zipper730
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 214
Location:
Joined: September 2016
|
Post by zipper730 on Oct 26, 2016 9:22:43 GMT 9
I'm kind of a historian of sorts, and interested in aviation starting in the 1930's to the present-era: This is often why I ask questions about older aircraft designs. 1: I know plans existed for the B-47, B-52, and B-58 to penetrate airspace at tree-top: I'm wondering if estimates (SAC itself, USAF, DOD) of the B-58's ability to make it to target and release bombs were right against Soviet air-defenses if they came in high & fast, used ECM and maneuver. 2. I read in a previous post about an F-106 carrying out a successful mock-intercept against a B-58 (It came in high subsonic, then accelerated to supersonic speed as the F-106 maneuvered into position and got him with a Genie). Could the F-106 have successfully intercepted the B-58 under the following circumstances - The F-106 was allowed to go all out to take out the bomber: No speed/altitude restraints except what the plane could do
- The B-58 came in at Mach 2+, and 60,000' or greater, employed maneuver, as well as full/unrestricted ECM use
BTW: Believe it or not, I tried to keep this from being too long-winded
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Oct 26, 2016 11:43:26 GMT 9
I'm kind of a historian of sorts, and interested in aviation starting in the 1930's to the present-era: This is often why I ask questions about older aircraft designs. 1: I know plans existed for the B-47, B-52, and B-58 to penetrate airspace at tree-top: I'm wondering if estimates (SAC itself, USAF, DOD) of the B-58's ability to make it to target and release bombs were right against Soviet air-defenses if they came in high & fast, used ECM and maneuver. 2. I read in a previous post about an F-106 carrying out a successful mock-intercept against a B-58 (It came in high subsonic, then accelerated to supersonic speed as the F-106 maneuvered into position and got him with a Genie). Could the F-106 have successfully intercepted the B-58 under the following circumstances - The F-106 was allowed to go all out to take out the bomber: No speed/altitude restraints except what the plane could do
- The B-58 came in at Mach 2+, and 60,000' or greater, employed maneuver, as well as full/unrestricted ECM use
BTW: Believe it or not, I tried to keep this from being too long-winded
In the early days both Russia and US had strategy to fly squadrons at high altitude as primary attack. That's why we had F-106 as primary interceptor. And also why we had the Genie. To take out a large formation of bombers. But we learned that high altitude wouldn't work against newer SAM's and better Interceptors on both sides. So the B-52 mission was changed to High altitude until reaching USSR territory, then on the deck and balls to wall. My uncle flew the B-52 until his retirement in 1975. He said it was like driving a stagecoach because of rough ride, buffeting etc. He said it was difficult to even read instruments because of shaking. Then along came stealth and we changed tactics again. But we still have to worry about SAM etc so we have the Wild Weasels to attack SAMs and clear out a path for other less stealthy Fighters/bombers. BTW, the F-106 mission for taking out approaching bomber's either high or low altitude was stroke burner at takeoff roll and come out of burner to lock on and fire. Our method was to destroy them before they could reach our territory. So even with external fuel they would seldom have fuel to return to base. Since the B-58 was retied before we got too far into low altitude attacks it never had a failed mission. But then again it never released a bomb in anger. Newer tactics employ standoff bombs and lots of ECM/stealth/Computer attacks etc. It also depends on who we would be fighting. If the "enemy" doesn't have good defenses we don't have to worry as much. I remember many missions in early 60's that I debriefed where our targets were B-58's and they were normally flying around 50,000 and high speeds. In those cases we had one shot, an MB-1 Genie where it only has to be close to be successful. We also flew against B-52 at high and low altitude. But SAC would require we detune the F-106 MA-1 so they had better chance. The liked to claim ECM was effective. But with our High Speed magnetron they couldn't defeat us. So we had to turn off higher speeds and also some of our ground clutter capabilities. The F-111 fleet was the "King" of low altitude bombing. Swing the wings back to 72 Degrees, go full mil power, turn on Terrain Following Radar to 50" hard ride and go in the dark. None of the available Ground Radars could detect, or track then for missile defense. Rumor had it that one of our RAF Upper Heyford crews had a photo of their war line target as they sped past at 50' and supersonic. Look up some of articles about the F-106 taking on BOMARC and other missiles. If the could destroy BOMARC, a B-58 was a freebie. Lorin
|
|
zipper730
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 214
Location:
Joined: September 2016
|
Post by zipper730 on Oct 26, 2016 22:46:49 GMT 9
Lorin,
1. Range/Radius: (I'm not sure if I got this right, my mind's a little foggy as I just got up) I never knew the F-106's wouldn't have enough fuel to return home even with drop-tanks in actual combat. 2. MB-1/AIR-2: Kill-radius was around 1,000 yards right? 3. High-Speed Magnetron: This would permit a high pulse-repetition? 4. F-111/Terrain Following Radar: Wow! I knew they had the terrain-following radar, but I never knew they could run it down to 50' (for some reason I thought they were limited to 200')! 5. BOMARC: Yeah, I vaguely remember reading about that some time ago. If I recall, they were capable of speeds in excess of Mach 3
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Oct 26, 2016 23:50:01 GMT 9
Lorin, 1. Range/Radius: (I'm not sure if I got this right, my mind's a little foggy as I just got up) I never knew the F-106's wouldn't have enough fuel to return home even with drop-tanks in actual combat. 2. MB-1/AIR-2: Kill-radius was around 1,000 yards right? 3. High-Speed Magnetron: This would permit a high pulse-repetition? 4. F-111/Terrain Following Radar: Wow! I knew they had the terrain-following radar, but I never knew they could run it down to 50' (for some reason I thought they were limited to 200')! 5. BOMARC: Yeah, I vaguely remember reading about that some time ago. If I recall, they were capable of speeds in excess of Mach 3 1. The ideal mission planning would allow for out/back. But stationed at McGuire AFB with 539th, we had a lot of intercepts from Aircraft coming down across polar cap. The six had a lot of range as long as burner not selected. But then without burner you weren't nearly as fast. 3. High sped frequency changing. Transmitter/receiver were driven through entire freq range in about 6-7 seconds if I remember right. That prevented freq jamming by opposing ECM. So they were limited to wide freq jamming and it wasn't effective. 4. Sorry, I had a brain fart. The three settings were 200',500' and 1000' Above terrain with three ride settings Hard, Med and normal. 5. McGuire's 539thFIS was first squadron with F-106's, but was also site of first BOMARC Missile's as well. The site was actually more on Ft Dix than McGuire out in the sandy pines. They were neat to see as they were stored in fortified buildings in horizontal position (Coffins). To launch the roof and missile were moved to vertical position and fired with booster rockets to cruise speed then on board engine took over. I believe they had normal cruise speed of 2.5 Mach. But like F-106, SAGE controllers sent intercept signals via data link. McGuire's BOMARC site was also first, and only, accident. A coffin caught fire and burned. The warhead didn't detonate, but melted and radiation was spread with water from fire fighters. It happened in 1960 before I was assigned in 1963. But the site was covered in concrete and other coffins nearby were maintained. I visited the site a couple times as we shared dorms with both 21st Air Division and BOMARC folks. McGuire was New York Air Defense Sector (1 of 10) before we became 21 Air Division. Lorin
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Oct 27, 2016 3:55:17 GMT 9
See how it works Zipper??
|
|
|
Post by pat perry on Oct 27, 2016 5:59:29 GMT 9
See how it works Zipper??
Good job Zipper! The Old Sarge has coached more young Airmen and NCOs into leaders than we will ever know.
I may have missed it in your other posts because I travel a lot and miss some good posts. What do you do for a living and what do you do with your time when you are not researching Aeroplane stuff?
Thanks, Pat P.
|
|
zipper730
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 214
Location:
Joined: September 2016
|
Post by zipper730 on Oct 27, 2016 7:55:26 GMT 9
Jim & Pat
Brevity seems to work better
|
|
Bullhunter
Global Moderator
318th FIS Jet Shop 1975-78
Currently: Offline
Posts: 7,378
Location:
Joined: May 2005
|
Post by Bullhunter on Oct 27, 2016 9:07:39 GMT 9
See how it works Zipper??
Good job Zipper! The Old Sarge has coached more young Airmen and NCOs into leaders than we will ever know.
I may have missed it in your other posts because I travel a lot and miss some good posts. What do you do for a living and what do you do with your time when you are not researching Aeroplane stuff?
Thanks, Pat P.
There is another question he did not answer. Just wondering.
|
|
zipper730
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 214
Location:
Joined: September 2016
|
Post by zipper730 on Oct 27, 2016 10:59:10 GMT 9
Bullhunter,
Currently in between jobs: I'm taking some college classes
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Oct 27, 2016 11:16:33 GMT 9
Bullhunter, Currently in between jobs: I'm taking some college classes Sorry to hear that. What do you do for a living when you aren't in between jobs? How long have you been out of work? I think you said you are in NYC right? How can you live there without a job, it's one of the most expensive places in world to live. Lorin
|
|
Bullhunter
Global Moderator
318th FIS Jet Shop 1975-78
Currently: Offline
Posts: 7,378
Location:
Joined: May 2005
|
Post by Bullhunter on Oct 27, 2016 18:13:18 GMT 9
Bullhunter, Currently in between jobs: I'm taking some college classes Good luck on finding another job. Better vote for TRUMP if you want to find a job by next year. Trump is interested in America and Americans. Hillary is only interested in Hillary.
|
|
zipper730
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 214
Location:
Joined: September 2016
|
Post by zipper730 on Oct 28, 2016 6:48:08 GMT 9
Lorin,
I've done many things over the years, though I don't live in NYC: I live about 30-miles from NYC.
Bullhunter,
Provided we even have an election...
|
|
|
Post by pat perry on Oct 28, 2016 8:19:28 GMT 9
Bullhunter, Currently in between jobs: I'm taking some college classes
What courses are you taking? What's your major?
Pat P.
|
|
zipper730
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 214
Location:
Joined: September 2016
|
Post by zipper730 on Oct 28, 2016 9:40:29 GMT 9
Pat,
My major's in education, but I've done a multitude of different things over the years.
|
|
|
Post by pat perry on Oct 28, 2016 9:48:40 GMT 9
Pat, My major's in education, but I've done a multitude of different things over the years.
What other things?
Education is good. What do you plan to teach?
Pat P.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Oct 28, 2016 10:06:09 GMT 9
Pat, My major's in education, but I've done a multitude of different things over the years. Zipper, first it was too much and now we have to extract knowledge about you like we are pulling teeth- one tooth at a time..... How about a bio from high school graduation onward to present day.... No drum beating mind you just the facts......
|
|
zipper730
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 214
Location:
Joined: September 2016
|
Post by zipper730 on Oct 28, 2016 11:07:07 GMT 9
Lorin,
1. So, how did the profile differ from an intercept with a return-flight? Was it simply a matter of range or other? 3. I assume the Su-9 & Su-11 didn't have the fast-magnetron and home-on-jam capability? 4. Okay 5. The radiation leak sounds horrible. Hope nobody died.
|
|
zipper730
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 214
Location:
Joined: September 2016
|
Post by zipper730 on Oct 28, 2016 11:26:00 GMT 9
Jim,
Attended school from K-11, dropped out, got a GED back in 2004 and began attending classes, crawled through the first year or two of community college, then picked up a normal course load (2007) and graduated; transferred into a four year college and continued over there graduating in 2009. By 2011 I realized I wasn't really cut out to be a teacher.
I worked in fast-food as a teenager (KFC & Taco Bell), I was a lifeguard from 16-23 (the last two years at a gym), From 2011 I worked in a Deli, a Greek-Diner, and a Pizzaria
|
|
|
Post by pat perry on Oct 28, 2016 20:40:46 GMT 9
Jim, Attended school from K-11, dropped out, got a GED back in 2004 and began attending classes, crawled through the first year or two of community college, then picked up a normal course load (2007) and graduated; transferred into a four year college and continued over there graduating in 2009. By 2011 I realized I wasn't really cut out to be a teacher. I worked in fast-food as a teenager (KFC & Taco Bell), I was a lifeguard from 16-23 (the last two years at a gym), From 2011 I worked in a Deli, a Greek-Diner, and a Pizzaria BS or BA Degree is a good ticket punch. If not teaching, what is your new goal?
Pat P.
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Oct 28, 2016 23:16:21 GMT 9
Lorin, 1. So, how did the profile differ from an intercept with a return-flight? Was it simply a matter of range or other? 3. I assume the Su-9 & Su-11 didn't have the fast-magnetron and home-on-jam capability? 4. Okay 5. The radiation leak sounds horrible. Hope nobody died. 1. I believe the profile was the same, just distance required to target. Most bases on coast had similar missions, but only Northern tier bases had threat from Artic Circle/Polar Cap targets. 3. I am not, nor have I ever been knowledgeable of any Soviet Fighters capabilities. 5. Nope, radiation wasn't airborne, just surface/subsurface. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOMARC_Missile_Accident_Site
|
|