bigron427I realize that this is now an old thread, but am researching F3D Skyknight and F-94B operations during the Korean War, and just ran across the same reference to the IL-28 in my copy of Futrell. I would very much like to know more details of IL-28 operations during the war, and where in Manchuria they were based. F-94s were authorized for combat operations over North Korea at the beginning of November 1952 but until the end of January 1953, these missions seem to have been limited to occasional support of B-26 light bomber missions. In the meantime, Bomber Command B-29s were taking a real beating with four combat losses and three more having to divert to South Korean based for emergency landings due to severe damage. Marine F3D night fighters had responsibility for the B-29 escort and barrier missions during that time. I’m trying to gauge how the IL-28 threat might have impacted any decisions about committing F-94s to support the B-29s prior to the ultimate decision to do so on 27 January 1953. It seems as though they could have used the help from the faster F-94s in the barrier mission.
bigron427Very, VERY cool!!!! I look forward to coming across the pond someday and seeing both up close. The Jaguar has been one of my favorites ever since seeing it in an episode of “The Sandbaggers” on PBS when I was in high school, and got to see a Lightning very briefly from a bus somewhere in Kuwait. Any progress on, ahhh, “acquiring” a certain F-101A???
Cheers!
Ron Easley
bigron427Very, VERY cool!!!! I look forward to coming across the pond someday and seeing both up close. The Jaguar has been one of my favorites ever since seeing it in an episode of “The Sandbaggers” on PBS when I was in high school, and got to see a Lightning very briefly from a bus somewhere in Kuwait. Any progress on, ahhh, “acquiring” a certain F-101A???
Cheers!
Ron Easley
bigron427Thanks a lot for your detailed analysis.
From what you wrote based on the Standard Aircraft Characteristics chart, it looks like the F-104S could be capable of flying high enough to touch a Foxbat-type target at Mach 2.5 and 75,000 feet.
However, as to the effectiveness of its weapon system, Commander Adrian Orchard of the Royal Navy who flew the Sea Harrier FRS1/FA2, AV-8B Harrier II, F/A-18C/D Hornet, F/A-18F Super Hornet & Harrier GR7 from 1990 to 2009, wrote an interesting anecdote about the duel between the SHAR FRS1 and F-104S in the 1990’s.
Below is what he wrote in the January 2011 AFM.
“The radar on the Starfighter was so poor they rarely attempted to utilise their AIM-7 Sparrow semi-active missile – easily defeated by use of manoeuvre and simple chaff programmes – relying on a ‘hit and run’ style using the more reliable AIM-9L in the head sector.”
I don’t know whether he is talking about the AIM-7E or Aspide, but it gives me an impression that the radar/missile combination could have been the weakest link.
If this engagement took place in the 1990s, my best guess is that these would have been the latest-and-greatest F-104S ASA models with upgraded fire control system and Aspide 1A missiles, although I could be wrong about that. I know that the Aspide was reputed to be a pretty good missile, in about the same class as the Sky Flash or AIM-7F, but I suppose that you can’t necessarily believe everything you read…. (After all, one of the nicknames for the Sparrow was “The Great White Hope” due to its impressive smoke trail upon launch!) Here on the “Left Coast” of the United States, we don’t get a lot of info on the R-21 so for all I know it probably had more than its share of bugs. I know that this radar/missile combination was optimized for detecting and engaging low-level targets.
As far as engaging something like a Foxbat goes, you could turn the problem around to a MiG-25 attempting to engage a SR-71. Not what would seem to be a tremendous speed difference (Mach 2.83 for the MiG-25 vs about Mach 3.2 for the SR) or altitude (service ceiling of 68,000 feet for MiG-25 vs., say, 85,000 feet for the SR-71). I would have to do some reading to see what the demonstrated “zoom” performance of the MiG-25 was but if I remember correctly it topped out somewhere around 100,000 feet (and that probably in a stripped test aircraft). So, qualitatively, there seems to be about the same degree of difference as with the F-104S v. MiG-25. However, despite (I’m sure) many attempts over the years, no MiG-25 had ever successfully intercepted an SR-71, and by all accounts, they pretty much circled helplessly below as the SR-71s would fly overhead. Factor in closing speed, fuzing problems, radar quality, missile reliability, check turns by the target aircraft, etc., and as “Obligatory” stated in his previous post, the real-world chances of a successful intercept must have been vanishingly small. (Unless you have some really kick-a** radar, avionics, GCI, and armament–not the case for either the F-104S or MiG-25!)
The two big advantages that the “Century-series” interceptors had was their IRST systems retrofitted in the mid-1960s (high-speed, high altitude targets would produce an enormous heat signature and could often be picked up on the IRSTS before the radar), and AIR-2 rockets with 1.5 kT fission warheads. Reputedly, the kill radius against a bomber was 0.5 nautical miles, and 1.0 nautical miles against a cruise missile target, say, an AS-3 Kangaroo. Training rounds for the AIR-2 were notoriously inaccurate, but a nuke warhead provides the ultimate set of “fudge factors” to swat down a high-speed, high-altitude target usning “stone-age” 1950s technology!
bigron427I’ve attached a link to an archive with many Standard Aircraft Characteristics sheets, including one for the F-104C. If you look at Page 6, upper right hand corner, you will see a climb performance chart. What the chart shows for the Starfighter is climb to 35,000 feet at Mach 0.925, acceleration to Mach 2.0 at 35,000 feet, then continuing climb to a sustained ceiling of about 58,000 feet. Looking over at the “Speed” chart in the lower left corner of the same page, it shows that the F-104C could still sustain Mach 2.0 at this altitude. The curve in the upper left of the “Climb” chart shows F-104C climb performance in a “zoom” climb initiated at Mach 2.0 and 58,000 feet. Maximum vertical climb rate would be achieved at about 73,000 feet with a rate of climb of about 36,000 feet/minute. At this point in the zoom climb, referring back to the “Speed” chart, tha F-104C would still be cooking along nicely at about Mach 1.45. Not too bad if you want to swat someone flying higher than you in the face with a SARH missile….
The climb rates for the F-104S might be expected to be a bit lower due to the weight and drag penalty of the two AIM-7E missiles, but again the J79-PW-19 engine will offset this to a large degree. Also, the F-104S had a higher top speed of Mach 2.2. If you remember the formula for kinetic energy from high school physics, since kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity, this would have the effect of imparting somewhat higher zoom performance and more kinetic energy to the missile at launch, which will translate into higher altitude and greater maneuverability after motor burnout. So the performance numbers support that a F-104S should be capable of doing its part to conduct a successful intercept of a Foxbat-type target at Mach 2.5 and 75,000 feet. The other variables that remain to be considered are ability to maintain proper intercept geometry, radar tracking ability, and the missile iteself, in this case the baseline AIM-7E (as opposed to the AIM-7E2 “dogfight” version developed as a result of USAF and USN expereicnces in Vietnam).
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-104C_Starfighter_SAC_-_8_December_1958.pdf
bigron427I will have to take a look at some performance data that I have for the F-104C, which should give at least a rough idea of what a F-104S with two Sparrows might be capable of. The typical climb profile for an F-104 was to climb to altitude (30 or 35,000 feet, I’ll have to double-check), accelerate to supersonic speed and once above about Mach 1.7 or so continue climbing up to its service ceiling of about 60,000 feet. Of course, it could then trade speed for altitude and “zoom” to an even higher altitude. The short answer is that, in terms of pure performance, a Starfighter should have had no trouble engaging a target at 75,000 feet, given appropriate weapons and fire control system.
It is often overlooked that USAF “Century-series” interceptors such as the F-101B and F-106 would sometimes fly such practice interecepts against SR-71s acting as targets and zoom to 70,000 feet or so in the process. However, they had very potent front-hemisphere armament in the form of AIR-2 Genie missiles. Fuzing or 10-degree check turns may have been a bit less than helpful against such a weapon…. The F-104A was used briefly by ADC, but was phased out by the time the SR-71 entered service. I am not sure if either USAF F-104Cs or NATO Starfighters have flown the same kinds of practice missions. The biggest limiting factor in all of these cases is that these earlier versions of the F-104 were pretty much limited to rear-hemisphere attacks due to armament (AIM-9B) and, in the case of the F-104A/C, the very simple ASG-14 radar. Given these limitations, I would be very surprised if this sort of training intercept was ever attempted.
The F-104S is a completely different beast, however. The R-21 radar and Sparrow missiles gave it a useful front hemisphere capability, and the “Dash-19” engine probably more than made up for the added weight and drag of the missiles, so I think that the basic F-104C perfomance data should be pretty close to the F-104S. (I suspect, but do not know, that it would have been able to outclimb an F-4 and launch at a higher speed and altitude, therefore imparting more kinetic energy to the missile.) If so, then I think that the F-104S would have had no problem reaching launch altitude or imparting enough energy to a Sparrow missile to intercept something coming head-on at 75,000 feet The big questions would be whether the early versions of the R-21 had enough “look-up” capability to track something moving that high and that fast (I suspect “maybe”, later upgrades such as the ASA certainly would have), whether the AIM-7E had the boost performance upon launch to get high and fast to reach a Foxbat-type target (I suspect “yes”), and whether fuzing in the AIM-7E would have been successful at a combined closure speed of, what, roughly Mach 6? (2.5 for the Foxbat, 3.5 to 4 for the Sparrow). That could have posed a challenge, to say the least….
I don’t know enough about the specifics of the R-21/AIM-7/Aspide combination to say more, but I think that the answer that you are looking for lies in investigating that more closely.
Thanks for the post! I love discussing Century-series jets of any type or nationality!
Cheers!
Ron Easley
bigron427F-102A and F-101B weaponry
Good evening,
I know that this is a very old thread, but if you are still there I think I can help.
As stated above, the F-102A carried only the AIM-4A through AIM-4D models. The AIM-4E, F, and G-models were restricted solely to the F-106. Not only were they slightly larger, but they were made to run on a different aircraft voltage, and were not interchangeable with the older missiles mounted on the F-101B and F-102A.
The AIM-4E was the initial radar-guided version of this series of improved Falcon missiles. It is distinguished by a conical white radome. This soon gave way to the much improved AIM-4F, which had an ogival radome as well as an “aerospike” (for lack of anything else to call it) similar to what is seen on Trident missiles. I would have to go and look at the Standard Missile Characteristics for each missile, but am pretty sure that the AIM-4F had improved range, speed, and homing ability. The AIM-4G was, of course, the IR version, and is distinguished by all-aspect capability, although within a very limited engagement envelope when compared to, say, the AIM-9M.
Beginning in the early 1960s, some F-102A aircraft were modified to carry the new, SARH homing AIM-26A, armed with a sub-kiloton W54 warhead of 0.25kT yield. These aircraft had provision for 2.75-inch FFARs removed from the center bay doors to accomodate the larger diameter missiles. With this modification, these aircraft could carry either the normal complement of six AIM-4A/B/C/D missiles, OR two AIM-26 in the center bay with the lateral bays empty. Lacking the capability to carry the AIR-2A Genie, the provision of the AIM-26A gave the F-102A a front-hemisphere engagement capability against high-altitude supersonic targets that it had previously lacked, and allowed the relatively low-performance F-102A to remain effective in its role until its retirement in the early 1970s.
With regard to the F-101B, “standard” armament, in addition to the pair of AIR-2 rockets, was a pair of either radar-guided AIM-4A or IR-guided AIM-4C. With the development of the AIM-4D and its expanded engagement envelope when compared to older versions, this became the standard Falcon armament for the F-101B until its retirement in the mid-1980s. According to a SAGE controller that I have corresponded with, Ken Mock, the large turboprop engines of the Tu-95 Bear presented a huge heat signature that allowed effective engagement, even from the front hemisphere.
I know that this is late and know that posting on old threads is frowned upon, but hope this helps.
Ron Easley
Sacramento, CA
bigron427Sweet!
We did not have Voodoos based anywhere near Sacramento in the late-70s to early-80s timeframe that my dad was working there. However, once in a while I would see CAF or the occasional ANG F-101B fly in. I remember one afternoon when I was in high school, probably about 1981, when I had seen a couple of them fly in. (We lived about 3 1/2 miles directly north of the runway in a mostly rural area.) I remember being woken up out of a dead sleep at about 3:30 AM and the whole house was shaking, the front room window was rattling so violently that I thought it was going to break, and it was so loud that I literally could not hear myself yell. Through the front window, I could see lights and afterburners streaking upwards low over the house. I am convinced that it was the Voodoos blasting out of McClellan AFB and having a little fun at our expense! :diablo:
Anyway, that is the closest that I have come to seeing a Voodoo airshow. I hope that you are able to find the film or VHS transfer, and to be able to see it sometime in the future. It must have been just an awe-inspiring performance!
Cheers!
Ron Easley
bigron427More F-101A/Model 96 photos
Two more photos attached here:
Ron
bigron427F-101A and Model 96 Shape
Thanks Doug! I have yet to purchase your book but look forward to doing so once a little “play” money comes available from our tight household budget!
In the meantime, here are a few things that I first posted last night at “CenturySeriesJets” on Yahoo. I have taken to recording information and notes on PowerPoint. What I am presenting here are selected note slides, converted over into JPEG format.
Briefly, as an integral part of the original WS 125 concept, the F-101 was to carry a large weapons/fuel pod, very similar to the MB-1 pod of the B-58 Hustler. Although the thread seems to have mysteriously disappeared in the past few days, there was a photo published on the F-101A/C thread that began a couple of years ago, and that I posted on recently. The shape was to carry the most advanced warhead available in the early 1950s, the W-5, along with about 850 gallons of fuel. One of the slides from a recently declassified document that I pulled from a US Department of Energy archive also gives information for a buddy-refueling version, a 1400-gallon fuel-only version, and a version carrying a TX-15 warhead. This is the same weapon dropped from a B-52 during the infamous Redwing Cherokee test, and yielded just under 4 megatons. This weapon would have given the F-101 a completely unprecedented offensive capability in a fighter-sized aircraft.
However, the large pod caused very severe stability problems, particularly at high altitude, and along with the aircraft itself, the Model 96 shape experienced delays in development. By early 1956, miniaturized, low-drag weapons such as the MK-28 EX were on the horizon, and offered a very significant punch without the drag penalty of the large pod. Combat radius with the MK-28, with one refueling, was similar to what the Model 96 pod would have offered, without the attendant problems, so the project was shelved.
Two more photos to follow. Let me know what you think!
Ron Easley
Sacramento, CA
bigron427Terrific photos! I have seen YouTube footage of the Canadian “Warlocks” but the quality of your photos is much crisper, and I could only imagine how the sleek single-seat Voodoos must have looked flying their routine!
Off topic–as I have mentioned for anyone looking at my bio, I have been working off-and-on on a manuscript for a book on the Voodoo. Some of the forums that I used to be active on don’t seem to have much going on these days, and I have some new material that I’d like to share. My recent research has been on original armament options that were tested and discarded before the F-101A entered service. Any interest here? If so, I will start posting some things.
Cheers!
Ron
bigron427Can’t wait to see them! 🙂
bigron427I have a friend here in Sacramento, Dick Stultz, who served under Robin Olds’ command in the 8th TFW not long after these events. I will have to bug him for details, but I remember him telling me the story. The commanding general, USAFE, had Olds’ star in his pocket and was planning to promote him at the change-of-command ceremony, but they had gotten wind of the planned aerobatic performance by the F-101 pilots and quietly warned him that it should be cancelled. Olds went forward anyway (should anyone be surprised? :)) and the rest is history. I’m sure that there were folks that wanted to throw the book at him, but I suppose that being a double-ace and having a reputation as an inspiring commander might mitigate the effects just a bit!
bigron427Underwing stores
And yeah…I have long wondered about where Mr. Gunston got the reference about mines or any other stores carried beneath the wings of the F-101. With the exception of field-modified RF-101C aircraft serving in SEA with ECM pods, I know of no example, and no mounting points, for underwing stores or pylons. My personal theory is that the intrepid Voodoo pilot would fly his aircraft beneath the stormy waves, and gently deposit the mines on the oceam floor. There. Now it’s in print (sort of…) so it MUST be right!!!! :dev2:
Ron Easley
bigron427F-101 weapons
Good morning!
I see Graham and maybe a couple of other familiar faces from the old Yahoo “Century Series” group! I’ve been working for a while on a book about the F-101. The main thing that got me started was the fact that there is so much contradictory and innaccurate information in print with regards to armament. I think I can shed some light on this.
F-101A/C: Identical armament. Internal armament 4 x Mk39 20-mm cannon, original intended armament was a large, McDonnell-designed store attached to the aircraft centerline, the Model 96. It was originally intended to carry a W5 fission warhead along with fuel, for a total weight of about 10,000 pounds. As the design evolved, the warhead was changed to the thermonuclear W29 warhead. F-101A 53-2427 was used for drop tests of the Model 96 pod. However, the large centerline pod caused severe interference effects on the F-101 and contributed to longitudinal stability problems. By early 1956, the MK28 was in the pipeline, offered a high yield, low drag, and none of the adverse effects on stability. The Model 96 concept was dropped and the aircraft stood alert with the MK7 until the MK28 became available. The other nuclear weapon options have been addressed in previous posts. The only addition I would make is that the MK57 weapon was designed for carriage aboard the F-101A/C, but being primarily a Navy weapon, I do not know if it was ever issued to the 81st TFW. It is not on any of the Standard Aircraft Characteristics sheets for the F-101A/C that I have seen so far. They list only the MK7, MK28, and MK43 weapons. An early SAC for the F-101A (14 OCT 1955) does make reference to the Model 96 store.
One pre-production F-101A, 53-2436, was modified with a rotary door mechanism in support of the upcoming F-101B program in 1955. Appaently, it mounted 2 x MB-1 [I]Genie missiles on one side (Kinsey, D&S Vol. 21, F-101 VooDoo, p. 41, and 3 x [I]Falcon[I] missiles on the other side. I have seen photos from the NASA archives of wind tunnel models with this configuration. During this time, the F-100 and F-104 were getting a lot of public exposure, and news of the F-101 was very rare. [I]Flight[I] magazine (9 March 1956, p. 268) published a photo of 53-2436 with the three [I]Falcons[I] and two six-tube 2.75-inch rocket launchers on either side, right about where the aerodynamic strakes of the F-101B were positioned. The photograph looks like it might have been retouched, so I am not quite sure what to make of it yet, but I think this is where the story got its “legs”. I am in contact with one of the project engineers for the F-101 during this timeframe, and hope to have a definitive answer soon. In any case, this was a one-off aircraft. The F-101A did not carry missiles as part of its normal armament.
At the time that the F-101B was conceptualized, the standard armament of missile-armed ADC interceptors (F-102A and F-89H) was 6 x [I]Falcon[I] missiles. This configuration was flight tested in both captive-carry and live fire tests. By the time the F-101B entered operational service in 1958, the armament configuration had been changed to the definitive 2 x [I]Falcon[I]/2 x [I]Genie[I]. However, the six-[I]Falcon[I] configuaration remained listed as an “alternate armament” configuration in the Standard Aircraft Characteristics for the F-101B, 26 SEP 1958. By the time the 16 AUG 1960 SAC was published, all reference to the “alternate armament” configuration had been removed. In what photos or film that I have seen of the six-missile configuration, they have always been of the early GAR-1 model of the [I]Falcon[I], which was retired in 1959 in favor of later versions with , among other advantages, a higher kill probability. It’s an educated guess on my part, but I think that the higher PK of newer missiles contributed to the decision to switch to pairs of missiles. I have heard of two pairs of [I]Falcon[I] missiles on each side but have not yet seen photographic evidence of it.
With regard to centerline stores on the F-101B, I think that I have seen in the manuals somewhere that it retained mounting points for a centerline store, but have never seen photos of anything mounted there on this model. I suppose that I might just have to go look for it….
Anyway, hope this helps, and looking forward to learning more about what was really an amazing aircraft!
Ron Easley
Sacramento, California
Sign In
