Few More…

PBM Mariner

Some ‘vintage’ flying boats (did I get that right???)…

Mark

P5M Marlin

Interesting read here about refueling these by submarine…

http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08362.htm

Speaking of F-4 and fleet defense….

hmmm… ‘relatively autonomously’ seems I recall their being E-2C’s involved in there somewhere 🙂

I would liken the Navy’s primary use of the F-4 (early on anyway) as to much like the 106. Air Defense — of the ‘boat’ anyway. All those extra bits (carrier battle group with attached subs etc) along with air defense interceptors (my term — after all they did call those backseaters radar intercept officers -RIOs) were there to defend the carrier (TOP priority over ALL others).

Need to get those nasty Bears and their cruise missiles before they can severely threaten the carrier (much like the 106 keeping the Bears away from Boston Mass). The fighters need help in either case to get ‘in position’ so to speak.

AI radars cover a very small portion of airspace to do it on their own. Not very efficient to set up a bunch of autonomous CAPs hoping that the on-board radar will catch somebody. Might work if there is a VERY limited axis of attack by the adversary, but with longer range threats you’ll get spread out too much and have significant ‘gaps’ in your radar coverage.

Speaking of ‘6’ endurance, the Dart could fly 2.3 hr missions (with std 2 x external tanks, no AAR) without breaking a sweat (caveat — limited use of A/B)

Mark

Couple of ‘notes’….

The Six’s range wrt the Phantom would have been MUCH better. The F-106 optimum cruise was up at 37,000 plus at 0.9M. That was the INITIAL cruise altitude and would go up higher from there. The F-4 was nowhere close (lower and slower equals range hit, not to mention two versus one engine penalty). Drag was also MUCH better in Six (internal weapons, and VERY clean). F-4 takes a hit on both counts. With AAR might be a moot point.

Radar…. well I’d make it a punt on that one. F-4 MIGHT have a slight advantage. The Hughes radar was not all that bad and had very good range, ECCM features. Look down (as with all pulse radars) sucked.

Other avionics…. 106 had NO INS (Tacan only) so autonomous navigation would have been a chore. Not that they didn’t have TACAN in SEA but would have been a factor IMHO. Phantom was right on with comment about no RWR!!! And finally no provisions to employ self-protection ECM gear.

Weapons…. biggest hit on Six!!!! Not many and not all that good.

The Six was not a ‘drone’ tied to the SAGE/BUIC system. Just like any fighter needed good GCI (Manual) to establish/maintain situational awareness. Take away SAGE/BUIC and substitute manual GCI the Six would do quite well (and actually better, not dealing with computer lag problems).

Six was not just a CONUS bird. There were plans in place to support OCONUS missions, Korea in particular.

Two versus one-seat…. Been discussed/debated—- No comment!!

FWIW

Mark

Here’s a nice pic with very “aerospace” looking pilot and the Deuce…

The “Wee Gnat” W-54 warhead supposedly had 250T yield.

Makes you wonder what kind of yield (in such small package) can be done today!!!!

Mark

Links

Some related info on subject……

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/falim47a.htm

http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works/v05.n180

Here’s more on test firings from YF-12A

http://www.blackbirds.net/sr71/srspec.html

Here’s some interesting info on B-58 testing of missile

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b58_8.html

Finally a nice site covering YF-12A

http://www.voodoo.cz/sr71/yf12.html

To include picture of missile and bay…

http://www.voodoo.cz/sr71/o/aim47.jpg

Finally, an even better site (in Russian) having an outstanding picture of missile and bay

http://testpilot.ru/usa/hughes/aim/47/gar9.htm

Enjoy…

Mark

ps some kind-a-interesting info on air-to-ground version of this (100miles and 250 kT as well— ka-boom). So how come we don’t have any of these today??? Minus the Ka-boom part anyway 🙂

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-76.html

“Clone” is the right term that’s for sure….

Even the bomblets are very similar.

http://www.pakdef.info/ideas2002a/

Thanks

Mark