I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Herald, except what appears obvious from your edits--which is that you are asserting that there is not enough room in the fuselage to replace the six M2 with four 20mm revolver cannon.  Wrong.  Just as Shooter said, I've seen the cut-away F-86H at the USAF Museum from a couple feet away, and it certainly does mount four 20mm cannon in the fuselage in place of the six 0.50s.  Possibly--possibly, although no evidence has been cited so far--there were drawbacks associated with that real-world, actual design that were sufficiently negative to warrant dropping that concept.

 

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/061228-F-1234P-005.jpg" longdesc="F-86H" border="0" height="600" width="900" />

 

 

The F-86H did.

 

Recognizer this?

 

http://img693.imageshack.us/img693/5080/2s7f9cx.jpg" height="1020" width="1140" />

AN/APG 30. Started showing up in 1957 series AFNG F-86H's strictly to handle detect and track of aerial intercepts after SAGE GCI guided them into detect range, which was joyfully (sarcasm) announced as being around 80,000 meters for a bomber sized target. Not if those M-39s chattered though. At that moment it was tango uniform on the radar waveguides and goodbye any ranging data. 

 

Now whether you could cram the guns in there 4 x 20, yes?  The 2 x 30: no not with the radar I chose.  I prefer the room taken (wasted) for the electrical generator and some of the other black boxes I need for the Hughes E-1 instead of the Sperry radar here as used on the H and later K models. Not until it was installed on the F4 E Phantom (1966??)and was vastly, (with solid state components), improved did the AN/APG 30 work at all with guns.     

 

H.

Kind of mixing threads here,

remembering in part back to a WW2 thread of fighter armaments,

but went digging for what heavier guns might've been available back in that timeframe (in time for Viet Nam, in an F-86).

 

The original 30mm I suggested was the KCA as used in the Viggen, which led my digging further to the Swiss FFA P-16,

a 1950s design, armed at one time with Hispano-Suiza 30mm guns...

 

Then I further got to looking at 30mm aircraft guns, and ended up here.

(a good comparison chart near the bottom of that page...)

 

Remembering in the WW2 thread that Herald brought up mention of the Japanese Ho-155 (30x114mm) and Type 5 (30x122mm),

and looking at post-War developments (namely, the US T239/T182 ADEN-type in 30x126mm, the HS 825 in 30x136, and the HS in 30x170mm),

given this is yet another SP What-If discussion,

the potential is there that the US could've pursued a suitable 30mm gun for aircraft armament, post-WW2, that could've given stalwart service up thru Viet Nam.

 

A case study comparison could be made in the Israeli Air Force modification of some of its Skyhawks having their two 20mm guns (Colt Mk12s?) with 200rounds each replaced by two 30mm DEFA 554s with 150 rounds each....

 

Were we to adopt one of the lesser loadings (shorter, smaller diameter cartridge such as the 30x126 as compared to the beefier 30x170 & 173),

even Skyraiders could've fit four of those into their wings in place of the 20mm's,

the Skyhawks of the day could've had a pair of them,

and certainly the theoretical holdover F-86's could've carried a pair, under the fuselage away from the radar (one to either side the nose gear bay, similar to the Skyhawk's arrangement.

 

Again, I'm suggesting it as suitable ground attack armament, not higher-velocity like the 20mm's for air to air. 

 

In the 30x126B (again, for the T239/T182 "US ADEN"), with the proper projectile shape,

we should at least match the standard 30x113mm ADEN's ~810m/sec velocity,

near enough on par with WW2-era 50-cals that were used obsessively for strafing surface targets....

We wouldn't have the punishing recoil per gun as the 30x170/30x173mm class rounds (although it's certainly possible the combination of 4 such guns in Skyraider wings would be similar to, or exceed, the recoil of just two of these more powerful cartridge guns...)

 

Were we to have adopted the 30x126B (or a developed/refined/modified version of it), we could just as well have seen that caliber/cartridge combo adopted in the current M230 Chain Gun family as used on the Apache.

As well, that certainly also points to a promising somewhat lightweight armament for AFV use (possibly could've even stifled US development of 25mm guns, as it might've featured a slightly superior HEDP performance to the current 30x113mm as used now (IIRC, ~6inches of aluminum armor can be penetrated by the Apache's current HEDP shells, even if it may have been slightly lacking to match the KE performance that Bradlays and LAV-25s used so effectively during Desert Storm with their DU-cored M919 APFSDS rounds)).

 

End all be all, although it would certainly hamper ammo commonality (as if 20x102 AND 20x110mm, etc, didn't?) in the USAF, USN, and USMC,

it certainly has some merit to have your dedicated attack aircraft carry heavier gun armament than your fighters, as ground targets are more likely to be more structurally sound than aircraft, needing the extra explosive (and possibly kinetic) power of 30mm shells versus 20mm.

 

It comes down to that perpetual debate of,

is heavier (explosive) shells at a reduced rate of fire and somewhat lower velocity a better choice

over lighter shells at a higher rate of fire and somewhat higher velocity?

It's been proven that higher weight shells at a lower velocity will carry farther, and maintain a more stable flight profile, than lighter shells fired at higher velocities (artillery teaches us that), which tend to destabilize or tumble sooner.

 

I know the original intent of this thread was to suggest/imply that the F-86, modernized to the standards of the day, could've held its own in the earlier years of Nam versus Soviet jet designs,

but I think it'd have been a safer option to have used them principally in ground attack (even as the low-level component of a hi-lo

I have not thought about that. Let me do some homework later.

 

H.

Just basing that off the notion of how well it served the USN as an adversary aicraft for TopGun (DACT/Red Flag stuff).
If it could turn with the best of 'em (F-14s, etc),

and certainly was put thru its aerodynamic paces with the Blue Angels (yeah, a no-loaded aircraft flies completely different than a combat-laden one, I know),

then it should certainly have some potential at air to air (would the addition of 4 AIM-9s on underwing pylons and 400rounds of 20mm even add 1000pounds?).

 

My first suggestion to back any of that up might be, again, looking at Israeli Air Force experience with it.

Other than the US, I doubt any other nation has as much combat time with that airframe.

Surely between the two countries, there are reports of A-4s besting adversary fighters in combat.

Heinemann's hotrod is indeed a nimble aircraft, so it's no stretch of the imagination to see it used against other aircraft, with guns or short range (IR) AAMs.

There were actually some quite impressive upgrades considered for the A-4 even up beyond 2000 (radar, ECM, electro-optics, avionics, weapons integration), but it suffered the fate of still just not quite offering as much as could be had via second-hand F-16s.

 

How this relates to the F-86/Nam discussion,

is that we had radome/radar-equipped Sabres, in SAC in the late 1950s.

Tech improved by the time Nam started, and if there was no other alternative, upgrades could've been built into the still-serviceable F-86 airframes.

But the catch is, were the MiG-17, -19, and especially later the -21, such generational leaps of capability,

and were the competence of their pilots,

superior enough that the -86 wouldn't have been totally obsolete from the start of Nam?

(but there again, I keep foregetting: the A-1 and A-6 weren't lost left and right to MiGs, so would the -86 have suffered any worse?)

 

 

In fact the F 86 was built with 30mm cannons. The Canucks I think. The 30's would have helped but by then it'd be allot more useful to use an advanced A/C and not the aging F 86. The humble A-4 was more survivable, could carry a better weapons load, and had a functional range. All superior to the Sabre by the Vietnam War who was never able to carry more than 1,000 pounds per wing. Even the definative ground attack version the "H". Who was the idiot that compared the advanced F 86 to the Mig 17 without mentioning the fact that those two types did meet in combat over the Straits of Taiwan? Finally, the F 104 has a combat record in the skys over South East Asia. A good one (how many of those tankers/radar birds it escorted were lost? (hint: 0). That said, even it was only employed because there weren't enough F 4s at the time, not because it was the best system we could find. The F 86 was inferior to the F 104 and the  F 100. That is why we built them!

 

As if history and the facts don't matter?

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

Them 4 Us 1

Not a good exchange ratio. It was CJs big mistake.

 

Am working on a dogfight Scooter. Need electrical and a better engine. 

 

H. 

 

 

I  don't know about the Canadians (Wiki entry only suggests the six 50-cals for Canadair Sabres)

but the Australians' Commonwealth Aircraft did kit out Sabres with 30mm guns (see CA-27).

 

I still woulda pushed for the F-86D derivatives, were I to find myself with few other alternatives going into the Nam era.

(Wiki's entry shows one of the Greek AF models, with its MightyMouse pack extended: 2 rows of 12 rockets for 24 in total.)

Although, were we looking to use rocket-armed aircraft (again, in ground attack mode), I still have a soft spot for the F-89: not the most attractive or maneuverable of aircraft, but those two 52-round Mighty Mouse pods at the wingtips...damn!

If anything, I'd try seeing just how many other platforms I could mount those big pods to: at wingtips, underwing, or under fuselage.

(again, I don't quote Wiki as gospel, but it does get us pointed in the right direction to further fuel the conversation).

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/5271/a4hamel.jpg" height="1600" width="800" />

 The service ceiling is way to low for type as designed. Even the Mig 17 can bounce this bird.

 It would be suicide to try to turn her into a dogfighter

 

 H.

 

.