Peter Stickney
February 16th 04, 05:15 PM
In article >,
Nomen Nescio > writes:
> In article >,
> Peter Stickney > wrote:
>>Well, for mediocre, we sure had a lot of them - nearly 1,000, if you
>>include the Tuns ((The 2-seat TF-102s)...
>
> That wasnt a huge production run by the standards of the time. Between
> disappointing flight performance (even after the F-102 -> F-102A fixes),
> and the need to fall back on an older fire-control system because
> development of the definitive MX-1179 was running impossibly late, the
> F-102A ended up being considered an interim aircraft. The first F-102A
> production order was accompanied by an order for prototypes of the F-102B,
> which is what became the F-106. The F-102B was going to be the one that
> would actually meet the original expectations for electronics capability
> and flight performance.
>
>>BTW, there were only about 370 or so F-106s made. They entered
>>service in 1959. The last Regular AIr Force F-102s phased out in
>>1972-73. ... Since it took bout 13 uears for the -102s to leave, I dont
>>think that that counts as quick replacement.
>
> It would have been, had the F-106 been on schedule (1957-8) and bought in
> the numbers intended (1000+). But the specs had escalated, and the F-106
> had engine and intake problems, and the MA-1 (nee MX-1179) was by no means
> fully debugged, and it took time and money to solve those problems... at a
> time when IRBMs, ICBMs, and other missile programs were increasingly
> eating all available USAF funds, and the need for expensive air-defence
> interceptors which had no antimissile capabilities was being questioned.
>
> The eventual compromise was a rather smaller F-106 production run, and
> reluctant acceptance that many of the F-102As would continue in service
> until more advanced interceptors joined the F-106s. But the F-103 and
> F-108 ended up being canceled, and so the F-102As stuck around a while.
Hey, Anon/Nomen,
You're slipping. That was already covered back in s.s.h last night.
Good work on the AutoHaller, though.
--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
Nomen Nescio > writes:
> In article >,
> Peter Stickney > wrote:
>>Well, for mediocre, we sure had a lot of them - nearly 1,000, if you
>>include the Tuns ((The 2-seat TF-102s)...
>
> That wasnt a huge production run by the standards of the time. Between
> disappointing flight performance (even after the F-102 -> F-102A fixes),
> and the need to fall back on an older fire-control system because
> development of the definitive MX-1179 was running impossibly late, the
> F-102A ended up being considered an interim aircraft. The first F-102A
> production order was accompanied by an order for prototypes of the F-102B,
> which is what became the F-106. The F-102B was going to be the one that
> would actually meet the original expectations for electronics capability
> and flight performance.
>
>>BTW, there were only about 370 or so F-106s made. They entered
>>service in 1959. The last Regular AIr Force F-102s phased out in
>>1972-73. ... Since it took bout 13 uears for the -102s to leave, I dont
>>think that that counts as quick replacement.
>
> It would have been, had the F-106 been on schedule (1957-8) and bought in
> the numbers intended (1000+). But the specs had escalated, and the F-106
> had engine and intake problems, and the MA-1 (nee MX-1179) was by no means
> fully debugged, and it took time and money to solve those problems... at a
> time when IRBMs, ICBMs, and other missile programs were increasingly
> eating all available USAF funds, and the need for expensive air-defence
> interceptors which had no antimissile capabilities was being questioned.
>
> The eventual compromise was a rather smaller F-106 production run, and
> reluctant acceptance that many of the F-102As would continue in service
> until more advanced interceptors joined the F-106s. But the F-103 and
> F-108 ended up being canceled, and so the F-102As stuck around a while.
Hey, Anon/Nomen,
You're slipping. That was already covered back in s.s.h last night.
Good work on the AutoHaller, though.
--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster