aircraft, there is a lot of AMERICAN  technology that went into the Draken. Wiring her for something like TV asuning and a F&FG profile missile would have been possible.
 
She was coded for the SIDEWINDER and FALCON. Naturaly she carried some of the same family of American gravity bombs and guided missiles of the era. 
 
Anyway the China Lake gang who have given us so much should have been able to fix BULLPUP. That was a Navy/ Martin foulup.when they adopted the German HS 293 type of steered aim. Norman Kay was a better engineer than the guys at Martin or the guys at Henschel.
 
Herald
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
Bullpup needed an upgrade that would allow it to selfguide A2G woth a SARH feature. The radio command link should have been through the radar instead of the gunsight.  
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       5/28/2009 6:12:55 AM
Herald,
Thanks.

 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       5/28/2009 9:18:47 AM
I have often wondered why the decision to replace the Sabre could not have been put off for a few more years (the choice to go with the Miracle was made before many other options like F-4 came along) to encompass a wider variety of higher capability strike fighters, or indeed why, if not replace the Sabre in the timeframe that we did, opt for the F-100 Hun.
 
Probably because of the 26 Tu-16's, ten MiG-19's and twenty MiG-21's Indonesia ordered from the USSR in 1961. I know things changed radically in 1968 in Indonesia but we were not to know that in 1960. Maybe an early buy of F-106's in 1961 or 1962 could have allowed the Sabre to be retained as an attack type until the early 70's when a number of other options would have been available, say Phantom, Jaguar, A-4M, A-7, or even A-10.
 
During the late 60's / early 70's the RAAF had 5 fighter squadrons 3, 75, 76, 77 & 79 and 3 bomber squadrons 1, 2 & 6 for a total 8 squadrons. Say 2 or 3 squadrons of interceptors, 2 or 3 of attack aircraft and 2 or 3 of high performance fighter attack or dedicated strike aircraft; maintaining 3 different types would be quite feasable, especially if some level of systems commonality could be achieved between the types.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Using the Hun.   5/28/2009 1:02:44 PM

Data from Quest for Performance

General characteristics

  • Crew: 1

  • Length: 50 ft (15.2 m)

  • Wingspan: 38 ft 9 in (11.81 m)

  • Height: 16 ft 2¾ in (4.95 m)

  • Wing area: 400 ft² (37 m²)

  • Empty weight: 21,000 lb (9,500 kg)

  • Loaded weight: 28,847 lb (13,085 kg)

  • Max takeoff: 34,832 lb (15,800 kg)

  • Powerplant: 1× P&W J-57-P-21/21A turbojet

    • Dry thrust: 10,200 lbf (45 kN)

    • Thrust with afterburner: 16,000 lbf (71 kN)

  • ZLD coefficient: 0.0130

  • Drag area: 5.0 ft² (0.46 m²)

  • Aspect ratio: 3.76

Performance

  • Max speed 750 kn (864 mph, 1,390 km/h)

  • Range 1,733 NM (1,995 mi, 3,210 km)

  • Service Ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,000 m)

  • Climb: 22,400 ft/min (114 m/s)

  • Wing load: 72.1 lb/ft² (352 kg/m²)

  • TWR: 0.55

  • LDR: 13.9

Armament

  • Guns: 4 × 20 mm (0.79 in) M39 cannon

  • Missiles:

    • 4 × AIM 9 SIDEWINDER or

    • AGM_12 BULLPUP

North American F-100C Super Sabre

Last revised November 27, 1999






The F-100C fighter-bomber was the first fully combat-capable version of the Super Sabre, and was the first version of the Super Sabre to serve with the USAF in really large numbers.

In October 1952, even before the YF-100A had taken off on its first flight, the USAF asked NAA to look into the possibility of developing wings for the Super Sabre that could carry fuel. In July of 1953, the USAF asked that the new "wet" wing could be made sufficiently strong enough to carry additional external ordinance. This concept eventually emerged as the F-100C fighter-bomber version of the Super Sabre.

On December 30, 1953, the USAF revised the original F-100A production order and stipulated that the last 70 planes on that order be completed as fighter-bombers under the designation F-100C (company designation NA-214). On February 24, 1954, the Air Force ordered an additional 230 F-100Cs.

In order to provide a prototype for the F-100C project, the fourth production F-100A (serial number 52-5759) was taken out of the test program and modified. However, because of the difficulty in incorporating integral fuel tanks in an already-constructed airframe, 52-5759 remained a dry-wing aircraft. It flew for the first time on July 26, 1954. This aircraft was delivered with the short vertical tail of initial F-100A aircraft, with the taller vertical tail being fitted later.

The F-100C introduced wing modifications that added hard points on the lower surface that could be fitted with removeable pylons that could hold either fuel tanks or weapons. These six underwing stations could accommodate a wide variety of stores including fuel tanks, napalm, bombs, up to a dozen five-inch HVARs (high-velocity air rockets), and even "special stores" such as the MK-7 nuclear weapon. A total of 5000 pounds could be carried on these stations. The wing was locally strengthened to withstand the sudden shock of weapons release.

In order to accommodate the fuel in the "wet" wing, the wing's integral systems had to be redistributed. A leak proofing system was devised in which all bolts that fastened skin to spars were sealed with injected material. In the final design, the F-100C "wet" wing could carry 451 US gallons of fuel. Total internal fuel capacity was 1602 gallons, as compared with 744 gallons for the F-100A.

The F-100C had provision for single-point ground refuelling, a major improvement over the gravity-filling of the fuselage tanks in the F-100A. A wing-mounted detachable refuelling probe was added which made the F-100C capable of in-flight refuelling.

The first production F-100C (53-1709) rolled off the line on October 19, 1954. It was conditionally accepted by the USAF on October 29, since all Super Sabres were officially grounded at that time pending the fitting of new vertical tails. It took to the air for the first time on January 17, 1955, with NAA test pilot George Hoskins at the controls. It had the original short F-100A tail, but was later fitted with the new taller tail.

On May 27, 1954, an additional USAF contract increased the total number of F-100Cs to 564, more than doubling the initial order. However, on September 27 the contract was amended to stipulate that the last 224 aircraft on the order be completed as F-100Ds.

On October 11, 1954, North American's Columbus, Ohio plant was designated as a second source for Super Sabre production. Columbus-built F-100Cs were designated NA-222 by the company. Air Force designations distinguished Columbus-built machines from California-built machines by using the suffix *NH* rather than *NA*. A contract was let which authorized the construction of 25 F-100Cs at Columbus, followed by 221 F-100Ds. The first of 25 Columbus-built F-100Cs (55-2709) took off on its maiden flight on September 8, 1955.

Provision had been made for an additional pair of 200-gallon drop tanks to supplement the pair of 275-gallon drop tanks usually carried. However, the addition of these smaller tanks caused some longitudinal stability problems, especially at high cruising speeds. For a while, it seemed that the only cure for this problem would be yet another time-consuming and costly increase in the surface area of the vertical tail. Paradoxically, the use of larger fuel tanks cured the problem, and both the 275- and the 200-gallon tanks were replaced by a single pair of 450-gallon tanks. However, these bigger tanks were costly and were rarely carried. A change to 335-gallon tanks was later made.

F-100C deliveries to TAC began in April of 1955. The first outfit to receive the F-100C, the 450th Fighter Day Squadron at Foster AFB in Texas, became fully operational on July 14, 1955. By the end of 1956, F-100Cs were serving with the 8th Fighter-Bomber Group in the Fifth Air Force in Japan.

The first few F-100Cs were powered by the J57-P-7, rated at 9700 lb.s.t. dry and 14,800 lb.s.t. with afterburner. This engine was soon replaced on the production line by the J57-P-39 with similar rating. However, most F-100Cs (from the 101st machine and onward) were powered by the J57-P-21, an upgraded version of the J57-P-7. The -21 was rated at 10,200 lb.s.t. dry and 16,000 lb.s.t. with afterburner. This engine provided more thrust at higher altitudes, and increased the speed at altitude by about 40 mph and reduced the time to climb to 35,000 feet by about ten percent.

One of the more serious defects of the F-100C was that this aircraft, like the F-100A before it, tended to yaw and go into an uncontrollable roll at high speeds. Beginning with the 146th production F-100C, hydraulically-activated and electrically-controlled yaw dampers were incorporated on the production line. This innovation seemed to help to alleviate this problem, and was retrofitted to earlier F-100Cs.

Beginning with the 301st F-100C, pitch dampers were added to the horizontal stabilizer control system. This helped to damp out longitudinal oscillations, which had been an ongoing problem with the Super Sabre.

The J57 engine of the F-100 suffered from a problem with compressor stalls. A partial cure for this problem was the installation of a pressure bleed-off which helped to release the accumulated gases and to prevent internal explosions.

On August 20, 1955, Col. Horace A. Hanes flew a F-100C to set a new world's air speed record. In two runs made at an altitude of 40,000 feet in opposite directions over a 15-25 km course laid out on the Mojave Desert, he averaged 822.135 mph. This was the first supersonic world's speed record. It was also the first record set at high altitude, all previous record-setting runs having been made at very low altitudes.

On September 4, 1955, Col. Carlos Talbott flew his F-100C across the USA from coast to coast, a distance of 2325 miles at an average speed of 610.726 mph. For this feat, Col. Talbott was awarded the Bendix Trophy.

A total of 476 F-100Cs were built, the last example being accepted in July of 1956.

More than 150 F-100Cs served in Europe. Major bases were at Bitburg, Furstenfeldbruck, Landstuhl, and Hahn in West Germany, plus Sidi Slimane in Morocco and Camp New Amsterdam in the Netherlands.

The service of the F-100C with the USAF was relatively brief, being rapidly superseded by the F-100D. Ex-USAF F-100Cs were passed along to the Air National Guard (ANG), the first squadrons receiving the type in mid-1959. Most of the F-100Cs remaining in the Air Force active inventory in the late 1950s served exclusively in training roles.

On October 1, 1961, President Kennedy mobilized the ANG in response to the Berlin Crisis. Many of these mobilized ANG squadrons were transferred to Europe to augment NATO, but three ANG squadrons equipped with newly-received F-100Cs stayed in the United States. This included the 120th TFS, the 121st TFS of the Washington DC ANG and the 136th TFS. All of these ANG squadrons were demobilized in August of 1962.

By mid-1966, 210 F-100Cs were in service with the ANG. However, on January 25, 1968, in response to the *Pueblo* incident, President Johnson mobilized a major portion of the Selected Reserve Force, which included eight ANG squadrons equipped with F-100Cs. The last of these F-100Cs were phased out in March of 1970, and by late 1970 ANG F-100C strength was back up to 210 aircraft.

The only F-100Cs to fly in combat in Vietnam flew with ANG units which had been called up for that conflict. A total of four ANG squadrons (from Colorado, New York, Iowa, and New Mexico) flew F-100Cs in Vietnam.

The USAF Thunderbirds flight demonstration team operated F-100Cs from 1956 until 1964. Thunderbird F-100Cs were painted in picturesque red, white, and blue colors, with the characteristic Thunderbird being painted on the aircraft's belly. They were replaced by F-100Ds in 1964.

A total of 476 F-100Cs were built. The safety record of the F-100C was not all that good, some 85 of them being involved in major accidents.

As they left operational service, a few F-100Cs ended up serving in test roles. NACA (and later NASA) operated a pair of F-100Cs (53-1712 and -1717) plus one JF-100C (52-1709). The first F-100C was used to test a pitching motion damper. The second F-100C was used to fly chase support. The JF-100C was used for variable stability studies supporting the X-15 and supersonic transport programs. F-100C 54-1964 was loaned to the Ames Research center for tests of a boundary layer control system. It had a thicker inlet lip, a drooped leading edge, and ducting to carry bleed air from the engine compressor to the wing leading edge.

F-100C-1-NA 54-1753 is on display at the USAF Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio.

Serials of F-100C

53-1709/1778 	North American F-100C-1-NA Super Sabre (NA-214) 
54-1740/1769 North American F-100C-1-NA Super Sabre (NA-217)
54-1770/1814 North American F-100C-5-NA Super Sabre (NA-217)
54-1815/1859 North American F-100C-15-NA Super Sabre (NA-217)
54-1860/1970 North American F-100C-20-NA Super Sabre (NA-217)
54-1971/2120 North American F-100C-25-NA Super Sabre (NA-217)
55-2709/2733 North American F-100C-10-NH Super Sabre (NA-222)

Specifications of the F-100C:

Engine: One Pratt & Whitney J57-P-21 turbojet, 10,200 lb.s.t. dry and 16,000 lb.s.t. with afterburning.
Dimensions:
Wingspan 38 feet 9 inches,
length 47 feet 1 1/4 inches,
height 15 feet 6 inches,
wing area 385 square feet. Performance:
Maximum speed 760 mph at sea level, 924 mph at 35,000 feet.
Initial climb rate 21,600 feet/minute, climb to 35,000 feet in 2.3 minutes.
Service ceiling 38,700 feet, combat ceiling 49,100 feet.
Normal range 572 miles, maximum range 1954 miles.
Fuel capacity 1702 US gallons internal, total of 2139 US gallons with external tanks added.
Weights: 19,270 pounds empty, 27,587 pounds gross, 32,615 pounds maximum takeoff.
Armament: Four 20-mm Pontaic M-39 cannon, plus external loads of up to 5000 pounds of bombs, rockets, or fuel tanks carried on six underwing hardpounts.

Sources:

  1. North American F-100 Super Sabre, David A. Anderton, Osprey, 1987

  2. The North American F-100 Super Sabre, Ray Wagner, Aircraft in Profile, 1965.

  3. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989.

  4. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987.

  5. Fighters of the United States Air Force, Robert F. Dorr and David Donald, Temple Press Aerospace, 1990.

  6. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982.

  7. Post-World War II Fighters, 1945-1973, Marcelle Size Knaack, Office of Air Force History, 1986.
==============================
 
 
Data:
 
This DOG was a famous pilot killer. If you thought the Miracle was bad, this aircraft was a bear in the air.  
 
 
Blog Image
A Defense Technology Blog
Comment: (optional)
JSF Engine Demonstrates Maturity
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 3/27/2009 9:15 AM CDT

One hundred hours of flight testing shows that the Joint Strike Fighter's F135 engine is good to go, says Pratt & Whitney.

"The engine?s success in flight testing demonstrates the maturity and reliability of the F135 program for armed forces across the globe," the release says, quoting program manager Bill Gostic as saying that "the F135 has met or exceeded all required flight test goals."

I suppose you can't expect the release to mention it, but many people will read or reprint this without recalling that problems with the F135 have, so far, led to some serious delays in the F-35 program. Check Guy Norris in February 2008:

According to information revealed at the December [2007] roll-out of the BF-1 in Fort Worth, Tex., the aircraft was expected to make its first flight from a conventional take-off roll in late May or early June. This was to be followed with a gradual "build-down" to STOVL tests by around the end of 2008.

As we know, we're now looking at those tests starting this summer with a vertical landing by "early fall".

The PW release also states: "By the time the F135 enters operation in 2013, the operating fleet of F119 engines from which it is derived will have logged more than 500,000 flying hours, while the F135 will have logged more than 16,000." First, bookmark that statement - it means that the F-35 test force has, starting today, to average 330 hours a month to reach that target. Second, I thought the Marines were supposed to hit initial operational capability in 2012?

Why all this sunny optimism? "The F135 is the only engine powering the F-35 Lightning II flight test program," the release states. Pratt & Whitney would no doubt like to keep it that way, and the program office has also sought to kill the alternate General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 engine several times. I suspect that the release is a salvo in that campaign, although we've been reporting for almost two years that the F136 might provide an important performance boost, particularly for the F-35B.

Searching for other 100-hour milestones in flight test - Friday is a good day for a history lesson - I found this from the Time archive.

According to West Coast air gossip, the F-100 is a sweet plane to fly. One test pilot who was flying it for the first time radioed back to earth: "If I were ten years older, this plane would be a great substitute for sex."  [? - Ed.] It exceeded the speed of sound on its first test flight. So far it has logged more than 100 hours of flight, and very few bugs have shown up.

One year later, North American chief test pilot George Welch was killed when his F-100 Super Sabre departed controlled flight and broke up.

blog post photo
via Wikipedia - and yes, that is an F-86

Initial reports that Welch's sports coat had exploded were inaccurate - the F-100 had major stability problems. After the vertical stabilizer was drastically enlarged the F-100 went on to a long career as an evil-minded brute with the low-speed handling characteristics of a drunken yak.

Fortunately, today we have simulation and modelling and all that good stuff, so we don't need all that flight testing.

Seriously, what program hasn't had issues arising after the 100-hour mark?

It wasn't called the HUN because it was the F-100. 
 
 
You get the idea?
 
Herald

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       5/29/2009 12:05:25 AM
Reading of the wet wing modification to F-100C, I wonder how well that injected material around the mounting hardware (screws, nuts, bolts, rivets) would've fared under Australian conditions (summers? maritime?) as compared to what the US experienced with them (Viet Nam? Southern US deserts?)...
Could this have thus rendered them an even greater maintenance nightmare in Australian service?
 
Was that material anything like the goo they use to patch aerial tanker aircraft?
That stuff isn't permanent, and requires a good amount of elbow grease (manual labor) to remove and replace when leaks start...
Almost sounds like a totally new wing design was in order...which then would've had people saying, "for all this money, we should've bought [insert other aircraft here] instead!"
 
As long as Australia would've possessed the day's equivalent of an air dominance fighter to keep those Mig-19s and -21s out of the picture, the Sabres would've been plenty capable (2x30mm, ~2000kg externals?) of ground attack and close air support...
Shucks, a Sidewinder-equipped Sabre would've been more than a match for a lumbering Badger, even if it would've had to work a good bit to initially catch it.
Those late-model Falcons (entry here suggests 11km with 13kg warheads) should've been easily upgraded to be plenty capable against Badgers, Beagles, or any other over-water bomber types, and readily slung under Sabre wings as needed.
 
It might have been an interesting prospect to have seen the Falcons, past their prime as an AAM, having their nose IR seekers (or RF assemblies) replaced by some EO or laser seeker system to become quite capable ASMs, capable of attacking numerous surface targets.
Judging by what Hellfires do with 20-28 pound warheads, the Falcon as an ASM would've been nothing to smirk at.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Dropbear ... you are kidding right!?!   5/29/2009 8:07:07 AM
What are you thinking, the F-100 was an absolute dog!!! It had no radar, the highest loss rate of any USAF type at the time, it didn't have competitive handling compared to the transonic fighters that it replaced but it didn't have a sufficient speed advantage to compensate. They didn't keep it in Southern Vietnam as glorified airborne artillery as soon as they could stop sending them North for nothing!!!
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Doggtag   5/29/2009 8:11:08 AM

Shucks, a Sidewinder-equipped Sabre would've been more than a match for a lumbering Badger, even if it would've had to work a good bit to initially catch it.
Not if the Badger conducted a low level with pop up (like the Vulcan's in the Falklands) raid at night. Remember that we didn't have radar equipped Sabres, which is why we had Bloodhound's at our bases until we got the Mirages. I don't know how the Bloodhounds would have held up if the Indo's had have used chaff though.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       5/29/2009 1:17:38 PM



Shucks, a Sidewinder-equipped Sabre would've been more than a match for a lumbering Badger, even if it would've had to work a good bit to initially catch it.

Not if the Badger conducted a low level with pop up (like the Vulcan's in the Falklands) raid at night. Remember that we didn't have radar equipped Sabres, which is why we had Bloodhound's at our bases until we got the Mirages. I don't know how the Bloodhounds would have held up if the Indo's had have used chaff though.


Yeah, OK, I see where you're going with this.
But the other side of that coin is, how effective would the Indos have been in planning and executing a night attack raid, over that distance, against a worthwhile target along the Australian coast (probably only using free fall dumb bombs, and maybe unguided rockets?) that kept them a safe distance from any fighters, or air defense sites, that could've even remotely put up any kind of response?
Would the Indos have been kamikaze suicidal in the mission and not cared of returning home, or would they have made the endeavors to get their aircraft and crews back as safely as possible?
And would there have been any better ability to bloody their noses on the way out?
Without the air cover of their MiGs, those bombers would've been sitting ducks on their way out as soon as the first fighter stumbled upon them.
 
Unless it was a surprise attack, I'd imagine any escalation of force that led up to such a strike might have seen a greater amount of radar surveillance systems moved between Australia and the most likely avenues of approach that an Indonesian strike package might have flown in on, along with sufficient air defense assets to counter them.
This could be another interesting what if thread: what were the systems available to Australia (aircraft, radars and missile batteries, air defense guns, and ships, combined arms tactics) that would've been employed, at what timeframe would such a potential strike have taken place, and what would be the most likely targets along the mainland worth the Indos attacking?
Nevermind the exact reasons why it happened, rather than how it would go down best-case worst-case for each side.
 
As for the instance in the Falklands, let's face it: it's not like the Argies had their top-notch air defence elements escalated around the islands to the same extent that someone like the US, UK, or Australia would escalate to to protect its own turf.
They were on a quick land grab, and certainly weren't expecting the British to commit as fully as they did in the short amount of time they did, or at least hoped to have been able to establish themselves to a more capable defense for what was coming, the best-case for them would have been in only being able to hold out longer before capitulating as they did, which only would've meant losing more men and materiel than they did, which they obviously didn't really seem to care to fully commit to in the first place, hence their short-lived occupation.
And let's face it: Argentina's land-based fighters just didn't have the at-station endurance at that distance to provide extended CAP missions to have detected and engaged/destroyed or warded off those bombers had they found them, a situation they certainly hadn't even considered was going to happen (a world-record long range bomber strike conducted via multiple inflight refuelings).
 
The biggest threat that Badgers and Beagles might have posed against Australia would've been with antiship missiles against vessels that, as the Eilat vs Styx incident showed us, might not have been up to the task of withstanding (no CIWS or widespread use of large-scale ship defense EW and decoy systems back in those days).
(...unless someone for some reason or other slipped the Indos a tactical nuke...after which it would've escalated beyond a contained incident between Indonesia and Australia.)
 
Food for thought.
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       5/29/2009 1:26:19 PM
What are you thinking, the F-100 was an absolute dog!!! It had no radar, the highest loss rate of any USAF type at the time, it didn't have competitive handling compared to the transonic fighters that it replaced but it didn't have a sufficient speed advantage to compensate. They didn't keep it in Southern Vietnam as glorified airborne artillery as soon as they could stop sending them North for nothing!!!
 
Quite serious. I did say it would have been interesting to see it purchased at an earlier date than that of the Miracle selection. So as to provide continuity of  knowledge in transonic/supersonic performances before more advanced platforms could be chosen (ie the F-4, which was not available for selection when the Miracle was picked).
 
I could see the RAAF using an F-100C version of the Slick Chick program to good advantage in the same way that we later modded the Pig to R/F.
 
Had we (big if) gone down the path of being a nuclear nation during the early days of the Cold War, then the Hun had universal wiring for such weapons.
 
One can't forget their involvement in ZELL. Ok, so it may have been somewhat of a gimmick, however, it may have been a handy option had we lost the ability to launch jets from the north of Oz along conventional runways (not that there were many in the 1960s anyway!).
 
Not sure about the claim it didn't have competitive handling. The Thunderbirds used it more than any other mount up til the advent of the F-16. It was also deemed agile enough and sound as an air defence fighter that the Ohio ANG had aircraft deployed to Kunsan to counter the growing Pueblo Crisis. 
 
Yup, it came sans radar. Pretty much like many other jets at the time. The ones that did had extreme cases of thermionic overload. The early incarnation of the French Cyrano wasn't all that flash anyway. I still think that as a mud mover, the AN/AJB-1 LABS was a decent bit of kit for the day.
 
They were used throughout Nam as both fast FAC, close support and as RESCORT aircraft (the latter role eventually being turned over to the mighty SLUF). They were also one of the last platforms to leave Nam when the Yanks bugged out.
 
The F-100A may have been a dog, however, the design matured into a worthy mud slogger and no aircraft has been able to lay claim to a perfect gestation and maturation process anyway.
 
Was it the worlds greatest strike fighter? No, but it was a step above our Avon Sabre and would have plugged the gap nicely until the F-4E arrived (my personal pref being the F-4J/S).
 
Each to their own.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       5/29/2009 1:26:46 PM



Shucks, a Sidewinder-equipped Sabre would've been more than a match for a lumbering Badger, even if it would've had to work a good bit to initially catch it.

Not if the Badger conducted a low level with pop up (like the Vulcan's in the Falklands) raid at night. Remember that we didn't have radar equipped Sabres, which is why we had Bloodhound's at our bases until we got the Mirages. I don't know how the Bloodhounds would have held up if the Indo's had have used chaff though.


Agreed. At least the Draken's air intercept radar worked with the Swedish version of SAGE . Since FALCON was a dog  missile to go with the dog USAF aircraft, I would have gone all NAVY and tried the SPARROW and SIDEWINDER wired into Draken. The FALCON in Vietnam was misused. It revealed cryo-cooling defects in the IR version and was not well designed as a SARH to use the aircraft radars of the day (antenna mismatch).
 
The problem was that the FALCON inherited aqs a ROCKET a WW II tech start and was handicapped by those limitations it started with. It was designed to knock down Tupelovs as a stern chaser and was in most variants a HTK missile.
 
SPARROW was over ambitious when designed, but at least it was intended to kill Mach II targets and it does at least 9% of the time..
 
As for an A2G missile, I wonder.....with a 13 lb warhead, I regard FALCON as fairly PUNY.
 
Herald
 
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       5/29/2009 3:08:58 PM

As for an A2G missile, I wonder.....with a 13 lb warhead, I regard FALCON as fairly PUNY.

 

Herald

A typo on behalf of Designation-Systems-Net?
To quote their chart:
Specifications
Note: Data given by several sources show slight variations. Figures given below may therefore be inaccurate!
Data for GAR-1D/2A/2B/3A/4A (AIM-4A/C/D/F/G):
 
GAR-1D (AIM-4A)
GAR-2A/B (AIM-4C/D)
GAR-3A (AIM-4F)
GAR-4A (AIM-4G)
Length
1.98 m (78 in)
2.02 m (79.5 in)
2.18 m (85.8 in)
2.06 m (81.1 in)
Wingspan
0.508 m (20 in)
0.61 m (24 in)
Diameter
0.163 m (6.4 in)
0.168 m (6.6 in)
Weight
54 kg (119 lb)
61 kg (135 lb)
68 kg (150 lb)
66 kg (145 lb)
Speed
Mach 3
Mach 4
Range
9.7 km (6 miles)
11.3 km (7 miles)
Propulsion
Thiokol M58 solid-fuel rocket
Thiokol M46 dual-thrust solid-fuel rocket
Warhead
3.4 kg (7.6 lb) high-explosive
13 kg (29 lb)(?) high-explosive

 
And from Wiki's AIM-4 Falcon entry (yes, I know, Wiki),
we get:
In 1958 Hughes introduced a slightly enlarged version of the Falcon, initially dubbed Super Falcon, with a more powerful, longer-burning rocket engine, increasing speed and range. It had a larger warhead (28.7 lb / 13 kg) and better guidance systems. The SARH versions were GAR-3 (AIM-4E) and the improved GAR-3A (AIM-4F). The infrared version was the GAR-4A (AIM-4G). About 2,700 SARH missiles and 3,400 IR Super Falcons were produced, replacing most earlier versions of the weapon in service.
 
There's also some stuff over here that also hints to the later Falcons (still base AIM-4 missile body diameter of just under 7 inches) as to having a larger warhead.
 
Not really a ton of web info on it, but stuff in books I have at home (unfortunately, home is half the world away right now).
 
So a warhead of just under 30 pounds sounds reasonable enough in those overall dimensions (no idea on exactly how much of that was actual explosive).
 
There's a thread over on TankNet right now about TV-guided missiles, or rather the lack of a small one circa the 1960s.
Various discussing eventually brought up the Designation-Systems.Net link on the AGM-64 Hornet (compare info to the Wiki entry here. ).
TN discussion seemed to be hinting that the tech of the day wasn't up to the task of an effective TV/EO system in a missile that small in diameter.
But the actual laser seeker gimbals, mounted to the front of every generation of Paveway LGBs, was sufficiently sized enough to prove suitable for testing.
Eventually, furthering that R&D did give us the Hellfire in the 1970s.
 
So it isn't totally impossible then to envision those Falcons possibly being converted into a makeshift AGM.
Would it have cost so much to develop them down that line and convert them all to the point that it effectively became a brand new program in its own?
Certainly, but there were no other small form precision-guided air-to-surface munitions comparable for launch from high-speed aircraft back in those days.
 
For the record, TOW missiles currently carry a roughly 13 pound warhead, not all of which is explosive.
They seem to fare well enough against numerous target types.
And that's still a larger warhead than any 105mm artillery shells, or carried by most 120mm mortar rounds, both of which various countries are in the process of designing precision guidance for, to put those smaller warheads more precisely into a target.
It shouldn't be hard to imagine that technology maturing sooner, had the efforts put into the Hornet bled over into some ingenious Australian engineer's notion to try modifying all those Falcon bodies into something still useful.
Would it have been worth it?
No offense to the Australians, but look at the money they've spent trying to upgrade Seasprites, FFG-7s, and M113s, or keeping the F-111 in service,...
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       5/29/2009 3:39:22 PM



As for an A2G missile, I wonder.....with a 13 lb warhead, I regard FALCON as fairly PUNY.



 



Herald






A typo on behalf of Designation-Systems-Net?

To quote their chart:

Specifications

Note: Data given by several sources show slight variations. Figures given below may therefore be inaccurate!

Data for GAR-1D/2A/2B/3A/4A (AIM-4A/C/D/F/G):

























































 


GAR-1D (AIM-4A)


GAR-2A/B (AIM-4C/D)


GAR-3A (AIM-4F)


GAR-4A (AIM-4G)


Length


1.98 m (78 in)


2.02 m (79.5 in)


2.18 m (85.8 in)


2.06 m (81.1 in)


Wingspan


0.508 m (20 in)


0.61 m (24 in)


Diameter


0.163 m (6.4 in)


0.168 m (6.6 in)


Weight


54 kg (119 lb)


61 kg (135 lb)


68 kg (150 lb)


66 kg (145 lb)


Speed


Mach 3


Mach 4


Range


9.7 km (6 miles)


11.3 km (7 miles)


Propulsion


Thiokol M58 solid-fuel rocket


Thiokol M46 dual-thrust solid-fuel rocket


Warhead


3.4 kg (7.6 lb) high-explosive


13 kg (29 lb)(?) high-explosive



Maybe, the warhead explosive filler and case  was designed to resemble a 5 inch blast/frag shell.

 

And from Wiki's AIM-4 Falcon entry (yes, I know, Wiki),

we get:

In 1958 Hughes introduced a slightly enlarged version of the Falcon, initially dubbed Super Falcon, with a more powerful, longer-burning rocket engine, increasing speed and range. It had a larger warhead (28.7 lb / 13 kg) and better guidance systems. The SARH versions were GAR-3 (AIM-4E) and the improved GAR-3A (AIM-4F). The infrared version was the GAR-4A (AIM-4G). About 2,700 SARH missiles and 3,400 IR Super Falcons were produced, replacing most earlier versions of the weapon in service.
 
The Super Falcon was designed to increase effective chase period. Still no proximity fuse.

There's also some stuff over here that also hints to the later Falcons (still base AIM-4 missile body diameter of just under 7 inches) as to having a larger warhead.

Still no prox fuse and still a small fill.

Not really a ton of web info on it, but stuff in books I have at home (unfortunately, home is half the world away right now).

So a warhead of just under 30 pounds sounds reasonable enough in those overall dimensions (no idea on exactly how much of that was actual explosive).

I don't really know either. Modern AMRAAMs have a directed vector blast  frag warheads 18 and 23 kg respectively.

There's a thread over on TankNet right now about TV-guided missiles, or rather the lack of a small one circa the 1960s.

Various discussing eventually brought up the Designation-Systems.Net link on the AGM-64 Hornet (compare info to the Wiki entry here. ).

TN discussion seemed to be hinting that the tech of the day wasn't up to the task of an effective TV/EO system in a missile that small in diameter.
 
Not correct: Walleye started development in 1958, weapon proofed by 1964.    Mark 1 was 12.5 inch in diameter. Most of that was BOMB.

But the actual laser seeker gimbals, mounted to the front of every generation of Paveway LGBs, was sufficiently sized enough to prove suitable for testing.

Eventually, furthering that R&D did give us the Hellfire in the 1970s.

Laser on Paveway was late at least 1965>

So it isn't totally impossible then to envision those Falcons possibly being converted into a makeshift AGM.
 
WALLEYE  seeker.  

Would it have cost so much to develop them down that line and convert them all to the point that it effectively became a brand new program in its own?

Certainly, but there were no other small form precision-guided air-to-surface munitions comparable for launch from high-speed aircraft back in those days.

 Why bother? The fall on those rockets after lob was what?  25 km? we already had WALLEYE by the tome that happened.

For the record, TOW missiles currently carry a roughly 13 pound warhead, not all of which is explosive.

They seem to fare well enough against numerous target types.
 
Subsonic.  FALCON was FAST about Mach 4 in the later marks

And that's still a larger warhead than any 105mm artillery shells, or carried by most 120mm mortar rounds, both of which various countries are in the process of designing precision guidance for, to put those smaller warheads more precisely into a target.
 
1950s rocket remember? Not a very good one.

It shouldn't be hard to imagine that technology maturing sooner, had the efforts put into the Hornet bled over into some ingenious Australian engineer's notion to try modifying all those Falcon bodies into something still useful.

Would it have been worth it?

No offense to the Australians, but look at the money they've spent trying to upgrade Seasprites, FFG-7s, and M113s, or keeping the F-111 in service,...

Falcon as an A2G missile? Paveway early makes more sense.


Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Doggtag   5/29/2009 4:49:37 PM
I don't see that it would be that hard for the Indo's to plan and execute an effective night raid using dumb bombs. The closest airbase is 400-500nm from Australia and the Badger could easily cover that with a worthwhile bomb load and return home. Remember they had 20 of them so even if they each only carried say 6 x 1000lb class bombs a raid of say ten is going to make an aweful mess of our one airfield or port (both in Darwin) at the time.
 
You also have to remember that at the time our air defence radar network were probably worse than Argentinas in the 1980's, so any low level raid would have come as a tactical surprise. If Sabres ware airborne before the bombing they might have gotten lucky and stumbled across a TU-16, but I'd place my money on the Sabre force being worn down by bombing before the TU-16 force being worn down by interception. The TU-16's was also well armed with guns of their own so the Sabres would have been putting themselves at risk by closing close enough to perform a night shoot down.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy