The F-102 Delta Dagger (Was GWB as a Nat'l Guard Fighter Pilot threads.)

In message m, David
E. Powell writes
Thanks! I hadn't known about the 2.75 rockets, sounds like the F-94
Scorpion. The Falcon must have been a decent missile, the -106s and other
fighters used them into the 80s and early 90s.

No, it sucked really badly (less than 5% Pk in Vietnam, although against
fighters at low level with some hostile factors) but it was a low
priority for replacement or enhancement.


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message m, David
E. Powell writes
Thanks! I hadn't known about the 2.75 rockets, sounds like the F-94
Scorpion. The Falcon must have been a decent missile, the -106s and other
fighters used them into the 80s and early 90s.

No, it sucked really badly (less than 5% Pk in Vietnam, although against
fighters at low level with some hostile factors) but it was a low
priority for replacement or enhancement.

Whoa - Considering how long they served I would have thought the opposite.
Maybe it was felt they had better odds against bombers. Or there was some
sort of upgrade by the '80s. Considering alot of ANG fighters that escorted
bombers up and down the seacost in the Cold War carried them.

I wonder if GWB ever flew with the nuclear version....?

DEP

Maybe that's why the F-106 got a cannon....

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"David E. Powell" wrote in message
s.com...
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message m, David
E. Powell writes
Thanks! I hadn't known about the 2.75 rockets, sounds like the F-94
Scorpion. The Falcon must have been a decent missile, the -106s and
other
fighters used them into the 80s and early 90s.

No, it sucked really badly (less than 5% Pk in Vietnam, although against
fighters at low level with some hostile factors) but it was a low
priority for replacement or enhancement.

Whoa - Considering how long they served I would have thought the opposite.

No, Paul is correct. The Falcon did not have a very good record (F-4D's
accounted for five Migs with it over Vietnam). But remember that it was
really the first generation AAM in the USAF. A good summary of the Falcon
and its capabilities can be found at Andreas' site:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-4.html

Maybe it was felt they had better odds against bombers.

It probably would have.

Or there was some
sort of upgrade by the '80s. Considering alot of ANG fighters that
escorted
bombers up and down the seacost in the Cold War carried them.

The Falcon did go through upgrades throughout its career. The final ones in
service (AIM-4F/G limited to use on the F-106) were undoubtedly better and
more capable than the early sixties variants, with greater range, larger
warheads, and better maneuverability than the original AIM-4A and later
AIM-4D. It still was not a 8great* missile, but developing further
improvments or going to the expense of trying to integrate a newer missile
into the F-106 as it approached the twilight of its career was not going to
happen.

The Swedes produced their own conventionally armed variant of the AIM-26,
the Rb-27, which served with their Drakens (and IIRC Viggens) up through the
mid-eighties.


I wonder if GWB ever flew with the nuclear version....?

Who knows? But it would have been unlikely, as the AIM-26 was phased out of
US service by 1971.

Brooks


DEP

Maybe that's why the F-106 got a cannon....

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...

Maybe it was felt they had better odds against bombers.

It probably would have.

The Falcon was originally designed for shooting down bombers and not
fighters. Only the AIM-4D was considered as a "dogfight" missile.

The Falcon did go through upgrades throughout its career. The final ones in
service (AIM-4F/G limited to use on the F-106) were undoubtedly better and
more capable than the early sixties variants, with greater range, larger
warheads, and better maneuverability than the original AIM-4A and later
AIM-4D.

This is a bit wrong. The Falcon came originally in two versions and
entered service with the F-89J with the -A and -C versions (three each
to every F-89) either late in 1956 or early 1957. The -A being radar
guided, and the -C infrared. The -E was a larger variant with radar
guidance and this entered production shortly after the -A's and -C's.
The -F was an improved -E and was the standard radar version. About
the same time the -G was introduced as an infrared variant of the
-E/-F. IIRC, the -D was not introduced until about '60, and was the
last variant procured. It was basically the smaller -A/-C airframe
with the -G guidance and motor. Some were purpose built, but most
were reconstructed -A/-C's. It is confusing that the last Falcon
would be given an "earlier" designation, but remember that all were
manufactured prior to the tri-service (re)designations in 1962. The
AIM-26s were even larger than the -E/-F/-G's and so were given a
different designations. AIM-26A was the nuke version of the Falcon.
The AIM-26B had a conventional warhead, and was produced under licence
in Sweden as the Rb-27 (as you say). The AIM-47 was to have armed the
F-108, and later the YF-12.

The Falcon, FWIW, was, like BOMARC, given a "fighter" designation;
F-98 Falcon (BOMARC was F-99). The designation changes was as
follows:

USAF Tri-Service

GAR-1 AIM-4
GAR-1D AIM-4A
GAR-2 AIM-4B
GAR-2A AIM-4C
GAR-2B AIM-4D
GAR-3 AIM-4E
GAR-3A AIM-4F
GAR-4A AIM-4G
GAR-11 AIM-26A
GAR-11A AIM-26B
GAR-9 AIM-47A

--
Regards,

Michael P. Reed

"Michael P. Reed" wrote in message
om...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

Maybe it was felt they had better odds against bombers.

It probably would have.

The Falcon was originally designed for shooting down bombers and not
fighters. Only the AIM-4D was considered as a "dogfight" missile.

The Falcon did go through upgrades throughout its career. The final ones
in
service (AIM-4F/G limited to use on the F-106) were undoubtedly better
and
more capable than the early sixties variants, with greater range, larger
warheads, and better maneuverability than the original AIM-4A and later
AIM-4D.

This is a bit wrong.

And then you go on to acknowledge that the Falcon did indeed go through a
development program that left the later variants decidedly more capable than
the first version...? Note I said "the final ones in service", not the
"final version fielded".

Brooks

The Falcon came originally in two versions and
entered service with the F-89J with the -A and -C versions (three each
to every F-89) either late in 1956 or early 1957. The -A being radar
guided, and the -C infrared. The -E was a larger variant with radar
guidance and this entered production shortly after the -A's and -C's.
The -F was an improved -E and was the standard radar version. About
the same time the -G was introduced as an infrared variant of the
-E/-F. IIRC, the -D was not introduced until about '60, and was the
last variant procured. It was basically the smaller -A/-C airframe
with the -G guidance and motor. Some were purpose built, but most
were reconstructed -A/-C's. It is confusing that the last Falcon
would be given an "earlier" designation, but remember that all were
manufactured prior to the tri-service (re)designations in 1962. The
AIM-26s were even larger than the -E/-F/-G's and so were given a
different designations. AIM-26A was the nuke version of the Falcon.
The AIM-26B had a conventional warhead, and was produced under licence
in Sweden as the Rb-27 (as you say). The AIM-47 was to have armed the
F-108, and later the YF-12.

The Falcon, FWIW, was, like BOMARC, given a "fighter" designation;
F-98 Falcon (BOMARC was F-99). The designation changes was as
follows:

USAF Tri-Service

GAR-1 AIM-4
GAR-1D AIM-4A
GAR-2 AIM-4B
GAR-2A AIM-4C
GAR-2B AIM-4D
GAR-3 AIM-4E
GAR-3A AIM-4F
GAR-4A AIM-4G
GAR-11 AIM-26A
GAR-11A AIM-26B
GAR-9 AIM-47A

--
Regards,

Michael P. Reed

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...
"Michael P. Reed" wrote in message
om...

The Falcon did go through upgrades throughout its career. The final ones
in
service (AIM-4F/G limited to use on the F-106) were undoubtedly better
and
more capable than the early sixties variants, with greater range, larger
warheads, and better maneuverability than the original AIM-4A and later
AIM-4D.

This is a bit wrong.

And then you go on to acknowledge that the Falcon did indeed go through a
development program that left the later variants decidedly more capable than
the first version...? Note I said "the final ones in service", not the
"final version fielded".

Er, ok, I missed the "later" prior to "AIM-4D," but IIRC the AIM-4D
was the most maneuverable of the lot and it had the same seeker as the
G. The "Super Falcon" Fs and Gs did have a somewhat bigger warhead
though.

--
Regards,

Michael P. Reed

"Michael P. Reed" wrote:

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...
"Michael P. Reed" wrote in message
om...

The Falcon did go through upgrades throughout its career. The final ones
in
service (AIM-4F/G limited to use on the F-106) were undoubtedly better
and
more capable than the early sixties variants, with greater range, larger
warheads, and better maneuverability than the original AIM-4A and later
AIM-4D.

This is a bit wrong.

And then you go on to acknowledge that the Falcon did indeed go through a
development program that left the later variants decidedly more capable than
the first version...? Note I said "the final ones in service", not the
"final version fielded".

Er, ok, I missed the "later" prior to "AIM-4D," but IIRC the AIM-4D
was the most maneuverable of the lot and it had the same seeker as the
G. The "Super Falcon" Fs and Gs did have a somewhat bigger warhead
though.

The AIM-4D was a joke; even the test equipment displayed
a huge question mark in green lights - on the rare occasion
when the system worked properly. (Seriously; it did!)

In article ,
Kevin Brooks wrote:

The Swedes produced their own conventionally armed variant of the AIM-26,
the Rb-27, which served with their Drakens (and IIRC Viggens) up through the
mid-eighties.

Draken was actually in service until late 1998 (because
that's when Gripen was qualified as an air defence fighter
and the principle then was to have two types in service in
that role), Viggen never used RB 27, but the IR-guided
Falcon RB 28 was planned as a self defence missile for the
ground attack and recce Viggens. (Very weird to wire it
for Sidewinders on the under fuselage stations and Falcons
on the outer wing stations never used for anything else.
Not used, but I'm not sure for exactly what reason - maybe
on wing life, maybe flutter, maybe unsuitability as a self
defence missile (assuming that was the real reason).)
However, Swiss Mirages used the RB 27 as well.
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
A weapon is a device for making your enemy change his mind.

"Urban Fredriksson" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Kevin Brooks wrote:

The Swedes produced their own conventionally armed variant of the AIM-26,
the Rb-27, which served with their Drakens (and IIRC Viggens) up through
the
mid-eighties.

Draken was actually in service until late 1998 (because
that's when Gripen was qualified as an air defence fighter
and the principle then was to have two types in service in
that role),

No argument there. But were the *Rb-27's* still in service after the
eighties? If so, Andreas needs to change his info...

Brooks


Viggen never used RB 27, but the IR-guided
Falcon RB 28 was planned as a self defence missile for the
ground attack and recce Viggens. (Very weird to wire it
for Sidewinders on the under fuselage stations and Falcons
on the outer wing stations never used for anything else.
Not used, but I'm not sure for exactly what reason - maybe
on wing life, maybe flutter, maybe unsuitability as a self
defence missile (assuming that was the real reason).)
However, Swiss Mirages used the RB 27 as well.
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
A weapon is a device for making your enemy change his mind.

In article ,
Kevin Brooks wrote:

No argument there. But were the *Rb-27's* still in service after the
eighties?

Sure. The J 35J rebuild programme ran from 1987-91 and
it's not logical to upgrade them to better use(*) a certain
missile if it's going out of service. Also, it's not hard to
find photos of Finnish Drakens from the 90's with RB 27s
(so I think the real RB 27 retirement date is 2000).

*The armament upgrades we Improved gun installtion
(which could be noted in a certain other thread here), air
to air rocket capability (again, after being deleted on
the J 35F), two more wet pylons and two more Sidewinder
only pylons and ability to employ _all missile types_ head up
or head down.
To me, it's obvious Draken needed a radar guided
missile, otherwise it couldn't be a full capability stand
in for Viggen. Why the IR RB 28 was retained I've never
gotten a very clear answer to, only a slightly evasive
"it's better for some situation".
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.